Species and phylogenetic nomenclature

Systematic Biology

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 885-891

  Cellinese, Nico ^a   Baum, David A ^b   Mishler, Brent D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CLASSIFICATION; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW;

BIODIVERSITY; CLASSIFICATION; PHYLOGENY; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84865244204     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/sys035     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Artois T. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature: the end of binominal nomenclature? Belgian J. Zool. 131:87-89.
2. Baum D.A. 2009. Species as ranked taxa. Syst. Biol. 58:74-86.
3. Benton M.J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. 75:633-648.
4. Bertrand Y., Pleijel F. 2003. Nomenclature phylogénétique: une reponse. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 29:25-28.
5. Bremer K. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the new ordinal system of the angiosperms. In: Nordenstam B., El Ghazaly G., Kassas M., editors. Plant systematics for the 21st century. London: Portland Press. p. 125-133.
6. Brochu C.A., Sumrall C.D. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology. J. Paleontol. 75:754-757.
7. Cantino P.D. 1998. Binomials, hyphenated uninomials, and phyloge-netic nomenclature. Taxon. 47:425-429.
8. Cantino P.D., Bryant H.N., de Queiroz K.D., Donoghue M.J., Eriksson T., Hillis D.M., Lee M.S.Y. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 48:790-807.
9. Cellinese, N. 2012. http://www.phyloregnum.org and http://wiki. fmnh.uf.edu/regnum.
10. Darwin C. 1859. On the origin of species. London: John Murray.
11. 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.
12. Dayrat B., Gosliner T.M. 2005. Species names and metaphyly: a case study in Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina). Zool. Scr. 34:199-224.
13. Dayrat B., Schander C., Angielczyk K.D. 2004. Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon. 53:485-491.
14. Dayrat B., Cantino P.D., Clarke J.A., de Queiroz K. 2008. Species names in the PhyloCode: the approach adopted by the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 57: 507-514.
15. de Queiroz K. 1992. Phylogenetic defnitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biol. Philos. 7:295-313.
16. de Queiroz K. 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic defnitions as exemplifed by the defnition of "Mammalia". Syst. Biol. 43:497-510.
17. de Queiroz K. 2007. Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst. Biol. 56:879-886.
18. de Queiroz K., Gauthier J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic defnitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307-322.
19. de Queiroz K., Gauthier J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Ann. 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. Dominguez E., Wheeler Q.D. 1997. Forum-taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics. 13:367-372.
22. Ereshefsky M. 1999. Species and the Linnaean hierarchy. In: Wilson R.A., editor. Species: new interdisciplinary essays. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. p. 285-305.
23. Ereshefsky M. 2001. The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy. A phyloso-hical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Ereshefsky M. 2010. Darwin's solution to the species problem. Synthese. 175:405-425.
25. Fisher K.M. 2006. Rank-free monography: a practical example from the moss clade Leucophanella (Calymperaceae). Syst. Bot. 31:13-30.
26. Graybeal A. 1995. Naming species. Syst. Biol. 44:237-250.
27. Hausdorf B. 2011. Progress toward a general species concept. Evolution. 65:923-931.
28. Hillis D.M., Chamberlain D.A., Wilcox T.P., Chippindale P.T. 2001. A new species of subterranean blind salamander (Plethodontidae: Hemidactyliini: Eurycea: Typhlomolge) from Austin, Texas, and a systematic revision of central Texas paedomorphic salamanders. Herpetologica. 57:266-280.
29. Laurin M. 2001. L'utilisation de la taxonomie phylogéné tique en paléontologie: avatages et inconvénients. Biosystema. 19:197-211.
30. Laurin M. 2005. Dites oui au PhyloCode. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 34:25-31.
31. Lee M.S.Y. 2005. Choosing reference taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature. Zool. Scr. 34:329-331.
32. Lidén M., Oxelman B. 1996. Point of view: do we need "phylogenetic taxonomy"? Zool. Scr. 25:183-185.
33. Lidén M., Oxelman B., Backlund A., Andersson L., Bremer B., Eriksson R., Moberg R., Nordal I., Persson K., Thulin M., Zimmer B. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon. 46:735-738.
34. Lucas S.G. 1992. Extinction and the defnition of the class mammalia. Syst. Biol. 41:370-371.
35. Mayden R.L. 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In: Claridge M.F., Dawah H.A., Wilson M.R., editors. Species: the units of biodiversity. London: Chapman and Hall. p. 381-424.
36. Mishler B.D. 1999. Getting rid of species? In: Wilson R., editor. Species: new interdisciplinary essays. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, p. 307-315.
37. Mishler B.D. 2010. Species are not uniquely real biological entities. In: Ayala F.J., Arp R., editors. Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Malden (MA): Wiley-Blackwell. p. 110-122.
38. Mishler B.D., Brandon R.N. 1987. Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept. Biol. Philos. 2:397-414.
39. Mishler B.D., Theriot E.C. 2000a. The phylogenetic species concept (sensu Mishler and Theriot): monophyly, apomorphy, and phyloge-netic species concepts. In: Wheeler Q.D., Meier R., editors. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 44-54.
40. Mishler B.D., Theriot E.C. 2000b. A critique from the Mishler and The-riot phylogenetic species concept perspective: monophyly, apomor-phy, and phylogenetic species concepts. In: Wheeler Q.D., Meier R., editors. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 119-132.
41. Mishler B.D., Theriot E.C. 2000c. A defense of the phylogenetic species concept (sensu Mishler and Theriot): monophyly, apomorphy, and phylogenetic species concepts. In: Wheeler Q.D., Meier R., editors. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 179-184.
42. Moore G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon. 47:561-579.
43. Nixon K.C., Carpenter J.M. 2000. On the other "phylogenetic system-atics". Cladistics. 16:298-318.
44. Nixon K.C., Carpenter J.M., Stevenson D.W. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally fawed, and the Linnaean system can easily be fxed. Bot. Rev. 69:111-120.
45. Pleijel F. 1999. Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Syst. Biol. 48:755-789.
46. Pleijel F., Rouse G.W. 2000. Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new tax-onomic concept for biology. Proc. Biol. Sci. 267:627-630.
47. Pleijel F., Rouse G.W. 2003. Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 41:162-174.
48. Schander C., Thollesson M. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy-some comments. Zool. Scr. 24:263-268.
49. Sundberg P.E.R., Pleijel F. 1994. Phylogenetic classifcation and the definition of taxon names. Zool. Scr. 23:19-25.
50. Wolsan M. 2007. Naming species in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 56:1011-1021.