Classification should not be constrained solely by branching topology in a cladistic context

Taxon

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 347-348

  Stuessy, Tod F ^a   Konig, Christiane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; PHYLOGENETICS; TAXONOMY; TOPOLOGY;

EID: 67649991527     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tax.582002     Document Type: Short Survey

References (7)

1. Ashlock, P.D. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Syst. Zool. 20: 63-69.
2. Edwards, E.J., Nyffeler, R.&Donoghue, M.J. 2005. Basal cactus phylogeny: implications of Pereskia (Cactaceae) paraphyly for the transition to the cactus life form. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1177-1188.
3. Hörandl, E. 2007. Classification without evolution is bad taxonomy. Taxon 56: 1-6.
4. Sokal, R.R. & Sneath, P.H.A. 1963. Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.
5. Stuessy, T.F. 2009. Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data, 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York.
6. Stuessy, T.F. & König, C. 2008. Patrocladistic classification. Taxon 57: 594-601.
7. Wiley, E.O.2009. Patrocladistics, nothing new. Taxon 58:2-6.