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.     

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.     

Improving life sciences information retrieval using semantic web technology

The ability to retrieve relevant information is at the heart of every aspect of research and development in the life sciences industry. Information is often distributed across multiple systems and recorded in a way that makes it difficult to piece together the complete picture. Differences in data formats, naming schemes and network protocols amongst information sources, both public and private, must be overcome, and user interfaces not only need to be able to tap into these diverse information sources but must also assist users in filtering out extraneous information and highlighting the key relationships hidden within an aggregated set of information. The Semantic Web community has made great strides in proposing solutions to these problems, and many efforts are underway to apply Semantic Web techniques to the problem of information retrieval in the life sciences space. This article gives an overview of the principles underlying a Semantic Web-enabled information retrieval system: creating a unified abstraction for knowledge using the RDF semantic network model; designing semantic lenses that extract contextually relevant subsets of information; and assembling semantic lenses into powerful information displays. Furthermore, concrete examples of how these principles can be applied to life science problems including a scenario involving a drug discovery dashboard prototype called BioDash are provided.     

Boca: an open-source RDF store for building Semantic Web applications

This article presents the design goals and features of the open-source Boca RDF server in the context of a community of cancer-tumor modeling investigators. Boca supplements the desirable data features of the Semantic Web with important enterprise and application features to power a new generation of Semantic-Web-based applications. The data features enable the integration and retrieval of tremendous quantities of diverse data. The enterprise features promote data integrity, fidelity, provenance and robustness. The application features provide for collaborative applications and dynamic user interfaces.     

The Evolution of the Linnaean Hierarchy

The Linnaean system of classification is a threefold system of theoretical assumptions, sorting rules, and rules of nomenclature. Over time, that system has lost its theoretical assumptions as well as its sorting rules. Cladistic revisions have left it less and less Linnaean. And what remains of the system is flawed on pragmatic grounds. Taking all of this into account, it is time to consider alternative systems of classification.     

Maintaining Data Integrity in Insect Biodiversity Assessment Projects

The success of projects involving assessment of insect biodiversity depends on many things, but one which is often overlooked is the maintenance of data integrity. This is an issue best considered from project conception, through the design phase to the completion of the sample, specimen and data processing phase. This paper considers some guiding principles and details some logical steps that will help avoid loss of data integrity.     

生物谱系命名法规简评

基于林奈命名法和林奈分类系统的生物分类系统已经存在250多年并仍然为广大生物学工作者使用,由此产生的国际动物、植物、细菌的命名法规亦执行了100年(1905年,国际植物命名法规第1版产生),并在不断修订.随着分类方法的不断进步,林奈分类系统的一些缺陷逐渐显露,一种被称为生物谱系命名法规(PhyloCode)的新的命名法出现在人们眼前.这种基于系统发育系统学的命名法规一经问世就引起诸多争论,但是,作为一种新的命名法规,无论与传统的命名法规融合还是独立发展,对于已有的分类系统都是一个新的机遇和挑战.     

Biodiversity informatics: organizing and linking information across the spectrum of life

Biological knowledge can be inferred from three major levels of information: molecules, organisms and ecologies. Bioinformatics is an established field that has made significant advances in the development of systems and techniques to organize contemporary molecular data; biodiversity informatics is an emerging discipline that strives to develop methods to organize knowledge at the organismal level extending back to the earliest dates of recorded natural history. Furthermore, while bioinformatics studies generally focus on detailed examinations of key 'model' organisms, biodiversity informatics aims to develop over-arching hypotheses that span the entire tree of life. Biodiversity informatics is presented here as a discipline that unifies biological information from a range of contemporary and historical sources across the spectrum of life using organisms as the linking thread. The present review primarily focuses on the use of organism names as a universal metadata element to link and integrate biodiversity data across a range of data sources.     

