Literature DB >> 17060199

Are the linnean and phylogenetic nomenclatural systems combinable? Recommendations for biological nomenclature.

Matjaz Kuntner1, Ingi Agnarsson.   

Abstract

A combination approach between the rules and recommendations from the Linnean (rank-based) and phylogenetic nomenclature is proposed, with a review of the debate. Advantages and drawbacks of both systems are discussed. Too often the debates are biased and unconstructive, and there is a need for dialogue and compromise. Our recommendations for the future of biological classification, to be considered by new editions of all codes of nomenclature, would enable the Linnean and the phylogenetic nomenclatural systems to coexist, or be combined. (1) We see it as essential that species binomen, including the formal rank of genus, are retained, and (2) species should continue to be linked to type specimens. (3) The use of other formal ranks should be minimized; however, we suggest retaining the classical supergeneric ranks (family, class, order, phylum, kingdom) for purely practical reasons. (4) For these ranks and any formally defined clades, type taxa (species, genera) should be replaced by phylogenetic definitions that explicitly hypothesize monophyly. (5) In contrast, species monophyly should not be required, because theory predicts that many species are not monophyletic. (6) It should be stressed that equal ranks do not imply comparable evolutionary histories.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17060199     DOI: 10.1080/10635150600981596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Syst Biol        ISSN: 1063-5157            Impact factor:   15.683


  6 in total

1.  Phylogeny, genealogy and the Linnaean hierarchy: a logical analysis.

Authors:  Rex Bing Hung Kwok
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2010-09-18       Impact factor: 2.259

2.  Nomenclature and placental mammal phylogeny.

Authors:  Robert J Asher; Kristofer M Helgen
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 3.260

3.  Specimen-level phylogenetics in paleontology using the Fossilized Birth-Death model with sampled ancestors.

Authors:  Andrea Cau
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  From marine park to future genomic observatory? Enhancing marine biodiversity assessments using a biocode approach.

Authors:  Yin Cheong Aden Ip; Ywee Chieh Tay; Su Xuan Gan; Hui Ping Ang; Karenne Tun; Loke Ming Chou; Danwei Huang; Rudolf Meier
Journal:  Biodivers Data J       Date:  2019-12-10

5.  Potential for diagnosis of infectious disease from the 100,000 Genomes Project Metagenomic Dataset: Recommendations for reporting results.

Authors:  Gkikas Magiorkinis; Philippa C Matthews; Susan E Wallace; Katie Jeffery; Kevin Dunbar; Richard Tedder; Jean L Mbisa; Bernadette Hannigan; Effy Vayena; Peter Simmonds; Daniel S Brewer; Abraham Gihawi; Ghanasyam Rallapalli; Lea Lahnstein; Tom Fowler; Christine Patch; Fiona Maleady-Crowe; Anneke Lucassen; Colin Cooper
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2019-10-14

6.  Geoglossomycetes cl. nov., Geoglossales ord. nov. and taxa above class rank in the Ascomycota Tree of Life.

Authors:  C L Schoch; Z Wang; J P Townsend; J W Spatafora
Journal:  Persoonia       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 11.051

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.