00423nas a2200133   4500008004100000245005400041210005400095260000800149300001200157490000700169100001600176700001600192856008100208       1984                        eng d00aNOMENCLATURE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE LAMIACEAE0 aNOMENCLATURE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE LAMIACEAE  cJan  a64–720 v331 aSANDERS, RW1 aCANTINO, PD  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/nomenclature-subdivisions-lamiaceae01296nas a2200217   4500008004100000245009500041210006900136260000800205300001400213490000700227520059700234653001900831653000800850653001400858653001400872653001400886100001700900700001700917700001600934856012800950       1995                        eng d00aParsimony Analysis of cpDNA Restriction Site Variation in Subfamily Nepetoideae (Labiatae)0 aParsimony Analysis of cpDNA Restriction Site Variation in Subfam  cJan  a886–8920 v823 aParsimony 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.10aClassification10aDna10aEvolution10aLamiaceae10aPhylogeny1 aWAGSTAFF, SJ1 aOLMSTEAD, RG1 aCANTINO, PD  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/parsimony-analysis-cpdna-restriction-site-variation-subfamily-nepetoideae-labiatae00421nas a2200121   4500008004100000245006000041210005700101300001000158490000600168100001600174700001800190856009100208       1998                        eng d00aObtegomeria (Lamiaceae), a new genus from South America0 aObtegomeria Lamiaceae a new genus from South America  a1–30 v81 aCANTINO, PD1 aDoroszenko, A  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/obtegomeria-lamiaceae-new-genus-south-america02366nas a2200145   4500008004100000245009400041210006900135300000800204490000700212520183300219100001602052700001702068700001702085856011802102       1997                        eng d00aA comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study0 acomparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system   a3130 v463 aThe 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.1 aCANTINO, PD1 aOLMSTEAD, RG1 aWAGSTAFF, SJ  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/comparison-phylogenetic-nomenclature-current-system-botanical-case-study