Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- 13 Beyond Classification: How to Study Phylogeny
- 14 The Separation of Classification and Phylogenetics
- 15 Further Myths and More Misunderstandings
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
14 - The Separation of Classification and Phylogenetics
from Part V - Beyond Classification
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2020
Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- 13 Beyond Classification: How to Study Phylogeny
- 14 The Separation of Classification and Phylogenetics
- 15 Further Myths and More Misunderstandings
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Summary
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) and Karl Gegenbaur (1826–1903) first combined systematics with phylogenetics in Systematische Phylogenie (1894–1896, see the earlier and better known Haeckel, 1866) and the second edition of Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie (Gegenbaur, 1870), the latter more concerned with developing the new field of evolutionary morphology (for a review of Gegenbaur see Hoβfeld et al. 2003); Adolf Naef (1883–1949) separated them in his Systematic Morphology (Naef 1919; for a review see Rieppel et al. 2013); Willi Hennig (1913–1976) brought them back together again with his Phylogenetic Systematics (Hennig 1950, 1966, see Rieppel et al. 2013 and Williams et al. 2016); Nelson and Platnick separated them once again in their Systematics and Biogeography (Nelson & Platnick 1981); and so it goes. In any case, Naef’s statement that natural [systematics] classification is the major task of comparative biology and ‘its foundations were laid even before the time of Darwin’ (Naef 1972, p. 12, translated from Naef 1921, p. 61) remains accurate and appealing (Naef 1919, 1921–1923).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- CladisticsA Guide to Biological Classification, pp. 369 - 395Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Barnes, RSK, Calow, P., Olive, PJW., Golding, DW. & Spicer, JI. 2001. The Invertebrates: A Synthesis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Baron, MG., Norman, DB. & Barrett, PM. 2017. A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution. Nature 543: 501–506.Google Scholar
Benton, MJ. 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 354: 1423–1446.Google Scholar
Cau, A. 2017. The assembly of the avian body plan: a 160-million-year long process. Bollettino della Societa Paleontologica Italiana 57(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Chiappe, LM. 2009. Downsized dinosaurs: The evolutionary transition to modern birds. Evolution, Education and Outreach 2: 248–256.Google Scholar
Gauthier, JA. 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 8: 1–55.Google Scholar
Gauthier, JA. & de Queiroz, K. 2001. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name ‘Aves’. In: Gauthier, J. & Gall, LF. (eds), New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, pp. 7–41.Google Scholar
Gee, H. 2001. Deuterostome phylogeny: the context for the origin and evolution of the Vertebrates. In: Ahlberg, P. (ed.), Major Events in Early Vertebrate Evolution. CRC Press, London, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Gregory, TR. 2008. Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution, Education and Outreach 1: 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. & Rosen, DE. 1977. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Natural History Museum 158(2): 85–172.Google Scholar
Perle, A., Norell, MA., Chiappe, LM. & Clark, JM. 1993a. Flightless bird from the Cretaceous of Mongolia. Nature 362: 623–626.Google Scholar
Perle, A., Norell, MA., Chiappe, LM. & Clark, JM. 1993b. Correction: flightless bird from the Cretaceous of Mongolia. Nature 363: 188.Google Scholar
Prum, RO., Berv, JS., Dornburg, A., Field, DJ., Townsend, JP., Lemmon, EM. & Lemmon, AR. 2015. A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature 526(7574): 569–573.Google Scholar
Sandvik, H. 2008. Tree thinking cannot be taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics. Theory in Biosciences 12: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. 1994. Systematics and the Fossil Record. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Thanukos, A. 2009. A name by any other tree. Evolution, Education and Outreach 2: 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., Zheng, X., O’Connor, JK., Lloyd, GT., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Zhou, Z. 2015.The oldest record of ornithuromorpha from the early Cretaceous of China. Nature Communications 6: 6987.Google Scholar
References
Benton, MJ. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633–648.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39: 307–322.Google Scholar
Pleijel, F. & Härlin, M. 2004. Phylogenetic nomenclature is compatible with diverse philosophical perspectives. Zoologica Scripta 33: 587–591.Google Scholar
Winsor, M. 2006. Linnaeus’s biology was not essentialist. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 93(1): 2–7.Google Scholar
References
