Павлинов И.Я. Номенклатура в систематике. История, теория, практика

420 Литература

Jussieu A.L. 1824. Principes de la méthode naturelle des végétaux. — Dictionnaire des sciences naturrelles. V. 30. Paris: F.G. Levrault. 51 p.

Keeling P.J., Burger G., Durnford D.G. et al. 2005.The tree of eukaryotes.

— Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 (12): 670–676.

Keller R.A., Boyd R.N., Wheeler Q.D. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. — Botanical Review, 69 (1): 93–110.

KiesenwetterE.1858.GesetzederentomologischenNomenclatur.—Ber- liner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 2 (3–4): xi–xxii.

Kirby W.F. 1892. On “type-specimens” and “type-figures” in entomology.

— Science, New Series, 20 (508): 244–245.

Klein J.Th. 1753. Tentamen methodi ostracologicae sive dispositio naturalis Cochlidum et Concharum … Lugdini Batavorum (Leiden): G.J. Wishoff. 44 p. [+ tbls]

Kluge A.G. 1990. Species as historical individuals. — Biology and Philosophy, 5 (4): 417–431.

Knapp S., Lamas G., Lughadha E.N. et al. 2004. Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: The evolving codes of nomenclature. — Godfray C.,KnappS.(eds).TaxonomyfortheTwenty-FirstCentury.Philosophi- cal Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359 (1444): 611–622.

Komárek J., Golubić S. 2004. Guide to the nomenclature and formal taxonomic treatment of oxyphototroph prokaryotes (Cyanoprokaryotes). Proposal. http://www.cyanodb.cz/files/CyanoGuide.pdf

Kraus О. 2008. The Linnean foundations of zoological and botanical nomenclature. — Zootaxa, 1950: 9–20.

Kuntze O. 1891. Revisio generum plantarum vascularium omnium... Pars 1. Leipzig:A. Felix etc. S. III– CLV.

KuntzeO.1893.Revisiogenerumplantarumsecundumlegesnomenclature internationales, cum enumerations plantarum exoticarum, Pars 3 (1). Leipzig:A. Felix etc. S. CLVII–CCCCXIX.

Kuntze O. 1900. The advantages of 1737 as a starting-point of botanical nomenclature. —The Journal of Botany British and Foreign, 38: 7–10.

Lamarck J.-B. 1778. Flore Française, ou Description succinte de toutes les plantes… Ts. I–III. 1-re ed. Paris: l’Imprimeries Royale. 223+132 p.; 684 p.; 654 p.

Lamarck J.-B. 1798. Nomenclature. — Lamark J.-B. Encyclopedie meth- odique-botanique. T. 4, Ps 2. Paris: H.Agasse. P. 498–499.

LamarckJ.-B.1809.Philosophiezoologique,ouExposition...T.1,2.Paris: Dentu &Auteur. 428 p., 475 p.

Lang C.N. 1722. Methodus nova et facilix Testacea marina pleraque… Lucernae: Wyssing. 102 p.

Lanham U. 1965. Uninominal nomenclature. — Systematic Zoology, 14 (1): 144.

Lapage S.P., Sneath P.H.A., Lessel E.F. et al. (eds.). 1992. International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria: Bacteriological Code, 1990 Revision. Washington (DC):ASM Press. 232 p.

LaPorte J. 2003. Does a type specimen necessarily or contingently belong to its species? — Biology and Philosophy, 18 (4): 583–588.

LaРorte J. 2004. Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 221 p.

Larson J.L. 1971. Reason and experience: The representation of natural order in the work of Carl von Linné. Berkely (CA): Univ. California Press. 171 p.

LatreilleP.A.1801.Histoirenaturelle,généraleetparticulièredesCrustacés et des Insectes. T. 1. Paris: F. Dufart. 378 p. [+ tbls].

LatreilleP.A.1806.GeneraCrustaceorumetInsectorumsecundumordinem naturalem... T. 1. Parisiis & Argentorati [Strasbourg]: Amand Koenig. 302 p. [+ tbls].

Leske N.G. 1788.Anfangsgründe der Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs. — Jordan P. (Bearb.). Abgekürzte, zum Leitfaden für Vorlesungen an der Universität zu Wien bestimmte. 524 S.

