Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- 13 Beyond Classification: How to Study Phylogeny
- 14 The Separation of Classification and Phylogenetics
- 15 Further Myths and More Misunderstandings
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
15 - Further Myths and More Misunderstandings
from Part V - Beyond Classification
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2020
Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- 13 Beyond Classification: How to Study Phylogeny
- 14 The Separation of Classification and Phylogenetics
- 15 Further Myths and More Misunderstandings
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Summary
For many, classification is shrouded in mystery and questions such as ‘How do taxonomists find all those species?’ have led philosophers of science to discuss species concepts rather than how taxonomists actually discover natural entities. The same is true for monophyletic taxa in general: much is made of defining monophyletic taxa rather than discovering them. Ask a room full of systematists to define monophyly and there will probably be at least five different definitions (see Vanderlaan et al. 2013). Yet, every single one of those individuals will most likely be able to identify the same monophyletic taxon. All that said, it seems what systematists say they do is often not what they do (sensu Medawar [1967] 1968, epigraph above; see also Winsor 2001), discovering monophyly being a case in point.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- CladisticsA Guide to Biological Classification, pp. 396 - 429Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Anglada-Escudé, G., Amado, PJ., Barnes, J., Berdiñas, ZM., Butler, RP., Coleman, GAL., de la Cueva, I., Dreizler, S., Endl, M., Giesers, B., Jeffers, SV., Jenkins, JS., Jones, HRA., Kiraga, M., Kürster, M., López-González, MJ., Marvin, CJ., Morales, N., Morin, J., Nelson, RP., Ortiz, JL., Ofir, A., Paardekooper, S-J., Reiners, A., Rodríguez, E., Rodrίguez-López, C., Sarmiento, LF., Strachan, JP., Tsapras, Y., Tuomi, M. & Zechmeister, M. 2016. A terrestrial planet candidate in a temperature orbit around Proxima Centauri. Nature 536(7617): 437–440.Google Scholar
Baum, DA. 2013. Developmental causation and the problem of homology. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 5: e403Google Scholar
Baum, DA. 2017. Does the future of systematics really rest on the legacy of one mid-20th-century German entomologist? The Quarterly Review of Biology 92: 450–453.Google Scholar
Brady, RH. 1981. Mind, models and Cartesian observers: a note on conceptual problems. Journal of Social and Biological Systems 4: 277–286.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. 2002. Homology and the origin of correspondence. Biology and Philosophy 17: 389–407.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. 2007. Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biology and Philosophy 22: 709–725.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. & Griffiths, PE. 2007. The importance of homology for biology and philosophy. Biology and Philosophy 22: 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, AVZ. 2006. Problems with DNA barcodes for species delimitation: ‘ten species’ of Astraptes fulgerator reassessed (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Systematics and Biodiversity 4: 127–132.Google Scholar
Brower, AVZ. 2010. Alleviating the taxonomic impediment of DNA barcoding and setting a bad precedent: names for ten species of ‘Astraptes fulgerator’ (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Eudaminae) with DNA-based diagnoses. Systematics and Biodiversity 8: 485–491.Google Scholar
Brower, AV. 2018. Statistical consistency and phylogenetic inference: a brief review. Cladistics 34: 562–567.Google Scholar
Brower, AVZ. & Warren, A. 2010. Astraptes fulgerator (Walch 1775). Version 30, December 2010. http://tolweb.org/Astraptes_fulgerator/96653/2010.12.30 in The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/Google Scholar
Bryant, HM. 1995. The threefold parallelism of Agassiz and Haeckel, and polarity determination in phylogenetic systematics. Biology and Philosophy 10: 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, RW. 1994. Ernst Mayr: Biologist-Historian. Biology and Philosophy 9: 359–371.Google Scholar
Cartmill, M. 2018. A sort of revolution: systematics and physical anthropology in the 20th century. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 165: 677–687.Google Scholar
