Die Gattung Bathydoris Bergh, 1884 (Gnathodoridacea) im phylogenetischen System der Nudibranchia (Opisthobranchia, Gastropoda)

The genus Bathydoris Bergh, 1884 (Gnathodoridacea) in the phylogenetic system of the Nudibranchia (Opisthobranchiu, Gastropoda) The position of the genus Bathydoris Bergh, 1884 in the phylogenetic system of the Nudibranchia is discussed. Doridoxa Bergh, 1900, a genus which is assigned to the taxon Gnathodoridacea together with the genus Bathydoris, is taken out from this taxon, lacking snapomorphies. Doridoxa is considered to be a sister grou of the Euctenidiacea, with the transrormation of the right digestive gland into a caecum as the only synaomorphy with the latter. The Gnathodoridacea with the one enus Bathydoris is removed from the taxon Doridacea and considered to be the sister group or the latter. Gnathodoridacea and Doridacea form the taxon Euctenidiacea with the synapomorphy “dorsomedial position of anus and nephroproct”.     

A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia)

The phylogenetic relationships of the cryptobranch dorids are studied based on morphological characters of species belonging to all previously described genera. The phylogenetic hypothesis supports the cryptobranch dorids as a monophyletic group. There are two major clades within the Cryptobranchia: the radula‐less dorids (Porostomata), and the radula‐bearing dorids ( Labiostomata new taxon ). Labiostomata consists of those taxa sharing a more recent common ancestor with Actinocyclus than with Mandelia, and includes several monophyletic groups: Actinocyclidae, Chromodorididae, Dorididae and Discodorididae. The traditional group Phanerobranchia is probably paraphyletic. The new classification proposed for the Cryptobranchia addresses concepts of phylogenetic nomenclature, but is in accordance with the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The following genera of cryptobranch dorids are regarded as valid: Doris Linnaeus, 1758, Asteronotus Ehrenberg, 1831, Atagema J. E. Gray, 1850, Jorunna Bergh, 1876, Discodoris Bergh, 1877, Platydoris Bergh, 1877, Thordisa Bergh, 1877, Diaulula Bergh, 1878, Aldisa Bergh, 1878, Rostanga Bergh, 1879, Aphelodoris Bergh, 1879, Halgerda Bergh, 1880, Peltodoris Bergh, 1880, Hoplodoris Bergh, 1880, Paradoris Bergh, 1884, Baptodoris Bergh, 1884, Geitodoris Bergh, 1891, Gargamella Bergh, 1894, Alloiodoris Bergh, 1904, Sclerodoris Eliot, 1904, Otinodoris White, 1948, Taringa Er. Marcus, 1955 , Sebadoris Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus, 1960, Conualevia Collier & Farmer, 1964, Thorybopus Bouchet, 1977, Goslineria Valdés, 2001, Pharodoris Valdés, 2001, Nophodoris Valdés & Gosliner, 2001. Several genera previously considered as valid are here regarded as synonyms of other names: Doridigitata d’Orbigny, 1839, Doriopsis Pease, 1860, Staurodoris Bergh, 1878, Fracassa Bergh, 1878, Archidoris Bergh, 1878, Anoplodoris Fischer, 1883, Etidoris Ihering, 1886, Phialodoris Bergh, 1889, Montereina MacFarland, 1905, Ctenodoris Eliot, 1907, Carryodoris Vayssière, 1919, Austrodoris Odhner, 1926, Guyonia Risbec, 1928, Erythrodoris Pruvot‐Fol, 1933, Neodoris Baba, 1938, Siraius Er. Marcus, 1955, Tayuva Ev. Marcus & Er. Marcus, 1967, Nuvuca Ev. Marcus & Er. Marcus, 1967, Doriorbis Kay & Young, 1969, Pupsikus Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus, 1970, Percunas Ev. Marcus, 1970, Verrillia Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981 . The genera Artachaea Bergh, 1882, Carminodoris Bergh, 1889 and Homoiodoris Bergh, 1882 have been poorly described and no type material is known to exist. They are regarded as incertae sedis until more material becomes available. The genus names Xenodoris Odhner in Franc, 1968 and Cryptodoris Ostergaard, 1950 are unavailable within the meaning of the Code. Hexabranchus Ehrenberg, 1831 is not a cryptobranch dorid, as suggested by other authors, because of the lack of a retractile gill. Other nomenclatural and taxonomic problems are discussed, and several type species, neotypes and lectotypes are selected. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 136 , 535?636.     

