Download and Read online, DOWNLOAD EBOOK, [PDF EBOOK EPUB ], Ebooks

download, Read Ebook EPUB/KINDE, Download Book Format PDF

International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature

(PhyloCode) 1st Edition Philip D. Cantino And
Kevin De Queiroz

OR CLICK LINK
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-
code-of-phylogenetic-nomenclature-phylocode-1st-
edition-philip-d-cantino-and-kevin-de-queiroz/

Read with Our Free App Audiobook Free Format PFD EBook, Ebooks dowload PDF
with Andible trial, Real book, online, KINDLE , Download[PDF] and Read and Read
Read book Format PDF Ebook, Dowload online, Read book Format PDF Ebook,
[PDF] and Real ONLINE Dowload [PDF] and Real ONLINE
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Rhetorical Code Studies Discovering Arguments In And

Around Code Kevin Brock

https://textbookfull.com/product/rhetorical-code-studies-
discovering-arguments-in-and-around-code-kevin-brock/

2018 International Building Code 1st Edition

International Code Council

https://textbookfull.com/product/2018-international-building-
code-1st-edition-international-code-council/

International Building Code 2018 2018th Edition

International Code Council

https://textbookfull.com/product/international-building-
code-2018-2018th-edition-international-code-council/

Growth Frontiers in International Business 1st Edition

Kevin Ibeh

https://textbookfull.com/product/growth-frontiers-in-
international-business-1st-edition-kevin-ibeh/
The Routledge International Handbook of
Financialization 1st Edition Philip Mader (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-routledge-international-
handbook-of-financialization-1st-edition-philip-mader-editor/

International Taxation and the Extractive Industries

1st Edition Philip Daniel

https://textbookfull.com/product/international-taxation-and-the-
extractive-industries-1st-edition-philip-daniel/

Building Codes Illustrated A Guide to Understanding the

2018 International Building Code 6th Edition Francis D.
K. Ching

https://textbookfull.com/product/building-codes-illustrated-a-
guide-to-understanding-the-2018-international-building-code-6th-
edition-francis-d-k-ching/

DNA The Story of the Genetic Revolution James D Watson

Andrew Berry Kevin Davies

https://textbookfull.com/product/dna-the-story-of-the-genetic-
revolution-james-d-watson-andrew-berry-kevin-davies/

Intro Stats, 6e Richard D. De Veaux

https://textbookfull.com/product/intro-stats-6e-richard-d-de-
veaux/
International Code
of Phylogenetic
Nomenclature
(PhyloCode)
 International Code
of Phylogenetic
Nomenclature
(PhyloCode)
Version 6*

Philip D. Cantino and Kevin de Queiroz**

Ratified on January 20, 2019, by the Committee on Phylogenetic

Nomenclature of the International Society for Phylogenetic
Nomenclature: Sina M. Adl, Philip D. Cantino, Nico Cellinese,
Kevin de Queiroz, James A. Doyle, Micah Dunthorn, Sean W. Graham,
Max Cardoso Langer, Michel Laurin, Richard G. Olmstead,
George Sangster, and Mieczyslaw Wolsan.

* This is the first version published in hard copy. Previous versions are available at www.phylocode.org.
** Authors listed alphabetically
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
First published in digital version April 29, 2020.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-33282-9 (Paperback)
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-33286-7 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made
to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all
materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of
all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has
not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify
in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or
utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including pho-
tocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission
from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA
01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users.
For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been
arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Cantino, Philip D., author. | De Queiroz, Kevin, author. |

International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature. Committee on
Phylogenetic Nomenclature.
Title: International code of phylogenetic nomenclature : PhyloCode / Philip
D. Cantino and Kevin de Queiroz.
Other titles: PhyloCode
Description: Version 6. | Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2020. | Ratified on
January 20, 2019, by the Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature, of the
International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature | Includes
bibliographical references. | Summary: “This book will govern the names
of clades, while species names will still be governed by traditional
codes. PhyloCode is designed so that it can be used concurrently with
the rankbased codes. It is not meant not to replace existing systems but
to provide an alternative system for governing the application of both
existing and newly proposed names”-- Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019028676 (print) | LCCN 2019028677 (ebook) | ISBN
9781138332829 (paperback) | ISBN 9781138332867 (hardback) | ISBN
9780429446320 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Biology--Classification. | Biology--Nomenclature. |
Cladistic analysis. | Phylogeny--Nomenclature. |
Plants--Phylogeny--Nomenclature.
Classification: LCC QH83 .C28 2020 (print) | LCC QH83 (ebook) | DDC
570.1/2--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019028676
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019028677

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
 Contents

Preface.........................................................................................vii
Preamble................................................................................. xxxix
Division I. Principles......................................................................1
Division II. Rules...........................................................................3
Chapter I. Taxa......................................................................5
Article 1. Categories of Taxa......................................5
Article 2. Clades........................................................5
Article 3. Hierarchy and Rank...................................7
Chapter II. Publication..........................................................9
Article 4. Publication Requirements...........................9
Article 5. Publication Date......................................11
Chapter III. Names.............................................................13
Article 6. Categories of Names.................................13
Article 7. General Requirements for Establishment.....15
Article 8. Registration..............................................16
Chapter IV. Establishment of Clade Names.........................21
Article 9. General Requirements and
Phylogenetic Definitions...........................21
Article 10. Selection of Clade Names for
Establishment...........................................40
Article 11. Specifiers and Qualifying Clauses............51
Chapter V. Selection of Accepted Clade Names...................67
Article 12. Precedence...............................................67
Article 13. Homonymy..............................................68

v
 Contents

Article 14. Synonymy................................................71

Article 15. Conservation, Suppression, and
Emendation..............................................73
Chapter VI. Hybrids...........................................................81
Article 16. Provisions for Hybrids..............................81
Chapter VII. Orthography..................................................83
Article 17. Orthographic Requirements for
Establishment...........................................83
Article 18. Subsequent Use and Correction of
Established Names...................................85
Chapter VIII. Authorship....................................................89
Article 19. Authorship of Names and Definitions......89
Chapter IX. Citation...........................................................93
Article 20. Citation of Authors and Registration
Numbers..................................................93
Chapter X. Species Names...................................................97
Article 21. Provisions for Species Names....................97
Chapter XI. Governance...................................................107
Article 22. Governance of Phylogenetically
Defined Names......................................107
Glossary..................................................................................... 111
Appendix A. Registration Procedures and Data
Requirements........................................................123
Appendix B. Code of Ethics......................................................127
Appendix C.  Equivalence of Nomenclatural Terms among
Codes..................................................................129
Index.......................................................................................... 131

vi
 Preface

Version 6 is the first version published as a printed volume. Previous

versions were solely electronic and are available at www.phylocode.
org. The material in this Preface has been summarized from a vari-
ety of sources; see the History section for literature citations.
The development of the International Code of Phylogenetic
Nomenclature (referred to here as the PhyloCode) grew out of the
recognition that the current rank-based systems of nomenclature,
as embodied in the current botanical, zoological, and bacteriologi-
cal codes, are not well suited to govern the names of clades. Clades
(along with species) are the entities that make up the tree of life,
and for this reason they are among the most theoretically signifi-
cant biological entities above the organism level. Consequently,
clear communication and efficient storage and retrieval of biologi-
cal information require names that explicitly and unambiguously
refer to clades and do not change over time. The current rank-based
codes fail to provide such names for clades. Supraspecific names are
not always associated with clades under the rank-based codes, and
even when they are, they often fail to retain their associations with
particular clades because the names are implicitly defined in terms
of ranks and types. A clade whose hypothesized composition and
diagnostic characters have not changed may be given a different
name under the rank-based codes based purely on considerations
of rank. Such instability is particularly objectionable given the wide

vii
 Preface

recognition that rank assignment is subjective and of dubious bio-

logical significance.
In contrast to the rank-based codes, the PhyloCode provides rules
for the express purpose of naming clades through explicit reference
to phylogeny. In doing so, the PhyloCode extends “tree-thinking” to
biological nomenclature. This development parallels the extension
of tree-thinking into taxonomy, as manifested in the concepts of
species as lineage segments and supraspecific taxa as clades. These
nomenclatural and taxonomic developments are complementary but
independent. Clades can be named using the traditional rank-based
systems of nomenclature (though with the problems noted above),
and a nomenclatural system based on phylogenetic principles does
not require equating supraspecific taxa with clades. The PhyloCode,
however, is designed for the specific purpose of naming clades.
The objective of the PhyloCode is not to replace existing names
but to provide an alternative system for governing the application
of both existing and newly proposed names. In developing the
PhyloCode, much thought has been given to minimizing disruption
of the existing nomenclature. Thus, rules and recommendations
have been included to ensure that most names will be applied in
ways that approximate their current and/or historical use. However,
names that apply to clades will be redefined in terms of phyloge-
netic relationships rather than taxonomic rank and therefore will
not be subject to the subsequent changes that occur under the rank-
based systems due to changes in rank. Because the taxon member-
ship associated with particular names will sometimes differ between
rank-based and phylogenetic systems, suggestions are provided for
indicating which code governs a name when there is a possibility of
confusion. Mechanisms are also provided to reduce certain types
of nomenclatural divergence relative to the rank-based systems. For
example, if a clade name is based on a genus name, the type of the
genus under the appropriate rank-based code must be used as an
internal specifier under the PhyloCode (Article 11.10, Examples 1
and 2).

viii
 Preface

The starting date of the PhyloCode coincides with the publica-

tion of Phylonyms, a volume that provides phylogenetic definitions
for many widely used clade names and the names of many large
clades (see below). Names for which phylogenetic definitions were
published before that date, and not subsequently, are not considered
established under this code.