Conway-Morris, S. 1994. Wonderfully, gloriously wrong. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 9(10): 407–408.Google Scholar
Costello, MJ., Wilson, S. & Houlding, B. 2013. More taxonomists describing significantly fewer species per unit effort may indicate that most species have been discovered. Systematic Biology 62: 616–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crisp, MD., Trewick, SA. & Cook, LG. 2011. Hypothesis testing in biogeography. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26: 66–72.Google Scholar
Crowther, MS., Fillios, M., Colman, N. & Letnic, M. 2014. An updated description of the Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793). Journal of Zoology 293: 192–203.Google Scholar
Currie, A. 2012. Convergence as evidence. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64: 763–786.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York [2nd edition 1996; numerous other editions exist, including a 25th anniversary edition and it has its own Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker#Reception].Google Scholar
de Carvalho, MR., Bockmann, FA., Amorim, DS., Brandao, CRF., de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, JL., Britski, HA., de Pinna, MCC., Menezes, NA., Marques, FPL., Papavero, N., Cancello, EM., Crisci, JV., McEachran, JD., Schelly, RC., Lundberg, JG., Gill, AC., Britz, R., Wheeler, QD., Stiassny, MLJ., Parenti, LR., Page, LM., Wheeler, WC., Faivovich, J., Vari, RP., Grande, L., Humphries, CJ., DeSalle, R., Ebach, MC. & Nelson, GJ. 2007. Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology 34: 140–143.Google Scholar
de Carvalho, MR., Bockmann, FA., Amorim, DS. & Branda, CRF. 2008. Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evolutionary Biology 35: 150–157.Google Scholar
de Carvalho, MR., Ebach, MC., Williams, DM., Nihei, SS., Trefaut Rodrigues, M., Grant, T., Silveira, LF., Zaher, H., Gill, AC., Schelly, RC., Sparks, JS., Bockmann, FA., Séret, B., Ho, H-C., Grande, L., Rieppel, O., Dubois, A., Ohler, A., Faivovich, J., Assis, LCS., Wheeler, QD., Goldstein, PZ., de Almeida, EAB., Valdecasas, AG. & Nelson, G. 2014. Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again. Cladistics 30: 322–329.Google Scholar
Dubois, A. 2010. Zoological nomenclature in the century of extinctions: priority vs. ‘usage’. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 10: 259–274.Google Scholar
Ebach, M, 2005. Anschauung and the Archetype: the role of Goethe’s Delicate Empiricism in Comparative Biology. Janus Head 8: 254–270.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC. & Holdrege, C. 2005. More taxonomy, not DNA barcoding. Bioscience 55: 822–823.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC., Valdecasas, AG. & Wheeler, QD. 2011. Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation. Cladistics 27: 550-557.Google Scholar
Eisen, JA. 1998. Phylogenomics: improving functional predictions for uncharacterized genes by evolutionary analysis. Genome Research 8: 163–167.Google Scholar
Eisen, JA. & Fraser, CM. 2003. Phylogenomics: intersection of evolution and genomics. Science 300(5626), 1706–1707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldredge, N. & Novacek, MJ. 1985. Systematics and paleobiology. Paleobiology 11: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, JS. 2014. “Pattern cladistics” really means paraphyly. Cladistics 30: 236–239.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 2001. The troubled growth of statistical phylogenetics. Systematic Biology 50: 465–467.Google Scholar
Fernholm, B., Bremer, K. & Jornvall, H. (eds) 1989. The Hierarchy of Life. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Fitzhugh, K. 2008. Abductive inference: implications for “Linnean” and “Phylogenetic” approaches for representing biological systematization. Evolutionary Biology 35: 52–82.Google Scholar
Flowers, RW. 2011. Review of Naming Nature: The Clash between Instinct and Science. American Entomologist 57: 115–116.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B., Janvier, P., Patterson, C., Forey, PL., Greenwood, PH., Miles, RS. & Jefferies, RPS. 1979. The salmon, the lungfish, the cow: a reply. Nature 277: 175–176.Google Scholar
Garnett, ST. & Christidis, L. 2017. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature 546: 25–27.Google Scholar
Gee, HE. 2001. Deep Time: Cladistics, the Revolution in Evolution. Fourth Estate, London. [There are various versions of this book, for example: Gee, H. E. (1999). In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. Comstock Publishing, Sacramento.]Google Scholar
