Thomas Cavalier-Smith - Classification of Life

Classification of Life

Cavalier-Smith has published extensively on the classification of protists. One of his major contributions to biology was his proposal of a new kingdom of life: the Chromista, although the usefulness of the grouping is questionable given that it is generally agreed to be an arbitrary (polyphyletic) grouping of taxa. He also proposed that all chromista and alveolata share the same common ancestor, a claim later refuted by studies of morphological and molecular evidence by other labs. He named this new group the Chromalveolates. He also proposed and named many other high-rank taxa, like Opisthokonta (1987), Rhizaria (2002), and Excavata (2002). Together with Chromalveolata, Amoebozoa (he amended their description in 1998), and Archaeplastida (which he called Plantae since 1981) the six form the basis of current taxonomy of eukaryotes. Prof. Cavalier-Smith has also published prodigiously on issues such as the origin of various cellular organelles (including the nucleus, mitochondria), genome size evolution, and endosymbiosis. Though fairly well known, many of his claims have been controversial and have not gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community to date. Most recently, he has published a paper citing the paraphyly of his bacterial kingdom, the origin of Neomura from Actinobacteria and taxonomy of prokaryotes.

According to Palaeos.com:

Prof. Cavalier-Smith of Oxford University has produced a large body of work which is well regarded. Still, he is controversial in a way that is a bit difficult to describe. The issue may be one of writing style. Cavalier-Smith has a tendency to make pronouncements where others would use declarative sentences, to use declarative sentences where others would express an opinion, and to express opinions where angels would fear to tread. In addition, he can sound arrogant, reactionary, and even perverse. On the other, he has a long history of being right when everyone else was wrong. To our way of thinking, all of this is overshadowed by one incomparable virtue: the fact that he will grapple with the details. This makes for very long, very complex papers and causes all manner of dark murmuring, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth among those tasked with trying to explain his views of early life. See, Zrzavý (2001) Patterson (1999). Nevertheless, he deals with all of the relevant facts.