@article {SANDERS:1984p2222,
	title = {NOMENCLATURE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE LAMIACEAE},
	journal = {Taxon},
	volume = {33},
	number = {1},
	year = {1984},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {64{\textendash}72},
	author = {RW SANDERS and PD CANTINO}
}
@article {WAGSTAFF:1995p916,
	title = {Parsimony Analysis of cpDNA Restriction Site Variation in Subfamily Nepetoideae (Labiatae)},
	journal = {Am J Bot},
	volume = {82},
	number = {7},
	year = {1995},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {886{\textendash}892},
	abstract = {Parsimony analysis of cpDNA restriction site variation supports monophyly of subfamily Nepetoideae, However, a close relationship among Nepetoideae and other gynobasic-styled Labiatae is not supported, indicating that a gynobasic style has evolved independently in at least two clades of Labiatae. The inferred relationships are congruent with the classification of Cantino, Harley, and Wagstaff (1992, Advances in labiate sciences, 27-37, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) but conflict to varying degrees with traditional classifications. Monophyly of four tribes of Nepetoideae also is supported.},
	keywords = {Classification, Dna, Evolution, Lamiaceae, Phylogeny},
	author = {SJ WAGSTAFF and RG OLMSTEAD and PD CANTINO}
}
@article {CANTINO:1998p923,
	title = {Obtegomeria (Lamiaceae), a new genus from South America},
	journal = {Novon},
	volume = {8},
	number = {1},
	year = {1998},
	pages = {1{\textendash}3},
	author = {PD CANTINO and A Doroszenko}
}
@article {CANTINO:1997p453,
	title = {A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study},
	journal = {Systematic Biology},
	volume = {46},
	number = {2},
	year = {1997},
	pages = {313},
	abstract = {The family Lamiaceae was used as a case study to compare our current system of nomenclature with a phylogenetic alternative proposed by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480), with emphasis on nomenclatural stability and efficiency. Comparison of published cladistic analyses revealed 19 suprageneric clades within Lamiaceae that are supported well enough to merit naming, but many genera could not be placed with confidence in any infrafamilial taxon. Two phylogenetic classifications were prepared, one following current nomenclatural rules and conventions and the other following the phylogenetic system of nomenclature. A comparison of the classificationsrevealed examples of unstable and ambiguous names that resulted from employing current rules and conventions to name clades. Old names based on nomenclatural types of uncertain phylogenetic relationship and infrafamilial taxon names based on the type of the family are particularly prone to instability. The phylogenetic system appears to have fewer problems but may also lead to nomenclatural confusion if taxon names are defined carelessly. The current system produces less efficient classifications because the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa leads to inclusion of redundant names (monotypic taxa) when the classification is based on an asymmetrical cladogram. In contrast, the phylogenetic system contains no redundant names. We endorse the recommendation that the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa be abandoned. Phylogenetic definitions should be provided for taxon names whenever phylogenies are translated into classifications. The definitions should be accompanied by a list of synapomorphiesand a statementof clade membership to facilitate subsequent provisional referral of newly studied species to supraspecific taxa.},
	author = {PD CANTINO and RG OLMSTEAD and SJ WAGSTAFF}
}
