Forum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance

Absolute nomenclatural stability is undesirable in phylogenetic classifications because they reflect changing hypotheses of cladistic relationships. De Queiroz and Gauthier's (1990: Syst. Zool. 39, 307–322; 1992: A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 449–480; 1994: Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 27–31) alternative to Linnaean nomenclature is concluded to provide stable names for unstable concepts. In terms of communicating either characters shared by species of a named taxon or elements (species) included in a taxon, de Queiroz and Gauthier's system is less stable than the Linnaean system. Linnaean ranks communicate limited information about inclusivity of taxa, but abandonment of ranks results in the loss of such information. As cladistic hypotheses advance, taxa named under de Queiroz and Gauthier's system can change their level of generality radically, from being part of a group to including it, without any indicative change in its spelling. The Linnaean system has been retained by taxonomists because its hierarchic ranks are logically compatible with nested sets of species, monophyletic groups, and characters. Other authors have offered conventions to increase the cladistic information content of Linnaean names or to replace them with names that convey cladistic knowledge in greater detail; de Queiroz and Gauthier sacrifice the meaning of taxon names and categorical ranks in favor of spelling stability.     

Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology

Phylogenetic taxonomy has been introduced as a replacement for the Linnaean system. It differs from traditional nomenclature in defining taxon names with reference to phylogenetic trees and in not employing ranks for supraspecific taxa. However, 'species' are currently kept distinct. Within a system of phylogenetic taxonomy we believe that taxon names should refer to monophyletic groups only and that species should not be recognized as taxa. To distinguish the smallest identified taxa, we here introduce the least-inclusive taxonomic unit (LITU), which are differentiated from more inclusive taxa by initial lower-case letters. LITUs imply nothing absolute about inclusiveness, only that subdivisions are not presently recognized.     

Should taxon names be explicitly defined?

Overviews are provided for traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. In traditional nomenclature, a name is provided with a type and a rank. In the rankless phylogenetic nomenclature, a taxon name is provided with an explicit phylogenetic definition, which attaches the name to a clade. Linnaeus’s approach to nomenclature is also reviewed, and it is shown that, although the current system of nomenclature does use some Linnaean conventions (e.g., certain rank-denoting terms, binary nomenclature), it is actually quite different from Linnaean nomenclature. The primary differences between traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature are reviewed. In phylogenetic nomenclature, names are provided with explicit phylogenetic definitions, whereas in traditional nomenclature names are not explicitly defined. In phylogenetic nomenclature, a name remains attached to a clade regardless of how future changes in phylogeny alter the clade’s content; in traditional nomenclature a name is not “married” to any particular clade. In traditional nomenclature, names must be assigned ranks (an admittedly arbitrary process), whereas in phylogenetic nomenclature there are no formal ranks. Therefore, in phylogenetic nomenclature, the name itself conveys no hierarchical information, and the name conveys nothing regarding set exclusivity. It is concluded that the current system is better able to handle new and unexpected changes in ideas about taxonomic relationships. This greater flexibility, coupled with the greater information content that the names themselves (i.e., when used outside the context of a given taxonomy or phytogeny) provide, makes the current system better designed for use by all users of taxon names.     

Stems,nodes, crown clades,and rank‐free lists: is Linnaeus dead?

Recent radical proposals to overhaul the methods of biological classification are reviewed. The proposals of phylogenetic nomenclature are to translate cladistic phylogenies directly into classifications, and to define taxon names in terms of clades. The method has a number of radical consequences for biologists: taxon names must depend rigidly on the particular cladogram favoured at the moment, familiar names may be reassigned to unfamiliar groupings, Linnaean category terms (e.g. phylum, order, family) are abandoned, and the Linnaean binomen (e.g. Homo sapiens) is abandoned. The tenets of phylogenetic nomenclature have gained strong support among some vocal theoreticians, and rigid principles for legislative control of clade names and definitions have been outlined in the PhyloCode. The consequences of this semantic maelstrom have not been worked out. In pratice, phylogenetic nomenclature will bc disastrous, promoting confusion and instability, and it should be abandoned. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a phylogeny (which is real) and a classification (which is utilitarian). Under the new view, classifications are identical to phlylogenies, and so the proponents of phylogenetic nomenclature will end up abandoning classifications altogether.     

A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?

