lnu.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 20 of 20
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Härlin, Carina
    et al.
    University of Gothenburg.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Växjö University, Faculty of Mathematics/Science/Technology, Institutionen för biovetenskaper och processteknik.
    Phylogeny of the eureptantic nemerteans revisited2001In: Zoologica Scripta, ISSN 0300-3256, E-ISSN 1463-6409, Vol. 30, no 1, p. 49-58Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we revisit the phylogeny of the eureptantic nemerteans. Three species (Kameginemertes parmiornatus, Drepanophoriella histriana, and Polyschista curacaoensis), not present in the original analyses by Härlin & Sundberg (1995), are included, and in the light of the new results we discuss the phylogenetic taxonomy as well as biogeography of the Eureptantia. The biogeography is assessed by dispersal-vicariance analysis (Ronquist 1997), and the new phylogenetic taxonomy is based on developments (Härlin 1998b, 1999b; Härlin & Sundberg 1998) of nomenclatural ideas originally presented by de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992).

  • 2. Härlin, Mikael
    Classification nomenclature2004In: McGraw-Hill yearbook of science and technology, ISSN 0076-2016, p. 52-54Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Härlin, Mikael
    University of Gothenburg.
    Concepts and components in cladistic biogeographyManuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
  • 4.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Södertörn University College.
    Definitions and phylogenetic nomenclature2005In: Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences: Volume 56, Supplement I, No. 19, 2005, p. 216-224Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Recent developments in biological nomenclature suggest advantages of phylogenetic alternatives to more traditional Linnaean approaches. My aim is to discuss some fundamental aspects underlying biological nomenclature in general and phylogenetic nomenclature in particular. A basic assumption, in both traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature, is that taxon names can and should be defined. From the ontological view of individuality I question this view and argue that taxon names only refer since no defining properties are involved for particular clades. Even if we accept the idea that a taxon is a natural kind with a historical essence, and thus has defining properties, I see problems of definitions from an epistemological and inferential point of view. Our conceptualization of phylogeny is dependent on our hypotheses. Therefore, definitions based on discarded hypotheses are problematic. Instead, each new and accepted hypothesis should form the basis of our conceptualization. Another theme in this paper is what should count as the same taxon under different hypotheses. Can a phylogenetic definition guarantee that a name always refers to the same taxon under different hypotheses? I argue that this is questionable. I conclude by suggesting that we need to rethink the role of definition, sameness, and stability in nomenclature. Rethinking these concepts, I believe, will shed some new light on biological nomenclature. My conclusions strongly favor a phylogenetic approach to nomenclature but also suggest that we, besides some practical problems, still have many interesting theoretical and philosophical aspects to take into account.

  • 5.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Växjö University, Faculty of Mathematics/Science/Technology, Institutionen för biovetenskaper och processteknik.
    Namn på djur och växter: hur handskas vi med vårt Linneanska arv på 2000-talet2000In: Teknik & vetenskap, ISSN 1402-5701, Vol. 16, no 5, p. 43-43Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 6.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Södertörn University College.
    On the relationship between content, ancestor, and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature2003In: Cladistics, ISSN 0748-3007, E-ISSN 1096-0031, Vol. 19, no 2, p. 144-147Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper I draw attention to the concepts of content and ancestry in phylogenetic nomenclature. I argue that these concepts are tightly linked and that they cannot be separated as suggested by Bryant and Cantino [Biol. Rev. 77 (2002) 39] in their recent response to a critique of phylogenetic nomenclature. In addition, I argue that the basic assumption in phylogenetic nomenclature that a taxon-name always refers to the same ancestor or ancestry is questionable.

  • 7.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Växjö University, Faculty of Mathematics/Science/Technology, Institutionen för biovetenskaper och processteknik.
    Phylogenetic approaches to nomenclature: a comparison based on a nemertean case study.1999In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences, ISSN 0962-8452, E-ISSN 1471-2954, Vol. 266, no 1434, p. 2201-2207Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Phylogenetic approaches to biological nomenclature are becoming increasingly common. Here I compare the behaviour of two such approaches, the phylogenetic system of definition and the phylogenetic system of reference, when there is a shift in the preference of phylogenetic hypotheses. The comparison is based on a case study from nemertean systematics and is the first to compare two different phylogenetic approaches throughout three stages of change, including two stages of phylogenetic nomenclature. It is concluded that a phylogenetic system of reference in combination with uninomials is superior in conveying phylogenetic information.