Godfray, HCJ., Clark, BR., Kitching, IJ., Mayo, SJ. & Scoble, MJ. 2007. The web and the structure of taxonomy. Systematic Biology 56: 943–955.Google Scholar
Goloboff, PA., Torres, A. & Arias, JS. 2018. Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology. Cladistics 34: 407–437.Google Scholar
Grant, T., Faivovich, J. & Pol, D. 2003. The perils of ‘point-and-click’ systematics. Cladistics 19: 276–285.Google Scholar
Haber, MN. 2016. The individuality thesis (3 ways). Biology and Philosophy 31: 913–930.Google Scholar
Halstead, LB. 1978. Cladistic revolution – can it make the grade? Nature 276: 759–760.Google Scholar
Halstead, LB., White, EI. & MacIntire, GT. 1979. L. B. Halstead and colleagues reply. Nature 277: 176.Google Scholar
Hebert, PDN., Penton, EH., Burns, JM., Janzen, DH. & Hallwachs, W. 2004. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101: 14 812–14 817.Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 1965. The effects of essentialism on taxonomy: two thousand years of stasis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15: 314–326 & 16: 1–18 [reprinted in Concepts of Species, C. N. Slobodchikoff (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley, 1976; The Units of Selection, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992].Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 1969. What philosophy of biology is not. Journal of the History of Biology 2: 241–268 [and Synthese 20: 157–184].Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 1988. Science As a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 1994. Ernst Mayr’s influence on the history and philosophy of biology: a personal memoir. Biology and Philosophy 9: 375–386.Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 1998. Taxonomy. In: The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-Q102-1 (accessed 24 May 2018).Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 2006 [2007]. Essentialism in taxonomy: four decades later. Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology 11: 47–58.Google Scholar
Huneman, P. & Walsh, DM. 2017. Challenging the Modern Synthesis: Adaptation, Development and Inheritance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Janzen, DH. 2004. Now is the time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 359: 731–732.Google Scholar
Kohn, D. 1985a. (ed.) The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Kohn, D. 1985b. Introduction: a high regard for Darwin. In: Kohn, D. (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Koonin, EV. 2009. The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? Trends in Genetics 25: 473–475.Google Scholar
LaPorte, J. 2005. Is there a single objective, evolutionary tree of life? The Journal of Philosophy 102(7): 357–374.Google Scholar
LaPorte, J. 2009. On systematists’ single objective tree of ancestors and descendants. Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution, and Cognition 4: 260–266.Google Scholar
Loewenberg, BJ. 1965. Darwin and Darwin studies 1959–1965. History of Science 4: 15–54.Google Scholar
MacLeod, M. 2011. How to compare homology concepts: Class reasoning about evolution and morphology in phylogenetics and developmental biology. Biological Theory 6: 141—153.Google Scholar
MacLeod, N. 2008. Automated Taxon Identification in Systematics: Theory, Approaches and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and lnheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: principles and definitions, with a historical note on Adanson's Familles des Plantes. Systematic Zoology 28: 1–21.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 2009. Cladistics. In: Milner, R. (ed.), Darwin’s Universe: Evolution from A to Z. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 80–82.Google Scholar
OED [Oxford English Dictionary] Online. systematics, n. March 2018. Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/view/Entry/378323?rskey=BBS1hY&result=2&isAdvanced=false (accessed 27 May 2018).Google Scholar
OED [Oxford English Dictionary] Online. phylogenetics, n. March 2018. Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/view/Entry/143086?redirectedFrom=phylogenetics (accessed 27 May 2018).Google Scholar
