Abstract Classification is the most important approach to cataloging biological diversity. It serves as a principal means of communication between scientific disciplines, as well as between scientists on one hand and lawmakers and the public on the other. Up to the present, classification of plants, fungi, and animals follows the fundamental principles laid out more than 250 years ago by Linnaeus, with less changes in the formalistic approach although with somewhat diverging rules for plants and fungi on one hand and animals on the other. Linnean classifications obey two fundamental rules, the binomial as basic format for species names, including a genus-level name and a specific epithet, and rank-based higher classifications, with the main ranks encompassing genus, family, order, class, phylum (division), and kingdom. Given that molecular phylogenies have reshaped our understanding of natural relationships between organisms, and following the cladistic principle of monophyly which defines groups but not ranks, it has been repeatedly argued that rank assignments are artificial and subjective, with the suggestion to either abandon rank-based classifications altogether or apply more objective criteria to determine ranks. The most fundamental of such approaches has been the correlation of rank with geological (evolutionary) age, first established by Hennig in the middle of the past century and around the turn of the millenium formalized as “temporal banding,” based on the advent of the molecular clock. While initially the temporal banding approach received less attention, in the past ten years several major studies mostly in vertebrates (birds, mammals) and fungi (chiefly lichenized lineages) have proposed novel classifications based on a strict temporal banding approach, partly with highly disruptive results. In this paper, the temporal banding approach is critically revised, pointing out strengths and flaws, and “best practice” recommendations are given how to employ this technique properly and with care to improve existing classifications while avoiding unnecessary disruptions. A main conclusion is that taxa recognized at the same rank do not have to be comparable in age, diversity, or disparity, or any other single criterion, but their ranking should follow integrative principles that best reflect their individual evolutionary history. In a critical appraisal of changes to the classification of Lecanoromycetes (lichenized Fungi) proposed based on temporal banding, the following amendments are accepted: Ostropales split into Graphidales, Gyalectales, Ostropales s.str., and Thelenellales; Arctomiales, Hymeneliales, and Trapeliales subsumed under Baeomycetales; Letrouitiaceae subsumed under Brigantiaeaceae; Lobariaceae and Nephromataceae subsumed under Peltigeraceae; Miltideaceae subsumed under Agyriaceae, and Protoparmeloideae and Austromelanelixia as new subfamily and genus within Parmeliaceae. The following changes are not accepted: Rhizocarpales split into Rhizocarpales s.str. and Sporastatiales (no information gain); Sarrameanales split into Sarrameanales s.str. and Schaereriales (no information gain); Carbonicolaceae subsumed under Lecanoraceae (topological conflict); Graphidaceae split into Diploschistaceae, Fissurinaceae, Graphidaceae s.str., Thelotremataceae (no information gain, topological conflict); Ochrolechiaceae split into Ochrolechiaceae s.str., Varicellariaceae, and Variolariaceae (no information gain, nomenclaturally incorrect); Porinaceae replaced by Trichotheliaceae (nomenclaturally incorrect); Ramalinaceae split into Biatoraceae and Ramalinaceae s.str. (no information gain, topological conflict); Stereocaulaceae subsumed under Cladoniaceae (nomenclaturally incorrect); Thrombiaceae subsumed under Protothelenellaceae (topological conflict); and all proposed genus level synonymies in Parmeliaceae. New fungal taxa: The new order Odontotrematales Lücking ordo nov. is established for the family Odontotremataceae s.str., based on topological grounds.

