Paraphyletic group, PhyloCode and phylogenetic species - The current debate and a preliminary commentary

Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 403-419

  Tang, Yan Cheng ^a   Lu, An Ming ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF BOTANY   (China)

Author keywords

Paraphyletic group; PhyloCode; Phylogenetic species concept

Indexed keywords

ABELIA; CAPRIFOLIACEAE; LINNAEA;

EID: 26444439080     PISSN: 05291526     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1360/aps050014     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Ashock P D. 1974. The use of cladistics. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 5: 81-99.
2. Barkley T M, DePriest P, Funk V, Kiger R W, Dress W J, Moore G. 2004. Linnaean nomenclature in the 21st century: a report from a workshop on integrating traditional nomenclature and phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53: 153-158.
3. Barkley T M, De Priest P, Funk V, Kiger R W, Kress W J, McNeill J, Moore G, Nicolson D H, Stevenson D W, Wheeler Q D. 2004. A review of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature with respect to its compatibility with phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53: 159-161.
4. Baum D A, Shaw K L. 1995. Genealogical respectives on the species problem. In: Hoch P C, Stephenson A G eds. Experimental and Molecular Approaches to Plant Biosystematics. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden. 289-303.
5. Berry P E. 2002. Biological inventories and the PhyloCode. Taxon 51: 27-29.
6. Bremer K. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the new ordinal system of the angiosperms. In: Nordenstam B, El-Ghazaly G, Kassas M eds. Plant Systematics for the 21st Century. London: Portland Press Ltd. 125-133.
7. Brummitt R K. 1996. In defence of paraphyletic taxa. In: van der Masen L J G, van der Burgt X M, de Medenbach van der Rooy J M eds. The Biodiversity of African Plants, Proceedings XLVth AETFAT Congress, 22-27 August 1994, Wageningen. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 371-381.
8. Brummitt R K. 1997. Taxonomy versus cladonomy, a fundamental controversy in biological systematics. Taxon 46: 723-734.
9. Brummitt R K. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51: 31-41.
10. Cantino P D. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature: addressing some concerns. Taxon 49: 85-93.
11. Cantino P D, Bryant H N, de Queiroz K, Donoghue M J, Eriksson T, Hill D M, Lee M S Y. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Systematic Biology 48: 790-807.
12. Cantino P D, Olmstead R G, Wagstaff S J. 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study. Systematic Biology 46: 313-331.
13. Claridge M F, Dawah H A, Wilson M R. 1997. Practical approaches to species concepts for living organisms. In: Claridge M F, Dawah H A, Wilson M R eds. Species: The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall. 1-15.
14. Cronquist A. 1987. A botanical critique of cladism. The Botanical Review 53 (1): 1-52.
15. Davis J I, Goldman D H. 1993. Isozyme variation and species delimitation among diploid populations of Puccinellia nuttalliana complex (Poaceae): Character fixation and the discovery of phylogenetic species. Taxon 42: 585-599.
16. Davis J I, Nixon K C. 1992. Populations, genetic variation, and the delimitation of phylogenetic species. Systematic Biology 41: 421-435.
17. Davis P H, Heywood V H. 1963. Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
18. Dayrat B, Schander C, Angielczyk K D. 2004. Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon 53: 485-491.
19. de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systmatic Zoology 39: 307-322.
20. de Queiroz K, Cantino P D. 2001. Taxon names, not taxa, are defined. Taxon 50: 821-826.
21. de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 23: 449-480.
22. de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9(1): 27-31.
23. Donoghue M J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendation for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172-181.
24. Donoghue M J, Cantino P D. 1988. Paraphyly, ancestors, and the goals of taxonomy: A botanical defense of cladism. The Botanical Review 54: 107-128.
25. Forey P L. 1983. Introduction to cladistics. In: Zhou M-Z, Zhang M-M, Yu X-B, and others, translated and compiled. Translated Essays on Cladistics. Beijing: Science Press. 152-196.
26. Forey P L. 2002. PhyloCode - pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43-54.