The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa. This concern is associated with the fact that, despite the widespread adoption of the view that taxa are historical entities that are conceptualized based on ancestry, many taxonomists also conceptualize taxa based on their content. As a result, critics of phylogenetic nomenclature have argued that taxonomists should be free to emend the content of taxa without constraints imposed by nomenclatural decisions. However, in phylogenetic nomenclature the contents of taxa are determined, not by the taxonomist, but by the combination of the phylogenetic definition of the name and a phylogenetic hypothesis. Because the contents of taxa, once their names are defined, can no longer be freely modified by taxonomists, phylogenetic nomenclature is perceived as limiting taxonomic freedom. We argue that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent to phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs.     

Cladistic information in phylogenetic definitions and designated phylogenetic contexts for the use of taxon names

A phylogenetic definition of a taxon name associates that name with a clade through its reference to a particular ancestor and all of its descendants. Depending on one's perspective, phylogenetic definitions name either clades on the one true, but unknown, phylogeny, or components on cladograms (clades on hypotheses regarding the true phylogeny). Phylogenetic definitions do not contain enough information to identify components without a reference cladogram. As a result, (1) if clades are equated with components on cladograms, a phylogenetic definition may associate a taxon name with different clades on different cladograms, and (2) the inclusiveness, diagnostic synapomorphies, and distribution in time and space of the clade with a particular name can differ markedly depending on the phylogenetic hypothesis one chooses to adopt. This potentially unacceptable lability in the clade to which a name refers can be avoided by using a taxon name in conjunction with only phylogenetic hypotheses on which specific taxa are related in a particular fashion. This designated phylogenetic context can be described in an n-taxon statement that would be appended to the phylogenetic definition. Use of the taxon name would be considered inappropriate in conjunction with cladograms on which the relationships contradict those in the n-taxon statement. Whereas phylogenetic definitions stabilize the meaning of taxon names, designated phylogenetic contexts would stabilize the usage of those names.     

Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature

Linnaean binomial nomenclature is logically incompatible with the phylogenetic nomenclature of de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480): The former is based on the concept of genus, thus making this rank mandatory, while the latter is based on phylogenetic definitions and requires the abandonment of mandatory ranks. Thus, if species are to receive names under phylogenetic nomenclature, a different method must be devised to name them. Here, 13 methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature are contrasted with each other and with Linnaean binomials. A fundamental dichotomy among the proposed methods distinguishes those that retain the entire binomial of a preexisting species name from those that retain only the specific epithet. Other relevant issues include the stability, uniqueness, and ease of pronunciation of species names; their capacity to convey phylogenetic information; and the distinguishability of species names that are governed by a code of phylogenetic nomenclature both from clade names and from species names governed by the current codes. No method is ideal. Each has advantages and drawbacks, and preference for one option over another will be influenced by one's evaluation of the relative importance of the pros and cons for each. Moreover, sometimes the same feature is viewed as an advantage by some and a drawback by others. Nevertheless, all of the proposed methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature provide names that are more stable than Linnaean binomials.     

Towards a new classification of Leguminosae: Naming clades using non-Linnaean phylogenetic nomenclature

The past three decades of research have greatly advanced our understanding of phylogenetic relationships in the family Leguminosae. It has become clear in recent years that our classification system is in need of significant updating if it is to reflect our current understanding of the phylogeny of the family and facilitate effective communication of that knowledge. The goal of this paper is to suggest a set of guidelines for formally defining and naming clades, which draws on many of the recommendations embodied in the draft International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature or “PhyloCode”. I provide specific examples of phylogenetic nomenclature applied to several well recognized and well-supported, informally named papilionoid clades to serve as a model for standardizing legume clade names by the legume community in the future. For the most part the clades named here are below subfamily and above tribal ranks in the Linnaean system. It is my contention that a new Linnaean classification, designed to reflect phylogeny, and a clade-based system of phylogenetic nomenclature are mutually complementary approaches to achieving a new classification of the legume family.     

Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life

There are now overlapping codes of nomenclature that govern some of the same names of biological taxa. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) uses the non-evolutionary concept of a "type species" to fix the names of animal taxa to particular ranks in the nomenclatural hierarchy. The PhyloCode, in contrast, uses phylogenetic definitions for supraspecific taxa at any hierarchical level within the Tree of Life (without associating the names to particular ranks), but does not deal with the names of species. Thus, biologists who develop classifications of animals need to use both systems of nomenclature, or else operate without formal rules for the names of some taxa (either species or many monophyletic groups). In addition, the ICZN does not permit the unique naming of many taxa that are considered to be between the ranks of genus and species. Hillis and Wilcox [Hillis, D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 299-314] provided recommendations for the classification of New World true frogs that utilized the ICZN to provide names for species, and the PhyloCode to provide names for supraspecific taxa. Nonetheless, they created new taxon names that followed both sets of rules, to avoid conflicting classifications. They also recommended that established names for both species and clades be used whenever possible, to stabilize the names of both species and clades under either set of rules, and to avoid conflicting nomenclatures. Dubois [Dubois, A., 2006. Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42, 317-330] objected to these principles, and argued that the names provided by Hillis and Wilcox [Hillis, D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 299-314] are unavailable under the ICZN, and that the two nomenclatural systems are incompatible. Here, I argue that he is incorrect in these assertions, and present arguments for retaining the established names of New World true frogs, which are largely compatible under both sets of nomenclatural rules.     

