The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: Why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 521-524

  Monsch, Kenneth A ^a  

^a Institute of Zoology   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NOMENCLATURE; PALEONTOLOGY; PHYLOGENETICS; TAXONOMY;

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS);

EID: 33748867707     PISSN: 05677920     EISSN: 17322421     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Benton, M.J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633-648.
2. Brochu, C.A. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence timing of Crocodylus based on morphology and the fossil record. Copeia 2000: 657-673.
3. Brochu, C.A. and Sumrall, C.D. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology. Journal of Paleontology 75: 754-757.
4. Bryant, H.N. and Cantino, P.D. 2002. A review of criticisms of phylogenetic literature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biological Reviews 77: 39-55.
5. Cantino, P.D. and de Queiroz, K. 2003. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature .
6. de Queiroz, K. 2006. The PhyloCode and the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Systematic Biology 55: 160-162.
7. de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39: 307-322.
8. de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1992 Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 23: 449-480.
9. de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1994. Towards a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 27-31.
10. Dyke, G.J. 2002. Should paleontologists use "phylogenetic" nomenclature? Journal of Paleontology 76: 793-796.
11. Ereshefsky, M. 1997. The evolution of the Linnaean hierarchy. Philosophy and Biology 12: 493-519.
12. Fierstine, H.L. and Monsch, K.A. 2002. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of the family Blochiidae (Perciformes: Scombroidei), Middle Eocene, Monte Bolca, Italy. Miscellanea Paleontologica n. 6, Studi e Ricerche sui Giacimenti Terziari di Bolca, Museo Civico di Storia Natrale di Verona 9: 121-163.
13. Forey, P.L. 2002. PhyloCode-pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43-54.
14. Forey, P.L., Fortey, A., Kenrick, P., and Smith, A.B. 2004. Taxonomy and fossils: a critical appraisal. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 359: 639-653.
15. Greuter, W., McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Filgeiras, T.S., Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C., Skog, J.E., Trehane, P., Turland, N.J., and Hawksworth, D.L. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress St. Louis, Missouri, July-August 1999. xviii + 474 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein.
16. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. 263 pp. University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL.
17. Hibbett, D.S., and Donoghue, M.J. 1998. Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90: 347-356.
18. ICZN 1999. International Code of Zoologcial Nomenclature, 4th Edition. xxxix + 306 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London.
19. LaPage, S.P., Sneath, P.H.A., Lessel, E.F., Skerman, V.B.D., Seelinger H.P.R., and Clark, W.A. 1992. International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code 1990 Revision). xlii + 189 pp. American Society for Microbiology, Washington DC.
20. Lee, M.S.Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175-180.
21. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum, exhibens plantas ritecognitas, ad genera relatas, cum differentiis specifices, nominibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas. 2 Vols. 1200 pp. Laurenti Salvii, Stockholm
22. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, diferentiis, synonymis, loci. Tomus 1: Regnum animale, 10th Edition. 824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm.
23. Monsch. K.A. 2003. The use of apomorphies in taxonomic defining. Taxon 52: 105-107.
24. Padian, K., Hutchinson J.R., and Holtz, T.R. 1999. Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria (Theropoda). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 69-80.
25. Patterson, C. and Rosen, D.E. 1977. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 158: 81-172.
26. Schander, C. and Thollesson, M. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy-some comments. Zoologica Scripta 24: 263-268.
27. Sereno, P.C. 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher-level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie and Paläontologie Abhandlungen 210: 41-83.
28. Sereno, P.C. 2005. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 595-619.
29. Smith, A.B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record: documenting evolutionary patterns. viii+223 pp. Blackwell Science, London.
30. Sytchevskaya, E.K. and Prokofiev, A.M. 2002. First findings of Xiphioidea (Perciformes) in the Late Paleocene of Turkmenistan. Journal of Ichthyology 42: 227-237.
31. Szalay, F. 2000. Function and adaptation in paleontology and phylogenetics: Why do we omit Darwin? Acta Palaeontologica Electronica 3 (2): 25 pp .
32. Wilkinson, M. 1995. Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Systematic Biology 43: 343-368.