Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names prevent effective communication

Botanical Review

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 44-58

  Kojima, Jun Ichi ^a  

^a IBARAKI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINNAEA;

EID: 0038300736     PISSN: 00068101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0044:ADAPAN]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

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. & K. de Queiroz. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. 〈http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/〉.
3. Carpenter, J. M. 2003. Critique of pure folly. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 69: 79-92.
4. 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〉.
5. _. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15: 125-144.
6. _. 2000. The definitions of taxon names: A reply to Stuessy. Taxon 49: 533-536.
7. _ & J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307-322.
8. Lee, M. S. Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175-180.
9. Nixon, K. C. & J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other "Phylogenetic Systematics." Cladistics 16: 298-318.
10. Schuh, R. T. 2003. The Linnaean system and its 250 year persistence. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 69: 59-78.
11. Stuessy, T. F. 2000. Taxon names are not defined. Taxon 49: 231-233.
12. _. 2001. Taxon names are still not defined. Taxon 50: 185-186.