Concept versus data in delimitation of plant genera

Taxon

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1054-1074

  Humphreys, Aelys M ^a   Linder, H Peter ^a  

^a Botanischer Garten und Institut für Systematische Botanik   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Classification; History of taxonomy; Philosophy of classification

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; ANATOMY; CYTOLOGY; MORPHOLOGY; PLANT COMMUNITY; TAXONOMY;

EID: 71049114660     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tax.584002     Document Type: Review

References (165)

1. Adanson, M. 1764. Families de Plantes. Vincent, Paris.
2. Albach, D.C. 2008. Further arguments for the rejection of paraphyletic taxa: Veronica subgen. Pseudolysimachium (Plantaginaceae). Taxon 57: 1-6.
3. Anderberg, A. 1986. The genus Pegolettia (Compositae, Inuleae). Cladistics 2: 158-186.
4. Anderson, E. 1937. Supra-specific variation in nature and in classification, from the viewpoint of botany. Amer. Naturalist 71: 223-235.
5. Anderson, E. 1940. The concept of the genus II, A survey of modern opinion. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 67: 363-369.
6. Anderson, E. 1957. An experimental investigation of judgements concerning genera and species. Evolution 11: 260-263.
7. Arber, A. 1938. Herbals, their Origin and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Arkell, W.J. & Moy-Thomas, J.A. 1940. Palaeontology and the taxonomic problem. Pp. 395-410 in: Huxley, J. (ed.), The New Systematics. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
9. Atran, S. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Avise, J.C. & Johns, G.C. 1999. Proposal for a standardised temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species. Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 96: 7358-7363.
11. Avise, J.C. & Mitchell, D. 2007. Time to standardise taxonomies. Syst. Biol. 56: 130-133.
12. Babcock, E.B. 1947. The genus Crepis. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 21: 1-197.
13. Babcock, E.B. & Stebbins, G.L. 1937. The Genus Youngia. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.
14. Backlund, A. & Bremer, K. 1998. To be or not to be-the principles of classification and monotypic plant families. Taxon 47: 391-400.
15. Barkley, T.M., DePriest, P., Funk, V., Kiger, R.W., Kress, W.J. & Moore, G. 2004. Linnean nomenclature in the 21st Century: a report from a workshop on integrating traditional nomenclature and phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53: 153-158.
16. Barrett, R.L., Hopper, S.D. & Farrer, S.L. 2005. Preface. Austral. Syst. Bot. 18: i-ii.
17. Bartlett, H.H. 1940. Concept of the genus I. History of the generic concept in botany. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 67: 349-362.
18. Bather, F.A. 1927. Biological classification, past and future. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 83: Proc. Lxii-civ.
19. Bauhin, C. 1623. Pinax Theatri Botanici. L. King, Basel.
20. Bentham, G. 1858. Memorandum on the principles of generic nomenclature as referred to in the preceding paper. Proc. Linn. Soc. London 2: 30-33.
21. Bentham, G. 1864. De Candolle's "Prodromus". Nat. Hist. Rev. 4: 506-528.
22. Bentham, G. & Hooker, J.D. 1862-1883. Genera Plantarum. Lovell Reeve & Williams & Norgate, London.
23. Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification. Principles of Categorisation of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
24. Berlin, B., Breedlove, D.E. & Raven, P.H. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. Amer. Anthropologist, n.s. 75: 214-242.
25. Bohs, L. & Olmstead, R.G. 2001. A reassessment of Normania and Triguera (Solanaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 30: 33-48.
26. Boulter, D., Peacock, D., Guiset, A., Gleavest, J.T. & Estabrook, G. 1979. Relationships between the partial amino acid sequences of plastocyanin from members of ten families of flowering plants. Phytochemistry 18: 603-608.
