Should taxon names be explicitly defined?

Botanical Review

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 2-21

  Moore, Gerry ^a  

^a Brooklyn Botanical Garden   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINNAEA;

EID: 0038609018     PISSN: 00068101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0002:STNBED]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (135)

1. Arthur, J. C., J. H. Barnhart, N. L. Britton, S. Brown, F. E. Clements, O. F. Cook, J. M. Coulter, F. V. Coville, F. S. Earle, A. W. Evans, T. E. Hazen, A. Hollick, M. A. Howe, F. H. Knowlton, G. T. Moore, E. L. Morris, W. A. Murrill, H. H. Rusby, C. L. Shear, W. Trelease, L. M. Underwood, D. White & W. F. Wight. 1904. Code of botanical nomenclature. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 31: 249-261.
2. _, _, _, F. E. Clements, O. F. Cook, F. V. Coville, F. S. Earle, A. W. Evans, T. E. Hazen, A. Hollick, M. A. Howe, F. H. Knowlton, G. T. Moore, H. H. Rusby, C. L. Shear, L. M. Underwood, D. White & W. F. Wight. 1907. American code of botanical nomenclature. Bull. Torrey. Bot. Club 34: 167-178.
3. Barkman, T. J., G. Chenery, J. R. McNeal, J. Lyons-Weiler, W. J. Elisens, G. Moore, A. D. Wolfe & C. W. dePamphills. 2000. Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 97: 13166-13171.
4. Beck, C. B. (ed.). 1988. Origin and evolution of gymnosperms. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
5. Bentham, G. & J. D. Hooker. 1862-1883. Genera plantarum. 3 vols. London.
6. Benton, M. J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: Is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 75: 633-645.
7. Bowe, L. M., G. Coat & C. W. dePamphilis. 2000. Phylogeny of seed plants based on all three genomic compartments: Extant gymnosperms are monophyletic and Gnetales' closest relatives are conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 97: 4092-4097.
8. Bowker, G. C. & S. L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge.
9. Britton, N. L. 1893. Proceedings of the Botanical Club, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Madison Meeting, August 18-22, 1893. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 20: 360-365.
10. Bruhl, J. J. 1995. Sedge genera of the world: Relationships and a new classification of the Cyperaceae. Austral. Syst. Bot. 8: 125-305.
11. Bryant, H. N. 1994. Comments on the phylogenetic definition of taxon names and conventions regarding the names of crown clades. Syst. Biol. 43: 124-130.
12. _. 1996. Explicitness, stability, and the 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.
13. _. 1997. Cladistic information in phylogenetic definitions and designated phylogenetic contexts for the use of taxon names. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62: 495-503.
14. _ & 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.
15. Buckley, T. 2001. Different tests, different conclusions: Evolutionary trees. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 125.
16. Candolle, A. de. 1867. Lois de la nomenclature botanique adoptées par le Congrès International de Botanique tenu à Paris en août 1867. . . . Paris.
17. Cantino, P. D. & K. de Queiroz. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. 〈http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/〉.
18. _, R. G. Olmstead, S. J. Wagstaff & J. Meng. 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: A botanical case study. Syst. Biol. 46: 313-331.
19. _, 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.
20. Carroll, L. 1872. Through the looking glass, and what Alice found there. MacMillan & Co., London.
21. Chase, M. W., D. E. Soltis, R. G. Olmstead, D. Morgan, D. H. Les, B. D. Mishler, M. R. Duvall, R. A. Price, H. G. Hills, Y.-L. Qiu, K. A. Kron, J. H. Rettig, E. Conti, J. D. Palmer, J. R. Manhart, K. J. Sytsma, H. J. Michaels, W. J. Kress, K. G. Karol, W. D. Clark, M. Hedén, B. S. Gaut, R. K. Jansen, K.-J. Kim, C. F. Wimpee, J. F. Smith, G. R. Furnier, S. H. Strauss, Q.-Y. Xiang, G. M. Plunkett, P. S. Soltis, S. M. Swensen, S. E. Williams, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn, L. E. Eguiarte, E. Golenberg, G. H. Learn Jr., S. W. Graham, S. C. H. Barrett, S. Dayanandan & V. A. Albert. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: An analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 528-580.
