啄木鸟科内谱系生物地理学新探

啄木鸟群体共包含254种,但早期对啄木鸟的分类学研究局限于形态学、行为学和鸣唱法等方向,分子研究结果又彼此存在差异,因此啄木鸟分类系统目前还有争议。分子数据的大量累积为啄木鸟系统发育的研究提供了条件。利用从GenBank获取的ND2基因序列,对啄木鸟科179种啄木鸟采用NJ法、MP法以及ML法分别进行了分子进化树构建,同时用NJ法重建了Picumnus属分子进化树。此外又利用cytb基因序列采用NJ法对Dryobates属和Picoides属进行分子进化树重建。我们的结果显示,姬啄木亚科Picumnus属新大陆物种彼此的进化关系仍需进一步研究,而该属唯一一种旧大陆种P.innominatus,种内遗传差异在种间水平依然显著,这说明其种内遗传差异一直被低估了。在啄木鸟亚科内,Hemicircus属和Nesoctites属为姐妹关系,而Geocolaptes olivaceus插入了Campethera属支系中,并非与其构成姐妹群体。此外,一些姐妹群在新旧大陆上的分布,推测这种分布可能与第四纪冰川有关。啄木鸟从旧大陆向新大陆迁移,在第四纪冰川作用下不断发生分布范围的扩张与收缩,最终形成现存的分布格局。     

浅评当今植物系统学中争论的三个问题——并系类群、谱系法规和系统发育种概念

一般来讲,进化学派承认分支学派对系统学的研究作出了有意义的贡献,如应用分支分析方法重建系统发育,应用共有衍征确定分类群之间的分支关系以及应用外类群方法来判断性状的极性等,都对系统学的方法有所改进。但分支学派的致命缺点是拒绝接受并系类群。我们属于进化学派,认为并系类群是可以接受的。例如,根据分子资料分析,Zabelia属可以包括于Abelia属内。Zabelia属不但在花粉上和Abelia属不同,可能由于它占有了新的生态位,获得了新的特征,如叶柄基部膨大两两联合,并宿存以保护腋芽。有理由认为它们应独立成属,并不由于Zabelia属从Abelia属分出而使后者成为一个并系类群而把它们合并。分支学派的一些学者认为生物名称作为交流的工具和生物信息储存系统应有明晰的、唯一的和稳定的特性。但具等级的林奈命名系统并不具有这些特性来命名分支和种。最后,PhyloCode被提出。PhyloCode对分支的命名方法有3种,即分支结点定义、分支基干定义和衍征定义。我们认为林奈命名系统作为传媒系统在生物学界的应用已近250年,若要废弃它而采用PhyloCode,必然会在命名方面引起一片混乱。但我们并不是说PhyloCode的拥护者所提出的建议一无是处,我们建议他们宜继续进行研究。由于应用生物学种概念于植物界产生了许多问题,因此多为植物系统学家所抛弃。分支学派的兴起,推动了系统发育种概念的提出。该概念基于3个特征,即自征、区别特征和基本排它,因此分别命名为自征种概念、特征种概念和谱系种概念。事实上,目前大多数植物系统学家仍然应用着形态–地理学种概念,但我们在划分种时,必须有尽可能多的资料,特别是要将传粉、繁育系统、分子系统学资料和形态学资料结合起来。     

新版国际植物命名法规(维也纳法规)中的主要变化

出版于2006年9月的最新版的《国际植物命名法规》,即维也纳法规（Vienna Code）,取代了圣路易斯法规（Saint Louis Code）而成为管理植物学（包括藻类学和真菌学）科学命名的唯一有效法规。本文报道了维也纳法规和圣路易斯法规之间的主要区别。这些区别包括两版法规在起始日期、有效发表、合格发表、化石植物、多型真菌、拼写和附录诸方面的不同。     

2018版《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》（深圳法规）的主要变化

《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》是世界植物学家处理植物名称时必须遵守的规则,在每次的国际植物学大会之后都会做适当修订并予以颁布,新版《法规》一旦颁布就替代了前期各版《法规》。概要介绍了2018年6月26日正式出版的《深圳法规》与前一版《墨尔本法规》相比出现的主要变化,主要从结构上的变化、新增条款、相关条款的变化、术语的变化等方面进行了阐述。     

国际植物命名法规中的术语介绍

现今,国际上已普遍接受国际植物命名法规(International code of botanical nomenclature)作为管理植物学(包括藻类学和真菌学)科学命名的规则。该规则由历届国际植物学大会的命名法分会会议修订,因而每六年出版一次修订版。最新版的维也纳法规     

《国际动物命名法规·第四版》

《ＩＮＴＥＲＮＡＴＩＯＮＡＬＣＯＤＥＯＦＺＯＯＬＯＧＩＣＡＬＮＯＭＥＮＣＬＡＴＵＲＥ 4ＴＨＥＤＩＴＩＯＮ》359《国际动物命名法规·第四版》于 1999年末出版 ,并于 2 0 0 0年 1月 1日正式生效 ,由此取代了 1985年出版的第三版。新版《法规》是经过了近 10年的讨论 ,综合各方建议并修改而完成。它将对广大动物分类学者今后的工作有重要的指导意义。新版《法规》由引言 ,90条款和词汇表 3部分组成 ,分别由英文和法文双语对照编写 ,包括索引 ,全书共ⅩⅩⅨ +30 6页。新版《法规》的大部分条款与第三版相同 ,只是少数条款有新的内容与变…     

国际植物学墨尔本大会上命名法规的变化

2011年7月在第18届国际植物学大会命名法分会上通过了命名法规的一系列重大改动,并在全体大会上得到了接受批准。文中就命名法规的变化进行了简单概述,同时也讨论了这些变化的意义,特别是对菌物研究的意义,以期引起广大研究人员的关注。     

Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature

An introduction is provided to the literature and to issues relating to phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode, together with a critique of the current Linnaean system of nomenclature. The Linnaean nomenclature fixes taxon names with types, and associates the names with ranks (genus, family, etc.). In phylogenetic nomenclature, names are instead defined with reference to cladistic relationships, and the names are not associated with ranks. We argue that taxon names under the Linnaean system are unclear in meaning and provide unstable group–name associations, notwithstanding whether or not there are agreements on relationships. Furthermore, the Linnaean rank assignments lack justification and invite unwarranted comparisons across taxa. On the contrary, the intention of taxon names in phylogenetic nomenclature is clear and stable, and the application of the names will be unambiguous under any given cladistic hypothesis. The extension of the names reflects current knowledge of relationships, and will shift as new hypotheses are forwarded. The extension of phylogenetic names is, therefore, clear but is associated to (and thus dependent upon) cladistic hypotheses. Stability in content can be maximized with carefully formulated name definitions. A phylogenetic nomenclature will shift the focus from discussions of taxon names towards the understanding of relationships. Also, we contend that species should not be recognized as taxonomic units. The term ‘species’ is ambiguous, it mixes several distinct classes of entities, and there is a large gap between most of the actual concepts and the evidence available to identify the entities. Instead, we argue that only clades should be recognized. Among these, it is useful to tag the smallest named clades, which all represent non-overlapping groups. Such taxa  – LITUs (Least Inclusive Taxonomic Units) – are distinguished from more inclusive clades by being spelled with lower-case initial letter. In contrast to species, LITUs are conceptually straightforward and are, like other clades, identified by apomorphies.     

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.     

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.     

Phylogeny,classification and nomenclature: a reply to F. Pleijel and G. W. Rouse

In systematics, the uncovering of monophyletic units, of sister group relationships and also of paraphyla is an important part of primary research. The hypotheses derived are thus subject to falsification and are subject to change. In contrast, classifications are a secondary step, as they are derived from such hypotheses. Classifications are based on different philosophies, which permit different solutions as to how results in the fields of taxonomy and phylogenetics can be transposed into a ‘system’. The function of classifications is at least partly utilitarian, and this is even more true for the names and principles of nomenclature. Nomenclature is simply a tool for information retrieval and for safeguarding understanding. Directly linking names and cladograms or nodes, respectively – making them subject to changes by falsification – would deliberately ignore the primary, strictly utilitarian function of long‐established principles of nomenclature and would endanger an instrument that functions almost perfectly. Approaches to introduce a so‐called PhyloCode should therefore not be pursued, as there is no chance at all that this kind of code could be generally accepted.     

Fish species – how and why

It is argued, with selected examples from freshwaterfish systematics, that species should be viewed as anexpression of self-perpetuated clustered variation innature, conforming to the phylogenetic speciesconcept. The importance of species lies in thefunctional and structural significance of theirdiagnostic characters. Species can be nested by theircharacters into a tree diagram (phylogeny) orhierarchical alignment structure (classification) ofcharacter distribution, which may be taken to reflectevolution, the unifying theory of organismaldiversification. The phylogenetic species concept,which emphasizes recognition of a pattern ofvariation, describes better than any other proposedconcept the units called species by systematists.Other concepts are based on processes and normally donot permit recognition of particular taxa. Specieshave unique histories, and speciation may proceed bydifferent mechanisms. Whereas it may be postulatedthat speciation entails an irreversible change in thegenetic structure of taxa, recognized by phenotypicexpression and apparently also maintained to a largeextent by selection for a particular phenotype,species recognition must remain independent ofassumptions about species history and spatialdistribution. Species are monophyletic taxa and thespecies category does not differ significantly inphylogenetic regard from other systematic categories.Species as such are not necessarily evolutionaryunits. It is recommended to apply species names withreference to the diagnostic characters of the speciesand to abandon the type specimen described by theInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature as anomenclatural reference unit.