Avise, JC. & Liu, J-X. 2011. On the temporal inconsistencies of Linnaean taxonomic ranks. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 102: 707–714.Google Scholar
Benton, MJ. 2007. The Phylocode: beating a dead horse? Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52: 651-655.Google Scholar
Béthoux, O. 2007a. Propositions for a character-state-based biological taxonomy. Zoologica Scripta 36: 409–416.Google Scholar
Béthoux, O. 2007b. Cladotypic taxonomy revisited. Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 65: 127–133Google Scholar
Béthoux, O. 2007c. Cladotypic taxonomy applied: titanopterans are orthopterans. Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 65: 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béthoux, O. 2010a. Optimality of phylogenetic nomenclatural procedures. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 10: 173–191.Google Scholar
Béthoux, O. 2010b. Alternative nomenclatural procedures as a potential benefit to natural history collections. A reply to Dubois in Org Divers Evol (2010) 10: 81–90. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 10: 341–432.Google Scholar
Cantino, PD. & de Queiroz, K. 2010. PhyloCode: A Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature. www.ohio.edu/phylocode/PhyloCode4c.pdfGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Carter, JG., Altaba, CR., Anderson, LC., Campbell, CD., Fang, Z., Harries, PJ. & Skelton, PW. 2015. The paracladistic approach to phylogenetic taxonomy. Paleontological Contributions 21(12): 1–9.Google Scholar
Craske, AJ. & Jefferies, RPS. 1989. A new mitrate from the Upper Ordovician of Norway, and a new approach to subdividing a plesion. Palaeontology 32: 69–99.Google Scholar
Dayrat, B., Schander, C. & Angielczyk, KD. 2004. Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon 53: 485–491.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K. 1988. Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philosophy of Science 55: 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K. 2006. The PhyloCode and the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Systematic Biology 55: 160–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K. & Cantino, PD. 2020. PhyloCode: A Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K., Cantino, PD. & Gauthier, JA. 2020. Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39: 307–322.Google Scholar
Donoghue, PCJ. 2005. Saving the stem group: a contradiction in terms? Paleobiology 31: 553–558.Google Scholar
Dubois, A. 2007. Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks. Zootaxa 1519: 27–68.Google Scholar
Dubois, A. 2010. Nomenclatural rules in zoology as a potential threat against natural history museums. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 10: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebach, MC. & McNamara, KJ. 2002. A systematic revision of the family Harpetidae (Trilobita). Records of the Western Australian Museum 21: 135–167.Google Scholar
Gascoigne, RM. 1991. Julian Huxley and biological progress. Journal of the History of Biology 24: 433–455.Google Scholar
Gegenbaur, K. 1870. Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie, 2nd ed. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Greuter, W. 2004. Recent developments in International Biological Nomenclature. Turkish Journal of Botany 28: 17–26.Google Scholar
Haeckel, EHPA. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen: allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie. G. Reimer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Haeckel, EHPA. 1894–1896. Systematische Phylogenie: Entwurf eines natürlichen Systems der Organismen auf Grund ihrer Stammesgeschichte. G. Reimer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher zentralverlag, Berlin,Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1969. Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten. Waldemar Kramer & Co., Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1981. Insect Phylogeny [translated and edited by Pont, Adrian C.; revisionary notes by Schlee, Dieter]. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Hoβfeld, U., Olsson, L. & Breidbach, O. (eds) 2003. Carl Gegenbaur and evolutionary morphology. Theory in Biosciences 122(2–3).Google Scholar
Huxley, JS. 1958. Evolutionary processes and taxonomy with special reference to grades. Uppsala Universitets Ârsskrift 6: 21–39.Google Scholar
Jefferies, RPS. 1979. The origin of chordates – a methodological essay. In: House, MR. (ed.), The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups. Academic Press, London, New York, pp. 443–447.Google Scholar
Joyce, WG., Parham, JF. & Gauthier, JA. 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. Journal of Paleontology 78: 989–1013.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 2005. Taxonomy in theory and practice, with arguments for a new phylogenetic system of taxonomy. In: Donnelly, MA., Crother, BI., Guyer, C., Wake, MH. & White, ME. (eds), Ecology and Evolution in the Tropics: A Herpetological Perspective. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 7–47.Google Scholar
