The PhyloCode, types, ranks and monophyly: a response to Pickett
- 20 December 2005
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Cladistics
- Vol. 21 (6) , 605-607
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00090.x
Abstract
A report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting recently published in Cladistics conveys several misconceptions about the PhyloCode and presents an erroneous interpretation of discussions that took place at that meeting. Contrary to Pickett's assertions, the PhyloCode is designed to name clades, not paraphyletic groups; the rejection of ranks has never been a fundamental principle of phylogenetic nomenclature; and specifiers under the PhyloCode differ in several ways from types under rank-based nomenclature.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Parsimony overcomes statistical inconsistency with the addition of more data from the same geneCladistics, 2005
- Classifying species versus naming cladesTaxon, 2004
- A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?Biological Reviews, 2002
- On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclatureTaxon, 2001
- Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biologyProceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 2000
- Phylogenetic nomenclature: addressing some concernsTaxon, 2000
- Stability of higher taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature — some comments on Moore (1998)Zoologica Scripta, 1999
- Point of View The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: practical aspectsZoologica Scripta, 1996
- Phylogenetic TaxonomyAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1992
- Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon NamesSystematic Zoology, 1990