Skip Navigation

Systematic Biology 2006 55(5):774-784; doi:10.1080/10635150600981596
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kuntner, M.
Right arrow Articles by Agnarsson, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kuntner, M.
Right arrow Articles by Agnarsson, I.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2006 Society of Systematic Biologists

Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature

Matjaz Kuntner1,3 and Ingi Agnarsson2,3

1 Institute of Biology, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, P. O. Box 306, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: kuntner{at}gmail.com
2 Department of Zoology/Botany, University of British Columbia 2370–6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, B.C., Canada E-mail: ingi{at}zoology.ubc.ca
3 Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, NHB-105, Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC, 20013-7012, USA

Edited by Adrian Paterson: Associate Editor


  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.

Keywords: Clades; classification; monophyly; PhyloCode; phylogenetics; ranks; species binomials; taxonomy

Received February 22, 2006; Revised May 4, 2006; Accepted June 19, 2006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.