A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: A botanical case study
A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: A botanical case study
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/2413626
复制
发表时间：
1997-06-01
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Wagstaff, SJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cantino, PD;Olmstead, RG;Wagstaff, SJ
唇形科被用作案例研究，以比较我们目前的命名系统与de Queiroz和Gauthier（1992，Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23：449-480），强调命名的稳定性和效率。比较发表的分支分析显示，19个超属的分支在唇形科，支持足够好，值得命名，但许多属不能被放置在任何infrafamilial taxon. Two系统发育分类的信心准备，一个按照目前的命名规则和惯例和其他系统发育系统的命名。分类的比较揭示了不稳定和模糊的名称，导致采用当前的规则和惯例命名分支的例子。基于不确定系统发育关系的命名类型的旧名称和基于科类型的科下分类单元名称特别容易不稳定。系统发育系统似乎有较少的问题，但也可能导致命名混乱，如果分类群名称的定义不小心。目前的系统产生效率较低的分类，因为详尽的附属分类单元的原则，导致包括冗余的名称（单型分类单元）时，分类是基于一个不对称的分支图。与此相反，系统发育系统不包含冗余的名称。我们赞同放弃详尽无遗的附属分类群原则的建议。每当将系统发生转化为分类时，都应提供分类单元名称的系统发生定义。这些定义应附有一份共形表和一份分支成员的声明，以便于随后将新研究的物种临时转介到超种分类群。
The family Lamiaceae was used as a case study to compare our current system of nomenclature with a phylogenetic alternative proposed by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480), with emphasis on nomenclatural stability and efficiency. Comparison of published cladistic analyses revealed 19 suprageneric clades within Lamiaceae that are supported well enough to merit naming, but many genera could not be placed with confidence in any infrafamilial taxon. Two phylogenetic classifications were prepared, one following current nomenclatural rules and conventions and the other following the phylogenetic system of nomenclature. A comparison of the classifications revealed examples of unstable and ambiguous names that resulted from employing current rules and conventions to name clades. Old names based on nomenclatural types of uncertain phylogenetic relationship and infrafamilial taxon names based on the type of the family are particularly prone to instability. The phylogenetic system appears to have fewer problems but may also lead to nomenclatural confusion if taxon names are defined carelessly. The current system produces less efficient classifications because the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa leads to inclusion of redundant names (monotypic taxa) when the classification is based on an asymmetrical cladogram. In contrast, the phylogenetic system contains no redundant names. We endorse the recommendation that the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa be abandoned. Phylogenetic definitions should be provided for taxon names whenever phylogenies are translated into classifications. The definitions should be accompanied by a list of synapomorphies and a statement of clade membership to facilitate subsequent provisional referral of newly studied species to supraspecific taxa.