Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale

The recent publication of a new hypothesis of cladistic relationships among American frogs referred to the genus Rana, accompanied by a new taxonomy and a new nomenclature of this group [Hillis D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34, 299-314], draws attention to the problems posed by the use of a "double nomenclature", following both the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (designated here as "onomatophore-based nomenclature") and the rules of the draft Phylocode (designated here as "definition-based nomenclature"). These two nomenclatural systems, which rely upon widely different theoretical bases, are incompatible, and the latter cannot be viewed as a "modification" of the former. Accordingly, scientific names (nomina) following both systems should be clearly distinguished in scientific publications. Onomatophore-based nomina should continue to be written as they have been for about 250 years, whereas definition-based nomina should be written in a specific way, e.g., Lithobates. The combined use of both nomenclatural systems for the same taxonomy in the same paper requires good knowledge and careful respect of the rules of the Code regarding availability, allocation and validity of nomina. As shown by this example, not doing so may result in various problems, in particular in publishing nomina nuda or in using nomenclatural ranks invalid under the current Code. Attention is drawn to the fact that new nomina published without diagnostic characters are not available under the Code, and that the latter currently forbids the use of more than two ranks (subgenus and "aggregate of species") between the ranks genus and species.     

New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The recent multiplication of cladistic hypotheses for many zoological groups poses a challenge to zoological nomenclature following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: in order to account for these hypotheses, we will need many more ranks than currently allowed in this system, especially in lower taxonomy (around the ranks genus and species). The current Code allows the use of as many ranks as necessary in the family-series of nomina (except above superfamily), but forbids the use of more than a few ranks in the genus and species-series. It is here argued that this limitation has no theoretical background, does not respect the freedom of taxonomic thoughts or actions, and is harmful to zoological taxonomy in two respects at least: (1) it does not allow to express in detail hypothesized cladistic relationships among taxa at lower taxonomic levels (genus and species); (2) it does not allow to point taxonomically to low-level differentiation between populations of the same species, although this would be useful in some cases for conservation biology purposes. It is here proposed to modify the rules of the Code in order to allow use by taxonomists of an indeterminate number of ranks in all nominal-series. Such an 'expanded nomenclatural system' would be highly flexible and likely to be easily adapted to any new finding or hypothesis regarding cladistic relationships between taxa, at genus and species level and below. This system could be useful for phylogeographic analysis and in conservation biology. In zoological nomenclature, whereas robustness of nomina is necessary, the same does not hold for nomenclatural ranks, as the latter are arbitrary and carry no special biological, evolutionary or other information, except concerning the mutual relationships between taxa in the taxonomic hierarchy. Compared to the Phylocode project, the new system is equally unambiguous within the frame of a given taxonomic frame, but it provides more explicit and informative nomina for non-specialist users, and is more economic in terms of number of nomina needed to account for a given hierarchy. These ideas are exemplified by a comparative study of three possible nomenclatures for the taxonomy recently proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) for American frogs traditionally referred to the genus Rana.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Mutually exclusive phylogenomic inferences at the root of the angiosperms: Amborella is supported as sister and Observed Variability is biased

Identifying the extant sister group to the remaining angiosperms has been a subject of long debate, for which the primary currently competing hypotheses are that Amborella alone is sister or that the clade (Amborella, Nymphaeales) is sister. Both Xi et al. (Syst. Biol., 2014, 63, 919) and Goremykin et al. (Syst. Biol., 2015, 64, 879) identified Amborella as sister in concatenation‐based phylogenetic analyses of their 310 nuclear genes and 78 plastid genes, respectively. But after application of Observed Variability‐based character subsampling, both papers reported the clade (Amborella, Nymphaeales) as sister. Hence alternative character‐sampling strategies may produce highly supported yet mutually exclusive phylogenetic inferences when applied to nuclear and plastid genomic data sets. Edwards et al. (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 2016, 94, 447) defended Observed Variability and the (Amborella, Nymphaeales) hypothesis. In this study I respond to Edwards et al.'s (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 2016, 94, 447) criticisms of Simmons and Gatesy (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 2015, 91, 98) and use Edwards et al.'s (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 2016, 94, 447) and Goremykin et al.'s (Syst. Biol., 2015, 64, 879) own data to demonstrate that the best‐supported phylogenetic hypothesis is that Amborella alone is sister and that the competing evidence in favour of the (Amborella, Nymphaeales) hypothesis is caused primarily by methodological artifacts (biased character deletion by Observed Variability, MP‐EST and STAR generally not being robust to the highly divergent and mis‐rooted gene trees that were used).     

