Standard data model representation for taxonomic information

The names used by biologists to label the observations they make are imprecise. This is an issue as workers increasingly seek to exploit data gathered from multiple, unrelated sources on line. Even when the international codes of nomenclature are followed strictly the resulting names (Taxon Names) do not uniquely identify the taxa (Taxon Concepts) that have been described by taxonomists but merely groups of type specimens. A standard data model for exchange of taxonomic information is described. It addresses this issue by facilitating explicit communication of information about Taxon Concepts and their associated names. A representation of this model as a XML Schema is introduced and the implications of the use of Globally Unique Identifiers discussed.     

Lectotypifications and notes on the application of names of Hieracium sect. Hieracium, sect. Bifida and sect. Vulgata (Asteraceae) based on material from the province of Dalarna, central Sweden

Lectotypes are designated for 174 names of taxa described based on material from the Swedish province of Dalarna and accepted to belong to Hieracium sect. Hieracium , sect. Bifida and sect. Vulgata . The taxonomic and nomenclatural implications, i.e. taxonomic synonyms and infraspecific taxa not worthy of taxonomic recognition, of the lectotypifications are discussed. Three new combinations, H. mundulifolium (Johanss.) T. Tyler, H. oligasterum (Johanss. & Sam.) T. Tyler and H. transtrandense T. Tyler, are proposed to accommodate the infraspecific taxa H. gilvocaniceps Johanss. var. mundulifolium Johanss., H. expallidiforme (Dahlst. ex. Stenstr.) Dahlst. var. oligasterum Johanss. & Sam. and H. insuccatum Johanss. var. occidentale Johanss. & Sam. respectively, when treated at the rank of species.     

Assessment of the Diversity of African Primates

This account of the systematics of African primates is the consensus view of a group of authors who attended the Workshop of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group held at Orlando, Florida, in February 2000. We list all species and subspecies that we consider to be valid, together with a selected synonymy for all names that have been controversial in recent years or that have been considered to be valid by other authors in recent publications. For genera, species-groups or species, we tabulate and discuss different published systematic interpretations, with emphasis on more recent publications. We explain why we have adopted our taxonomic treatment and give particular attention to cases where more research is urgently required and in which systematic changes are most likely to be made. For all taxa, from suborder to subspecies, we provide English names.     

Species monophyly

In biological systematics, as well as in the philosophy of biology, species and higher taxa are individuated through their unique evolutionary origin. This is taken by some authors to mean that monophyly is a (relational) property not only of higher taxa, but also of species. A species is said to originate through speciation, and to go extinct when it splits into two daughter species (or through terminal extinction). Its unique evolutionary origin is said to bestow identity on a species through time and change, and to render species names rigid designators. Species names are thus believed to function just like names of supraspecific taxa. However, large parts of the Web of Life are composed of species that do not have a unique evolutionary origin from a single population, lineage or stem-species. Further, monophyly is an ambiguous concept if it is defined simply in terms of 'unique evolutionary origin'. Disambiguating the concept by defining a monophyletic taxon as 'a taxon that includes the ancestor and all, and only, its descendant' renders monophyly inapplicable to species. At the heart of the problem lies a fundamental distinction between species and monophyletic taxa, where species form mutually exclusive reticulated systems, while higher taxa form inclusive hierarchical systems. Examples are given both at the species level and below to illustrate the problems that result from the application of the monophyly criterion to species. The conclusion is that the concepts of exclusivity and monophyly should be treated as non-overlapping: exclusivity marks out a species synchronistically, i.e. in the present time. Monophyly marks out clades (groups of species) diachronistically, i.e. within an historical dimension.     

Rotifera Recorded from China, 1893–1997, with Remarks on Their Composition and Distribution

A search of the literature on rotifers recorded from China, includes today 477 valid species names and 42 subspecies or infrasubspecific variants in 84 genera and 28 families recorded since 1893. Chinese rotifera research is reviewed, and all recorded species are listed with current taxonomic status and their first localities in China. Most of the named taxa are widely distributed or cosmopolitan, with only a small number (about 3%) possibly restricted to China. This fauna exhibits 15 endemic taxa. The composition and distribution of Chinese Rotifera are briefly analyzed. It is likely that considerably more rotifers remain to be described from China as further study to be carried on and taxonomic resolution improves.     

Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology

Phylogenetic taxonomy has been introduced as a replacement for the Linnaean system. It differs from traditional nomenclature in defining taxon names with reference to phylogenetic trees and in not employing ranks for supraspecific taxa. However, 'species' are currently kept distinct. Within a system of phylogenetic taxonomy we believe that taxon names should refer to monophyletic groups only and that species should not be recognized as taxa. To distinguish the smallest identified taxa, we here introduce the least-inclusive taxonomic unit (LITU), which are differentiated from more inclusive taxa by initial lower-case letters. LITUs imply nothing absolute about inclusiveness, only that subdivisions are not presently recognized.     

Annotated checklist of the recent and extinct pythons (Serpentes, Pythonidae), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy, and distribution

McDiarmid et al. (1999) published the first part of their planned taxonomic catalog of the snakes of the world. Since then, several new python taxa have been described in both the scientific literature and non-peer-reviewed publications. This checklist evaluates the nomenclatural status of the names and discusses the taxonomic status of the new taxa, and aims to continue the work of McDiarmid et al. (1999) for the family Pythonidae, covering the period 1999 to 2010. Numerous new taxa are listed, and where appropriate recent synonymies are included and annotations are made. A checklist and a taxonomic identification key of valid taxa are provided.     

Thermotolerant fungi erroneously reported in applied research work as possessing thermophilic attributes

In applied research work dealing with heat-tolerant fungi, currently classified into two groups: namely thermotolerants and thermophiles, information on levels of thermotolerance is generally scant. Cited binomials are often referred to as representatives of thermophilic taxa. The present contribution attempts to specify proper heat-tolerance levels of species cited in biotechnological papers of academic and applied research types published in the last four decades. This assessment integrates relevant available information concerning well defined thermotolerant taxa. Distinction between both groups of heat-tolerant fungi is a mean to optimize investigations of temperature-dependent physiological processes. The nomenclatural status of the binomials retrieved was also re-appraised following the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Articles of the code govern the legal validity of fungal names. The goal is to deter `ghost names' that have no status of any kind. Their use in the literature is not only a source of confusion but also hinders the preparation of sound reviews and reference documents. The intention was also to detect names which do not fulfill all criteria for a valid legal publication. Their status could then be validated if the taxonomic position of the fungus justifies this procedure. The taxonomic status of these thermotolerants was also re-examined following present-day knowledge of their respective genera. Integration of warranted taxonomic decisions in the literature of applied research is crucial. These decisions consider the status of a fungus as a valid species (proposed synonymies) or the nature of its generic affinities (name change). Strict application of these decisions severly reduces levels of heterogeneity regarding names used for the same organism. It also clarifies its generic affinities with other thermotolerant fungi. The present note is not an exhaustive assessment on the nomenclatural and taxonomic positions of known thermotolerant fungi, an ecological group for which a global document remains to be produced. It only deals with those taxa most commonly cited in the literature examined. Over 130 fungi are here considered. The group manifests a diversity of taxonomic characters since it includes members of the following systematic groupings: Oomycetes, Zygomycetes, Ascomycetes, anamorphic fungi and Holobasidiomycetes. Few new taxonomic synonyms and invalid binomials are introduced in the present contribution. The former concern the following taxa: Gilmaniella thermophila, Mucor thermoaerospora, Sporotrichum lignicola and Zalerion thermophylii. Three binomials proved to have no taxonomic status of any sort: Acremonium cellulophilum, Nodulisporium microsporum and N. thermoroseum. This revised version was published online in November 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?

The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa. This concern is associated with the fact that, despite the widespread adoption of the view that taxa are historical entities that are conceptualized based on ancestry, many taxonomists also conceptualize taxa based on their content. As a result, critics of phylogenetic nomenclature have argued that taxonomists should be free to emend the content of taxa without constraints imposed by nomenclatural decisions. However, in phylogenetic nomenclature the contents of taxa are determined, not by the taxonomist, but by the combination of the phylogenetic definition of the name and a phylogenetic hypothesis. Because the contents of taxa, once their names are defined, can no longer be freely modified by taxonomists, phylogenetic nomenclature is perceived as limiting taxonomic freedom. We argue that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent to phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs.     

Taxonomic synopsis of Hippophae (Elaeagnaceae)

The small genus Hippophae (Elaeagnaceae) was thoroughly revised by Rousi in 1971. Several systematic treatments have since then confused the concept. Recent reports from China have added new subspecies, taxa with possible hybrid origin, and invalidly published names. Phylogenetic work on morphology and molecular markers agrees to Rousi's view of terminal taxa and seven species are currently recognised. Hippophae rhamnoides is a highly variable species and circumscribes eight subspecies. Recent work also confirms hybrid origins of two Chinese taxa. The purpose of this paper is to present a taxonomic synopsis of the genus with all currently accepted taxa and known types, especially in a situation of growing economic interest in Hippophae. We also provide a key and a map of the generic distribution.     

The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence

The Linnaean system of nomenclature has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. Under the current system of codes, it is now applied to more than 2 million species of organisms. Inherent in the Linnaean system is the indication of hierarchical relationships. The Linnaean system has been justified primarily on the basis of stability. Stability can be assessed on at least two grounds: the absolute stability of names, irrespective of taxonomic concept; and the stability of names under changing concepts. Recent arguments have invoked conformity to phylogenetic methods as the primary basis for choice of nomenclatural systems, but even here stability of names as they relate to monophyletic groups is stated as the ultimate objective. The idea of absolute stability as the primary justification for nomenclatural methods was wrong from the start. The reasons are several. First, taxa are concepts, no matter the frequency of assertions to the contrary; as such, they are subject to change at all levels and always will be, with the consequence that to some degree the names we use to refer to them will also be subject to change. Second, even if the true nature of all taxa could be agreed upon, the goal would require that we discover them all and correctly recognize them for what they are. Much of biology is far from that goal at the species level and even further for supraspecific taxa. Nomenclature serves as a tool for biology. Absolute stability of taxonomic concepts—and nomenclature—would hinder scientific progress rather than promote it. It can been demonstrated that the scientific goals of systematists are far from achieved. Thus, the goal of absolute nomenclatural stability is illusory and misguided. The primary strength of the Linnaean system is its ability to portray hierarchical relationships; stability is secondary. No single system of nomenclature can ever possess all desirable attributes: i.e., convey information on hierarchical relationships, provide absolute stability in the names portraying those relationships, and provide simplicity and continuity in communicating the identities of the taxa and their relationships. Aside from myriad practical problems involved in its implementation, it must be concluded that “phylogenetic nomenclature” would not provide a more stable and effective system for communicating information on biological classifications than does the Linnaean system.     

