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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Defining phyla: morphological and molecular clues to metazoan evolution

None of the supraspecific taxonomic categories can be defined objectively. Each taxon should of course be monophyletic, but there is no morphological or molecular character that identifies, for example, the phylum level. This has led some authors to abandon the Linnaean categories, but they appear to be practical "handles" in daily communication. It has been proposed that each phylum exhibits a characteristic Bauplan, but the identification of such "types" have in practice proved difficult or impossible for several phyla. Monophyly of some of the approximately 30 morphology-based phyla has been put in question by molecular studies, but recent reports clearly show that the 18S rRNA molecule, which has been used extensively in phylogenetic analyses, cannot be used alone in identifying phyla (or other higher taxonomic groups). Some higher taxa, for example Chordata, Vertebrata, and Echinodermata, consistently show up as monophyletic in the analyses, whereas molluscan and annelidan subgroups just as consistently are mixed with each other and with a number of other protostomian phyla in varying patterns.     

Hennig's enkaptic system

Hennig's phylogenetic system is characterized by an asymmetry between (sexually reproducing) species that form tokogenetic systems, versus monophyletic taxa that form a phylogenetic system. This was claimed to reflect a conflict between two hierarchies, i.e. the hierarchy of species-lineages splitting and splitting again as opposed to the phylogenetic hierarchy of groups within groups. Some cladists have sought the unification of the phylogenetic system by abandoning the species concept. In contrast, contemporary commentators (Klaus Günther, Walter Zimmermann) characterized Hennig's system as an enkaptic hierarchy. This paper explores the concept of enkapsis, and the way Hennig used it as a basis for the unification of his phylogenetic system.
 © The Willi Hennig Society 2009.     

Phylogeny, genealogy and the Linnaean hierarchy: a logical analysis

Phylogenetic terms (monophyly, polyphyly, and paraphyly) were first defined in the context of a phylogenetic tree. However, reproduction is the background process that largely determines phylogeny. To establish a connection between genealogy and phylogeny, definitions of phylogenetic terms are presented and studied within a genealogical context. The correctness of the definitions is corroborated with results that show they satisfy the appropriate properties in the context of a phylogenetic tree. In an application of the definitions, a formal analysis shows why the monophyletic condition makes a Linnaean hierarchy entirely monotypic.     

Essentialism and typological thinking in biological systematics

In biological literature, essentialism and typological thinking are believed to be incompatible with evolutionary ideas. At present, the same considerations underlay the claims to abandon the Linnaean hierarchy, or the fundamental classificatory structure rooted in essentialism. This paper suggests to reconsider the negative views of Plato's typology and Aristotle's essentialism following the narrow interpretations that have nothing to do with the classification of living beings. Plato's theory of 'ideas' (or 'forms') is the basis of classificatory theory; it provided such concepts as 'species', 'genus', 'essence', 'dichotomous division' but the development of this theory in the framework of moral and esthetic values could not be beneficial to biology. Aristotle's essentialism is more complicated and exists in two forms; one of these, or classificatory essentialism, is a modification of Plato's typology; another one, or organismal essentialism, represents the shift of 'essence' from the world of relations between objects to the realm of particular things, where the concept of essence lost its basic meaning. It is senseless to look for unreal 'type of an organism' ('essence of a thing') but precisely this kind of essentialism is attractive for biologists and philosophers. Organismal essentialism is the underlying basis of so-called 'individuality thesis' that is used as a weapon against classificatory essentialism. The same thesis is associated with an extensional vision of taxa that also explains the criticism of Linnaean hierarchy, while the latter is the intentional structure and the first tool suggested for the rank coordination of many unequal taxa.     

