98%
921
2 minutes
20
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.004 | DOI Listing |
Cladistics
February 2005
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, 79th Street at Central Park West, New York, NY 10024-5192, USA.
A report from the first International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting is presented. The meeting revealed that the PhyloCode, once implemented, will itself not require adherence to the three major tenets of philosophy that proponents have claimed required its creation. These include the abandonment of (1) non-monophyletic taxa, (2) ranks, and (3) types.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBiol Rev Camb Philos Soc
February 2002
Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, SK, Canada.
The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF