Abstract
The Linnaean system of nomenclature has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. Under the current system of codes, it is now applied to more than 2 million species of organisms. Inherent in the Linnaean system is the indication of hierarchical relationships. The Linnaean system has been justified primarily on the basis of stability. Stability can be assessed on at least two grounds: the absolute stability of names, irrespective of taxonomic concept; and the stability of names under changing concepts. Recent arguments have invoked conformity to phylogenetic methods as the primary basis for choice of nomenclatural systems, but even here stability of names as they relate to monophyletic groups is stated as the ultimate objective. The idea of absolute stability as the primary justification for nomenclatural methods was wrong from the start. The reasons are several. First, taxa are concepts, no matter the frequency of assertions to the contrary; as such, they are subject to change at all levels and always will be, with the consequence that to some degree the names we use to refer to them will also be subject to change. Second, even if the true nature of all taxa could be agreed upon, the goal would require that we discover them all and correctly recognize them for what they are. Much of biology is far from that goal at the species level and even further for supraspecific taxa. Nomenclature serves as a tool for biology. Absolute stability of taxonomic concepts—and nomenclature—would hinder scientific progress rather than promote it. It can been demonstrated that the scientific goals of systematists are far from achieved. Thus, the goal of absolute nomenclatural stability is illusory and misguided. The primary strength of the Linnaean system is its ability to portray hierarchical relationships; stability is secondary. No single system of nomenclature can ever possess all desirable attributes: i.e., convey information on hierarchical relationships, provide absolute stability in the names portraying those relationships, and provide simplicity and continuity in communicating the identities of the taxa and their relationships. Aside from myriad practical problems involved in its implementation, it must be concluded that “phylogenetic nomenclature” would not provide a more stable and effective system for communicating information on biological classifications than does the Linnaean system.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Brady, R. H. 1985. On the independence of systematics. Cladistics 1: 113–126.
Bremer, K. 1985. Summary of green plant phylogeny and classification. Cladistics 1: 369–385.
Bryant, H. N. &P. D. Cantino. 2002. A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: Is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 77: 39–55.
Cantino, P. D. & K. de Queiroz. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. <http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/>.
—,H. N. Bryant, K. de Queiroz, M. J. Donoghue, T. Eriksson, D. M. Hillis &M. S. Y. Lee. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 48: 790–807.
Carpenter, J. M. 2003. Critique of pure folly. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 69: 79–92.
Chase, M. W., D. E. Soltis, R. G. Olmstead, D. Morgan, D. H. Les, B. D. Mishler, M. R. Duvall, R. A. Price, H. G. Hills, Y.-L. Qiu, K. A. Kron, J. H. Rettig, E. Conti, J. D. Palmer, J. R. Manhart, K. J. Sytsma, H. J. Michaels, W. J. Kress, K. G. Karol, W. D. Clark, M. Hedén, B. S. Gaut, R. K. Jansen, K.-J. Kim, C. F. Wimpee, J. F. Smith, G. R. Furnier, S. H. Strauss, Q.-Y. Xiang, G. M. Plunkett, P. S. Soltis, S. M. Swensen, S. E. Williams, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn, L. E. Eguiarte, E. Golenberg, G. H. Learn Jr.,S. W. Graham, S. C. H. Barrett, S. Dayanandan &V. A. Albert. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: An analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 528–580.
De Queiroz, K. 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic definitions as exemplified by the definition of “Mammalia.” Syst. Biol. 43: 497–510.
—. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15: 125–144.
—. 2000. The definitions of taxon names: A reply to Stuessy. Taxon 49: 533–536.
— &J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307–322.
Dominguez, E. &Q. D. Wheeler. 1997. Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics 13: 367–372.
Edwards, J. L., M. A. Lane &E. S. Nielsen. 2000. Science 289: 2312–2314.
Ereshefsky, M. 2001. The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York.
Gaffney, E. S. 1979. An introduction to the logic of phylogeny reconstruction. Pp. 79–111in J. Cracraft & N. Eldredge (eds.), Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology: Proceedings of a symposium entitled “Phylogenetic models,” convened at the North American Paleontological Convention II, Lawrence, Kansas, August 8, 1977. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
Ghiselin, M. T. 1984. “Definition,” “character,” and other equivocal terms. Syst. Zool. 33: 104–110.
Greuter, W., J. McNeill, F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T. S. Filgueiras, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland &D. L. Hawksworth. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis code), adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, Missouri, July–August 1999. Regnum Vegetabile, 138. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.
Haffer, J. 1997. Foreword: Species concepts and species limits in ornithology. Pp. 11–24in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & J. Sargatal (eds.), Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 4, Sandgrouse to Cuckoos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. D. D. Davis & R. Zangerl, trans. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Hull, D. L. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy: 2000 years of stasis (I). Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 15: 314–326.
ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Ed. 4. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Keller, R. A., R. N. Boyd, &Q. D. Wheeler. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 69: 93–110.
Kojima, J-I. 2003. Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names prevent effective communication. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 69: 44–58.
Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105–112.
Lee, M. S. Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175–180.
Mayr, E. 1988. Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47: 561–579.
Nixon, K. C. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the “Linnaean” system can easily be fixed. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 69: 111–120.
— &J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other “Phylogenetic Systematics.” Cladistics 16: 298–318.
Padian, K. 1999. Charles Darwin’s views of classification in theory and practice. Syst. Biol. 48: 352–364.
Patterson, C. 1987. Introduction. Pp. 1–22in C. Patterson (ed.), Molecules and morphology in evolution: Conflict or compromise? Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Popper, K. R. 1964. The poverty of historicism. Harper & Row, New York.
—. 1966. The open society and its enemies. Ed. 5, rev. 2 vols. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
—. 1968. The logic of scientific discovery. Harper Torchbook ed. 2. Harper & Row, New York.
Schuh, R. T. 1995. Plant bugs of the world (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae): Systematic catalog, distributions, host list, and bibliography. New York Entomol. Soc., New York.
—. 2000. Biological systematics: Principles and applications. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.
—. 2001. Revision of New WorldPlagiognathus Fieber, with comments on the Palearctic fauna and the description of a new genus (Heteroptera: Miridae: Phylinae). Bulletin 266. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York.
Sereno, P. C. 1999. Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: Critique and rationale. Syst. Biol. 48: 329–351.
Stuessy, T. F. 2000. Taxon names arenot defined. Taxon 49: 231–233.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schuh, R.T. The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence. Bot. Rev 69, 59–78 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0059:TLSAIY]2.0.CO;2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0059:TLSAIY]2.0.CO;2