Recent radical proposals to overhaul the methods of biological classification are reviewed. The proposals of
phylogenetic nomenclature are to translate cladistic phylogenies directly into classifications, and to define
taxon names in terms of clades. The method has a number of radical consequences for biologists: taxon
names must depend rigidly on the particular cladogram favoured at the moment, familiar names may be
reassigned to unfamiliar groupings, Linnaean category terms (e.g. phylum, order, family) are abandoned,
and the Linnaean binomen (e.g. Homo sapiens) is abandoned. The tenets of phylogenetic nomenclature have
gained strong support among some vocal theoreticians, and rigid principles for legislative control of clade
names and definitions have been outlined in the PhyloCode. The consequences of this semantic maelstrom
have not been worked out. In practice, phylogenetic nomenclature will be disastrous, promoting confusion
and instability, and it should be abandoned. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference
between a phylogeny (which is real) and a classification (which is utilitarian). Under the new view,
classifications are identical to phylogenies, and so the proponents of phylogenetic nomenclature will end up
abandoning classifications altogether.