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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cantino, P. D. & K. de Queiroz. 2000. PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. <http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/>.Google Scholar
- Carpenter, J. M. &M. C. Day. 1988. Nomenclatural notes on Polistinae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Proc. Washington Entomol. Soc. 90: 323–328.Google Scholar
- Chui, G. 1999. Class war means fight for survival. The Australian, September 29: 37.Google Scholar
- 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
- —. 1997. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15: 125–144.Google Scholar
- — &P. D. Cantino. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58(4): 254–271.Google Scholar
- Fellman, B. 2000. What’s in a name? Yale Alumni Mag., April: 36–39.Google Scholar
- Forey, P. L. 2001. The PhyloCode: Description and commentary. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58 (2): 81–96.Google Scholar
- Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. D. D. Davis & R. Zangerl, trans. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
- Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105–112.Google Scholar
- Milius, S. 1999. Should we junk Linnaeus? Sci. News, October 23: 268.Google Scholar
- Nixon, K. C. &J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other “Phylogenetic Systematics.” Cladistics 16: 298–318.Google Scholar