22. _, M. F. Fay & V. Savolainen. 2000. Higher-level classification in the angiosperms: New insightsfrom the perspective of DNA sequence data. Taxon 49: 685-704.
23. Chaw, S.-M., C. L. Parkinson, Y. Cheng, T. M. Vincent & J. D. Palmer. 2000. Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three plant genomes: Monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of Gnetales from conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 97: 4086-4091.
24. Choate, H. A. 1912. The origin and development of the binomial system of nomenclature. Pl. World 15: 257-263.
25. Chui, G. 1999. On the twigs of a dilemma scientists scrap over whether to dump a centuries-old way of arranging the tree of life San Jose Mercury News, September 29, §F, 1.
26. Cook, O. F. 1898. The method of types in botanical nomenclature. Science 8: 513-516.
27. _. 1900. The method of types. Science 12: 475-481.
28. Crane, P. R. 1985. Phylogenetic analysis of seed plants and the origins of the angiosperms. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 72: 716-793.
29. _. 1988. Major clades and relationships in the higher gymnosperms. Pp. 218-272 in C. B. Beck (ed.), Origin and evolution of gymnosperms. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
30. _, E. M. Friis & K. R. Pedersen. 1995. The origin and the early diversification of angiosperms. Nature 374: 27-33.
31. Crepet, W. L. 1998. The abominable mystery. Science 282: 1653-1654.
32. _. 2000. Progress in understanding history, success, and relationships: Darwin's abominably "perplexing phenomenon." Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 97: 12939-12941.
33. Davis, J. I. 1995. A phylogenetic structure of the monocotyledons, as inferred from chloroplast DNA restriction site variation, and a comparison of measures of clade support. Syst. Bot. 20: 503-527.
34. DeFilipps, R. 2001. Taxonomy and science friction. Pl. Press (Washington) 4(2): 1, 10, 11.
35. De Queiroz, K. 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic definitions as exemplified by the definition of "Mammalia." Syst. Biol. 43: 497-510.
36. _. 2000. The definitions of taxon names: A reply to Stuessy. Taxon 49: 533-536.
37. _ & P. D. Cantino. 2001. Taxon names, not taxa are defined. Taxon 50: 821-826.
38. _ & J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307-322.
39. _ & _. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449-480.
40. _ & _. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 27-31.
41. Dominguez, E. & Q. D. Wheeler. 1997. Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics 13: 367-372.
42. Donoghue, M. J. 1994. Progress and prospects in reconstructing plant phylogeny. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 81: 419-450.
43. _ & J. A. Doyle. 1989. Phylogenetics analysis of angiosperms and the relationships of the Hamamelidae. Pp. 17-45 in P. R. Crane & S. Blackmore (eds.), Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae. Syst. Assoc., Clarendon Press, Oxford.
44. Doyle, J. A., M. J. Donoghue & E. A. Zimmer. 1994. Integration of morphological and ribosomal RNA data on the origin of angiosperms. Ann. Missouri. Bot. Gard. 81: 419-450.
45. Duvall, M. R., M. T. Clegg, M. W. Chase, W. D. Clark, W. J. Kress, H. G. Hiils, L. E. Eguiarte, J. F. Smith, B. S. Gaut, E. A. Zimmer & G. H. Learn. 1993a. Phylogenetic hypotheses for the monocotyledons constructed from rbcL data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 607-619.
46. _, G. H. Learn, L. E. Eguiarte & M. T. Clegg. 1993b. Phylogenetic analysis of rbcL sequence identifies Acorus calamus as the primal extant monocotyledon. Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 90: 4641-4644.
47. Engler, A. 1887-1889. Araceae. Pp. 102-153 in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.) Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, 2 (3). Leipzig.
48. Ereshefsky, M. 1999. Species and the Linnaean hierarchy. Pp. 285-305 in R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge.