The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics

A hierarchy is an abstract organizational model of inter-level relationships among entities. When isomorphic with nature, hierarchies are useful for organizing and manipulating our knowledge. Hierarchies have been used in biological systematics to represent several distinct, but interrelated, facets of the evolution of life with different organizational properties, and these distinctions have been confused by the rubric 'the hierarchy of life'. Evolution, as descent with modification, is inherently dualistic. The organizational structure of a hierarchy can be used to represent dualistic properties as inter-level relationships. Cladistics is monistic, with a singular focus on patterns of descent. Descent has conceptual priority over modification, but the organizational relationship is not exclusive. 'Cladistic classification' is an oxymoron because cladistics lacks the class concepts needed to construct a classification, a point recognized by those who suggest abandoning Linnaean classification in favour of a newly devised monophyletic systematization. Cladistic analysis of descent can be supplemented with an analysis of modification that provides the class concepts needed to construct an evolutionary/phylogenetic classification. When a strong monophyletic pattern of modification is detected (in addition to its monophyletic pattern of descent), the criterion of subsequent modification provides the basis for formally recognizing a certain monophyletic group at a given rank, as opposed to a group that is one node more inclusive or one node less. The criterion of subsequent modification also permits detection of strong paraphyletic patterns of modification, when they exist. By setting standards of evidence needed to recognize paraphyletic groups, one concomitandy strengthens the basis for formally recognizing selective monophyletic groups.     

Taxonomic surrogacy in biodiversity assessments,and the meaning of Linnaean ranks

The majority of biodiversity assessments use species as the base unit. Recently, a series of studies have suggested replacing numbers of species with higher ranked taxa (genera, families, etc.); a method known as taxonomic surrogacy that has an important potential to save time and resources in assesments of biological diversity. We examine the relationships between taxa and ranks, and suggest that species/higher taxon exchanges are founded on misconceptions about the properties of Linnaean classification. Rank allocations in current classifications constitute a heterogeneous mixture of various historical and contemporary views. Even if all taxa were monophyletic, those referred to the same rank would simply denote separate clades without further equivalence. We conclude that they are no more comparable than any other, non‐nested taxa, such as, for example, the genus Rattus and the phylum Arthropoda, and that taxonomic surrogacy lacks justification. These problems are also illustrated with data of polychaetous annelid worms from a broad‐scale study of benthic biodiversity and species distributions in the Irish Sea. A recent consensus phylogeny for polychaetes is used to provide three different family‐level classifications of polychaetes. We use families as a surrogate for species, and present Shannon‐Wiener diversity indices for the different sites and the three different classifications, showing how the diversity measures rely on subjective rank allocations.     

A phylogeny of the damselfly genus calopteryx (Odonata) using mitochondrial 16S rDNA markers

We seek to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of the damselfly genus Calopteryx, for which extensive behavioral and morphological knowledge already exists. To date, analyses of the evolutionary pathways of different life history traits have been hampered by the absence of a robust phylogeny based on morphological data. In this study, we concentrate on establishing phylogenetic information from parts of the 16S rDNA gene, which we sequenced for nine Calopteryx species and five outgroup species. The mt 16S rDNA data set did not show signs of saturated variation for ingroup taxa, and phylogenetic reconstructions were insensitive to variation of outgroup taxa. Parsimony, neighbor-joining, and maximum-likelihood reconstructions agreed on parts of the tree. A consensus tree summarizes the significant results and indicates problematic nodes. The 16S rDNA sequences support monophyly of the genera Mnais, Matrona, and Calopteryx. However, the genus Calopteryx may not be monophyletic, since Matrona basilaris and Calopteryx atrata are sister taxa under every parameter setting. The North American and European taxa each appear as monophyletic clades, while the Asian Calopteryx atrata and Calopteryx cornelia are not monophyletic. Our data implies a different paleobiogeographic history of the Eurasian and North American species, with extant Eurasian species complexes shaped by glacial periods, in contrast to extant North American species groups.     

Optimality of phylogenetic nomenclatural procedures

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.     

Phylogenetic relationships of the genus Dugesia (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Paludicola)

A phylogenetic analysis was performed on the genera and subgenera within the freshwater triclad family Dugesiidae, based on 19 terminal taxa and 17 morphological characters. The phylogenetic tree proposed has length of 27 steps and consistency index of 0.66. This phylogenetic hypothesis implies that the current genus Dugesia is paraphyletic and that its subgenera Girardia, Schmidiea and Dugesia S.S. should be elevated to the rank of genus. The genera Cura, Spathula and Neppia are presumed monophyletic by default because the database was unable to provide autapomorphies for any of these genera. The genera Dugesia S.S. and Neppia share sistergroup relationship. Several characters are discussed which were previously considered to be of phylogenetic importance but were not included in the present analysis. It is emphasized that sensory organs form potentially useful set of phylogenetic characters for the Dugesiidae.     

