Hillis David M
Section of Integrative Biology and Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Texas, One University Station C0930, Austin, TX 78703, USA.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Feb;42(2):331-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.08.001. Epub 2006 Aug 11.
There are now overlapping codes of nomenclature that govern some of the same names of biological taxa. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) uses the non-evolutionary concept of a "type species" to fix the names of animal taxa to particular ranks in the nomenclatural hierarchy. The PhyloCode, in contrast, uses phylogenetic definitions for supraspecific taxa at any hierarchical level within the Tree of Life (without associating the names to particular ranks), but does not deal with the names of species. Thus, biologists who develop classifications of animals need to use both systems of nomenclature, or else operate without formal rules for the names of some taxa (either species or many monophyletic groups). In addition, the ICZN does not permit the unique naming of many taxa that are considered to be between the ranks of genus and species. Hillis and Wilcox [Hillis, D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 299-314] provided recommendations for the classification of New World true frogs that utilized the ICZN to provide names for species, and the PhyloCode to provide names for supraspecific taxa. Nonetheless, they created new taxon names that followed both sets of rules, to avoid conflicting classifications. They also recommended that established names for both species and clades be used whenever possible, to stabilize the names of both species and clades under either set of rules, and to avoid conflicting nomenclatures. Dubois [Dubois, A., 2006. Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42, 317-330] objected to these principles, and argued that the names provided by Hillis and Wilcox [Hillis, D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 299-314] are unavailable under the ICZN, and that the two nomenclatural systems are incompatible. Here, I argue that he is incorrect in these assertions, and present arguments for retaining the established names of New World true frogs, which are largely compatible under both sets of nomenclatural rules.
现在存在一些重叠的命名法规则,它们管辖着某些相同的生物分类单元名称。《国际动物命名法规》(ICZN)使用“模式物种”这一非进化概念,将动物分类单元的名称固定在命名层级中的特定等级上。相比之下,《系统发育法规》则对生命之树内任何层级的超特定分类单元使用系统发育定义(不将名称与特定等级相关联),但不处理物种的名称。因此,开展动物分类工作的生物学家需要同时使用这两种命名系统,否则在处理某些分类单元(无论是物种还是许多单系类群)的名称时将缺乏正式规则。此外,ICZN不允许对许多被认为处于属和种等级之间的分类单元进行唯一命名。希利斯和威尔科克斯[希利斯,D.M.,威尔科克斯,T.P.,2005年。新大陆真蛙(林蛙属)的系统发育。分子系统发育与进化。34,299 - 314]为新大陆真蛙的分类提供了建议,其中利用ICZN为物种命名,利用《系统发育法规》为超特定分类单元命名。尽管如此,他们创造了遵循两套规则的新分类单元名称,以避免分类冲突。他们还建议尽可能使用已有的物种和分支名称,以便在两套规则下稳定物种和分支的名称,并避免命名冲突。迪布瓦[迪布瓦,A.,2006年。从分支图命名分类单元:一个警示故事。分子系统发育与进化,42,317 - 330]反对这些原则,并认为希利斯和威尔科克斯[希利斯,D.M.,威尔科克斯,T.P.,2005年。新大陆真蛙(林蛙属)的系统发育。分子系统发育与进化。34,299 - 314]提供的名称在ICZN下不可用,且这两种命名系统不相容。在此,我认为他的这些断言是错误的,并提出保留新大陆真蛙已有名称的理由,这些名称在两套命名规则下基本是兼容的。