Properties of Phylogenetic Nomenclature. The phylogenetic sys-

tem of nomenclature embodied in the PhyloCode exhibits both simi-
larities to and differences from the rank-based systems embodied in
the traditional codes. Some of the most important similarities are as
follows: (1) Both systems have the same fundamental goals of pro-
viding unambiguous methods for applying names to taxa, selecting a
single accepted name for a taxon from among competing synonyms
or homonyms, and promoting nomenclatural stability and conti-
nuity to the extent that doing so does not contradict new results
and conclusions. (2) Neither system infringes upon the judgment
of taxonomists with respect to inferring the composition of taxa or
to assigning taxonomic ranks. (3) Both systems use precedence, a
clear order of preference, to determine the correct name of a taxon
when synonyms or homonyms exist. (4) Both systems use the date
of publication (chronological priority) as the primary criterion for
establishing precedence. (5) And both phylogenetic and rank-based
systems have conservation mechanisms that allow a later-established
name to be given precedence over an earlier name for the same taxon
if using the earlier name would be contrary to the fundamental goal
of promoting nomenclatural stability and continuity.
Some of the most important differences between the phylogenetic
system of the PhyloCode and the rank-based systems of the tradi-
tional codes are as follows: (1) The phylogenetic system is indepen-
dent of taxonomic rank. Although clades form nested hierarchies,
the assignment of taxonomic rank is not part of the naming process
and has no bearing on the spelling or application of clade names.
As a consequence, the phylogenetic system does not require ranked

ix
 Preface

taxonomies. (2) All taxa named under this code are clades. Clades
are products of evolution that have an objective existence regardless
of whether they are named. As a consequence, once a clade is named
and its name associated with a phylogenetic definition, its composi-
tion and diagnostic characters become questions to be decided by
empirical evidence rather than by personal decisions. (3) In addi-
tion to applying names to nested and mutually exclusive taxa, as in
traditional nomenclature, the phylogenetic system allows names to
be applied to partially overlapping clades. This provision is neces-
sary to accommodate situations involving clades of hybrid origin.
(4) In contrast to the rank-based codes, which use (implicit) defi-
nitions based on ranks and types to determine the application of
names, phylogenetic nomenclature uses explicit phylogenetic defini-
tions. Species, specimens, and apomorphies cited within these defi-
nitions are called specifiers because they are used to specify the clade
to which the name applies. These specifiers function analogously to
the types of rank-based nomenclature in providing reference points
that determine the application of a name; however, they differ from
types in that they may either be included in or excluded from the
taxon being named, and multiple specifiers may be used. (5) The
fundamental difference between the phylogenetic and rank-based
systems in how names are defined leads to differences in how syn-
onyms and homonyms are determined in practice. For example,
under the PhyloCode, synonyms are names whose phylogenetic defi-
nitions specify the same clade, regardless of prior associations with
particular ranks; in contrast, under the rank-based codes, synonyms
are names at the same rank whose types are included within a single
taxon at that rank, regardless of prior associations with particular
clades. (6) Another novel aspect of the PhyloCode is that it permits
taxonomists to restrict the application of names with respect to clade
composition. If a taxonomist wishes to ensure that a name refers to
a clade that either includes or excludes particular taxa, this result
may be achieved through the use of additional internal or external
specifiers (beyond the minimal number needed to specify a clade), or

x
 Preface

the definition may contain a qualifying clause specifying conditions

under which the name cannot be used. (7) The PhyloCode includes
recommended naming conventions that promote an integrated
system of names for crown and total clades. The resulting pairs of
names (e.g., Testudines and Pan-Testudines for the turtle crown and
total clades, respectively) enhance the cognitive efficiency of the sys-
tem and provide hierarchical information. (8) Establishment of a
name under the PhyloCode requires both publication and registra-
tion. The purpose of registration is to create a comprehensive data-
base of established names (discussed below), which will reduce the
frequency of accidental homonyms and facilitate the retrieval of
nomenclatural information.

Advantages of Phylogenetic Nomenclature. Phylogenetic nomen-

clature has several advantages over the traditional systems. It
eliminates a major source of instability under the rank-based codes—
changes in clade names due solely to shifts in rank. It also facilitates
the naming of new clades as they are discovered. Under the rank-
based codes, it is often difficult to name clades one at a time, similar
to the way that species are named, because the name of a taxon is
affected by the taxon’s rank, which in turn depends on the ranks of
more and less inclusive taxa. In a group in which the standard ranks
are already in use, naming a newly discovered clade requires either
the use of an unconventional intermediate rank (e.g., supersubfam-
ily) or the shifting of less or more inclusive clades to lower or higher
ranks, thus causing a cascade of name changes. This situation dis-
courages systematists from naming clades until an entire classifica-
tion is developed. In the meanwhile, well-supported clades are left
unnamed, and taxonomy falls progressively farther behind knowl-
edge of phylogeny. This is a particularly serious drawback at the
present time, when advances in molecular and computational biol-
ogy have led to a burst of new information about phylogeny, much
of which is not being incorporated into taxonomy. The availability
of the PhyloCode will permit researchers to name newly discovered

xi
 Preface

clades much more easily than they can under the rank-based codes.
For many researchers, naming clades is just as important as nam-
ing species. In this respect, the PhyloCode reflects a philosophical
shift from naming species and subsequently classifying them (i.e.,
into higher taxa) to naming both species and clades. This does not
mean, however, that all clades must be named. The decision to name
a clade (or to link an existing name to it by publishing a phyloge-
netic definition) may be based on diverse criteria, including (but not
restricted to), level of support, phenotypic distinctiveness, economic
importance, and whether the clade has historically been named.
Another benefit of phylogenetic nomenclature is that it permits
(though it does not require) the abandonment of categorical ranks,
which would eliminate the most subjective aspect of traditional tax-
onomy. The arbitrary nature of ranking, though acknowledged by
most taxonomists, is not widely appreciated by non-taxonomists.
The existence of ranks encourages researchers to use taxonomies
inappropriately, treating taxa at the same rank as though they were
comparable in some biologically meaningful way—for example,
when they count genera or families to study past and present pat-
terns of biological diversity. A rankless system of taxonomy, which is
permitted but not required by the PhyloCode, encourages the devel-
opment of more appropriate uses of taxonomies in such studies, such
as counting clades or species that possess properties relevant to the
question of interest, or investigating the evolution of those proper-
ties on a phylogenetic tree.
An advantage of the PhyloCode over the rank-based codes is that
it applies at all levels of the taxonomic hierarchy. In contrast, the
zoological code does not extend its rank-based method of definition
above the level of superfamily, and the botanical code extends that
method of definition only to some names above the rank of family
(automatically typified names) and the principle of priority is not
mandatory for those names. Consequently, at higher levels in the
hierarchy, the rank-based codes permit multiple names for the same
taxon as well as alternative applications of the same name. Thus, as

xii
 Preface

phylogenetic studies continue to reveal many deep clades, there is an

increasing potential for nomenclatural chaos due to synonymy and
homonymy. By imposing rules of precedence on clade names at all
levels of the hierarchy, the PhyloCode will improve nomenclatural
clarity at higher hierarchical levels.

