Naming species in phylogenetic nomenclature

Systematic Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1011-1021

  Wolsan, MieczysŁaw ^a  

^a MUSEUM AND INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION;

CLASSIFICATION; GENETIC SPECIATION; PHYLOGENY; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 39549086860     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150701656352     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. Amadon, D. 1966. Another suggestion for stabilizing nomenclature. Syst. Zool. 15:54-58.
2. Artois, T. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature: The end of binominal nomenclature? Belg. J. Zool. 131:87-89.
3. Bailey, L. H. 1929. Statements on the systematic study of variables. Pages 1427-1433 in Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Sciences, Ithaca, New York, August 16-23, 1926, Volume II (B. M. Duggar, ed.). George Banta Publishing Co., Menasha, Wisconsin.
4. Benton, M. J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: Is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. 75:633-648.
5. Berio, E. 1953. The rule of priority in zoological nomenclature. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 8:30-40.
6. Bertrand, Y., F. Pleijel, and G.W. Rouse. 2006. Taxonomic surrogacy in biodiversity assessments, and the meaning of Linnaean ranks. Syst. Biodivers. 4:149-159. (Pubitemid 43833011)
7. Bibi, F., A. B. Shabel, B. P. Kraatz, and T. A. Stidham. 2006. New fossil ratite (Aves: Palaeognathae) eggshell discoveries from the Late Miocene Baynunah Formation of the United Arab Emirates, Arabian Peninsula. Palaeontol. Electron. 9(1, 2A):1-13.
8. Brochu, C. A., and C. D. Sumrall. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology. J. Paleontol. 75:754-757. (Pubitemid 32931095)
9. Bromley, R. G. 1996.Trace fossils: Biology, taphonomy and applications, 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall, London.
10. Bryant, H. N., and P. D. Cantino. 2002. A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: Is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biol. Rev. 77:39-55. (Pubitemid 34184286)
11. Buck, R. C., and D. L. Hull. 1966. The logical structure of the Linnaean hierarchy. Syst. Zool. 15:97-111.
12. Burma, B. H. 1954. Reality, existence, and classification: A discussion of the species problem. Madroño 12:193-209.
13. Cain, A. J. 1959a. The post-Linnaean development of taxonomy. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. 170 (1957-1958):234-244.
14. Cain, A. J. 1959b. Taxonomic concepts. Ibis 101:302-318.
15. Cantino, P. D. 1998. Binomials, hyphenated uninomials, and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47:425-429.
16. Cantino, P. D. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature: Addressing some concerns. Taxon 49:85-93. (Pubitemid 30130293)
17. Cantino, P. D., H. N. Bryant, K. de Queiroz, M. J. Donoghue, T. Eriksson, D. M. Hillis, and M. S. Y. Lee. 1999b. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 48:790-807. (Pubitemid 129490563)
18. Cantino, P. D., and K. de Queiroz. 2006. International code of phylogenetic nomenclature, Version 3a, Part 1: Clade names. (Revision June 16, 2006.) http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/
19. Cantino, P. D., R. G. Olmstead, and S. J. Wagstaff. 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: A botanical case study. Syst. Biol. 46:313-331.
20. Cantino, P. D., S. J. Wagstaff, and R. G. Olmstead. 1999a. Caryopteris (Lamiaceae) and the conflict between phylogenetic and pragmatic considerations in botanical nomenclature. Syst. Bot. 23:369- 386. (Pubitemid 29285164)
21. Dayrat, B. 2004. Selecting a form of species names in the PhyloCode. Page 3 in Abstracts, First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Paris,MuséumNational d'Histoire Naturelle, July 6-9, 2004 (M. Laurin, ed.). Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
22. Dayrat, B. 2005. Advantages of naming species under the PhyloCode: An example of how a new species of Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina) may be named. Mar. Biol. Res. 1:216-232. (Pubitemid 41674136)
23. Dayrat, B., and T. M. Gosliner. 2005. Species names and metaphyly: A case study in Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina). Zool. Scr. 34:199-224. (Pubitemid 40335835)
24. Dayrat, B., C. Schander, and K. D. Angielczyk. 2004. Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon 53:485-491. (Pubitemid 38831192)
25. de Queiroz, K. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15:125-144.
