Dead on arrival: a postmortem assessment of “phylogenetic nomenclature”, 20+ years on

Cladistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 627-637
Author(s):  
Andrew V.Z. Brower
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

The Illogical Basis of Phylogenetic Nomenclature

2003 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto A. Keller ◽  
Richard N. Boyd ◽  
Quentin D. Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology

2001 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Brochu ◽  
Colin D. Sumrall
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

scholarly journals From the “ancestar” of turtles to the turtle-mouse: when Greek words are used for turtle taxon names

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Vlachos
Keyword(s):  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Alternative Systems ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
History Of ◽  
Greek Alphabet ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
The Times ◽  
Animal Size ◽  
Current Guidelines ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

Background. Regardless using a rank-based or a phylogenetic nomenclature code, the use of Latinized binomens to describe the extant and extinct species has been essential. Ever since the times of Linnaeus, the use of Latinized Greek names has been a common practice both for neontologists and paleontologists. Methods. I critically analyzed the most common Greek words used as taxa names in the chelonian literature to establish their etymology and check whether the transliteration process has been done correctly. I also compared the current guidelines for the latinisation of Greek words recommended by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, with other alternative systems for the transformation of names formed in the Greek alphabet into Latin-based languages. Results. The preliminary results show that some Greek words (e.g. Chelone, Emys) dominate the chelonian nomenclature, but the history of the application of many of those names is intriguing. The use of Greek words is quite common in turtle taxa names when the name describes physical properties of the animal (size, shape, colour). However, several unfortunate examples exist, as some quite successful and famous names contain misspellings or poor choice of words that resulted in meanings opposite from the ones intended by the authors. Discussion. Naming species is an integral part of the research of both neontologists and palaeontologists, but the application of Greek words to life sciences is even far more extensive, applied to numerous terminologies as well. Forming a proper name for a taxon could aid significantly to the communication and interpretation of the scientific results. Publishing a new name requires a sense of responsibility as well, as the formation of a taxon name is a unique linguistic procedure. But in the end, to add a taxonomic side to the old shakespearean question, is not the name that is important, but the information it conveys. That which we call a turtle by any other name would be as unique.

Towards a new classification of tribe Stachydeae (Lamiaceae): naming clades using molecular evidence

2019 ◽  
Vol 190 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasaman Salmaki ◽  
Günther Heubl ◽  
Maximilian Weigend
Keyword(s):  
Ribosomal Dna ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Phylogenetic Relationships ◽  
Nuclear Ribosomal Dna ◽  
Molecular Evidence ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Formal Classification ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

AbstractStachydeae, comprising c. 470 species, are one of the most diverse and taxonomically puzzling groups in Lamioideae. In the present study, the phylogenetic relationships in the Eurystachys clade (a phylogenetic name for all genera attributed to Stachydeae except Melittis) were reconstructed utilizing nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences (nrETS, 5S-NTS) from 148 accessions in 12 genera. Our phylogenetic results recovered Stachys as paraphyletic with numerous traditionally recognized genera nested in it. A broadly defined Eurystachys clade, however, was monophyletic. Unlike previous studies, the present study was able to resolve the group into 12 well-supported clades, named here as (1) Eriostomum, (2) Stachys, (3) Prasium, (4) Setifolia, (5) Distantes, (6) Burgsdorfia, (7) Hesiodia, (8) Empedoclia, (9) Sideritis, (10) Marrubiastrum, (11) Swainsoniana and (12) Olisia. These 12 clades were formally named in a phylogenetic nomenclature for the Eurystachys clade. Several infrageneric units were retrieved as monophyletic, namely Sideritis sections Burgsdorfia, Empedoclia and Hesiodia, Sideritis subgenus Marrubiastrum and Stachys sections Eriostomum (including Stachys section Mucronata) and Setifolia. The findings of this study also provide the basis for a future formal classification, with two options: (1) splitting of the Eurystachys clade into 12 monophyletic genera, all of them based on pre-existing genus names and redefined to encompass additional taxa, but without clear morphological apomorphies; or (2) lumping of all segregates into a broadly defined Stachys, including widely recognized and well-defined segregates such as Prasium and Sideritis.

A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature

Taxon ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerry Moore
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

scholarly journals The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e12362
Author(s):  
Daniel Madzia ◽  
Victoria M. Arbour ◽  
Clint A. Boyd ◽  
Andrew A. Farke ◽  
Penélope Cruzado-Caballero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Theoretical Foundation ◽  
International Code ◽  
Morphological Disparity ◽  
Research History ◽  
Globally Distributed ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature ◽  
The Way

Ornithischians form a large clade of globally distributed Mesozoic dinosaurs, and represent one of their three major radiations. Throughout their evolutionary history, exceeding 134 million years, ornithischians evolved considerable morphological disparity, expressed especially through the cranial and osteodermal features of their most distinguishable representatives. The nearly two-century-long research history on ornithischians has resulted in the recognition of numerous diverse lineages, many of which have been named. Following the formative publications establishing the theoretical foundation of phylogenetic nomenclature throughout the 1980s and 1990s, many of the proposed names of ornithischian clades were provided with phylogenetic definitions. Some of these definitions have proven useful and have not been changed, beyond the way they were formulated, since their introduction. Some names, however, have multiple definitions, making their application ambiguous. Recent implementation of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (ICPN, or PhyloCode) offers the opportunity to explore the utility of previously proposed definitions of established taxon names. Since the Articles of the ICPN are not to be applied retroactively, all phylogenetic definitions published prior to its implementation remain informal (and ineffective) in the light of the Code. Here, we revise the nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaur clades; we revisit 76 preexisting ornithischian clade names, review their recent and historical use, and formally establish their phylogenetic definitions. Additionally, we introduce five new clade names: two for robustly supported clades of later-diverging hadrosaurids and ceratopsians, one uniting heterodontosaurids and genasaurs, and two for clades of nodosaurids. Our study marks a key step towards a formal phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs.

Resolving phylogenetic and classical nomenclature: A Revision of Canarium Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca, Neostromboidae, Strombidae)

The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-43
Author(s):  
Virgilio Liverani ◽  
Aart Dekkers ◽  
Stephen Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Maximum Likelihood ◽  
Morphological Characters ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

This revision of the genus Canarium Schumacher, 1817 after Abbott (1960) advances our understanding of the phylogeny of Strombidae. Morphological characters were used to generate a phylogeny using maximum likelihood and including all of the recognised species. This resulted in the recognition of one tree, and within that tree the existing genera Canarium Schumacher, 1817 Tridentarius Kronenberg & Vermeij, 2002 and Terestrombus Kronenberg & Vermeij, 2002, and two more Maculastrombus n. gen. and Neostrombus n. gen. were recognisable clades. Furthermore, within the genus Canarium, four subgenera, Canarium (Canarium), Canarium (Conundrum), Canarium (Elegantum), and Canarium (Stereostrombus), were identified and described. We describe and define taxa that are compatible with the requirements of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode 2020), and also conform to the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). This revision assists in generating a system of nomenclature that reflects the hypothetical relationships, and is at the same time practical in its application. We designate type localities and types for included species that were not yet addressed up until now.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document