The PhyloCode, types, ranks and monophyly: A response to Pickett

Cladistics

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 605-607

  Laurin, Michel ^a   De Queiroz, Kevin ^b   Cantino, Phil ^c   Cellinese, Nico ^d   Olmstead, Richard ^e  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^c OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLADISTICS; NOMENCLATURE; PHYLOGENETICS;

EID: 33644584554     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: 10960031     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00090.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (22)

1. Bertrand Y. Pleijel F., 2003. Nomenclature phylogénétique: One réponse Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 29, 24 27.
2. Bryant H.N. Cantino P.D., 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., 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature: addressing some concerns. Taxon, 49, 85 93.
4. Cantino P.D., 2004. Classifying species versus naming clades. Taxon, 53, 795 798.
5. Cantino P.D. de Queiroz K., 2004. Phylocode: a Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature, Version 2b. http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/.
6. Gauthier J., 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. In: Padian K. (Eds Saurischian Monophyly and the Origin of Birds. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, pp. 1 55.
7. HERBARIA Listserv. http://scarab.science.oregonstate.edu/mailman/ listinfo/herbaria.
8. Laurin M., 2005. Dites oui au PhyloCode. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst., 34, 25 31.
9. Laurin M. Cantino P.D., 2004. First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting: a report. Zool. Scripta, 33, 475 479.
10. Lee M.S.Y., 1996. The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: practical aspects. Zool. Scripta, 25, 187 190.
11. Lee M.S.Y., 1999. Stability of higher taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature - some comments on Moore (1998). Zool. Scripta, 28, 361 366.
12. Lee M.S.Y., 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon, 50, 175 180.
13. Pickett K.M., 2005. The new and improved Phylocode, now with types, ranks, and even polyphyly: a conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting. Cladistics, 21, 79 82.
14. Pleijel F. Härlin M., 2004. Phylogenetic nomenclature is compatible with diverse philosophical perspectives. Zool. Scripta, 33, 587 591.
15. Pleijel F. Rouse G.W., 2000. Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 267, 627 630.
16. de Queiroz K., 1997. Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature: a reply to Lidén and Oxelman. Zool. Scripta, 26, 67 70.
17. de Queiroz K. Cantino P.D., 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58, 254 271.
18. de Queiroz K. Gauthier J., 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39, 307 322.
19. de Queiroz K. Gauthier J., 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 449 480.
20. de Queiroz K. Gauthier J., 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 27 31.
21. TAXACOM Listserv. http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/archives/taxacom.html.
22. Wenzel J.W. Nixon K.C. Cuccodoro G., 2004. Dites non au PhyloCode! Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 31, 19 23.