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.     

The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy

Phylogenetic taxonomy, like modern Linnean taxonomy, was modeled on a phylogenetic tree rather than a cladogram and, like its predecessor, perpetuates the use of morphology as a means of recognizing clades. Both practices have generated confusion in graphical representation, operational terminology, and definitional rationale in phylogenetic taxonomy, the history of which is traced. The following points are made: (1) cladograms, rather than trees or hybrid cladogram-trees, provide the framework for the simplest graphical depiction of phylogenetic definitions; (2) a complete notational scheme for phylogenetic definitions is presented that distinguishes symbolic notation from shorthand and longhand versions; (3) phylogenetic definitions are composed of three components (paradigm, specifier, qualifier) arranged in two fundamental patterns-node and stem; (4) apomorphies do not constitute a fundamental definitional pattern but rather serve to qualify a stem-based definition (as do time and geographic range); (5) formulation of phylogenetic definitions involves three heuristic criteria (stability, simplicity, prior use); (6) reasoned definitional revision is encouraged and better defined (textual substitution, first-and second-order revision); and (7) a database, TaxonSearch, allows rapid recall of taxonomic and definitional information.     

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.     

The philosophical basis of character coding for the inference of phylogenetic hypotheses

The coding of observations of organisms into a data matrix for the inference of phylogenetic hypotheses has suffered from a variety of problems that have precluded development of a uniform approach to the issue. Probably the most notable consequence is that the philosophical basis for coding has been prominently ignored in lieu of emphasis placed on specific coding strategies. From an epistemic standpoint, part of the problem lies with the distinction of ‘characters’ and ‘character states’, which does not accurately convey perceptual beliefs or observation statements. The ability to perceive objects is by the nature of the properties of those objects. One's sense perceptions are of characters, not states; or more appropriately, one observes objects by way of the properties perceived of those objects. The proper distinction is therefore not one of character/state, but one of object/character, as communicated by subject–predicate relations. With observation statements referring to shared similarities among organisms distributed among two or more species, and phylogenetic hypotheses in the form of cladograms serving as at least tentative explanations for those effects, then what dictates the coding of observations is not adherence to a particular coding strategy, but the need to accurately convey the causal questions that address those observations. A phylogenetic data matrix is therefore not composed of columns as ‘characters’ and cells as ‘states’. Rather, column headings indicate the observed subjects that instantiate various characters; columns represent specifiable causal questions based on observations, and cells present the subject–predicate relations of observation statements. Since data matrices must represent one's causal questions, the inclusion of outgroup taxa is justified as components of those questions. With these criteria, the coding strategies summarized by Pleijel (1995) are critiqued. It is shown that advocacy of any one of those approaches is not possible, and that strategies that incorrectly apply the notion of ‘absence’ are especially prone to misrepresent observations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The phylogenetic basis of sexual size dimorphism in orb-weaving spiders (Araneae,Orbiculariae)

Extreme sexual body size dimorphism (SSD), in which males are only a small fraction of the size of the females, occurs only in a few, mostly marine, taxonomic groups. Spiders are the only terrestrial group in which small males are relatively common, particularly among orb-weavers (especially in the families Tetragnathidae and Araneidae) and crab spiders (Thomisidae). We used a taxonomic sample of 80 genera to study the phylogenetic patterns (origins and reversals) of SSD in orb-weaving spiders (Orbiculariae). We collected and compiled male and female size data (adult body length) for 536 species. Size data were treated as a continuous character, and ancestral sizes, for males and females separately, were reconstructed by using Wagner parsimony on a cladogram for the 80 genera used in this study. Of these 80 genera, 24 were female-biased dimorphic (twice or more the body length of the male); the remaining 56 genera were monomorphic. Under parsimony only four independent origins of dimorphism are required: in the theridiid genus Tidarren, in the distal nephilines, in the "argiopoid clade," and in the araneid genus Kaira. Dimorphism has reversed to monomorphism at least seven times, all of them within the large "argiopoid clade." The four independent origins of dimorphism represent two separate instances of an increase in female size coupled with a decrease of male size (involving only two genera), and two separate instances of an increase in female size with male size either remaining the same or increasing, but not as much as females (involving 30 genera). In orb-weaving spiders, far more taxa are sexually dimorphic as a result of female size increase (22 genera) than as a result of male size decrease (two genera). SSD in orb-weaving spiders encompasses several independent evolutionary histories that together suggest a variety of evolutionary pathways. This multiplicity strongly refutes all efforts thus far to find a general explanation for either the origin or maintenance (or both) of SSD, because the different pathways very likely will require distinctly different, possibly unique, explanations. Each pattern must be understood historically before its origin and maintenance can be explained in ecological and evolutionary terms. The most frequently cited example of male dwarfism in spiders, the golden orb-weaving spider genus Nephila (Tetragnathidae), is in fact a case of female giantism, not male dwarfism.     

A phylogenetic analysis of the mycoplasmas: basis for their classification

Small-subunit rRNA sequences were determined for almost 50 species of mycoplasmas and their walled relatives, providing the basis for a phylogenetic systematic analysis of these organisms. Five groups of mycoplasmas per se were recognized (provisional names are given): the hominis group (which included species such as Mycoplasma hominis, Mycoplasma lipophilum, Mycoplasma pulmonis, and Mycoplasma neurolyticum), the pneumoniae group (which included species such as Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Mycoplasma muris), the spiroplasma group (which included species such as Mycoplasma mycoides, Spiroplasma citri, and Spiroplasma apis), the anaeroplasma group (which encompassed the anaeroplasmas and acholeplasmas), and a group known to contain only the isolated species Asteroleplasma anaerobium. In addition to these five mycoplasma groups, a sixth group of variously named gram-positive, walled organisms (which included lactobacilli, clostridia, and other organisms) was also included in the overall phylogenetic unit. In each of these six primary groups, subgroups were readily recognized and defined. Although the phylogenetic units identified by rRNA comparisons are difficult to recognize on the basis of mutually exclusive phenotypic characters alone, phenotypic justification can be given a posteriori for a number of them.