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.     

Molecular phylogenetics of Uvaria (Annonaceae): relationships with Balonga,Dasoclema and Australian species of Melodorum

An extended molecular phylogenetic analysis of Uvaria (Annonaceae) is presented, using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods, based on sequences of four plastid DNA regions (matK, psbA‐trnH spacer, rbcL and trnL‐F). The additional taxa include the monotypic West African genus Balonga, the monotypic South‐East Asian genus Dasoclema and seven Australian representatives of the genus Melodorum. The results indicate that all of these taxa are nested within a well‐supported clade otherwise consisting of Uvaria species, indicating that their taxonomic treatment needs to be reassessed. The distinguishing morphological characteristics of the taxa are re‐evaluated and interpreted as specialized adaptations of the basic Uvaria structure. The genus Uvaria is accordingly extended following the transfer of these species, necessitating six new nomenclatural combinations and two replacement names. © 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2010, 163 , 33–43.     

Linnean ranks,temporal banding,and time‐clipping: why not slaughter the sacred cow?

In a recent study, Avise & Liu (2011) (Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 102: 707–714) presented evidence indicating that Linnean ranks are not temporally standardized (i.e. taxa of the same rank differ greatly in age). This is one more argument that ranks veil rather than convey biological comparability. The authors also discuss recent suggestions as to how these shortcomings should be overcome, in particular temporal banding (by which the same rank is assigned to taxa of the same geological age) and time‐clipping (adding a code to each taxon denoting the geological episode when it originated). In this short comment, it is argued that both temporal banding and time‐clipping may be deleterious in taxonomic practice and that the abandonment of the Linnean ranks is long overdue. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 103 , 732–734.     

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.     

狭义小奥德蘑属(膨瑚菌科,蘑菇目)的一个新系统

本文对狭义小奥德蘑属Oudemansiella s. str.的概念做了修订,在修订后的属中,狭义干蘑属Xerula s. str.的物种不纳入其中。在狭义小奥德蘑属下,提出了一个包含4个组O. sect. Oudemansiella、Mucidula、Dactylosporina 和 Radicatae的新系统。小奥德蘑组sect. Oudemansiella包括热带至南温带的一些物种,如新热带小奥德蘑O. platensis、澳洲小奥德蘑O. australis、旧热带小奥德蘑O. canarii和宽褶小奥德蘑O. crassifolia,这些物种的菌盖表皮为粘栅栏型,由菌丝组成,但其中常夹杂有链状排列的膨大细胞。粘蘑组sect. Mucidula包含北半球温带至亚热带的一些物种,如粘小奥德蘑O. mucida、网褶小奥德蘑O. venosolamellata和近粘小奥德蘑O. submucida,其菌盖表皮为粘子实层-栅栏型,由近棒状的顶端膨大细胞组成。小奥德蘑组和粘蘑组的物种,在外形和小生境上有相似之处,其担子果皆生于地表外的腐木上,菌柄上有或无菌环。刺孢组sect. Dactylosporina包含中南美洲那些孢子表面有指状凸起的物种。长根组sect. Radicatae由长根小奥德蘑O. radicata及其近缘种为代表,是该属中最大的组,包括该属其他三组之外的所有种。北美的O. americana、欧洲的O. caussei 和东亚的O. hongoi曾被置于小奥德蘑属中的白毛组O. sect. Albotomentosae或干蘑属的亮毛组X. sect. Hyalosetae,在本系统中它们没有纳入小奥德蘑属,因为它们可能代表一个单独的属。本文还提出了1新等级、32个新组合和1个新名称。     

Phylogenetic relationships within Maldanidae (Capitellida,Annelida), based on morphological characters

The Maldanidae annelid worms are reviewed and the phylogenetic relationships of their subgroups provided, based on Hennigian principles and maximum parsimony. Characters were coded as binary and multistate (transformation series). We used 33 terminal taxa (species), and 50 characters. Characters were treated as unordered and of equal weight, and analysis was run in TNT. Three equally most-parsimonious trees were obtained with heuristic searches, with lengths of 64 steps; CI = 0.95, and RI = 0.98. The monophyly of Maldanidae was supported with 100% of bootstrap and jackknife values. As a result of our analysis, Arenicolidae remains the sister-group of Maldanidae, and both should be referred to Maldanomorpha. Maldanidae was supported by the following synapomorphies: dorsal prostomium; prostomium keel-shaped and fused to peristomium; torus globose behind median chaetigers; median chaetigers greatly elongated; number of pre-anal segments reduced. The subfamily Bogueinae was not monophyletic; Boguea and Boguella were included within Rhodininae. Clymenura, previously included in the Clymenurinae, was included within Euclymeninae. The taxa Notoproctinae, Maldaninae, Nicomachinae and Euclymeninae were grouped in the Maldanoplaca, a new taxon. Eight further new clades have been found, but were not named.