Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:02:18.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Gareth J. Dyke
Gareth J. Dyke*
Affiliation:
Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology), American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thanks to the Linnaean system of Biological Nomenclature systematics these days is an ordered discipline. Debates over specifics still abound, but there is little argument that taxonomy should reflect the current state of our phylogenetic knowledge. However, recent proposals to replace the historically developed and universally utilized Linnaean system of Biological Nomenclature with an alternative “phylogenetic” system of nomenclature (PN; formulated as the draft PhyloCode [http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode]; e.g., Cantino and de Queiroz, 2000; see Nixon and Carpenter, 2000 for exhaustive citations) are flawed because they are founded on the misconception that Linnaean classification cannot (and therefore currently does not) accurately represent phylogeny. This is not the case—the ranked Linnaean system is a hierarchy, but then again, so is a cladogram and hence the former can mirror the latter. Although implementation of the proposed PhyloCode would result in huge implications within biological systematics in general (Nixon and Carpenter, 2000; Forey, 2001; Schuh, submitted), some workers (e.g., Brochu and Sumrail, 2001) have argued that proposals to implement this new system of “phylogenetic” nomenclature are a “good thing” for paleontology in particular. Since viewpoints contrary to the PhyloCode have already been aired elsewhere (e.g., Dominguez and Wheeler, 1997; Moore, 1998; Benton, 2000; Nixon and Carpenter, 2000; Forey, 2001), my aim here is to highlight a few areas of PN that make it an especially problematic proposal for paleontologists.

Type
View from the Field
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , September 2002 , pp. 793 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Present address: Department of Zoology, University College Dublin, Belfield Dublin 4, Ireland

References

Benton, M. J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown-clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 75:633–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brochu, C. A., and Sumrall, C. D. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology. Journal of Paleontology, 75:754–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantino, P. D. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature: addressing some concerns. Taxon, 49:85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantino, P. D., and de Queiroz, K. 2000. PhyloCode: a Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature. 〈http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/〉.Google Scholar
Cantino, P. D., Bryant, H. N., de Queiroz, K., Donoghue, M. J., Eriksson, T., Hillis, D. M., and Lee, M. S. Y. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Systematic Biology, 48:790–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crane, P. R., and Kenrick, P. 1997. Problems in cladistic classification: higher-level relationships in land plants. Aliso, 15:87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K. 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic definitions as exemplified by the definition of “Mammalia”. Systematic Biology, 43:497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. A. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology, 39:307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. A. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23:449–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominguez, E., and Wheeler, Q. D. 1997. Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics, 13:367–372.Google Scholar
Forey, P. L. 2001. The PhyloCode: description and commentary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58:81–96.Google Scholar
Forster, C. A., Sampson, S. D., Chiappe, L. M., and Krause, D. W. 1998. The theropodan ancestry of birds: new evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Science, 279:1915–1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, J. A. 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 8:1–55.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J. A., and de Queiroz, K. 2001. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name “Aves”, p. 7–41. In Gauthier, J. A. and Gall, L. F. (eds.), New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of J. H. Ostrom. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G. C. D. 1976. The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 25:168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Holtz, T. R. 1994. The phylogenetic position of the Tyrannosauridae: implications for theropod systematics. Journal of Paleontology, 65:1100–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtz, T. R. 1996. Phylogenetic taxonomy of the Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Paleontology, 70:536–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurin, M. 1998. The importance of global parsimony and historical bias in understanding tetrapod evolution, Pt. 1, Systematics, middle ear evolution and jaw suspension. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie et Biologie Animale, 19:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, O. C. 1889. Notice of gigantic horned Dinosauria from the Cretaceous. American Journal of Science, 38:173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon, 47:561–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, K. C., and Carpenter, J. M. 2000. On the other “phylogenetic systematics”. Cladistics, 16:298–318.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A., and Clarke, J. A. 2001. Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. Nature, 409:181–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norell, M. A., Clark, J. M., and Makovicky, P. J. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships among Coelurosaurian theropods, p. 49–67. In Gauthier, J. A. and Gall, L. F. (eds.), New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of J. H. Ostrom. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F. 1905. Tyrannosaurus and other Cretaceous carnivorous dinosaurs. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 21:259–265.Google Scholar
Padian, K., Hutchinson, J. R., and Holtz, T. R. 1999. Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria (Theropoda). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 19:69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennisi, E. 2001. Linnaeus's last stand? Science, 291:2304–2307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuh, R. T. 2000. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Sereno, P. C. 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher-level phylogeny of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Pälaontologie Abhandlungen, 210:41–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, P. C. 1999a. The evolution of dinosaurs. Science, 284:2137–2147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, P. C. 1999b. Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale. Systematic Biology, 48:329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar