WARNING: This site looks best with a CSS-enabled browser.
The PhyloCode
Literature Cited
Alverson, W. S., B. A. Whitlock, R. Nyffeler, C. Bayer, and D. A. Baum. 1999. Phylogeny of the core Malvales: evidence from ndhF sequence data. Am. J. Bot. 86: 1474–1486.
Anderson, J.S. 2002. Use of well-known names in phylogenetic nomenclature: a reply to Laurin. Syst. Biol. 51: 822–827.
Artois, T. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature: the end of binomial nomenclature? Belg. J. Zool. 131: 87–89.
Barkley, T. M., P. DePriest, V. Funk, R. W. Kiger, W. J. Kress, and G. Moore. 2004. Linnaean nomenclature in the 21st Century: a report from a workshop on integrating traditional nomenclature and phylogenetic classification. Taxon 53: 153–158.
Baum, D. A., W. S. Alverson, and R. Nyffeler. 1998. A durian by any other name: taxonomy and nomenclature of the core Malvales. Harv. Pap. Bot. 3: 315–330.
Benton, M. J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biol. Rev. 75: 633–648.
Berry, P. E. 2002. Biological inventories and the PhyloCode. Taxon 51: 27–29.
Bertrand, Y., and M. Härlin. 2006. Stability and universality in the application of taxon names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 55: 848–858.
Bertrand, Y., and F. Pleijel. 2003. Nomenclature phylogénétique: une reponse. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 29: 25–28.
Blackwell, J. H. 2002. One-hundred-year code déjà vu? Taxon 51: 151–154.
Bremer, K. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the new ordinal system of the angiosperms. Pages 125–133 in Plant Systematics for the 21st Century. (B. Nordenstam, G. El-Ghazaly, and M. Kassas, eds.). Portland Press, London.
Brochu, C. A. 1997. Synonymy, redundancy, and the name of the crocodile stem-group. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 17: 448–449.
Brochu, C. A. 1999. Phylogenetics, taxonomy, and historical biogeography of Alligatoroidea. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 19 (suppl. to no. 2): 9–100.
Brochu, C. A., and C. D. Sumrall. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology. J. Paleontol. 75: 754–757.
Bryant, H. N. 1994. Comments on the phylogenetic definition of taxon names and conventions regarding the naming of crown clades. Syst. Biol. 43: 124–130.
Bryant, H. N. 1996. Explicitness, stability, and universality in the phylogenetic definition and usage of taxon names: a case study of the phylogenetic taxonomy of the Carnivora (Mammalia). Syst. Biol. 45: 174–189.
Bryant, H. N. 1997. Cladistic information in phylogenetic definitions and designated phylogenetic contexts for the use of taxon names. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62: 495–503.
Bryant, H. N., and P. D. Cantino. 2002. A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue? Biol. Rev. 77: 39–55.
Cantino, P. D. 1998. Binomials, hyphenated uninomials, and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47: 425–429.
Cantino, P. D. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature: addressing some concerns. Taxon 49: 85–93.
Cantino, P. D. 2004. Classifying species versus naming clades. Taxon 53: 795–798.
Cantino, P. D., J. A. Doyle, S. W. Graham, W. S. Judd, R. G. Olmstead, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, and M. J. Donoghue. 2007. Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta. Taxon 56: 822–846.
Cantino, P. D., R. G. Olmstead, and S. J. Wagstaff. 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study. Syst. Biol. 46: 313–331.
Cantino, P. D., S. J. Wagstaff, and R. G. Olmstead. 1999a. Caryopteris (Lamiaceae) and the conflict between phylogenetic and pragmatic considerations in botanical nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 23: 369–386.
Cantino, P. D., H. N. Bryant, K. de Queiroz, M. J. Donoghue, T. Eriksson, D. M. Hillis, and M. S. Y. Lee. 1999b. Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 48: 790–807.
Carpenter, J. M. 2003. Critique of pure folly. Bot. Rev. 69: 79–92.
Christoffersen, M. L. 1995. Cladistic taxonomy, phylogenetic systematics, and evolutionary ranking. Syst. Biol. 44: 440–454.
Clarke, J. A. 2004. Morphology, phylogenetic taxonomy, and systematics of Ichthyornis and Apatornis (Avialae: Ornithurae). Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 286: 1–179.