中文翻译：

---

停止滥用时间！严格的时间带不是真菌（包括地衣）和其他生物基于等级分类的未来

摘要 分类是对生物多样性进行编目的最重要方法。它是科学学科之间、一方面是科学家、另一方面是立法者和公众之间交流的主要手段。到目前为止，植物、真菌和动物的分类遵循林奈在 250 多年前提出的基本原则，形式上的变化较少，尽管一方面对植物和真菌的规则有些不同，另一方面对动物的规则有所不同。其他。林奈分类遵循两个基本规则，二项式作为物种名称的基本格式，包括属级名称和特定加词，以及基于等级的更高分类，主要等级包括属、科、目、纲、门（分) 和王国。鉴于分子系统发育重塑了我们对生物之间自然关系的理解，并且遵循定义群体而非等级的单系分支原则，人们一再认为等级分配是人为和主观的，建议要么放弃基于等级的完全分类或应用更客观的标准来确定等级。此类方法中最基本的一种是等级与地质（进化）年龄的相关性，它首先由 Hennig 在上个世纪中叶建立，并在世纪之交被正式称为“时间带”，基于分子钟。虽然最初时间带方法受到的关注较少，但在过去十年中，几项主要研究主要针对脊椎动物（鸟类、哺乳动物）和真菌（主要地衣化谱系）提出了基于严格时间带方法的新分类，部分具有高度破坏性的结果。在本文中，对时间带方法进行了批判性修改，指出了优点和缺陷，并给出了“最佳实践”建议，即如何正确使用该技术并谨慎改进现有分类，同时避免不必要的中断。一个主要的结论是，在同一级别识别的分类群不必在年龄、多样性或差异或任何其他单一标准上具有可比性，但它们的排名应遵循最能反映其个体进化历史的综合原则。在对基于时间带提出的 Lecanoromycetes（地衣真菌）分类变化的批判性评估中，接受以下修正：Ostropales 分裂为 Graphidales、Gyalectales、Ostropales s.str. 和 Thelenellales；Arctomiales、Hymeneliales 和 Trapeliales 归入 Baeomycetales；Letrouitiaceae 归入 Brigantiaeaceae；Lobariaceae 和 Nephromataceae 归入 Peltigeraceae；Miltideaceae 归入 Agyriaceae 下，Protoparmeloideae 和 Austromelanelixia 作为 Parmeliaceae 内的新亚科和属。不接受以下更改： 根果目分裂为根果目 s.str。和孢子目（无信息增益）；Sarrameanales 分裂成 Sarrameanales s.str。和 Schaereriales（无信息增益）；Carbonicolaceae 归入 Lecanoraceae（拓扑冲突）；Graphidaceae 分裂为 Diploschistaceae、Fissurinaceae、Graphidaceae s.str.、Thelotremataceae（无信息增益，拓扑冲突）；Ochrolechiaceae 分裂为 Ochrolechiaceae s.str.、Varicellariaceae 和 Variolariaceae（无信息增益，命名不正确）；Porinaceae 被 Trichotheliaceae 取代（命名不正确）；Ramalinaceae 分裂为 Biatoraceae 和 Ramalinaceae s.str。（无信息增益，拓扑冲突）；Stereocaulaceae 归入 Cladoniaceae（命名不正确）；血栓科归入 Protothelenellaceae（拓扑冲突）；以及 Parmeliaceae 中所有提议的属级同义词。新真菌类群：新目 Odontotrematales Lücking ordo nov。基于拓扑学为 Odontotremaceae s.str. 家族建立。Porinaceae 被 Trichotheliaceae 取代（命名不正确）；Ramalinaceae 分裂为 Biatoraceae 和 Ramalinaceae s.str。（无信息增益，拓扑冲突）；Stereocaulaceae 归入 Cladoniaceae（命名不正确）；血栓科归入 Protothelenellaceae（拓扑冲突）；以及 Parmeliaceae 中所有提议的属级同义词。新真菌类群：新目 Odontotrematales Lücking ordo nov。基于拓扑学为 Odontotremaceae s.str. 家族建立。Porinaceae 被 Trichotheliaceae 取代（命名不正确）；Ramalinaceae 分裂为 Biatoraceae 和 Ramalinaceae s.str。（无信息增益，拓扑冲突）；Stereocaulaceae 归入 Cladoniaceae（命名不正确）；血栓科归入 Protothelenellaceae（拓扑冲突）；以及 Parmeliaceae 中所有提议的属级同义词。新真菌类群：新目 Odontotrematales Lücking ordo nov。基于拓扑学为 Odontotremaceae s.str. 家族建立。以及 Parmeliaceae 中所有提议的属级同义词。新真菌类群：新目 Odontotrematales Lücking ordo nov。基于拓扑学为 Odontotremaceae s.str. 家族建立。以及 Parmeliaceae 中所有提议的属级同义词。新真菌类群：新目 Odontotrematales Lücking ordo nov。基于拓扑学为 Odontotremaceae s.str. 家族建立。