You are on page 1of 10


com/materi/klasifikasi-lima-kingdom/ Salah satu dari 8 divisio Protista adalah Moneres, yang meliputi sekelompok bakteri seperti Vibrio. Kemudian para ilmuwan membuktikan bahwa kingdom Protista hampir tidak ada kemiripannya untuk dijadikan sebuah kingdom

Kingdom (biology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. A domain contains one or more kingdoms. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

In biology, kingdom (Latin: regnum, pl. regna) is a taxonomic rank, which is either the highest rank or in the more recent three-domain system, the rank below domain. Kingdoms are divided into smaller groups called phyla (in zoology) or divisions in botany.

do not consist of all the descendants of a common ancestor.2 Cavalier-Smith's system  2.g.Currently. and Prokaryota or Monera).4 Summary 3 See also 4 References 5 External links Definition and associated terms When Carl Linnaeus introduced the rank-based system of nomenclature into biology.2. Because of its position.3 International Society of Protistologists Classification (2005) o 2. Prefixes can be added to subkingdom and infrakingdom are the two ranks immediately below kingdom.3 Recent developments: six kingdoms or more?  2.3.3 Five kingdoms o 2.[1] Later two further main ranks were introduced. Protista. Fungi. textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia.2. order. Protoctista.2.2. Plantae. Archaea. and Bacteria) while British.1 Eight kingdoms  2. so that kingdom is no longer the highest rank.2 An increasing number of kingdoms  2. Superkingdom may be considered as an equivalent of domain or empire or as an independent rank between kingdom and domain or subdomain.1 An initial dichotomy: Two kingdoms o 2. noting that the traditional kingdoms are not monophyletic. Systems of classification .1 Three kingdoms  2. Protostomia and Deuterostomia in the classification of Cavalier-Smith[3]). Fungi. namely domain (or empire). Australian and Latin American textbooks may describe five kingdoms (Animalia. phylum or division. class.2. the highest rank was given the name "kingdom" and was followed by four other main or principal ranks.1 The three domains of life  2. Some recent classifications have explicitly abandoned the term "kingdom". In some classification systems the additional rank branch (Latin: ramus) can be inserted between subkingdom and infrakingdom (e. Contents      1 Definition and associated terms 2 Systems of classification o Four kingdoms  2.e.3.2 Six kingdoms  2.[2] In the 1960s a rank was introduced above kingdom. branch can be considered as a minor rank of the kingdom group even if it is not etymologically derived from it. Plantae. family. i.3. genus and species. making the sequence kingdom.

Aristotle (384–322 BC) classified animal species in his work The History of Animals. often called the "father of microscopy". Copeland proposed a four-kingdom classification. eukaryotes. However. prokaryotes. Herbert F. the number of kingdoms in widely accepted classifications has grown from two to six.) Linnaeus divided each kingdom into classes.[5] . now regulated by the Nomenclature Codes.[5] life Kingdom Protista Kingdom Plantae Kingdom Animalia Four kingdoms The development of microscopy. However. following earlier proposals by Richard Owen and John Hogg.[5] In 1866. and those unicellular and multicellular organisms whose cells do have a distinct nucleus. 287 BC) wrote a parallel work on plants (Historia Plantarum (The History of Plants)). Ernst Haeckel proposed a third kingdom of life. (Linnaeus also included minerals.[4] Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) laid the foundations for modern biological nomenclature. phylogenetic research from about 2000 onwards does not support any of the traditional systems[citation needed]. and the electron microscope in particular. At first these organisms were divided into animals and plants and placed in the appropriate Kingdom. life Regnum Vegetabile Regnum Animalia An increasing number of kingdoms Three kingdoms In 1674. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. revealed an important distinction between those unicellular organisms whose cells do not have a distinct nucleus. He distinguished two kingdoms of living things: Regnum Animale ('animal kingdom') for animals and Regnum Vegetabile ('vegetable kingdom') for plants. 371–c. bacteria and "blue-green algae". Regnum Lapideum. sent the Royal Society of London a copy of his first observations of microscopic single-celled organisms. and his pupil Theophrastus (c. later grouped into phyla for animals and divisions for plants. moving the two prokaryotic groups. placing them in a third kingdom. An initial dichotomy: Two kingdoms The classification of living things into animals and plants is an ancient one. Until then the existence of such microscopic organisms was entirely unknown. Haeckel revised the content of this kingdom a number of times before settling on a division based on whether organisms were unicellular (Protista) or multicellular (animals and plants). into a separate Kingdom Monera.Historically. In 1938. by the mid-19th century it had become clear that "the existing dichotomy of the plant and animal kingdoms [had become] rapidly blurred at its boundaries and outmoded".

