Paraphyletic groups as natural units of biological classification

168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A molecular phylogeny of Graphidaceae (Ascomycota, Lecanoromycetes, Ostropales) including 428 species (2013, background): “The problem of paraphyly is controversely discussed and no widely accepted solution has been proposed (Podani 2010, Hörandl and Stuessy 2010).”
Salvia united: The greatest good for the greatest number (2017, background): “…to a lesser extent), but unfortunately keeping the generic name Acacia for all taxa previously under that umbrella is intractable because numerous genera, some iconic in their own right, are interspersed within the various Acacia s.l. lineages (but see Hörandl & Stuessy, 2010; Miller & al., 2014).”
The Nature of Race (2015, background): “When it comes to ranking and ordering groups, evolutionary taxonomy additionally takes into account overall similarity owing to other evolutionary factors (e.g., divergence within lineages, degree of observable similarity, merging, and absolute time relationships (Hörandl and Stuessy, 2010)).”
A community‐derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns (2016, background): “Although we acknowledge the validity of some arguments presented in favor of maintaining paraphyletic taxa (see, e.g., H€orandl & Stuessy, 2010), we ultimately reject this practice and aim to recognize only monophyletic lineages at the genus level and above.”