Jump to content

Class (biology): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Improved phrasing and punctuation
Hallsy98 (talk | contribs)
87 edits
m Added internal links
Line 11: Line 11:
Insofar as a general definition of a class is available, it has historically been conceived as embracing taxa that combine a distinct ''grade'' of organization—i.e. a 'level of complexity', measured in terms of how differentiated their organ systems are into distinct regions or sub-organs—with a distinct ''type'' of construction, which is to say a particular layout of organ systems.<ref>{{cite book |last=Huxley |first=Thomas Henry |author-link=Thomas Huxley |editor-last=Henfrey |editor-first=Arthur |title=Scientific memoirs, selected from the transactions of foreign academies of science, and from foreign journals. Natural history |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/70597#page/186/mode/1up |publisher=Taylor and Francis |year=1853 |doi=10.5962/bhl.title.28029}}</ref> This said, the composition of each class is ultimately determined by the subjective judgment of [[taxonomist]]s.
Insofar as a general definition of a class is available, it has historically been conceived as embracing taxa that combine a distinct ''grade'' of organization—i.e. a 'level of complexity', measured in terms of how differentiated their organ systems are into distinct regions or sub-organs—with a distinct ''type'' of construction, which is to say a particular layout of organ systems.<ref>{{cite book |last=Huxley |first=Thomas Henry |author-link=Thomas Huxley |editor-last=Henfrey |editor-first=Arthur |title=Scientific memoirs, selected from the transactions of foreign academies of science, and from foreign journals. Natural history |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/70597#page/186/mode/1up |publisher=Taylor and Francis |year=1853 |doi=10.5962/bhl.title.28029}}</ref> This said, the composition of each class is ultimately determined by the subjective judgment of [[taxonomist]]s.


In the first edition of his ''[[Systema Naturae]]'' (1735),<ref>[[Ernst Mayr|Mayr E.]] (1982). ''The Growth of Biological Thought''. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. {{ISBN|0-674-36446-5}}</ref> [[Carl Linnaeus]] divided all three of his [[Kingdom (biology)|kingdoms]] of nature ([[mineral]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s) into classes. Only in the animal kingdom are Linnaeus's classes similar to the classes used today; his classes and orders of plants were never intended to represent natural groups, but rather to provide a convenient "artificial key" according to his ''[[Linnaean taxonomy#Classification of plants|Systema Sexuale]]'', largely based on the arrangement of flowers. In botany, classes are now rarely discussed. Since the first publication of the [[APG system]] in 1998, which proposed a taxonomy of the [[flowering plant]]s up to the level of orders, many sources have preferred to treat ranks higher than orders as informal [[clade]]s. Where formal ranks have been assigned, the ranks have been reduced to a very much lower level, e.g. class Equisitopsida for the land plants, with the major divisions within the class assigned to subclasses and superorders.<ref>{{citation |last=Chase |first=Mark W. |last2=Reveal |first2=James L. |year=2009 |title=A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III |journal=Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society |volume=161 |issue=2 |pages=122–127 |doi=10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x |name-list-style=amp |doi-access=free}}</ref>
In the first edition of his ''[[Systema Naturae]]'' (1735),<ref>[[Ernst Mayr|Mayr E.]] (1982). ''The Growth of Biological Thought''. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. {{ISBN|0-674-36446-5}}</ref> [[Carl Linnaeus]] divided all three of his [[Kingdom (biology)|kingdoms]] of nature ([[mineral]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s) into classes. Only in the animal kingdom are Linnaeus's classes similar to the classes used today; his classes and orders of plants were never intended to represent natural groups, but rather to provide a [[Convenience|convenient]] "artificial key" according to his ''[[Linnaean taxonomy#Classification of plants|Systema Sexuale]]'', largely based on the arrangement of flowers. In botany, classes are now rarely discussed. Since the first publication of the [[APG system]] in 1998, which proposed a taxonomy of the [[flowering plant]]s up to the level of orders, many sources have preferred to treat ranks higher than orders as informal [[clade]]s. Where formal ranks have been assigned, the ranks have been reduced to a very much lower level, e.g. class Equisitopsida for the land plants, with the major divisions within the class assigned to subclasses and superorders.<ref>{{citation |last=Chase |first=Mark W. |last2=Reveal |first2=James L. |year=2009 |title=A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III |journal=Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society |volume=161 |issue=2 |pages=122–127 |doi=10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x |name-list-style=amp |doi-access=free}}</ref>


