Phylogenetic nomenclature: Addressing some concerns

Taxon

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 85-93

  Cantino, Philip D ^a  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034052287     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1223935     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Anderson, W. R. & Buck, W. R. 1998. Registration of names. Brittonia 50: 428-429.
2. APG (ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY GROUP). 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531-553.
3. Baum, D. A. 1998. Individuality and the existence of species through time. Syst. Biol. 47: 641-653.
4. * Brummitt, R. K. 1996. Quite happy with the present code, thank you. In: Reveal, J. E. (ed.), Proceedings of a mini-symposium on biological nomenclature in the 21st century. [http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/brum.html].
5. Cantino, P. D, Olmstead, R. G. & Wagstaff, S. J. 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study. Syst. Biol. 46: 313-331.
6. _ , Bryant, H. N., de Queiroz, K., Donoghue, M. J., Eriksson, T., Hillis, D. M. & Lee, M. S. Y. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 48: 790-807.
7. * de Queiroz, K. 1996. A phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature as an alternative to the Linnaean systems in current use. Jn: Reveal, J. E. (ed.), Proceedings of a mini-symposium on biological nomenclature in the 21st century. [http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/ dequ. html].
8. _ & Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449-480.
9. _ & - 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 27-31.
10. Eggli, U. 1998. Why we don't need registration. Taxon 47: 963-965.
11. Eriksson, T., Donoghue, M. J. & Hibbs, M. S. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of Potentilla using DNA sequences of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacers (ITS), and implications for the classification of Rosoideae (Rosaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 211: 155-179.
12. Greuter, W., Barrie, F. R., Burdet, H. M., Chaloner, W. G., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D. L., Jørgensen, P. M., Nicolson, D. H., Silva, P. C., Trehane, P. & McNeill, J. 1994. International Code of Botanical nomenclature (Tokyo Code). Regnum Veg. 131: 1-389.
13. Hibbett, D. S. & Donoghue, M. J. 1998. Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90: 347-356.
14. Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105-112.
15. Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47: 561-579.
16. Turland, N. J. & Davidse, G. 1998. Registration of plant names: undesirable, unnecessary, and unworkable. Taxon 47: 957-962.
17. Wilson, H. D. 1998. Why we need registration. Taxon 47: 967-968.