History. The theoretical foundation of the PhyloCode was developed

in a series of papers by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994),
which were foreshadowed by earlier suggestions that a taxon name
could be defined by reference to a part of a phylogenetic tree (e.g.,
Ghiselin, 1984). The theory was in development for several years
before the first of these theoretical papers was published, and related
theoretical discussions (e.g., Rowe, 1987; de Queiroz, 1988; Gauthier
et al., 1988; Estes et al., 1988) as well as explicit phylogenetic defini-
tions (Gauthier, 1984, 1986; Gauthier and Padian, 1985; de Queiroz,
1985, 1987; Gauthier et al., 1988; Estes et al., 1988; Rowe, 1988)
were published in some earlier papers. Several other papers contrib-
uted to the development of phylogenetic nomenclature prior to the
Internet posting of the first version of the PhyloCode in 2000 (Rowe
and Gauthier, 1992; Bryant, 1994, 1996, 1997; de Queiroz, 1992,
1994, 1997a, b; Sundberg and Pleijel, 1994; Christoffersen, 1995;
Schander and Thollesson, 1995; Lee, 1996a, b, 1998a, b, 1999a, b;
Wyss and Meng, 1996; Brochu, 1997; Cantino et al., 1997, 1999a, b;
Kron, 1997; Baum et al., 1998; Cantino, 1998; Eriksson et al., 1998;
Härlin, 1998, 1999; Hibbett and Donoghue, 1998; Moore, 1998;
Schander, 1998a, b; Mishler, 1999; Pleijel, 1999; Sereno, 1999).
Other papers during this period applied phylogenetic nomencla-
ture to particular clades (e.g., Judd et al., 1993, 1994; Holtz, 1996;
Roth, 1996; Alverson et al., 1999; Swann et al., 1999; Brochu, 1999;
Bremer, 2000).
Three early symposia increased awareness of phylogenetic nomen-
clature. The first one, organized by Richard G. Olmstead and
entitled “Translating Phylogenetic Analyses into Classifications,”
took place at the 1995 annual meeting of the American Institute

xiii
 Preface

of Biological Sciences in San Diego, California, USA. The 1996

Southwestern Botanical Systematics Symposium at the Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden in Claremont, California, USA, orga-
nized by J. Mark Porter and entitled “The Linnean Hierarchy: Past,
Present and Future,” focused in part on phylogenetic nomenclature.
Philip Cantino and Torsten Eriksson organized a symposium at
the XVI International Botanical Congress in St. Louis, Missouri,
USA (1999), entitled “Overview and Practical Implications of
Phylogenetic Nomenclature.” A few critiques of phylogenetic nomen-
clature (Lidén and Oxelman, 1996; Dominguez and Wheeler, 1997;
Lidén et al., 1997) and responses (Lee, 1996a; de Queiroz, 1997b;
Schander, 1998a) were also published during this period, but the
debate became much more active after the posting of the first version
of the PhyloCode (see below).
The preparation of the PhyloCode began in the autumn of 1997,
following a decision by Michael Donoghue, Philip Cantino, and
Kevin de Queiroz to organize a workshop for this purpose. The
workshop took place August 7–9, 1998, at the Harvard University
Herbaria, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA., and was attended by
27 people from five countries: William S. Alverson, Harold N.
Bryant, David C. Cannatella, Philip D. Cantino, Julia Clarke, Peter
R. Crane, Noel Cross, Kevin de Queiroz, Michael J. Donoghue,
Torsten Eriksson, Jacques Gauthier, Kancheepuram Gandhi,
Kenneth Halanych, David S. Hibbett, David M. Hillis, Kathleen A.
Kron, Michael S. Y. Lee, Alessandro Minelli, Richard G. Olmstead,
Fredrik Pleijel, J. Mark Porter, Heidi E. Robeck, Timothy Rowe,
Christoffer Schander, Per Sundberg, Mikael Thollesson, and André
R. Wyss. An initial draft of the code prepared by Cantino and de
Queiroz was provided to the workshop participants in advance and
was considerably revised by Cantino and de Queiroz as a result
of decisions made at the meeting. The initial draft of Article 22
(Governance) was written by F. Pleijel, A. Minelli, and K. Kron and
subsequently modified by M. Donoghue and P. Cantino. The initial
draft of what is now Recommendation 11.10B was contributed by T.

xiv
 Preface

Rowe. An earlier draft of what is now Article 10.10 was written by

Gerry Moore, who also provided Example 1. Article 8 and Appendix
A (both of which concern registration) were written largely by T.
Eriksson. William M. Owens provided the Latin terms in Article
9.2. Whenever possible, the writers of the PhyloCode used as a
model the draft BioCode (Greuter et al., 1998), which attempted to
unify the rank-based approach into a single code. Thus, the orga-
nization of the PhyloCode, some of its terminology, and the word-
ing of certain rules are derived from the BioCode. Other rules are
derived from one or more of the rank-based codes, particularly the
versions of the botanical and zoological codes that were in effect
at that time (Greuter et al., 1994, 2000; International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, 1985, 1999). However, many rules in
the PhyloCode have no counterpart in any code based on taxonomic
ranks because of fundamental differences in the definitional founda-
tions of the alternative systems.
The first public draft of the PhyloCode was posted on the Internet
in April 2000. Its existence was broadly publicized in the systematic
biology community, and readers were encouraged to submit com-
ments and suggestions. All comments received were forwarded to
the advisory group via a listserver, and many of them elicited dis-
cussion. Numerous commentaries about phylogenetic nomenclature
have been published since the first public posting of the PhyloCode,
some of them critical (Benton, 2000, 2007; Nixon and Carpenter,
2000; Stuessy, 2000, 2001; Forey, 2001, 2002; Lobl, 2001; Berry,
2002; Blackwell, 2002; Jørgensen, 2002, 2004; Carpenter, 2003;
Janovec et al., 2003; Keller et al., 2003; Kojima, 2003; Moore, 2003;
Nixon et al., 2003; Schuh, 2003; Barkley et al., 2004; Wenzel et
al., 2004; Pickett, 2005; Polaszek and Wilson, 2005; Tang and Lu,
2005; Monsch, 2006; Rieppel, 2006; Stevens, 2006; Platnick, 2009,
2012, 2013), some supportive (Bremer, 2000; Cantino, 2000, 2004;
de Queiroz, 2000, 2006; Brochu and Sumrall, 2001; de Queiroz
and Cantino, 2001a, b; Ereshefsky, 2001; Laurin, 2001, 2005; Lee,
2001; Bryant and Cantino, 2002; Bertrand and Pleijel, 2003; Pleijel

xv
 Preface

and Rouse, 2003; Donoghue and Gauthier, 2004; Laurin, 2005a, b,

2008; Laurin et al., 2005, 2006; Lee and Skinner, 2007; de Queiroz
and Donoghue, 2011, 2013), and some pointing out both advantages
and disadvantages (Langer, 2001; Stevens, 2002). Other publications
since 2000 have discussed properties of different kinds of phyloge-
netic definitions (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001), the application
of widely used names to a particular category of clades (Anderson,
2002; Laurin, 2002; Joyce et al., 2004; Laurin and Anderson, 2004;
Donoghue, 2005; Sereno, 2005), the conversion of rank-based names
to phylogenetically defined names (Joyce et al., 2004), the choice of
specifiers (Lee, 2005; Sereno, 2005; Wilkinson, 2006), the number
of specifiers (Bertrand and Härlin, 2006), the subjective nature of
Linnaean categories (Laurin, 2010), the application of phylogenetic
nomenclature to species or least inclusive clades (Pleijel and Rouse,
2000, 2003; Artois, 2001; Hillis et al., 2001; Lee, 2002; Spangler,
2003; Dayrat et al., 2004; Dayrat, 2005; Dayrat and Gosliner,
2005; Fisher, 2006; Wolsan, 2007), the relevance of phylogenetic
nomenclature to phyloinformatics (Donoghue, 2004; Hibbett et al.,
2005), the logic and symbolic representation of phylogenetic defini-
tions (Sereno, 2005), the philosophy of different approaches to phy-
logenetic nomenclature (Härlin, 2003a, b; Pleijel and Härlin, 2004),
the use of phylogenetic nomenclature without a code (Sereno, 2005),
guidelines for interpreting and establishing pre-PhyloCode phyloge-
netic definitions after the PhyloCode is implemented (Taylor, 2007),
similarities between phylogenetic nomenclature and nomenclature
as practiced by 18th- and early 19th century naturalists (de Queiroz,
2005, 2012), the possibility of combining elements of phylogenetic
and rank-based nomenclature (Kuntner and Agnarsson, 2006), and
the development of an integrated approach to naming crown and
total clades (de Queiroz, 2007). There have also been many applica-
tions of phylogenetic nomenclature to particular clades (some early
examples, in addition to those cited in the first paragraph of this
section, are Donoghue et al., 2001; Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001;
Maryanska et al., 2002; Modesto and Anderson, 2004; Smedmark

xvi
 Preface

and Eriksson, 2002; Wolfe et al., 2002; Stefanovic et al., 2003;