49. _. 2001. The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York.
50. Fairchild, D. G. 1892. Proceedings of the Botanical Club of the Forty-first Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Rochester, New York, August 18-24, 1892. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 19: 281-297.
51. Farber, P. L. 1976. The type concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth century. J. Hist. Biol. 9:93-119.
52. Fellman, B. 2000. What's in a name? Yale Alumni Mag. 〈http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/00_04/phylo.html〉.
53. Friis, E. M., W. G. Falconer & P. R. Crane. 1987. The origins of angiosperms and their biological consequences. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York.
54. Ghiselin, M. T. 1997. Metaphysics and the origin of species. State Univ. of New York Press, Albany.
55. Goldman, N., J. P. Anderson & A. G. Rodrigo. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49: 652-670.
56. Goremykin, V., V. Bobrova, J. Pahnke, A. Toitsky, A. Antonov & W. Martin. 1996. Noncoding sequences from the slowly evolving chloroplast inverted repeat in addition to rbcL data do not support gnetalean affinities of angiosperms. Molec. Biol. & Evol. 13: 383-396.
57. 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.
58. Hamby, R. K. & E. A. Zimmer. 1992. Ribosomal RNA as a phylogenetic tool in plant systematics. Pp. 50-91 in D. E. Soltis & J. J. Doyle (eds.), Molecular systematics of plants. Chapman and Hall, New York.
59. Hansen, A., S. Hansmann, T. Samigullin, A. Antonov & W. Martin. 1999. Gnetum and angiosperms: Molecular evidence that their shared morphological characters are convergent, rather than homologous. Molec. Biol. & Evol. 16: 1006-1009.
60. Härlin, M. 1998. Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees. Zool. Scripta 27: 381-390.
61. _. 1999. Phylogenetic approaches to nomenclature: A comparison based on a nemertean case study. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 266: 2201-2207.
62. _ & P. Sundberg. 1998. Taxonomy and the philosophy of names. Biol. & Philos. 13: 233-244.
63. Hart, J. A. 1987. A cladistic analysis of conifers: Preliminary results. J. Arnold. Arbor. 69: 269-307.
64. Heller, J. L. 1964. The early history of binomial nomenclature. Huntia 1: 33-70.
65. Hibbett, D. S. & M. J. Donoghue. 1998. Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classifications in fungi. Mycologia 90: 347-356.
66. Hill, A. W. 1938. Introduction. Pp. v-xvii in A. Hort (transl.), The "Critica Botanica" of Linnaeus. Adlard & Son, London.
67. Hitchcock, A. S. 1905. Nomenclatorial type specimens of plant species. Science 21: 828-832.
68. _. 1925. Methods of descriptive systematic botany. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
69. Hughes, N. F. 1994. The enigma of angiosperm origins. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York.
70. Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105-112.
71. Lapage, S. P., P. H. A. Sheath, E. F. Lessel, V. B. D. Skerman, H. P. R. Seeliger & W. A. Clark. 1992. International code of nomenclature of bacteria and statutes of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology and statutes of the Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology Section of the International Union of Microbiological Societies. Bacteriological code 1990 revision. Washington, DC.
72. Lawrence, G. H. M. 1951. Taxonomy of vascular plants. Macmillan, New York.
73. Lee, M. S. Y. 1996. The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: Practical aspects. Zool. Scripta 25: 187-190.
74. _. 1998. Ancestors and taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 26.
75. _. 1999. Stability of higher taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature: Some comments on Moore (1998). Zool. Scripta 28: 361-366.
76. Lidén, M. & B. Oxelman. 1996. Do we need phylogenetic taxonomy? Zool. Scripta 25:183-185.
77. _, _, A. Backlund, L. Andersson, B. Bremer, R. Eriksson, R. Moberg, I. Nordal, K. Persson, M. Thulin & B. Zimmer. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46: 735-738.
78. Linnaeus, C. 1736. Fundamenta botanica. Amsterdam.
79. _. 1737. Critica botanica. Amsterdam.
