Insect classification of A. D. Imms / Gullan and Cranston or any other? Some classify insects into 29 orders, some into 30 orders some 33 orders, some excludes protura, diplura and collembola.
I am not formally a teacher now, but have done some teaching as well in school as in university or in the frames of e.g. DEST, so must have developed some opinion. My suggestion is: present to students in detail this classification which in your opinion best reflects the systematic relationships (this you can best explain and justify), but emphatically, repeatedly accentuate that no classification is a Holy Scripture, that there are many variants differing in basic philosophy (e.g. cladistic and synthetic) or criteria (e.g. morphology vs. molecules), that systematics is a living and evolving branch of science and so its results are being constantly improved and modified, &c.!
It depends on the course. For any non-entomology course or for the introductory entomology course I can't see that it makes much difference. If this is an advanced systematics/taxonomy course then you might want to discuss the different systems and why they do not agree. This topic might also be important in a history of entomology class as a major debate in what defines the different levels of classification and how molecular techniques have reshaped classification. It may also be useful for students to know that classification is a work in progress and not cast in stone. There are still a few jobs left for people interested in systematics/taxonomy.
I am not formally a teacher now, but have done some teaching as well in school as in university or in the frames of e.g. DEST, so must have developed some opinion. My suggestion is: present to students in detail this classification which in your opinion best reflects the systematic relationships (this you can best explain and justify), but emphatically, repeatedly accentuate that no classification is a Holy Scripture, that there are many variants differing in basic philosophy (e.g. cladistic and synthetic) or criteria (e.g. morphology vs. molecules), that systematics is a living and evolving branch of science and so its results are being constantly improved and modified, &c.!
Dear Lalitkumar,
this question is already asked by the lecturers in biology - what system is the best. So, if for students should be the simplest one! Like all population you have more gifted in your group and should work with them individually. So, make some compilation - it depends how many university hours you have... But pure taxonomy isn't good for acceptance, so give it with different facts, interesting specimens, nice geographical places, paleontological records – good photos and videos, from different Realms, biotopes, yours own preferably, terrestrial and aquatic, conservation ideas, modern method of revival etc.
I'm attaching for you perfect book history of Insects that appear in 2002 (but their about 40 Orders!) where from you can take a lot of useful information.
As well some actual things for explanation this material you can take from Hill (Attached as well).
May be you have it but if no thats hepl I hope...
Andrey
DEFINITELY , now a days we are having very advanced molecular evidences which changes these,
I´m not insect taxonomy teacher, but I like the Pentatomid family.
Dear Dr. Lalit,
The job of a teacher is really too tough. In case of entomology classification, the classification of A.D. Imms and H.H. Ross is generally followed. for classification up to order level H.H. Ross is followed and for classification up to families level AD Imms is followed. During the teaching, you can make a note on different classification of insects but for exam purpose told them to follow any one and specifically mention the name of the scientist of whom the classification is being followed. but remember no one classification is complete and every classification was come into existence by addition of some features.
All the Best
No taxonomic study is complete or conclusive, leave alone insect taxonomy. then why to worry about the different number of orders that are presented by different authors. Basic and important aspect of taxonomic teaching is to teach the fundamental principles of classification and the important characters that can guide the separation of taxa at order and family levels. As a teacher, I have found useful to introduce the order Orthoptera with grasshoppers, short-horned and long-horned, as examples. It is easier to introduce diagnostic taxonomic characters of these insects and then take the teaching forward by teaching comparable characters of other hemimetabolous insects followed by holometabolous insects. when done with the crucial wing andl genitalia characters, then devote some time on phylogeny and build upon a simple plan of cladistic classification based on morphological characters.
Modern taxonomy requires you to teach molecular methods and its significance. You need to have adequate knowledge of molecular biology to be able to convey the basic concept and its application in taxonomy. In doing these, one hardly worry about the number of insect orders that are there. what is important is that how well you understand the subject and can deal with these independently.
Friend, you can follow Imms Classification of Insects upto orders. He divided class insecta into 29 orders.
Imms classfication is the oldest classification.He divided Insecta into 29 orders.
I cannot find the original classification by Imms. However, I suspect that it would not agree with current thought on insect orders. For example the fairly recent merging of the Isoptera into the Blattodea. I also remember Protura, Diplura, and Collembola as insect orders in my introductory entomology class. However, at least some more recent classifications exclude them from insect orders. On the other hand I doubt that we will see a Department of Collembology at any university anytime soon. So the people studying these groups will still end up in a university entomology department (if such a specialization still exists apart from general biology/zoology departments).
The answer also depends on whether you include extinct orders: e.g Caloneurida.
Also consider exposing students to old ideas, not just the most recently accepted idea. The point is that when you start searching the literature you can get highly distorted results if you do know that classification has changed. I search the Web of Science (a bibliographic database), and found over 15,000 articles dealing with the Homoptera. Just because the order is no longer considered valid does not make that literature go away. However, if I don't know to search for it then it effectively was never done -- though with luck I will get some unpleasant comments from reviewers.
As said above, classification is a developing science, so various points of view are interesting and important. My personal opinion on general insect classification is given here:
http://www.insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nom/~~classif.htm
Even if you disagree with it, here are correct names for all taxa (unlike most other sources).
Dear Nikita,
Wow. What an incredible resource, both great and frightening. So it seems that all the order and family names that I learned in the 1980s are gone? Ephemeroptera is now Panephemeroptera? Odonata has become Odanatoptera? Or, I simply misread the tables?
There are two competing forces in classification. The primary goal is to get the most accurate picture of the evolution of individual species. To understand the tapestry of life. The other goal is utility. So I ran my experiment. My insect was identified to species by some expert. Now I need to publish the result. So Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae) is now what? I don't really care what the answer is, so long as I have the correct answer and my results can be found in the literature. I mostly fall into the latter category. So I look at the extensive tables and am amazed. Yet also lost. I can tell a great deal of effort has gone into the tables, but I don't really understand them. I am sure that your book explains everything, but the tables alone are really hard to understand. There seems to be some inconsistency as well. So I use your link, and at the top of the page I see:
Somobialia Rafinesque 1815
1. Eucaryota Chatton 1925
1.1. Metazoa Haeckel 1874 (nom. hier.: Araneus/fg1)
1.1.1. Monostomata Huxley1875 (nom. hier.: Araneus/fg2)
1.1.1.1. Haemataria Haeckel 1874 (nom. hier.: Araneus/fg3)
1.1.1.1.1. "Coelomata" auct. (non Lankester 1877; nec Coelomati Haeckel 1872) (nom. hier.: Araneus/fg4)
1.1.1.1.1.1. Euarticulata Nielsen 1995 (nom. hier.: Araneus/fg5)
1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Gnathopoda Lankester 1877 = (nom. hier.: Araneus/fg6)
On this page is a link to your book "Cladoendesis for insects." If I follow that link I can scroll down and I find the following table that is similar but disturbingly different than the previous table.
Chapter III. Systematic position of arthropods
III-1 Somobialia Rafinesque 1815
III-1.1 Eucaryota Chatton 1925
III-1.1.1 Metazoa Haeckel 1874 (or Araneus/fg1)
III-1.1.1.1 Monostomata Huxley1875 (or Araneus/fg2)
III-1.1.1.1.1 Haemataria Haeckel 1874 (or Araneus/fg3)
III-1.1.1.1.1.1 Peritoneata taxon nov. (or Araneus/fg4)
III-1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Euarticulata Nielsen 1995 (or Araneus/fg5)
In these tables it is unclear to me what to do. Has the phylum "Arthropoda" been renamed "Euarticulata", or is "Arthropoda" still valid and the next level down from Euarticulata? I see that Euarticulata is in both tables, but in the first table Gnathopoda is at the bottom. Is Gnathopoda the new Arthropoda? What happened to Insecta?
I am bothered by the apparent change from Odonata to Odonatoptera. The Oxford English Dictionary states that Odonata comes from 'Modern Latin (plural), formed irregularly from Greek odōn (variant of odous) tooth with reference to the insect's mandibles." Wikipedia states "Fabricius coined the term Odonata from the Greek οδόντoς (οδούς), odontos (tooth) apparently because they have teeth on their mandibles, even though most insects also have toothed mandibles." In that light changing Odonata to Odanatoptera makes the name consistent with the other insect orders, but now makes the name mean tooth wing. Somehow, I just don't see teeth on (or in) the wings of the Odonates. I suppose it could work if one views the name reference to the fact that these insects are all predatory. So "teeth with wings" is the intended interpretation?
