International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode)

Author(s):  
Philip D. Cantino ◽  
Kevin de Queiroz**
PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e12362
Author(s):  
Daniel Madzia ◽  
Victoria M. Arbour ◽  
Clint A. Boyd ◽  
Andrew A. Farke ◽  
Penélope Cruzado-Caballero ◽  
...  

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.


The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-43
Author(s):  
Virgilio Liverani ◽  
Aart Dekkers ◽  
Stephen Maxwell

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.


The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-209
Author(s):  
Stephen Maxwell

This paper provides the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature RegNum repository registration numbers for the clades defined in The Festivus. The definitions are based on the current understanding of the internal resolution within Stromboidae, and maybe amended as further taxa are resolved. This set of registration references reflects the refined definitions that have become necessary with the activation of the PhyloCode (2020) and the RegNum protocols. The use of types is not a requirement of the PhyloCode, but there use herein does resolve much of the differences between the IZCN and PhyloCode in practice. Errata for Maxwell and Rymer (2021) are noted at the end.


The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-51
Author(s):  
Stephen Maxwell ◽  
Tasmin Rymer

The taxonomy of Stromboideans has, historically, been simplistic. However, recent revisions have seen new taxa introduced to distinguish relationships between species clusters. We discuss these numerous advancements in Stromboidean systematics, and describe two new subfamilies here. The key diagnostic characteristic, the basal peg on the first lateral tooth, splits the Strombidae into two clades similar to those observed with molecular data. In defining the new subfamilies, Neoaligerinae and Neostrombinae, we demonstrate that the practical application of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode 2020), can also conform to the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). This revision further advances and strengthens the framework of Stromboidean nomenclature such that it is able to reflect the current understanding of the evolutionary relationships between members of the Stromboidea.


2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-327

Following four years of highly charged debate the rules for publication of scientific names of animals have been changed to allow electronic publications to meet the requirements of the stringent International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. In a landmark decision, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) has passed an amendment to its rules that will accept an electronic-only publication as ‘legitimate’ if it meets criteria of archiving and the publication is registered on the ICZN’s official online registry, ZooBank. A brief discussion of the amendment is available from: Zootaxa : http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/list/2012/3450.html Zookeys: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/3944/


2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-319
Author(s):  
E.L. Markhaseva ◽  
K. Schulz ◽  
P. Martinez Arbizu

Recently, we (Markhaseva et al., 2008) introduced a family-group name Rostrocalanidae for a new family of clausocalanoid copepods but the name is unavailable for it does not meet the conditions of Art. 16.2. of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Here, the Rostrocalanidae fam. nov. is established in a way that makes the name available.


IMA Fungus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. xv-xxi ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom W. May ◽  
Andrew N. Miller

Abstract Results are provided for the Guiding Vote on the seven formal proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants to be decided by the Fungal Nomenclature Session (FNS) of the XI International Mycological Congress in July 2018. Te ballot for the Guiding Vote was provided online. Tere were 520 valid ballots, submitted by mycologists from 42 countries, belonging to 23 eligible groups and societies, along with authors of proposals. Tw o proposals F-005 and F-006, both concerning DNA sequences as types, exceeded the 75 % No vote that is the threshold above which proposals are considered rejected by the FNS unless formally re-introduced. Two options for amendments to future procedures for the Guiding Vote are proposed: adding eligibility via publication of a nomenclatural novelty among fungi and removing eligibility via membership of IMA MMOs.


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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document