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.     

Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate that the Ixodes ricinus complex is a paraphyletic group

The Ixodes ricinus species complex is a group of ticks distributed in almost all geographic regions of the world. Lyme borreliosis spirochetes are primarily transmitted by tick species within this complex. It has been hypothesized that the Lyme vector ticks around the world are closely related and represent a monophyletic group. This implies that vector competence in ixodid ticks for Lyme agents might have evolved only once. To test this hypothesis, we used a molecular phylogenetic approach. Two fragments of mitochondrial 16S ribosomal deoxyribonucleic acid were sequenced from 11 species in the I. ricinus complex and from 16 other species of Ixodes. Phylogenetic analysis using Bayesian methodology indicated that the I. ricinus complex is not a monophyletic group unless 3 additional Ixodes species are included in it. The known major vectors of Lyme disease agents in different areas of the world are not sister taxa. This suggests that acquisition of the ability to transmit borreliosis agents in species of Ixodes may have multiple origins.     

Fallacies and false premises—a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany

One of the central controversies in contemporary taxonomy and systematics revolves around whether to accept or to reject paraphyletic taxa. The present review is the result of a survey of the ongoing discussion in botany over the past ca. 15 years, and attempts to systematically and critically assess all individual arguments presented for the formal recognition of paraphyletic groups in the classification of life. Where arguments are found to be without merit, rebuttals are presented in the hope of excluding them from further discussion, which can then concentrate on those that have merit. Where arguments are found to be sound, their implications and possible solutions are discussed. The controversy around paraphyletic taxa can be broken down into three questions: whether their rejection or acceptance would lead to a classification better reflecting patterns of biological diversity and evolutionary history; whether their rejection or acceptance would lead to a more practical, useful and predictive classification; and whether their rejection is compatible with ranked and binary Linnaean taxonomy. All available arguments for paraphyletic taxa relating to the first question are demonstrated to be based on various logical fallacies or false premises, especially misunderstandings of the principles of phylogenetic systematics. The issue of usefulness is harder to resolve, as different classifications serve different needs. It is presumably unavoidable but also preferable that phylogenetic and non‐phylogenetic ways of classifying species continue to coexist, serving different needs. Finally, an insistence on monophyletic taxa is found to be incompatible with binary taxonomy under a set of very specific circumstances and assumptions whose presence and accuracy are not universally accepted. © The Willi Hennig Society 2011.     

Incipient speciation in a neotropical Gesneriaceae: <Emphasis Type="Italic">Columnea kucyniakii</Emphasis> is nested within <Emphasis Type="Italic">C. strigosa</Emphasis>

Speciation is an ongoing process. Many recognized species are fully divergent from each other and their ancestors, whereas others are in earlier stages in the diversification process. Such incipient speciation may create patterns when one or a few populations are phenotypically distinct, but lack genomic level coalescence from each other or from their ancestral species. As a result, such progenitor-derivative species pairs are likely to lack reciprocal monophyly or generate paraphyletic ancestral species. Here we examine phylogenetic patterns in the Columnea strigosa (Gesneriaceae) complex to evaluate whether populations that have been named C. kucyniakii are reciprocally monophyletic with C. strigosa, its presumed ancestral species. Molecular phylogenetic results do not support reciprocal monophyly of the two species, implying that incipient speciation is occurring within the C. strigosa complex. We hereby recommend that C. kucyniakii be recognized at the specific rank despite the fact that it creates a paraphyletic C. strigosa. These findings bear importance in taxonomic decisions about paraphyletic taxa and recognizing evolutionary and morphologically distinct lineages.     