There is a very easy way to get answers on all your questions:
Look to menu on the top of the page, which you do not understand, and find there a useful link. If you want to know something about this or that taxon name, find this name in the alphabetic index and learn everything about it. Each name in the catalogue "Nomina Circumscribentia Insectorum" is supplied with its authorship, which in most cases is much older than you and me, so that your werb "change" cannot be used for it. The name Odonata Fabricius 1793 is used in my book as the valid one, according to the generally accepted tradition. If you will look to the link on its authorship, you will know out, that Fabricius introduced also the order names Ulonata, Synistata, Mitosata, Unogata, Agonata and others. I don' know, if Oxford English Dictionary, Wikipedia or any of antient Greek people know these words; actually these are not words of any language, but taxa names, and if you whant to know something about them, you must apply not to language dictionaries, but to catalogues of taxa names and to the original pubblication. According to Fabricius 1793, the species Aphis gossypii belongs to the order Ryngota, together with Thrips and Pulex. If you don't like this, try to understand, why. Probably, by the same reason, why I don't like to place it to the section Homoptera Latreille 1810.
I don't know, what to say about your statement that "Gnathopoda is at the bottom", because I don't know where is the "bottom" in taxonomy.
very interesting and informative information given by all fellow scientists thanks
By "bottom" I was referring to the end of the list. In part my problem is that I have trouble relating "III-1.1.1.1" to the concepts that I am more familiar with like kingdom, genus, order, tribe, and so forth with all the sub- and super- versions therein. So I think of the Metazoa (kingdom) as all multicellular eukaryotic animals. With this definition, arthropoda should be beneath this classification level. Yet in the part of the table "Systematic position of the arthropods" I fail to see what I am looking for, namely "Arthropoda." So I have several choices:
1) The Arthropoda is now at the top of the list (above Somobialia).
2) The Arthropoda are below the list. (right after "Euarticulata" if I use one table, or right below "Gnathopoda" if I use the other table.
3) The Arthropoda should properly be called
3a) Euarticulata if I use the second table (in my earlier post)
3b) Gnathopoda if I use the first table (from my earlier post)
4) My past experience in taxonomy is completely invalid.
4a) The system I learned in 1980s has been replaced and the concept of Order is irrelevant. That I cannot see this is an indication of how out-of-date I have become.
4b) The system that I learned is invalid due to the rules for priority given to the first name that was used. So I think that if Jones describes a new insect in 1987 and Frank describes the same insect as a new species in 1992, then Roger will use the name proposed by Jones when Roger writes a revision. I assume that the same rule would apply at higher taxonomic levels.
I suppose the "bottom" for taxonomy would be individual organisms.
I tried to find the help menu that you spoke of at the top of the page that I do not understand. However, I can't find it. I click on the link that you provided.
1) At the top of the new window in grey with yellow letters is "NOMINA CIRCUMSCRIBENTIA INSECTORUM"
2) Below that is a dark blue bar with yellow letters "Contents" and "References" a large space and the letters A through Z. Below that in pink letters I see "Typified names:" followed by the letters A through Z.
3) Below that in white letters on grey background is "Classifications of arthropods adopted in the book by N.J. Kluge "Cladoendesis of Insects" ."
So I click on "Contents" and I get taken to another page wherein I can find a link to "Introduction." However, the introduction does not seem to address the problems that I am experiencing.
Hi Basant! You say: "Modern taxonomy requires you to teach molecular methods and its significance. You need to have adequate knowledge of molecular biology to be able to convey the basic concept and its application in taxonomy"; this is nowadays a very popular, "fashionable", but false opinion: molecular biology has little to do directly with taxonomy! Molecular methods are important in phylogenetic reconstruction, but phylogeny puts only some restrictions on taxonomy (more exactly: on classification) but itself is not taxonomy!
Your conclusion is that "In doing these, one hardly worry about the number of insect orders that are there" - please, if so, explain what does the term "taxonomy" mean for you, because now your reasoning looks for me like "we must use molecular methods in taxonomy, and if we do, we do not need to bother with... taxonomy!" (the result of taxonomic study is a classification, i.e. - among others - the number of orders!).
@Mandeep, sorry but I could not view the attachment. Does it have the newest order?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-order-insect-found-trapped-ancient-amber-180961968/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Invertebrate Zoology
- Entomology