LewisA.1871.Ontheapplicationofthemaxim“communiserrorfacitjus” to scientific nomenclature. — The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 8: 1–5.

Lewis A. 1875. On entomological nomenclature and the rule of priority.

—TransactionsoftheEntomologicalSocietyofLondon(1875):i–xlii. Lewis W.A. 1872.Adiscussion of the law of priority in entomological nomenclature;withstricturesonitsmodernapplicationandaproposalfor the rejection of all disused names. London: Williams & Norgate. 86 p. Lindley J. 1832.An introduction to botany. London: Longman etc. 557 p. LindleyJ.1835.Akeytostructural,physiological,andsystematicbotany…

London: Longman etc. 80 p.

Linnaeus C. 1735. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae… Lugdini Batavorum (Leiden): Theodorum Haak. 12 p.

Linnaeus C. 1736. Fundamenta botanica quae majorum operum prodromi instar theoriam scientiae botanices… Amstelodami [Amsterdam]: Salomonem Schouten. 36 p.

Linnaeus C. 1737a. Critica botanica in qua nomina plantarum generica, specifica, & variantia… Seu Fundamentorum Botanicorum pars IV. Lugduni Batavorum [Leyden]: Conradum Wishoff. 270 p. [+ Index] Linnaeus C. 1737b. Genera plantarum eorumque characteres naturales secundum numerum, figuram, situm… Lugduni Batavorum [Leyden]:

C. Wishoff; G.J. Wishoff. 527 p. (+ Index)

Linnaeus C. 1751. Philosophia botanica in qua explicantur fundamenta… Stockholmiæ: Godofr. Kiesewetter. 362 p.

LinnaeusC.1753.Speciesplantarumexhibentesplantasritecognitas…T.I, II.Holmiae[Stockholm]:LaurentiiSalvii560p.;561–1158p.(+Index)

Linnaeus C. 1758–9. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae… Editio decima reformata. T. I, II. Holmiae [Stockholm]: Laurentii Salvii. 1–824, 825–1384 pр.

Linnaeus C. 1766. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae… Editio duodecima reformata. T. I. Holmiae [Stockholm]: Laurentii Salvii. 532 р.

LittleF.J.1964.Theneedforauniformsystemofbiologicalnumericlature.

— Systematic Zoology, 13 (4): 191-194.

Maat J. 2004. Philosophical languages in the Seventeenth Century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 415 p.

MacLeay W.S. 1819. Horae entomologicae: or Essays on the annulose animals. London: S. Bagster. 524 p.

Magnol P. 1689. Prodromus historiae generalis plantarum in quo Familiae plantarum… Monspelij: Gabrielis & Honorati Pech. 79 p. [+ Index] Mahner M., Bunge M. 1997. Foundations of biophilosophy. Frankfurt:

Springer Verlag. 423 p.

MalécotV.2008.Lesrèglesdenomenclature.—VeuilleM.,DrouinJ.-M., Deleporte P. Silvain J.-F. (coord.). Biosystema 25. Linnaeus, Systématique et biodiversité. Paris: Soc. Française Systémat. P. 41–76.

MarcoD.(ed.).2011.Metagenomics:Currentinnovationsandfuturetrends. Granada: CaisterAcademic Press. 296 p.

Marsh O.C. 1898. The value of type specimens and importance of their preservation. — Geological Magazine, 5 (12): 401–405.

Mayo M.A., Horzinek M.C. 1998. A revised version of the International CodeofVirusClassificationandNomenclature.—ArchiveofVirology, 143 (8): 1645–1654.

Mayr E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? — Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 12 (2): 94–128.

Mayr E., Bock W.J. 2002. Classifications and other ordering systems. — Journal of Zoological Systematic and Evolutionary Research, 40 (4): 169–194.

McKenna M.C., Bell S.K. 1997. Classification of mammals above the species level. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 640 p.

McNeill J., Turland N.J. 2011. Synopsis of proposals on botanical nomenclature — Melbourne 2011: A review of the proposals ... to the XVIII International Botanical Congress. — Taxon, 60 (2): 243–286.

McOuat G.R. 1996. Species, rules and meaning: The politics of language and the ends of definitions in 19th Century natural history. — Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, PtA, 21 (4): 413–519.

MelvilleR.V.1981.InternationalCodeofZoologicalNomenclature.Defermentofproposaltointroduceprovisionstoregulateparanomenclature.

— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 38 (3): 166–167.

Melville R.V. 1995. Toward stability in the names of animals.Ahistory of the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1895–1995. London: Internat. Trust for Zool. Nomencl. 92 p.

MeyerA. 1926. Logik der Morphologie im Rahmen einer Logik der gesamten Biologie. Berlin: Springer. 290 S.

MichenerC.D.1963.Somefuturedevelopmentsintaxonomy.—Systematic Zoology, 12 (4): 151–172.

Michener C.D. 1964. The possible use or uninominal nomenclature to increase the stability of names in biology. — Systematic Zoology, 13 (4): 182–190.

Minelli A. 1995. The changing paradigms of biological systematics: new challengestotheprinciplesandpracticeofbiologicalnomenclature.— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52 (4): 303–309.

MinelliA. 2008. Zoological vs. botanical nomenclature:Aforgotten ‘BioCode’experiment from the times of the Strickland Code. — Zootaxa, 1950: 21–38.

Moore G. 1998. A comparison of traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. — Taxon, 47 (3): 561–579.

Moore G. 2001.Areview of the nomenclatural difficulties associated with misplaced rankdenoting terms. — Taxon, 50 (2), GJ Pt. 4: 495–505.

Moore G. 2003. Should taxon names be explicitly defined? —The Botanical Review, 69 (1): 2–21.

Moore G. 2005.Areview of past and current debates in nomenclature: 250 years of progress or going around in a circle? — Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 33 (3): 109–117.

Moore R.T. 1974. Proposal for the recognition of super ranks. — Taxon, 23 (4): 650–652.

Morison R. 1672. Plantarum umbelliferarum distributio nova… Oxonii [Oxford]: Theatro Sheldoniano. 101 р. (+ tbls)

Mueller F. 1884. Einige Bemerkungen zu den Regeln der Pflanzen-Benen- nungen. — Botanisches Centralblatt, 18: 118–122.

MontfortD.1810.Conchyliologiesystématiqueetclassificationméthodique des Coqulles, T. 2. Paris: Shoell. 76 p.

Murray J.A. 1782. Vindiciae nominum trivialium stirpibus a Linneo equ impertitorum. Gottingae [Göttingen]. 23 p.

Needham J.S. 1930. Scientific names. — Science, 71 (1828): 26–28. NicolsonD.H.1977.Typificationofnamesvs.typificationoftaxa;proposal

onArticle4 8 and reconsideration of Mitracarpus hirtus vs. M. villosus (Rubiaceae). — Taxon, 26 (5/6): 569-574.

NicolsonD.H.1991.Ahistoryofbotanicalnomenclature.—Annalsofthe Missouri Botanical Garden, 78 (1): 33–56.

NilssonR.H.,RybergM.,KristianssonE.etal.2006. Taxonomicreliability of DNAsequences in public sequence databases:Afungal perspective.

— PLoS ONE, 1: e59.

NixonK.C.,CarpenterJ.M.2000.Ontheother“Phylogeneticsystematics”

— Cladistics, 16 (3): 298–318.

OchsmannJ.2003.Somenotesonproblemsoftaxonomyandnomenclature ofcultivatedplants.—KnüpfferH.,OchsmannJ.(eds).RudolfMansfeld and Plant Genetic Resources. Proceedings of a symposium dedicated to the 100th birthday of Rudolf Mansfeld, Gatersleben, Germany, 8–9 October 2001. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen, 22: 42–50.

Ogilby W. 1838а. Further observations on “Rules for Nomenclature”. — The Magazine of Natural History, 2: 275–284.

Ogilby W. 1838b.Observations on “Rules for Nomenclature”. — The Magazine of Natural History, 2: 150–157.

OgilvieB.W.2003.Themanybooksofnature:Renaissancenaturalistsand informationoverload.—JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas,64(1):29–40.

O’Hara R.J. 1991. Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century. — Biology and Philosophy, 6 (2): 255–274.

