PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION IN PALAEONTOLOGY

Classification in palaeontology follows the same rules as in Systematic Biology. Animals and plants are arranged in
hierarchical system each category containing one or more of the lowest category.

Systematic Biology
Systematic Biology: Biological information organised in a taxonomic or phylogenetic manner.
Phylogeny: The natural, evolutionary relationships between groups of living things, inferred using a variety of techniques
to establish the relative importance of various shared features (apomorphies and plesiomorphies).
Taxonomy: The science of organising (= classifying) living things into groups reflecting their natural, phylogenetic
relationships. Such groups are called taxa (sing. taxon).
Nomenclature: The assignment of correct names to taxa.

Introduction
The systematic classification of living, or once living, things – which these days is encouraged to be consistent with their
presumed evolutionary relationships (“phylogeny”) – is called taxonomy. Naming them, an exacting pursuit in itself, is
called nomenclature. Systematics is where taxonomy and nomenclature meet; biological reviews which organise their
material in a taxonomic or phylogenetic manner are referred to as “systematic.”

Phylogeny
Phylogeny is the true evolutionary relationships between groups of living things. The adjective is phylogenetic and the
study of phylogeny is phylogenetics.
It is intuitively obvious that there exists a hierarchy of phylogenetic relationships among living things. Different kinds of
cat are clearly more similar to one another than to any of the various kinds of dog, and vice versa. Moreover, cats and dogs
are clearly more similar to each other than either is to a frog, or a fish, or a housefly.

Fig. 1: Intuitive relationships between some familiar animals.

In fact, using intuition alone, we can easily construct a hierarchy of similarities among these groups of animals, such as that
shown in fig. 1, with which few would argue. Such an illustration is called a cladogram. Unfortunately, when the broader
range of living things is considered, intuition quickly fails us. Is a sea snail more like a crab, or a starfish? To answer
questions like this, organisms must be analysed in great detail, and the similarities carefully evaluated to determine their
phylogenetic significance, if any. The process is subjective, and today's “truth” is always provisional.
It might seem that the comparison of gene sequences between taxa can provide an objective measure of similarity. Perhaps,
one day, it may be so. For the present, unfortunately, genetic evidence is as open to interpretation as any other.