26. de Queiroz, K. 1998. The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation: A conceptual unification and terminological recommendations. Pages 57-75 in Endless forms: Species and speciation (D. J. Howard and S. H. Berlocher, eds.). Oxford University Press, New York.
27. de Queiroz, K. 1999. The general lineage concept of species and the defining properties of the species category. Pages 49-89 in Species: New interdisciplinary essays (R. A. Wilson, ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
28. de Queiroz, K. 2005a. Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:6600-6607. (Pubitemid 40628310)
29. de Queiroz, K. 2005b.Aunified concept of species and its consequences for the future of taxonomy. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 56 (Suppl. 1):196- 215.
30. de Queiroz, K. 2005c. Different species problems and their resolution. BioEssays 27:1263-1269. (Pubitemid 43076169)
31. de Queiroz, K. 2005d. Linnaean, rank-based, and phylogenetic nomenclature: Restoring primacy to the link between names and taxa. Acta Univ. Ups. Symb. Bot. Ups. 33(3):127-140.
32. de Queiroz, K. 2006. The PhyloCode and the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 55:160-162.
33. de Queiroz, K., and P. D. Cantino. 2001a. Taxon names, not taxa, are defined. Taxon 50:821-826. (Pubitemid 32882070)
34. de Queiroz, K., and P. D. Cantino. 2001b. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58:254-271.
35. de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39:307-322.
36. de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480.
37. de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:27-31 (Pubitemid 124001386)
38. Dyke, G. J. 2002. Should paleontologists use "phylogenetic" nomenclature. J. Paleontol. 76:793-796.
39. Ereshefsky, M. 1994. Some problems with the Linnaean hierarchy. Philos. Sci. 61:186-205.
40. Ereshefsky, M. 1999. Species and the Linnaean hierarchy. Pages 285- 305 in Species: New interdisciplinary essays (R. A.Wilson, ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
41. Ereshefsky, M. 2001a. The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
42. Ereshefsky, M. 2001b. Names, numbers and indentations: A guide to post-Linnaean taxonomy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 32:361-383. (Pubitemid 33624064)
43. Ereshefsky, M. 2002. Linnaean ranks: Vestiges of a bygone era. Philos. Sci. 69:S305-S315.
44. Fisher, K. M. 2006. Rank-free monography: A practical example from the moss clade Leucophanella (Calymperaceae). Syst. Bot. 31:13- 30.
45. Fisher, K. M., and B. D. Mishler. 2004. Monography and the PhyloCode: A practical example from the moss clade Leucophanella. Page 12 in Abstracts, First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Paris, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, July 6-9, 2004 (M. Laurin, ed.). Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
46. Frost, D. R., and R. Etheridge. 1993.Aconsideration of iguanian lizards and the objectives of systematics: A reply to Lazell. Herpetol. Rev. 24:50-54.
47. Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220- 227. (Pubitemid 30313545)
48. Graybeal, A. 1995. Naming species. Syst. Biol. 44:237-250. (Pubitemid 126005874)
49. 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, and D. L. Hawksworth (eds.). 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature (St Louis Code) adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St Louis, Missouri, July-August 1999. Regnum Vegetabile 138. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein.