Oken L. 1815–1816. Okens Lehrbuch der naturgeschichte für alle Stände. 3 Theil. Zoologie. Leipzig: Reclam; Jena: Bersasser. 854 S.

Opinion2027(Case3010).2003.Usageof17specificnamesbasedonwild species which are predated by or contemporary with those based on

domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved.

— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60 (1): 81–84.

OrenA.2004.AproposalforfurtherintegrationoftheCyanobacteriaunder the Bacteriological Code. — International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 54 (5): 1895–1902.

Oren A. 2005. Nomenclature of the cyanophyta/cyanobacteria/cyanoprokaryotesundertheInternationalCodeofNomenclatureofProkaryotes.

—Algological Studies, 117 (1): 39–52.

OrenA.2008.Prokaryotenomenclature.—http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021150/full

OwenR.1848.Onthearchetypeandhomologiesofthevertebrateskeleton. London: J. van Voorst. 203 р.

PageR.D.M.2006.Taxonomicnames,metadata,andthesemanticweb.— Biodiversity Informatics, 3: 1–15.

Palmer T.S. 1904. Index generum mammalium: A list of the genera and families of mammals. — NorthAmerican Fauna, 23. 984 p.

PattersonD.J.,CooperJ.,KirkP.M.etal.2010.Namesarekeytothebig newbiology.—TrendsinEcologyandEvolution,25(12):686–691.

Pavlinov I.Ya. 2013. The species problem, why again. — Pavlinov I.Ya. (ed.). The Species Problem — Ongoing Issues. InTech Publ. P. 3–37. http://www.intechopen.com/books/the-species-problem-ongoing-issues/ the-species-problem-why-again-

Pena P., Lobelius M. 1570. Stirpium Adversaria Nova… praesertim Dioscoridis & Recentiorum.... Londini. 458 р.

PenevL.,RobertsD.,SmithV.etal.2010.Taxonomyshiftsupagear:New publishingtoolstoacceleratebiodiversityresearch.—Zookeys,50:i–iv.

Persoon 1801. Synopsis methodica fungorum…, Pt. 1, 2. Gottingae: H. Dietrich. P. 1–240, 241–706.

Petersen R.H. 1993. A brief history of the type method. — http://www. biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/tennessee/nom-hist.htm.

Petit-Thouars L.-M. 1822. Histoire particulière des plantes orchidées recuellies sur les trois iles australes d’Afrique... Paris: l’auteur, Arthus Bertrand, Treuttel & Wurtz. 110 p.

PittondeTournefortJ.1694.Élémensdebotanique,ouMethodepourconnoître les plantes. T. 1. Paris: De l’Imprimerie Royale. 604 p. [+ tbls] Pitton de Tournefort J. 1700. Institutiones rei herbariae, editio altera… T.

1–3 Parisiis: Typ. regia. 697 p. [+ tbls]

PlumierC.1703.NovaplantarumAmericanarumgenera.Parisiis:Johannem Boudot. 51+21 p. (+ Index, + Plates)

Pyle R.L., Michel E. 2008. ZooBank: Developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying250yearsofbiologicalinformation.—Zootaxa,1950:39–50.

Queiroz К., de. 1992. Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy.

— Biology and Philosophy, 4l (2): 295–313.

QueirozК.,de.2005.Linnaean,rank-based,andphylogeneticnomenclature: Restoring primacy to the link between names and taxa. — Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses, 33 (3): 127–140.

Queiroz К., de. 2012. Biological nomenclature from Linnaeus to the PhyloCode. — Bibliotheca Herpetologica, 9 (1–2): 135–145.

Queiroz K., de, Cantino P.D. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58 (4): 254–271.

Queiroz К., de, Gauthier J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in tax- onomy:Phylogeneticdefinitionsoftaxonnames.—SystematicZoology, 39 (4): 307–322.

QueirozК.,de,GauthierJ.1994.Towardaphylogeneticsystemofbiological nomenclature. — Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9 (1) : 27–31.

Rabel G. 1940. A decimal system for organisms. — Discovery, N.S., 3 (22): 16–23.

RasnitsynA.P.1982.Proposaltoregulatethenamesoftaxaabovethefamily group. — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 39 (2): 200–207.

