Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimality of phylogenetic nomenclatural procedures

  • Forum Paper
  • Published:
Organisms Diversity & Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nomenclatures resulting from the application of various procedures are viewed as communication tools whose optimality can be compared. The traditional, node-based, branch-based, apomorphy-based, and cladotypic procedures are compared based on theoretical cases. The traditional procedure collects several major drawbacks: endings related to ranks are of low information content on taxa hierarchy; with respect to procedures using uninominal species names, in case of a partly unbalanced and/or partly unresolved phylogeny, the application of the procedure results into supernumerary names; a traditional taxon name is prone to be polysemic, depending upon someone’s opinion on the rank and composition of the taxon, and upon conflicting hypotheses on the phylogenetic position of name-bearing types. Alternative systems vary in merit. Names of apomorphy-defined taxa are prone to be polysemic due to possible ambiguity in the formulation of the defining character state. The cladotypic nomenclatural procedure is similar in that respect, but a set of rules allow ambiguity to be limited. The main issue of node- and branch-based procedures is that cases of synonymy cannot be settled if the inner phylogeny of taxa cannot be resolved. Cases of irresolvable synonymy can occur under apomorphy-based and cladotypic procedures, but the problem can be circumvented by the use of taxa whose defining character state is not subject to ambiguous mapping. Node-, branch- and apomorphy-based definitions as governed by the PhyloCode can produce nonsensical statements, but this problem can be fixed by the adjunction of falsifiable assumptions in use under the cladotypic procedure. Cladotypic definitions must involve a fourth assumption formulated as ‘cladotypes belong to different species’ (cladogenesis assumption). The present contribution suggests that the cladotypic procedure outperforms all other proposed procedures, producing an optimal formal lexicon useful for naming and communicating about species and taxa.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alonso-Zarazaga, M. A. (2005). Nomenclature of higher taxa: a new approach. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 62, 189–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, M. J. (2000). Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews, 75, 633–648.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, M. J. (2007). The Phylocode: beating a dead horse? Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52, 651–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, Y. (2008). Contrasting the general with the particular in phylogenetics—a proposal to keep the meanings of mono/paraphyletic and clade/grade separated. Taxon, 57, 705–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, Y., & Härlin, M. (2006). Stability and universality in the application of taxon names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Systematic Biology, 55, 848–858.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, Y., & Härlin, M. (2008). Phylogenetic hypotheses, taxonomic sameness and the reference of taxon names. Zoologica Scripta, 37, 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béthoux, O. (2007a). Propositions for a character-state-based biological taxonomy. Zoologica Scripta, 36, 409–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béthoux, O. (2007b). Cladotypic taxonomy revisited. Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny, 65, 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béthoux, O. (2007c). Cladotypic taxonomy applied: titanopterans are orthopterans. Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny, 65, 135–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béthoux, O. (2008). Revision and phylogenetic affinities of the lobeattid species bronsoni Dana, 1864 and silvatica Laurentiaux, Laurentiaux-Vieira, 1980 (Pennsylvanian; Archaeorthoptera). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny, 66, 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, H. N. (1996). Explicitness, stability, and universality in the phylogenetic definition and usage of taxon names: a case study of the phylogenetic taxonomy of the Carnivora (Mammalia). Systematic Biology, 45, 174–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantino, P. D., & de Queiroz, K. (2007). International code of phylogenetic nomenclature, version 4b. http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/. Accessed 15 January 2009.

