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.     

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.     

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.     

Taxon names as paradigms: the structure of nomenclatural revolutions

In the present paper I argue that the two systems of phylogenetic nomenclature hitherto proposed represent, in a generalized sense, two different philosophies for how science develops and progresses. The phylogenetic system of definition initially proposed by de Queiroz and Gauthier [Syst. Zool. 39 (1990) 307], and later labeled PSD, is typically Popperian in the sense that science progresses toward truth by an accumulation of knowledge. Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names are assumed to adapt automatically to each new hypothesis of phylogeny, thereby reflecting better and better hypotheses. The phylogenetic system of reference proposed by Härlin [Zool. Scr. 27 (1998a) 381], on the other hand, is more Kuhnian, because it is built on the idea that successive hypotheses are incommensurable (and thus not cumulative) and that taxon names might be equalled with low‐level paradigms.     

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.     

Comparison of two DNA sequence-based typing schemes for the Fusarium solani Species Complex and proposal of a new consensus method

Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) is a widely used approach for differentiating microbial isolates presenting many advantages such as easy access through online databases and straightforward interpretation. For the Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC), three gene regions have been widely used to investigate phylogenetic relationships at the interspecific level (ITS-nuLSU, EF1a, RPB2) and a nomenclature system has been proposed for the different known haplotypes. More recently, a MLST scheme was proposed for this species complex based on the polymorphisms of five housekeeping genes (ACC, ICL, GDP, MDP, SOD). Here, we compare the phylogenetic resolution and sequence discriminatory powers of these two sets of loci on 50 epidemiologically unrelated FSSC strains. Although the widely used gene set offers better phylogenetic resolution, the newly developed gene set is slightly better at discriminating isolates using a MLST method. A consensus scheme of eight loci is proposed for typing FSSC strains combining the advantages of the two previous gene sets and offering the best typing efficiency.     

A higher-level taxonomy for hummingbirds

In the context of a recently published phylogenetic estimate for 151 hummingbird species, we provide an expanded informal taxonomy, as well as a formal phylogenetic taxonomy for Trochilidae that follows the precepts of the PhyloCode, but remains consistent with the hierarchical nomenclature of the Linnaean system. We compare the recently published phylogenetic hypothesis with those of prior higher-level and more taxonomically circumscribed phylogenetic studies. We recommend the recognition of nine new clade names under the PhyloCode, eight of which are consistent with tribes and one with a subfamily under the Linnaean system.     

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.     

Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature

Despite the widely held belief that modem biological taxonomy is evolutionary, some of the most fundamental concepts and principles in the current system of biological nomenclature are based on a nonevolutionary convention that pre-dates widespread acceptance of an evolutionary world view by more than a century. The development of a phylogenetic system of nomenclature requires reformulating these concepts and principles so that they are no longer based on the Linnean categories but on the tenet of common descent.     

Third meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature: a report

The Third Meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature (ISPN) convened at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, from 20 to 22 July 2008. In addition to contributed talks, the conference included a progress report on the PhyloCode 'Companion Volume', a discussion of how to complete this book in a timely fashion, a demonstration of the online registration data base (RegNum), plenary talks, and Council and business meetings. Topics discussed at the meeting include problems created by rank-based nomenclature in various eukaryotic taxa, dealing with hybrids in rank-based and phylogenetic nomenclature, phyloinformatics, the choice of names to use when the taxonomic content associated with available names varies, teaching phylogenetic nomenclature, and the application of phylogenetic nomenclature to specific taxa.     

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.     

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。     

On the relationship between content, ancestor, and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature

In this paper I draw attention to the concepts of content and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature. I argue that these concepts are tightly linked and that they cannot be separated as suggested by Bryant and Cantino [Biol. Rev. 77 (2002) 39] in their recent response to a critique of phylogenetic nomenclature. In addition, I argue that the basic assumption in phylogenetic nomenclature that a taxon name always refers to the same ancestor or ancestry is questionable.     

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.     

Plant Virology and Next Generation Sequencing: Experiences with a Potyvirus

Next generation sequencing is quickly emerging as the go-to tool for plant virologists when sequencing whole virus genomes, and undertaking plant metagenomic studies for new virus discoveries. This study aims to compare the genomic and biological properties of Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) (genus Potyvirus), isolates from Lupinus angustifolius plants with black pod syndrome (BPS), systemic necrosis or non-necrotic symptoms, and from two other plant species. When one Clover yellow vein virus (ClYVV) (genus Potyvirus) and 22 BYMV isolates were sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq2000, one new ClYVV and 23 new BYMV sequences were obtained. When the 23 new BYMV genomes were compared with 17 other BYMV genomes available on Genbank, phylogenetic analysis provided strong support for existence of nine phylogenetic groupings. Biological studies involving seven isolates of BYMV and one of ClYVV gave no symptoms or reactions that could be used to distinguish BYMV isolates from L. angustifolius plants with black pod syndrome from other isolates. Here, we propose that the current system of nomenclature based on biological properties be replaced by numbered groups (I–IX). This is because use of whole genomes revealed that the previous phylogenetic grouping system based on partial sequences of virus genomes and original isolation hosts was unsustainable. This study also demonstrated that, where next generation sequencing is used to obtain complete plant virus genomes, consideration needs to be given to issues regarding sample preparation, adequate levels of coverage across a genome and methods of assembly. It also provided important lessons that will be helpful to other plant virologists using next generation sequencing in the future.     

SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB

Sequencing ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes is currently the method of choice for phylogenetic reconstruction, nucleic acid based detection and quantification of microbial diversity. The ARB software suite with its corresponding rRNA datasets has been accepted by researchers worldwide as a standard tool for large scale rRNA analysis. However, the rapid increase of publicly available rRNA sequence data has recently hampered the maintenance of comprehensive and curated rRNA knowledge databases. A new system, SILVA (from Latin silva, forest), was implemented to provide a central comprehensive web resource for up to date, quality controlled databases of aligned rRNA sequences from the Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya domains. All sequences are checked for anomalies, carry a rich set of sequence associated contextual information, have multiple taxonomic classifications, and the latest validly described nomenclature. Furthermore, two precompiled sequence datasets compatible with ARB are offered for download on the SILVA website: (i) the reference (Ref) datasets, comprising only high quality, nearly full length sequences suitable for in-depth phylogenetic analysis and probe design and (ii) the comprehensive Parc datasets with all publicly available rRNA sequences longer than 300 nucleotides suitable for biodiversity analyses. The latest publicly available database release 91 (August 2007) hosts 547 521 sequences split into 461 823 small subunit and 85 689 large subunit rRNAs.     

Proposed standard nomenclature for the alpha- and beta-globin gene families

The globin family of genes and proteins has been a recurrent object of study for many decades. This interest has generated a vast amount of knowledge. However it has also created an inconsistent and confusing nomenclature, due to the lack of a systematic approach to naming genes and failure to reflect the phylogenetic relationships among genes of the gene family. To alleviate the problems with the existing system, here we propose a standardized nomenclature for the alpha and beta globin family of genes, based on a phylogenetic analysis of vertebrate alpha and beta globins, and following the Guidelines for Human Gene Nomenclature.     

A guide through a family of phylogenetic dissimilarity measures among sites

Ecological studies have now gone beyond measures of species turnover towards measures of phylogenetic and functional dissimilarity. This change of perspective has a main objective: disentangling the processes that drive species distributions from local to broad scales. A fundamental difference between phylogenetic and functional analyses is that phylogeny is intrinsically dependent on a tree‐like structure whereas functional data can, most of time, only be forced to adhere a tree structure, not without some loss of information. When the branches of a phylogenetic tree have lengths, then each evolutionary unit on these branches can be considered as a basic entity on which dissimilarities among sites should be measured. Several of the recent measures of phylogenetic dissimilarities among sites thus are traditional dissimilarity indices where species are replaced by evolutionary units. The resulting indices were named PD‐dissimilarity indices, in reference to early work on the phylogenetic diversity (PD) measure. Here I review and compare indices and ordination approaches that, although first developed to analyse the differences in the species compositions of sites, can be adapted to describe PD‐dissimilarities among sites. Using simulations of species distributions along environmental gradients, I compare indices, associated with permutation tests and null models, in their ability to reveal existing phylogenetic patterns along the gradients. As an illustration, I show that the amount of bat PD‐dissimilarities along a disturbance gradient in Selva Lacandona of Chiapas, Mexico is dependent on whether species' abundance is considered, and on the PD‐dissimilarity index used. Overall, the family of PD‐dissimilarity indices has a critical potential for future analyses of phylogenetic diversity as it benefits from decades of research on the measure of species dissimilarity. I provide clues to help to choose among many potential indices, identifying which indices satisfy minimal basic properties, and analysing their sensitivity to abundance, size, diversity and joint absences.     

pplacer: linear time maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic placement of sequences onto a fixed reference tree

Background  

Likelihood-based phylogenetic inference is generally considered to be the most reliable classification method for unknown sequences. However, traditional likelihood-based phylogenetic methods cannot be applied to large volumes of short reads from next-generation sequencing due to computational complexity issues and lack of phylogenetic signal. "Phylogenetic placement," where a reference tree is fixed and the unknown query sequences are placed onto the tree via a reference alignment, is a way to bring the inferential power offered by likelihood-based approaches to large data sets.     

Vertebrate genome sequencing: building a backbone for comparative genomics

The human genome sequence provides a reference point from which we can compare ourselves with other organisms. Interspecies comparison is a powerful tool for inferring function from genomic sequence and could ultimately lead to the discovery of what makes humans unique. To date, most comparative sequencing has focused on pair-wise comparisons between human and a limited number of other vertebrates, such as mouse. Targeted approaches now exist for mapping and sequencing vertebrate bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) from numerous species, allowing rapid and detailed molecular and phylogenetic investigation of multi-megabase loci. Such targeted sequencing is complementary to current whole-genome sequencing projects, and would benefit greatly from the creation of BAC libraries from a diverse range of vertebrates.