RayJ.1696.Devariisplantarummethodusdissertationbrevis…Demethodo sua in specie… De methodo Turneforiana. Londini: S. Smith & B. Walford. 48 p.

RayJ.1703.Methodusplantarumemendateetaucta…Londini:Christianum Andream Myntsing. 196 p. [+ Index]

Règles applicables a la nomenclature des êtres organisès proposées par la SociétéZoologiquede France.1881. — Nomenclaturedes êtresorganisés. Paris: au Siège de la Société. P. 3–5.

Règlesinternationalesdelanomenclaturezoologiqueadoptéesparlescongrès internationauxdezoologie/Internationalrulesofzoologicalnomenclature / Internationale regeln der zoologischen nomenklatur. 1905. Paris: F.R. de Rudeval. 57 p.

Report of the British National Committee on entomological nomenclature. 1928. — Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 3 (1): 1R–13R.

Reynier A. 1893. Nouvelle proposition de réforme dans la nomenclature botanique. – Bulletine de la Societe des Amis des Sciences Naturelles Rouen, 3o Serie. p. 239–241.

Reynolds D.R., Taylor J.W. 1991. DNA specimens and the “International Code of Botanical Nomenclature”. — Taxon, 40 (2): 311–315.

Rickett H.W. 1953. Expediency vs. priority in nomenclature. — Taxon, 2 (6): 117–124.

Rickett H.W. 1959. The status of botanical nomenclature. — Systematic Zoology, 8 (1): 22–27.

Ride W.D. 1988. Towards a unified system of biological nomenclature. — Hawksworth D.L. (ed.). Prospects in systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. P. 332–353.

Rieppel O. 2006. The PhyloCode: a critical discussion of its theoretical foundation. — Cladistics, 22 (2): 186–197.

Rieppel O. 2007. The nature of parsimony and instrumentalism in systematics. — Journal of Zoological Systematic and Evolutionary Research, 45 (3): 177–183.

Rieppel O. 2008. Origins, taxa, names and meanings. — Cladistics, 24 (4): 598–610.

Rivinus A. 1696. Introductio generalis in Rem Herbariam… Lipsiae [Leipzig]: Johannis Heinichii. 114 p.

Robinson B.L. 1895. Recommendations regarding the nomenclature of systematic botany. — Botanical Gazette, 20 (6): 263.

SachsJ.1906.Historyofbotany,1530–1860.Oxford:ClarendonPress.588p. Saint-LagerJ.-B.1880.Réformedelanomenclaturebotanique.—Annales

de la Société Botanique de Lyon, 7: 1–154.

Saint-LagerJ.-B.1881.Nouvellesremarquessurlanomenclaturebotanique.

—Annales de la Société Botanique de Lyon, 8: 149–203. Saint-Lager J.-B. 1886. Le procès de la nomenclature botanique et zo-

ologique. Paris : J.B. Baillere et fils. 54 p.

Sandoval-Sierra J.V., Martín M.P., Dieguez-Uribeondo J. 2013. Species identification in the genus Saprolegnia (Oomycetes): Defining DNAbased molecular operational taxonomic units. — Fungal Biology, 118 (7): 559–578.

SantosL.M.,FariaL.R.R.2011.Thetaxonomy’snewclothes:Alittlemore about the DNA-based taxonomy. — Zootaxa, 3025: 66–68.

SarjeantW.A.S.,KennedyW.J.1973.ProposalofaCodefortheNomenclature ofTrace-Fossils.—CanadianJournalofEarthSciences,10(4):460–475.

Scharf S. 2008. Multiple independent inventions of a non-functional technology. Combinatorial descriptive names in botany, 1640–1830.

— Spontaneous Generations, 2 (1): 145–184.

Schaum H. 1862. On the restoration of obsolete names in entomology. — Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 3d Series, 1: 323–327.

Schindel D.E., Miller S.E. 2010. Provisional nomenclature. The on-ramp totaxonomicnames.—PolaszekA.(ed.).SystemaNaturae250—The LinnaeanArk. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. P. 109–116.

