Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature

Kuntner, Matjaž; Agnarsson, Ingi

doi:10.1080/10635150600981596

Cited by 43 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A voluminous literature has arisen among advocates for both systems (see review by Pleijel and Rouse 2003;Pleijel and Härlin 2004;Cantino and de Queiroz 2006), principally derived from criticisms or perceived problems with each in terms of the ability to convey phylogenetic hypotheses. The central tenets of arguments favoring either the LN or PN have usually revolved around issues of stability, universality, and unambiguous meanings of 'taxon' names, as indicated in the above quote (de Queiroz and Gauthier 1994;de Queiroz 1997;Cantino 2000Cantino , 2004Nixon and Carpenter 2000;de Queiroz and Cantino 2001;Bryant and Cantino 2002;Carpenter 2003;Bertrand and Härlan 2006;Kuntner and Agnarsson 2006;Wilkinson 2006). But, advocates of the PN have added the caveat that evolutionary theory should be the overarching criterion by which these three qualities are judged , whereas the LN is agnostic with regard to theory (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Abductive Inference: Implications for ‘Linnean’ and ‘Phylogenetic’ Approaches for Representing Biological Systematization

Fitzhugh

2008

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common claim among advocates of the 'phylogenetic' system of nomenclature (PN) is that the 'Linnean' system (LN) is defective because it fails to promote stability, universality, and unambiguous meaning in the naming of phylogenetic hypotheses. This claim rests on the premise that biological systematization should be phylogenetic. The foundation for systematization lies beyond the principles of phylogenetics, as systematization is a goal common to all fields of science. Namely, that explanatory hypotheses should be communicated as accurately as possible. The basis for this claim is established through a brief review of the relations between causal questions and the abductive inferences that lead to phylogenetic hypotheses. Six implications ensue from this analysis. (1) The LN requirement that species hypotheses be presented in conjunction with genus-level (phylogenetic) hypotheses is unfounded. The basis for the inference of a species hypothesis stands entirely separate from any phylogenetic hypothesis. (2) Monotypic supraspecific hypotheses have no epistemic basis. (3) While comparisons of phylogenetic hypotheses based on rank assignments in the LN are denied for the fact that these distinct explanatory accounts are irrelevant to one another, this does not preclude the use of ranks. The ranking of hypotheses has the utility of communicating their relative explanatory inclusiveness. But, since there are no requirements that all hypotheses be formally named, there can be no consistent application of ranks, thereby obviating their use. (4) The argument for nomenclatural stability, used by advocates of both the LN and PN, is shown to be an arbitrary and unfounded criterion. (5) The distinctions between diagnosis, description, and definition are examined in light of the abductive nature of phylogenetic inference. The classes of definition promoted by advocates of the PN, i.e., node-, stem-, and apomorphy-based, are shown to be defective. (6) The association of species and phylogenetic hypotheses with types in the LN and specifiers in the PN is shown to be inadequate. The basis for formal names that represent species and phylogenetic hypotheses is the totality of observed specimens that prompted inferences of those hypotheses. Finally, universality and unambiguous meaning are shown to be unnecessary criteria, as each is subsumed by the broader principles of abductive inference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Abductive Inference: Implications for ‘Linnean’ and ‘Phylogenetic’ Approaches for Representing Biological Systematization

Fitzhugh

2008

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is comprehensible in such conditions that some authors (e.g., Kuntner & Agnarsson 2006) propose a compromise solution, "maintaining" the nomina of lower taxa in the Code and "offering" the nomina of higher taxa to the Phylocode. This solution is not only "bandy-legged", it is not viable in the long run.…”

Section: Other Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The <i>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature</i> must be drastically improved before it is too late

