Abstract
Strictly homology-based character names have the benefit of a consistent, evolutionary basis but must overcome practical problems in terms of the function that names serve as tools for communication. Character names should be fixed at the level of primary (rather than secondary) homology in order to maintain nomenclatural stability between competing phylogenies and to allow characters to potentially re-optimize with the addition of data. Inconsistent rules determine the priority of names for anatomical structures, in marked contrast to the stability and clarity provided by Codes for taxonomic nomenclature. Standardized anatomical nomenclature is amenable to a web-based, ontology-driven framework. Imagery and associated metadata linked to phylogenetic datasets facilitate character documentation, nomenclatural stability, and repeatability without requiring a formal process of typification.References
Benton, M.J. (2007) The Phylocode: beating a dead horse? Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52, 651–655.
Conway Morris, S. (1977) Fossil priapulid worms. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 20, 1–95.
Gee, H. (1996) Before the Backbone: Views on the Origin of the Vertebrates. Chapman & Hall, London, 346 pp.
Harris, J.D. (2004) Confusing dinosaurs with mammals: tetrapod phylogenetics and anatomical terminology in the world of homology. The Anatomical Record, 281A, 1240–1246.
Kluge, A. (1993) Aspidites and the phylogeny of pythonine snakes. Records of the Australian Museum Supplement 19, 1–77.
Lee, M.S.Y. & Scanlon, J.D. (2002) Snake phylogeny based on osteology, soft anatomy and ecology. Biological Reviews, 77, 333–401.
Maddison, W.P. & Maddison, D.R. (2008) Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis, version 2.5. Available from: http://mesquiteproject.org/ (August 2008).
de Pinna, M.C.C. (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics, 7, 367–394.
Pleijel, F. (1999) Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Systematic Biology, 48, 755–789.
Ramirez, M.J., Coddington, J.A., Maddison, W.P., Midford, P.E., Prendini, L., Miller, J., Griswold, C.E., Hormiga, G., Sierwald, P., Scharff, N., Benjamin, S.P. & Wheeler, W.C. (2007) Linking digital images to phylogenetic data matrices using a morphological ontology. Systematic Biology, 56, 283–294.
Rouse, G.W. & Pleijel, F. (2001) Polychaetes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 354 pp.
Schmidt Rhaesa, A. (1998) Phylogenetic relationships of the Nematomorpha – a discussion of current hypotheses. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 236, 203–216.
Scholtz, G. & Edgecombe, G.D. (2006) The evolution of arthropod heads: reconciling morphological, developmental and palaeontological evidence. Development, Genes and Evolution, 216, 395–415.
Smith, J.B. & Dodson, P. (2003) A proposal for a standard terminology of anatomical nomenclature and orientation in fossil vertebrate dentitions. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23, 1–12.
Vogt, L. (2008) Learning from Linnaeus: towards developing the foundation for a general structure concept for morphology. In: Minelli, A., Bonato, L. & Fusco, G. (Eds), Updating the Linnaean Heritage: Names as Tools for Thinking about Animals and Plants. Zootaxa, 1950, 123–152.
Waloszek, D., Maas, A., Chen, J. & Stein M. (2007) Evolution of cephalic feeding structures and the phylogeny of Arthropoda. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 254, 273–287.
Wilson, J.A. (2006) Anatomical nomenclature of fossil vertebrates: standardized terms or ‘lingua franca’? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 26, 511–518.