Clarke, 2004; Joyce et al., 2004; Sangster, 2005; Taylor and Naish,
2005; Cantino et al., 2007).
A second workshop on phylogenetic nomenclature was held at
Yale University, July 28–30, 2002, organized by Michael Donoghue,
Jacques Gauthier, Philip Cantino, and Kevin de Queiroz. There
were 20 attendees from five countries, four of whom were observers.
The active (voting) participants were Christopher Brochu, Harold
Bryant, Philip Cantino, Kevin de Queiroz, Michael Donoghue,
Torsten Eriksson, Jacques Gauthier, David Hibbett, Michel Laurin,
Brent Mishler, Gerry Moore, Fredrik Pleijel, J. Mark Porter, Greg
Rouse, Christoffer Schander, and Mikael Thollesson. Sixteen pro-
posed changes in the rules and recommendations were discussed, 11
of which were approved. (Many other minor wording changes had
already been circulated by e-mail and approved in advance of the
workshop.)
In addition to specific rule changes, the 2002 workshop focused on
several larger issues, the most fundamental of which concerned the
governance of species names. The first public draft of the PhyloCode
covered only clade names. Among the advisory group members, there
was a diversity of opinions on how species names should be handled,
ranging from those who thought that species names should never
be governed by the PhyloCode to those who argued that their inclu-
sion is so essential that the PhyloCode should not be implemented
until rules governing species names have been added. The majority
held the intermediate view that species names should eventually be
included in the PhyloCode but that the controversy surrounding spe-
cies and species names, both within the advisory group and in the
systematics community as a whole, should not be allowed to delay
implementation of the rules for clade names. Thus, it was decided,
first, that rules for clade names and rules for species names would
be published in separate documents and, second, that the timing of
implementation of the two documents would be independent; thus,
the rules for clade names would likely be implemented before those

xvii
 Preface

for species names. (This decision was reconsidered in 2006, and a

different approach to species names was adopted by the CPN in
2007; see below.)
A second major decision at the 2002 Yale workshop concerned
the proposal of a companion volume, to be published simultane-
ously with the PhyloCode, that would define various clade names
following the rules of the PhyloCode and serve as its starting point
with regard to priority. (This companion volume was later named
Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode.) As originally conceived,
the companion volume would have included phylogenetic definitions
of the most widely known names in most major groups of organ-
isms. It was soon realized that several volumes would be needed,
that producing these volumes would be an immense job, and that
linking the starting date of the PhyloCode to their publication would
greatly delay its implementation. For this reason, the participants in
the second workshop decided to reduce the scope of the companion
volume. Instead of attempting a comprehensive treatment of widely
known clade names for all major groups of organisms, the compan-
ion volume would include only examples involving taxa for which
there were systematists who could be recruited to contribute entries.
A plan for a conference was conceived in which participants would
apply phylogenetic nomenclature to clades that they study. The defi-
nitions from the papers presented at the conference would form the
nucleus of the companion volume. Michel Laurin offered to orga-
nize the meeting, and Kevin de Queiroz and Jacques Gauthier were
chosen to edit the companion volume (Philip Cantino was enlisted
in 2004 as a third editor).
The First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting took
place July 6–9, 2004, at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
in Paris, organized by a 10-member committee chaired by Michel
Laurin. The meeting was described in detail by Laurin and Cantino
(2004), and the program and abstracts are available at www.phy-
locode.org and www.phylonames.org. Unlike the preceding work-
shops, this conference included research presentations and was open

xviii
 Preface

to anyone interested in attending. It was attended by 70 people from

11 countries, and 36 papers were presented. The Paris conference
also served as the inaugural meeting of the International Society
for Phylogenetic Nomenclature (ISPN), including the election of a
governing council and officers and approval of the bylaws (available
at the subsequently established ISPN website: www.phylonames.
org). The ISPN includes an elected Committee on Phylogenetic
Nomenclature, whose responsibilities include ratifying the first edi-
tion of the PhyloCode and approving any subsequent modifications
(for full responsibilities, see Article 22).
Presentations were given at the Paris meeting on the theory and
practice of phylogenetic nomenclature and its applications to a wide
variety of groups. Besides the inauguration of the ISPN, there were
several other important outcomes of the meeting: (1) A proposal by
K. de Queiroz and J. Gauthier to adopt “an integrated system of
phylogenetically defined names,” including the application of widely
known names to crown clades and forming the names of the cor-
responding total clades by adding the prefix “Pan-” to the name of
the crown (Lauterbach, 1989; Meier and Richter, 1992; Gauthier
and de Queiroz, 2001; Joyce et al., 2004), was introduced and vig-
orously discussed. Some participants were reluctant to make these
conventions mandatory because doing so would result in replacing
some names that had already been explicitly defined as the names
of total clades (e.g., replacing Synapsida by Pan-Mammalia). A com-
promise that made exceptions for such names was acceptable to
the majority of the participants, and it served as the basis for the
set of rules and recommendations that was eventually adopted by
the CPN (Recommendation 10.1B and Articles 10.3–10.8 in ver-
sion 3 of the PhyloCode, and after some subsequent modifications,
Recommendation 10.1B and Articles 10.3–10.7 in the current ver-
sion). (2) Benoît Dayrat proposed that phylogenetically defined spe-
cies names consist of a single word (the second part of the binomen
in the case of already existing names) plus the author of the name,
year of publication, and (if necessary to ensure uniqueness) the page

xix
 Preface

number where published (Dayrat et al., 2004). In practice, the name

of a small clade (generally corresponding to a genus under the rank-
based system) would likely be cited before the species name, but
it would not be part of the species name. In conversation and in
teaching, the name would likely be abbreviated to the single word
(i.e., omitting the author and year) when doing so is unambiguous.
Dayrat’s proposal was well received by conference participants. (3)
Julia Clarke proposed a flexible way of defining species names that
is applicable to the wide variety of entities that are called species.
The definitions would take the form “the species that includes speci-
men X” (de Queiroz, 1992), and the author would be required to
explain what he/she means by “species.” This approach is similar to
the way species names are implicitly defined in rank-based nomen-
clature but differs in that the species category is not a rank, and the
author is required to explain the kind of entity to which the name
refers. (4) In a straw vote of meeting participants, it was decided
that Clarke, Dayrat, Cantino, and de Queiroz would draft a code
for species names based on the above-described proposals of Clarke
and Dayrat. Consistent with the decision made at the 2002 Yale
workshop, this code would be separate from, but compatible with,
the code for clade names.
In the fall of 2004, Cantino and de Queiroz drafted a code for
species names based on the proposals approved at the Paris meeting.
After review of the draft by Dayrat and Clarke and e-mail discus-
sion of unresolved issues, the four potential authors of the code met
at the Smithsonian Institution on May 20–21, 2006. In the process
of drafting the code, the seriousness of the drawbacks of extending
the PhyloCode to species names using an epithet-based format had
become more apparent. Most critically, species names would be dif-
ferent under rank-based and phylogenetic nomenclature (e.g., “Homo
sapiens” vs. “sapiens Linnaeus 1758”), which would create confusion.
Second, differences in the way types are handled under the zoo-
logical and botanical codes would complicate the development of
a universal code governing species names. Third, establishing and

xx
 Preface

registering reformatted names for every species known to science

would be an immense job—and one of questionable value given that
there would be no fundamental difference in the way that the names
would be defined. What emerged from the May 2006 meeting was
an entirely different (and much simpler) way to reconcile the incom-
patibilities between traditional binominal species names and phy-
logenetic nomenclature—including the mandatory genus category
and the fact that many genera are not monophyletic. This approach
was subsequently adopted by the CPN (May, 2007), described in
detail by Dayrat et al. (2008), and incorporated into the code (as
Article 21).
The Second Meeting of the ISPN took place June 28–July 2,
2006, at the Peabody Museum of Yale University, organized by an
eight-member committee co-chaired by Nico Cellinese and Walter
Joyce. Most of the papers were presented in three symposia: phy-
logenetic nomenclature of species (organized by David Baum and
Benoît Dayrat), implementing phylogenetic nomenclature (orga-
nized by Philip Cantino), and phyloinformatics (organized by
Michael Donoghue and Nico Cellinese). The meeting was described
in detail by Laurin and Cantino (2006, 2007), and the program
and abstracts are available at www.phylocode.org and www.phy-
lonames.org. At this second ISPN meeting, more time was devoted
to open-ended discussions of issues raised in the presentations. The
new approach to species names that was developed at the May 2006
meeting in Washington (see previous paragraph) was presented in
talks by Clarke and Dayrat and was well received in the subsequent
discussion. They and their coauthors (Cantino and de Queiroz) were
encouraged to continue work on a set of rules and recommendations
that would implement this approach.
Another issue that generated a lot of discussion at the second ISPN
meeting was the integrated system of crown- and total-clade names
that was introduced at the 2004 Paris meeting and incorporated into
PhyloCode version 3. Although the rules and recommendations pro-
moting an integrated system in version 3 represented a compromise,

xxi
 Preface

there was still a lot of dissatisfaction on the part of some discussants.