Classification of apocynaceae s.l. according to a new approach combining Linnaean and phylogenetic taxonomy

A new approach to a nomenclatural system, including elements from both Linnaean and phylogenetic nomenclature, is proposed. It is compatible with the existing Linnaean system, including "standard names" corresponding to principal and secondary ranks, and uses a variant of the definitions from the Phylocode system. A new infrafamilial classification, using this nomenclatural approach, of the Apocynaceae s.l. (i.e., including the Asclepiadaceae) based mainly on analyses of rbcL and ndhF data is discussed. Twenty-one tribes and four rankless taxa are defined.     

Naming diversity in an evolutionary context: Phylogenetic definitions of the Roucela clade (Campanulaceae/Campanuloideae) and the cryptic taxa within

In recent times, evolution has become a central tenet of taxonomy, but nomenclature has consistently been decoupled from the tree‐thinking process, often leading to significant issues in reconciling traditional (Linnaean) names with clades in the Tree of Life. Recent evolutionary studies on the Roucela clade, a group of endemic plants found in the Mediterranean Basin, motivated the establishment of phylogenetic concepts to formally anchor clade names on the Campanuloideae (Campanulaceae) tree. These concepts facilitate communication of clades that approximate traditionally defined groups, in addition to naming newly discovered cryptic diversity in a phylogenetic framework.     

New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The recent multiplication of cladistic hypotheses for many zoological groups poses a challenge to zoological nomenclature following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: in order to account for these hypotheses, we will need many more ranks than currently allowed in this system, especially in lower taxonomy (around the ranks genus and species). The current Code allows the use of as many ranks as necessary in the family-series of nomina (except above superfamily), but forbids the use of more than a few ranks in the genus and species-series. It is here argued that this limitation has no theoretical background, does not respect the freedom of taxonomic thoughts or actions, and is harmful to zoological taxonomy in two respects at least: (1) it does not allow to express in detail hypothesized cladistic relationships among taxa at lower taxonomic levels (genus and species); (2) it does not allow to point taxonomically to low-level differentiation between populations of the same species, although this would be useful in some cases for conservation biology purposes. It is here proposed to modify the rules of the Code in order to allow use by taxonomists of an indeterminate number of ranks in all nominal-series. Such an 'expanded nomenclatural system' would be highly flexible and likely to be easily adapted to any new finding or hypothesis regarding cladistic relationships between taxa, at genus and species level and below. This system could be useful for phylogeographic analysis and in conservation biology. In zoological nomenclature, whereas robustness of nomina is necessary, the same does not hold for nomenclatural ranks, as the latter are arbitrary and carry no special biological, evolutionary or other information, except concerning the mutual relationships between taxa in the taxonomic hierarchy. Compared to the Phylocode project, the new system is equally unambiguous within the frame of a given taxonomic frame, but it provides more explicit and informative nomina for non-specialist users, and is more economic in terms of number of nomina needed to account for a given hierarchy. These ideas are exemplified by a comparative study of three possible nomenclatures for the taxonomy recently proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) for American frogs traditionally referred to the genus Rana.     

The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence

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.     

A new taxon, capricornia (Hesionidae, Polychaeta), illustrating the LITU ('Least-Inclusive Taxonomic Unit') concept

Phylogenetic taxonomy is applied for the systematization of a new Hesionidae , rather than the traditional Linnean system, with an apomorphy-based definition of the name and without reference to rank. It is argued that biological diversity is better represented without species concepts, but that it is useful to specify when a name refers to a smallest known clade which currently cannot be further subdivided; for this we apply the newly introduced concept LITU (Least-Inclusive Taxonomic Unit) for the new taxon. LITUs are made identifiable by being italicised with lower-case initial letter; all other taxon names are italicised with capital initial letter. The Hesionidae is accordingly named capricornia , new taxon, and was found in shallow water at One Tree Island, Capricorn Group, southernmost part of the Great Barrier Reef. capricornia is small (length < 2 mm), and exhibits a number of larval Hesionidae characters, but is characterized by large paired ventrally situated penes on segment 9 in adult males. A cladistic parsimony analysis based on morphological characters of capricornia and a selection of other Hesionidae indicates that it belongs within Gyptini Pleijel 1998, and is the sister group of Amphiduros Hartman (1959) .     