Schoch C.L., Robbertse B., Robert V. et al. 2014. Finding needles in haystacks: Linking scientific names, reference specimens and molecular data for Fungi. — Database, 2014: 1–21

Schuchert C. 1897. What is a type in natural history? — Science, New Series, 5 (121): 636–640.

Schuchert C., Buckman S.S. 1905. The nomenclature of types in natural history. — Science, New Series, 21 (545): 899–901.

SchuhR.T.2003.TheLinnaeansystemandits250-yearpersistence.—The Botanical Review, 69 (1): 59–78.

Sélys-Longchamps E. 1842. Faune Belge, 1-er partie, Indication méthodique... Liége: M. Dessain. 310 p.

Shear C.L. 1902.The starting point for generic nomenclature in botany. — Science, New Series, 16 (417): 1035–1036.

Shear C.L. 1910. Nomenclature at Brussels. –Science, New Series, 32 (826): 594–595.

ShipunovA. 2011. The problem of hemihomonyms and the on-line hemihomonyms database (HHDB). — Bionomina, 4: 65–72.

Short E., George A. 2013. A Primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary. London: Cambridge University Press. 118 р.

Simpson G.G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. NewYork: Columbia Univ. Press. 247 p.

Siu R.G.H., Reese E.T. 1955. Proposal for a system of biological nomen- clature,withspecialreferencetomicroorganisms.—Farlowa.Ajournal of Crypogamic Botany, 4 (4): 399–407.

Slaughter M. 1982. Universal languages and scientific taxonomy in the seventeenth century. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge Univ. Press. 288 p.

Smith H.M., Smith R.B. 1972. Chresonymy ex synonymy. — Systematic Zoology, 21 (4): 445.

Smith J.A. 1821.Aselection of the correspondence of Linnaeus and other naturalistsfromtheoriginalmanuscripts.V.2.London:Longman,Hust, Rees & Brown. 580 p. (+ Index)

Sneath R.H.A., Sokal R.R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy.The principles and methods of numerical classification. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co. 573 p.

Sokal R.R., Sneath R.H.A. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co. 359 p.

Spencer R.D., Cross R.G. 2007. The cultigen. — Taxon, 56 (3): 938–940. Stafleu F.A. 1971. Linnaeus and Linnaeans. Utrecht:A. Oosthoek. 386 p. StarobogatovYa.I.1991.Problemsinthenomenclatureofhighertaxonomic categories. — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 48 (1): 6–18. Stearn W.T. 1952. Proposed International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Historical Introduction. — Journal of the Royal Horti-

cultural Society, 77 (1): 157–173.

Stearn W.T. 1953. International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. — Synge P.M. (ed.). Report of the 13th International Horticultural Congress, 1952. London: Royal Horticultural Society. P. 42–68.

Stearn W.T. 1959. The background of Linnaeus’s contributions to the no- menclatureandmethodsofsystematicbiology.—SystematicZoology, 8 (1): 4–22.

StearnW.T.1985.BotanicalLatin,3ded.London:David&Charles.566p. Stearn W.T. 1986: Historical survey of the naming of cultivated plants.

— Maesen L.J.G., van der (Ed.). First International Symposium on Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants.Acta Horticulturae, 182 (1): 19–28.

Stebbins L. 1950. Variation and evolution in plants New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 643 р.

StenzelH.B.1950.Proposeduniformendingsfornamesofhighercategories in zoological systematics. — Science, 112 (2899): 94.

Sternberg K.M. 1820–1838. Versuch einer geognostisch-botanischen Darstellung der Flora der Vorwelt. Bd. I–II, pts. 1–8. 220 S. [+ plts] Stevens P.F. 1994. The development of biological systemtics. New York:

Columbia Univ. Press. 616 p.

Stevens P.F. 2002.Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. — Taxon, 51 (1): 11–26.

Stiles C.W. 1906.Aplan to ensure the designation of generic types.An open lettertosystematiczoologists.—Science,NewSeries,23(592):700–701.

Stiles C.W. 1907. The “First species rule” vs. the “Law of priority” in determining types of genera. — Science, New Series, 25 (630): 145–147.

Stiles C.W., HassalA. 1905. Determination of generic types, and a List of roundworm genera, with their original and type species. — Bulletin of Bureau ofAnimal Industry, 79. 152 p.