{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03614457831325301, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04551539491298527, 'mean_word_length': 5.177685950413223, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature: a reply to Lidén and Oxelman

Although adoption of an explicitly phylogenetic perspective has had profound effects on both methods of systematic analysis (e.g., synapomorphy) and concepts of taxa (e.g., monophyly), it has, until recently, had little effect on the principles and rules of biological nomenclature. This situation is now changing as several authors have started to develop and put into use a system of nomenclature based on phylogenetic principles (e.g., de Queiroz & Gauthier 1990, 1992, 1994; de Queiroz 1992, 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Bryant 1994, 1996; Sundberg & Pleijel 1994; Schander & Thollesson 1995; Holtz 1996; Lee 1996a; Wyss & Meng 1996; Cantino et al. 1997). It was probably inevitable that this new approach would eventually be criticized by authors defending the traditional system of nomenclature, a system based on the taxonomic categories of Linnaeus. Lidin & Oxelman (1996) have recently taken up the defense of the traditional approach; however, many of their criticisms of the phylogenetic alternative are inaccurate or misleading. My purpose in this response is to call attention to errors and misunderstandings in their critique so that the debate about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature can be based on its properties, the advantages of which are properly open to debate, rather than on misconceptions. Some of these points have also been addressed by Lee (1996b).