Taxonomy and fossils: a critical appraisal

Forey, Peter L.; Fortey, Richard A.; Kenrick, Paul; Smith, Andrew B.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1453

Cited by 77 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This necessitates elevated origination rates without requiring elevated extinction rates. Forey et al (2004) predict that taxonomic standardization typically will decrease turnover rates. In particular, they expect many paraphyletic taxa to have apparent extinctions that coincide with the origination of descendants, and that standardization will eliminate these extinctions and originations.…”

Section: Discussion (A) Implications For Historical Diversity Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, occurrence-based databases frequently rely on published fossil lists that are many years old. These lists often have outdated generic taxonomy, owing to either subsequent generic revision or inexpert systematic knowledge by the lists' compilers (Smith 2003;Forey et al 2004). The same species might be assigned to different genera on different lists, which introduces source of possible taxonomic error not present in synoptic studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of taxonomic standardization on sampling-standardized estimates of historical diversity

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occurrence-based databases such as the Palaeobiology database (PBDB) provide means of accommodating the heterogeneities of the fossil record when evaluating historical diversity patterns. Although palaeontologists have given ample attention to the effects of taxonomic practice on diversity patterns derived from synoptic databases (those using first and last appearances of taxa), workers have not examined the effects of taxonomic error on occurrence-based diversity studies. Here, we contrast diversity patterns and diversity dynamics between raw data and taxonomically vetted data in the PBDB to evaluate the effects of taxonomic errors. We examine three groups: Palaeozoic gastropods, Jurassic bivalves and Cenozoic bivalves. We contrast genus-level diversity patterns based on: (i) all occurrences assigned to a genus (i.e. both species records and records identifying only the genus), (ii) only occurrences for which a species is identified, and (iii) only occurrences for which a species is identified, but after vetting the genus to which the species is assigned.Extensive generic reassignments elevate origination and extinction rates within Palaeozoic gastropods and origination rates within Cenozoic bivalves. However, vetting increases generic richness markedly only for Cenozoic bivalves, and even then the increase is less than 10%. Moreover, the patterns of standing generic richness are highly similar under all three data treatments. Unless our results are unusual, taxonomic standardization can elevate diversity dynamics in some cases, but it will not greatly change inferred richness over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussion (A) Implications For Historical Diversity Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of taxonomic standardization on sampling-standardized estimates of historical diversity

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, a survey among botanists at the beginning of the last century revealed that genera were often considered to be biological entities while species were not (Anderson 1940). Also, more recently, researchers have concluded that genera are natural evolutionary units separated by discontinuities and even coined a specific term-geniation-for the putative process that produces new genera (Dubois, 1981) Along with others (e.g., Forey et al 2004;Orthia et al 2005;Wiley & Lieberman 2011), we here follow the view that supraspecific Linnaean ranks have no inherent biological meaning except that only monophyletic taxa should be classified. Changes in classification, therefore, have a mandatory component −if new data demonstrate that the current classification contains non-monophyetic taxa, changes are needed.…”

Section: Ranks Categories and Taxa Of The Linnaean Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

Vences¹,

Guayasamín²,

Miralles³

et al. 2013

Zootaxa

157

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Linnaean classification system provides the universal reference system for communicating about the diversity of life and its hierarchic history. Several limitations that challenge the stability of this system have been identified and, as a result, alternative systems have been proposed since its early inception. The revolution caused by molecular phylogenetics has, more than ever, exemplified that Linnaean classification schemes are subject to a degree of instability that may hamper their significance and communication power. Our analysis of recent changes in the classification of several groups of organisms, with a focus on amphibians and reptiles, reveals two main sources of instability: (i) revisionary, objective (empirical) changes based on the discovery of unambiguous instances of non-monophyly and on progress in the Globe's species inventory, and (ii) subjective changes based on author preferences or on a poor analysis of the advantages and limitations of new classification schemes. To avoid subjective taxonomic instability, we review and elaborate proposals for the assignment of Linnaean rank to clades, and thereby for the naming of these clades as Linnaean taxa (Taxon Naming Criteria: TNCs). These are drafted from the perspective of practicing taxonomists and can help choosing among alternative monophyly-based classifications under a premise of economy of change. We provide a rationale for each TNC along with real and theoretical examples to illustrate their practical advantages and disadvantages. We conclude that not all TNCs lead to equally informative and stable taxonomies. Therefore, we order the various TNCs by the generality of their implications and provide a workflow scheme to guide the procedure of taxonomic decisions concerning the creation or modification of supraspecific classifications. The following criteria are considered primary when naming taxa: (i) Monophyly of the taxon in an inferred species tree; (ii) Clade Stability, i.e., the monophyly of a clade to be named as taxon should be as strongly supported as possible by various methods of tree inference, tests of clade robustness, and different data sets; and (iii) Phenotypic Diagnosability, i.e., ranked supraspecific taxa should be those that are phenotypically most conspicuous although in phenotypically cryptic groups of organisms it can be warranted to name taxa based on molecular differences alone. We consider various other criteria as secondary (i.e., the Time Banding, Biogeography, Adaptive Zone, and Hybrid Viability TNCs) and refute using them as sole arguments for the modification of established classifications or proposal of new ones. Taxonomists are encouraged to be explicit and consistent when applying TNCs for creating or modifying classifications. We emphasize that, except for monophyly, the priority TNCs are not proposed as mandatory requisites of a Linnaean taxon but as yardsticks to allow for an informed choice among various clades in a tree that could alternatively be named as Linnaean taxa. Despite a need for plurality, classifications should avoid deliberately violating any of the three primary TNCs because taxa of unstable monophyly or poor diagnosability reduce the information content and hence the utility of the Linnaean system.

show abstract

“…These range from modifications of the rules, such as the exclusion of hybrids from the Zoological Code but their inclusion in the Botanical Code, the use of the category 'form-genus' for fossil plants known only in parts in the Botanical Code (see Forey et al 2004), to the establishment of semi-autonomous (e.g. the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Cultivated Plant Code), see § 5) codes for domesticated organisms (see Jeffrey (1989) for other special cases).…”

Section: Emergence Of Nomenclatural Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: the evolving codes of nomenclature

Knapp

Lamas

Lughadha

et al. 2004

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nomenclature, far from being a dry dusty subject, is today more relevant than ever before. Researchers into genomics are discovering again the need for systems of nomenclature-names are what we use to communicate about organisms, and by extension the rest of their biology. Here, we briefly outline the history of the published international codes of nomenclature, tracing them from the time of Linnaeus in the eighteenth century to the present day. We then outline some of what we feel are the major challenges that face the codes in the twenty-first century; focusing primarily on publication, priority, typification and the role of science in the naming of organisms. We conclude that the codes are essential for taxonomists in the pursuance of their science, and that the democratic nature of decision-making in the regulation of the rules of nomenclature, though sometimes perceived as a potential weakness, is in fact one of its great strengths.

show abstract

Taxonomy and fossils: a critical appraisal

Cited by 77 publications

References 58 publications

The effects of taxonomic standardization on sampling-standardized estimates of historical diversity

The effects of taxonomic standardization on sampling-standardized estimates of historical diversity

To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: the evolving codes of nomenclature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About