  • 8.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Södertörn University College.
    "Tappar vi namnen bort, även kunskap om tingen vi mister"2007In: Tvärsnitt, ISSN 0348-7997, no 2, p. 20-23Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Om relationen mellan biologin idag och Linnés klassificeringssystem

  • 9.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Södertörn University College.
    Taxon names as paradigms: the structure of nomenclatural revolutions2003In: Cladistics, ISSN 0748-3007, E-ISSN 1096-0031, Vol. 19, no 2, p. 138-143Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In the present paper I argue that the two systems of phylogenetic nomenclature hitherto proposed represent, in a generalized sense, two different philosophies for how science develops and progresses. The phylogenetic system of definition. initially proposed by de Queiroz and Gauthier [Syst. Zool. 39 (1990) 307], and later labeled PSD, is typically Popperian in the 'sense that science progresses toward truth by An accumulation of knowledge. Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names are assumed to adapt automatically to each new hypothesis of phylogeny, thereby reflecting better and better hypotheses. The phylogenetic system of reference proposed by Harlin [Zool. Scr. 27 (1998a) 381], on the other hand, is more Kuhnian, because it is built on the idea that successive hypotheses are incommensurable (and thus not cumulative) and that taxon names might be equalled with low-level paradigms.

  • 10.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Växjö University, Faculty of Mathematics/Science/Technology, Institutionen för biovetenskaper och processteknik.
    Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees1998In: Zoologica Scripta, ISSN 0300-3256, E-ISSN 1463-6409, Vol. 27, no 4, p. 381-390Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper addresses the issue of philosophy of names within the context of biological taxonomy, more specifically how names refer. By contrasting two philosophies of names, one that is based on the idea that names can be defined and one that they cannot be defined, I point out some advantages of the latter within phylogenetic systematics. Due to the changing nature of phylogenetic hypotheses, the former approach tends to rob taxonomy from its unique communicative value since a name that is defined refers to whatever fits the definition. This is particularly troublesome should the hypothesis of phylogenetic relationship change. I argue that, should we decide to accept a new phylogenetic hypothesis, it is also likely that our view of what to name may change. A system where names only refer acknowledge this, and accordingly leaves it open whether to keep a name (and accept the way it refers in the new hypothesis) or discard a name and introduce new names for the parts of the tree that we find scientifically interesting. One of the main differences between a phylogenetic system of definition (PSD) and a phylogenetic system of reference (PSR) is that the former is governed by laws of language while the latter by communicative needs of taxonomists. Thus, a PSR tends to give primacy to phylogenetic trees rather than phylogenetic definitions of names should our views of which phylogenetic hypothesis to accept change.

  • 11.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Växjö University, Faculty of Mathematics/Science/Technology, Institutionen för biovetenskaper och processteknik.
    Towards a new biological taxonomy: let us give up the Linnean hierachy!2001In: Zoologica Scripta, ISSN 0300-3256, E-ISSN 1463-6409, Vol. 30, no 4, p. 337-339Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 12.
    Härlin, Mikael
    University of Gothenburg.
    Tree-thinking and nemertean systematics1996Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
  • 13.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Södertörn University.
    Vetenskapliga namn från ett mångvetenskapligt perspektiv2004In: Teknik & vetenskap, ISSN 1402-5701, Vol. 20, no 1, p. 48-48Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 14.
    Härlin, Mikael
    et al.
    University of Gothenburg.
    Per, Sundberg
    California Academy of Sciences, USA.
    Taxonomy and philosophy of names1998In: Biology & Philosophy, ISSN 0169-3867, E-ISSN 1572-8404, Vol. 13, no 2, p. 233-244Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Although naming biological clades is a major activity in taxonomy, little attention has been paid to what these names actually refer to. In philosophy, definite descriptions have long been considered equivalent to the meaning of names and biological taxonomy is a scientific application of these ideas. One problem with definite descriptions as the meanings of names is that the name will refer to whatever fits the description rather than the intended individual (clade). Recent proposals for explicit phylogenetic definitions of clade names suffer from similar problems and we argue that clade names cannot be defined since they lack intension. Furthermore we stress the importance of "tree-thinking" for phylogenetic reference to work properly.

  • 15. Härlin, Mikael
    et al.
    Sundberg, P
    Cladistic analysis of the eureptantic nemerteans (Nemertea : Hoplonemertea)1995In: Invertebrate taxonomy, ISSN 0818-0164, E-ISSN 1445-4572, Vol. 9, no 6, p. 1211-1229Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A phylogeny for the 34 species we consider well enough described in the suborder Eureptantia (phylum Nemertea) is inferred by cladistic analysis based on 38 morphological characters. The phylogenetic reconstruction indicates that many previously recognised genera and families are paraphyletic. These findings are discussed and compared with earlier classifications. We also present an identification key to the species based on the cladistic analysis.