Dayrat, B., C. Schander, and K. D. Angielczyk. 2004. Suggestions for a new species nomenclature. Taxon 53: 485–591.
Dayrat, B. 2005. Advantages of naming species under the PhyloCode: an example of how a new species of Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina) may be named. Mar. Biol. Res. 1: 216–232.
Dayrat. B., and T. M. Gosliner. 2005. Species names and metaphyly: a case study in Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina). Zool. Scr. 34: 199–224.
de Queiroz, K. 1985. Phylogenetic systematics of iguanine lizards: a comparative osteological study. Master's thesis, San Diego State University.
de Queiroz, K. 1987. Phylogenetic systematics of iguanine lizards. A comparative osteological study. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 118: 1–203.
de Queiroz, K. 1988. Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philos. Sci. 55: 238–259.
de Queiroz, K. 1992. Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biol. Philos. 7: 295–313.
de Queiroz, K. 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic definitions as exemplified by the definition of "Mammalia." Syst. Biol. 43: 497–510.
de Queiroz, K. 1997a. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of nomenclature. Aliso 15: 125–144.
de Queiroz, K. 1997b. Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature: a reply to Lidén and Oxelman. Zool. Scr. 26: 67–70.
de Queiroz, K. 2000. The definitions of taxon names: a reply to Stuessy. Taxon 49: 533–536.
de Queiroz, K. 2006. The PhyloCode and the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 55: 160–162.
de Queiroz, K. 2007. Toward an integrated system of clade names. Syst. Biol. 56. In press.
de Queiroz, K., and P. D. Cantino. 2001a. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58: 254–271.
de Queiroz, K., and P. D. Cantino. 2001b. Taxon names, not taxa, are defined. Taxon 50: 821–826.
de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307–322.
de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449–480.
de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 27–31.
Dominguez, E., and Q. D. Wheeler. 1997. Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics 13: 367–372.
Donoghue, M. J. 2004. Immeasurable progress on the tree of life. Pages 548–552 in Assembling the tree of life (J. Cracraft and M. J. Donoghue, eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Donoghue, M. J., T. Eriksson, P. A. Reeves, and R. G. Olmstead. 2001. Phylogeny and phylogenetic taxonomy of Dipsacales, with special reference to Sinadoxa and Tetradoxa (Adoxaceae). Harv. Pap. Bot. 6: 459–479.
Donoghue, M. J., and J. A. Gauthier 2004. Implementing the PhyloCode. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 281–282.
Donoghue, P. C. J. 2005. Saving the stem group—a contradiction in terms? Paleobiology 31: 553–558.
Ereshefsky, M. 2001. The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: a philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Eriksson, T., M. J. Donoghue, and M. S. Hibbs. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of Potentilla using DNA sequences of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacers (ITS), and implications for the classification of Rosoideae (Rosaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 211: 155–179.
Estes, R., K. de Queiroz, and J. Gauthier. 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. Pages 119–281 in Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families: essays commemorating Charles L. Camp (R. Estes and G. K. Pregill, eds.) Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Fisher, K. 2006. Rank-free monography: a practical example from the moss clade Leucophanella (Calymperaceae). Syst. Bot. 31: 13–30.
Forey, P. L. 2001. The PhyloCode: description and commentary. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 58: 81–96.
Forey, P. L. 2002. PhyloCode—pain, no gain. Taxon 51: 43–54.
Gauthier, J. 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Gauthier, J. 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Pages 1–55 in The origin of birds and the evolution of flight. (K. Padian, ed.) California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
Gauthier, J., and K. de Queiroz. 2001. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name "Aves". Pages 7–41 in New perspectives on the origin and early evolution of birds: proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom (J. Gauthier, and L. F. Gall eds.). Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Gauthier, J., R. Estes, and K. de Queiroz. 1988. A phylogenetic analysis of Lepidosauromorpha. Pages 15–98 in Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families: essays commemorating Charles L. Camp (R. Estes and G. K. Pregill, eds.). Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Gauthier, J., and K. Padian. 2001. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. Pages 185–197 in The beginnings of birds (M. K. Hecht, J. H. Ostrom, G. Viohl, and P. Wellnhofer, eds.). Freude des Jura-Museums, Eichstatt, Germany.