Ørvig, T. (ed.) 1968. Current Problems of Lower Vertebrate Phylogeny. Fourth Nobel Symposium, June 1967, Stockholm. Interscience Publishers, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, London, Sydney; Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, KA. & Friday, AE. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1985. Cladistics. In: Campbell, B. & Lack, E. (eds), A Dictionary of Birds. A. & D. Poyser, London, p. 88.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1987. Introduction. In: Patterson, C. (ed.), Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1989. Phylogenetic relations of major groups: conclusions and prospects. In: Fernholm, B., Bremer, K. & Jôrnvaîl, H. (eds.), The Hierarchy of Life. Nobel Symp. 70. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp. 471–488.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1990. Erik Helge Osvald Stensiö. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 35: 363–380.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M. & Finkleman, L. 2014. The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis debate: Where science meets philosophy. Bioscience 64: 511–516.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Zoology 28: 537–546.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & K. Paul, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rapini, A. 2004. Classes or individuals? The paradox of systematics revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35: 675–695.Google Scholar
Raposo, M., Stopiglia, R., Brito, GRR, Bockmann, FA., Kirwani, GM., Gayon, J. & Dubois, A. 2017. What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017). Zootaxa 4317(1): 179–184.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1983. Can classification do without evolution? New Scientist, 1 December, p. 647.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1986. Evolution and Classification: The Reformation of Cladism. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2013. Biological individuals and natural kinds. Biological Theory 7: 162–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, MJS. 1988. The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Sangster, G. & Luksenburg, JA. 2015. Declining rates of species described per taxonomist: slowdown of progress or a side-effect of improved quality in taxonomy? Systematic Biology 64: 144–151.Google Scholar
Schultze, H-P. 2005. The first ten symposia on early/lower vertebrates. Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia 8: v–xviii.Google Scholar
Sloan, PR. 1985. Essay Review: Ernst Mayr on the History of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 18: 145–153.Google Scholar
Sluys, R. 2013. The unappreciated, fundamentally analytical nature of taxonomy and the implications for the inventory of biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation 22: 1095–1105.Google Scholar
Stoltzfus, A. 2017. Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”. Biology Direct 12: 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062–017-0194-1Google Scholar
Sturdy, S. 2011. The meanings of ‘life’: Biology and biography in the work of J. S. Haldane (1860-1936). Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 21: 171–191.Google Scholar
Tancoigne, E. & Dubois, A. 2013. Taxonomy: no decline, but inertia. Cladistics 29: 567–570.Google Scholar
Vanderlaan, TA., Ebach, MC. & Williams, DM. 2013. Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions. Australian Systematic Botany 26: 347–355.Google Scholar
Velasco, J. 2008. Philosophy and the Tree of Life: the metaphysics and epistemology of phylogenetic systematics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Velasco, J. 2013. Phylogeny as population history. Philosophy and Theory in Biology 5:e402Google Scholar
Velasco, J. 2018. Universal common ancestry, LUCA, and the Tree of Life: three distinct hypotheses about the evolution of life. Biology and Philosophy 33: 31.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD. 1995. The ‘old systematics’: classification and phylogeny. In: Pakaluk, J. & Slipinski, S. A. (eds), Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson. Muzeum I Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa, pp. 31–62.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD. 2004. Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 359: 571–583.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD. 2008a. Taxonomic shock and awe. In: Wheeler, QD. (ed.), The New Taxonomy. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 211–226.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD. 2008b. Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution. Systematic Entomology 33: 2–7.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD., Raven, PH. & Wilson, EO. 2004. Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science 303: 285.Google Scholar
