On the Other “Phylogenetic Systematics”

@article{Nixon2000OnTO,
  title={On the Other “Phylogenetic Systematics”},
  author={K. Nixon and J. Carpenter},
  journal={Cladistics},
  year={2000},
  volume={16}
}
De Queiroz and Gauthier, in a serial paper, argue that biological taxonomy is in a sad state, because taxonomists harbor “widely held belief” systems that are archaic and insufficient for modern classification, and that the bulk of practicing taxonomists are essentialists. Their paper argues for the scrapping of the current system of nomenclature, but fails to provide specific rules for the new “Phylogenetic Systematics”—instead we have been presented with a vague and sketchy manifesto based… Expand
PHYLOGENETIC NOMENCLATURE AND PALEONTOLOGY
TLDR
Why phylogenetic nomenclature is a good thing for paleontology and ways in which the community can make the transition from typological to evolutionary systems while minimizing confusion are suggested. Expand
Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature?
Thanks to the Linnaean system of Biological Nomenclature systematics these days is an ordered discipline. Debates over specifics still abound, but there is little argument that taxonomy shouldExpand
SHOULD PALEONTOLOGISTS USE “PHYLOGENETIC” NOMENCLATURE?
TLDR
A look at a few areas of PN that make it an especially problematic proposal for paleontology in particular. Expand
Taxon names as paradigms: the structure of nomenclatural revolutions
In the present paper I argue that the two systems of phylogenetic nomenclature hitherto proposed represent, in a generalized sense, two different philosophies for how science develops and progresses.Expand
On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature
TLDR
It is suggested that apomorphy-based phylogenetic definitions of taxon names are preferable to other types of definitions, for both historical reasons (apparent similarity to existing Linnaean definitions, ability to fix "key" innovations to the diagnoses of higher taxa), and practical reasons (being useful in poorly resolved groups). Expand
The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature
TLDR
The role of natural kinds in scientific practice and the nature of definitions and scientific classifications is reviewed, and current views on natural kinds and their definitions under a scientific realist perspective provide grounds for rejecting the class versus individual dichotomy altogether. Expand
Proposal of an integrated framework of biological taxonomy: a phylogenetic taxonomy, with the method of using names with standard endings in clade nomenclature
TLDR
An integrated framework of biological taxonomy is proposed, in which the advantages of phylogenetic taxonomy and traditional, Linnaean nomenclature, together with the temporal banding methods are synthesized, without deteriorating the strength of theoretical coherence. Expand
Linnaeus and the Phylocode: where are the differences?
TLDR
In the present paper, taxa (or taxonomic) definitions are used solely to describe the first of those procedures, and the “stability” of de Queiroz & Gauthier refers to the definition of taxon names, whereas that of Nixon & Carpenter discusses the circumscription of a taxon. Expand
An end to all things? — plants and their names
TLDR
It is argued that most of the apparently more cosmic issues brought up in this debate are based on a combination of a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of language, fallacious reasoning and dubious—and largely irrelevant—interpretations of history. Expand
The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the “Linnaean” System can easily be fixed
TLDR
There is no need to “scrap” the current Linnaean codes for a poorly reasoned, logically inconsistent, and fatally flawed new code that will only bring chaos, as proposed in this article. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 120 REFERENCES
Point of View Do we need “phylogenetic taxonomy”?
TLDR
Questions are raised over the claims made by the above authors that the current nomenclatural system fails to accomplish the goals of phylogenetic systematics, and the specific alternatives suggested are certainly in conflict with convenience, stability, information content, and communication efficiency. Expand
Phylogenetic taxonomy–some comments
TLDR
Some of the practical issues in a phylogenetic taxonomy are focused on, and some alternative solutions to problems acknowledged in previous papers are suggested. Expand
Stability of higher taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature — some comments on Moore (1998)
TLDR
The suggestion that a formal code of phylogenetic nomenclature urgently needs to be drafted is well taken, and Moore is in broad agreement with the view that apomorphy-based de®nitions are not necessarily inferior to node-and stem- based de®,nitions. Expand
Regular ArticleForum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance☆
TLDR
An alternative to Linnaean nomenclature is concluded to provide stable names for unstable concepts in terms of communicating either characters shared by species of a named taxon or elements included in a taxon, de Queiroz and Gauthier's system is less stable than theLinnaean system. Expand
Point of View The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: practical aspects
The increasing rejection of traditional, character-based definitions of taxon names in favour of ancestor-based definitions represents one of the more important recent trends in biological taxonomyExpand
Forum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance
TLDR
An alternative to Linnaean nomenclature is concluded to provide stable names for unstable concepts in terms of communicating either characters shared by species of a named taxon or elements included in a taxon, de Queiroz and Gauthier's system is less stable than theLinnaean system. Expand
A Comparison of Phylogenetic Nomenclature with the Current System: A Botanical Case Study
TLDR
The family Lamiaceae was used as a case study to compare the current system of nomenclature with a phylogenetic alternative proposed by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992), and the recommendation that the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa be abandoned is endorsed. Expand
Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature.
TLDR
Here, 13 methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature are contrasted with each other and with Linnaean binomials and a fundamental dichotomy among the proposed methods distinguishes those that retain the entire binomial of a preexisting species name fromThose that retain only the specific epithet. Expand
PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS AND THE SPECIES PROBLEM
TLDR
Examination of species concepts that focus either on interbreeding or on common descent leads us to conclude that several alternatives are acceptable from the standpoint of phylogenetic systematics but that no one species concept can meet the needs of all comparative biologists. Expand
Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature: a reply to Lidén and Oxelman
TLDR
The purpose in this response is to call attention to errors and misunderstandings in their critique so that the debate about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature can be based on its properties, the advantages of which are properly open to debate, rather than on misconceptions. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...