Pd. Cantino et al., A COMPARISON OF PHYLOGENETIC NOMENCLATURE WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM - ABOTANICAL CASE-STUDY, Systematic biology, 46(2), 1997, pp. 313-331
The family Lamiaceae was used as a case study to compare our current s
ystem of nomenclature with a phylogenetic alternative proposed by de Q
ueiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480), with em
phasis on nomenclatural stability and efficiency. Comparison of publis
hed cladistic analyses revealed 19 suprageneric clades within Lamiacea
e that are supported well enough to merit naming, but many genera coul
d not be placed with confidence in any infrafamilial taxon. Two phylog
enetic classifications were prepared, one following current nomenclatu
ral rules and conventions and the other following the phylogenetic sys
tem of nomenclature. A comparison of the classifications revealed exam
ples of unstable and ambiguous names that resulted from employing curr
ent rules and conventions to name clades. Old names based on nomenclat
ural types of uncertain phylogenetic relationship and infrafamilial ta
xon names based on the type of the family are particularly prone to in
stability. The phylogenetic system appears to have fewer problems but
may also lead to nomenclatural confusion if taxon names are defined ca
relessly. The current system produces less efficient classifications b
ecause the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa leads to inclusion
of redundant names (monotypic taxa) when the classification is based o
n an asymmetrical cladogram. In contrast, the phylogenetic system cont
ains no redundant names. We endorse the recommendation that the princi
ple of exhaustive subsidiary taxa be abandoned. Phylogenetic definitio
ns should be provided for taxon names whenever phylogenies are transla
ted into classifications. The definitions should be accompanied by a l
ist of synapomorphies and a statement of clade membership to facilitat
e subsequent provisional referral of newly studied species to supraspe
cific taxa.