An alternative means of referring to total clades using “pan” as a
function name was proposed by T. Michael Keesey. In the course of
the discussion, it was suggested that the prefix “pan-” (lower case) be
used to designate informal names for total clades that may or may
not have a formal name. Because informal names do not compete
with formal names for precedence, they can coexist without violat-
ing Principle 3 (that each taxon may have only one accepted name).
Using this approach, a widely used name could be retained for a
total clade and coexist with an informal name with the prefix “pan-.”
For example, the total clade of mammals might have the formal
name Synapsida and the informal name pan-Mammalia. This sug-
gestion led to changes in Article 10 that were approved by the CPN
in January 2007 and included in this version of the code.
The Third Meeting of the ISPN took place July 20–22, 2008, at
Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, organized by a four-
member committee chaired by Harold Bryant. It was coordinated
with a joint meeting of the International Society of Protistologists
and the International Society for Evolutionary Protistology. In addi-
tion to contributed papers (see Laurin and Bryant, 2009, for details),
including a plenary talk by Sina Adl focusing on issues in protist
nomenclature, the meeting focused on how to expedite completion
of two critical projects that must reach fruition before implementa-
tion of the code: preparation of the companion volume (Phylonyms),
to be published simultaneously with the code, and development of
the registration database (RegNum).
Because registration is required for establishment of names
under the PhyloCode, the registration database (which has come to
be known as RegNum) had to be developed before the code could
be implemented. Torsten Eriksson and Mikael Thollesson initially
designed the database structure and reported on it at the 2002 Yale
workshop. Further development of the database and web/user inter-
face was subsequently carried out at Uppsala University by Jonas
Ekstedt and M. Thollesson. An alpha test site for this version was

xxii
 Preface

announced at the 2004 Paris meeting. A prototype of RegNum was

demonstrated at a meeting of the ISPN Registration Committee
(Mikael Thollesson, Torsten Eriksson, and Nico Cellinese) and other
interested persons at Yale University on November 2–3, 2005, and
it was subsequently demonstrated at both the 2006 and 2008 ISPN
meetings. In 2009, Nico Cellinese (University of Florida), who was
chair of the Registration Committee at the time of this writing,
started the development of a more comprehensive and flexible proto-
type. The new version of RegNum was conceived in line with other
developments concerning biological name repositories and resolu-
tion services (e.g., Global Name Architecture). RegNum’s prototype
was demonstrated at the 2009 Biodiversity Information Standards
(TDWG) meeting in Montpellier, France, during a workshop that
focused on phylogenetic nomenclature and future informatics devel-
opment. The RegNum database currently satisfies the requirements
of the PhyloCode, and plans are in place to integrate it with several
tools and data repositories (e.g., TreeBASE) that will enhance its
relevance for phylogenetic research.
In October 2011, the CPN received a proposal by Nico Cellinese,
David Baum, and Brent Mishler concerning the treatment of species
in this code, the justification for which was published by Cellinese
et al. (2012). Their fundamental premise was that the code is too
strongly tied to a particular view on the nature of species, which
is not accepted by everyone who would like to use phylogenetic
nomenclature, and their proposed solution was to eliminate all men-
tion of species in the code. The proposal was publicized on the ISPN
website and stimulated more than a year of intermittent discussion
on the CPN listserv. In the end, the CPN accepted the underlying
premise of the proposal but rejected the proposed solution, which
would have entailed radical changes in the code, including: elimi-
nating the use of species as specifiers (thus only specimens would
be specifiers); permitting the establishment of preexisting specific
epithets as clade names; redefining the term “homonym” such that
established clade names may be identical provided that the authors

xxiii
 Preface

and publication years differ; and elimination of Article 21, which

provides recommendations on how to use species names governed by
the rank-based codes in conjunction with clade names governed by
this code. Instead of eliminating all reference to species, the defini-
tion of “species” was broadened to accommodate the view that the
species category is simply a rank in the Linnaean hierarchy, while
continuing to accommodate the view that it is a kind of biological
entity. In addition, the CPN discussion of the Cellinese et al. pro-
posal led to other changes not proposed by those authors, especially
changes in Article 11 related to using species versus type specimens
as specifiers.
An important change approved by the CPN in August 2013 was
the expansion of the treatment of phylogenetic definitions, which in
many ways are the heart of this code. What were formerly a long and
complicated note (9.3.1) and three related recommendations (9.3B,
9D, and 9E) were expanded into six articles (9.4–9.7 and 9.9–9.10).
Following a proposal by de Queiroz (2013) that was motivated by
a distinction emphasized by Martin et al. (2010), node-based and
branch-based definitions were replaced with minimum-clade and
maximum-clade definitions, respectively, throughout the code. The
primary reason for this change was to employ definitions that are
applicable in the context of both common interpretations of phylo-
genetic trees—one in which branches represent lineages and nodes
represent ancestors at lineage-splitting events; the other in which
branches represent relationships and nodes represent taxa (the term
“branch-based” is inappropriate in the latter context, in which all
phylogenetic definitions are effectively node-based).
Another important change in Article 9 is the explicit recogni-
tion of definition categories for the names of crown clades (Article
9.9) and total clades (Article 9.10), the variants of which (e.g., the
maximum-crown-clade definition, which is roughly equivalent to
what were previously called branch-modified node-based definition)
are presented more systematically and thoroughly than in previ-
ous versions of the code. Additionally, a new note (9.5.1) was added

xxiv
 Preface

describing a kind of minimum-clade definition that had no ana-

log in previous versions of this code, the directly-specified-ancestor
definition, wherein the ancestor in which the clade originated is
identified by name rather than being specified indirectly through its
descendants, and Note 9.9.2 was added to describe its use for defin-
ing the names of crown clades.
Readers interested in more information about the sequence of
changes from one version of this code to the next are referred to
www.phylocode.org, where all previous versions are available. The
changes implemented in versions 3 and 4 are summarized in the
preface of each, and changes implemented in version 5 are summa-
rized in a separate document.
There is only one major modification in the current version of
the code (version 6) relative to version 5. The rules on publication
(Articles 4 and 5) have been revised to permit electronic publication,
based on modifications proposed by Nico Cellinese and Richard
Olmstead. Most other changes from version 5 are simply clarifica-
tions, but two new rules (Articles 10.7 and 14.5) have been added to
ensure that accepted panclade names are always based on the names
of the corresponding crown clades.

Acknowledgments. We thank current and past members of the

Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature for reviewing and approv-
ing earlier drafts of the Code as well as proposed additions, dele-
tions, and other modifications: Sina Adl, Frank (Andy) Anderson,
Brian Andres, Tom Artois, Christopher Brochu, Harold Bryant,
David Cannatella, Nico Cellinese, Julia Clarke, Benoît Dayrat, Jim
Doyle, Micah Dunthorn, Jacques Gauthier, Sean Graham, John
Hall, David Hibbett, David Hillis, Walter Joyce, Michael Keesey,
Max Cardoso Langer, Michel Laurin, David Marjanović, Richard
Olmstead, Kevin Padian, Fredrik Pleijel, Greg Rouse, George
Sangster, David Tank, and Mieczyslaw Wolsan. We wish to give
special thanks to David Marjanović for his thorough reviews and
numerous constructive suggestions, Michael Keesey for design and

xxv
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
armies were in the field, and the quick and signal triumph of
its forces on land and sea bore equal tribute to the courage
of American soldiers and sailors and to the skill and
foresight of Republican statesmanship. To ten millions of the
human race there was given 'a new birth of freedom,' and to
the American people a new and noble responsibility.

"'We indorse the Administration of William McKinley. Its acts

have been established in wisdom and in patriotism, and at home
and abroad it has distinctly elevated and extended the
influence of the American nation. Walking untried paths and
facing unforeseen responsibilities, President McKinley has
been in every situation the true American patriot and the
upright statesman, clear in vision, strong in judgment, firm
in action, always inspiring and deserving the confidence of
his countrymen. In asking the American people to indorse this
Republican record and to renew their commission to the
Republican party, we remind them of the fact that the menace
to their prosperity has always resided in Democratic
principles, and no less in the general incapacity of the
Democratic party to conduct public affairs. The prime
essential of business prosperity is public confidence in the
good sense of the Government, and in its ability to deal
intelligently with each new problem of administration and
legislation. That confidence the Democratic party has never
earned. It is hopelessly inadequate, and the country's
prosperity when Democratic success at the polls is announced
halts and ceases in mere anticipation of Democratic blunders
and failures.

"We renew our allegiance to the principle of the gold

standard, and declare our confidence in the wisdom of the
legislation of the Fifty-sixth Congress by which the parity of
all our money and the stability of our currency upon a gold
basis has been secured.

"We recognize that interest rates are potent factors in

production and business activity, and for the purpose of
further equalizing and of further lowering the rates of
interest, we favor such monetary legislation as will enable
the varying needs of the seasons and of all sections to be
promptly met in order that trade may be evenly sustained,
labor steadily employed, and commerce enlarged. The volume of
money in circulation was never so great per capita as it is
to-day.

"We declare our steadfast opposition to the free and unlimited

coinage of silver. No measure to that end could be considered
which was without the support of the leading commercial
countries of the world. However firmly Republican legislation
may seem to have secured the country against the peril of base
and discredited currency, the election of a Democratic
President could not fail to impair the country's credit and to
bring once more into question the intention of the American
people to maintain upon the gold standard the parity of their
money circulation. The Democratic party must be convinced that
the American people will never tolerate the Chicago platform.

