PHYLOGENETIC NOMENCLATURE AND PALEONTOLOGY

@inproceedings{Brochu2001PHYLOGENETICNA,
  title={PHYLOGENETIC NOMENCLATURE AND PALEONTOLOGY},
  author={Christopher A. Brochu and Colin D. Sumrall},
  booktitle={Journal of Paleontology},
  year={2001}
}
That TAXONOMY should be phylogenetic—i.e., that named taxa should be restricted to monophyletic groups—is widely accepted throughout systematic biology. A recently proposed phylogenetic nomenclatural system (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990, 1992, 1994; Cantino and de Queiroz, 2000) goes further by specifying that all supraspecific taxon names be explicitly defined on the basis of common ancestry. This phylogenetic nomenclatural system would eventually replace the Linnean system currently in use… 
SHOULD PALEONTOLOGISTS USE “PHYLOGENETIC” NOMENCLATURE?
  • G. Dyke
  • Biology
    Journal of Paleontology
  • 2002
TLDR
A few areas of PN that make it an especially problematic proposal for paleontologists are highlighted.
The phylogenetic definition of reptilia.
TLDR
It is now apparent that some of the definitions for wellknown taxon names established early in the emergence of PN were not devised following conventions now widely accepted, by either defining groups in an overly restrictive manner, or via selection of reference taxa without due consideration of the ramifications of differing tree topologies.
Species and phylogenetic nomenclature
TLDR
This commentary discusses how the draft PhyloCode can easily function without any reference to species at all, and various possible options for naming species in phylogenetic nomenclature under Phylocode, which involve converting binomial species names defined under the current Linnaean codes into a different (either totally or functionally uninomial) format.
POINTS OF VIEW Species and phylogenetic nomenclature
TLDR
This commentary discusses how PhyloCode can easily function without any reference to species at all, and various possible options for naming species in phylogenetic nomenclature including converting binomial species names defined under the current Linnaean codes into a different (either totally or functionally uninomial) format under Phylocode.
A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?
TLDR
It is argued that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent in phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy, in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs.
Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta
TLDR
Criteria and approaches used here to choose among competing preexisting names for a clade, to select a definition type, to choose appropriate specifiers, and to restrict the use of a name to certain phylogenetic contexts may be widely applicable when naming other clades.
Naming Species in Phylogenetic Nomenclature
TLDR
The controversy around species names has arisen not only because of practical problems concerned with the adequate format for species names, but also because some practitioners of PN have questioned the existence of species or denied any role of species in this system.
Naming Species in Phylogenetic Nomenclature
TLDR
The controversy around species names has arisen not only because of practical problems concerned with the adequate format for species names, but also because some practitioners of PN have questioned the existence of species or denied any role of species in this system.
Are the linnean and phylogenetic nomenclatural systems combinable? Recommendations for biological nomenclature.
TLDR
It is seen as essential that species binomen, including the formal rank of genus, are retained, and species should continue to be linked to type specimens and the use of other formal ranks should be minimized.
The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: Why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either
TLDR
It is argued herein, why palaeontologists should not fol− low Phylogenetic Nomenclature, which is radically different from the current standard.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 61 REFERENCES
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the Other “Phylogenetic Systematics”
TLDR
It is shown that the node pointing system is actually far LESS stable than the existing Linnaean System when stability is measured by the rational method of determining the net change in taxa (species) included in a particular group under different classifications.
Phylogenetic taxonomy of the Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda)
  • T. Holtz
  • Biology
    Journal of Paleontology
  • 1996
TLDR
This paper is the initial work in an ongoing study by Holtz and Padian (1995, in preparation) to clarify the phylogenetic taxonomy of major clades of theropods and related taxa.
Definition and Diagnosis in the Phylogenetic System
TLDR
If taxa are viewed as individuals in the phylogenetic system, Ghiselin (1984) quite rightly pointed out that they may not possess defining characters because characters may transform without affecting the individuality of the taxon.
Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank‐free lists: is Linnaeus dead?
  • M. Benton
  • Biology
    Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
  • 2000
TLDR
The tenets of phylogenetic nomenclature have gained strong support among some vocal theoreticians, and rigid principles for legislative control of clade names and definitions have been outlined in the PhyloCode.
Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria (Theropoda)
TLDR
The new node-based name Eumaniraptora is proposed to refer to the most recent common ancestor of Deinonychus and Neornithes and all descendants of that ancestor.
...
...