Character‐based phylogenetic Linnaean classification: taxa should be both ranked and monophyletic

Taxon ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1033-1035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Potter ◽  
John V. Freudenstein
Keyword(s):  
Linnaean Classification

Introduction

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Gray ◽  
Michael Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Marine Sediments ◽  
Deep Sea ◽  
Marine Species ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Marine Animals ◽  
Linnaean System ◽  
Lofoten Islands ◽  
Linnaean Classification ◽  
Marine Biologist ◽  
New System

As the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface, marine sediments constitute the second largest habitat on earth, after the ocean water column, and yet we still know more about the dark side of the moon than about the biota of this vast habitat. The primary aim of this book is to give an overview of the biota of marine sediments from an ecological perspective—we will talk of the benthos, literally the plants and animals at the bottom of the sea, but we will also use the term to include those organisms living on the intertidal sediments, the sands and muds of the shore. Given that most of that area is below the zone where light penetrates, the photic zone, the area is dominated by the animals and so we will concentrate on this component. Many of the early studies of marine sediments were taxonomic, describing new species. One of the pioneers was Carl von Linnaeus (1707–1778), the great Swedish biologist who developed the Linnaean classification system for organisms that is still used today (but under threat from some molecular biologists who argue that the Linnaean system is outdated and propose a new system called Phylocode). Linnaeus described hundreds of marine species, many of which come from marine sediments. The British marine biologist Edward Forbes was a pioneer who invented the dredge to sample marine animals that lived below the tidemarks. Forbes showed that there were fewer species as the sampled depth increased and believed that the great pressures at depths meant that no animals would be found deeper than 600 m. This was disproved by Michael Sars who in 1869 used a dredge to sample the benthos at 600 m depth off the Lofoten islands in Norway. Sars found 335 species and in fact was the first to show that the deep sea (off the continental shelf) had high numbers of species. Following these pioneering studies, one of the earliest systematic studies of marine sediments was the HMS Challenger expedition of 1872–1876, the first global expedition. The reports of the expedition were extensive but were mostly descriptive, relating to taxonomy and general natural history.

scholarly journals To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

Zootaxa ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3636 (2) ◽  
pp. 201 ◽  
Author(s):  
MIGUEL VENCES ◽  
JUAN M. GUAYASAMIN ◽  
AURÉLIEN MIRALLES ◽  
IGNACIO DE LA RIVA
Keyword(s):  
Classification Schemes ◽  
Linnaean Classification

scholarly journals John Clare, Herbalism, and Elegy

Romanticism ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-213
Author(s):  
Erin Lafford
Keyword(s):  
Human Life ◽  
Life Cycles ◽  
John Clare ◽  
Linnaean Classification ◽  
The Village

Discussions of Clare's engagement with botany often trace his fraught relationship with taxonomy, exploring his admiration for common names over the ‘dark system’ of Linnaean classification. This essay expands understanding of Clare's botanical imagination by considering how he brings his botanical ‘taste’ to bear on the flower as a key figure of elegiac consolation. I refocus attention on his formative preference for pre-Linnaean herbalism and explore how it informs his engagement with elegiac tradition and imagery, especially in relation to Gray's ‘Elegy’. I attend to how herbalism is brought into relationship with poetic representations of the floral, focussing especially on the connection between Clare's preference for herbals and Elizabeth Kent's Flora Domestica. I then discuss ‘Cauper Green’ and ‘The Village Doctress’ (Clare's most sustained poetic discussions of herbalism) as elegies that try to reconcile the finite temporality of human life with the regenerative life cycles of plants and their flowers.

Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature?

2002 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 793-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth J. Dyke
Keyword(s):  
Good Thing ◽  
Current State ◽  
Linnaean System ◽  
Biological Systematics ◽  
Linnaean Classification ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature ◽  
New System

Thanks to the Linnaean system of Biological Nomenclature systematics these days is an ordered discipline. Debates over specifics still abound, but there is little argument that taxonomy should reflect the current state of our phylogenetic knowledge. However, recent proposals to replace the historically developed and universally utilized Linnaean system of Biological Nomenclature with an alternative “phylogenetic” system of nomenclature (PN; formulated as the draft PhyloCode [http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode]; e.g., Cantino and de Queiroz, 2000; see Nixon and Carpenter, 2000 for exhaustive citations) are flawed because they are founded on the misconception that Linnaean classification cannot (and therefore currently does not) accurately represent phylogeny. This is not the case—the ranked Linnaean system is a hierarchy, but then again, so is a cladogram and hence the former can mirror the latter. Although implementation of the proposed PhyloCode would result in huge implications within biological systematics in general (Nixon and Carpenter, 2000; Forey, 2001; Schuh, submitted), some workers (e.g., Brochu and Sumrail, 2001) have argued that proposals to implement this new system of “phylogenetic” nomenclature are a “good thing” for paleontology in particular. Since viewpoints contrary to the PhyloCode have already been aired elsewhere (e.g., Dominguez and Wheeler, 1997; Moore, 1998; Benton, 2000; Nixon and Carpenter, 2000; Forey, 2001), my aim here is to highlight a few areas of PN that make it an especially problematic proposal for paleontologists.

scholarly journals Molecular taxonomy and phylogeny of the Geodiidae (Porifera,Demospongiae, Astrophorida) – combining phylogenetic and Linnaean classification

2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paco Cárdenas ◽  
Hans Tore Rapp ◽  
Christoffer Schander ◽  
Ole S. Tendal
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Taxonomy ◽  
Linnaean Classification
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document