27. Boulter, D., Ramshaw, J.A.M., Thompson, E.W., Richardson, M. & Brown, R.H. 1972. A phylogeny of higher plants based on the amino acid sequence cytochrome c and its biological implications. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 181: 441-455.
28. Boulter, D., Thompson, E.W., Ramshaw, J.A.M. & Richardson, M. 1970. Higher plant cytochrome c. Nature 228: 552-554.
29. Bremekamp, C.E.B. 1953. Linné's views on the hierarchy of the taxonomic system. Acta Bot. Neerl. 2: 242-253.
30. Bremer, K. 1976. The genus Relhania (Compositae). Opera Bot. 40: 1-86.
31. Bremer, K. & Wanntorp, H.-E. 1978. Phylogenetic systematics in botany. Taxon 27: 317-329.
32. Brooker, M.I.H. 2000. A new classification of the genus Eucalyptus L'Hér. (Myrtaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 13: 79-148.
33. Brown, N.E. 1883. The "Genera Plantarum". Gard. Chron. II: 733-734.
34. Bruhl, J.J. 1995. Sedge genera of the world: relationships and a new classification of the Cyperaceae. Austral. Syst. Bot. 8: 125-305.
35. Brunfels, O. 1532-1537. Contrafayt Kreuterbuch. Strasbourg.
36. Bruyns, P.V., Mapaya, R.J. & Hedderson, T. 2006. A new subgeneric classification for Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) in southern Africa based on ITS and psbA-trnH sequence data. Taxon 55: 387-396.
37. Burkhardt, F. & Smith, S. 1991. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 7, 1858-1859. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
38. Cain, A.J. 1956. The genus in evolutionary taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 5: 97-109.
39. Cain, A.J. 1958. Logic and memory in Linnaeus's system of taxonomy. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 169: 144-163.
40. Cain, A.J. 1994. Numerus, figura, proportio, situs; Linnaeus's definitory attributes. Arch. Nat. Hist. 21: 17-36.
41. Candolle, A.-P. de & Candolle, A. de. 1824-1873. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis. Treuttel & Würtz (later Masson), Paris, Strasbourg, London.
42. Candolle, A.-P. de & Candolle, C. de. 1874-1896. Monographiae Phanerogamarum. Masson, Paris.
43. Cassini, A. de. 1831. Descriptions de Quelques Synanthérées de l'Ile Maurice. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 23: 84-93.
44. Cesalpino, A. 1583. De Plantis Libri XVI. Marescot, Florence.
45. Chambers, N. 2000. The Letters of Sir Joseph Banks. A Selection, 1768-1820. Imperial College Press, London.
46. Clayton, W.D. 1972. Some aspects of the genus concept. Kew Bull. 27: 281-287.
47. Clayton, W.D. 1974. The logarithmic distribution of angiosperm families. Kew Bull. 29: 271-279.
48. Clayton, W.D. 1983. The genus concept in practice. Kew Bull. 38: 149-152.
49. Constance, L. 1957. Plant taxonomy in an age of experiment. Amer. J. Bot. 44: 88-92.
50. Corner, E.J.H. 1961. Evolution. Pp. 95-115 in: McLeod, A.M. & Cobley, L.S. (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
51. Cronk, Q.C.B. 1990. The name of the pea: a quantitative history of legume classification. New Phytol. 116: 163-175.
52. Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.
53. Davis, P.H. & Heywood, V.H. 1963. Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
54. Dubois, A. 2007. Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks. Zootaxa 1519: 27-68.
55. Dupree, A.H. 1959. Asa Gray, American Botanist, Friend of Darwin. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
56. El-Gazzar, A., Watson, L., Williams, W.T. & Lance, G.N. 1968. The taxonomy of Salvia: a test of two radically different numerical methods. J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 60: 237-250.
