Critique of pure folly

Botanical Review

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 79-92

  Carpenter, James M ^a  

^a DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINNAEA;

EID: 0037963563     PISSN: 00068101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0079:COPF]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Benton, M. J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: Is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 75: 633-648.
2. 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.
3. Cantino, P. D. & K. de Queiroz. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. 〈http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/〉.
4. _, 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.
5. Carpenter, J. M. & M. C. Day. 1988. Nomenclatural notes on Polistinae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Proc. Washington Entomol. Soc. 90: 323-328.
6. Chui, G. 1999. Class war means fight for survival. The Australian, September 29: 37.
7. De Queiroz, K. 1996. A phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature as an alternative to the Linnaean systems in current use. In J. L. Reveal (ed.), Proceedings of a Mini-Symposium on Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century, held at the University of Maryland on 4 November 1996. 〈http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/dequ.html〉.
8. _. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15: 125-144.
9. _ & P. D. Cantino. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zook Nomencl. 58 (4): 254-271.
10. _ & J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307-322.
11. Dyke, G. J. 2002. Should paleontologists use "phylogenetic" nomenclature? J. Paleontol. 76: 793-796.
12. Fellman, B. 2000. What's in a name? Yale Alumni Mag., April: 36-39.
13. Forey, P. L. 2001. The PhyloCode: Description and commentary. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58 (2): 81-96.
14. _. 2002. PhyloCode: Pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43-54.
15. Greuter, W., D. L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, M. A. Mayo, A. Minelli, P. H. A. Sneath, B. J. Tindall, P. Trehane & P. Tubbs. 1998. Draft BioCode (1997): The prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 47: 127-150.
16. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. D. D. Davis & R. Zangerl, trans. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
17. Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105-112.
18. Lee, M. S. Y. 1996. The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: Practical aspects. Zool. Scripta 25: 187-190.
19. _. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175-180.
20. Mallet, J. & K. Willmott. 2003. Taxonomy: Renaissance or Tower of Babel? Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 (2): 57-59.
21. Milius, S. 1999. Should we junk Linnaeus? Sci. News, October 23: 268.
22. Nixon, K. C. & J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other "Phylogenetic Systematics." Cladistics 16: 298-318.
23. Pennisi, E. 1996. Evolutionary and systematic biologists converge. Science 273: 181.
24. _. 2001. Linnaeus's last stand? Science 291: 2304.
25. Wiley, E. O. 1979. An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Syst. Zool. 28: 308-337.
26. Withgott, J. 2000. Is it "So long, Linnaeus"? BioScience 50: 646-651.