his Animalia multicellular heterotrophs. The resulting five-kingdom system. The remaining two kingdoms.e. For example. i.[7] The five kingdom system may be combined with the two empire Kingdom Monera (prokaryotes. In the 1960s Stanier and van Niel popularized Édouard Chatton's much earlier proposal to recognize this division in a formal classification. Protista and Monera. included unicellular and simple cellular colonies. has become a popular standard and with some refinement is still used in many works and forms the basis for new multi-kingdom systems. life Empire Prokaryota Empire Eukaryota Kingdom Monera Kingdom Fungi Kingdom Protista Kingdom Plantae Kingdom Animalia Recent developments: six kingdoms or more? The three domains of life . bacteria and "blue-green algae") Kingdom Protista (single-celled eukaryotes) Kingdom Plantae Kingdom Animalia The importance of the distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes gradually became apparent. for the first time. This required the creation. a superkingdom or empire.[6] life Empire Prokaryota Empire Eukaryota Kingdom Monera Kingdom Protista Kingdom Plantae Kingdom Animalia Five kingdoms The differences between fungi and other organisms regarded as plants had long been recognized. and his Fungi multicellular saprotrophs. at one point Haeckel moved the fungi out of Plantae into Protista. before changing his mind. also called a domain. proposed in 1969 by Whittaker. of a rank above kingdom. It is based mainly on differences in nutrition.[5] Robert Whittaker recognized an additional kingdom for the Fungi. his Plantae were mostly multicellular autotrophs.

It was also found that the eukaryotes are more closely related. the name "domain" was proposed for the highest rank.A phylogenetic tree based on rRNA data showing Woese's three-domain system From around the mid-1970s onwards. they are more closely related to each other from a genetic standpoint than they are to either the Eubacteria or Archaebacteria. genetically. Such six-kingdom systems have become standard in many works.[8] Woese attempted to establish a "three primary kingdom" or "urkingdom" system. called Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. Similarly. including kingdoms. were to be groups of organisms with a common ancestor. though eukaryote groups such as plants. Taxonomic ranks.[10] The six-kingdom system shown below represents a blending of the classic five-kingdom system and Woese's three-domain system. fungi and animals may look different. Although the primacy of the eubacteria-archaebacteria divide has been questioned. Based on such RNA studies. whether monophyletic (all descendants of a common ancestor) or paraphyletic (only some descendants of a common ancestor). life Domain Bacteria Domain Archaea Kingdom Bacteria Kingdom Archaea . there was an increasing emphasis on comparisons of genes on the molecular level (initially ribosomal RNA genes) as the primary factor in classification. genetic similarity was stressed over outward appearances and behavior. to the Archaebacteria than they are to the Eubacteria. stressing that there was as much genetic difference between these two groups as between either of them and all eukaryotes. Carl Woese divided the prokaryotes (hitherto classified as the Kingdom Monera) into two groups. it has been upheld by subsequent research.[9] In 1990.

