Australian Systematic Botany Australian Systematic Botany Society
Taxonomy, biogeography and evolution of plants
L. A. S. JOHNSON REVIEW

An end to all things? — plants and their names

Peter F. Stevens

Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St Louis, MO 63166-0299, USA. Email: peter.stevens@mobot.org

Australian Systematic Botany 19(2) 115-133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SB05011
Submitted: 6 May 2005  Accepted: 3 October 2005   Published: 28 April 2006

Abstract

Great advances in our understanding of phylogenetic relationships have been made over the last decade and a half. Major clades in many groups, including flowering plants, now show substantial stability both in terms of content and relationships. This makes possible the development of a system in which only monophyletic ( = holophyletic) entities are named, entities that represent all and only the descendants of a common ancestor. However, some argue that use of Linnaean ranked names is inappropriate in such circumstances; this argument is bolstered by appeals to history and philosophy. Those who doubt the wisdom and / or very possibility of naming only monophyletic groups also argue that their position follows from history, or that ancestors cannot be incorporated into a Linnaean-type classification and that ancestors are an integral part of monophyletic groups. However, I argue that most of the apparently more cosmic issues brought up in this debate are based on a combination of a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of language, fallacious reasoning and dubious—and largely irrelevant—interpretations of history. A flagged hierarchy helps memory and communication. Binomials in particular simply represent the noun–adjective combinations of ordinary language in a Latinised form, and are too valuable a communication device to be discarded because rank has been demonised. However, hierarchies can be misinterpreted and cannot be made complex enough to cope with the much more detailed phylogenies being produced. Thinking of naming systems as conventions may help clarify what we should be doing, if we are not to squander both the time and the reputation of systematics. Time is in short supply and our reputation not what it might be; solving the less cosmic issues may involve a self-discipline that also seems in short supply in the systematic community.


References

Aarsleff H 1976 Wilkins, John. In ‘Dictionary of scientific biography, vol. XIV, Verrill-Zwelfer’. Gillispie CC 361 381 Charles Scribner’s Sons New York

Anderberg AA Rydin C Kallersjö M 2002 Phylogenetic relationships in the order Ericales s.l.: analyses of molecular data from five genes from the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. American Journal of Botany 89 677 687

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group Bremer K Chase MW Stevens PF 1998 An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85 531 553


Angiosperm Phylogeny Group Bremer B Bremer K Chase MW Reveal JL Soltis DE Soltis PS Stevens PF 2003 An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141 399 436
doi:10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.t01-1-00158.x

Ashlock PD 1971 Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology 20 63 69

Backlund A Bremer K 1998 To be or not to be—principles of classification and monotypic plant families. Taxon 47 391 401


Barkley TM DePriest P Funk V Kiger RW Kress WJ Moore G 2004 a Linnaean nomenclature in the 21st century: a report from a workshop on integrating traditional nomenclature and phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53 153 158


Barkley TM DePriest P Funk V Kiger RW Kress WJ McNeill J Moore G Nicolson DH Stevenson DW Wheeler QD 2004 b A review of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature with respect to its compatibility with phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53 159 161


Baum DA 2004 Reticulate genealogy and its bearing on the PhyloCode. In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 1 [Abstracts]

Baum DA Alverson WS Nyffeler R 1998 A durian by any other name: taxonomy and nomenclature of core Malvales. Harvard Papers in Botany 3 315 330


Baum DA Smith SW Yen A Alverson WS Nyffeler R Whitlock BA Oldham RA 2004 Phylogenetic relationships of Malvatheca (Bombacoideae and Malvoideae; Malvaceae sensu lato) as inferred from plastid DNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 91 1863 1871


Bentham G 1875 On the recent progress and present state of systematic botany. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1874 27 54


Benton MJ 2000 Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Review 75 633 648


Bergthorsson U Richardson AO Young GJ Goertzen LR Palmer JD 2004 Massive horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes from diverse land plant donors to the basal angiosperm Amborella. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101 17747 17752
doi:10.1073/pnas.0408336102

Berlin B 1992 ‘Ethnobiological classification: principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies.’ Princeton University Press Princeton