Das Triplett aus zwei Monophyla und einem Paraphylum als Baustein des phylogenetischen Systems

The triplet consisting of two monophyletic taxa and one paraphyletic taxon as constructive element of the phylogenetic system Evolution has produced very many novelties (apomorphies). Most of them are small and relatively inconstant, these are more or less indicative of the phylogenetic relationships between closely related species. They cannot be the constitutive character of a supraspecific taxon that exists since a long time and comprises many diversified species. Such a taxon of higher rank can only be characterized by an improbable, rare novelty that has developed only once and has been preserved in all descendent species. Two consecutive apomorphies of this persistent type (‘fixed apomorphies’) characterize three supraspecific taxa, the triplet “A”, “B” and “A minus B” (Fig. 1). The group “A minus B” is rejected in Hennig's theory because it is ‘paraphyletic’, but it is not an artefact created by the systematicist. It is an inevitable mathematical consequence of the differentiatison of the group “B” within the group “A”. Being the result of a subtraction, it is necessarily associated with the two monophyletic partners in the triplet, as it is delimited on one side by the synapomorphy of the group “A”, of which it is a part, and on the other side by the autapomorphy of the separate group “B”. Traditional classifications often include paraphyletic groupings that are inconsistent with phylogenetics, e. g. the Reptilia and the Apterygota. The fault in such cases is that these groups are extended beyond the limits of a triplet and cover more than a single interval between consecutive monophyletic taxa. Paraphyletic groups are admitted in the phylogenetic system only for bridging the gaps in our cladistic information. According to HENNIG'S theory, all supraspecific taxa should be arranged two by two as sister-groups originating from one ancestral species and comprising all descendents of that species. The fixed evolutionary novelties which characterize higher supraspecific taxa are, however, rare and scattered. It is highly improbable that they have developed in sister species, therefore the taxa marked by them cannot be sister-groups (except in very rare cases). In HENNIG'S earlier papers, e. g. in his system of Lepidoptera (1953: 46–49), the alleged ‘sister-groups' are, in reality, the groups “B” and “A minus B” of a triplet (see Fig. 2). In his revised concept (1957 and later), two autapomorphic groups which are most closely related in the recent fauna (“B” and “C” in Fig. 3) are called ‘sister-groups’. But these have originated independently from different ancestors in a plesiomorphic complex of extinct species and are more closely related to parts of this complex than to each other. True sister-groups (“Bx” and “Cx” in Fig. 4) would be formed if these related plesiomorphic species were included, but this extension of the ’backward‘ border of the taxon is not justified by synapomorphy (in the terms of logic, it is a ’metabasis‘), and it would make the classification of fossil species impossible, unless these show at least one synapomorphy with either “B” or “C”. In the system of the recent fauna the sister-groups are identical with the autapomorphic groups, because the plesiomorphic species are extinct. The natural system based on synapomorphies and autapomorphies is the triplet-system as outlined in Figure 6. It is not a new type of classification, but its theoretical foundation was missing, and precise instructions were needed for its use in phylogenetics. The information obtained by HENNIG'S method is entirely preserved in this system and can be retrieved from it, and both recent and extinct species can be classified together. The disadvantage of the triplet-system is that it contains twice as many taxa as HENNIG'S classification. This complexity will limit its use in the practice of taxonomy, but it may be simplified by transforming the system into a sequence of paraphyletic taxa terminating in a single monophylum.     

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.     

Molecular evolution of insertions and deletion in the chloroplast genome of silene

Insertions, deletions, and inversions in the chloroplast genome of higher plants have been shown to be extremely useful for resolving phylogenetic relationships both between closely related taxa and among more basal lineages. Introns and intergenic spacers from the chloroplast genome are now increasingly used for phylogenetic and population genetic studies of populations from a single species, and it is therefore interesting to know whether indels can provide useful data and hence increase the power of intraspecific studies. Here, we show that indels in three cpDNA intergenic spacers and one cpDNA intron for two species of Silene evolve at slightly higher rates than base pair substitutions. Repeat indels appear to have the highest rate of evolution and are thus more prone to homoplasy. We show that coded indel data have high information content for phylogenetic analysis, and indels thus provide useful information to infer phylogenetic relationships at the intraspecific level.