80. _. 1749. Pan suecicus. Uppsala.
81. _. 1751. Philosophia botanica. Stockholm.
82. _. 1753. Species plantarum. Ed. 1. 2 vols. Stockholm.
83. _. 1754. Genera plantarum. Ed. 5. Stockholm.
84. _. 1758-1759. Systema naturae. Ed. 10. 5 vols. Stockholm.
85. _. 1762-1763. Species plantarum. Ed. 2.2 vols. Stockholm.
86. _. 1764. Genera plantarum. 6th ed. Stockholm.
87. Loconte, T. & D. W. Stevenson. 1991. Cladistics of the Magnoliidae. Cladistics 7: 267-296.
88. Mathews, S. & M. J. Donoghue. 1999. The root of angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. Science 286: 947-950.
89. McNeill, J. 2000. Naming the groups: Developing a stable and efficient nomenclature. Taxon 49: 705-720.
90. Milius, S. 1999. Should we junk Linnaeus? Sci. News 156: 268-270.
91. Mishler, B. D. 1999. Getting rid of species? Pp. 307-315 in R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge.
92. Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47: 561-579.
93. _. 2001. A review of the nomenelatural difficulties associated with misplaced rank-denoting terms. Taxon 50: 495-505.
94. Muasya, A. M., D. A. Simpson, M. W. Chase & A. Culham. 1998. An assessment of the suprageneric phylogeny in Cyperaceae using rbcL DNA sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 211: 257-271.
95. _, J. J. Bruhl, D. A. Simpson, A. Culham & M. W. Chase. 2000. Suprageneric phylogeny of Cyperaceae: A combined analysis. Pp. 593-601 in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and evolution. CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia.
96. Nicolson, D. 1977. Typification of names vs. typification of taxa: Proposal on Article 48 and reconsideration of Mitracarpus hirtus M. villosus (Rubiaceae). Taxon 26: 569-574.
97. _. 1991. A history of botanical nomenclature. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 78: 33-56.
98. Nixon, K., W. L. Crepet, D. Stevenson & E. M. Friss. 1994. A reevaluation of seed plant phylogeny. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 81: 484-553.
99. _ & J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other "Phylogenetic Systematics." Cladistics 16: 298-318.
100. Parkinson, C. L., K. L. Adams & J. D. Palmer. 1999. Multigene analyses identify the three earliest lineages of extant flowering plants. Curr. Biol. 9: 1481-1485.
101. Pennisi, E. 1996. Evolutionary and systematic biologists converge. Science 273: 181-182.
102. _. 2001. Linnaeus's last stand? Science 291: 2304-2305, 2307.
103. Pleijel, F. 1999. Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Syst. Biol. 48: 775-789.
104. Plunkett, G. M., D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis & R. E. Brooks. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships between Juncaceae and Cyperaceae based on rbcL sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 82: 520-525.
105. Price, R. 1996. Systematics of Gnetales: A review of morphological and molecular evidence. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 157: S40-S49.
106. Qiu, Y.-L., J. Lee, F. Bernasconi-Quadroni, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, M. Zanis, E. A. Zimmer, Z. Chen, V. Savolainen & M. W. Chase. 1999. The earliest angiosperms: Evidence from mitochondrial, plastid, and nuclear genes. Nature 402: 404-407.
107. Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1996. Conceptual issues in phylogeny, taxonomy, and nomenclature. Contr. Zool. (Amsterdam) 66: 3-42.
108. Ride, W. D. L. 1988. Towards a unified system of biological nomenclature. Pp. 332-353 in D. L. Hawksworth (ed.), Prospects in systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
109. _. 1991. Justice for the living: A review of bacteriological and zoological initiatives in nomenclature. Pp. 105-122 in D. L. Hawksworth (ed.), Stability of names: Needs and options. Regnum Vegetabile, 123. Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein, Germany.
110. _, H. G. Cogger, C. Dupuis, O. Kraus, A. Minelli, F. C. Thompson & P. Tubbs. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London.