Taxonomy
The science of organising living things into groups which reflect their natural, phylogenetic relationships, is called
taxonomy. The groups are called taxa (sing. taxon). In other words it is The systematic classification of living, or once
living, things – which these days is done to be consistent with their presumed evolutionary relationships ("phylogeny"). t is
obvious that there exists a hierarchy of phylogenetic relationships among living things. Our human bodies record a
sequence billions of years longer than human culture. Nested like painted Russian dolls are features that we share with
more and more organisms the deeper we probe. As humans, we have uniquely large brains and upright posture; as primates,
fingernails and stereoscopic vision; as mammals, warm blood and milk-fed young; as amniotes (the group that includes
mammals, birds, and reptiles) internal fertilization and the ability to reproduce ourselves outside a watery environment. All
animals have tissues, and all of us collect our carbon and energy from organic compounds derived from all those plants,
algae, and bacteria that can use either chemical energy or light to manufacture their own supplies out of nonliving raw
materials. Like almost all organisms except bacteria, we have cells with nuclei and chromosomes, organelles, and an
oxygen drive. In common with every living thing we have DNA, genetic blueprints, and metabolism – the equipment to
absorb, dismantle, and exploit useful molecules. The division of familiar objects into animal, vegetable and mineral
probably dates back to prehistory, and it is commonplace to hear the phrase “animal kingdom” or “plant kingdom.” Most
Page 1 of 4
students will be aware, also, of the landmark contribution made by the Swedish naturalist, Carolus Linnaeus (and variations
on that spelling) in the mid-1700s.
Today we still use a derived form of the categories first published by Linnaeus, although much of the detail has changed.
For example, many single-celled organisms – none of which were known to Linnaeus – are regarded as belonging to a
kingdom of their own, the Protista, which stands alongside the Animalia and Plantae. The fungi are no longer considered
plants; they too have a kingdom to themselves.
Most surprising, however, was the discovery arising from genetic studies that protists, plants, animals and fungi,
collectively known as the Eucarya, are all relatively similar to one another, compared to the far more fundamental
differences dividing them from two great lineages of bacteria, the Archaea and the Bacteria. These three “domains” – the
Archaea, Bacteria and Eucarya – are now considered the most fundamental divisions of living things.
The division of life into plants and animals is a rough human classification that works well enough to describe various
shapes and expected behaviors but has little to do with how life arose, or how early organisms made a living. Likewise,
among living organisms, especially the small ones, the labels “plant” and “animal” represent two collections of features
drawn from a much larger total range, and often found in combinations that ignore these simple categories. There are far
more lifestyles than these two labels allow for, and some of them are practiced by organisms that live off what we would
consider to be inorganic foods. Working from definitions based on fundamental cellular machinery, we now recognize three
basic types of living things.
First are the archaebacteria, “ancient bacteria.” Not many species now survive. They evolved on an alien Earth, and now
live in extreme environments: hot springs where temperatures never fall below 55 C; salt flats where salinities are four
times ocean levels; the intestines of cattle or our own, for that matter.
Second are the “eubacteria,” many thousands of species with an enormously broad variety of lifestyles fermenters,
nitrogenfixers, sulfur users, oxygen producers, recycling specialists for all kinds of vital molecules.
Both archaebacteria and eubacteria are prokaryotes, “preseeds,” so called because of the way they carry their DNA loose
inside their outer cell membrane. The third fundamental division of life is the “true seeds” (eukaryotes, EKs for short),
which package their genes in a “seed” or nucleus, a separate envelope inside the outer membrane. They comprise all of
what we consider to be “higher organisms,” including ourselves.
There is one other problematic group, the viruses, which are particularly hard to define. They do not have cells, and
probably stem from bits of DNA or RNA that somehow escaped from one or another of the three basic groups. Viruses
certainly do not grow, and they feed only if we greatly expand our definition of feeding. In fact, they exist only because
they can replicate, and the materials they use in order to replicate are what causes problems; these refugee bits of genetic
material’ when bound with proteins, can replicate themselves only by reinvading and subverting living cells.

Taxon (pl. Taxa)

The published groups within each of the divisions in the phylogenetic hierarchy is known as a taxon. Like the relationships
themselves, taxa fall into a hierarchy. The lowest level taxon in most cases is the familiar species, which one can informally
think of as a group of organisms which are so closely related that they can inter-breed freely. (This concept obviously fails
for organisms which reproduce asexually, and in other circumstances also, but it is sufficient for now.)Above the species
level, grouping together similar species, is the genus (pl. genera). A familiar example of a genus is Pinus, to which several
different but related species of pine tree belong. Above that again is the family, and so on. From highest (most inclusive) to
lowest (most specific), the major formal taxonomic units, or “ranks” are:

 Domain (= Superkingdom)
 Kingdom
 Phylum (often called a “Division” in botany)
 Class
 Order
 Family
 Genus
 Species

Intermediate divisions are often used, “subspecies” being very commonly employed at the lower end.

Page 2 of 4
Below are the taxonomic units showing Intermediate divisions:

 Domain (= Superkingdom)
 Kingdom
 PHYLUM (PHYLA)
 Subphylum
 Superclass
 CLASS
 Subclass
 Superorder
 ORDER
 Suborder
 Superfamily
 FAMILY
 Subfamily
 GENUS (Genera)
 Subgenus
 SPECIES (Specie)
 Subspecies

Capitalized categories are compulsory, others are optional, to be used if the needs arises.
Rules governing the naming of specie:
GENERIC NAME TRIVIAL NAME
Capital letter small name
HOMO sapiens

The generic and the trivial name make up the specie name and it is always in Latin

