Kuntner Matjaz, Agnarsson Ingi
Institute of Biology, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Syst Biol. 2006 Oct;55(5):774-84. doi: 10.1080/10635150600981596.
A combination approach between the rules and recommendations from the Linnean (rank-based) and phylogenetic nomenclature is proposed, with a review of the debate. Advantages and drawbacks of both systems are discussed. Too often the debates are biased and unconstructive, and there is a need for dialogue and compromise. Our recommendations for the future of biological classification, to be considered by new editions of all codes of nomenclature, would enable the Linnean and the phylogenetic nomenclatural systems to coexist, or be combined. (1) We see it as essential that species binomen, including the formal rank of genus, are retained, and (2) species should continue to be linked to type specimens. (3) The use of other formal ranks should be minimized; however, we suggest retaining the classical supergeneric ranks (family, class, order, phylum, kingdom) for purely practical reasons. (4) For these ranks and any formally defined clades, type taxa (species, genera) should be replaced by phylogenetic definitions that explicitly hypothesize monophyly. (5) In contrast, species monophyly should not be required, because theory predicts that many species are not monophyletic. (6) It should be stressed that equal ranks do not imply comparable evolutionary histories.
本文提出了一种结合林奈(基于等级)命名法和系统发育命名法的规则与建议的方法,并对相关争论进行了综述。讨论了这两种系统的优缺点。这类争论往往存在偏见且缺乏建设性,因此需要对话与妥协。我们对生物分类未来的建议可供所有命名法规的新版本参考,旨在使林奈命名系统和系统发育命名系统能够共存或结合。(1)我们认为保留物种双名法(包括属的正式等级)至关重要,(2)物种应继续与模式标本相关联。(3)应尽量减少其他正式等级的使用;不过,出于纯粹实际的原因,我们建议保留经典的超属等级(科、纲、目、门、界)。(4)对于这些等级以及任何正式定义的分支,模式分类单元(物种、属)应由明确假设单系性的系统发育定义所取代。(5)相比之下,不要求物种具有单系性,因为理论预测许多物种并非单系的。(6)应当强调的是,同等等级并不意味着具有可比的进化历史。