111. Robinson, R. 1954. Definition. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
112. Schander, C. & M. Thollesson. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy - some comments. Zool. Scripta 24: 263-268.
113. Schwenk, K. 1994. Comparative biology and the importance of cladistic classification: A case study from the sensory biology of the squamate reptiles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 52: 69-82.
114. Soltis, D. E., P. S. Soltis, D. L. Nickrent, L. A. Johnson, W. J. Hahn, S. B. Hoot, J. A. Sweere, R. K. Kuzoff, K. A. Kron, M. W. Chase, S. M. Swensen, E. A. Zimmer, S.-M. Chaw, L. J. Gillespie, W. J. Kress & K. J. Sytsma. 1997. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard, 84: 1-49.
115. 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.
116. Stafleu, F. 1971. Linnaeus and the Linnaeans: The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1735-1789. Regnum Vegetabile, 79. Oosthoek, Utrecht.
117. Stearn, W. T. 1957. An introduction to the Species Plantarum and cognate botanical works of Carl Linnaeus. Pp. 1-176 in C. Linnaeus, Species Plantarum: A facsim. of the 1st ed., 1753. Adlard & Son, London.
118. _. 1995. Botanical Latin: History, grammar, syntax, terminology and vocabulary. Ed. 4. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
119. Stevens, P. F. 1984. Metaphors and typology in the development of botanical systematics, 1690-1960, or the art of putting new wine in old bottles. Taxon 33: 169-211.
120. _. 1994. The development of biological systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
121. _. 1997. How to interpret botanical classifications: Suggestions from history. BioScience 47: 243-250.
122. _. 1998. What kind of classification should the practising taxonomist use to be saved? Pp. 295-319 in J. Dransfield, M. J. E. Coode & D. A. Simpson (eds.), Plant diversity in Malesia III. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
123. _. 2000. Botanical systematics, 1950-2000: Change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635-659.
124. Strickland, H. E., J. Phillips, J. Richardson, R. Owen, L. Jenyns, W. J. Broderip, J. S. Henslow, W. E. Shuckard, G. R. Waterhouse, W. Yarrell, C. Darwin & J. O. Westwood. 1843. Series of propositions rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent. Pp. 105-121 in Report of the twelfth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Manchester in June 1842.
125. Stuessy, T. F. 2000. Taxon names are not defined. Taxon 49: 231-233.
126. _. 2001. Taxon names are still not defined. Taxon 50: 185-186.
127. Sundberg, P. & F. Pleijel. 1994. Phylogenetic classification and the definition of taxon names. Zool. Scripta 23: 19-25.
128. Swingle, W. T. 1893. Proceedings of the Botanical Club, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Madison Meeting. Bot. Gaz. 18: 342-349.
129. Váczy, C. 1971. Les Origines et les principes du développement de la nomenclature binaire en botanique. Taxon 20: 573-590.
130. Wheeler, Q. D. 2001. Clever Caroli: Lessons from Linnaeus (invited comments). Pl. Press (Washington) 4(2):14-15.
131. Winter, K.-U., A. Becker, T. Munster, J. T. Kim, H. Saedler & G. Theissen. 1999. MADS-box genes reveal that gnetophytes are more closely related to conifers than to flowering plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 96: 7342-7347.
132. Withgott, J. 2000. Is it "So long, Linnaeus"? BioScience 50: 646-651.
133. Wyss, A. R. & J. Meng. 1997. Application of phylogenetic taxonomy to poorly resolved crown clades: A stem-modified node-based definition of Rodentia. Syst. Biol. 45: 559-568.
134. Yagisawa, T. 1995. Definition. Pp. 185-186 in R. Audi (ed.), The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
135. Zimmer, E. A., R. K. Hamby, M. L. Arnold, D. A. LeBlanc & E. C. Theriot. 1989. Ribosomal RNA phylogenies and flowering plant evolution. Pp. 205-214 in B. Fernholm, K. Bremer & H. Jörnvall (eds.), The hierarchy of life. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.