Bonde N Westergaard B 2004 New non-Linnaean, neo-cladistic nomenclature and classification conventions exemplified by recent and fossil hominids. In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 34 [Abstracts]

Boyd R 1999 Homeostasis, species and higher taxa. In ‘Species: new interdisciplinary essays’. Wilson RA 141 185 MIT Press Cambridge, MA

Briggs BG 1996 L.A.S. Johnson—a botanical career. Telopea 6 511 520

Brown R 1818 Observations, systematical and geographical, on Professor Christian Smith’s collection of plants from the vicinity of the River Congo. In ‘Narrative of an expedition to explore the River Zaire,...’. Tuckey JK 420 488 John Murray London

Brummitt RK 1997 Taxonomy versus cladonomy, a fundamental controversy in biological systematics. Taxon 46 723 734


Brummitt RK 2002 How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51 31 41


Brummitt RK 2003 Further dogged defense of paraphyletic taxa. Taxon 52 803 804


Brummitt RK Sosef MSM 1998 Paraphyletic taxa are inherent in Linnaean classification—a reply to Freudenstein. Taxon 47 411 412


Bryant HN 1994 Comments on the phylogenetic definition of taxon names and conventions regarding the naming of crown clades. Systematic Biology 43 124 130


Bryant HN 1996 Explicitness, stability, and universality in the phylogenetic definition and usage of taxon names: a case study of the phylogenetic taxonomy of the Carnivora (Mammalia). Systematic Biology 45 174 189


Bryant HN Cantino PD 2002 A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biological Reviews 77 39 55


Buck RC Hull DL 1969 Reply to Gregg. Systematic Zoology 18 354 357


Cain AJ 1958 Logic and memory in Linnaeus’s system of taxonomy. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 169 144 163


Cain AJ 1959 a Deductive and inductive methods in post-Linnaean taxonomy. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 170 185 217


Cain AJ 1959 b The post-Linnaean development of taxonomy. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 170 233 244


de Candolle A-P 1813 ‘Théorie élémentaire de la botanique.’ Déterville Paris

de Candolle A-P 1844 ‘Théorie élémentaire de la botanique’. 3rd Roret Paris

Cantino PD 1998 Binomials, hyphenated uninomials, and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47 425 429


Cantino PD 2000 Phylogenetic nomenclature: addressing some concerns. Taxon 49 85 93


Cantino PD 2004 Classifying species versus naming clades. Taxon 53 795 798


Cantino PD de Queiroz K 2005 ‘PhyloCode: a phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature.’ [
http://www.ohio.edu.phylocode: consulted 6 Jan 2005]

Cantino PD Olmstead RG Wagstaff SJ 1997 A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study. Systematic Biology 46 313 331

Cantino PD Bryant HN De Queiroz K Donoghue MJ Eriksson T Hillis DM Lee MSY 1999 Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Systematic Biology 48 790 807
doi:10.1080/106351599260012

Carpenter JM 2003 Critique of pure folly. Botanical Review 69 79 92

Cellinese N Donoghue MJ 2004 The demise of the ranked system in the arrangement of herbaria: utopia or reality? In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 2 [Abstracts]

Chung C 2003 On the origin of the typological / population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s changing views of species, 1942–1959. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 34C 277 296
doi:10.1016/S1369-8486(03)00026-8

Coyne JA Orr HA 2004 ‘Speciation.’ Sinauer Sunderland, MA

Crisp MJ Chandler GT 1996 Paraphyletic species. Telopea 6 813 844

Cronquist A 1981 ‘An integrated system of classification of flowering plants.’ Columbia University Press New York

Cronquist A 1987 A botanical critique of cladism. Botanical Review 53 1 52


Davis CC Chase MW 2004 Elatinaceae are sister to Malpighiaceae: Peridiscaceae belong to Saxifragales. American Journal of Botany 91 262 273


Davis CC Wurdack KJ 2004 Host-to-parasite gene transfer: evidence from Malpighiales. Science 305 676 678
doi:10.1126/science.1100671

Davis PD Heywood VH 1963 ‘Principles of angiosperm taxonomy.’ Oliver & Boyd Edinburgh

Darwin CD 1859 ‘On the origin of species...’ John Murray London

Dayrat B 2004 Selecting a form of species name in the PhyloCode. In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 3 [Abstracts]

Dayrat B Schander C Angielczyk KD 2004 Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon 53 485 491

Dobzhansky T 1951 ‘Genetics and the origin of species.’ 3rd Columbia University Press New York

Dominguez E Wheeler QD 1997 Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics 13 367 372


Donoghue MJ Cantino PD 1988 Paraphyly, ancestors and the goals of taxonomy: a botanical defence of cladism. Botanical Review 54 107 128


Donoghue MJ Doyle JA 1989 Phylogenetic analysis of angiosperms and relationships of Hamamelidae. In ‘Evolution, systematics and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, vol. 1. Introduction and ‘lower’ Hamamelidae’. Crane PR Blackmore S 17 45 Clarendon Press Oxford

Eigen E 1997 Overcoming first impressions: Georges Cuvier’s types. Journal of the History of Biology 30 179 209
doi:10.1023/A:1004227517928

Ereshefsky M 2000 ‘The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: a philosophical study of biological taxonomy.’ Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Evans RC Campbell CS 2002 The origin of the apple subfamily (Maloideae; Rosaceae) is clarified by DNA sequence data from duplicated GBSSI genes. American Journal of Botany 89 1478 1484

Farber PL 1976 The type concept in zoology in the first half of the nineteenth century. Journal of the History of Biology 9 93 119
doi:10.1007/BF00129174

Fisher KM Mishler BD 2004 Monography and the PhyloCode: a practical example from the moss clade Leucophanella. In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 12 [Abstracts]

Forey PL 2002 Phylocode—no pain, no gain. Taxon 51 43 54

Forey PL 2005 Naming the world: is there anything left of Linnaeus? Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 56, suppl. 1 182 195


Freudenstein JV 1998 Paraphyly, ancestors and classification—a response to Sosef and Brummitt. Taxon 47 95 104


Futuyuma D 1998 ‘Evolutionary biology.’ 3rd Sinauer Sunderland, MA

Gauthier JA de Queiroz K Joyce WG Parham JF Rowe T Calrake J 2004 A phylogenetic nomenclature for the major clades of Amniota Haeckel 1866, with emphasis on non-avian Reptilia Laurentus 1768. In ‘ First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 14 [Abstracts]

Gelman SA 2003 ‘The essential child.’ Oxford University Press Oxford

Ghiselin MT 1974 A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology 23 536 544


Ghiselin MT 2005 Taxonomy as the organization of knowledge. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 56, suppl. 1 161 169


Gilmour JSL 1940 Taxonomy and philosophy. In ‘The new systematics’. Huxley JS 461 474 Clarendon Press Oxford

Govaerts R 2003 How many species of seed plants are there? — a response. Taxon 52 583 584


Grant V 2003 Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems. American Journal of Botany 90 1263 1270


Grass Phylogeny Working Group 2001 Phylogeny and subfamilial classification of the grasses (Poaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 88 373 457


Gregg JR 1950 Taxonomy, language and reality. American Zoologist 84 419 435


Gregg JR 1968 Buck and Hull: a critical rejoinder. Systematic Zoology 17 342 345


Greuter W 2005 Linnean nomenclature and our nomenclatural codes: how many do we need? Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 33 3 119 125


Greuter W McNeill J Barrie FR Burdet HM Demoulin V Filguieras TS Nicholson DH Sliva PC Skog JE Trehane P Turland NJ Hawksworth DL 2000 ‘The international code of botanical nomenclature.’ Koeltz Königstein

Griffiths GCD 1973 Some fundamental problems in biological classification. Systematic Zoology 22 338 343


Griffiths CGD 1974 On the foundations of biological systematics. Acta Biotheoretica 23 85 131
doi:10.1007/BF01556343

Griffiths GCD 1976 The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Systematic Zoology 25 168 173

Hennig W 1966 ‘Phylogenetic systematics’. Transl. Davis DD Zangerl R University of Illinois Press Urbana

Heywood V 2001 Floristics and monography—an uncertain future? Taxon 50 361 380


Hibbett DS Donoghue MJ 1998 Intergrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90 347 356