50. Griffiths, G. C. D. 1976. The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Syst. Zool. 25:168-173.
51. Härlin, M. 1999. Phylogenetic approaches to nomenclature: A comparison based on a nemertean case study. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:2201- 2207. (Pubitemid 29532902)
52. Härlin, M. 2001. Towards a new biological taxonomy - Let us give up the Linnean hierarchy! Zool. Scr. 30:337-339.
53. Härlin, M., and C. Härlin. 2001. Phylogeny of the eureptantic nemerteans revisited. Zool. Scr. 30:49-58. (Pubitemid 32377817)
54. Hirsch, K. F., A. J. Kihm, and D. K. Zelenitsky. 1997. New eggshell of ratite morphotype with predation marks from the Eocene of Colorado. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 17:360-369.
55. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th edition, adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
56. Janovec, J. P., L. G. Clark, and S. A. Mori. 2003. Is the Neotropical flora ready for the PhyloCode? Bot. Rev. 69:22-43. (Pubitemid 36821655)
57. Lanham, U. 1965. Uninominal nomenclature. Syst. Zool. 14:144.
58. Lapage, S. P., P. H. A. Sneath, E. F. Lessel, V. B. D. Skerman, H. P. R. Seeliger, andW. A. Clark (eds.). 1992. International code of nomenclature of bacteria: Bacteriological code, 1990 revision. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, District of Columbia.
59. Laurin, M. 2005a. The advantages of Phylogenetic Nomenclature over Linnean Nomenclature. Pages 67-97 in Animal names (A. Minelli, G. Ortalli, and G. Sanga, eds.). Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Venice.
60. Laurin, M. 2005b. Dites oui au PhyloCode. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 34:25-31.
61. Laurin, M., and P. D. Cantino. 2004. First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting: A report. Zool. Scr. 33:475-479. (Pubitemid 39219114)
62. Laurin, M., and P. D. Cantino. 2007. Second Meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature: A report. Zool. Scr. 36:109- 117. (Pubitemid 46148251)
63. Lee, M., and M. Wolsan. 2002. Integration, individuality and species concepts. Biol. Philos. 17:651-660. (Pubitemid 36440200)
64. Lee, M. S. Y. 2002. Species and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 51:507-510.
65. Lee, M. S. Y., and M.W. Caldwell. 1998. Anatomy and relationships of Pachyrhachis problematicus, a primitive snake with hindlimbs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353:1521-1552. (Pubitemid 28490547)
66. Lidén, M., and B. Oxelman. 1996. Do we need "phylogenetic taxonomy"? Zool. Scr. 25:183-185.
67. Lidén, M., B. Oxelman, A. Backlund, L. Andersson, B. Bremer, R. Eriksson, R. Moberg, I. Nordal, K. Persson, M. Thulin, and B. Zimmer. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46:735-738.
68. Linnaeus, C. 1751. Philosophia botanica in qua explicantur fundamenta botanica cum definitionibus partium, exemplis terminorum, observationibus rariorum. Godofried Kiesewetter, Stockholm.
69. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm.
70. Loevtrup, S. 1987. On species and other taxa. Cladistics 3:157-177.
71. Lumbsch, H. T. 2002. How objective are genera in euascomycetes? Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 5:91-101. (Pubitemid 35255316)
72. Mayo, M. A., and M. C. Horzinek. 1998. A revised version of the international code of virus classification and nomenclature. Arch. Virol. 143:1645-1654. (Pubitemid 28417795)
73. McKenna, M. C., and S. K. Bell. 1997. Classification of mammals above the species level. Columbia University Press, New York.
74. Michener, C. D. 1963. Some future developments in taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 12:151-172.
75. Michener, C. D. 1964. The possible use of uninominal nomenclature to increase the stability of names in biology. Syst. Zool. 13:182-190.
76. Mikhailov, K. E., E. S. Bray, and K. F. Hirsch. 1996. Parataxonomy of fossil egg remains (Veterovata): Principles and applications. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 16:763-769.
77. Mishler, B. D. 1999. Getting rid of species? Pages 307-315 in Species: New interdisciplinary essays (R. A. Wilson, ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
78. Mishler, B. D. 2003. The advantages of rank-free classification for teaching and research. Cladistics 19:157.
79. Mishler, B. D., and K. M. Fisher. 2004. Terminating species: A rankfree approach to terminal taxa. Page 6 in Abstracts, First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Paris,MuséumNational d'Histoire Naturelle, July 6-9, 2004 (M. Laurin, ed.). Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
80. Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47:561-579. (Pubitemid 28395390)
81. Moore, G. 2003. Should taxon names be explicitly defined? Bot. Rev. 69:2-21. (Pubitemid 36821654)
82. Nixon, K. C., and J.M.Carpenter. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" system can easily be fixed. Bot. Rev. 69:111-120. (Pubitemid 36821660)
83. Pennisi, E. 2001. Linnaeus's last stand? Science 291:2304-2307. (Pubitemid 32231770)
84. Pfeil, B. E., and M. D. Crisp. 2005. What to do with Hibiscus? A proposed nomenclatural resolution for a large and well known genus of Malvaceae and comments on paraphyly. Aust. Syst. Bot. 18:49-60.
85. Pickerill, R. K. 1994. Nomenclature and taxonomy of invertebrate trace fossils. Pages 3-42 in The palaeobiology of trace fossils (S. K. Donovan, ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
86. Pickerill, R. K., and D. G. Keighley. 1997. Notostracan trackways and parataxonomy - A commentary. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 42:171-174.
87. Pleijel, F. 1998. Phylogeny and classification of Hesionidae (Polychaeta). Zool. Scr. 27:89-163. (Pubitemid 28299316)
88. Pleijel, F. 1999. Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Syst. Biol. 48:755-789. (Pubitemid 129490562)
89. Pleijel, F. 2001. Revision of Amphiduros Hartman, 1959 (Polychaeta, Hesionidae, Gyptini). Ophelia 54:15-27. (Pubitemid 32203037)
90. Pleijel, F., and G. W. Rouse. 2000a. Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: A new taxonomic concept for biology. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:627- 630. (Pubitemid 30175504)
91. Pleijel, F., and G. W. Rouse. 2000b. A new taxon, capricornia (Hesionidae, Polychaeta), illustrating the LITU ("Least-Inclusive Taxonomic Unit") concept. Zool. Scr. 29:157-168. (Pubitemid 30448190)
92. Pleijel, F., and G.W. Rouse. 2003. Ceci n'est pas une pipe: Names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 41:162- 174. (Pubitemid 37060569)
93. Rapini, A. 2004. Classes or individuals? The paradox of systematics revisited. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 35:675-695. (Pubitemid 39615289)
94. Schander, C. 1998. Mandatory categories and impossible hierarchies - A reply to Sosef. Taxon 47:407-410.
95. Schander, C., and M. Thollesson. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy - Some comments. Zool. Scr. 24:263-268.
96. Schuh, R. T. 2003. The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence. Bot. Rev. 69:59-78. (Pubitemid 36821657)
97. Stevens, P. F. 2006. An end to all things? - Plants and their names. Aust. Syst. Bot. 19:115-133.
98. Stevenson, D. 2004. Nomenclatural use and abuse: Comments on the PhyloCode. Cladistics 20:606.
99. Sundberg, P., and F. Pleijel. 1994. Phylogenetic classification and the definition of taxon names. Zool. Scr. 23:19-25.
100. Wolsan, M. 2003. Nazewnictwo filogenetyczne, czyli pȯ zegnanie z Linneuszem. Pages 11-12 in Zoologia na progu XXI wieku, Streszczenia referat ów i plakatów ogólnopolskiej konferencji, Torún, 15-18 wrzésnia 2003 (A. Przystalski and B.Wilczy ́ nska, eds.). Polskie Towarzystwo Zoologiczne and Uniwersytet Miko-laja Kopernika, Toruń.
101. Wolsan, M. 2007. Impracticality and instability of species names under Lanham's method. Taxon 56:292-294. (Pubitemid 47025827)