57. Endlicher, S. 1836-1850. Genera Plantarum. Beck, Vienna.
58. Engler, A. & Prantl, K. 1887-1915. Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Engelmann, Leipzig.
59. Entwistle, T.J. & Weston, P.H. 2005. Majority rules, when systematists disagree. Austral. Syst. Bot. 18: 1-6.
60. Farjon, A. 2005. Conifers in Species Plantarum, an evaluation of taxonomic concepts. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 33: 91-97.
61. Farjon, A. 2007. In defence of a conifer taxonomy which recognises evolution. Taxon 56: 639-641.
62. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Dover, New York.
63. Forrest, L.L. & Hollingsworth, P.M. 2003. A recircumscription of Begonia based on nuclear ribosomal sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 241: 193-211.
64. Frodin, D.G. 2004. History and concepts of big plant genera. Taxon 53: 753-776.
65. Funk, V.A. 1985. Cladistics and generic concepts in the Compositae. Taxon 34: 72-80.
66. Funk, V.A. & Stuessy, T.F. 1978. Cladistics for the practicing plant taxonomist. Syst. Bot. 3: 159-178.
67. Garnock-Jones, P., Albach, D. & Briggs, B.G. 2007. Botanical names in Southern Hemisphere Veronica (Plantaginaceae): sect. Detzneria, sect. Hebe, and sect. Labiatoides. Taxon 56: 571-582.
68. Gehrke, B., Bräuchler, C., Romoleroux, K., Lundberg, M., Heubl, G. & Eriksson, T. 2008. Molecular phylogenetics of Alchemilla, Aphanes and Lachemilla (Rosaceae) inferred from plastid and nuclear intron and spacer DNA sequences, with comments on generic classification. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 47: 1030-1044.
69. Gilmour, J.S.L. 1961. Taxonomy. Pp. 26-45 in: MacLeod, A.M. & Cobley, L.S. (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought. Quadrangle, Chigaco.
70. Gilmour, J.S.L. & Walters, S.M. 1964. Philosophy and classification. Pp. 1-22 in: Turrill, W.B. (ed.), Vistas in Botany. Pergamon Press, Oxford, London.
71. Goetghebeur, P. 1986. Genera Cyperacearum. State University of Ghent, Ghent.
72. Goodman, M., Porter, C.A., Czelusniak, J., Page, S.L., Schneider, H., Shoshani, J., Gunnell, G. & Groves, C.P. 1998. Toward a phylogenetic classification of primates based on DNA evidence complemented by fossil evidence. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 9: 585-598.
73. Greenman, J.M. 1940. The concept of the genus III. Genera from the standpoint of morphology. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 67: 363-369.
74. Hagen, J.B. 1984. Experimentalists and naturalists in twentieth-century botany: experimental taxonomy, 1920-1950. J. Hist. Biol. 17: 249-270.
75. Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin.
76. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, London.
77. Hull, D.L. 1984. Cladistic theory: hypotheses that blur and grow. Pp. 5-23 in: Duncan, T. & Stuessy, T.F. (ed.), Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History. Colombia University Press, New York.
78. Humphries, C.J. 1979. A revision of the genus Anacyclus L. (Compositae: Anthemideae). Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 7: 83-142.
79. Huxley, J. 1940. The New Systematics. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
80. Huxley, J. 1942. Evolution, the Modern Synthesis. Allen & Unwin, London.
81. James, P.J. 2009. "Tree and leaf": A different angle. Linnean 25: 13-19.
82. Jeffrey, C. 1987. The concept of the genus. Newslett. Austral. Syst. Bot. Soc. 53: 27-30.
83. King, R.M. & Robinson, H. 1970. Eupatorium, a composite genus of Arcto-Tertiary distribution. Taxon 19: 769-774.
84. Kingsland, S.E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890-2000. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
85. Klak, C., Bruyns, P.V. & Hedderson, T.A.J. 2007. A phylogeny and new classification for Mesembryanthemoideae (Aizoaceae). Taxon 56: 737-756.
