The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence

The Linnaean system of nomenclature has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. Under the current system of codes, it is now applied to more than 2 million species of organisms. Inherent in the Linnaean system is the indication of hierarchical relationships. The Linnaean system has been justified primarily on the basis of stability. Stability can be assessed on at least two grounds: the absolute stability of names, irrespective of taxonomic concept; and the stability of names under changing concepts. Recent arguments have invoked conformity to phylogenetic methods as the primary basis for choice of nomenclatural systems, but even here stability of names as they relate to monophyletic groups is stated as the ultimate objective. The idea of absolute stability as the primary justification for nomenclatural methods was wrong from the start. The reasons are several. First, taxa are concepts, no matter the frequency of assertions to the contrary; as such, they are subject to change at all levels and always will be, with the consequence that to some degree the names we use to refer to them will also be subject to change. Second, even if the true nature of all taxa could be agreed upon, the goal would require that we discover them all and correctly recognize them for what they are. Much of biology is far from that goal at the species level and even further for supraspecific taxa. Nomenclature serves as a tool for biology. Absolute stability of taxonomic concepts—and nomenclature—would hinder scientific progress rather than promote it. It can been demonstrated that the scientific goals of systematists are far from achieved. Thus, the goal of absolute nomenclatural stability is illusory and misguided. The primary strength of the Linnaean system is its ability to portray hierarchical relationships; stability is secondary. No single system of nomenclature can ever possess all desirable attributes: i.e., convey information on hierarchical relationships, provide absolute stability in the names portraying those relationships, and provide simplicity and continuity in communicating the identities of the taxa and their relationships. Aside from myriad practical problems involved in its implementation, it must be concluded that “phylogenetic nomenclature” would not provide a more stable and effective system for communicating information on biological classifications than does the Linnaean system.

[1]  Philip,et al.  Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[2]  J. Kojima Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names prevent effective communication , 2008, The Botanical Review.

[3]  K. Queiroz**,et al.  Replacement of an Essentialistic Perspective on Taxonomic Definitions as Exemplified by the Definition of “Mammalia” , 1994 .

[4]  R. Schuh REVISION OF NEW WORLD PLAGIOGNATHUS FIEBER, WITH COMMENTS ON THE PALEARCTIC FAUNA AND THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW GENUS (HETEROPTERA: MIRIDAE: PHYLINAE) , 2001 .

[5]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? , 1987 .

[6]  E. S. Gaffney,et al.  An Introduction to the Logic of Phylogeny Reconstruction , 1979 .

[7]  K. Bremer SUMMARY OF GREEN PLANT PHYLOGENY AND CLASSIFICATION , 1985, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[8]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Forum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance , 1997 .

[9]  Karl R. Popper,et al.  The Open Society and Its Enemies , 1952 .

[10]  R. Schuh Plant Bugs of the World (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae): Systematic Catalog, Distributions, Host List, and Bibliography , 1995 .

[11]  James F. Smith Phylogenetics of seed plants : An analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL , 1993 .

[12]  Michael S. Y. Lee On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature , 2001 .

[13]  K. Nixon,et al.  The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the “Linnaean” System can easily be fixed , 2008, The Botanical Review.

[14]  David L. Hull,et al.  THE EFFECT OF ESSENTIALISM ON TAXONOMY—TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF STASIS (I) * , 1965, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[15]  Randall T. Schuh,et al.  Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications , 1999 .

[16]  T. Stuessy Taxon names are not defined , 2000 .

[17]  E. Mayr Toward a new philosophy of biology: observations of an evolutionist , 1988 .

[18]  Marc Ereshefsky The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy , 2000 .

[19]  Werner Greuter,et al.  International code of botanical nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) : adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St louis, Missouri, July-August 1999 , 2000 .

[20]  Kevin de Queiroz,et al.  Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names , 1990 .

[21]  M. Ghiselin “Definition,” “Character,” and Other Equivocal Terms , 1984 .

[22]  J. Carpenter Critique of pure folly , 2008, The Botanical review.

[23]  K. Nixon,et al.  On the Other “Phylogenetic Systematics” , 2000, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[24]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .

[25]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature , 2008, The Botanical Review.

[26]  H. Bryant,et al.  A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? , 2002, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[27]  K. Popper The Poverty of Historicism , 1959 .

[28]  K. Padian Charles Darwin's views of classification in theory and practice. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[29]  J L Edwards,et al.  Interoperability of biodiversity databases: biodiversity information on every desktop. , 2000, Science.

[30]  A. Mcintosh,et al.  The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature , 1962, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[31]  P. Sereno Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[32]  K. Kron Exploring Alternative Systems of Classification , 1996 .

[33]  RONALD H. BRADY,et al.  ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF SYSTEMATICS , 1985, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[34]  K. Queiroz**,et al.  The Linnaean Hierarchy and the Evolutionization of Taxonomy, with Emphasis on the Problem of Nomenclature , 1996 .

[35]  G. Moore A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature , 1998 .