Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Is the PhyloCode better than Linnaean system?

New development and debate on biological nomenclatural issues

  • 65 Accesses

Abstract

The Linnaean system provides ultimate means governing biological nomenclature and classification. With series of modification, this system has admirably served biological sciences for some 250 years. The new PhyloCode, however, advocates the phylogenetic nomenclature that radically alternates the current nomenclatural rules. The new proposals upset many systematic biologists and have provoked hot debate on nomenclatural issues. Binomial nomenclature and hierarchical classification are the key components of the Linnaean system. Proposed abandonment of these in the PhyloCode is widely criticized for it would not help to promote systematics but create chaos. It is not the Linnaean system but the phylogenetic nomenclature that should be abandoned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Mayr, E., Ashlock, P. D., Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991, 475.

  2. 2.

    Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D. L., McNeill, J. et al., Draft BioCode: The prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms, Taxon, 1996, 45: 349.

  3. 3.

    International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th Edition, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 1999, 306.

  4. 4.

    Greuter, W., McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R. et al., International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (St. Louis Code), Konigstein, Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books, 2000, 474.

  5. 5.

    de Queiroz, K., Gauthier, J., Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names, Systematic Zoology, 1990, 39: 307.

  6. 6.

    de Queiroz, K., Gauthier, J., Phylogenetic taxonomy, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1992, 23: 449.

  7. 7.

    de Queiroz, K., Gauthier, J., Towards a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1994, 9: 27.

  8. 8.

    Simpson, G. G., Why and How: Some Problems and Methods in Historical Biology, Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1980, 263.

  9. 9.

    Stuessy, T. F., Taxon names are not defined, Taxon, 2000, 49: 231.

  10. 10.

    Stuessy, T. F., Taxon names are still not defined, Taxon, 2001, 50: 185.

  11. 11.

    de Queiroz, K., The definitions of taxon names: A reply to Stuessy, Taxon, 2000, 49: 533.

  12. 12.

    de Queiroz, K., Cantino, P. D., Taxon names, not taxa, are defined, Taxon, 2001, 50: 821.

  13. 13.

    Benton, M. J., Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Review, 2000, 75: 633.

  14. 14.

    Schuh, R. T., The Linnaean system and its 250 year persistence, Bontanical Review (in press).

  15. 15.

    Simpson, G. G., Principles of Animal Taxonomy, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, 247.

  16. 16.

    Cantino, P. D., Bryant, H. N., de Queiroz, K. et al., Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature, Systematic Biology, 1999, 48: 790.

  17. 17.

    de Queiroz, K., The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature, Aliso, 1997, 15: 125.

  18. 18.

    Nixon, K. C., Carpenter, J. M., On the other “phylogenetic systematics”, Cladistics, 2000, 16: 298.

  19. 19.

    Forey, P. L., The PhyloCode: description and commentary, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 2001, 58: 81.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Keqin Gao.

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, K., Sun, Y. Is the PhyloCode better than Linnaean system?. Chin.Sci.Bull. 48, 308–312 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03183305

Download citation

Keywords

  • systematics
  • biological nomenclature
  • Linnaean system
  • PhyloCode