Ghiselin, M. T. 1984. "Definition," "character," and other equivocal terms. Syst. Zool. 33: 104–110.
Greuter, W., F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, W. G. Chaloner, V. Demoulin, D. L. Hawksworth, P. M. Jørgensen, J. McNeill, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, and P. Trehane. 1994. International code of botanical nomenclature (Tokyo code). Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.
Greuter, W., F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T. S. Filgueiras, D. L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, and N. J. Turland. 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature (Saint Louis code). Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.
Greuter, W., D. L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, A. Mayo, A. Minelli, P. H. A. Sneath, B. J. Tindall, P. Trehane, and P. Tubbs. 1998. Draft BioCode (1997): the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 47: 127–150.
Griffiths, G. C. D. 1976. The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Syst. Zool. 25: 168–173.
Härlin, M. 1998. Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees. Zool. Scr. 27: 381–390.
Härlin, M. 1999. The logical priority of the tree over characters and some of its consequences for taxonomy. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68: 497–503.
Härlin, M. 2003a. Taxon names as paradigms: the structure of nomenclatural revolutions. Cladistics 19: 138–143.
Härlin, M. 2003b. On the relationship between content, ancestor, and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature. Cladistics 19: 144–147.
Hibbett, D. S., and M. J. Donoghue. 1998. Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90: 347–356.
Hibbett, D. S., R. H. Nilsson, M. Snyder, M. Fonseca, J. Costanzo, and M. Shonfeld. 2005. Automated phylogenetic taxonomy: an example in the Homobasidiomycetes (mushroom-forming fungi). Syst. Biol. 54: 660–668.
Hillis, D. M., D. A. Chamberlain, T. P. Wilcox, and P. T. Chippindale. 2001. A new species of subterranean blind salamander (Plethodontidae: Hemidactyliini: Eurycea: Typhlomolge) from Austin, Texas, and a systematic revision of central Texas paedomorphic salamanders. Herpetologica 57: 266–280.
Holtz, T. R. 1996. Phylogenetic taxonomy of the Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). J. Paleontol. 70: 536–538.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International code of zoological nomenclature, 3rd ed. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th ed. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.
Janovec, J. P., L. G. Clark, and S. A. Mori. 2003. Is the neotropical flora ready for the PhyloCode? Bot. Rev. 69: 22–43.
Jørgensen, P. M. 2002. Two nomenclatural systems? Taxon 51: 737.
Jørgensen, P. M. 2004. Rankless names in the Code? Taxon 53: 162.
Joyce, W. G., J. F. Parham, and J. A. Gauthier. 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. J. Paleontol. 78: 989–1013.
Judd, W. S., R. W. Sanders, and M. J. Donoghue. 1994. Angiosperm family pairs: preliminary phylogenetic analyses. Harv. Pap. Bot. 5: 1–51.
Judd, W. S., W. L. Stern, and V. I. Cheadle. 1993. Phylogenetic position of Apostasia and Neuwiedia (Orchidaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 113: 87–94.
Keller, R. A., R. N. Boyd, and Q. D. Wheeler. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Bot. Rev. 69: 83–110.
Kojima, J. 2003. Apomorphy-based definition also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names prevent effective communication. Bot. Rev. 69: 44–58.
Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso 15: 105–112.
Kuntner, M., and I. Agnarsson. 2006. Are the Linnean and phylogenetic nomenclatural systems combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature. Syst. Biol. 55: 774–784.
Langer, M. C. 2001. Linnaeus and the PhyloCode: where are the differences? Taxon 50: 1091–1096.
Laurin, M. 2001. L'utilisation de la taxonomie phylogénétique en paléontologie: avatages et inconvénients. Biosystema 19 — Systématique et Paléontologie: 197–211.
Laurin, M. 2002. Tetrapod phylogeny, amphibian origins, and the definition of the name Tetrapoda. Syst. Biol. 51: 364–369.
Laurin, M. 2005. Dites oui au PhyloCode. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 34: 25–31.
Laurin, M., and J. S. Anderson. 2004. Meaning of the name Tetrapoda in the scientific literature: an exchange. Syst. Biol. 53: 68–80.
Laurin, M., and P. D. Cantino. 2004. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting: a report. Zool. Scr. 33: 475–479.
Laurin, M., and P. D. Cantino. 2006. Second Congrès International de la Société de Nomenclature Phylogénétique: 28 juin–2 juillet, 2006, Université de Yale, USA. J. Assoc. Paléontol. Française 50: 18–21.
Laurin, M., and P. D. Cantino. 2007. Second meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature: A report. Zool. Scr. 36: 109–117.
Laurin, M., K. de Queiroz, P. Cantino, N. Cellinese, and R. Olmstead. 2005. The PhyloCode, types, ranks, and monophyly: a response to Pickett. Cladistics 21: 605–607.
Laurin, M., K. de Queiroz, and P. D. Cantino. 2006. Sense and stability of taxon names. Zool. Scr. 35: 113–114.
Lauterbach, K.-E. 1989. Das Pan-Monophylum—Ein Hilfsmittel für die Praxis der phylogenetischen Systematik. Zool. Anz. 223: 139–156.
Lee, M. S. Y. 1996a. The phylogenetic approach to biological taxonomy: practical aspects. Zool. Scr. 25: 187–190.
Lee, M. S. Y. 1996b. Stability in meaning and content of taxon names: an evaluation of crown-clade definitions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 263: 1103–1109.
Lee, M. S. Y. 1998a. Phylogenetic uncertainty, molecular sequences, and the definition of taxon names. Syst. Biol. 47: 719–726.
Lee, M. S. Y. 1998b. Ancestors and taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 26.
Lee, M. S. Y. 1999a. Reference taxa and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 48: 31–34.
Lee, M. S. Y. 1999b. Stability of higher taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature—some comments on Moore (1998). Zool. Scr. 28: 361–366.
Lee, M. S. Y. 2001. On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 50: 175–180.
Lee, M. S. Y. 2002. Species and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 51: 507–510.
Lee, M. S. Y. 2005. Choosing reference taxa in phylogenetic nomenclature. Zool. Scr. 34: 329–331.
Lidén, M., and B. Oxelman. 1996. Do we need phylogenetic taxonomy? Zool. Scr. 25: 183–185.
Lidén, M., B. Oxelman, A. Backlund, L. Andersson, B. Bremer, R. Eriksson, R. Moberg, I. Nordal, K. Persson, M. Thulin, and B. Zimmer. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46: 735–738.
Lobl, I. 2001. Les nomenclatures "linéenne" et "phylogénetique", et d'autres problèmes artificiels. Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 26: 16–21.
Maryanska, T., H. Osmólska, and M. Wolsan. 2002. Avialan status for Oviraptorosauria. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 47: 97–116.
McNeill, J., F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, D. L. Hawksworth, K. Marhold, D. H. Nicolson, J. Prado, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, J. H. Wiersema, and N. J. Turland. 2006. International code of botanical nomenclature (Vienna code). Gantner, Ruggell, Liechtenstein.
Meier, R., and S. Richter. 1992. Suggestions for a more precise usage of proper names of taxa: ambiguities related to the stem lineage concept. Z. Zool. Syst. Evol. 30: 81–88.
Mishler, B. D. 1999. Getting rid of species? Pages 307–315 in Species: new interdisciplinary essays (R. Wilson, ed.) M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Modesto, S. P., and J. S. Anderson. 2004. The phylogenetic definition of Reptilia. Syst. Biol. 53: 815–821.
Monsch, K. A. 2006. The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: Why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 51: 521–524.
Moore, G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. Taxon 47: 561–579.
Moore, G. 2003. Should taxon names be explicitly defined? Bot. Rev. 69: 2–21.
Nixon, K. C., and J. M. Carpenter. 2000. On the other "phylogenetic systematics". Cladistics 16: 298–318.
Nixon, K. C., J. M. Carpenter, and D. W. Stevenson. 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" system can easily be fixed. Bot. Rev. 69: 111–120.
Pickett, K. M. 2005. The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even polyphyly: a conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting. Cladistics 21: 79–82.
Pleijel, F. 1999. Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Syst. Biol. 48: 755–789.
Pleijel, F., and M. Härlin. 2004. Phylogenetic nomenclature is compatible with diverse philosophical perspectives. Zool. Scr. 33: 587–591.
