Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 58(2) June 2001 81 The PhyloCode: description and commentary Peter L. Forey Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Introduction This essay is prompted by a seminar which I gave to the Department of Palaeontology at The Natural History Museum, London. The size of the audience indicated strong interest in the subject, and it was suggested that it would make a suitable subject for an article in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Since I was critical of the proposals of the PhyloCode I was happy to agree to this on the understanding that I could describe the aims and mechanics of the PhyloCode in as neutral a way as possible while allowing myself the opportunity of personal commentary. Therefore, this essay is divided into two distinct parts. Readers may wish to cease reading at the end of the first part and form their own opinions. The PhyloCode is published in preliminary form on the web at www.ohio.edu/PhyloCode, and where possible I take direct quotes (designated in italics — page numbers are irrelevant since different web download programs will paginate differently) so as to avoid any personal filters beyond the selection from the continuous text, which I encourage reading in total. Part 1. The PhyloCode The PhyloCode is a new system of Biological Nomenclature which is designed to provide rules to govern the naming of clades across all of biology. The PhyloCode is the formalisation of the ideas of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (also known as phylogenetic taxonomy, see below) which has been discussed in a series of papers beginning with De Queiroz & Gauthier (1990), although many of the issues raised by advocates of Phylogenetic Nomenclature had been discussed long before. A near comprehensive bibliography of Phylogenetic Nomenclature is given following the Preface at the PhyloCode website. It has been discussed, refined and argued over in three symposia, with the formal proposals being set out as a result of a meeting in 1998 at Harvard. The names of 26 people are attached to the PhyloCode as an advisory group but it is unclear as to whether all of these are signatories to all of the aims of the PhyloCode. I should perhaps make it clear that terms such as Phylogenetic Taxonomy and Phylogenetic Nomenclature were freely interchanged in the earlier papers on Phylogenetic Nomenclature. The two are not the same. Phylogenetic Taxonomy is effectively phylogenetic systematics. We can of course have Phylogenetic Taxonomy without Phylogenetic Nomenclature. Phylogenetic Nomenclature starts from the premise that there should be con-gruence between phylogenetic hypotheses and nomenclature. At the moment it is only in draft form, which may be perused at the web site cited above, and the authors welcome comments as to its utility, practicality and the particulars. At present the PhyloCode governs the naming of clades which may be previously un-named or
BioStor