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.     

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.     

Proceedings of the SMBE Tri-National Young Investigators' Workshop 2005. Baleen whale phylogeny and a past extensive radiation event revealed by SINE insertion analysis

Baleen whales (suborder Mysticeti) comprise 11 extant species that are classified into four families. Although several phylogenetic hypotheses about these taxa have been proposed, their phylogenetic relationships remain confused. We addressed this problem using short interspersed repetitive element (SINE) insertion data, which now are regarded as almost ideal shared, derived characters at the molecular level. We reconstructed the phylogenetic relationships of baleen whales by characterizing 36 informative SINE loci. One of the intriguing conclusions is that balaenopterids and eschrichtiids radiated very rapidly during a very short evolutionary period. During this period, speciation occurred in balaenopterids and eschrichtiids while newly inserted SINE loci remains polymorphic. Later on, these SINEs were sorted incompletely into each lineage. Thus, there are now inconsistencies among species regarding the presence or absence of a given SINE. This is in sharp contrast to the phylogeny of toothed whales, for which no SINE inconsistencies have been found. Furthermore, we found monophyletic groupings between humpback and fin whales as well as between (sei+Bryde's) whales and blue whales, both of which have not previously been recognized. The comprehensive SINE insertion data, together with the mitochondrial DNA phylogeny that was recently completed (Sasaki, T., M. Nikaido, H. Healy et al. 2005. Mitochondrial phylogenetics and evolution of mysticete whales. Syst. Biol. 56:77-90; Rychel, A. L., T. W. Reeder, and A. Berta. 2004. Phylogeny of mysticete whales based on mitochondrial and nuclear data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32:892-901), provide a nearly complete picture of the evolutionary history of baleen whales.     

New World monkey phylogeny based on X-linked G6PD DNA sequences

The Platyrrhini, or New World monkeys, are an infraorder of Primates comprised of 16 genera. Molecular phylogenetic analyses have consistently sorted these genera into three groups: the Pitheciidae (e.g., saki and titi monkeys), Atelidae (e.g., spider and howler monkeys), and Cebidae (e.g., night monkeys, squirrel monkeys, and tamarins). No consensus has emerged on the relationships among the three groups or within the Cebidae. Here, approximately 0.8 kb of newly generated intronic DNA sequence data from the X-linked glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) locus have been collected from nine New World monkey taxa to examine these relationships. These data are added to 1.3 kb of previously generated G6PD intronic DNA sequence data [Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 11 (1999) 459]. Using distance and parsimony-based techniques, G6PD sequences provide support for an initial bifurcation between the Pitheciidae and the remaining platyrrhines, linking Atelidae and Cebidae as sister taxa. Bayesian methods provided a conflicting phylogeny with Atelidae as outgroup. Within the Cebidae, a sister relation between Aotus and the Cebus/Saimiri clade is favored by parsimony analysis, but not by other analyses. Potential reasons for the difficulty in resolving family level New World monkey phylogenetics are discussed.     

Phylogenetic relationships in the honeybee (genus Apis) as determined by the sequence of the cytochrome oxidase II region of mitochondrial DNA.

The complete nucleotide sequence of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase II (COII) gene was determined for five species of the honeybee (Genus: Apis): A. andreniformis, A. cerana, A. dorsata, A. florea, and A. koschevnikovi; these were then compared to the known sequence of the A. millifera gene from Crozier et al. (1989, Mol. Biol. Evol., 6: 399-411) and the wasp Excristes roborator (Liu and Beckenbach, 1992, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 1:41-52). Phylogenetic relationships were derived using the parasimony methods DNAPARS and PROTPARS of Felsenstein ("PHYLIP Manual Version 3.4, "University Herbarium, Univ. of California, Berkeley). The results suggest that A. dorsata is the most ancestral species, followed by the branching of A. florea/A. andreniformis and A. koschevnikovi, and then A. mellifera and A. cerana. This inference differs from the currently accepted view that considers the A. florea/A. andreniformis line to be the most ancestral.     

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.     

