The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: Why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either

Methodological stability in biological nomenclature is being upset recently, with potential consequences for palaeontology. Some systematists, inspired mainly by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994), reject traditional nomenclature in favour of an alternative “Phylogenetic Nomenclature” (PN). Following de Queiroz (2006) I consistently call this Phylogenetic Nomenclature, rather than Phylogenetic taxonomy, as it is often done. Important tenets of PN are the abandonment of hierarchic ranks and binomial names, and establishing name definitions based on cladogram shape (node−, stem−, and stem−modified node−based definitions), apomorphies (apomorphy−based definitions), or a combination of apomorphies and tree topology (apomorphy−modified node−based definition). For an explanation of such definitions, see Cantino and de Queiroz (2003) and Sereno (2005). The practice of Phylogenetic Nomenclature is laid out in an Internet document, the PhyloCode (Cantino and de Queiroz 2003). PN is seen as the natural next step in the evolution of taxonomy: from Linnaeus’ (1753, 1758) “creationist taxonomy” to Hennig’s (1966) cladistic taxonomy. Hence, Linnaeus’ ideas should be removed from nomenclature, which will then reflect phylogeny. Despite the dominance of cladistics as a framework for taxonomy, the validity of its philosophies and methodologies are still questioned (e.g., Szalay 2000). I encourage everyone, independently of school of taxonomy adhered to, to take interest in PN, because: (1) we are all creators or users of taxonomies and classifications, (2) PN is radically different from the current standard, (3) the Preface to the PhyloCode suggests it should ultimately replace the current Codes of Nomenclature (of bacteria, LaPage et al. 1992; of Zoology, ICZN 1999; of Botany, Greuter et al. 2000). I argue herein, why palaeontologists should not follow PN