Moreover. many non-photosynthetic phyla of protists. only chromists do contain chlorophyll c. His views have been influential but controversial.) Cavalier-Smith does not accept anymore the importance of the fundamental . thought to have secondarily lost their chloroplasts.[11] Eight kingdoms See also: Archaebacteria.Domain Eukarya Kingdom Protoctista or Protista Kingdom Plantae Kingdom Fungi Kingdom Animalia Woese also recognized that the kingdom Protista was not a monophyletic group and might be further divided at the level of kingdom. at the same time. Chromista. and not always widely accepted. that the difference between 'eubacteria' and 'archaebacteria' was so great (particularly considering the genetic distance of ribosomal genes) that they needed to be separated in two different kingdoms. This superkingdom was opposed to the Metakaryota superkingdom. superkingdom and kingdom Archezoa. as it was nearly consensually admitted at that time. Finally. it was thought that these amitochondriate eukaryotes were primitively so. Protozoa. giving rise to the. This was known as the Archezoa hypothesis.[12] (Compared to the version he published in 2004. Eubacteria was divided into two subkingdoms: Negibacteria (Gram negative bacteria) and Posibacteria (Gram positive bacteria). and Archezoa Thomas Cavalier-Smith thought at first. some protists lacking mitochondria were discovered. The version published in 2009 is shown below. As a result. the chloroplast of the chromists is located in the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum instead of in the cytosol.[3] which has been revised in subsequent papers. Technological advances in electronical microscopy allowed the separation of the Chromista from the Plantae kingdom. were integrated into the kingdom Chromista. particularly protists. Since then. hence splitting the empire Bacteria into two kingdoms. Fungi. marking an important step in eukaryogenesis.[13] the alveolates and the rhizarians have been moved from Kingdom Protozoa to Kingdom Chromista. Cavalier-Smith's system See also: Thomas Cavalier-Smith Thomas Cavalier-Smith has published extensively on the evolution and classification of life. grouping together the five other eukaryotic kingdoms (Animalia. Plantae and Chromista). Six kingdoms In 1998. these amitochondriate protists were separated from the protist kingdom. As mitochondrion was known to be the result of the endosymbiosis of a proteobacterium. Indeed. he published a six-kingdom model.

Haptophyta. Fungi. like the phylum Microsporidia.[8] His Kingdom Bacteria includes Archaebacteria as a phylum of the subkingdom Unibacteria which comprises only one other phylum: the Posibacteria. The two subkingdoms Unibacteria and Negibacteria of kingdom Bacteria (sole kingdom of empire Prokaryota) are opposed according to their membrane topologies. red and green algae. according to the significance of the term given by Cavalier-Smith. In the same way. Choanozoa. Rhizaria Kingdom Plantae — e. The diagram below does not represent an evolutionary tree. Excavata Kingdom Chromista — e. marking important innovations of biological significance (in regard of the concept of biological niche). Unibacteria and Posibacteria as valid paraphyletic (therefore "monophyletic" in the sense he uses this term) taxa. primitively amitochondriate eukaryotes) had in fact secondarily lost their mitochondria.e. Heterokonta (stramenopiles). Alveolata. Others were reclassified in kingdom Protozoa like Metamonada which is now part of infrakingdom Excavata.g. life Empire Prokaryota Empire Eukaryota Kingdom Bacteria — includes Archaebacteria as part of a subkingdom Kingdom Protozoa — e. glaucophytes. his paraphyletic kingdom Protozoa includes the ancestors of Animalia.g. The advances of phylogenetic studies allowed to realize that all the phyla thought to be archezoans (i. land plants Kingdom Fungi Kingdom Animalia International Society of Protistologists Classification (2005) . This means that all living eukaryotes are in fact metakaryotes.g. Bacteria. Some of the members of the defunct kingdom Archezoa. viewed as having no particular biological significance. were reclassified into kingdom Fungi. Amoebozoa. cryptophytes. most of the time by transforming them into new organelles: hydrogenosomes. Cavalier-Smith does not accept the requirement for taxa to be monophyletic ("holophyletic" in his terminology) to be valid. Negibacteria. The bimembranous-unimembranous transition is thought to be far more fundamental than the long branch of genetic distance of Archaebacteria. Plantae and Chromista.eubacteria–archaebacteria divide put forward by Woese and others and supported by recent research. He defines Prokaryota.