Second Meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature: a Report

The Second Meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature (ISPN) convened at Yale University in New Haven from June 28 to July 2, 2006. In addition to contributed talks, the conference included symposia on phylogenetic nomenclature of species, phyloinformatics, and implementing phylogenetic nomenclature. Other discussion focused on recent controversial additions to the draft PhyloCode concerning the choice of names for total clades, and the Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature (CPN) was encouraged to revisit this issue. A proposal to permit emendation of phylogenetic definitions without CPN approval under certain circumstances was well received, and there was wide support for a proposed mechanism to use Linnaean binomina in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature without extending the PhyloCode to govern species names. The ISPN Council voted to expand the CPN from 9 to 12 members.     

The importance of designating type material for uncultured taxa

Naming of uncultured Bacteria and Archaea is often inconsistent with the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. The recent practice of proposing names for higher taxa without designation of lower ranks and nomenclature types is one of the most important inconsistencies that needs to be addressed to avoid nomenclatural instability. The Code requires names of higher taxa up to the rank of class to be derived from the type genus name, with a proposal pending to formalise this requirement for the rank of phylum. Designation of nomenclature types is crucial for providing priority to names and ensures their uniqueness and stability. However, only legitimate names proposed for axenic cultures can be used for this purpose. Candidatus names reserved for taxa lacking cultured representatives may be granted this right if recent proposals to use genome sequences as type material are endorsed, thereby allowing the Code to be fully applied to lineages represented by metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) or single amplified genomes (SAGs). Genome quality standards need to be considered to ensure unambiguous assignment of type material. Here, we illustrate the recommended practice by proposing nomenclature type material for four major uncultured prokaryotic lineages based on high-quality MAGs in accordance with the Code.     

Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names prevent effective communication

Acceptable methods of defining taxon (or clade) names in the draft PhyloCode, or so-called phylogenetic nomenclature, are “node based,” “stem based,” and “apomorphy based.” All of them define a clade name by pinpointing a node; whereas node-based and stem-based definitions require two or more taxon “specifiers” to define names, an apomorphy-based definition requires two specifiers of different types; namely, a single-taxon specifier and a character specifier. The taxon specifier in an apomorphy-based definition is completely different from the “type” in the Linnaean system. Taxon (or clade) names in the PhyloCode are characterized in two entirely different manners: One is a name that does not change, either in its orthography or in the contents of the taxon referred to by it (or its meaning) over time; the other is a name that is just like a pure mark and thus has no meaning. Communication through such PhyloCode names is very ineffective or impossible.     

中国光柄菇属已知种类及其分布

对中国光柄菇属(Pluteus)真菌进行了整理、修订,并对有关分类学问题进行了扼要讨论。中国光柄菇属真菌有28个名称记录,分布于23个省(自治区)。其中只有10个分类单元引证了标本,有3个记录的报道未提供形态描述,另有1种存在拼写错误。     

The PhyloCode: a critical discussion of its theoretical foundation

The definition of taxon names as formalized by the PhyloCode is based on Kripke's thesis of "rigid designation" that applies to Millian proper names. Accepting the thesis of "rigid designation" into systematics in turn is based on the thesis that species, and taxa, are individuals. These largely semantic and metaphysical issues are here contrasted with an epistemological approach to taxonomy. It is shown that the thesis of "rigid designation" if deployed in taxonomy introduces a new essentialism into systematics, which is exactly what the PhyloCode was designed to avoid. Rigidly designating names are not supposed to change their meaning, but if the shifting constitution of a clade is thought to cause a shift of meaning of the taxon name, then the taxon name is not a "rigid designator". Phylogenetic nomenclature either fails to preserve the stability of meaning of taxon names that it propagates, or it is rendered inconsistent with its own philosophical background. The alternative explored here is to conceptualize taxa as natural kinds, and to replace the analytic definition of taxon names by their explanatory definition. Such conceptualization of taxa allows taxon names to better track the results of ongoing empirical research. The semantic as well as epistemic gain is that if taxon names are associated with natural kind terms instead of being proper names, the composition of the taxon will naturally determine the meaning of its name.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2006.