I. First - below are three ways of looking at the taxonomic approaches in general use. All serve some purpose, each emphasizes a distinct reality. NONE are really correct or incorrect. Right now, there are easily hundreds of arguments about details. The three persepctives, below, are based on details but are meant to establish the "big frame". I suspect that eventually a molecular/DNA comparison based taxonomy will be the final word on the subject. The following paper is an example of that approach.
Field, K.; Olsen, G.; Lane, D.; Giovannoni, S; Ghiselin, M.; Raff, E.; Pace, N., and R. Raff. 1988. Molecular phylogeny of the animal kingdom. Science 239:748-753. This approach will ultimately squelch all the arguments. Can you see why? How does it really differ?
(1) The simplest model (far too simple at your level, but legitimate in many ways for beginners) is Whittaker's convenient 5 kingdom system. It has been around in one form or another for quite a while. It is still very good as a beginning and is commonly used in basic textbooks. It cannot serve an advanced course because it does not offer a base for understanding its Monera and Protists. It is strongly morphology-based. It replaced a very inaccurate - actually very misleading - "beginner's version" of taxonomy which offers the first split as "animals and plants" in the '60's or 70's.
The next two approaches triggered anger and attacks for the major proponents of their logic.
(2) Margulis (nee' Sagan), L. 1968. Evolutionary criteria in thallophytes: a radical alternative. Science 161:1020-1022. It is no longer "radical". It is the most accepted model, at present. Depending on your flexibility, you can claim it conflicts with Woese's view of the world or you can claim it supports it (my preference is the latter.) You MUST be able to describe the endosymbiont theory in simple terms. (There's a paper from Sci. Amer. to help if you find the Science paper a bit too much for your background. The Science paper is truly a benchmakr. At least try to read it. I have a step by step examination of the endosymbiont theory on the web at
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~kkeating/101_html/101syllabus_html/lect07_html
(There additional materials related to very basic taxonomy in the file.) The Endosymbiont theory takes a bit of examination in detail. It is easy to sort - it really is a more scientific presentation of something that "sort of" resembles the Whittaker system. Really - no matter what someone snickers about the ridiculously over-simplified Whittaker syste, look at how well it parallels Margulis' obviously more scientifically credible model. The file can be ftp’d from list at -
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~kkeating/101_html/ftp_html(3) The Archaea (Woese) have posed some of the most entertaining scientific paradoxes uncovered in decades. Believe it, or not, the best recent overview of current theory that I have seen is from National Geographic. It is very balanced, very authoritative, very up-to-date, AND it is VERY readable. I intend to add a short writing on some of the historic problems encountered by Woese - because he upset the accepted explanations at this very basic level.
National Geographic. 1998. The rise of life on earth. 193(3 - March):54-81.
A different perspective, equally readable and respectable is -Scientific American.
II. (pre-)MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (history)
Rich, 1980. Bits of life. The Sciences (October) 10-13, 25. Be grateful to him, this is one of the most readable summaries I have yet encountered. It will bring you through a bit of history in only a couple of pages.
Kamen, 1958. A universal molecule of living matter. Scientific American. Just consider the title and take a look at the figures - the apparently diverse applications to which the tetrapyrol structure has been applied. What might be its value--there must be some reason why it is so popular with biosynthetic pathways. You have a souvenir copy of one of the most important tetrapyrol-based molecules (B12).
Chedd, G. 1977. Wonderful sickly microbe. Nature/Science Annual Time-Life 93-97. The older this paper gets, the BETTER it becomes! Can caution be justified in all gene transfer applications because of the extraordinary talents of this particular creature? (Careful, generalizations are the bases for most socially expressed prejudice.) There was a time in the not too distant past when all genetic experiments were put on hold. In fact the town of Cambridge, Mass., voted to keep such research OUT of town. [[Question - What actually made that microbe "wonderful"?]]
A NOTORIOUS SOVIET FAKIR--SURELY CAPITALISM'S FRIEND
Time-Life Scientific Annual 1976. Death of Stalinist science. Everyone should know of Lysenko. p.171 and the damage he did to Soviet science. - WHY is it critical to environmental science?
III. Some stories need telling - the four below each serves as a "parable" or a fable with an "ancient truth" to offer.
Goodfield, June. 1984. Dr. Coley's toxins. Science84 (April) 68-73. Anecdotal evidence is not all nonsense. It is just not well sorted out. Should we get rid of all genuinely damaging infectious disease organisms? Smallpox? Ebola? What's an "antibiotic"?-- really?
Kollar, E. and C. Fisher. 1980. Tooth induction in chick epithelium: Expression of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis. Science 207:993-995. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Petri dish. From this paper forward, you will be able to "one-upmanship" all manner of smart Alec. Just wait, someday someone will respond sarcastically to some speculative comment you have made by saying, "That's about as likely as hen's teeth". At that point you can drive them crazy by trying to explain this paper.
Cherry, L.; Case, S., and A. Wilson. 1978. Frog perspective on the morphological difference between humans and chimpanzees. Science 200:209-211. (Read it twice then file your ego in a closet and consider how much a bias can louse up science.) This particular myopia allows us to destroy ecosystems and write-off species. We have quite a few convenient notions along this line. It is important that you recognize the bias which the authors have illuminated. Which is more significant, morphological or biochemical distinctions?
Lewin, R. 1985. The Taung baby reaches sixty. Science 227:1188-1190. Another "frog" perspective. (Why?) <