Hibbett DS Nilsson RH Snyder M Fonseca M Costanzo J Shonfeld M 2005 Automated phylogenetic taxonomy: an example in the homobasidiomycetes (mushroom-forming fungi). Systematic Biology 54 660 668
doi:10.1080/10635150590947104

Holman EW 2002 The relation between folk and scientific classifications of plants and animals. Journal of Classification 19 131 159 doi:10.1007/s00357-001-0036-8

Holman EW 2005 Domain-specific and general properties of folk classifications. Journal of Ethnobiology 25 71 91

Hull DL 1965 The effect of essentialism in taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15 314 326


Hull DL 1976 Are species really individuals? Systematic Zoology 25 174 191


Hull DL Snyder DP 1969 Contemporary logic and evolutionary taxonomy: a reply to Gregg. Systematic Zoology 18 347 354


Humphries CJChappill JA 1988 Systematics as science: a response to Cronquist. Botanical Review 54 129 144


Jain R Rivera MC Lake JA 1999 Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: the complexity hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96 3801 3806
doi:10.1073/pnas.96.7.3801

Janovec JP Clark LG Mori SA 2003 Is the neotropical flora ready for the Phylocode? Botanical Review 69 22 43

Johnson LAS 1968 Rainbow’s end: the quest for an optimal taxonomy. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 93 8 45


Jorgensen PM 2002 Two nomenclatural systems? Taxon 51 737


Jorgensen PM 2004 Rankless names in the Code? Taxon 53 162


Judd WS Campell CA Kellogg EA Donoghue MJ Stevens PF 2003 ‘Plant systematics, a phylogenetic approach.’ 2nd Sinauer Sunderland, Mass

Keller RA Boyd RN Wheeler QD 2003 The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Botanical Review 69 93 110


Knowlson J 1975 ‘Universal language schemes in England and France, 1600–1800.’ University of Toronto Press Toronto

Knox EB 1998 The use of hierarchies as organisational models in systematics. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 63 1 49
doi:10.1006/bijl.1997.0181

Kojima J 2003 Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and phylocode names prevent effective communication. Botanical Review 69 44 58

Kress WJ Prince LM Williams KJ 2002 The phylogeny and a new classification of gingers: evidence from molecular data. American Journal of Botany 89 1682 1696


Kron KA 1997 Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15 105 112


Kron KA Judd WS Stevens PF Crayn DM Anderberg AA Gadek PA Quinn CJ Luteyn JL 2002 Phylogenetic classification of Ericaceae: molecular and morphological evidence. Botanical Review 68 335 423


Lamarck JBPA de M de 1778 ‘Flore Françoise.’ 3 vols. Imprimerie Royale Paris

Laurin M Anderson JS 2004 Meaning of the name Tetrapoda in the scientific literature: an exchange. Systematic Biology 53 68 80
doi:10.1080/10635150490264716

Lee MSY 1999 Stability of higher taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature—some comments on Moore. Zoologica Scripta 28 361 366 doi:10.1046/j.1463-6409.1999.00017.x

Lee MSY 2001 On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50 175 180

Lee MSY 2002 Species and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 51 507 510


Lidén M Oxelman B 1996 Do we need “phylogenetic taxonomy”? Zoologica Scripta 25 183 185
doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1996.tb00158.x

Lidén M Oxelman B Backlund A Andersson L Bremer B et al 1997 Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46 735 738

Mahner M Bunge M 1997 ‘Foundations of biophilosophy.’ Springer Berlin

Malt BC 1995 Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology 29 85 148
doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1013

Mason-Gamer RJ 2004 Reticulate evolution, introgression, and intertribal gene capture in an allohexaploid grass. Systematic Biology 53 25 37 doi:10.1080/10635150490424402

Mayr E 1942 ‘Systematics and the origin of species: from the viewpoint of a zoologist’. Columbia University Press New York

Mayr E 1957 Species concepts and definitions. In ‘The species problem’. E Mayr 1 22 American Association for the Advancement of Science New York

Mayr E 1969 ‘Principles of systematic zoology.’ McGraw-Hill New York

Mayr E 1982 ‘The growth of biological thought.’ Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass

Mayr E 1995 Systems of ordering data. Biology and Philosophy 10 419 434 doi:10.1007/BF00857592