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.     

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.     

Ultrastructure of the renopericardial complex in Hypselodoris tricolor (Gastropoda, Nudibranchia)

The histology and ultrastructure of the renopericardial complex of Hypselodoris tricolor (Gastropoda, Nudibranchia, Doridoidea) have been investigated by means of semithin serial sections and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The examinations revealed a functional metanephridial system comprising a monotocardian heart with ventricle and auricle in a spacious pericardium that is linked with the single, large kidney by a renopericardial duct with prominent ciliation towards its opening. Podocytes as the site of ultrafiltration were not only detected in the auricular epicardium, but also line the entire outer pericardial epithelium. The cuboidal, highly vacuolated excretory cells of the kidney epithelium with extensive basal infoldings and an apical microvillous border indicate secretory and reabsorptive activity. Solitary rhogocytes (pore cells) of the connective tissue and haemocoel represent additional loci of ultrafiltration with a fine structure identical to that of the podocytes (slits between cytoplasmic processes, bridged by fine diaphragms and covered by extracellular matrix). The presence of podocytes situated in the epicardial wall of the auricle is regarded as plesiomorphic for the Mollusca and is confirmed for the Nudibranchia. An additional, extensive and separate ultrafiltration site in the outer pericardial wall is not known from any other taxon of the Mollusca and strongly suggests a significantly increased ultrafiltration activity in H. tricolor.     

Global interrelationships of Plesiosauria (Reptilia,Sauropterygia) and the pivotal role of taxon sampling in determining the outcome of phylogenetic analyses

Previous attempts to resolve plesiosaurian phylogeny are reviewed and a new phylogenetic data set of 66 taxa (67% of ingroup taxa examined directly) and 178 characters (eight new) is presented. We recover two key novel results: a monophyletic Plesiosauridae comprising Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, Hydrorion brachypterygius, Microcleidus homalospondylus, Occitanosaurus tournemirensis and Seeleyosaurus guilelmiimperatoris; and five plesiosaurian taxa recovered outside the split between Plesiosauroidea and Pliosauroidea. These taxa are Attenborosaurus conybeari, ‘Plesiosaurus’macrocephalus and a clade comprising Archaeonectrus rostratus, Macroplata tenuiceps and BMNH 49202. Based on this result, a new name, Neoplesiosauria, is erected for the clade comprising Plesiosauroidea and Pliosauroidea. Taxon subsamples of the new dataset are used to simulate previous investigations of global plesiosaurian relationships. Based on these simulations, most major differences between previous global phylogenetic hypotheses can be attributed to differences in taxon sampling. These include the position of Leptocleididae and Polycotylidae and the monophyly or paraphyly of Rhomaleosauridae. On this basis we favour the results recovered by our, larger analysis. Leptocleididae and Polycotylidae are sister taxa, forming a monophyletic clade within Plesiosauroidea, indicating that the large‐headed, short‐necked ‘pliosauromorph’ body plan evolved twice within Plesiosauria. Rhomaleosauridae forms the monophyletic sister taxon of Pliosauridae within Pliosauroidea. Problems are identified with previous phylogenetic definitions of plesiosaurian clades and new, stem‐based definitions are presented that should maintain their integrity over a range of phylogenetic hypotheses. New, rank‐free clade names Cryptoclidia and Leptocleidia are erected to replace the superfamilies Cryptoclidoidea and Leptocleidoidea. These were problematic as they were nested within the superfamily Plesiosauroidea. The incongruence length difference test indicates no significant difference in levels of homoplasy between cranial and postcranial characters.     

Here be dragons – phylogeography of Pteraeolidia ianthina (Angas, 1864) reveals multiple species of photosynthetic nudibranchs (Aeolidina: Nudibranchia)

The aeolid Pteraeolidia ianthina (Angas, 1864) is a strikingly‐coloured aeolid nudibranch, informally known as the ‘Blue Dragon’. It is recognised as an unusually widespread Indo‐Pacific species, with variation in colouration and morphology, and biogeographic differences in zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate symbionts of the genus Symbiodinium). This variation hints at possible cryptic species, which was tested here using phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA data (COI, 16S). Our results showed multiple well‐supported clades with slight but consistent differences in radular morphology and colouration, and thus we clarify one of the three available names. A temperate NSW clade showed a more elongate and pointed central radular tooth and lacked white body colouration, in comparison to a more variable tropical clade, which had a shorter and more blunt central tooth. The type locality of Pteraeolidia ianthina is Sydney Harbour, New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and according to our study, does not occur outside NSW. Pteraeolidia semperi (Bergh, 1870) and P. scolopendrella (Risbec, 1928) are removed from synonymy with P. ianthina. Wider phylogeographic sampling is required before resolving the availability of the two remaining names, and subclades within the tropical clade, but there is evidence to suggest multiple cryptic species exist. The biogeographic differences in symbionts, and the importance of their role in life history, suggests that changes in symbiosis may have helped drive divergence via local adaptation in the host nudibranchs. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London     

Breaking family ties: taxon sampling and molecular phylogeny of chromodorid nudibranchs (Mollusca,Gastropoda)

Johnson, R. F. (2010). Breaking family ties: taxon sampling and molecular phylogeny of chromodorid nudibranchs (Mollusca, Gastropoda). —Zoologica Scripta, 40, 137–157. Although researchers have debated the monophyly of the diverse chromodorid nudibranchs (Chromodorididae) for over 100 years, the monophyly of this family has not been properly tested. Recent morphological and molecular phylogenetic studies have added to the debate, but have not used appropriate methods to resolve this issue. I investigate how outgroup choice and taxon sampling influences tree topology and in turn the recovery of chromodorid monophyly. As a demonstration of these potential methodological problems, I then present phylogenies resulting from different taxon‐sampling schemes using the same molecular data. Taxon sampling has a strong influence on the resulting phylogenies. With comprehensive taxon sampling and outgroup selection, Cadlina is not a member of the Chromodorididae. The chromodorid nudibranchs without Cadlina are monophyletic and possibly sister to the Actinocyclidae. Additionally, I found, for the first time, support for most current family groupings in the Doridoidea. I propose a new classification in which Cadlina is not considered a member of the Chromodorididae. Instead, I resurrect the family name Cadlinidae to include the genera Cadlina and Aldisa.     

A new basal Carnivoramorphan (Mammalia) from the ‘Bridger B’ (Black’s Fork member,Bridger Formation,Bridgerian Nalma,middle Eocene) of Wyoming,USA

Abstract: A new genus and species of basal non‐Viverravidae Carnivoramorpha, Dawsonicyon isami, is named and described. This new taxon is based upon DMNH 19585, an almost complete skeleton, which was collected from the Black’s Fork Member (informal ‘Bridger B’ subunit) of the Bridger Formation in southwestern Wyoming, USA. The specimen is incorporated into an existing craniodental data matrix, and the associated phylogenetic analyses support the identification of this species as a new basal carnivoramorphan. This new taxon is dentally compared to all known genera of non‐viverravid basal carnivoramorphans, as well as with all known species of the problematic genus Miacis. Postcrania are compared in detail with other described specimens of non‐viverravid basal carnivoramorphans and more generally with known postcrania of viverravids. Preliminary functional interpretations of a scansorial locomotor mode are offered for this new taxon. Its implications for the diversity of middle Eocene basal carnivoramorphans is briefly discussed, including expansion of the already high diversity in the Black’s Fork Member of the Bridger Formation (at least 11 species in 8 genera).     

