The Botanical Review

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 79–92 | Cite as

Critique of pure folly

  • James M. Carpenter

Abstract

A critique of the draft PhyloCode is presented. Its stated goals cannot be met by the proposals in the current draft, which also fails to uphold its stated principles. Its internal contradictions include a cumbersome reinvention of the very aspect of the current Linnaean system that advocates of the PhyloCode most often decry.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Benton, M. J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: Is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 75: 633–648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cantino, P. D. & K. de Queiroz. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. <http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/>.Google Scholar
  4. —,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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, J. M. &M. C. Day. 1988. Nomenclatural notes on Polistinae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Proc. Washington Entomol. Soc. 90: 323–328.Google Scholar
  6. Chui, G. 1999. Class war means fight for survival. The Australian, September 29: 37.Google Scholar
  7. De Queiroz, K. 1996. A phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature as an alternative to the Linnaean systems in current use.In J. L. Reveal (ed.), Proceedings of a Mini-Symposium on Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century, held at the University of Maryland on 4 November 1996. <http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/dequ.html>.Google Scholar
  8. —. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15: 125–144.Google Scholar
  9. — &P. D. Cantino. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58(4): 254–271.Google Scholar
  10. — &J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyke, G. J. 2002. Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature? J. Paleontol. 76: 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fellman, B. 2000. What’s in a name? Yale Alumni Mag., April: 36–39.Google Scholar
  13. Forey, P. L. 2001. The PhyloCode: Description and commentary. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58 (2): 81–96.Google Scholar
  14. —. 2002. PhyloCode: Pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greuter, W., D. L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, M. A. Mayo, A. Minelli, P. H. A. Sneath, B. J. Tindall, P. Trehane &P. Tubbs. 1998. Draft BioCode (1997): The prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 47: 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. D. D. Davis & R. Zangerl, trans. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  17. Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105–112.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, M. S. Y. 1996. The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: Practical aspects. Zool. Scripta 25: 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. —. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mallet, J. &K. Willmott. 2003. Taxonomy: Renaissance or Tower of Babel? Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 (2): 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milius, S. 1999. Should we junk Linnaeus? Sci. News, October 23: 268.Google Scholar
  22. Nixon, K. C. &J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other “Phylogenetic Systematics.” Cladistics 16: 298–318.Google Scholar
  23. Pennisi, E. 1996. Evolutionary and systematic biologists converge. Science 273: 181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —. 2001. Linnaeus’s last stand? Science 291: 2304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiley, E. O. 1979. An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Syst. Zool. 28: 308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Withgott, J. 2000. Is it “So long, Linnaeus”? BioScience 50: 646–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • James M. Carpenter
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Invertebrate ZoologyAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations