Medical Journals

Naming Taxa from Cladograms: a Cautionary Tale.

Authors:
  • Dubois Alain

From: Vertébrés: Reptiles et Amphibiens, USM 0602 Taxonomie et Collections, Département de Systématique et Evolution, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France. adubois@mnhn.frp

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution

  • Publish Date: Feb 2007
  • ISSN: 1055-7903
  • Volume: 42
  • Issue: 2
  • Pages: 317-30
  • Medium: Print
  • Language: English
  • Citation (JAMA): Dubois Alain, et al. Naming Taxa from Cladograms: a Cautionary Tale.. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. Feb 2007;42:317-30

Abstract

The recent publication of a new hypothesis of cladistic relationships among American frogs referred to the genus Rana, accompanied by a new taxonomy and a new nomenclature of this group [Hillis D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34, 299-314], draws attention to the problems posed by the use of a “double nomenclature”, following both the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (designated here as “onomatophore-based nomenclature”) and the rules of the draft Phylocode (designated here as “definition-based nomenclature”). These two nomenclatural systems, which rely upon widely different theoretical bases, are incompatible, and the latter cannot be viewed as a “modification” of the former. Accordingly, scientific names (nomina) following both systems should be clearly distinguished in scientific publications. Onomatophore-based nomina should continue to be written as they have been for about 250 years, whereas definition-based nomina should be written in a specific way, e.g., Lithobates. The combined use of both nomenclatural systems for the same taxonomy in the same paper requires good knowledge and careful respect of the rules of the Code regarding availability, allocation and validity of nomina. As shown by this example, not doing so may result in various problems, in particular in publishing nomina nuda or in using nomenclatural ranks invalid under the current Code. Attention is drawn to the fact that new nomina published without diagnostic characters are not available under the Code, and that the latter currently forbids the use of more than two ranks (subgenus and “aggregate of species”) between the ranks genus and species.

Mesh Headings (Keywords): Amphibia, Animals, Classification, Phylogeny, Reproducibility of Results, Terminology as Topic


Check for Full Text / PubMed Unique Identifier (PMID): 16949307


This abstract is part of PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed includes more than 17 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles. See Copyright and Disclaimers.

Linked medical terms appearing on this page are added by Healia to help readers find more information and are not part of the original PubMed document.

The data herein was last updated on July 8th, 2008 and may not reflect the most current and accurate data available from NLM.


Advertisements

About | Privacy Policy | Business Solutions | Advertise | Contact | Add Healia to your site

©2012. Healia / Meredith Corporation  

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. All content on this Web site, including medical opinion and any other health-related information, is for informational purposes only and should not be used for a specific diagnosis or individual treatment plan for any situation. Use of this site and the information contained herein does not create a doctor-patient relationship. Always seek the direct advice of your doctor in connection with any questions or issues you may have regarding your own health or the health of others.