Not a fact anymore

All living things fit naturally into five kingdoms: animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans.

What we know now

The five-kingdom system—animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans—does not accurately represent all major evolutionary relationships. DNA and RNA comparisons showed that organisms once grouped together as Monera actually include two very different lineages, Bacteria and Archaea, while 'Protista' contains many distantly related branches.

Why it changed

The five kingdoms were built mainly from cell structure, nutrition, and visible form. Molecular phylogeny—reconstructing ancestry by comparing DNA or RNA sequences—revealed relationships that those features had hidden. Archaea separated from Bacteria, and the protists broke into many different evolutionary groups.

Status
Superseded
Category
Evolution
Accepted for
≈9 years
Accepted approximately
Late 1960s–1990s
Changed approximately
1970s–present

Robert Whittaker’s five-kingdom system was a major improvement over older classifications. Animals, plants, and fungi were separated from one another, while most organisms without a cell nucleus were placed in Monera and many other mostly microscopic organisms in Protista.

By the late twentieth century, this became a standard textbook map of life.

The problem was that looking similar does not always mean sharing a close evolutionary history. Researchers increasingly compared DNA and RNA sequences instead. Because related organisms inherit those sequences from common ancestors, the similarities and differences can be used to reconstruct a family tree of life. This approach is called molecular phylogeny.

The old kingdom Monera split dramatically. Organisms without nuclei that had all been treated as bacteria turned out to contain two deeply different lineages: Bacteria and Archaea.

Protista also came apart. It had served as a convenient home for many organisms that were neither animals, plants, nor fungi, but molecular family trees showed that these organisms belonged to many different branches rather than one natural group.

Modern classification therefore uses three domains—Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya—along with multiple major groups within the eukaryotes. There is no single universally required number of kingdoms today. The important change is that the five old kingdoms do not map cleanly onto the evolutionary tree.

Evidence

Sources and what they establish

Previous belief

  • Five Kingdoms, More or LessBioScience

    States that Whittaker's five-kingdom system was standard in biology textbooks during the final two decades of the 20th century.

Historical context

  • Renewing Linnaean taxonomyBiological Reviews

    Describes the five-kingdom system as influential but now largely abandoned because molecular data split its groups.

Current evidence

Related entries

Or go somewhere else: