XML schemas and mark-up practices of taxonomic literature

We review the three most widely used XML schemas used to mark-up taxonomic texts, TaxonX, TaxPub and taXMLit. These are described from the viewpoint of their development history, current status, implementation, and use cases. The concept of "taxon treatment" from the viewpoint of taxonomy mark-up into XML is discussed. TaxonX and taXMLit are primarily designed for legacy literature, the former being more lightweight and with a focus on recovery of taxon treatments, the latter providing a much more detailed set of tags to facilitate data extraction and analysis. TaxPub is an extension of the National Library of Medicine Document Type Definition (NLM DTD) for taxonomy focussed on layout and recovery and, as such, is best suited for mark-up of new publications and their archiving in PubMedCentral. All three schemas have their advantages and shortcomings and can be used for different purposes.     

A common registration-to-publication automated pipeline for nomenclatural acts for higher plants (International Plant Names Index,IPNI), fungi (Index Fungorum,MycoBank) and animals (ZooBank)

Collaborative effort among four lead indexes of taxon names and nomenclatural acts ( International Plant Name Index (IPNI), Index Fungorum, MycoBank and ZooBank) and the journals PhytoKeys, MycoKeys and ZooKeys to create an automated, pre-publication, registration workflow, based on a server-to-server, XML request/response model. The registration model for ZooBank uses the TaxPub schema, which is an extension to the Journal Tag Publishing Suite (JATS) of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The indexing or registration model of IPNI and Index Fungorum will use the Taxonomic Concept Transfer Schema (TCS) as a basic standard for the workflow. Other journals and publishers who intend to implement automated, pre-publication, registration of taxon names and nomenclatural acts can also use the open sample XML formats and links to schemas and relevant information published in the paper.     

A logic approach to modelling nomenclatural change

We utilize an Answer Set Programming (ASP) approach to show that the principles of nomenclature are tractable in computational logic. To this end we design a hypothetical, 20 nomenclatural taxon use case, with starting conditions that embody several overarching principles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, including Binomial Nomenclature, Priority, Coordination, Homonymy, Typification and the structural requirement of Gender Agreement. The use case ending conditions are triggered by the reinterpretation of the diagnostic features of one of 12 type specimens anchoring the corresponding species‐level epithets. Permutations of this child‐to‐parent reassignment action lead to 36 alternative scenarios, where each scenario requires a set of 1–14 logically contingent nomenclatural emendations. We show that an ASP transition system approach can correctly infer the Code‐mandated changes for each scenario, and visually output the ending conditions. The results provide a foundation for further developing logic‐based nomenclatural change optimization and validation services, which could be applied in global nomenclatural registries. More generally, logic explorations of nomenclatural and taxonomic change scenarios provide a novel means of assessing design biases inherent in the principles of nomenclature, and can therefore inform the design of future, big data‐compatible identifier systems that recognize and mitigate these constraints.     

FloraGREIF – An Internet-Based Data Repository for Biogeographical Research in Mongolia

FloraGREIF presents an internet-based information tool on the vascular plant flora of Mongolia combining taxon- and record-specific information, text and image information with map information and digitized plant specimens with images of living species and their habitats. Based on an updated checklist as taxonomic backbone, information is split into the “taxon” and the “record” level. At the taxon level the user finds taxonomic diagnoses, habitat information, and species distribution within the floristic regions of Mongolia. The latter is visualized in a Web GIS application. The record level offers information for all records assigned to one taxon, which may include locality data only or additional, high-resolution scans of herbarium specimens combined with images from living species and their habitats. Several query masks allow a flexible search and display of species lists. The interactive Web GIS application links taxon or record information with various map layers, comprising administrative units, topography and orography, floristic regions and vegetation zones of Mongolia. They present background information for the display of species distribution or record localities. FloraGREIF offers a virtual research environment to make the substantial information on Mongolia’s flora mainly published in Russian accessible to the public.     

Zoological nomenclature in the century of extinctions: priority vs. ‘usage’

Our epoch is a crucial one for scientific knowledge of the organisms that live on our planet. The combination of the biodiversity crisis and the taxonomic gap results in taxonomic urgency. In this context, great attention should be paid to the nomenclatural rules helping taxonomists in their urgent task, rather than diverting their time and energy to secondary questions or debates. In zoology, the new criterion of ‘prevailing usage’, introduced in the 1999 edition of the Code of nomenclature to ‘protect’ some nomina, raises four kinds of problems: (1) it weakens the binding value and strength of the Code, thus indirectly bringing support to the development of alternative nomenclatural systems; (2) it encourages personal debates among taxonomists, giving undue importance to the ‘argument of authority’ in nomenclatural decisions; (3) it sends a wrong message to non-taxonomists as regards completion of the taxonomic work; (4) it acts as a threat against natural history museums, in devaluing onomatophores (type specimens), the conservation of which is one of their major ‘visible’ functions. In conclusion, it is suggested that ‘protection’ of some nomina ‘threatened’ by rules of the Code should be limited strictly to nomina well-known outside the small world of systematics. This would require new rules for the Code to clearly define categories of usage on the basis of objective criteria.     

On the nomenclature of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Colias nastes mongola</Emphasis> Alphéraky, 1897 and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Colias tamerlana</Emphasis> Staudinger, 1897 (Lepidoptera,Pieridae)

The nomenclatural history of the nominal taxa Colias nastes mongola Alphéraky, 1897 and Colias tamerlana Staudinger, 1897 is considered. The nominal taxon Colias nastes mongola Alphéraky, 1897 was published before the end of June 1897, whereas the nominal taxon Colias tamerlana Staudinger, 1897 was published on July 27, 1897. Consequently, the combination Colias tamerlana mongola Alphéraky, 1897 contradicts Art. 23 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and should not be used. Analysis of collection material and publications of different authors, including the travel notes of H. Leder, allowed us to determine the exact type locality of the nominal taxon Colias nastes mongola Alphéraky, 1897, which is the vicinity of the village of Turan (Tunkin District, Buryatia, the Russian Federation), with the approximate geographic coordinates 51°38′N and 101°39′E.     

New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The recent multiplication of cladistic hypotheses for many zoological groups poses a challenge to zoological nomenclature following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: in order to account for these hypotheses, we will need many more ranks than currently allowed in this system, especially in lower taxonomy (around the ranks genus and species). The current Code allows the use of as many ranks as necessary in the family-series of nomina (except above superfamily), but forbids the use of more than a few ranks in the genus and species-series. It is here argued that this limitation has no theoretical background, does not respect the freedom of taxonomic thoughts or actions, and is harmful to zoological taxonomy in two respects at least: (1) it does not allow to express in detail hypothesized cladistic relationships among taxa at lower taxonomic levels (genus and species); (2) it does not allow to point taxonomically to low-level differentiation between populations of the same species, although this would be useful in some cases for conservation biology purposes. It is here proposed to modify the rules of the Code in order to allow use by taxonomists of an indeterminate number of ranks in all nominal-series. Such an 'expanded nomenclatural system' would be highly flexible and likely to be easily adapted to any new finding or hypothesis regarding cladistic relationships between taxa, at genus and species level and below. This system could be useful for phylogeographic analysis and in conservation biology. In zoological nomenclature, whereas robustness of nomina is necessary, the same does not hold for nomenclatural ranks, as the latter are arbitrary and carry no special biological, evolutionary or other information, except concerning the mutual relationships between taxa in the taxonomic hierarchy. Compared to the Phylocode project, the new system is equally unambiguous within the frame of a given taxonomic frame, but it provides more explicit and informative nomina for non-specialist users, and is more economic in terms of number of nomina needed to account for a given hierarchy. These ideas are exemplified by a comparative study of three possible nomenclatures for the taxonomy recently proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) for American frogs traditionally referred to the genus Rana.     

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.     

PLPMDB: pyridoxal-5'-phosphate dependent enzymes mutants database

SUMMARY: The searchable mutant database PLPMDB has been developed to provide rapid and simple access to relevant mutant information on pyridoxal-5'-phosphate dependent enzymes. All data have been extracted from publications and publicly available databases, then organized in a relational database to enable searching via a web-based search form. The current version of PLPMDB contains 688 mutants described in 220 research papers. The database is a useful tool for planning mutant experiments and for interpretation of information from such experiments. AVAILABILITY: PLPMDB is freely accessible from http://www.studiofmp.com/plpmdb/index.htm.     

Gaps and nodes between fossil and extant insects

Traditional contributions of the insect fossil record are listed. Fossil material indicates the earliest occurrence of a group, which in turn is useful for inferring clade divergence dates and net diversification rates. Fossil material provides complementary information on the dynamics of taxonomic diversity. Geographical occurrences outside the extant range of a taxon can be used to infer climatic macro‐fluctuations. In short, the fossil record of insects is essential for pointing out the major factors responsible for the mega‐diversity of the group, and of some of its internal lineages. Reliable taxonomic assignments and phylogenetic hypotheses underpin broader generalizations. In that respect, a problem is the inadequate integration of data from fossil and extant insect taxa in phylogenetic investigations. Stumbling blocks lie at various systematic levels. Unreliability of specimen‐based data, of species delimitation, and of homology assumptions, might have been responsible for a disdain by some entomologists for palaeoentomological literature. Idiosyncratic (and in cases flawed) methods aimed at investigating phylogenetic relationships used by a fraction of the palaeoentomological community might also have contributed to this situation. Concurrently, the traditional nomenclatural procedure might prevent effective communication between neo‐ and palaeoentomologists. Augmenting the available information on the wing venation of extant taxa would significantly advance palaeoentomology, and provide a relevant broad‐scale character system. Furthermore, the entomological community should contribute to experimentations of various nomenclatural procedures, with the aim of developing an optimal approach in terms of communication and information retrieval.     

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.     

On the nomenclature of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Arctia ornata</Emphasis> Staudinger, 1896 (Lepidoptera,Arctiidae)

The nomenclatural history of Callarctia ornata Packard, 1864 and Arctia ornata Staudinger, 1896 is discussed. Both these nominal taxa are shown to be neither primary nor secondary homonyms. The nomenclature act of O. Sotavalta dealing with the homonymisation of Arctia ornata Staudinger 1896 should be considered as inadequate to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The nominal taxon, Arctia ornata Staudinger, 1896, should be considered as valid.     

Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale

The recent publication of a new hypothesis of cladistic relationships among American frogs referred to the genus Rana, accompanied by a new taxonomy and a new nomenclature of this group [Hillis D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34, 299-314], draws attention to the problems posed by the use of a "double nomenclature", following both the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (designated here as "onomatophore-based nomenclature") and the rules of the draft Phylocode (designated here as "definition-based nomenclature"). These two nomenclatural systems, which rely upon widely different theoretical bases, are incompatible, and the latter cannot be viewed as a "modification" of the former. Accordingly, scientific names (nomina) following both systems should be clearly distinguished in scientific publications. Onomatophore-based nomina should continue to be written as they have been for about 250 years, whereas definition-based nomina should be written in a specific way, e.g., Lithobates. The combined use of both nomenclatural systems for the same taxonomy in the same paper requires good knowledge and careful respect of the rules of the Code regarding availability, allocation and validity of nomina. As shown by this example, not doing so may result in various problems, in particular in publishing nomina nuda or in using nomenclatural ranks invalid under the current Code. Attention is drawn to the fact that new nomina published without diagnostic characters are not available under the Code, and that the latter currently forbids the use of more than two ranks (subgenus and "aggregate of species") between the ranks genus and species.     

Phylogenetic hypotheses, taxonomic sameness and the reference of taxon names

When scientists use a taxon name like Mammalia, it is important that they talk about the same thing. But, what does it mean to be the same thing in different phylogenetic hypotheses? And, how is taxonomic reference maintained across hypotheses? Here, we discuss the differences between real and hypothetical clades, and how such a distinction relates to the sameness problem. Since hypotheses influence how we perceive things and pursue science, we find it important to have a functioning nomenclatural system for clades as perceived in phylogenetic hypotheses. As a solution to the sameness problem for such clades, we argue that a taxon name does not primarily refer to a single clade that somehow mirror the reality of branches in the tree of life. Instead we suggest that a taxon name refers to a set, or natural kind, of counterfactual and reconstructed clades.     

Development of the SeqCode: A proposed nomenclatural code for uncultivated prokaryotes with DNA sequences as type

Over the last fifteen years, genomics has become fully integrated into prokaryotic systematics. The genomes of most type strains have been sequenced, genome sequence similarity is widely used for delineation of species, and phylogenomic methods are commonly used for classification of higher taxonomic ranks. Additionally, environmental genomics has revealed a vast diversity of as-yet-uncultivated taxa. In response to these developments, a new code of nomenclature, the Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from Sequence Data (SeqCode), has been developed over the last two years to allow naming of Archaea and Bacteria using DNA sequences as the nomenclatural types. The SeqCode also allows naming of cultured organisms, including fastidious prokaryotes that cannot be deposited into culture collections. Several simplifications relative to the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) are implemented to make nomenclature more accessible, easier to apply and more readily communicated. By simplifying nomenclature with the goal of a unified classification, inclusive of both cultured and uncultured taxa, the SeqCode will facilitate the naming of taxa in every biome on Earth, encourage the isolation and characterization of as-yet-uncultivated taxa, and promote synergies between the ecological, environmental, physiological, biochemical, and molecular biological disciplines to more fully describe prokaryotes.