Monophyly vs. paraphyly in plant systematics

Taxon

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 1039-1040

  Dias, Pedro ^a   Assis, Leandro C S ^a   Udulutsch, Renata G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLANT; TAXONOMY;

EID: 32344453172     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/25065489     Document Type: Short Survey

References (21)

1. Backlund, A. & Bremer, K. 1998. To be or not to be - principles of classification and monotypic plant families. Taxon 47: 391-400.
2. Brummitt, R. K. 1997. Taxonomy versus cladonomy, a fundamental controversy in biological systematics. Taxon 46: 723-734.
3. Brummitt, R. K. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51: 31-41.
4. Brummitt, R. K. 2003. Further dogged defense of paraphyletic taxa. Taxon 52: 803-804.
5. Cantino, P. D. & de Queiroz, K. 2004. PhyloCode: A Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature. http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode.
6. Carpenter, J. 2003. Critique of pure folly. Bot. Rev. 69: 79-92.
7. Dyke, G. J. & Sigwart, J. D. 2003. The search for a "smoking gun": no need for an alternative to the Linnaean system of classification. International Symposium on Animal Names, Venice, October 2003, pp. 35-48.
8. Farris, J. S. 1977. On the phenetic approach to vertebrate classification. Pp. 823-850 in: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C. & Hecht, B. M. (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. [NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, no. 14, Plenum Press, New York.]
9. Farris, J. S. 1979. The information content of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 28: 483-519.
10. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana.
11. Keller, R. A., Boyd, R. N. & Wheeler, Q. D. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Bot. Rev. 69: 93-110.
12. Mayr, E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Z. f. zool. Systematik u. Evolutionsforsch. 12: 94-128.
13. Nelson, G. 1973. Classification as an expression of phylogenetic relationships. Syst. Zool. 22: 344-359.
14. Nelson, G., Murphy, D. J. & Ladiges, P. Y. 2003. Brummitt on paraphyly: a response. Taxon 52: 295-298.
15. Nixon, K. C. & Carpenter, J. M. 2000. On the other "phylogenetic systematics". Cladistics 16: 298-318.
16. Nixon, K. C., Carpenter, J. M. & Stevenson, D. W. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the 'Linnaean' system can easily be fixed. Bot. Rev. 69: 111-120.
17. Nordal, I. & Stedje, B. 2005. Paraphyletic taxa should be accepted. Taxon 54: 5-6.
18. Platnick, N. I. 1978. Gaps and prediction in classification. Syst. Zool. 27: 472-474.
19. Stevenson, D. W. & Davis, J. I. 2003. Foreword. Bot. Rev. 69: 1.
20. Wheeler, Q. D. 2004. Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359: 571-583.
21. Withgott, J. 2000. Is it "So long, Linnaeus"? BioScience 50: 646-651.