Dubois¹

2011

Bionomina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from the publisher, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed in writing.This authorization does not extend to any other kind of copying, by any means, in any form, and for any purpose other than private research use. The Code must be drastically improved AbstractAt the beginning of the century of extinctions, science has only inventoried a very small proportion of the living species of the globe. In order to face the taxonomic urgency that results from this taxonomic gap combined with the biodiversity crisis, zootaxonomy needs efficient, rigorous and automatic nomenclatural Rules, that allow to spend a minimal time on nomenclatural problems-rather than investing time, energy and money in renaming millions of already named taxa in order to follow alternative nomenclatural systems, e.g., "phylogenetic" ones, that furthermore do not show theoretical superiority to the current Linnaean-Stricklandian one. The current Code, result of a 250-year improvement process, is based on very sound and healthy Rules, being theory-free regarding taxonomy, relying on objective allocation of nomina to taxa by a system of ostension using onomatophores, and on an objective basic Principle, priority, for recognizing the valid nomen of a taxon in case of synonymy or homonymy. Nevertheless, this nomenclatural system is certainly not perfect. It should be modified at least in nine directions: (1) it should adopt a technical terminology avoiding possible misinterpretations from outsiders of the field and even from specialists, and allowing a precise formalisation of its mode of functioning; (2) its plan should be drastically modified; (3) its Principles should be redefined, and some added; (4) material evidence for the allocation of nomina to taxa through specimens deposited in permanent collections should be given more weight; (5) it should incorporate all nomina of higher taxa, providing clear and strict universal Rules for their naming, whereas conserving the traditional nomina largely used in non-specialized systematic literature; (6) it should allow for the recognition of many more ranks at lower nomenclatural levels, i.e., just above genus, between genus and species, and below species; (7) it should provide much more stringent Rules for the protection against priority of "wellknown" nomina or sozonyms; (8) various "details" should be addressed, various Rules and Recommendations changed before a new edition of the Code is published; (9) the procedure of implementations of changes in the Code should be modified in order to involve zootaxonomists of the whole world in the decisions. In several instances, the Rules of the Code should become much more compulsory for all zoologists, editors and publishers, to avoid the publication of endless and sometimes most detrimental discussions among taxonomists which give a poor image of nomenclature and taxonomy among ...

show abstract

“…It would be benefi cial to consider why this pattern occurred and whether these morphospecies are in fact valid taxa. Firstly, it is important to consider that paraphyly can occur naturally and is an expectation of many speciation processes (Kuntner and Agnarsson 2006). Potential causes for species displaying an interspersed pattern include hybridization, molecular introgression, and rapid morphological divergence due to selection on certain traits.…”

Section: Potential Causes Of Anomalous Values In Published Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera

Blagoev¹,

Hebert²,

Adamowicz³

et al. 2009

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Robinson EA, Blagoev GA, Hebert PDN, Adamowicz SJ (2009) Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera. In: Stoev P, Dunlop J, Lazarov S (Eds) A life caught in a spider's web. Papers in arachnology in honour of Christo Abstract While previous research has indicated the utility of DNA barcoding in identifying spider species sampled from a localized region, the eff ectiveness of this method over a broader geographic scale and with denser taxon sampling has not yet been extensively considered. Using both new and published data from 1801 individuals belonging to 361 morphospecies, this study examined intra-and interspecifi c divergences for 19 genera that were each represented by at least 10 morphospecies. We particularly focused on increasing species-level sampling in order to better characterize levels of interspecifi c divergence within species-rich genera and to examine the prevalence of a "barcode gap" (discontinuity between intra-and interspecifi c divergences). Overall, the mean intraspecifi c divergence value was found to be 2.15%, the average maximum intraspecifi c divergence was 3.16%, while the mean divergence between nearest interspecifi c neighbours was 6.77%, demonstrating the typical presence of a barcode gap. Of the 66% of morphospecies that formed monophyletic sequence clusters, the majority (92.5%) possessed a barcode gap. We also examine possible biological explanations for the large proportion of paraphyletic and polyphyletic clusters and discuss the need for further taxonomic investigations. Th e overlap between intra-and interspecifi c divergences was not unexpected for some 'species', such as Pardosa groenlandica, since prior morphological studies have suggested that it is an example of a species complex. However, other cases of high intraspecifi c divergences may refl ect cryptic species diversity, indicating the need for a taxonomic approach that combines both morphological and molecular methods. Th e list of the species, COI sequences, and source references used in the analysis is published as a dataset under doi: 10.3897/zookeys.16.239.app.A.ds. Th e list of analyzed species, mean and maximum intraspecifi c divergences, distances to the nearest neighbouring species in its genus, general localities, and lifestyle characteristics is published as a dataset under doi: 10.3897/zookeys.16.239.app.B.ds.

show abstract

Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature

Cited by 43 publications

References 97 publications

Abductive Inference: Implications for ‘Linnean’ and ‘Phylogenetic’ Approaches for Representing Biological Systematization

Abductive Inference: Implications for ‘Linnean’ and ‘Phylogenetic’ Approaches for Representing Biological Systematization

The <i>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature</i> must be drastically improved before it is too late

Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About