Haptophyta. Research published in the 21st century has produced a rather different picture. . and various other amoeboid protozoa Chromalveolata — Stramenopiles (or Heterokonta).One hypothesis of eukaryotic relationships. the diagram opposite (redrawn from their article) showed the real 'kingdoms' (their quotation marks) of the eukaryotes. On this basis. The "classic" six-kingdom system is still recognizably a modification of the original twokingdom system: Animalia remains. fungi.[14] A classification which followed this approach was produced in 2005 for the International Society of Protistologists. while this approach had been impractical previously (necessitating "literally dozens of eukaryotic ‘kingdoms’"). it had now become possible to divide the eukaryotes into "just a few major groups that are probably all monophyletic". Radiolaria. including that of "kingdom". etc. They held that only monophyletic groups should be accepted as formal ranks in a classification and that. choanoflagellates. Rhizaria — Foraminifera. In 2004. modified from Simpson and Roger (2004). a review article by Simpson and Roger noted that the Protista were "a grab-bag for all eukaryotes that are not animals. Archaea and Protista. It divided the eukaryotes into the same six "supergroups".[15] The published classification deliberately did not use formal taxonomic ranks. plants or fungi". life Domain Bacteria Domain Archaea Domain Eukarya Bacteria Archaea Excavata — Various flagellate protozoa Amoebozoa — most lobose amoeboids and slime moulds Opisthokonta — animals. the original category of plants has been split into Plantae and Fungi. and single-celled organisms have been introduced and split into Bacteria. by a committee which "worked in collaboration with specialists from many societies".

particularly the Chromalveolata."[23] As of December 2010. Rogozin et al. there does not appear to be a consensus.[18] so that Rhizaria is not one of the main eukaryote groups. some of which are multicellular but not closely related to animals (some fungi). in a clade dubbed the SAR supergroup.[17] As of 2010. some of which are unicellular (choanoflagellates).[12][19][20][21][22] Beyond this. although there is no agreement as to the model which should replace it. the traditional kingdoms have vanished. research shows that the multicellular animals (Metazoa) are descended from the same ancestor as the unicellular choanoflagellates and the fungi.Cryptophyta (or cryptomonads).[16] and a review in 2006 noted the lack of evidence for several of the supposed six supergroups. Smith [26][2 er Smith [28][2 [31 [1] [25] 1925 [9][30] 1938 1990 1998[35][13][ 1735 1866 1977 7] 1969[7] 1993[32][33][34] 9] ] 36] 2 kingdom s (not treated) 3 kingdo ms Protista 4 5 2 kingdom kingdom empires s s Prokaryo Monera ta Monera 3 domai ns 6 kingdoms 8 kingdoms 6 kingdoms Eubacteria Bacteri Eubacteria a Bacteria .[19][20][24] Summary The sequence from the two-kingdom system up to Cavalier-Smith's six-kingdom system can be summarized in the table below. Copelan Woese CavalierChatton Whittak CavalierLinnaeus Haeckel d Woese et al. doubts were being expressed as to whether some of these supergroups were monophyletic. and glaucophytes In this system. there is widespread agreement that the Rhizaria belong with the Stramenopiles and the Alveolata. For example. choanoflagellates part of Protista and Fungi a separate kingdom) is not monophyletic.[15] However. green algae. and others of which are traditional multicellular animals. in 2009 noted that "The deep phylogeny of eukaryotes is an extremely difficult and controversial problem. et al. and Alveolata Archaeplastida (or Primoplantae) — Land plants. The monophyletic group is the Opisthokonta. A classification system which places these three groups into different kingdoms (with multicellular animals forming Animalia. there appears to be a consensus that the 2005 six supergroup model does not reflect the true phylogeny of the eukaryotes and hence how they should be classified. red algae. in the same year as the International Society of Protistologists' classification was published (2005). made up of all those organisms believed to have descended from a common ancestor.

modern Cyanobacteria) in his Plantae.htm . modern Florideophyceae) and blue-green algae (his Archephyta. As of April 2010. The kingdom-level classification of life is still widely employed as a useful way of grouping Andrew Roger and Alastair Simpson emphasized the need for diligence in analyzing new discoveries: "With the current pace of change in our understanding of the eukaryote tree of life. Haeckel placed the red algae (his notwithstanding some problems with this approach:   Kingdoms such as Bacteria represent grades rather than clades. The most recent research does not support the classification of the eukaryotes into any of the standard systems. we should proceed with caution."[37] http://www. In 2009. no set of kingdoms is sufficiently supported by research to attain widespread acceptance. and so are rejected by phylogenetic classification systems.mcb. For example.Archaebacte Archae Archaebacte ria a ria Archezoa Protoctis Protista ta Eukaryot a Vegetabil Plantae ia Animalia Animalia Plantae Fungi Fungi Fungi Animalia Fungi Animalia Protozoa Protista Protozoa Chromista Eukarya Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae Chromista Animalia Animalia Animalia Note that the equivalences in this table are not perfect.