↓ Skip to main content

Species Names in Phylogenetic Nomenclature

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Biology, October 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Species Names in Phylogenetic Nomenclature
Published in
Systematic Biology, October 1999
DOI 10.1080/106351599260012
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Philip Cantino, Harold N. Bryant, Kevin De Queiroz, Michael J. Donoghue, Torsten Eriksson, David M. Hillis, Michael S. Y. Lee

Abstract

Linnaean binomial nomenclature is logically incompatible with the phylogenetic nomenclature of de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480): The former is based on the concept of genus, thus making this rank mandatory, while the latter is based on phylogenetic definitions and requires the abandonment of mandatory ranks. Thus, if species are to receive names under phylogenetic nomenclature, a different method must be devised to name them. Here, 13 methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature are contrasted with each other and with Linnaean binomials. A fundamental dichotomy among the proposed methods distinguishes those that retain the entire binomial of a preexisting species name from those that retain only the specific epithet. Other relevant issues include the stability, uniqueness, and ease of pronunciation of species names; their capacity to convey phylogenetic information; and the distinguishability of species names that are governed by a code of phylogenetic nomenclature both from clade names and from species names governed by the current codes. No method is ideal. Each has advantages and drawbacks, and preference for one option over another will be influenced by one's evaluation of the relative importance of the pros and cons for each. Moreover, sometimes the same feature is viewed as an advantage by some and a drawback by others. Nevertheless, all of the proposed methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature provide names that are more stable than Linnaean binomials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 14 5%
United States 7 2%
Argentina 4 1%
Germany 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 246 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 84 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 15%
Student > Master 29 10%
Professor 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 65 22%
Unknown 24 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 199 68%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 9%
Environmental Science 13 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Arts and Humanities 4 1%
Other 11 4%
Unknown 33 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,613,886
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Biology
#389
of 1,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,737
of 35,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Biology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 35,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.