A glossary of scientific terms used in the Russian-language literature on parasitic and blood-sucking arthropods

The glossary includes the major terms and concepts most often used in the Russian literature on parasitology and medico-veterinary entomology. Each term is explained, and some are supplemented with more common English equivalents. The glossary covers only the common terms and does not include those referring to very specific topics and concepts; the names of arthropod taxa and morphological terms are also not included. The list of terms is by no means a comprehensive glossary and is not supposed to be a normative edition.     

The fauna of Greece and adjacent areas in the Age of Homer: evidence from the first written documents of Greek literature

Aim To study the composition of fauna in Greece and adjacent areas around 3000 years ago based on the knowledge of Homeric man about the animal kingdom. Location Greece and adjacent areas. Method Analysis of information derived from a thorough study of the first written documents of Greek literature, the epics, attributed to Homer and Hesiod. Results Records of 2442 animals were found, corresponding to 71 different animal names. All animal names were attributed to recent taxa, at different category levels; the majority (65%) were assigned to taxa at the species level and the rest to supraspecific taxa. Most of the animal names recorded in the epics have been retained as integral words or roots in Modern Greek and they have been used in the formation of the Latin scientific taxa names. Five animal phyla appear in the texts: (1) Chordata (mostly birds and mammals), (2) Arthropoda, (3) Mollusca, (4) Porifera, and (5) Annelida. Information in the epics also includes morphology, biology, ecology (habitat and prey–predator relationships), and behaviour. The presence of several species in the area in that period is documented on the basis of archaeological and/or palaeontological findings from various Greek localities. Main conclusions The knowledge of Homeric man about animals, as reflected in the epics, seems to concentrate mainly, but not exclusively, on animals involved in human activities. The populations of some common animal species of the Homeric Age in Greek populated areas have become extinct or reduced at the present time. On the other hand, some common animals of the present time do not appear in the epics, since they were introduced later. Useful zoological information can be derived from the study of classical texts, which may help historical biogeographers as a supplement to archaeology and art, in the reconstruction of faunas of older periods.     

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.     

International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. 4th edition

The fourth edition of the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (ICPN) was prepared by the Steering Committee of the IAVS Working Group for Phytosociological Nomenclature (GPN). The edition consists of 14 Definitions, 7 Principles, 53 Articles, and 7 Appendices. When compared with the previous edition, the main amendments are: (a) the acceptance of electronic publications (Art. 1); (b) the introduction of binding decisions (Definition XIV, Principle II, Articles 1, 2b, 3c, 29b, 40, 42, 44, Appendices 6 and 7); (c) the mandatory use of the English or Latin terminology for syntaxonomic novelties (Definition II, Principle II, Articles 3d and 3i); (d) the introduction of autonyms for the main ranks when the corresponding secondary ranks are created (Articles 13b and 24); (e) the automatic correction of the taxon names (name-giving taxa) used in the names of syntaxa in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) (Article 44); (f) the possibility to mutate the name of a syntaxon in using other correct, alternative names for the name-giving taxa (Article 45); (g) the introduction of inadequate names, a new category of rejected names (Definition V, Articles 43 through 45); and (h) the introduction of a conserved type (Definition XIII, Article 53). The fourth edition of ICPN was approved by the GPN on 25 May 2019 and becomes effectively binding on 1 January 2021.     

Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life

There are now overlapping codes of nomenclature that govern some of the same names of biological taxa. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) uses the non-evolutionary concept of a "type species" to fix the names of animal taxa to particular ranks in the nomenclatural hierarchy. The PhyloCode, in contrast, uses phylogenetic definitions for supraspecific taxa at any hierarchical level within the Tree of Life (without associating the names to particular ranks), but does not deal with the names of species. Thus, biologists who develop classifications of animals need to use both systems of nomenclature, or else operate without formal rules for the names of some taxa (either species or many monophyletic groups). In addition, the ICZN does not permit the unique naming of many taxa that are considered to be between the ranks of genus and species. Hillis and Wilcox [Hillis, D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 299-314] provided recommendations for the classification of New World true frogs that utilized the ICZN to provide names for species, and the PhyloCode to provide names for supraspecific taxa. Nonetheless, they created new taxon names that followed both sets of rules, to avoid conflicting classifications. They also recommended that established names for both species and clades be used whenever possible, to stabilize the names of both species and clades under either set of rules, and to avoid conflicting nomenclatures. Dubois [Dubois, A., 2006. Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42, 317-330] objected to these principles, and argued that the names provided by Hillis and Wilcox [Hillis, D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 299-314] are unavailable under the ICZN, and that the two nomenclatural systems are incompatible. Here, I argue that he is incorrect in these assertions, and present arguments for retaining the established names of New World true frogs, which are largely compatible under both sets of nomenclatural rules.     

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.