"We recognize the necessity and propriety of the honest

cooperation of capital to meet new business conditions, and
especially to extend our rapidly increasing foreign trade, but
we condemn all conspiracies and combinations intended to
restrict business, to create monopolies, to limit production,
or to control prices, and favor such legislation as will
effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and
promote competition, and secure the rights of producers,
laborers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce.

"We renew our faith in the policy of protection to American

labor. In that policy our industries have been established,
diversified, and maintained. By protecting the home market
competition has been stimulated and production cheapened.
Opportunity to the inventive genius of our people has been
secured and wages in every department of labor maintained at
high rates, higher now than ever before, and always
distinguishing our working people in their better conditions
of life from those of any competing country. Enjoying the
blessings of the American common school, secure in the right
of self-government, and protected in the occupancy of their
own markets, their constantly increasing knowledge and skill
have enabled them finally to enter the markets of the world.

"We favor the associated policy of reciprocity so directed as

to open our markets on favorable terms for what we do not
ourselves produce in return for free foreign markets.

"In the further interest of American workmen we favor a more

effective restriction of the immigration of cheap labor from
foreign lands, the extension of opportunities of education for
working children, the raising of the age limit for child
labor, the protection of free labor as against contract
convict labor, and an effective system of labor insurance.

"Our present dependence upon foreign shipping for nine-tenths

of our foreign carrying is a great loss to the industry of
this country. It is also a serious danger to our trade, for
its sudden withdrawal in the event of European war would
seriously cripple our expanding foreign commerce. The National
defence and naval efficiency of this country, moreover, supply
a compelling reason for legislation which will enable us to
recover our former place among the trade carrying fleets of
the world.

"The nation owes a debt of profound gratitude to the soldiers

and sailors who have fought its battles, and it is the
Government's duty to provide for the survivors and for the
widows and orphans of those who have fallen in the country's
wars. The pension laws, founded in this just sentiment, should
be liberal, and should be liberally administered, and
preference should be given wherever practicable with respect
to employment in the public service to soldiers and sailors
 and to their widows and orphans.

"We commend the policy of the Republican party in maintaining

the efficiency of the Civil Service. The Administration has
acted wisely in its effort to secure for public service in
Cuba, Porto Rico, Hawaii and the Philippine Islands only those
whose fitness has been determined by training and experience.
We believe that employment in the public service in these
territories should be confined as far as practicable to their
inhabitants.

"It was the plain purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment to the

Constitution to prevent discrimination on account of race or
color in regulating the elective franchise. Devices of State
governments, whether by statutory or constitutional enactment
to avoid the purpose of this amendment are revolutionary and
should be condemned.

{651}

"Public movements looking to a permanent improvement of the

roads and highways of the country meet with our cordial
approval and we recommend this subject to the earnest
consideration of the people and of the Legislatures of the
several States. We favor the extension of the rural free
delivery service wherever its extension may be justified.

"In further pursuance of the constant policy of the Republican

party to provide free homes on the public domain, we recommend
adequate National legislation to reclaim the arid lands of the
United States, reserving control of the distribution of water for
irrigation to the respective States and Territories.

"We favor home rule for and the early admission to Statehood
of the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma.

"The Dingley act, amended to provide sufficient revenue for

the conduct of the war, has so well performed its work that it
has been possible to reduce the war debt in the sum of
$40,000,000. So ample are the Government's revenues and so
great is the public confidence in the integrity of its
obligations that its newly funded 2 per cent bonds sell at a
premium. The country is now justified in expecting, and it
will be the policy of the Republican party to bring about, a
reduction of the war taxes.

"We favor the construction, ownership, control and protection

of an isthmian canal by the Government of the United States.

"New markets are necessary for the increasing surplus of our

farm products. Every effort should be made to open and obtain
new markets, especially in the Orient, and the Administration
is warmly to be commended for its successful effort to commit
all trading and colonizing nations to the policy of the open
door in China.

"In the interest of our expanding commerce we recommend that

Congress create a department of commerce and industries in the
charge of a secretary with a seat in the Cabinet. The United
States consular system should be reorganized under the
supervision of this new department, upon such a basis of
appointment and tenure as will render it still more
serviceable to the Nation's increasing trade. The American
Government must protect the person and property of every
citizen wherever they are wrongfully violated or placed in
peril.

"We congratulate the women of America upon their splendid

record of public service in the volunteer aid association, and
as nurses in camp and hospital during the recent campaigns of
our armies in the Eastern and Western Indies, and we
appreciate their faithful co-operation in all works of
education and industry.
"President McKinley has conducted the foreign affairs of the
United States with distinguished credit to the American
people. In releasing us from the vexatious conditions of a
European alliance for the government of Samoa his course is
especially to be commended. By securing to our undivided
control the most important island of the Samoan group and the
best harbor in the Southern Pacific, every American interest
has been safeguarded. We approve the annexation of the
Hawaiian Islands to the United States. We commend the part
taken by our Government in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
We assert our steadfast adherence to the policy announced in
the Monroe Doctrine. The provisions of The Hague Convention
were wisely regarded when President McKinley tendered his
friendly offices in the interest of peace between Great
Britain and the South African republics. While the American
Government must continue the policy prescribed by Washington,
affirmed by every succeeding President and imposed upon us by
The Hague Treaty, of non-intervention in European
controversies, the American people earnestly hope that a way
may soon be found, honorable alike to both contending parties,
to terminate the strife between them.

"In accepting by the Treaty of Paris the just responsibility

of our victories in the Spanish war the President and the
Senate won the undoubted approval of the American people. No
other course was possible than to destroy Spain's sovereignty
throughout the West Indies and in the Philippine Islands. That
course created our responsibility before the world, and with
the unorganized population whom our intervention had freed
from Spain, to provide for the maintenance of law and order,
and for the establishment of good government and for the
performance of international obligations. Our authority could
not be less than our responsibility, and wherever sovereign
rights were extended it became the high duty of the Government
to maintain its authority, to put down armed insurrection and
to confer the blessings of liberty and civilization upon all
the rescued peoples. The largest measure of self-government
 consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured
to them by law.

"To Cuba independence and self-government were assured in the

same voice by which war was declared, and to the letter this
pledge will be performed.

"The Republican party upon its history, and upon this

declaration of its principles and policies, confidently
invokes the considerate and approving judgment of the American
people."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900

Prohibition Party Platform and Nominations.

In the next week after the meeting of the Republican national

convention, that of the Prohibition Party was held at Chicago,
opening on the 27th of June. It chose Mr. John G. Woolley, of
Chicago (already named by the United Christian Party for Vice
President—see above) to be its candidate for President, with
Mr. Henry B. Metcalfe, of Rhode Island, for Vice President.
Setting aside all political issues save those connected with
the liquor traffic, its declarations were confined to that
subject alone, and were as follows:

"The National Prohibition party, in convention represented at

Chicago, June 27 and 28, 1900, acknowledged Almighty God as
the supreme source of all just government. Realizing that this
Republic was founded upon Christian principles, and can endure
only as it embodies justice and righteousness, and asserting
that all authority should seek the best good of all the
governed, to this end wisely prohibiting what is wrong and
permitting only what is right, hereby records and proclaims:

{652}

"First.—We accept and assert the definition given by Edward

Burke, that a party is 'a body of men joined together for the
purpose of protecting by their joint endeavor the National
interest upon some particular principle upon which they are
all agreed.'

"We declare that there is no principle now advocated, by any

other party, which could be made a fact in government with
such beneficent moral and material results as the principle of
prohibition applied to the beverage liquor traffic; that the
National interest could be promoted in no other way so surely
and widely as by its adoption and assertion through a National
policy and a cooperation therein by every State, forbidding
the manufacture, sale, exportation, importation, and
transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes;
that we stand for this as the only principle proposed by any
party anywhere for the settlement of a question greater and
graver than any other before the American people, and
involving more profoundly than any other their moral future
and financial welfare; and that all the patriotic citizenship
of this country agreed upon this principle, however much
disagreement there may be as to minor considerations and
issues, should stand together at the ballot-box from this time
forward until prohibition is the established policy of the
United States, with a party in power to enforce it and to
insure its moral and material benefits.

"We insist that such a party agreed upon this principle and
policy, having sober leadership, without any obligation for
success to the saloon vote and to those demoralizing political
combinations, can successfully cope with all other and lesser
problems of government, in legislative halls and in the
executive chair, and that it is useless for any party to make
declarations in its platform as to any questions concerning
which there may be serious differences of opinion in its own
membership and as to which, because of such differences, the
party could legislate only on a basis of mutual concessions
when coming into power.
"We submit that the Democratic and Republican parties are
alike insincere in their assumed hostility to trusts and
monopolies. They dare not and do not attack the most dangerous
of them all, the liquor power. So long as the saloon debauches
the citizen and breeds the purchasable voter, money will
continue to buy its way to power. Break down this traffic,
elevate manhood, and a sober citizenship will find a way to
control dangerous combinations of capital. We purpose, as a
first step in the financial problem of the nation, to save
more than a billion of dollars every year, now annually
expended to support the liquor traffic and to demoralize our
people. When that is accomplished, conditions will have so
improved that with a clearer atmosphere the country can
address itself to the questions as to the kind and quantity of
currency needed.

