Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature.

  title={Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature.},
  author={Philip D. Cantino and Harold N. Bryant and Kevin de Queiroz and Michael J. Donoghue and Torsten Eriksson and David M. Hillis and M S Lee},
  journal={Systematic biology},
  volume={48 4},
Linnaean binomial nomenclature is logically incompatible with the phylogenetic nomenclature of de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480): The former is based on the concept of genus, thus making this rank mandatory, while the latter is based on phylogenetic definitions and requires the abandonment of mandatory ranks. Thus, if species are to receive names under phylogenetic nomenclature, a different method must be devised to name them. Here, 13 methods for naming species… 

Tables from this paper

Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature

It is argued that taxon names under the Linnaean system are unclear in meaning and provide unstable group–name associations, notwithstanding whether or not there are agreements on relationships, and that species should not be recognized as taxonomic units.

Species and phylogenetic nomenclature

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.

Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life.

  • D. Hillis
  • Biology
    Molecular phylogenetics and evolution
  • 2007

The phylogenetic definition of reptilia.

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.


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.

POINTS OF VIEW Species and phylogenetic nomenclature

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?

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.

Should taxon names be explicitly defined?

The current system of nomenclature is better able to handle new and unexpected changes in ideas about taxonomic relationships, and greater flexibility in the names themselves makes the current system better designed for use by all users of taxon names.

Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank‐free lists: is Linnaeus dead?

  • M. Benton
  • Biology
    Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
  • 2000
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.

Are the linnean and phylogenetic nomenclatural systems combinable? Recommendations for biological nomenclature.

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.



A Comparison of Phylogenetic Nomenclature with the Current System: A Botanical Case Study

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.


It is suggested that in order to maximise the informativeness and usefulness of phylogenetic classifications, the same reference taxon should be used in definitions of a series of nested clades, and accordingly, reference taxa should be chosen so as to allow definition of the maximum number of nestedClades.

A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature

While the phylogenetic method would increase explicitness and universality regarding the application of names, it may do so at the expense of taxonomic flexibility and circumscriptional stability of a taxon represented by a given name.

Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names

Defining the names of taxa in terms of common ancestry, that is, using phylogenetic definitions of taxon names, departs from a tradition of character-based definitions by granting the concept of

Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees

This paper addresses the issue of philosophy of names within the context of biological taxonomy, more specifically how names refer. By contrasting two philosophies of names, one that is based on the

Phylogenetic classification and the definition of taxon names

The Linnean categories are considered poorly suited to convey the information in evolutionary trees, and it is suggested that these categories are abandoned.

The Future of Linnaean Nomenclature

The present paper is intended to initiate debate among phylogenetic systematists about what formal conventions are needed to achieve the aim of representing phylogenies without ambiguity.

Cladistic information in phylogenetic definitions and designated phylogenetic contexts for the use of taxon names

Whereas phylogenetic definitions stabilize the meaning of taxon names, designated phylogenetic contexts would stabilize the usage of those names and describe in an n-taxon statement that would be appended to the phylogenetic definition.

Exploring Alternative Systems of Classification

In practice, relative rank is also effectively communicated within the context of discussion, thus a precise system of indicating relative rank within a formal classification may not be necessary.


Conventions can promote universality in the formation, definition, and usage of taxon names in phylogenetic taxonomy and help to promote the ac- ceptance of phylogeneticTaxonomy by biologists.