Twenty four new microsatellite markers in two invasive pavement ants, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Tetramorium</Emphasis> sp.E and <Emphasis Type="Italic">T. tsushimae</Emphasis> (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Invasive species trigger biodiversity losses and alter ecosystem functioning, with life history shaping invasiveness (Sakai et al., Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332, 2001). However, pinpointing the relation of a specific life history to invasion success is difficult. One approach may be comparing congeners. The two Palearctic pavement ants, Tetramorium sp.E (widely known as T. caespitum, Schlick-Steiner et al., Mol Phylogenet Evol 40:259–273, 2006) and T. tsushimae have invaded North America (Steiner et al., Biol Invasions 8:117–123, 2006). Their life histories differ in that T. sp.E has separate single-queened colonies but T. tsushimae multi-queened colonies scattered over large areas (Sanada-Morimura et al., Insect Soc 53:141–148, 2006; Schlick-Steiner et al., Mol Phylogenet Evol 40:259–273, 2006; Steiner et al., Biol Invasions 8:117–123, 2006). Comparison of the genetic diversity in the entire native and non-native ranges will elucidate the invasion histories. Here, we present 13 and 11 microsatellites, developed for T. sp.E and T. tsushimae, respectively, and characterize all for both species. Florian M. Steiner, Wolfgang Arthofer and Birgit C. Schlick-Steiner contributed equally to this work.     

Taxonomy and species delimitation in Cryptosporidium

Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals serve as hosts for 19 species of Cryptosporidium. All 19 species have been confirmed by morphological, biological, and molecular data. Fish serve as hosts for three additional species, all of which lack supporting molecular data. In addition to the named species, gene sequence data from more than 40 isolates from various vertebrate hosts are reported in the scientific literature or are listed in GenBank. These isolates lack taxonomic status and are referred to as genotypes based on the host of origin. Undoubtedly, some will eventually be recognized as species. For them to receive taxonomic status sufficient morphological, biological, and molecular data are required and names must comply with the rules of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Because the ICZN rules may be interpreted differently by persons proposing names, original names might be improperly assigned, original literature might be overlooked, or new scientific methods might be applicable to determining taxonomic status, the names of species and higher taxa are not immutable. The rapidly evolving taxonomic status of Cryptosporidium sp. reflects these considerations.     

The PNarec method for detection of ancient recombinations through phylogenetic network analysis

Recombinations are known to disrupt bifurcating tree structure of gene genealogies. Although recently occurred recombinations are easily detectable by using conventional methods, recombinations may have occurred at any time. We devised a new method for detecting ancient recombinations through phylogenetic network analysis, and detected five ancient recombinations in gibbon ABO blood group genes [Kitano et al., 2009. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 51, 465–471]. We present applications of this method, now named as “PNarec”, to various virus sequences as well as HLA genes.     

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.     

种级异物同名处理及属名变动影响分析

讨论《国际动物命名法规》(简称《法规》)关于种级单元异物同名的处理及相关规定。以斧须隐翅虫亚科Oxyporinae的同名问题为例,笔者分析了属级单元名称变动对种级单元同名关系的影响。一些古老的属级单元有很长且比较复杂的分类历史,深入分析可将各类变化归纳为六类,其中三类与原同名有关,二类与后同名有关,余一类不再影响种级同名关系。文中讨论了第4版《法规》中与种级同名关系有关的若干重要变动,通过分析比较,说明《法规》的这类变动如何影响动物分类名称的稳定性与正确性。这些分析,可望有助于避免产生新的次同名,也有助于正确恰当地解决已有的同名问题。     

The PhyloCode: a critical discussion of its theoretical foundation

The definition of taxon names as formalized by the PhyloCode is based on Kripke's thesis of "rigid designation" that applies to Millian proper names. Accepting the thesis of "rigid designation" into systematics in turn is based on the thesis that species, and taxa, are individuals. These largely semantic and metaphysical issues are here contrasted with an epistemological approach to taxonomy. It is shown that the thesis of "rigid designation" if deployed in taxonomy introduces a new essentialism into systematics, which is exactly what the PhyloCode was designed to avoid. Rigidly designating names are not supposed to change their meaning, but if the shifting constitution of a clade is thought to cause a shift of meaning of the taxon name, then the taxon name is not a "rigid designator". Phylogenetic nomenclature either fails to preserve the stability of meaning of taxon names that it propagates, or it is rendered inconsistent with its own philosophical background. The alternative explored here is to conceptualize taxa as natural kinds, and to replace the analytic definition of taxon names by their explanatory definition. Such conceptualization of taxa allows taxon names to better track the results of ongoing empirical research. The semantic as well as epistemic gain is that if taxon names are associated with natural kind terms instead of being proper names, the composition of the taxon will naturally determine the meaning of its name.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2006.