"Second.—We reaffirm as true indisputably the declaration of

William Windom, when Secretary of the Treasury in the Cabinet
of President Arthur, that 'considered socially, financially,
politically, or morally, the licensed liquor traffic is or
ought to be the overwhelming issue in American politics, and
that the destruction of this iniquity stands next on the
calendar of the world's progress.' We hold that the existence
of our party presents this issue squarely to the American
people, and lays upon them the responsibility of choice
between liquor parties, dominated by distillers and brewers,
with their policy of saloon perpetuation breeding waste,
wickedness, woe, pauperism, taxation, corruption, and crime,
and our one party of patriotic and moral principle, with a
policy which defends it from domination by corrupt bosses, and
which insures it forever against the blighting control of
saloon politics.

"We face with sorrow, shame, and fear the awful fact that this
liquor traffic has a grip on our Government, municipal, State,
and National, through the revenue system and a saloon
sovereignty, which no other party dare to dispute; a grip
which dominates the party now in power, from caucus to
Congress, from policemen to President, from the rum shop to
the White House; a grip which compels the Executive to consent
that law shall be nullified in behalf of the brewer, that the
canteen shall curse our army and spread intemperance across
the seas, and that our flag shall wave as the symbol of
partnership, at home and abroad, between this Government and
the men who defy and defile it for their unholy gain.

"Third.—We charge upon President McKinley, who was elected to

his high office by appeal to Christian sentiment and
patriotism almost unprecedented and by a combination of moral
influences never before seen in this country, that by his
conspicuous example as a wine-drinker at public banquets and
as a wine-serving host in the White House, he has done more to
encourage the liquor business, to demoralize the temperance
habits of young men, and to bring Christian practices and
requirements into disrepute than any other President this
Republic has had. "We further charge upon President McKinley
responsibility for the Army canteen, with all its dire brood
of disease, immorality, sin and death, in this country, in
Cuba, in Porto Rico and the Philippines; and we insist that by
his attitude concerning the canteen, and his apparent contempt
for the vast number of petitions and petitioners protesting
against it, he has outraged and insulted the moral sentiment
of this country in such a manner and to such a degree as calls
for its righteous uprising and his indignant and effective
rebuke. We challenge denial of the fact that our Chief
Executive, as commander in chief of the military forces of the
United States, at any time prior to or since March 2, 1899,
could have closed every Army saloon, called a canteen, by
executive order, as President Hayes in effect did before him,
and should have closed them, for the same reason that actuated
President Hayes; we assert that the act of Congress passed
March 2, 1899, forbidding the sale of liquor, 'in any post
exchange or canteen,' by any 'officer or private soldier' or
 by 'any other person on any premises used for military
purposes in the United States,' was and is as explicit an act
of prohibition as the English language can frame; we declare
our solemn belief that the Attorney-General of the United
States in his interpretation of that law, and the Secretary of
War in his acceptance of that interpretation and his refusal
to enforce the law, were and are guilty of treasonable
nullification thereof, and that President McKinley, through
his assent to and indorsement of such interpretation and
refusal on the part of officials appointed by and responsible
to him, shares responsibility in their guilt; and we record
our conviction that a new and serious peril confronts our
country, in the fact that its President, at the behest of the
beer power, dare and does abrogate a law of Congress, through
subordinates removable at will by him and whose acts become
his, and thus virtually confesses that laws are to be
administered or to be nullified in the interest of a
law-defying business, by an Administration under mortgage to
such business for support.

{653}

"Fourth.-We deplore the fact that an Administration of this

Republic claiming the right and power to carry our flag across
seas, and to conquer and annex new territory, should admit its
lack of power to prohibit the American saloon on subjugated
soil, or should openly confess itself subject to liquor
sovereignty under that flag. We are humiliated, exasperated
and grieved by the evidence painfully abundant that this
Administration's policy of expansion is bearing so rapidly its
first fruits of drunkenness, insanity and crime under the
hothouse sun of the tropics; and when the president of the
first Philippine Commission says 'It was unfortunate that we
introduced and established the saloon there, to corrupt the
natives and to exhibit the vices of our race,' we charge the
inhumanity and un-Christianity of this act upon the
Administration of William McKinley and upon the party which
elected and would perpetuate the same.

"Fifth.—We declare that the only policy which the Government

of the United States can of right uphold as to the liquor
traffic under the National Constitution upon any territory
under the military or civil control of that Government is the
policy of prohibition; that 'to establish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote
the general welfare, and insure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity,' as the Constitution provides,
the liquor traffic must neither be sanctioned nor tolerated,
and that the revenue policy, which makes our Government a
partner with distillers and brewers and barkeepers, is a
disgrace to our civilization, an outrage upon humanity, and a
crime against God.

"We condemn the present Administration at Washington because

it has repealed the prohibitory law in Alaska, and has given
over the partly civilized tribes there to be the prey of the
American grogshop, and because it has entered upon a license
policy in our new possessions by incorporating the same in the
revenue act of Congress in the code of laws for the government
of the Hawaiian Islands.

"We call general attention to the fearful fact that

exportation of liquors from the United States to the
Philippine Islands increased from $337 in 1898 to $167,198 in
the first ten months of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900;
and that while our exportations of liquor to Cuba never
reached $30,000 a year previous to American occupation of that
island, our exports of such liquors to Cuba during the fiscal
year of 1899 reached the sum of $629,655.

"Sixth.—One great religious body (the Baptist) having truly

declared of the liquor traffic 'that it has no defensible
right to exist, that it can never be reformed, that it stands
condemned by its unrighteous fruits as a thing unchristian,
un-American, and perilous utterly to every interest in life';
another great religious body (the Methodist) having as truly
asserted and reiterated that 'no political party has the right
to expect, nor should it receive, the votes of Christian men
so long as it stands committed to the license system or
refuses to put itself on record in an attitude of open
hostility to the saloons'; other great religious bodies having
made similar deliverances, in language plain and unequivocal,
as to the liquor traffic and the duty of Christian citizenship
in opposition thereto, and the fact being plain and undeniable
that the Democratic party stands for license, the saloon, and
the canteen, while the Republican party, in policy and
administration, stands for the canteen, the saloon, and
revenue therefrom, we declare ourselves justified in expecting
that Christian voters everywhere shall cease their complicity
with the liquor curse by refusing to uphold a liquor party,
and shall unite themselves with the only party which upholds
the prohibition policy, and which for nearly thirty years has
been the faithful defender of the church, the State, the home,
and the school against the saloon, its expanders and
perpetuators, their actual and persistent foes.

"We insist that no differences of belief, as to any other

question or concern of government, should stand in the way of
such a union of moral and Christian citizenship as we hereby
invite for the speedy settlement of this paramount moral,
industrial, financial, and political issue which our party
presents; and we refrain from declaring ourselves upon all
minor matters as to which differences of opinion may exist
that hereby we may offer to the American people a platform so
broad that all can stand upon it who desire to see sober
citizenship actually sovereign over the allied hosts of evil,
sin, and crime in a government of the people, by the people,
and for the people.

"We declare that there are but two real parties to-day
concerning the liquor traffic—Perpetuationists and
 Prohibitionists—and that patriotism, Christianity, and every
interest of genuine republicanism and of pure democracy,
besides the loyal demands of our common humanity, require the
speedy union, in one solid phalanx at the ballot-box, of all
who oppose the liquor traffic's perpetuation, and who covet
endurance for this Republic."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.

Democratic Party Platform and Nominations.

The delegates of the Democratic Party met in national

convention at Kansas City, on the Fourth of July. By unanimous
vote, on the following day, they again nominated William J.
Bryan, of Nebraska, for President, and subsequently associated
with him ex-Vice President Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois,
for Vice President. The platform, adopted on the same day,
reiterating the demand of 1896 for a free and unlimited
coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1, but emphasizing the
question of colonial expansion as the "paramount issue of the
campaign," was as follows: "'We, the representatives of the
Democratic party of the United States, assembled in national
convention on the anniversary of the adoption of the
Declaration of Independence, do reaffirm our faith in that
immortal proclamation of the inalienable rights of man, and
our allegiance to the constitution framed in harmony therewith
by the fathers of the Republic. We hold with the United States
Supreme Court that the Declaration of Independence is the spirit
of our government, of which the constitution is the form and
letter.
{654}
We declare again that all governments instituted among men
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that any government not based upon the consent of the governed
is a tyranny; and that to impose upon any people a government
of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those
of a republic. We hold that the constitution follows the flag
and denounce the doctrine that an executive or congress,
deriving their existence and their powers from the
constitution, can exercise lawful authority beyond it, or in
violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half
republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that
imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to
despotism at home.