Arion transsylvanus (Mollusca,Pulmonata, Arionidae): rediscovery of a cryptic species

Jordaens, K., Pinceel, J., Van Houtte, N., Breugelmans, K. & Backeljau, T. (2010). Arion transsylvanus (Mollusca, Pulmonata, Arionidae): rediscovery of a cryptic species. —Zoologica Scripta, 39, 343–362. Cryptic species are abundant among invertebrates and are often hard to recognise. Molecular markers are an extremely useful tool to delineate cryptic taxa, although they should be applied with caution because different genes and techniques may yield different outcomes. We illustrate how cross‐validation by molecular and morphological data can be applied to optimise taxonomic interpretations when cryptic species are involved. This is performed for the terrestrial slug Arion subfuscus species complex which represents a historical ‘taxonomic garbage can’. Gonad morphology, allozymes and mtDNA data consistently showed that slugs from Romania and a location in E Poland represent a strongly differentiated taxon within this complex. These slugs are therefore formally redescribed and assigned to A. transsylvanus Simroth 1885 ; a forgotten nominal taxon from Transylvania. Diagnostic characters, including DNA sequences for the mitochondrial 16S rDNA are presented. Animals with the morphology of A. brunneus Lehmann 1862 , a nominal taxon which has also been reported from Romania, have the gonad type, allozyme alleles and 16S rDNA haplotypes of either A. fuscus, A. subfuscus or A. transsylvanus. Therefore, A. brunneus is regarded as a colour morph shared by several species and hence, A. transsylvanus is probably the only A. subfuscus‐like species in the Romanian Carpathians.     

Revision of the genus Acrochordiceras Hyatt, 1877 (Ammonoidea,Middle Triassic): morphology,biometry, biostratigraphy and intra‐specific variability

Abstract: The family Acrochordiceratidae Arthaber, 1911 ranges in age from latest Spathian to the middle/late Anisian boundary, and it represents a major component of ammonoid faunas during that time. The middle Anisian genus Acrochordiceras Hyatt, 1877 is the most widespread taxon of the family and occurs abundantly worldwide within the low paleolatitude belt. However, there is a profusion of species names available for Acrochordiceras. This excessive diversity at the species level essentially results from the fact that sufficiently large samples were not available, thus leading to a typological approach to its taxonomy. Based on new extensive collections obtained from the Anisian (Middle Triassic) Fossil Hill Member (Star Peak Group, north‐west Nevada) for which a high resolution biostratigraphic frame is available, the taxonomy and biostratigraphy of the genus Acrochordiceras Hyatt, 1877 is herein revised with respect to its intra‐specific variation. Morphological and biometric studies (c. 550 bedrock‐controlled specimens were measured) show that only one species occurs in each stratigraphic level. Continuous ranges of intra‐specific variation of studied specimens enable us to synonymize Haydenites Diener, 1907, Silesiacrochordiceras Diener, 1916 and Epacrochordiceras Spath, 1934 with Acrochordiceras Hyatt, 1877. Three stratigraphically successive species are herein recognized in the low paleolatitude middle Anisian faunas from Nevada: A. hatschekii (Diener, 1907), A. hyatti Meek, 1877 and A. carolinae Mojsisovics, 1882. Moreover, an assessment of intra‐specific variation of the adult size range does not support recognition of a dimorphic pair (Acrochordiceras and Epacrochordiceras) as previously suggested by other workers (Epacrochordiceras is the compressed and weakly ornamented end‐member variant of Acrochordiceras). The successive middle Anisian species of Acrochordiceras form an anagenetic lineage characterized by increasing involution, adult size and intra‐specific variation. This taxonomic revision based on new bedrock‐controlled collections is thus an important prerequisite before studying the evolution of the group.     

Systematics and phylogeny of Vasseuromys (Mammalia,Rodentia, Gliridae) with a description of a new species from the late Miocene of eastern Europe

Vasseuromys is a species‐rich genus of small‐ to medium‐sized glirids spanning the latest Oligocene to late Miocene of Europe and western Asia. Despite extensive discoveries over the past 50 years, little phylogenetic work has been done on Vasseuromys. This study presents the first phylogenetic analysis of the genus that includes all the described species and a new taxon Vasseuromys tectus sp. nov. from the late Miocene of eastern Europe, providing the first insights into the evolutionary relationships within the clade. Results suggest that the genus is clearly paraphyletic. Two strongly supported genus‐level clades are recognized within ‘Vasseuromys’: a restricted Vasseuromys clade (containing the three species, V. pannonicus, V. rugosus and V. tectus) and the Glirulus clade that includes ‘Vasseuromys’ duplex. The remaining ‘Vasseuromys’ species are found to constitute a set of paraphyletic taxa, with the polyphyletic ‘Ramys’ nested within it. The genus Gliruloides is synonymized with Glirulus. Vasseuromys tectus sp. nov. is the most derived member of the genus in having a greater number of cheek teeth ridges including constantly present anterotrope, centrotrope, second prototrope on M1–2, third metatrope on M2, two to three posterotropids on p4 and strong ectolophids on lower molars. The results of the study confirm a European origin for Vasseuromys while suggesting that the late Miocene species of the genus dispersed from the east in the early Turolian.     