Wilkins, JS. & Ebach, MC. 2014. The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2008. The Foundations of Systematics & Biogeography. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. What is intuitive taxonomic practice? Systematic Biology 66: 637–643.Google Scholar
Winsor, MP. 2001. The practitioner of science: everyone her own historian. Journal of the History of Biology 34: 229–245.Google Scholar
Winsor, MP. 2003. Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 18: 387–400.Google Scholar
Winther, R. 2018 (ed.), Phylogenetic Inference, Selection Theory, and History of Science: Selected Papers of A. W. F. Edwards with Commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Yoon, CK. 2009. Naming Nature: The Clash Between Instinct and Science. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London.Google Scholar
Further Reading
Inspiration for this paper was largely as a response to the contributions of Charles Godfray, and while they are not without some merit, his position reflects that of a ‘user’ rather than practitioner (‘Godfray is a user of taxonomic end-products who has frequently been critical of the slowness with which modern taxonomy is furnishing these—especially species names—to ecologists, conservationists, ‘biodiversity scientists’, etc. … Godfray’s criticism, echoed in other circles … is cast in what he has termed the ‘second bioinformatics crisis’, viz. that the alleged lethargy of modern taxonomy is mostly due to the lack of an adequate cyberstructure to disseminate its much needed products’, p. 141). Having noted that, it is worth dipping into some of Godfray’s papers to understand some of the technical possibilities for data storage (e.g., Godfray, HCJ. 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417: 17–19; Godfray, HCJ. 2007. Linnaeus in the information age. Nature 446: 259–260; Godfray, HCJ., Mayo, SJ. & Scoble, MJ. Pragmatism and rigour can coexist in taxonomy. Evolutionary Biology 34: 309–311).
In relation to this paper, see: Flowers, RW. 2007. Taxonomy’s unexamined impediment. The Systematist 28: 3–7; Flowers, RW. 2007. Comments on ‘Helping Solve the “Other” Taxonomic Impediment: ‘Completing the Eight Steps to Total Enlightenment and Taxonomic Nirvana’ by Evenhuis (2007). Zootaxa 1494: 67–68 (‘Many taxonomists in my age cohort are now “molecular systematists”, and I know that some of them became so because they saw that funding would be impossible otherwise. If funding became linked to describing new species, you can bet that many would switch back, some reluctantly but others gladly’, p. 68).
A philosopher’s viewpoint. Perhaps if less time was spent agonising over species, progress would be had.
‘Thinking of naming systems as conventions may help clarify what we should be doing, if we are not to squander both the time and the reputation of systematics. Time is in short supply and our reputation not what it might be; solving the less cosmic issues may involve a self-discipline that also seems in short supply in the systematic community’.
This editorial was followed by a series of comments, all worth reading in the context of the future of taxonomy (Science 305: 1104–1107, includes five contributions).
Brower, AV. 2019. Background knowledge: the assumptions of pattern cladistics. Cladistics 35: 717–731 https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12379Google Scholar
de Carvalho, MR., Bockmann, FA., Amorim, DS., Brandao, CRF., de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, JL., Britski, HA., de Pinna, MCC., Menezes, NA., Marques, FPL., Papavero, N., Cancello, EM., Crisci, JV., McEachran, JD., Schelly, RC., Lundberg, JG., Gill, AC., Britz, R., Wheeler, QD., Stiassny, MLJ., Parenti, LR., Page, LM., Wheeler, WC., Faivovich, J., Vari, RP., Grande, L., Humphries, CJ., DeSalle, R., Ebach, MC. & Nelson, GJ. 2007. Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology 34: 140–143.Google Scholar
Evenhuis, NL. 2007. Helping solve the “other” taxonomic impediment: Completing the Eight Steps to Total Enlightenment and Taxonomic Nirvana. Zootaxa 1407: 3–12.Google Scholar
Richards, RA. 2016. Biological Classification. A Philosophical Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Stevens, PF. 2006. An end to all things? – plants and their names. Australian Systematic Botany 19: 115–133.Google Scholar
Wheeler, QD., Raven, PH. & Wilson, EO. 2004. Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science 303: 285.Google Scholar