Kuhn, JH., Wolf, YI., Krupovic, M., Zhang, Y–Z., Maes, P., Dolja, VV. & Koonin, EV. 2019. Classify viruses – the gain is worth the pain. Nature 566: 318–320.Google Scholar
Lee, MCY. & Skinner, A. 2007. Stability, ranks, and the PhyloCode. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52(3): 643–650.Google Scholar
McNeil, J. 1996. The BioCode: integrated biological nomenclature in the 21st century? In: Reveal, J.L. (ed.), Proceedings of a Mini-symposium on Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. www.plantsystematics.org/reveal/pbio/nomcl/mcne.htmlGoogle Scholar
Medawar, P. 1968 [1996] The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice: and Other Classic Essays on Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Minelli, A. 2013. Zoological nomenclature in the digital era. Frontiers in Zoology 10(1): 4.Google Scholar
Mishler, BD. & Wilkins, JS. 2018. The Hunting of the SNaRC: A Snarky solution to the species problem. Philosophy, Theory, Practice in Biology 10: 1.Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1921–23. Die Cephalopoden (Systematik). In: Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli. Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli, Monograph 35 (I-1). R. Friedländer & Sohn, Berlin, pp. 1–863.Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1972. Cephalopoda. Fauna and Flora of the Bay of Naples [Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der Angrenzenden Meers-Abschitte]. Monograph 35, Part I, [Vol. I], Fascicle I. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington, UK.Google Scholar
Naomi, S-I. 2014. Proposal of an integrated framework of biological taxonomy: a phylogenetic taxonomy, with the method of using names with standard endings in clade nomenclature. Bionomina 7: 1–44.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 1974. Darwin-Hennig classification: a reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology 23: 452–458.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 2016. What we all learned from Hennig. In: Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds), The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Systematics Association Special Volume Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 200–212.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Platnick, NI. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nicolson, D. 1991. A history of botanical nomenclature. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 78: 33–56.Google Scholar
Nicolson, N., Challis, K., Tucker, A. & Knapp, S. 2017. Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) – did we need to “run for our lives”? BMC Evolutionary Biology 17: 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8 (see erratum at BMC Evolutionary Biology 17:156).Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2000. On the other “phylogenetic systematics”. Cladistics 16: 298–318.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC., Carpenter, JM. & Stevenson, DW. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the Linnaean system can easily be fixed. The Botanical Review 69: 111–120.Google Scholar
Parker, CT., Tindall, BJ. & Garrity, GM. 2015. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. 2008 Revision, Microbiology Society. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.000778Google Scholar
Patterson, C. & Rosen, DE. 1977. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Natural History Museum 158(2): 85–172.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 2009. [Letter to Linnaeus]. In: Knapp, S. & Wheeler, QD. (eds), Letters to Linnaeus. The Linnean Society of London, London, pp. 171–184.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 2012a. The poverty of the phylocode: a reply to de Queiroz and Donoghue. Systematic Biology 61: 360–361.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 2012b. The information content of taxon names: a reply to de Queiroz and Donoghue. Systematic Biology 62: 175–176.Google Scholar
Pleijel, F. & Rouse, GW. 2003. Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 41: 162–174.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O., Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2013. Adolf Naef (1883–1949): On foundational concepts and principles of systematic morphology. Journal of the History of Biology 46: 445–510.Google Scholar
Simpson, GG. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85: 1–350.Google Scholar
Simpson, GG. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD. 2001. Clever Caroli: Lessons from Linnaeus (invited comments). Plant Press (Washington) 4(2): 14–15Google Scholar
Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds) 2016. The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmann, R. 1987. Phylogenetic systematics, classification and the plesion concept. Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg (NF) 29: 221–233.Google Scholar
