Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

The meaning of categorical ranks in evolutionary biology

  • Forum Paper
  • Published:
Organisms Diversity & Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite having been utilized for over 250 years, Linnaean ranks are periodically dismissed by some systematists and evolutionary biologists. Here, we discuss recent criticisms and point out that they are often the result of a misunderstanding of both the meaning and the intent of such ranks. Although arbitrary in some cases, ranks contain meaningful taxonomic information, facilitate communication, and serve as proxies for a fully resolved and correctly dated tree of life. Ranks favor communication and evolutionary comparisons, but they do not make assumptions about equal age or diversity for any two taxa with the same Linnaean category.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ax, P. (1995). Das System der Metazoa I. Ein Lehrbuch der phylogenetischen Systematik (Das System der Metazoa). Stuttgart, Jena & New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ax, P. (1999). Das System der Metazoa II. Ein Lehrbuch der phylogenetischen Systematik. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ax, P. (2001). Das System der Metazoa III. Ein Lehrbuch der phylogenetischen Systematik. Stuttgart: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, M. J. (2007). The Phylocode: beating a dead horse? Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52(3), 651–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K., & Donoghue, M. J. (2011). Phylogenetic nomenclature, three-taxon statements, and unnecessary name changes. Systematic Biology, 60(6), 887–892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1976). Phylogenetic classification of fossils with recent species. Systematic Zoology, 25(3), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funch, P., & Kristensen, R. M. (1995). Cycliophora is a new phylum with affinities to Entoprocta and Ectoprocta. Nature, 378, 711–714.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutsche Zentralverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G. (2005). Taxonomy in theory and practice, with arguments for a new phylogenetic system of taxonomy. In M. A. Donnelly, B. I. Crother, C. Guyer, M. H. Wake, & M. E. White (Eds.), Ecology and evolution in the tropics: a herpetological perspective (pp. 7–47). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, R. M. (1983). Loricifera, a new phylum with Aschelminthes characters from meiobenthos. Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 21, 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, R. M., & Funch, P. (2000). Micrognathozoa: a new class with complicated jaws like those of Rotifera and Gnathostomulida. Journal of Morphology, 246, 1–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambertz, M., & Perry, S. F. (2015). Chordate phylogeny and the meaning of categorial ranks in modern evolutionary biology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1807), 20142327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, A. (2000). The ranks and the names of species and higher taxa, or a dangerous inertia of the language of natural history. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 25, 339–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naomi, S.-I. (2014). Proposal of an integrated framework of biological taxonomy: a phylogenetic taxonomy, with the method of using names with standard endings in clade nomenclature. Bionomina, 7(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C. (2012). Animal evolution: interrelationships of the living phyla. Third Edition (Second edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platnick, N. I. (2009). In S. Knapp & Q. Wheeler (Eds.), Letters to Linnaeus (pp. 199–203). London: The Linnean Society of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Trillo, I., Riutort, M., Littlewood, D. T. J., Herniou, E. A., & Baguñà, J. (1999). Acoel flatworms: earliest extant bilaterian Metazoans, not members of Platyhelminthes. Science, 283(5409), 1919–1923.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Satoh, N., Rokhsar, D., & Nishikawa, T. (2014). Chordate evolution and the three-phylum system. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1794), 20141729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, R. T. (2003). The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence. Botanical Review, 69(1), 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., & Ahlquist, J. E. (1983). Phylogeny and classification of birds based on the data of DNA-DNA hybridization. In R. F. Johnston (Ed.), Current Ornitology (pp. 245–292). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O. (1981). Phylogenetics. The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. New York: Wiley-Liss.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gonzalo Giribet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giribet, G., Hormiga, G. & Edgecombe, G.D. The meaning of categorical ranks in evolutionary biology. Org Divers Evol 16, 427–430 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-016-0263-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-016-0263-9

Keywords