The Phylocode: Beating a dead horse?

• Autorzy: Benton M J
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The concept of the Phylocode has been evolving for some twenty years, and is supported by Lee and Skinner (2007): I argue against it here. The first issue is stability, and biologists must decide whether they seek rigidity (Phylocode) or flexibility and conservativeness of clade contents (Linnaean codes). Phylocode names for taxa are by definition stable because they are established as labels for clades that are rigidly defined as geometric constructs. But this is not real stability because the species contained within those clades can change dramatically: an example is given where Phylocode practice forces a decision about the name Deinonychosauria, which can contain 20 or 10,000 species depending on which current tree is correct. Linnaean systems offer real stability (= conservativeness + flexibility) where the taxon name can be moved subtly up and down nodes in a tree to keep its association with a particular character or group of species. Proponents of the Phylocode argue that category/rank terms should be dispensed with, and yet they have no need to do this. Everyone accepts that Linnaean ranks are subjective, and yet there is no benefit in abandoning ranks because they have proved to be of such value to users of classifications, and genera and families, for example, act as valuable surrogates for species in large−scale evolutionary and ecological studies. Finally, the Phylocode extends regulation beyond names and their proper use into determining the validity of phylogenetic hypotheses, and this will act as a limit on normal scientific debate.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

systematics; Phylocode concept; stability; Phylocode name; Linnaean rank; paleontology; Linnaean system

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
• Rocznik: 2007
• Tom: 52
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.651-655,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Benton M J

• University of Bristol, Bristol, BS9 1RJ

Bibliografia

• Adrain, J.M. 2006. Higher taxa as proxies for species diversity: a global species database of Trilobita. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs 38: 207.
• Báldi, A. 2003. Using higher taxa as surrogates of species richness: a study based on 3700 Coleoptera, Diptera, and Acari species in Central−Hungarian reserves. Basic and Applied Ecology 4: 589–593.
• Balmford, A., Green, M.J.B., and Murray, M.G. 1996. Using higher−taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: I. Regional tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 263: 1267–1274.
• Benton, M.J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank−free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633–648.
• Cantino, P.D. 2004. Classifying species versus naming clades. Taxon 53: 795–798.
• Cantino, P.D., Bryant, H.N., de Queiroz, K., Donoghue, M.J., Eriksson, T., Hillis, D.M., and Lee, M.S.Y. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Systematic Biology 48: 790–807.
• Cantino, P.D. and de Queiroz, K. 2004. PhyloCode: A Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature. Available at http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/.
• Carpenter, J.M. 2003. Critique of pure folly. Botanical Review 69: 79–92.
• de Queiroz, K. 2006. The PhyloCode and the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Systematic Biology 55: 160–162.
• de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 449–480.
• Doerries, M.B. and Van Dover, V.L. 2003. Higher−taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness in chemosynthetic communities. Deep−Sea Research 50: 749–755.
• Dominguez, E. and Wheeler, Q.D. 1997. Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics 13: 367–372.
• Dyke, G.J. 2002. Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature? Journal of Paleontology 76: 793–796.
• Foote, M. 1996. Perspective: evolutionary patterns in the fossil record. Evolution 50: 1–11.
• Forey, P.L. 2002. PhyloCode—pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43–54.
• Frost, D.R. and Etheridge, R. 1989. A phylogenetic analysis and taxonomy of Iguanian lizards (Reptilia: Squamata). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publications 81: 1–65.
• Härlin, M. 2005. Definitions and phylogenetic nomenclature. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 56: 216–224.
• Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. 263 pp. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
• Keller, R.A., Boyd, R.N, and Wheeler, Q.D. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Botanical Reviews 69: 93–110.
• Langer, M.C. 2001. Linnaeus and the PhyloCode: where are the differences? Taxon 50: 1091–1096.
• Laurin, M. and Cantino, P.D. 2007. Second meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature: a report. Zoologica Scripta 36: 109–117.
• Lee, M.S.Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175–180.
• Lee, M.S.Y. and Skinner, A. 2007. Stability, ranks and the PhyloCode. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52: 643–650.
• Lidén, M. and Oxelman, B. 1996. Do we need phylogenetic taxonomy? Zoologica Scripta 25: 183–185.
• Magierowski, R.H. and Craig R. Johnson. 2006. Robustness of surrogates of biodiversity in marine benthic communities. Ecological Applications 16:2264–2275.
• Monsch, K. A. 2006. The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51: 521–524.
• Nixon, K.C., and Carpenter, J.M. 2000. On the other “phylogenetic systematics”. Cladistics 16: 298–318.
• Nixon, K.C., Carpenter, J.M., and Stevenson, D.W. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the “Linnaean” system can easily be fixed. Botanical Reviews 69: 111–120.
• Padian, K., Hutchinson, J.R., and Holtz, T.R. Jr. 1999. Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria (Theropoda). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 69–80.
• Patterson, C. and Rosen, D.E. 1977. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 158: 81–172.
• Pickett, K.M. 2005. The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even polyphyly: a conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting. Cladistics 21: 79–82.
• Raup, D.M. 1979. Size of the Permo−Triassic bottleneck and its evolutionary implications. Science 206: 217–218.
• Rieppel, O. 2006. The PhyloCode: a critical discussion of its theoretical foundation. Cladistics 22: 186–197.
• Robeck, H.E.. Maley, C.C., and Donoghue, M.J. 2000. Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns. Paleobiology 26: 171–187.
• Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J.W. 1996. Higher taxa in biodiversity studies: Patterns from eastern Pacific marine molluscs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 351: 1605–1613.
• Sereno, P.C. 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher−level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 210: 41–83.
• Sereno, P.C. 2005. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 595–619.
• Smith, A.B. 1994. Systematics and the Fossil Record. 223 pp. Blackwell, Oxford.
• Villaseñor, J.L., Ibarra−Manriq G., Meave, J.A., and Ortiz, E. 2005. Higher taxa as surrogates for plant biodiversity in a megadiverse country. Conservation Biology 19: 232–238.
• Wiley, E.O. 1979. An annotated Linnean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Systematic Zoology 28: 308–337.
• Williams, P.H. and Gaston, K.J. 1994. Measuring more of biodiversity: can higher−taxon richness predict wholesale species richness? Biological Conservation 67: 211–217.
• Williams, P.H., Gaston, K.J., and Humphries, C.J. 1997. Mapping biodiversity value worldwide: combining higher−taxon richness from different groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences 264: 141–148.