Species and Phylogenetic Nomenclature
Species and Phylogenetic Nomenclature
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/sysbio/sys035
复制
发表时间：
2012-10-01
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Mishler, Brent D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cellinese, Nico;Baum, David A.;Mishler, Brent D.
发展系统发育命名法（最初称为“系统发育分类学”）的动机是允许生物分类（或“系统化”），以代表系统发育关系，并体现重要的原则，如“并系群的不成立性”（de Queiroz和Gauthier 1990）。从这个出发点，de Queiroz和Gauthier开发了一个创造性的新的系统化基础，其中实体不是分类的类群，而是分支（de Queiroz和Gauthier 1990，1992，1994; de Queiroz 1992，1994）。与传统生物学命名法中通过参考类型和等级来给分类群命名不同，系统发育命名法通过使用多个“说明符”--明确地指特定单系分类群的标本或无形态特征--来给分类群命名。系统发育命名法随后的发展包括成立一个学术学会，即国际系统发育命名学会，并制定了一项正式的守则，即PhyloCode（http：//www.phylocode.org）。密码。org），目前正处于加州大学出版社出版的最后准备阶段。许多系统发生学家希望建立一个新的命名系统，将分类学与系统发生学紧密联系起来，并允许更稳定的方法来命名组成生命之树的许多重要分支。然而，制定PhyloCode的一个主要挑战是物种的处理。在本文中，我们认为，在PhyloCode中采取的方法是在与动机，驱使许多支持系统发育命名法，这些问题应该得到解决之前PhyloCode的出版和正式implemented.The物种的性质的争论一直困扰着生物系统学在其整个历史。达尔文（1859）在他对生物学最具独创性的贡献之一中，为物种问题提供了一个令人信服的解决方案，他认识到物种只是应用于连续分化过程的标签：在谱系分化期间，没有与之对应的神奇水平。
The motivation for the development of phylogenetic nomenclature (originally called “phylogenetic taxonomy”) was to allow biological classification (or “systematization”), to represent phylogenetic relationships, and to embody important principles such as “the untenability of paraphyletic groups”(de Queiroz and Gauthier 1990). From this starting point, de Queiroz and Gauthier developed a creative new basis for systematization in which the entities are not ranked taxa but clades (de Queiroz and Gauthier 1990, 1992, 1994; de Queiroz 1992, 1994). Instead of attaching names to taxa by reference to a type and a rank, as in traditional biological nomenclature, phylogenetic nomenclature labels taxa by the use of multiple “specifiers”—specimens or apomorphic traits that unambiguously refer to a particular monophyletic taxon. The subsequent development of phylogenetic nomenclature included formation of a scholarly society, the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature, and development of a formal Code, the PhyloCode (http://www. phylocode. org), that is now in final preparation for publication at University of California Press. The hope for many phylogenetic systematists was for a new system of nomenclature that would firmly connect taxonomy to phylogeny and would allow for more stable ways to name the many significant clades that make up the Tree of Life. However, a major challenge for the development of the PhyloCode has been the treatment of species. We argue in this paper that the approach taken to species in the PhyloCode is at odds with the motivations that drove many to support phylogenetic nomenclature and that these problems should be fixed before the PhyloCode is published and officially implemented.The debate over the nature of species has plagued biological systematics throughout its history. Darwin (1859), in one of his most original contributions to biology, provided a cogent solution to the species problem, recognizing that species are merely labels applied to a continuous divergence process: during the divergence of lineages, there is no magical level that corresponds