Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
Langer, Max C.
2001.
Linnaeus and the PhyloCode: where are the differences?.
TAXON,
Vol. 50,
Issue. 4,
p.
1091.
BROCHU, CHRISTOPHER A.
and
SUMRALL, COLIN D.
2001.
PHYLOGENETIC NOMENCLATURE AND PALEONTOLOGY.
Journal of Paleontology,
Vol. 75,
Issue. 4,
p.
754.
Clarke, Barry T.
2001.
Towards a natural classification of African toads (Anura, Bufonidae): Past progress and future prospects.
African Journal of Herpetology,
Vol. 50,
Issue. 1,
p.
19.
CIFELLI, RICHARD L.
2001.
EARLY MAMMALIAN RADIATIONS.
Journal of Paleontology,
Vol. 75,
Issue. 6,
p.
1214.
Lee, Michael S. Y.
2001.
On recent arguments for phylogenetic nomenclature.
TAXON,
Vol. 50,
Issue. 1,
p.
175.
BRYANT, HAROLD N.
and
GANTINO, PHILIP D.
2002.
A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?.
Biological Reviews,
Vol. 77,
Issue. 1,
p.
39.
Lumbsch, H. Thorsten
2002.
How objective are genera in euascomycetes?.
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics,
Vol. 5,
Issue. 2,
p.
91.
Moore, Gerry
2002.
Down with the Kingdom (Phylum, Class, and Order Too).
Science,
Vol. 297,
Issue. 5587,
p.
1650.
DYKE, GARETH J.
2002.
SHOULD PALEONTOLOGISTS USE “PHYLOGENETIC” NOMENCLATURE?.
Journal of Paleontology,
Vol. 76,
Issue. 5,
p.
793.
Stenroos, Soili
Hyvönen, Jaakko
Myllys, Leena
Thell, Arne
and
Ahti, Teuvo
2002.
Phylogeny of the Genus Cladonia s.lat. (Cladoniaceae, Ascomycetes) Inferred from Molecular, Morphological, and Chemical Data.
Cladistics,
Vol. 18,
Issue. 3,
p.
237.
Stenroos, Soili
Myllys, Leena
Thell, Arne
and
Hyvönen, Jaakko
2002.
Phylogenetic hypotheses: Cladoniaceae, Stereocaulaceae, Baeomycetaceae, and Icmadophilaceae revisited.
Mycological Progress,
Vol. 1,
Issue. 3,
p.
267.
DYKE, GARETH J.
2002.
SHOULD PALEONTOLOGISTS USE “PHYLOGENETIC” NOMENCLATURE?.
Journal of Paleontology,
Vol. 76,
Issue. 5,
p.
793.
Bateman, Richard M.
and
DiMichele, William A.
2003.
Genesis of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in land plants: The present as the key to the past.
Systematics and Biodiversity,
Vol. 1,
Issue. 1,
p.
13.
Gao, Keqin
and
Sun, Yuanlin
2003.
Is the PhyloCode better than Linnaean system?.
Chinese Science Bulletin,
Vol. 48,
Issue. 3,
p.
308.
RUTA, MARCELLO
COATES, MICHAEL I.
and
QUICKE, DONALD L. J.
2003.
Early tetrapod relationships revisited.
Biological Reviews,
Vol. 78,
Issue. 2,
p.
251.
Härlin, Mikael
2003.
On the relationship between content, ancestor, and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature.
Cladistics,
Vol. 19,
Issue. 2,
p.
144.
Härlin, Mikael
2003.
Taxon names as paradigms: the structure of nomenclatural revolutions.
Cladistics,
Vol. 19,
Issue. 2,
p.
138.
Lee, M. S. Y.
2003.
Species concepts and species reality: salvaging a Linnaean rank.
Journal of Evolutionary Biology,
Vol. 16,
Issue. 2,
p.
179.
Moore, Gerry
2003.
Should Taxon Names Be Explicitly Defined?.
The Botanical Review,
Vol. 69,
Issue. 1,
p.
2.
Carpenter, James M.
2003.
Critique of Pure Folly.
The Botanical Review,
Vol. 69,
Issue. 1,
p.
79.