The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: Why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either

• Autorzy: Monsch K.A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Methodological stability in biological nomenclature is being upset recently, with potential consequences for palaeontology. Some systematists, inspired mainly by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994), reject traditional nomenclature in favour of an alternative “Phylogenetic Nomenclature” (PN). Following de Queiroz (2006) I consistently call this Phylogenetic Nomenclature, rather than Phylogenetic taxonomy, as it is often done. Important tenets of PN are the abandonment of hierarchic ranks and binomial names, and establishing name definitions based on cladogram shape (node−, stem−, and stem−modified node−based definitions), apomorphies (apomorphy−based definitions), or a combination of apomorphies and tree topology (apomorphy−modified node−based definition). For an explanation of such definitions, see Cantino and de Queiroz (2003) and Sereno (2005). The practice of Phylogenetic Nomenclature is laid out in an Internet document, the PhyloCode (Cantino and de Queiroz 2003). PN is seen as the natural next step in the evolution of taxonomy: from Linnaeus’ (1753, 1758) “creationist taxonomy” to Hennig’s (1966) cladistic taxonomy. Hence, Linnaeus’ ideas should be removed from nomenclature, which will then reflect phylogeny. Despite the dominance of cladistics as a framework for taxonomy, the validity of its philosophies and methodologies are still questioned (e.g., Szalay 2000). I encourage everyone, independently of school of taxonomy adhered to, to take interest in PN, because: (1) we are all creators or users of taxonomies and classifications, (2) PN is radically different from the current standard, (3) the Preface to the PhyloCode suggests it should ultimately replace the current Codes of Nomenclature (of bacteria, LaPage et al. 1992; of Zoology, ICZN 1999; of Botany, Greuter et al. 2000). I argue herein, why palaeontologists should not follow PN.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

nomenclature; paleontology; Phylocode name; phylogenesis; systematics; taxonomy

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 51
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.521-524,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Monsch K.A.

• Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Institute of Zoology, H.Sienkiewicza 21, 50−335 Wroclaw, Poland.

Bibliografia

• Benton, M.J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank−free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633–648.
• Brochu, C.A. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence timing of Crocodylus based on morphology and the fossil record. Copeia 2000: 657–673.
• Brochu, C.A. and Sumrall, C.D. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology. Journal of Paleontology 75: 754–757.
• Bryant, H.N. and Cantino, P.D. 2002. A review of criticisms of phylogenetic literature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biological Reviews 77: 39–55.
• Cantino, P.D. and de Queiroz, K. 2003. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature <http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/>.
• de Queiroz, K. 2006. The PhyloCode and the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Systematic Biology 55: 160–162.
• de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39: 307–322.
• de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 23: 449–480.
• de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1994. Towards a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 27–31.
• Dyke, G.J. 2002. Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature? Journal of Paleontology 76: 793–796.
• Ereshefsky, M. 1997. The evolution of the Linnaean hierarchy. Philosophy and Biology 12: 493–519.
• Fierstine, H.L. and Monsch, K.A. 2002. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of the family Blochiidae (Perciformes: Scombroidei), Middle Eocene, Monte Bolca, Italy. Miscellanea Paleontologica n. 6, Studi e Ricerche sui Giacimenti Terziari di Bolca, Museo Civico di Storia Natrale di Verona 9: 121–163.
• Forey, P.L. 2002. PhyloCode−pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43–54.
• Forey, P.L., Fortey, A., Kenrick, P., and Smith, A.B. 2004. Taxonomy and fossils: a critical appraisal. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 359: 639–653.
• Greuter, W., McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Filgeiras, T.S., Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C., Skog, J.E., Trehane, P., Turland, N.J., and Hawksworth, D.L. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress St. Louis, Missouri, July–August 1999. xviii + 474 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein.
• Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. 263 pp. University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL.
• Hibbett, D.S., and Donoghue, M.J. 1998. Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90: 347–356.
• ICZN 1999. International Code of Zoologcial Nomenclature, 4th Edition. xxxix + 306 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London.
• LaPage, S.P., Sneath, P.H.A., Lessel, E.F., Skerman, V.B.D., Seelinger H.P.R., and Clark, W.A. 1992. International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code 1990 Revision). xlii + 189 pp. American Society for Microbiology, Washington DC.
• Lee, M.S.Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175–180.
• Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum, exhibens plantas ritecognitas, ad genera relatas, cum differentiis specifices, nominibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas. 2 Vols. 1200 pp. Laurenti Salvii, Stockholm
• Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, diferentiis, synonymis, loci. Tomus 1: Regnum animale, 10th Edition. 824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm.
• Monsch, K.A. 2003. The use of apomorphies in taxonomic defining. Taxon 52: 105–107.
• Padian, K., Hutchinson J.R., and Holtz, T.R. 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.
• Schander, C. and Thollesson, M. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy−some comments. Zoologica Scripta 24: 263–268.
• 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: documenting evolutionary patterns. viii+223 pp. Blackwell Science, London.
• Sytchevskaya, E.K. and Prokofiev, A.M. 2002. First findings of Xiphioidea (Perciformes) in the Late Paleocene of Turkmenistan. Journal of Ichthyology 42: 227–237.
• Szalay, F. 2000. Function and adaptation in paleontology and phylogenetics: Why do we omit Darwin? Acta Palaeontologica Electronica 3 (2): 25 pp <http://palaeo−electronica.org/paleo/2000_2/darwin/issue2_00.htm>.
• Wilkinson, M. 1995. Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Systematic Biology 43: 343–368.