Premium
PhyloCode pain, no gain
Author(s) -
Forey Peter L.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.2307/1554962
Subject(s) - phylocode , nomenclature , phylogenetic nomenclature , taxonomy (biology) , clarity , taxon , confusion , phylogenetic tree , monophyly , biology , rank (graph theory) , clade , evolutionary biology , genealogy , zoology , epistemology , mathematics , ecology , psychology , philosophy , history , combinatorics , biochemistry , gene , psychoanalysis
The PhyloCode suggests that by adopting its rules, taxonomists will gain clarity, uniqueness and stability compared with the use of Linnaean Taxonomy. This claim is questioned here by suggesting (1) that replacing the Types of Linnaean Taxonomy with the Specifiers of PhyloCode increases the complexity of decisions which have to be made, some of which go beyond nomenclature; (2) deciding which PhyloCode definition of a name to use demands knowledge of phylogenetic support and likelihood of future changes in ideas of relationships; (3) Phylogenetic Nomenclature will have limited value because it names only monophyletic groups, and (4) confusion over naming taxa is not avoided by the PhyloCode and can lead to problems when used alongside Linnaean Taxonomy. The problems concerning Linnaean rank and raised by Phylogenetic Nomenclature are upheld.