"Believing in these fundamental principles, we denounce the

Porto Rico law, enacted by a Republican Congress against the
protest and opposition of the Democratic minority, as a bold
and open violation of the Nation's organic law and a flagrant
breach of National good faith. It imposes upon the people of
Porto Rico a government without their consent, and taxation
without representation. It dishonors the American people by
repudiating a solemn pledge made in their behalf by the
commanding general of our Army, which the Porto Ricans
welcomed to a peaceful and unresisted occupation of their
land. It dooms to poverty and distress a people whose
helplessness appeals with peculiar force to our justice and
magnanimity. In this, the first act of its imperialistic
programme, the Republican party seeks to commit the United
States to a colonial policy inconsistent with republican
institutions and condemned by the Supreme Court in numerous
decisions.

"We demand the prompt and honest fulfilment of our pledge to

the Cuban people and the world, that the United States has no
disposition nor intention to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or control over the island of Cuba, except for
its pacification. The war ended nearly two years ago, profound
peace reigns over all the island, and still the Administration
keeps the government of the island from its people, while
Republican carpetbag officials plunder its revenue and exploit
the colonial theory to the disgrace of the American people.

"We condemn and denounce the Philippine policy of the present

Administration. It has embroiled the Republic in an
unnecessary war, sacrificed the lives of many of its noblest
sons, and placed the United States, previously known and
applauded throughout the world as the champion of freedom, in
the false and un-American position of crushing with military
force the efforts of our former allies to achieve liberty and
self-government. The Filipinos cannot be citizens without
endangering our civilization; they cannot be subjects without
imperilling our form of government; and as we are not willing
to surrender our civilization, or to convert the Republic into
an empire, we favor an immediate declaration of the Nation's
purpose to give to the Filipinos, first, a stable form of
government; second, independence; and third, protection from
outside interference such as has been given for nearly a
century to the republics of Central and South America. The
greedy commercialism which dictated the Philippine policy of
the Republican Administration attempts to justify it with the
plea that it will pay, but even this sordid and unworthy plea
fails when brought to the test of facts. The war of 'criminal
aggression' against the Filipinos, entailing an annual expense
of many millions, has already cost more than any possible
profit that could accrue from the entire Philippine trade for
years to come. Furthermore, when trade is extended at the
expense of liberty the price is always too high.

"We are not opposed to territorial expansion, when it takes in

desirable territory which can be erected into States in the
Union, and whose people are willing and fit to become American
citizens. We favor trade expansion by every peaceful and
legitimate means. But we are unalterably opposed to the
seizing or purchasing of distant islands to be governed
outside the Constitution and whose people can never become
citizens. We are in favor of extending the Republic's
influence among the nations, but believe that influence should
be extended not by force and violence, but through the
persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

"The importance of other questions now pending before the

American people is in nowise diminished and the Democratic
party takes no backward step from its position on them; but
the burning issue of imperialism, growing out of the Spanish
war, involving the very existence of the Republic and the
destruction of our free institutions, we regard as the
paramount issue of the campaign.

"The declaration of the Republican platform adopted at the

Philadelphia Convention, held in June, 1900, that the
Republican party 'steadfastly adheres to the policy announced
in the Monroe Doctrine,' is manifestly insincere and
deceptive. This profession is contradicted by the avowed
policy of that party, in opposition to the spirit of the
Monroe Doctrine, to acquire and hold sovereignty over large
areas of territory and large numbers of people in the Eastern
Hemisphere. We insist on the strict maintenance of the Monroe
Doctrine in all its integrity, both in letter and in spirit,
as necessary to prevent the extension of European authority on
these continents and as essential to our supremacy in American
affairs. At the same time we declare that no American people
shall ever be held by force in unwilling subjection to
European authority.

"We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and

intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm
which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what
millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will
impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army, an
unnecessary burden of taxation, and would be a constant menace
to their liberties. A small standing army and a well
disciplined State militia are amply sufficient in time of
peace. This Republic has no place for a vast military
establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military
service and conscription. When the Nation is in danger the
volunteer soldier is his country's best defender. The National
Guard of the United States should ever be cherished in the
patriotic hearts of a free people. Such organizations are ever
 an element of strength and safety. For the first time in our
history and coeval with the Philippine conquest has there been
a wholesale departure from our time honored and approved
system of volunteer organization. We denounce it as
un-American, undemocratic and unrepublican and as a subversion
of the ancient and fixed principles of a free people.

{655}

"Private monopolies are indefensible and intolerable. They

destroy competition, control the price of raw material and of
the finished product, thus robbing both producer and consumer.
They lessen the employment of labor and arbitrarily fix the terms
and conditions thereof; and deprive individual energy and
small capital of their opportunity for betterment. They are
the most efficient means yet devised for appropriating the
fruits of industry to the benefit of the few at the expense of
the many, and, unless their insatiate greed is checked, all
wealth will be aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
destroyed. The dishonest paltering with the trust evil by the
Republican party in its State and National platforms is
conclusive proof of the truth of the charge that trusts are
the legitimate product of Republican policies, that they are
fostered by Republican laws, and that they are protected by
the Republican Administration in return for campaign
subscriptions and political support. We pledge the Democratic
party to an unceasing warfare in Nation, State and city
against private monopoly in every form. Existing laws against
trusts must be enforced and more stringent ones must be
enacted providing for publicity as to the affairs of
corporations engaged in interstate commerce and requiring all
corporations to show, before doing business outside of the
State of their origin, that they have no water in their stock,
and that they have not attempted and are not attempting to
monopolize any branch of business or the production of any
articles of merchandise; and the whole constitutional power of
Congress over interstate commerce, the mails and all modes of
interstate communication shall be exercised by the enactment
of comprehensive laws upon the subject of trusts.

"Tariff laws should be amended by putting the products of

trusts upon the free list, to prevent monopoly under the plea
of protection. The failure of the present Republican
Administration, with an absolute control over all the branches
of the National Government, to enact any legislation designed
to prevent or even curtail the absorbing power of trusts and
illegal combinations, or to enforce the anti-trust laws
already on the statute books, proves the insincerity of the
high sounding phrases of the Republican platform. Corporations
should be protected in all their rights and their legitimate
interests should be respected, but any attempt by corporations
to interfere with the public affairs of the people or to
control the sovereignty which creates them should be forbidden
under such penalties as will make such attempts impossible. We
condemn the Dingley tariff law as a trust breeding measure
skilfully devised to give to the few favors which they do not
deserve, and to place upon the many burdens which they should
not bear. We favor such an enlargement of the scope of the
Interstate Commerce law as will enable the Commission to
protect individuals and communities from discrimination and
the public from unjust and unfair transportation rates.

"We reaffirm and indorse the principles of the National

Democratic platform adopted at Chicago in 1896 and we
reiterate the demand of that platform for an American
financial system made by the American people for themselves,
which shall restore and maintain a bimetallic price level, and
as part of such system the immediate restoration of the free
and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the present legal
ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of
any other nation.

"We denounce the currency bill enacted at the last session of

Congress as a step forward in the Republican policy which aims
to discredit the sovereign right of the National Government to
issue all money, whether coin or paper, and to bestow upon
National banks the power to issue and control the volume of
paper money for their own benefit. A permanent National bank
currency, secured by Government bonds, must have a permanent
debt to rest upon, and, if the bank currency is to increase
with population and business, the debt must also increase. The
Republican currency scheme is, therefore, a scheme for
fastening upon the taxpayers a perpetual and growing debt for
the benefit of the banks. We are opposed to this private
corporation paper circulated as money, but without legal
tender qualities, and demand the retirement of National bank
notes as fast as Government paper or silver certificates can
be substituted for them. We favor an amendment to the Federal
Constitution providing for the election of United States
Senators by direct vote of the people, and we favor direct
legislation wherever practicable. We are opposed to government
by injunction; we denounce the blacklist, and favor
arbitration as a means of settling disputes between
corporations and their employés.

"In the interest of American labor and the upbuilding of the

workingman as the cornerstone of the prosperity of our
country, we recommend that Congress create a Department of
Labor, in charge of a Secretary, with a seat in the Cabinet,
believing that the elevation of the American laborer will
bring with it increased production and increased prosperity to
our country at home and to our commerce abroad. We are proud
of the courage and fidelity of the American soldiers and
sailors in all our wars; we favor liberal pensions to them and
their dependents; and we reiterate the position taken in the
Chicago platform in 1896, that the fact of enlistment and
service shall be deemed conclusive evidence against disease
and disability before enlistment.

"We favor the immediate construction, ownership and control of

the Nicaraguan canal by the United States, and we denounce the