  • Cantino, P. D., & Olmstead, R. G. (2008). Application of phylogenetically defined names does not require that every specifier be present on a tree. Systematic Biology, 57, 157–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colless, D. H. (1977). A cornucopia of categories. Systematic Zoology, 26, 349–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. I. Extract from an unpublished work on species, II. Abstract of a letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Prof. Asa Gray. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London /Zoology, 3, 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayrat, B. (2005). Advantages of naming species under the PhyloCode: an example of how a new species of Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina) may be named. Marine Biology Research, 1, 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayrat, B., Schander, C., & Angielczyk, K. (2004). Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon, 53, 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K. (2005). Different species problems and their resolution. Bioessays, 27, 1263–1269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K., & Cantino, P. D. (2001). Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58, 254–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, P. C. J., & Gauthier, J. (1990). Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology, 39, 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, P. C. J., & Gauthier, J. (1992). Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 449–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2003). The relationships between conservation biology in the century of extinctions. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326(Supplément 1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2005). Proposals for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa into the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 62, 200–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2006a). Incorporation of nomina of higher-rank taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: some basic questions. Zootaxa, 1337, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2006b). Proposed rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1. Some general questions, concepts and terms of biological nomenclature. Zoosystema, 27, 365–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2007a). Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks. Zootaxa, 1519, 27–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2007b). Naming taxa from cladograms: some confusions, misleading statements, and necessary clarifications. Cladistics, 23, 390–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2008). Phylogenetic hypotheses, taxa and nomina in zoology. Zootaxa, 1950, 51–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggleton, P., Beccaloni, G., & Inward, D. (2007). Response to Lo et al. Biology Letters, New Series, 3, 564–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forey, P. L. (2001). The PhyloCode: description and commentary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58, 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forey, P. L. (2002). PhyloCode–pain, no gain. Taxon, 51, 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, J., & de Queiroz, P. C. J. (2001). Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name “Aves”. In J. Gauthier & L. F. Gall (Eds.), New perspectives on the origin and early evolution of birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in honor of John H. Ostrom (pp. 7–41). New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J., & Knapp, S. (2004). Taxonomy for the twenty-first century. Introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London / B, 359, 559–569.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, G. C. D. (1976). The future of the Linnaean nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 25, 168–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Härlin, M. (2003). On the relationships between content, ancestor, and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature. Cladistics, 19, 144–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojima, J.-I. (2003). Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node a PhyloCode names prevent effective communication. Botanical Review, 69, 44–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurin, M. (2005). The advantages of phylogenetic nomenclature over Linnean nomenclature. In A. Minelli, G. Ortalli, & G. Sanga (Eds.), Animal names. Venice: Instituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. S. Y. (1996). The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: practical aspects. Zoologica Scripta, 25, 187–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. S. Y. (1998). Ancestors and taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. S. Y., & Skinner, A. (2007). Stability, ranks, and the PhyloCode. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52, 643–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. S. Y., & Skinner, A. (2008). Hierarchy and clade definitions in Phylogenetic taxonomy. Organisms Diversity and Evolution, 8, 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, N., Engel, M. S., Cameron, S., Nalepa, C. A., Tokuda, G., Grimaldi, D., et al. (2007). Save Isoptera: a comment on Inward et al. Biology Letters, New Series, 3, 562–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E., & Ashlock, P. D. (1991). Principles of systematic zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1998). A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon, 47, 561–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, K. C., & Carpenter, J. M. (2000). On the other “Phylogenetic Systematics”. Cladistics, 16, 298–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, K. C., Carpenter, J. M., & Stevenson, D. W. (2003). The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the ‘Linnean’ system can easily be fixed. Botanical Review, 69, 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C., & Rosen, D. E. (1977). Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 158, 81–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleijel, F. (1999). Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Systematic Biology, 48, 755–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polaszek, A., Agosti, D., Alonso-Zarazaga, M., Beccaloni, G., de Place Bjørn, P., Bouchet, P., et al. (2005). A universal register for animal names. Nature, 437, 477.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schander, C., & Thollesson, M. (1995). Phylogenetic taxonomy—some comments. Zoologica Scripta, 24, 263–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, R. T. (2003). The Linnean system and its 250-year persistence. Botanical Review, 69, 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sereno, P. C. (2005). The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54, 595–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linde, K., Bächli, G., Toda, M. J., Zhang, W.-X., Hu, Y.-G., & Spicer, G. S. (2007). Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 64, 238–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, A. R. (1859). On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. III. On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London / Zoology, 3, 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London / B, 359, 571–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O. (1979). An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Systematic Zoology, 28, 308–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmann, R. (1987). Phylogenetic systematics, classification and the plesion concept. Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, Neue Fassung, 29, 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyss, A. R., & Meng, J. (1997). Application of phylogenetic taxonomy to poorly resolved crown clades: a stem-modified node-based definition of Rodentia. Systematic Biology, 45, 559–568.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A discussion with J. M. Carpenter (AMNH, New York) initiated the development of this contribution. V. Malécot (Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers, France), C. Schmidt (Museum of Zoology, Dresden, Germany) and J. Padial (Natural History Museum of Madrid, Madrid) provided valuable comments on a draft version. I also thank Prof. A. Dubois (MNHN, Paris), Dr. M. Laurin (MNHN, Paris), Dr. Y. Bertrand (School of Life Sciences, Södertörn University College, Huddinge, Sweden) and an anonymous referee for suggestions that significantly improved the text. This does not imply their consent to the (whole) content of this paper. Dr. R. Blutner (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands) provided help regarding established terminology in linguistics. The author is a postdoctoral research fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geology, Department of Palaeontology, Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Bernhard-von-Cotta Str. 2, 09596, Freiberg, Germany

    Olivier Béthoux

  2. Senckenberg Natural History Collections of Dresden, Museum of Zoology, Königsbrücker Landstraße 159, 01109, Dresden, Germany

    Olivier Béthoux

Authors
  1. Olivier Béthoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Béthoux.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Béthoux, O. Optimality of phylogenetic nomenclatural procedures. Org Divers Evol 10, 173–191 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-010-0005-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-010-0005-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation