Abstract
Classification involves the development of a system of naming clades that can represent evolutionary relationships accurately and concisely. Using the acid-loving heath plants (Ericales) as an example, one can explore the application of different classification methods. The Linnean system of naming retains the traditional hierarchical framework (named ranks) and allows for the application of many cuqently used names. The "phylogenetic systematic" approach recommends the removal of an absolute hierarchy but allows retention of traditionally used endings such as -aceae. Historical usage of these names can lead to confusion when the names are used within a discussion or text, especially when a cladogram is not presented at the same time. Another method is suggested that removes the Linnean endings and adds the same ending (ina) to all clade names. This effectively eliminates absolute rank and clearly indicates that the group name represents a clade. The names used in this method and the "phylogenetic systematic" method do not indicate relative rank. Numbering systems and indentation are two ways in which relative rank has been conveyed. Indented lists have been the preferred method, often in combination with suffixes that indicate absolute rank. If absolute rank is eliminated, relative rank can still be reflected by indentation as in the "phylogenetic systematic" method. Relative rank can be conveyed by always presenting a cladogram in conjunction with a classification. In practice, relative rank is also effectively communicated within the context of discussion, thus a precise system of indicating relative rank within a formal classification may not be necessary.
Highlights
Aassification involves the development of a system of naming natural groups that can represent evolutionary relationships accurately and concisely
While traditional practice has assumed the necessity of the application of the Linnean hierarchy in constructing classifications, some workers have recognized that application of the hierarchy with its requirements of named ranks can result in a number of practical problems (Wiley 1981; de Queiroz and Gauthier 1990, 1992)
The tradition of exhaustive subsidiary categories inflates the number of names and ranks in a cladistic classification
Summary
Aassification involves the development of a system of naming natural groups that can represent evolutionary relationships accurately and concisely. While traditional practice has assumed the necessity of the application of the Linnean hierarchy in constructing classifications (see ICBN), some workers have recognized that application of the hierarchy with its requirements of named ranks can result in a number of practical problems (Wiley 1981; de Queiroz and Gauthier 1990, 1992). This sometimes was noted not as a flaw in the Linnean system, but as a weak point in the argument for a strictly cladistic cla~sification (e.g., Cronquist 1981). The phylogenetic relationships of the group are not discussed, rather this paper addresses some of the practical problems of converting a dadogram into a written classification
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.