New concepts of kingdoms of organisms

TL;DR: My purpose in this article is to discuss the merits of two classifications which depart from the traditional two kingdoms, the systems of Copeland (1-3) and Whittaker (4, 5).

Abstract: are those who consider questions in science which have no unequivocal , experimentally determined answer scarcely worth discussing. Such feeling, along with conservatism, may have been responsible for the long and almost unchallenged dominance of the system of two kingdoms-plants and animals-in the broad classification of organisms. The unchallenged position of these kingdoms has ended, however; alternative systems are being widely considered (1-18) and are appearing in many introductory biology texts (19-24). My purpose in this article is to discuss the merits of two classifications which depart from the traditional two kingdoms, the systems of Copeland (1-3) and Whittaker (4, 5). Two-Kingdom System Man is terrestrial, and he sees around him two major groups of organisms of very different adaptation to nutrition on land-the photosynthetic, rooted, higher plants, and the food-ingesting, motile, higher animals. So distinct in way of life, direction of evolution, and kind of body organization are these groups that a concept of dichotomy-plants versus animals-is almost inescapable if they are considered by themselves. The two groups became the nuclei around which concepts of the plant and animal kingdoms were developed by early naturalists. The kingdoms have been part of the formal classification of living things since Linnaeus (25). Mosses, liverworts, and macroscopic algae are clearly plants in their photo-synthetic and nonmotile way of life, and (though the photosynthetic process itself was not understood by early naturalists) these forms were grouped 150 with the higher land plants. The higher fungi on land are nonmotile, and their apparently \"rooted\" manner of growth suggested the plants. It thus seemed reasonable to assign fungi to the plant kingdom, and some students believed that they had evolved from algae. The wealth of unicellular life discovered by microscopists offered greater difficulty. Some forms were motile and ingested food, however, and were naturally regarded as one-celled animals or proto-zoans. Others were nonmotile and photosynthetic, hence one-celled plants. There remained a wide range of uni-cellular forms in which nonmotility and flagellate or pseudopodial motility, and ingestive, photosynthetic, and absorp-tive nutrition, were combined in various ways which were neither clearly plant-like nor animal-like. In a number of cases plant-like and animal-like unicells were connected by a series of closely related intergrading forms within the same major taxon. There remained also the bacteria which, though few are pho-tosynthetic and many are motile, seemed better treated as plants because of their walled cells. The plant and animal kingdoms …