Mayr E Ashlock PD 1991 ‘Principles of systematic zoology.’ 2nd McGraw Hill New York

Mayr E Bock WJ 2002 Classifications and other ordering systems. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 40 169 194 doi:10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00211.x

McNeill J 1979 Structural value: a concept used in the construction of taxonomic classifications. Taxon 28 481 504

Mishler BD 1999 Getting rid of species. In ‘Species: new interdisciplinary essays’. Wilson RA 307 315 MIT Press Cambridge, MA

Mishler BD Fisher KM 2004 Terminating species: a rank-free approach to terminal taxa. In ‘ First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 6 [Abstracts]

Monsch KA 2003 The use of apomorphies in taxonomic defining. Taxon 52 105 107


Moore G 1998 A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47 561 579


Moore G 2003 Should taxon names be explicitly defined? Botanical Review 69 2 21


Moore G 2005 A review of past and current debates in nomenclature: 250 years of progress or going around in a circle? Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 33 3 109 117


Moore G Barkley TM DePriest P Funk V Kiger RW Kress WJ Nicolson DH Stevenson DW Wheeler QD 2004 (065–067) Proposals to amend Article 3.1, Article 22.3, and Article 26.3. Taxon 53 214


Murphy GL 2002 ‘The big book of concepts.’ MIT Press Cambridge, MA

Nelson G Murphy DJ Ladiges PY 2003 Brummitt on paraphyly: a response. Taxon 52 295 298


Nixon KC Wheeler QD 1990 An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics 6 211 223


Nixon KC Carpenter JM 2000 On the other “phylogenetic systematics”. Cladistics 16 298 318


Nixon KC Carpenter JM Stevenson DW 2003 The phylocode is fatally flawed, and the Linnaean system can easily be fixed. Botanical Review 69 111 120


Nordal I Stedje B 2005 Paraphyletic taxa should be accepted! Taxon 54 5 8


Olmstead RG Cantino PD 2004 Phylogenetic nomenclature of Lamiales. In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 14 [Abstracts]

Padian K 1999 Charles Darwin’s view of classification in theory and practice. Systematic Biology 48 352 364
doi:10.1080/106351599260337

Panchen AL 1992 ‘Classification, evolution and the nature of biology.’ Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Pennisi E 1996 Evolutionary and systematic biologists converge. Science 273 181

Philipson WR 1987 The treatment of isolated genera. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 95 19 25


Pleijel F Rouse GW 2000 Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new concept for biology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 267 627 630
doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1048

Pleijel F Rouse GW 2002 Ceci n’est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 4 162 175

Pryor LD Johnson LAS 1971 ‘A classification of the eucalypts.’ Australian National University Canberra

de Queiroz K 1988 Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philosophy of Science 55 238 259
doi:10.1086/289430

de Queiroz K 1992 Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biology and Philosophy 7 295 313 doi:10.1007/BF00129972

de Queiroz K 1997 The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15 125 144

de Queiroz K 2000 The definitions of taxon names: a reply to Stuessy. Taxon 49 533 537


de Queiroz K 2005 Linnaean, rank-based, and phylogenetic nomenclature: restoring primacy to the link between names and taxa. Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 33 127 140


de Queiroz K Gauthier J 1990 Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39 307 322


de Queiroz K Gauthier J 1992 Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23 449 480
doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.23.1.449

de Queiroz K Gauthier J 1994 Towards a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 9 27 31 doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90231-3

de Queiroz K Gauthier J 2004 Toward an integrated system of phylogenetically defined names. In ‘First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 7 [Abstracts]

Rapini A 2004 Classes or individuals? The paradox of systematics revisited. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 35 675 695 doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.09.006

Raven PH Axelrod DI 1974 Angiosperm biogeography and past continental movements. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 61 593 673

Rieseberg LH Brouillet L 1994 Are many plant species paraphyletic? Taxon 43 21 32


Sauquet H Doyle JA Scharaschkin T Borsch T Hilu KW Chatrou LW Le Thomas A 2003 Phylogenetic analysis of Magnoliales and Myristicaceae based on multiple data sets: implications for character evolution. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 142 125 186
doi:10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.00171.x

Schander C 1998 a Types, emendations and names—a reply to Lidén et al. Taxon 47 401 406