27. Gao K-Q, Sun Y-L. 2003. Is the PhyloCode better than Linnaean system? - New development and debate on biological nomenclatural issues. Chinese Science Bulletin 48: 308-312.
28. Gornall R J. 1997. Practical aspects of the species concept in plants. In: Claridge M F, Dawah H A, Wilson M R eds. Species: The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall. 171-190.
29. Griffiths G C D. 1976. The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Systematic Zoology 25: 168-173.
30. Hennig W. 1965. Phylogenetic systematics. Annual Review of Entomology 10: 97-116.
31. Hennig W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
32. Jφrgensen P M. 2004. Rankless names in the Code? Taxon 53: 162.
33. Judd W S, Campbell C S, Kellogg E A, Stevens P F, Donoghue M J. 2002. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
34. Judd W S, Sanders R W, Donoghue M J. 1994. Angiosperm family pairs: preliminary phylogenetic analyses. Harvard Papers in Botany 5: 1-51.
35. Keller R A, Boyd R N, Wheeler Q D. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. The Botanical Review 69: 93-110.
36. Kojima J-i. 2003. Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names prevent effective communication. The Botanical Review 69: 44-58.
37. Langer M C. 2001. Linnaeus and the PhyloCode: Where are the differences? Taxon 50: 1091-2001.
38. Lee M S Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175-180.
39. Lee M S Y. 2002. Species and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 51: 507-510.
40. Lu A M. 1985. Methodology of angiosperm systematics. Chinese Bulletin of Botany 3 (3): 21-28.
41. Lu A M. 1990. A preliminary cladistic study of the superorder Lamiflorae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 103: 39-57.
42. Mayden R L. 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In: Claridge M F, Dawah H A, Wilson M R eds. Species: The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall. 381-424.
43. Mayr E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionforschung 12: 94-128.
44. Monsch K A. 2003. The use of apomorphies in taxonomic defining. Taxon 52: 105-107.
45. Moore G. 2003. Should taxon names be explicitly defined? The Botanical Review 69: 2-21.
46. Moore G. 2004. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting. Taxon 53: 1109-1110.
47. Nixon K C, Carpenter J M. 2000. On the other "phylogenetic systematics". Cladistics 16: 298-318.
48. Nixon K C, Carpenter J M, Stevenson D W. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" system can easily be fixed. The Botanical Review 69: 111-120.
49. Nixon K C, Wheeler Q D. 1990. An amplication of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics 6: 211-223.
50. Qiu Z-X. 1983. Comments on Hennig "Phylogenetic Systematics". In: Zhou M-Z, Zhang M-M, Yu X-B, and others, translated and compiled. Translated Essays on Cladistics. Beijing: Science Press. 197-201.
51. Simpson G G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.
52. Snow N. 1997. Application of the phylogenetic species concept: A botanical monographic perspective. Austrobaileya 5 (1): 1-8.
53. Sosef M S M. 1997. Hierarchical models, reticulate evolution and the inevitability of supraspecific taxa. Taxon 46: 75-83.
54. Stebbins G L. 1993. Concept of species and genera. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee ed. Flora of North America, North of Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press. 229-246.
55. Stevens P F. 2000. Botanical systematics 1950-2000: change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635-659.
56. Stevens P F. 2002. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 51: 11-26.
57. Stuessy T F. 1990. Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. New York: Columbia University Press.
58. Stuessy T F. 2000. Taxon names are not defined. Taxon 49: 231-233.
59. Stuessy T F. 2001. Taxon names are still not defined. Taxon 50: 185-186.
60. Tang Y-C, Li L-Q. 1994. The phytogeography of Caprifoliaceae s str. with its implications for understanding Eastern Asiatic flora. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 32: 197-218.
61. Tang Y-C, Lu A-M. 2003. Phylogeny and the "polyphyletic-polychronic- polytopic" system of classification of angiosperms - A response to Fu De-Zhi. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 41: 199-208.
62. van Welzen P C. 1997. Paraphyletic groups or what should a classification entail. Taxon 46: 99-103.
63. Zhou S-L, Funamoto T, Wen J. 2004. Species relationships in Abelia sect. Abelia (Caprifoliaceae) in East Asia and verification of A. serrata in China: evidence from AFLP analysis. Acta Botanica Yunnanica 26: 405-412.