The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" System can easily be fixed

Botanical Review

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 111-120

  Nixon, Kevin C ^a   Carpenter, James M ^b   Stevenson, Dennis W ^c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINNAEA;

EID: 0037963559     PISSN: 00068101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0111:TPIFFA]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Bryant, H. N. & P. D. Cantino. 2002. A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: Is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 77: 39-55.
2. Cantino, P. D., H. N. Bryant, K. de Queiroz, M. J. Donoghue, T. Eriksson, D. M. Hillis & M. S. Y. Lee. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 48: 790-807.
3. Chui, G. 1999. Class war means fight for survival. The Australian, September 29: 37.
4. De Queiroz, K. 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic definitions as exemplified by the definition of "Mammalia." Syst. Biol. 43: 497-510.
5. Donoghue, M. J. & J. A. Doyle. 1989a. Phylogenetic analysis of angiosperms and the relationships of the Hamamelidae. Pp. 17-45 in P. R. Crane and S. Blackmore (eds.), Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae. Syst. Assoc., Clarendon Press, Oxford.
6. _ & _. 1989b. Phylogenetic studies of seed plants and angiosperms based on morphological characters. Pp. 181-193 in B. Fernholm, K. Bremer & H. Jörnvall (eds.), The hierarchy of life: Molecules and morphology in phylogenetic analysis. Elsevier Science Publ., Amsterdam.
7. Fellman, B. 2000. What's in a name? Yale Alumni Mag., April: 36-39.
8. Goloboff, P. A. 1999. NONA, version 2. Program and documentation. Published by the author, Tucumán, Argentina.
9. Greuter, W., J. McNeill, F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T. S. Filgueiras, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland & D. L. Hawksworth. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis code), adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, Missouri, July-August 1999. Regnum Vegetabile, 138. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.
10. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. D. D. Davis & R. Zangerl, trans. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
11. ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Ed. 4. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
12. Milius, S. 1999. Should we junk Linnaeus? Sci. News, October 23: 268.
13. Nixon, K. C. 1999. The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15: 407-414.
14. _ & J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other "Phylogenetic Systematics." Cladistics 16: 298-318.
15. _ & Q. D. Wheeler. 1990. An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics 6: 211-223.
16. Pennisi, E. 1996. Evolutionary and systematic biologists converge. Science 273: 181.
17. _. 2001. Linnaeus's last stand? Science 291: 2304.
18. Soltis, P. S., D. E. Soltis & M. W. Chase. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402: 402-404.
19. Soltis, D. E., P. S. Soltis, M. W. Chase, M. E. Mort, D. C. Albach, M. Zanis, V. Savolainen, W. H. Hahn, S. B. Hoot, M. F. Fay, M. Axtell, S. M. Swensen, L. M. Prince, W. J. Kress, K. C. Nixon & J. S. Farris. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 133: 381-461.
20. Withgott, J. 2000. Is it "So long, Linnaeus"? BioScience 50: 646-651.