The class was considered the highest level of the taxonomic hierarchy until [[George Cuvier]]'s ''embranchements'', first called [[Phylum|Phyla]] by [[Ernst Haeckel]],<ref>Collins, A.G., Valentine, J.W. (2001). [http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/7403/1/Collins_Valentine_EvDev2001.pdf "Defining phyla: evolutionary pathways to metazoan body plans"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200427032535/https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/7403 |date=2020-04-27}}. ''Evol. Dev''. '''3''': 432–442.</ref> were introduced in the early nineteenth century.
The class was considered the highest level of the taxonomic hierarchy until [[George Cuvier]]'s ''embranchements'', first called [[Phylum|Phyla]] by [[Ernst Haeckel]],<ref>Collins, A.G., Valentine, J.W. (2001). [http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/7403/1/Collins_Valentine_EvDev2001.pdf "Defining phyla: evolutionary pathways to metazoan body plans"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200427032535/https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/7403 |date=2020-04-27}}. ''Evol. Dev''. '''3''': 432–442.</ref> were introduced in the early nineteenth century.

Revision as of 10:09, 13 June 2024

For other uses, see Class (disambiguation).
This article is about the taxonomic grouping of related organisms. Not to be confused with the ecological grouping of unrelated plant taxa in phytosociology.
LifeDomainKingdomPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenusSpecies
The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. A phylum contains one or more classes. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

In biological classification, class (Latin: classis) is a taxonomic rank, as well as a taxonomic unit, a taxon, in that rank. It is a group of related taxonomic orders.[a] Other well-known ranks in descending order of size are life, domain, kingdom, phylum, order, family, genus, and species, with class ranking between phylum and order.[1]

History

The class as a distinct rank of biological classification having its own distinctive name – and not just called a top-level genus (genus summum) – was first introduced by French botanist Joseph Pitton de Tournefort in the classification of plants that appeared in his Eléments de botanique of 1694.

Insofar as a general definition of a class is available, it has historically been conceived as embracing taxa that combine a distinct grade of organization—i.e. a 'level of complexity', measured in terms of how differentiated their organ systems are into distinct regions or sub-organs—with a distinct type of construction, which is to say a particular layout of organ systems.[2] This said, the composition of each class is ultimately determined by the subjective judgment of taxonomists.

In the first edition of his Systema Naturae (1735),[3] Carl Linnaeus divided all three of his kingdoms of nature (minerals, plants, and animals) into classes. Only in the animal kingdom are Linnaeus's classes similar to the classes used today; his classes and orders of plants were never intended to represent natural groups, but rather to provide a convenient "artificial key" according to his Systema Sexuale, largely based on the arrangement of flowers. In botany, classes are now rarely discussed. Since the first publication of the APG system in 1998, which proposed a taxonomy of the flowering plants up to the level of orders, many sources have preferred to treat ranks higher than orders as informal clades. Where formal ranks have been assigned, the ranks have been reduced to a very much lower level, e.g. class Equisitopsida for the land plants, with the major divisions within the class assigned to subclasses and superorders.[4]

The class was considered the highest level of the taxonomic hierarchy until George Cuvier's embranchements, first called Phyla by Ernst Haeckel,[5] were introduced in the early nineteenth century.

Subdivisions

As with the other principal ranks, classes can be grouped and subdivided.[b]

Name Meaning of prefix Example 1 Example 2 Example 3[6] Example 4
Superclass super: above Tetrapoda
Class Mammalia Maxillopoda Sauropsida Diplopoda
Subclass sub: under Theria Thecostraca Avialae Chilognatha
Infraclass infra: below Cirripedia Aves Helminthomorpha
Subterclass subter: below, underneath Colobognatha
Parvclass parvus: small, unimportant Neornithes
-

See also

Explanatory notes

  1. ^ When the term denotes taxonomic units, the plural is classes (Latin classes).
  2. ^ Not all ranks are used in every taxon.

References

  1. ^ "Class". Biology Articles, Tutorials & Dictionary Online. 23 July 2021.
  2. ^ Huxley, Thomas Henry (1853). Henfrey, Arthur (ed.). Scientific memoirs, selected from the transactions of foreign academies of science, and from foreign journals. Natural history. Taylor and Francis. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.28029.
  3. ^ Mayr E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-36446-5
  4. ^ Chase, Mark W. & Reveal, James L. (2009), "A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III", Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161 (2): 122–127, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x
  5. ^ Collins, A.G., Valentine, J.W. (2001). "Defining phyla: evolutionary pathways to metazoan body plans" Archived 2020-04-27 at the Wayback Machine. Evol. Dev. 3: 432–442.
  6. ^ Classification according to Systema Naturae 2000, which conflicts with Wikipedia's classification. "The Taxonomicon: Neornithes". Retrieved 3 December 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Class_(biology)&oldid=1228815109"