Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 10 (4), e0119248

A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms


A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms

Michael A Ruggiero et al. PLoS One.

Erratum in

  • Correction: A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms.
    Ruggiero MA, Gordon DP, Orrell TM, Bailly N, Bourgoin T, Brusca RC, Cavalier-Smith T, Guiry MD, Kirk PM. Ruggiero MA, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 11;10(6):e0130114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130114. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26068874 Free PMC article. No abstract available.


We present a consensus classification of life to embrace the more than 1.6 million species already provided by more than 3,000 taxonomists' expert opinions in a unified and coherent, hierarchically ranked system known as the Catalogue of Life (CoL). The intent of this collaborative effort is to provide a hierarchical classification serving not only the needs of the CoL's database providers but also the diverse public-domain user community, most of whom are familiar with the Linnaean conceptual system of ordering taxon relationships. This classification is neither phylogenetic nor evolutionary but instead represents a consensus view that accommodates taxonomic choices and practical compromises among diverse expert opinions, public usages, and conflicting evidence about the boundaries between taxa and the ranks of major taxa, including kingdoms. Certain key issues, some not fully resolved, are addressed in particular. Beyond its immediate use as a management tool for the CoL and ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic Information System), it is immediately valuable as a reference for taxonomic and biodiversity research, as a tool for societal communication, and as a classificatory "backbone" for biodiversity databases, museum collections, libraries, and textbooks. Such a modern comprehensive hierarchy has not previously existed at this level of specificity.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 31 articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Hennig W. Phylogenetic systematics, translated by Davis D & Zangerl R. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois; 1966.
    1. Mayr E, Bock WJ. Classifications and other ordering systems. J Zoolog Syst Evol Res. 2002; 40: 169–194.
    1. Stuessy TF, Hoerandl E. The importance of comprehensive phylogenetic (evolutionary) classification—a response to Schmidt-Lebuhn’s commentary on paraphyletic taxa. Cladistics. 2014; 30: 291–293.
    1. Schmidt-Lebuhn AN. “Evolutionary” classifications do not have any information content—a reply to Stuessy and Hoerandl. Cladistics. 2014; 30: 229–231.
    1. Chapman AD. Numbers of living species in Australia and the world, second edition. Australian Biodiversity Information Services, Toowoomba, Australia. A Report for the Australian Biological Resources Study; 2009.

Publication types

Grant support

The authors have no funding or support to report.