Pleijel, F., and G. W. Rouse. 2000. A new taxon, capricornia (Hesionidae, Polychaeta), illustrating the LITU ('least-inclusive taxonomic unit') concept. Zool. Scr. 29: 157–168.
Pleijel, F., and G. W. Rouse. 2003. Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 41: 162–174.
Polaszek, A., and E. O. Wilson. 2005. Sense and stability in animal names. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 421–422.
Rieppel, O. 2006. The PhyloCode: a critical discussion of its theoretical foundation. Cladistics 22: 186ndash;197.
Roth, B. 1996. Homoplastic loss of dart apparatus, phylogeny of the genera, and a phylogenetic taxonomy of the Helminthoglyptidae (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Veliger 39: 18–42.
Rowe, T. 1987. Definition and diagnosis in the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 36: 208–211.
Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 8: 241–264.
Rowe, T., and J. Gauthier. 1992. Ancestry, paleontology and definition of the name Mammalia. Syst. Biol. 41: 372–378.
Sangster, G. 2005. A name for the clade formed by owlet-nightjars, swifts and hummingbirds (Aves). Zootaxa 799: 1–6.
Schander, C. 1998a. Types, emendations and names — a reply to Lidén et al. Taxon 47: 401–406.
Schander, C. 1998b. Mandatory categories and impossible hierarchies — a reply to Sosef. Taxon 47: 407–410.
Schander, C., and M. Tholleson. 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy — some comments. Zool. Scr. 24: 263–268.
Schuh, R. T. 2003. The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence. Bot. Rev. 69: 59–78.
Sereno, P. C. 1999. Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale. Syst. Biol. 48: 329–351.
Sereno, P. C. 2005. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 54: 595–619.
Smedmark, J. E. E., and T. Eriksson. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Geum (Rosaceae) and relatives inferred from the nrITS and trnL-trnF regions. Syst. Bot. 27: 303–317.
Spangler, R. E. 2003. Taxonomy of Sarga, Sorghum and Vacoparis (Poaceae: Andropogoneae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 16: 279–299.
Stefanovic, S., D. F. Austin, and R. G. Olmstead. 2003. Classification of Convolvulaceae: a phylogenetic approach. Syst. Bot. 28: 791–806.
Stevens, P. F. 2002. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 51: 11–26.
Stevens, P. F. 2006. An end to all things?—plants and their names. Aust. Syst. Bot. 19: 115–133.
Stuessy, T. F. 2000. Taxon names are not defined. Taxon 49: 231–233.
Stuessy, T. F. 2001. Taxon names are still not defined. Taxon 50: 185–186.
Sundberg, P., and F. Pleijel. 1994. Phylogenetic classification and the definition of taxon names. Zool. Scr. 23: 19–25.
Swann, E. C., E. M. Frieders, and D. J. McLaughlin. 1999. Microbotryum, Kriegeria and the changing paradigm in basidiomycete classification. Mycologia 91: 51–66.
Tang, Y.-C., and A.-M. Lu. 2005. Paraphyletic group, PhyloCode and phylogenetic species—the current debate and a preliminary commentary. Acta Phytotaxon. Sin. 43: 403–419.
Taylor, M. P. 2007. Phylogenetic definitions in the pre-PhyloCode era; implications for naming clades under the PhyloCode. PaleoBios 27: 1–6.
Taylor, M. P., and D. Naish. 2005. The phylogenetic taxonomy of Diplodocoidea (Dinosauria: Sauropoda). PaleoBios 25: 1–7.
Wenzel, J. W., K. C. Nixon, and G. Cuccodoro. 2004. Dites non au PhyloCode! Bull. Soc. Fr. Syst. 31: 19–23.
Wilkinson, M. 2006. Identifying stable reference taxa for phylogenetic nomenclature. Zool. Scr. 35: 109–112.
Wolfe, A. D., S. L. Datwyler, and C. P. Randle. 2002. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of the Cheloneae (Scrophulariaceae) based on ITS and matK sequence data. Syst. Bot. 27: 138–148.
Wyss, A. R., and J. Meng. 1996. Application of phylogenetic taxonomy to poorly resolved crown clades: a stem-modified node-based definition of Rodentia. Syst. Biol. 45: 559–568.