Schander C 1998 b Mandatory categories and impossible hierarchies—a reply to Sosef. Taxon 47 407 410


Schander C Thollesson M 1995 Phylogenetic taxonomy—some comments. Zoologica Scripta 24 263 268
doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1995.tb00404.x

Schuh R 2003 The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence. Botanical Review 69 59 78

Sereno PC 1999 Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale. Systematic Biology 48 329 351
doi:10.1080/106351599260328

Sereno PC 2004 Notation, definitional rationale, and recall in phylogenetic taxonomy. In ‘ First international phylogenetic nomenclature meeting’. 4 [Abstracts]

Sereno PC 2005 The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54 595 619 doi:10.1080/106351591007453

Simpson GG 1961 ‘Principles of animal taxonomy.’ Columbia University Press New York

Sitte P Weiler EW Kadereit JW Bresinsky A Körner C 2002 ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen.’ Spektrum Heidelberg

Smedmark JEE Eriksson T Evans RC Campbell CS 2003 Ancient allopolyploid speciation in Geinae (Rosaceae): evidence from nuclear granule-bound starch synthase (GBSSI) gene sequences. Systematic Biology 52 374 385

Soltis DE Soltis PS 1990 Isozyme evidence for ancient polyploidy in primitive angiosperms. Systematic Botany 15 328 337


Sosef MSM 1997 Hierarchical models, reticulate evolution and the inevitability of paraphyletic supraspecific taxa. Taxon 46 75 85


Stace HM Douglas AW Sampson JF 1998 Did ‘paleo-polyploidy’ really occur in Proteaceae? Australian Systematic Botany 11 613 629
doi:10.1071/SB98013

van Steenis CGGJ 1978 On the doubtful virtue of splitting families. Bothalia 12 425 427

Stevens PF 1991 George Bentham and the Kew Rule. In ‘Improving the stability of names: needs and options’. Hawksworth DL 157 168 Koeltz Königstein

Stevens PF 1994 ‘The development of biological systematics.’ Columbia University Press New York

Stevens PF 1997 How to interpret botanical classifications: suggestions from history. Bioscience 47 243 250


Stevens PF 1998 What kind of classification should the practicing taxonomist use to be saved? In ‘Plant diversity in Malesia III’. Dransfield J Coode MJE Simpson DA 295 319 Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

Stevens PF 1999 Conventions, standards and consensus in systematic practice: How far can (or should we go? In ‘Metadiversity’. Kaser RT Kaser VC 43 50 National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services

Stevens PF 2001 a Mark Ereshefsky, The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy:...’ Journal of the History of Biology 34 600 602


Stevens PF (2001 b) ‘Angiosperm phylogeny website.’ Available at
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/ (verified 28 November 2005)

Stevens PF 2002 Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 51 11 26

Stuessy TF 1990 ‘Plant taxonomy: the systematic evaluation of comparative data.’ Columbia University Press New York

Stuessy TF 2001 Taxon names are still not defined. Taxon 50 185 186


Takhtajan A 1997 ‘The diversity and classification of flowering plants.’ Columbia University Press New York

Thorne R 2002 How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 52 511 512


Wallace 1856 Attempts at a natural arrangement of birds. Annals and Magazine of Natural History ser. 2 16 184 196


van Welzen PC 1997 Paraphyletic groups or what should a classification entail. Taxon 46 99 103


van Welzen PC 1998 Phylogenetic versus Linnaean taxonomy, the continuing story. Taxon 47 413 423


Whewell W 1847 ‘The philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history.’ 2nd John W. Parker London

Wiley E 1979 An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Systematic Zoology 28 308 337


Wiley E 1981 ‘Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics.’ Wiley New York

Williams JH Jr Friedman WE 2004 The four-celled female gametophyte of Illicium (Illiciaceae; Austrobaileyales): implications for understanding the origin and early evolution of monocots, eumagnoliids, and eudicots. American Journal of Botany 91 332 351


Winsor MP 2001 Cain on Linnaeus: the scientist-historian as unanalysed entity. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 32 239 254
doi:10.1016/S1369-8486(01)00010-3

Winsor MP 2003 Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 18 387 400 doi:10.1023/A:1024139523966



Export Citation Cited By (10)