Systematics and phylogeny of the caryophyllidia-bearing dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia), with descriptions of a new genus and four new species from Indo-Pacific deep waters

The phylogenetic relationships of the caryophyllidia-bearing dorids are studied, based on the examination of the type species of all the genera previously described. The phylogenetic hypothesis supports that the caryophyllidia-bearing dorids are a monophyletic group and the sister group of the clade formed by Astemnotus Ehrenberg, 1831 and Halgerda Bergh, 1880. Several genera previously considered as valid or regarded as uncertain are here synonymized: Peronodoris Bergh, 1904, Trippa Bergh, 1877, Phlegmodoris Bergh, 1878, Petelodoris Bergh, 1881, Kentrodoris Bergh, 1876, Audura Bergh, 1878, Centrodoris P. Fischer, 1883, Anisodoris Bergh, 1898, Awuka Er. Marcus, 1955, Rhabdochiia P. Fischer, 1883, Boreodoris Odhner, 1939, Dictyodoris Bergh, 1880, Gravieria Vayssiere, 1912, Aporodoris Ihering, 1886. The following genera are regarded as valid: Astemnotus, Atagema J.E. Gray, 1850, Jorunna Bergh, 1876, Platydoris Bergh, 1877, Diaulula Bergh, 1878, Rostanga Bergh, 1879, Halgerda Bergh, 1880, Baptodoris Bergh, 1884, Gargamella Bergh, 1894, Alloiodoris Bergh, 1904, Sclerodoris Eliot, 1904, Taringa Er. Marcus, 1955, Thorybopus Bouchet, 1977. The new genus Nophodoris is described based on two new species from New Caledonia deep waters. Two additional new species from New Caledonia belonging to the genera Atagema and Gargamella are also described. Nomenclatural and taxonomic problems are discussed, and several type species, neotypes and lectotypes are selected.     

Taxonomic and biostratigraphical re-assessments of Subterraniphyllum Elliott (Corallinales, Rhodophyta)

A taxonomic and biostratigraphical re‐assessment of Subterraniphyllum Elliott (Corallinales, Rhodophyta) is presented. Results from studies of the type collection and of newly collected material from north‐eastern Italy and northern Slovenia have shown that this taxon is not a geniculate coralline red alga as originally suggested by Elliott and most subsequent authors. Vegetatively, Subterraniphyllum most closely resembles certain living members of the Corallinales; however, the phenetic and phylogenetic relationships of Subterraniphyllum to other Corallinales cannot be determined with greater certainty. The exclusion of Subterraniphyllum from any group of Corallinaceae with genicula is based on unequivocal evidence that branch formation does not involve the occurrence of genicula. Subterraniphyllum seems to be restricted to the Oligocene. Reports of occurrences in Upper Eocene and Lower Miocene sediments cannot be substantiated. Subterraniphyllum, however, cannot be considered a useful stratigraphical marker until further data on its occurrence in well‐dated carbonate sequences are acquired. This study illustrates the problems associated with placing fossil coralline algal specimens into geniculate genera without the preservation of relevant morphological characters. This is especially true in the absence of the careful assessment of fossil material with respect to current taxonomic concepts of geniculate coralline genera, all of which are based on studies of living species. According to the current concepts for geniculate coralline genera, the placing of fossil specimens into geniculate genera without appropriate evidence must be avoided by grouping all potentially geniculate fragments under the informal group ‘Geniculate sensu lato’. Furthermore, for all those many fossil specimens where unequivocal evidence is not present, it is possible to utilize ‘form genera’ based on characters that are normally preserved. This leads to creating a consistent, workable system of applying names to most fossil corallines so that they can be reliably used in relation to stratigraphical and palaeoecological studies.     

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.