Rhodococcal systematics: problems and developments

Various approaches that have been used in the development of a system of classification for the genus Rhodococcus are discussed. The application of chemotaxonomic, molecular systematic and numerical phenetic methods have greatly contributed to improvements in the systematics of rhodococci and related mycolic- acid containing actinomycetes. The genus currently encompasses twelve validly described species but improved diagnostic methods are needed to distinguish between them. In addition, evidence from 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing suggests that the genus is still heterogeneous.     

海洋生物多样性信息资源

海洋生物多样性甚高, 但却饱受人为的破坏及干扰。目前全球最大的含点位数据的在线开放性数据库是海洋生物地理信息系统(OBIS), 共约12万种3,700万笔资料; 另一个较大的数据库世界海洋生物物种登录(WoRMS)已收集全球22万种海洋生物之物种分类信息。除此之外, 以海洋生物为主的单一类群的数据库只有鱼库(FishBase)、藻库(AlgaeBase)及世界六放珊瑚(Hexacorallians of the World)3个。跨类群及跨陆海域的全球性物种数据库则甚多, 如网络生命大百科(EOL)、全球生物物种名录(CoL)、整合分类信息系统(ITIS)、维基物种(Wikispecies)、ETI生物信息(ETI Bioinformatics)、生命条形码(BOL)、基因库(GenBank)、生物多样性历史文献图书馆(BHL)、海洋生物库(SeaLifeBase); 海洋物种鉴定入口网(Marine Species Identification Portal)、FAO渔业及水产养殖概要(FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Fact Sheets)等可查询以分类或物种解说为主的数据库。全球生物多样性信息网络(GBIF)、发现生命(Discover Life)、水生物图库(AquaMaps)等则是以生态分布数据为主, 且可作地理分布图并提供下载功能, 甚至于可以改变水温、盐度等环境因子的参数值, 利用既定的模式作参数改变后之物种分布预测。谷歌地球(Google Earth)及国家地理(National Geographic)网站中的海洋子网页, 以及珊瑚礁库(ReefBase)等官方机构或非政府组织之网站, 则大多以海洋保育的教育倡导为主, 所提供的信息及素材可谓包罗万象, 令人目不暇给。更令用户感到方便的是上述许多网站或数据库彼此间均已可交互链接及查询。另外, 属于搜索引擎的谷歌图片(Google Images)与谷歌学术(Google Scholar)透过海洋生物数据库所提供的直接链接, 在充实物种生态图片与学术论文上亦发挥极大帮助, 让用户获得丰富多样的信息。为了保育之目的, 生物多样性数据库除了整合与公开分享外, 还应鼓励并推荐大家来使用。本文乃举Rainer Froese在巴黎演讲之内容为例, 介绍如何使用海洋生物多样性之数据来预测气候变迁对鱼类分布的影响。最后就中国大陆与台湾目前海洋生物多样性数据库的现况、两岸的合作及如何与国际接轨作介绍。     

Common names for Australian ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Abstract Most insects do not have common names, and this is a significant barrier to public interest in them, and to their study by non-specialists. This holds for even highly familiar insect groups such as ants. Here, I propose common names for all major native Australian ant genera and species-groups, as well as for many of the most abundant and distinctive species. Sixty-two genera, 142 species-groups and 50 species are given names. The naming system closely follows taxonomic structure; typically a genus is given a general common name, under which species-group and species names are nested.     

HOW MANY SPECIES OF ALGAE ARE THERE?

Algae have been estimated to include anything from 30,000 to more than 1 million species. An attempt is made here to arrive at a more accurate estimate using species numbers in phyla and classes included in the on‐line taxonomic database AlgaeBase ( http://www.algaebase.org ). Despite uncertainties regarding what organisms should be included as algae and what a species is in the context of the various algal phyla and classes, a conservative approach results in an estimate of 72,500 algal species, names for 44,000 of which have probably been published, and 33,248 names have been processed by AlgaeBase to date (June 2012). Some published estimates of diatom numbers are of over 200,000 species, which would result in four to five diatom species for every other algal species. Concern is expressed at the decline and potential extinction of taxonomists worldwide capable of improving and completing the necessary systematic studies.