Willmann, R. 2003. From Haeckel to Hennig: the early development of phylogenetics in German-speaking Europe. Cladistics 19: 449–479.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. 2014. Naming and contingency: the type method of biological taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 30: 569–586.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. 2016. Suppressing synonymy with a homonym: the emergence of the nomenclatural type concept in nineteenth century natural history. Journal of the History of Biology 49: 135–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Further Reading
Ebach, MC. 2017. Reinvention of Australasian Biogeography: Reform, Revolt, Rebellion. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton.Google Scholar
Nyhart, LK. 1995. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800-1900. Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, PF. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds) 2016. The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC. 2017. Reinvention of Australasian Biogeography: Reform, Revolt, Rebellion. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton.Google Scholar
Nyhart, LK. 1995. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800-1900. Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, PF. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds) 2016. The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
General Matters
Ebach, MC. 2017. Reinvention of Australasian Biogeography: Reform, Revolt, Rebellion. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton.Google Scholar
Nyhart, LK. 1995. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800-1900. Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, PF. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds) 2016. The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Codes, Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Barkley, T., DePriest, P., Funk, V., Kiger, R., Kress, W. & Moore, G. 2004. Linnaean nomenclature in the 21st century: a report from a workshop on integrating traditional nomenclature and phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53: 153–158.Google Scholar
Benton, MJ. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633–648.Google Scholar
Dayrat, B. 2010. Celebrating 250 dynamic years of nomenclatural debates. In: Polaszek, A. (ed.), Systema Naturae 250: The Linnean Ark. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 185–239.Google Scholar
Forey, PL. 2001. The PhyloCode: description and commentary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 58: 81–96.Google Scholar
Hedberg, I. 2005. Species Plantarum 250 Years. Proceedings of the Species Plantarum Symposium held in Uppsala August 22-24 2003. Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 33(3), 219 pp.Google Scholar
Michel, E. 2016. (ed.) Anchoring biodiversity information: from Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. Zookeys 550: 1–298.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2000. On the other “phylogenetic systematics”. Cladistics 16: 298–318.Google Scholar
Papavero, N., Llorente-Bousquets, J. & Abe, JM. 2001. Proposal of a new system of nomenclature for phylogenetic systematics. Arquivos de Zoologia 36: 1–145.Google Scholar
Pavlinov, IY. 2014a. Taxonomic nomenclature. Book 1. From Adam to Linnaeus [In Russian]. Zoologicheskie Issledovania, 12, 153 pp.Google Scholar
Pavlinov, IY. 2014b. Taxonomic nomenclature. Book 2. From Linnaeus to the first codes. [In Russian]. Zoologicheskie Issledovania, 15, 223 pp.Google Scholar
Pavlinov, IY. 2015a. Taxonomic nomenclature. Book 3. Contemporary Codes. [In Russian]. Zoologicheskie Issledovania 17, 59 pp.Google Scholar
Pavlinov, IY. 2015b. Nomenclature in Systematics. History, Theory, Practice [in Russian]. KMC, Moscow.Google Scholar
Polaszek, A. 2010. Systema Naturae 250 – The Linnaean Ark. CRC Press, Baton Rouge, FL.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2006, The PhyloCode: a critical discussion of its theoretical foundation. Cladistics 22: 186–197.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1994. Systematics and the Fossil Record. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stevenson, DW. & Davis, JI. (eds) 2003. Approaches in examining the existing nomenclatural systems used in biology. The Botanical Review 69: 1–123.Google Scholar
Vaczy, C. 1971. Les Origines et les principes du developpement de la nomenclature binaire en botanique. Taxon 20: 573–590.Google Scholar
Watson, MF., Lyal, CHC. & Pendry, CA. 2015. Descriptive Taxonomy: The Foundation of Biodiversity Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
Watt, JC. 1968. Grades, clades, phenetics, and phylogeny. Systematic Zoology 17: 350–353.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD. (ed.) 2008. The New Taxonomy. Systematics Association Special Volume Series. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. 2014. Naming and contingency: the type method of biological taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 30: 569–586.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. 2016. Suppressing synonymy with a homonym: the emergence of the nomenclatural type concept in nineteenth century natural history. Journal of the History of Biology 49: 135–189.Google Scholar