86. Knapp, S. 2008. Imperial nature: Joseph Hooker and the practices of Victorian science. Nature 453: 721-722.
87. Koponen, T. 1968. Generic revision of the Mniaceae Mitt. (Bryophyta). Ann. Bot. Fenn. 5: 117-151.
88. Kornet, D.J. 1994. The existence of genera. Mycol. Helv. 6: 5-7.
89. Koutnik, D.L. 1984. Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae) - a newly recognised genus in southern Africa. S. African J. Bot. 3: 262-264.
90. Koutnik, D.L. 1987. A taxonomic revision of the Hawaiian species of the genus Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae). Allertonia 4: 331-388.
91. Kunth, C.S. 1883-1850. Enumeratio Plantarum Omnium Hucusque Cognitarum. Cotta, Stuttgart/Tübingen.
92. Ladiges, P.Y. & Udovicic, F. 2000. Comment on a new classification of the eucalypts. Austral. Syst. Bot. 13: 149-152.
93. Larsen, E.L. 1933. Astranthium and related genera. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 20: 23-44, pls. 2-4.
94. Larson, J.L. 1971. Reason and Experience: The Representation of Natural Order in the Work of Carl von Linné. University of California Press, Berkeley.
95. Li, H.-L. 1974. Plant taxonomy and the origin of cultivated plants. Taxon 23: 715-724.
96. Liede-Schumann, S. & Hartmann, H.E.K. 2009. Mesembryanthemum-back to the roots? Taxon 58: 345-346.
97. Linder, H.P. 1988. A review of cladistics for botanists. S.-Afr. Tydskr. Plantk. 54: 208-220.
98. Linnaeus, C. 1737. Critica Botanica, translated by Sir A. Hort, 1938. Adlard & son, London, 1938.
99. Linnaeus, C. 1751. Philosophia Botanica, translated by S. Freer, 2003. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
100. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. Salvius, Stockholm.
101. Linnaeus, C. 1764. Genera Plantarum. Salvius, Stockholm
102. Maslin, B.R., Miller, J.T. & Seigler, D.S. 2003. Overview of the generic status of Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 16: 1-18.
103. Mast, A.R. & Thiele, K. 2007. The transfer of Dryandra R. Br. to Banksia L. f. (Proteaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 20: 63-71.
104. Mayr, E. 1968. Theory of biological classification. Nature 220: 545-548.
105. Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
106. McNeill, J. 1979. Purposeful phenetics. Syst. Zool. 28: 465-482.
107. McOuat, G. 2003. The logical systematist: George Bentham and his outline of a new system of logic. Arch. Nat. His. 30: 203-223.
108. Mendel, J.G. 1866. Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden. Verh. naturf. Vereins Brünn 4: 3-47.
109. Michener, C.D. 1957. Some bases for higher categories in classification. Syst. Zool. 6: 167-173.
110. Michener, C.D. & Sokal, R.R. 1957. A quantitative approach to a problem in classification. Evolution 11: 130-162.
111. Morison, R. 1672. Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova per Tabulas Cognationis & Affinitatis ex Libro Naturae Observata & Detecta. Sheldon, Oxford.
112. Moss, D.N., Krenzer, E.G. & Brun, W.A. 1969. Carbon dioxide compensation points in related plant species. Science 164: 187-188.
113. Müller-Wille, S. 1999. Botanik und weltweiter Handel: zur Begründung eines natürlichen Systems der Pflanzen durch Carl von Linné (1707-78). Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, Berlin.
114. Nepokroeff, M., Bremer, B. & Sytsma, K.J. 1999. Reorganisation of the genus Psychotria and tribe Psychotrieae (Ru- biaceae) inferred from ITS and rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 24: 5-27.
115. Nuttall, T. 1841. Descriptions of new species and genera of plants in the natural order of the Compositae, collected in a tour across the continent to the pacific, a residence in Oregon, and a visit to the Sandwich Islands and Upper California, during the years 1834 and 1835. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. ser. 2, 7: 283-453.
116. Oberwinkler, F. 1994. Genera in a monophyletic group: the Dacrymycetales. Mycol. Helv. 6: 35-72.
117. Orthia, L.A., Cook, L.G. & Crisp, M.D. 2005. Generic delimitation and phylogenetic uncertainty: an example from a group that has undergone an explosive radiation. Austral. Syst. Bot.18: 41-47.
118. Parra-O., C., Bayly, M., Udovicic, F. & Ladiges, P. 2006. ETS sequences support the monophyly of the eucalypt genus Corymbia (Myrtaceae). Taxon 55: 653-663.
119. Paton, A., Harley, R.M. & Harley, M.M. 1999. Ocimum-an overview of relationships and classification. Pp. 1-38 in: Holm, Y. & Hiltunen, R. (eds.), Ocimum. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants-Industrial Profiles. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam.
120. Pearcy, R.W. & Troughton, J. 1975. C4 photosynthesis in tree form Euphorbia species from Hawaiian rainforest sites. Pl. Physiol. (Lancaster) 55: 1054-1056.
121. Pellegrin, P. 1982. La Classification des Animaux chez Aristote. Statut de la Biologie et Unité de l'Aristotélisme. Les Belles Lettres, Paris.
122. Pellegrin, P. 1986. Aristotle's Classification of Animals: Biology and the Conceptual Unity of the Aristotlean Corpus, translated by Preus, A. Rev. University of California Press, Berkeley.
123. Pelser, P.B., Nordenstam, B., Kadereit, J.W. & Watson, L.E. 2007. An ITS phylogeny of tribe Senecioneae (Asteraceae) and a new delimitation of Senecio L. Taxon 56: 1077-1104.
124. Pfeil, B.E. & Crisp, M.D. 2005. What to do with Hibiscus? A proposed nomenclatural resolution for a large and well known genus of Malvaceae and comments on paraphyly. Austral. Syst. Bot. 18: 49-60.
125. Raven, P.H., Berlin, B. & Breedlove, D.E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science 174: 1210-1213.
126. Robinson, B.L. 1906. The generic concept in the classification of the flowering plants. Science, n.s. 23: 81-92.
127. Sibley, S{cyrillic}.G. & Ahlquist, J.E. 1986. Reconstructing bird phylogeny by comparing DNAs. Sci. Amer. 254: 82-92.
128. Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 85: i-xvi, 1-350.
129. Sloan, P.R. 1972. John Locke, John Ray, and the problem of the natural system. J. Hist. Biol. 5: 1-53.
130. Sneath, P.H.A. & Sokal, R.R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.
131. Sokal, R.R. & Sneath, P.H.A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.
132. Sprague, T.A. 1940. Taxonomic botany, with special reference to the angiosperms. Pp. 435-454 in: Huxley, J. (ed.), The New Systematics. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
133. Stace, C. 2005. Plant taxonomy and biosystematics-does DNA provide all the answers? Taxon 54: 999-1007.
134. Stafleu, F.A. 1971. Linnaeus and the Linnaeans. The Spreading of their Ideas in Systematic Botany, 1735-1789. A. Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V., Utrecht.
135. Stearn, W.T. 1959. Four supplementary Linnaean publications: Methodus (1736), Demonstrationes Plantarum (1753), Genera Plantarum (1754), Ordinales naturales (1764). Pp. 73-102 in Appendix to: Linnaeus, C., Species Plantarum, vol. 2, facsimile of the first edition 1753. Ray Society, London.
136. Stebbins, G.L. 1956. Taxonomy and the evolution of genera, with special reference to the family Gramineae. Evolution 10: 235-245.
137. Stevens, P.F. 1984. Metaphors and typology in the development of botanical systematics 1690-1960, or the art of putting new wine in old bottles. Taxon 33: 169-211.
138. Stevens, P.F. 1985. The genus concept in practices-but for what practice? Kew Bull. 40: 457-465.
139. Stevens, P.F. 1987. Genera, what and why-some thoughts. Newslett. Austral. Syst. Bot. Soc. 53: 31-38.
140. Stevens, P.F. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. Columbia University Press, New York.
141. Stevens, P.F. 1997. How to interpret classifications-suggestions from history. BioScience 47: 243-250.
142. Stevens, P.F. 2000. Botanical systematics 1950-2000: change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635-659.
143. Stevens, P.F. 2002. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 51: 11-26.
144. Stevens, P.F. & Cullens, S.P. 1990. Linnaeus, the cortex-medulla theory, and the key to his understanding of plant form and natural relationships. J. Arnold Arbor. 71: 179-220.
145. Stuessy, T.F. 2009a. Paradigms in biological classification (1707-2007): Has anything really changed? Taxon 58: 68-76.
146. Stuessy, T.F. 2009b. Plant Taxonomy. The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. Columbia University Press, New York.
147. Torrell, M., Garcia-Jacas, N., Susanna, A. & Vallés, J. 1999. Phylogeny in Artemisia (Asteraceae, Anthemideae). Taxon 48: 721-736.
148. Tournefort, J.P. de. 1694. Élemens de Botanique. L'imprimerie royale, Paris.
149. Tournefort, J.P. de. 1700. Institutiones Rei Herbariae. Typographia regia, Paris.
150. Vernon, K. 1993. Desperately seeking status: evolutionary systematics and the taxonomists' search for respectability 1940-60. Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 26: 207-227.
151. Wagner, W.H.J. 1961. Problems with the classification of ferns. Pp. 841-844 in: Recent Advances in Botany, vol. 1. University of Toronto Press, Montreal.
152. Walters, S.M. 1962. Generic and specific concepts and the European flora. Preslia 34: 207-226.
153. Walters, S.M. 1963. Methods of classical plant taxonomy. Pp. 1-15 in: Swain, T. (ed.), Chemical Plant Taxonomy. Academic Press, London.
154. Walters, S.M. 1986. The name of the rose: a review of ideas on the European bias in angiosperm classification. New Phytol. 104: 527-546.
155. Wanntorp, L. & Forster, P.I. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships between Hoya and the monotypic genera Madangia, Absolmsia, and Micholitzia (Apocynaceae, Marsdenieae): in- sights from flower morphology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 94: 36-55.
156. Wanntorp, L., Kocyan, A., Dionkelaar, R. van & Renner, S.S. 2006. Towards a monophyletic Hoya (Marsdenieae, Apocynaceae): inferences from the chloroplast trnL region and the rbcL-atpB spacer. Syst. Bot. 31: 586-596.
157. Webster, G.L. 1967. The genera of Euphorbiaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 48: 303-430.
158. Weston, P.H., Carolin, R.C. & Armstrong, J.A. 1984. A cladistic analysis of Boronia Sm. and Boronella Baill. (Rutaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 32: 187-203.
159. Wilkins, J.S. 2004. The Origins of Species Concepts: History, Characters, Modes and Synapomorphies. Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
160. Wilson, R.A., Barker, M.J. & Brigandt, I. In press. When traditional essentialism fails: biological natural kinds. Philos. Topics.
161. Winsor, M.P. 2001. Cain on Linnaeus: the scientist-historian as unanalysed entity. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. C, Biol. Biomed. Sci. 32: 239-254.
162. Winsor, M.P. 2003. Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biol. & Philos. 18: 387-400.
163. Winsor, M.P. 2006a. Linnaeus was not essentialist. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 93: 2-7.
164. Winsor, M.P. 2006b. The creation of the essentialism story: an exercise in metahistory. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 28: 149-174.
165. Zuckerkandl, E. & Pauling, L. 1965. Molecules as documents of evolutionary history. J. Theor. Biol. 8: 357-366.