Replacement of an Essentialistic Perspective on Taxonomic Definitions as Exemplified by the Definition of "Mammalia"

Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: the evolving codes of nomenclature

“…edu/phylocode/ or www.phylocode.org) cut to the heart of how naming is done by introducing a scientific truth to the naming of organisms. The PhyloCode and its pros and cons have been debated in many fora (see de Queiroz 1994;Forey 2001Forey , 2002de Queiroz & Cantino 2001;Godfray & Knapp 2004), but essentially the point of contention is whether the naming of clades rather than taxa will increase stability of names. Anything likely to increase stability has immediate appeal, but closer examination of the PhyloCode shows that claims about increases in stability are not held up (Forey 2002), and wholesale adoption would immediately cause widespread name changes-a decrease in stability.…”

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

“…De¢ni-tions are possible for the names of classes and natural kinds, but names of individuals are proper names that cannot be de¢ned (Mill 1875;Ghiselin 1966Ghiselin , 1995Ghiselin , 1997Kripke 1980;HÌrlin 1998b;HÌrlin & Sundberg 1998). Thus, if one wishes to keep the traditional Linnean approach to nomenclature or adopt a phylogenetic system of de¢nition sensu De Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994, one is also forced to treat species and other clades as classes or natural kinds rather than individuals. If, on the other hand, one prefers to treat clades as historical individuals then we cannot de¢ne their names since no de¢ning properties are involved (HÌrlin 1998b).…”

“…what happens with the way a name refers when we chose another hypothesis than the one used when introducing the name. The basic idea is that a name keeps referring to the same taxon through changes of phylogenetic hypotheses (De Queiroz & Gauthier 1992, 1994. In traditional Linnean taxonomy a name is tagged to a particular type specimen and associated with a particular rank in the Linnean hierarchy.…”

“…There are several reasons for this (De Queiroz 1988;HÌrlin 1998aHÌrlin , 1999 but, during the last ten years or so, taxonomy has witnessed a revitalization in terms of phylogenetic theory (e.g. De Queiroz & Gauthier 1990, 1992, 1994De Queiroz 1992, 1994Sundberg & Pleijel 1994;Ghiselin 1995Ghiselin , 1997Schander & Thollesson 1995;Bryant 1996Bryant , 1997Lee 1996;HÌrlin 1998b;HÌrlin & Sundberg 1998;Sereno 1999). Although these new approaches to biological nomenclature emphasize the importance of incorporating phylogenetic theory, they also di¡er in interesting ways (HÌrlin 1998b).…”

Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature: a reply to Lidén and Oxelman

“…This situation is now changing as several authors have started to develop and put into use a system of nomenclature based on phylogenetic principles (e.g., de Queiroz & Gauthier 1990, 1992de Queiroz 1992de Queiroz , 1994de Queiroz , 1995ade Queiroz ,1995bBryant 1994Bryant , 1996Sundberg & Pleijel 1994;Schander ÄThoUesson 1995;Holtz 1996;Lee 1996a;Wyss & Meng 1996;Cantino et al 1997). It was probably inevitable that this new approach would eventually be criticized by authors defending the traditional system of nomenclature, a system based on the taxonomic categories of Linnaeus.…”