Phylogenetic approaches to nomenclature: a comparison based on a nemertean case study

Abstract

Phylogenetic approaches to biological nomenclature are becoming increasingly common. Here I compare the behaviour of two such approaches, the phylogenetic system of de¢nition and the phylogenetic system of reference, when there is a shift in the preference of phylogenetic hypotheses.The comparison is based on a case study from nemertean systematics and is the ¢rst to compare two di¡erent phylogenetic approaches throughout three stages of change, including two stages of phylogenetic nomenclature. It is concluded that a phylogenetic system of reference in combination with uninomials is superior in conveying phylogenetic information.

Molecular Identification of Fungi: Rationale, Philosophical Concerns, and the UNITE Database

“…To establish correspondence among the underlying taxa for such names across different published scientific studies would require significant effort -if it could be done at all -and is likely to prove enough of an obstacle that any interesting properties reported in any one of those studies will go unnoticed by others. In a way not altogether different from how species are conceptualized under phylogenetic nomenclature [51][52], UNITE is looking to support the provision of temporary operational names of the accession number type for such unidentified -and unidentifiableclusters of hypothetically conspecific sequences until the data is there to warrant formal description of the species. Such operational names would serve as handles to which properties of the underlying hypothetical species could be attached and through which direct and precise communication of results could be achieved.…”

Phylogeny of the eureptantic nemerteans revisited

“…Systematic nomenclature has lately witnessed a long awaited vitalization in terms of phylogenetic theory (e.g. de Queiroz & Gauthier 1990, 1992; de Queiroz 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997; Sundberg & Pleijel 1994; Schander & Thollesson 1995; Ghiselin 1995, 1997; Bryant 1996, 1997; Lee 1996, 1999; Härlin 1998b, 1999b; Härlin & Sundberg 1998; Pleijel 1999; Sereno 1999; Pleijel & Rouse 2000a). This vitalization is important because taxon names are the common currency in evolutionary biology, and as such they must refer effectively to hypotheses of evolutionary histories.…”

“…Three species ( Kameginemertes parmiornatus , Drepanophoriella histriana , and Polyschista curacaoensis ), not present in the original analyses by Härlin & Sundberg (1995), are included, and in the light of the new results we discuss the phylogenetic taxonomy as well as biogeography of the Eureptantia . The biogeography is assessed by dispersal‐vicariance analysis (Ronquist 1997), and the new phylogenetic taxonomy is based on developments (Härlin 1998b, 1999b; Härlin & Sundberg 1998) of nomenclatural ideas originally presented by de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992).…”

Naming Species in Phylogenetic Nomenclature

“…The utility of each of methods A to S has been discussed or commented upon, either directly or indirectly and either favorably or critically, in one or more publications (Michener, 1963(Michener, , 1964Amadon, 1966;de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992;Schander and Thollesson, 1995;Lidén et al, 1997;McKenna and Bell, 1997;Cantino, 1998;Moore, 1998Moore, , 2003Schander, 1998;Cantino et al, 1999b;Ereshefsky, 1999Ereshefsky, , 2001aEreshefsky, , 2001bHärlin, 1999Härlin, , 2001Pleijel, 1999;Benton, 2000;Artois, 2001;Dyke, 2002;Lumbsch, 2002;Janovec et al, 2003;Nixon and Carpenter, 2003;Schuh, 2003;Dayrat, 2004Dayrat, , 2005Dayrat et al, 2004;Cantino, 2004, 2007;Stevenson, 2004;Dayrat and Gosliner, 2005;Laurin, 2005aLaurin, , 2005bPfeil and Crisp, 2005;Stevens, 2006;Wolsan, 2007). Clearly, each naming method has advantages and disadvantages.…”