Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature

Systematic Biology

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 790-807

  Cantino, Philip D ^a   Bryant, Harold N ^b   De Queiroz, Kevin ^c   Donoghue, Michael J ^d   Eriksson, Torsten ^e   Hillis, David M ^f   Lee, Michael S Y ^g  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ROYAL SASKATCHEWAN MUSEUM   (Canada)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^d HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Binomial nomenclature; Phylogenetic nomenclature; Species names

Indexed keywords

LINNAEA;

ARTICLE; NOMENCLATURE; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

PHYLOGENY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TERMINOLOGY;

EID: 0033278653     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/106351599260012     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. BAUM, D. A. 1998. Individuality and the existence of species through time. Syst. Biol. 47:641-653.
2. BAUM, D. A., W. S. ALVERSON, AND R. NYFFELER. 1998. A durian by any other name: Taxonomy and nomenclature of the core Malvales. Harv. Pap. Bot. 3:315-330.
3. BRYANT, H. N. 1994. Comments on the phylogenetic definition of taxon names and conventions regarding the naming of crown clades. Syst. Biol. 43:124-130.
4. BRYANT, H. N. 1996. Explicitness, stability, and universality in the phylogenetic definition and usage of taxon names: A case study of the phylogenetic taxonomy of the Carnivora (Mammalia). Syst. Biol. 45:174-189.
5. BRYANT, H. N. 1997. Cladistic information in phylogenetic definitions and designated phylogenetic contexts for the use of taxon names. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62:495-503.
6. CAIN, A. J. 1959. The post-Linnaean development of taxonomy. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. 170:234-244.
7. CANTINO, P. D. 1998. Binomials, hyphenated uninomials, and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47: 425-429.
8. CANTINO, P. D., R. G. OLMSTEAD, AND S. J. WAGSTAFF. 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: A botanical case study. Syst. Biol. 46:313-331.
9. CANTINO, P. D., S. J. WAGSTAFF, AND R. G. OLMSTEAD. 1999. Caryopteris (Lamiaceae) and the conflict between phylogenetic and pragmatic considerations in botanical nomencla ture. Syst. Bot. 23:369-386.
10. CLARIDGE, M. F., H. A. DAWAH, AND M. R. WILSON (EDS.). 1997. Species: The units of biodiversity. Chapman & Hall, New York.
11. CRANE, P. R., AND P. KENRICK. 1997. Problems in cladistic classification: Higher-level relationships in land plants. Aliso 15:87-104.
12. DE QUEIROZ, K. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15:125-144.
13. DE QUEIROZ, K. 1998. The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation. Pages 57-75 in Endless forms: Species and speciation (D. J. Howard and S. H. Berlocher, eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
14. DE QUEIROZ, K. 1999. The general lineage concept of species and the defining properties of the species category. Pages 49-89 in Species: New interdisciplinary essays (R. A. Wilson, ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. In press.
15. DE QUEIROZ, K., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics 6:83-90.
16. DE QUEIROZ, K., AND J. GAUTHIER. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39:307-322.
17. DE QUEIROZ, K., AND J. GAUTHIER. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480.
18. DE QUEIROZ, K., AND J. GAUTHIER. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:27-31.
19. ERESHEFSKY, M. (ED.). 1992. The units of evolution: Essays on the nature of species. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
20. ERIKSSON, T., M. J. DONOGHUE, AND M. S. HIBBS. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of Potentilla using DNA sequences of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacers (ITS), and implications for the classification of Rosoideae (Rosaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 211:155-179.
21. GRAYBEAL, A. 1995. Naming species. Syst. Biol. 44:237-250.
22. GREUTER, W., D. L. HAWKSWORTH, J. MCNEILL, M. A. MAYO, A. MINELLI, P. H. A. SNEATH, B. J. TINDALL, P. TREHANE, AND P. TUBBS. 1998. Draft BioCode (1997): The prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 47: 127-150.
23. GRIFFITHS, G. C. D. 1976. The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Syst. Zool. 25:168-173.
24. HÄRLIN, M. 1998. Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees. Zool. Scr. 27:381-390.
25. HIBBETT, D. S., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1998. Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90:347-356.
26. HOWARD, D. J., AND S. H. BERLOCHER (EDS.). 1998. Endless forms: Species and speciation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. KRON, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15:105-112.
28. LEE, M. S. Y. 1996a. The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: Practical aspects. Zool. Scr. 25:187-190.
29. LEE, M. S. Y. 1996b. Stability in meaning and content of taxon names: An evaluation of crown-clade definitions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 263:1103-1109.
30. LEE, M. S. Y. 1998. Phylogenetic uncertainty, molecular sequences, and the definition of taxon names. Syst. Biol. 47:719-726.
31. LEE, M. S. Y. 1999. Reference taxa and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 48:31-34.
32. MICHENER, C. D. 1963. Some future developments in taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 12:151-172.
33. MICHENER, C. D. 1964. The possible use of uninominal nomenclature to increase the stability of names in biology. Syst. Zool. 13:182-190.
34. MINELLI, A. 1991. Names for the system and names for the classification. Pages 183-189 in Improving the stability of names: Needs and options (D. L. Hawksworth, ed.). Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.
35. MINELLI, A. 1995. The changing paradigms of biological systematics: New challenges to the principles and practice of biological nomenclature. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 52: 303-309.
36. MOORE, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47:561-579.
37. ROWE, T., AND J. GAUTHIER. 1992. Ancestry, paleontology and definition of the name Mammalia. Syst. Biol. 41:372-378.
38. SCHANDER, C. 1998a. Types, emendations and names - a reply to Lidén et al. Taxon 47:401-406.
39. SCHANDER, C. 1998b. Mandatory categories and impossible hierarchies - a reply to Sosef. Taxon 47:407-410.
40. SCHANDER, C., AND M. THOLLESSON. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy - some comments. Zool. Scr. 24:263-268.
41. SERENO, P. C. 1999. Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: Critique and rationale. Syst. Biol. 48: 329-351.
42. SUNDBERG, P., AND F. PLEIJEL. 1994. Phylogenetic classification and the definition of taxon names. Zool. Scr. 23:19-25.
43. WAGSTAFF, S. J., R. G. OLMSTEAD, AND P. D. CANTINO. 1995. Parsimony analysis of cpDNA restriction site variation in subfamily Nepetoideae (Labiatae). Am. J. Bot. 82:886-892.
44. WILSON, R. A. (ED.). 1999. Species: New interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
45. WYSS, A. R., AND J. MENG. 1996. Application of phylogenetic taxonomy to poorly resolved crown clades: A stem-modified node-based definition of Rodentia. Syst. Biol. 45:559-568.