  • 16.
    Härlin, Mikael
    et al.
    Södertörn University College.
    Thollesson, M
    Fundamentals of phylogenetic (and other) nomenclatures: an exchange of views2005In: Species plantarum 250 years: proceedings of the Species plantarum symposium held in Uppsala August 22-24, 2003 / [ed] Inga Hedberg, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2005, p. 141-151Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Pleijel, Fredrik
    et al.
    Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, France.
    Härlin, Mikael
    Södertörn University College.
    Phylogenetic nomenclature is compatible with diverse philosophical perspectives2004In: Zoologica Scripta, ISSN 0300-3256, E-ISSN 1463-6409, Vol. 33, no 6, p. 587-591Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 18.
    Strand, Malin
    et al.
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Norenburg, Jon
    Smithsonian Natl Museum Nat Hist, USA.
    Alfaya, Jose E.
    Univ Nacl Patagonia San Juan Bosco, Argentina.
    Angel Fernandez-Alvarez, Fernando
    CSIC, Spain.
    Andersson, Håkan S.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences.
    Andrade, Sonia C. S.
    Univ Sao Paulo, Brazil.
    Bartolomaeus, Thomas
    Univ Bonn, Germany.
    Beckers, Patrick
    Univ Bonn, Germany.
    Bigatti, Gregorio
    Univ Nacl Patagonia San Juan Bosco, Argentina.
    Cherneva, Irina
    Lomonosov Moscow State Univ, Russia.
    Chernyshev, Alexey
    Russian Acad Sci, Russia;Far Eastern Fed Univ, Russia.
    Chung, Brian M.
    Weber State Univ, USA.
    von Doehren, Joern
    Univ Bonn, Germany.
    Giribet, Gonzalo
    Harvard Univ, USA.
    Gonzalez-Cueto, Jaime
    Univ Magdalena, Colombia.
    Herrera-Bachiller, Alfonso
    Univ Alcala De Henares, Spain.
    Hiebert, Terra
    Univ Oregon, USA.
    Hookabe, Natsumi
    Hokkaido Univ, Japan.
    Junoy, Juan
    Univ Alcala De Henares, Spain.
    Kajihara, Hiroshi
    Hokkaido Univ, Japan.
    Kraemer, Daria
    Univ Bonn, Germany.
    Kvist, Sebastian
    Royal Ontario Museum, Canada;Univ Toronto, Canada.
    Magarlamov, Timur Yu
    Russian Acad Sci, Russia.
    Maslakova, Svetlana
    Univ Oregon, USA.
    Mendes, Cecili B.
    Univ Sao Paulo, Brazil.
    Okazaki, Robert
    Weber State Univ, USA.
    Sagorny, Christina
    Univ Bonn, Germany.
    Schwartz, Megan
    Univ Puget Sound, USA.
    Sun, Shi-Chun
    Ocean Univ China, Peoples Republic of China.
    Sundberg, Per
    University of Gothenburg.
    Turbeville, James M.
    Virginia Commonwealth Univ, USA.
    Xu, Cong-Mei
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences;Russian Acad Sci, Russia.
    Nemertean taxonomy-Implementing changes in the higher ranks, dismissing Anopla and Enopla2019In: Zoologica Scripta, ISSN 0300-3256, E-ISSN 1463-6409, Vol. 48, no 1, p. 118-119Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 19. Sundberg, P
    et al.
    Svensson, Mikael
    Homoplasy, character function and nemertean systematics1994In: Journal of Zoology, ISSN 0952-8369, E-ISSN 1469-7998, Vol. 234, no 2, p. 253-263Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We question recent claims that cladistic analysis is inapplicable in nemerteans (phylum Nemertea) due to a supposedly high degree of convergence. We further argue that terms like convergence and parallelism are historical sayings and only make sense in a phylogenetic context. Therefore, an approach aiming to produce phylogenetic hypotheses cannot be rejected on the grounds of a high degree of convergence before the actual hypothesis. Convergence is not an empirical observation, but a conclusion made after an analysis. We also discuss the view that knowledge of a character's function is a prerequisite for phylogenetic analysis and conclude that this is an invalid approach. Function, like any other way of sharpening our observations, helps in formulating non-phylogenetic hypotheses of homology, but the crucial test is congruence with other characters on a phylogeny.

  • 20.
    Svensson, Mikael
    University of Gothenburg.
    Morphological variation in the palaeonemertean Tubulanus annulatus (Montagu, 1804)1993In: Hydrobiologia, ISSN 0018-8158, E-ISSN 1573-5117, Vol. 266, p. 239-246Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Previous studies on the palaeonemertean Tubulanus annulatus have hinted on possible geographic variation, or even a species complex. This study describes the variation in morphology, focusing on the characters that have been supposed to vary geographically. Specimens from the Swedish west coast (Tjärnö and Kristineberg), Scottish west coast (Millport), and the Mediterranean (Naples and Split) were included in the study. It is concluded that the pattern of variation in the studied characters do not correspond to geography and most of the character states previously thought to vary geographically are in fact found within one and the same population.

1 - 20 of 20
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf