2011 POINTS OF VIEW 887 Downloaded from sysbio.oxfordjournals.org Syst. Biol. 60(6):887–892, 2011 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Society of Systematic Biologists 2011. DOI:10.1093/sysbio/syr070 Advance Access publication on August 24, 2011 Phylogenetic Nomenclature, Three-Taxon Statements, and Unnecessary Name Changes by guest on October 18, 2011 1, 2 KEVIN DE QUEIROZ ∗ AND MICHAEL J. DONOGHUE 1Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0162, USA; and 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8106, USA; ∗Correspondence to be sent to: Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, NHB, W-200, MRC 162, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA; E-mail:
[email protected]. Received 4 April 2011; reviews returned 13 June 2011; accepted 16 June 2011 Associate Editor: Frank E. Anderson Criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature (see de Platnick’s argument involves a numerical comparison Queiroz and Gauthier 1994) and of the PhyloCode of the information content, as measured by implied (Cantino and de Queiroz 2010) have been addressed three-taxon statements (propositions about cladistic re- in the literature (e.g., de Queiroz 1997, 2006; Cantino lationships), of what he called “Linnaean classification” 2000; de Queiroz and Cantino 2001; Lee 2001; Bryant versus a “node-based system” (we place these terms in and Cantino 2002; Laurin et al. 2005; see http://www. quotation marks to indicate that they are misleading, as phylonames.org/ [literature/replies to critiques] for ad- will be explained below).