Plant names in vegetation databases – a neglected source of bias

Problem: The increasing availability of large vegetation databases holds great potential in ecological research and biodiversity informatics, However, inconsistent application of plant names compromises the usefulness of these databases. This problem has been acknowledged in recent years, and solutions have been proposed, such as the concept of “potential taxa” or “taxon views”. Unfortunately, awareness of the problem remains low among vegetation scientists. Methods: We demonstrate how misleading interpretations caused by inconsistent use of plant names might occur through the course of vegetation analysis, from relevés upward through databases, and then to the final analyses. We discuss how these problems might be minimized. Results: We highlight the importance of taxonomic reference lists for standardizing plant names and outline standards they should fulfill to be useful for vegetation databases. Additionally, we present the R package vegdata, which is designed to solve name‐related problems that arise when analysing vegetation databases. Conclusions: We conclude that by giving more consideration to the appropriate application of plant names, vegetation scientists might enhance the reliability of analyses obtained from large vegetation databases.     

Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature

An introduction is provided to the literature and to issues relating to phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode, together with a critique of the current Linnaean system of nomenclature. The Linnaean nomenclature fixes taxon names with types, and associates the names with ranks (genus, family, etc.). In phylogenetic nomenclature, names are instead defined with reference to cladistic relationships, and the names are not associated with ranks. We argue that taxon names under the Linnaean system are unclear in meaning and provide unstable group–name associations, notwithstanding whether or not there are agreements on relationships. Furthermore, the Linnaean rank assignments lack justification and invite unwarranted comparisons across taxa. On the contrary, the intention of taxon names in phylogenetic nomenclature is clear and stable, and the application of the names will be unambiguous under any given cladistic hypothesis. The extension of the names reflects current knowledge of relationships, and will shift as new hypotheses are forwarded. The extension of phylogenetic names is, therefore, clear but is associated to (and thus dependent upon) cladistic hypotheses. Stability in content can be maximized with carefully formulated name definitions. A phylogenetic nomenclature will shift the focus from discussions of taxon names towards the understanding of relationships. Also, we contend that species should not be recognized as taxonomic units. The term ‘species’ is ambiguous, it mixes several distinct classes of entities, and there is a large gap between most of the actual concepts and the evidence available to identify the entities. Instead, we argue that only clades should be recognized. Among these, it is useful to tag the smallest named clades, which all represent non-overlapping groups. Such taxa  – LITUs (Least Inclusive Taxonomic Units) – are distinguished from more inclusive clades by being spelled with lower-case initial letter. In contrast to species, LITUs are conceptually straightforward and are, like other clades, identified by apomorphies.     

Taxonomy and species delimitation in Cryptosporidium

Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals serve as hosts for 19 species of Cryptosporidium. All 19 species have been confirmed by morphological, biological, and molecular data. Fish serve as hosts for three additional species, all of which lack supporting molecular data. In addition to the named species, gene sequence data from more than 40 isolates from various vertebrate hosts are reported in the scientific literature or are listed in GenBank. These isolates lack taxonomic status and are referred to as genotypes based on the host of origin. Undoubtedly, some will eventually be recognized as species. For them to receive taxonomic status sufficient morphological, biological, and molecular data are required and names must comply with the rules of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Because the ICZN rules may be interpreted differently by persons proposing names, original names might be improperly assigned, original literature might be overlooked, or new scientific methods might be applicable to determining taxonomic status, the names of species and higher taxa are not immutable. The rapidly evolving taxonomic status of Cryptosporidium sp. reflects these considerations.     

种级异物同名处理及属名变动影响分析

讨论《国际动物命名法规》(简称《法规》)关于种级单元异物同名的处理及相关规定。以斧须隐翅虫亚科Oxyporinae的同名问题为例,笔者分析了属级单元名称变动对种级单元同名关系的影响。一些古老的属级单元有很长且比较复杂的分类历史,深入分析可将各类变化归纳为六类,其中三类与原同名有关,二类与后同名有关,余一类不再影响种级同名关系。文中讨论了第4版《法规》中与种级同名关系有关的若干重要变动,通过分析比较,说明《法规》的这类变动如何影响动物分类名称的稳定性与正确性。这些分析,可望有助于避免产生新的次同名,也有助于正确恰当地解决已有的同名问题。