Species Names in Phylogenetic Nomenclature

Abstract

Abstract.•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 in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature are contrasted with each other and with Linnaean binomials. A fundamental dichotomy among the proposed methods distinguishes those that retain the entire binomial of a preexisting species name from those that retain only the specific epithet. Other relevant issues include the stability, uniqueness, and ease of pronunciation of species names; their capacity to convey phylogenetic information; and the distinguishability of species names that are governed by a code of phylogenetic nomenclature both from clade names and from species names governed by the current codes. No method is ideal. Each has advantages and drawbacks, and preference for one option over another will be influenced by one's evaluation of the relative importance of the pros and cons for each. Moreover, sometimes the same feature is viewed as an advantage by some and a drawback by others. Nevertheless, all of the proposed methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature provide names that are more stable than Linnaean binomials. {Phylogenetic nomenclature; species names; binomial nomenclature.)

Should names reflect the evolution of bacterial species?

“…On the contrary, the reverse is true, i.e. changes in classification determine changes in name, 'some changes in name are thus inevitable ' (Sneath, 1989), which can be inferred from Principle 9 of the Bacteriological Code (Lapage et al, 1992), according to which 'the name of a taxon should not be changed without sufficient reason based...on further taxonomic studies'.The main consequence of these considerations is that names convey information, as strongly affirmed by the phylogenetic system of nomenclature (Cantino et al, 1999). Nevertheless, Principle 4 of the Bacteriological Code (Lapage et al, 1992) states that 'the primary purpose of giving a name to a taxon is to supply a means of referring to it'.…”

“…It is now widely recognized that the underlying basis of systematics is evolution (Stackebrandt et al, 2002), accepting Darwin's foresight that 'our classification will come to be...genealogies'. The central role of evolution in taxonomy in the past century has been outlined by Hennig (1966) and Mayr (1998) and re-proposed by several contemporary authors, including the bacterial species concept (de Quieroz & Gauthier, 1992;Cantino et al, 1999;Cohan, 2002), reflecting the fact that 'the process of doing systematics requires periodic adjustment to scientific advances ' (Stackebrandt et al, 2002).The ad hoc committee for the re-evaluation of the species definition in bacteriology (Stackebrandt et al, 2002) underlined the need for elucidating interspecific and especially intraspecific population structure by different techniques, which is a clear attempt to investigate the evolutionary processes of differentiation and speciation.Therefore, an evolutionary approach to systematics is a demand felt by a broad range of scientists, which has its salient reflections in the proposal of a phylogenetic taxonomy with its own nomenclature (de Quieroz & Gauthier, 1992;Cantino et al, 1999). It is also underlined by the change in the name of the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology to the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.…”

“…It is now widely recognized that the underlying basis of systematics is evolution (Stackebrandt et al, 2002), accepting Darwin's foresight that 'our classification will come to be...genealogies'. The central role of evolution in taxonomy in the past century has been outlined by Hennig (1966) and Mayr (1998) and re-proposed by several contemporary authors, including the bacterial species concept (de Quieroz & Gauthier, 1992;Cantino et al, 1999;Cohan, 2002), reflecting the fact that 'the process of doing systematics requires periodic adjustment to scientific advances ' (Stackebrandt et al, 2002).…”

Miamia maimai n. sp., a new Pennsylvanian stem-orthopteran insect, and a case study on the application of cladotypic nomenclature

“…Several options alternative to the binominal species names have been considered (Cantino et al 1999), but few applied. Among those Lanham's species names, composed of the specific epithet associated with authorship information (Lanham 1965;Dayrat et al 2004), have been favored and applied under the cladotypic procedure.…”

Supplemental Material for 'The amphibian tree of life. (Bulletin of the AMNH ; no. 297)'

“…The ranked and rankless alternatives to expressing phylogenetic relationships in words theoretically are endless but most recently and most clearly discussed by Kluge (2005). To oversimplify his paper, currently competing systems for expressing phylogenetic relationships in words are (1) Linnaean system (Linnaeus, 1758); (2) We have taken a sixth approach, one that we think is based on common sense, especially with respect to how systematists use taxonomies and with respect to the state of the discussion, which is still very preliminary and reflecting a deep ambivalence on the part of taxonomists (for all sides of the controversy see : Wiley, 1981;de Queiroz, 1988;de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1994;Cantino et al, 1997;Cantino et al, 1999;Benton, 2000;Nixon and Carpenter, 2000;Withgott, 2000;Kress and DePriest, 2001;Niklas, 2001;Papavero et al, 2001;Pennisi, 2001;Brummitt, 2002;Carpenter, 2003;Keller et al, 2003;Kojima, 2003;Nixon et al, 2003;Schuh, 2003;Kluge, 2005;Pickett, 2005). What we do think is that the conversation will continue for some time and that changes will take place, all discussed fully and not driven by the overheated sloganeering that, unfortunately, characterizes so much of the rhetoric at this time-on all sides-inasmuch as this is a political, not a scientific controversy (see Pickett, 2005, for discussion).…”