Identification
To identify an organism is to determine which taxon it belongs to. An “accurate” identification is not only correct, but will
identify an organism with a particular species.
However, it is not at all unusual, in practise, that an identification can only be made to genus or even higher level. There are
many possible reasons. Perhaps the organism being identified is incomplete; some part (e.g. a flower) which is necessary
for a completely accurate identification is not present. This problem is particularly acute when it comes to identifying
fossils, which are more commonly fragmentary than not. In some cases, the species may not have been previously
recognised, or even if recognised, not formally published. In such cases, a relationship to a similar species which has been
described might be indicated with an aff. indicating “affinity to,” or the less confident cf. meaning “compare with.”

Nomenclature
In order to communicate biological information, it is essential to have universally understood “name tags” for the biological
entities we are referring to. This labelling is theoretically possible by means of formulas or letters, though they are not
euphonious and would be mnemonically difficult for most people. Instead, latinised names are employed. According to
Traverse, 1996: The purpose of formal nomenclature is to provide a precise, simple, and stable system of unique names
used by scientists in all countries. The system must allow for reasonable expansion and refinement to accommodate
increasing knowledge. In other words, the stability must not become a straitjacket.

Homonyms and Synonyms

Homonyms are identical names for two different taxa.
Synonyms are different names for the same taxon.
Neither can be tolerated in a rational nomenclature. As a general rule, when these situations arise it is the first name to be
published which is retained. However, the correct outcome is not always obvious because the distinction between taxa is
Page 3 of 4
often quite subjective. In fact, there are colloquial terms in common usage for scientists to tend to create inclusive taxa,
with quite broad accommodation for variety (they are called “lumpers”) as opposed to those who subdivide very finely,
creating taxa which accommodate very little variation at all (“splitters”). And, in fact, there is no “right” answer: man
classifies; nature does not.

Cladistics
As we have seen, phylogeny is the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The patterns of lineage branching
produced by the true evolutionary history of the organisms being considered comprise a hierarchy, for which the common
metaphor is a tree. We often hear reference to a family tree, or even a branch of a family tree, in our daily lives. A branch
on such a tree is defined by context: we may be referring to a single twig which has no dependent parts, or to quite a large
branch which has many smaller branchlets or twigs depending from it. In either case, such a branch is called a “clade”.
“Cladistics” is the word we give to the study of clades, and it is not substantively different from phylogenetics - the study of
phylogeny. If there is any useful difference at all, it is a matter of emphasis: whether upon lineages (cladistics) or
relationships (phylogenetics).

Outgroup
We have seen above that a clade is a branch on a tree of descent. Anything occurring outside that branch, further towards
the root of the tree, is an outgroup. The distinction is more than simply contextual: For example, in order to calculate the
similarity of genome sequences, it is essential to include within the study one or, preferably, several taxa that lie outside the
group in which we are trying to detect relationships. If we are interested in determining the relationships of tigers, we
would use close relatives of tigers as our outgroups. Outgroup comparison is the way we determine how widespread a
particular feature may be, whether it is found only within the group (apomorphies) of interest, or beyond that group.

Monophyly (Monophyletic Group)

A monophyletic group is one which includes an ancestral species and all its descendants. It is a complete clade. As we have
seen, a monophyletic group can be extremely large and inclusive – for example, most people today would agree the legions
of different kinds of insects comprise a monophyletic group – or quite small and exclusive – for example, the enigmatic sea
spiders (class Pycnogonida).

Paraphyly (Paraphyletic Group)

A paraphyletic group is a clade lacking some of the descendant species. Today there is a movement away from applying
formal names to groups which are known to be paraphyletic, although some of the old taxa are still very useful even though
they are now believed to be paraphyletic. Perhaps the best example is the reptiles. Because both mammals and birds
evolved from reptilian ancestors, but are not included in the class Reptilia, the latter is clearly paraphyletic and a cladistic
purist might prefer not to use the name. However, the meaning and scope of the reptile class is still a very well understood
and useful concept.

Page 4 of 4