Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank‐free lists: is Linnaeus dead?

Abstract

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.