Premium
The PhyloCode, types, ranks and monophyly: a response to Pickett
Author(s) -
Laurin Michel,
Queiroz Kevin,
Cantino Phil,
Cellinese Nico,
Olmstead Richard
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
cladistics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.323
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1096-0031
pISSN - 0748-3007
DOI - 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00090.x
Subject(s) - paraphyly , monophyly , nomenclature , cladistics , clade , interpretation (philosophy) , rank (graph theory) , phylogenetic tree , biology , phylogenetic nomenclature , evolutionary biology , zoology , epistemology , genealogy , taxonomy (biology) , mathematics , linguistics , philosophy , history , combinatorics , gene , biochemistry
A report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting recently published in Cladistics conveys several misconceptions about the PhyloCode and presents an erroneous interpretation of discussions that took place at that meeting. Contrary to Pickett's assertions, the PhyloCode is designed to name clades, not paraphyletic groups; the rejection of ranks has never been a fundamental principle of phylogenetic nomenclature; and specifiers under the PhyloCode differ in several ways from types under rank‐based nomenclature. © The Willi Hennig Society 2005.