2018版《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》（深圳法规）的主要变化

《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》是世界植物学家处理植物名称时必须遵守的规则,在每次的国际植物学大会之后都会做适当修订并予以颁布,新版《法规》一旦颁布就替代了前期各版《法规》。概要介绍了2018年6月26日正式出版的《深圳法规》与前一版《墨尔本法规》相比出现的主要变化,主要从结构上的变化、新增条款、相关条款的变化、术语的变化等方面进行了阐述。     

我国古植物命名中若干值得重视的问题——兼述维也纳法规中有关的规定

根据2006年发表的新版国际植物命名法规(维也纳法规)的有关规则和条款,讨论我国古植物命名中一些值得重视的和存在的问题,着重在分类单元名称的合格发表、模式指定以及拉丁属、种名称构成和性别等几个方面.文中也介绍了新法规中对古植物形态分类单元(morphotaxa)定义的改变和相关规则的更动情况,以及有关在学位论文和电子版文档中发表分类单元名称等新规则.文后附有古植物命名的一些重要规则生效的日期和相关说明.     

国际两大植物命名体系及其相互关系

根据国际生物科学联盟的相关规则,全世界野生或自然起源植物的拉丁学名均由《国际植物命名法规》加以规范和管理,因人类有意活动选择、引种、培育和生产的栽培植物的名称由《国际栽培植物命名法规》加以规范和管理。这是目前世界公认的关于国际植物命名规则的两大法规体系。对两大国际植物命名体系及其相互关系进行扼要梳理,目的是为从事相关专业的组织或个人提供帮助。     

深圳植物学大会有关菌物命名法的重要决定（英文）

2017年7月在深圳召开的第十九届国际植物学大会是该国际会议第一次在亚洲举行的大会。在大会正式日程之前一整周的命名法分会上,代表们专门就有关藻类、菌物与植物的命名法规问题进行了大量的讨论并做出了相关的决定。本文总结了有关菌物命名的相关讨论和决议。(1)菌物命名法管理:会议讨论了菌物命名法管理特别小组委员会的报告(2016),主要涉及菌物命名法分会要在国际菌物学大会上进行(其程序与国际植物学大会上的命名法分会并行,但提案表决不设机构投票权),有关菌物命名法规的提案要在《IMI Fungus》上发表、指导性电子邮件投票的参加人员、菌物命名法分会的官员为主席和秘书以及菌物命名法委员会要在国际菌物学大会选举等问题。这个一揽子的提案获得65.8%的赞成票通过,带来了具有里程碑意义的变化,决定了此后在国际命名法规中如何引入、修改或删除与菌物命名相关的规则。(2)保护名:这是在深圳会议上通过的关于菌物保护名的非常重要的议题,凡列入这些名单上的菌物名称可得到保护,不受未列入名单的其他名称的影响。(3)多型性菌物:有关废除以形态类型命名的多型性菌物名称在上一届国际植物学大会(2011)上就已通过,但保留了有关有性型名称对无性型具有优先权的规则。在这次深圳会议上,这个规则(57.2)也被彻底清除。现在确定菌物名称的使用不再以其为无性型或有性型模式所标定的名称来决定,而完全遵循发表日期的优先律。(4)地衣型真菌:地衣型真菌从来不受多型性真菌名称的影响,但由于上届大会上保留了有性型对无性型的优先权(规则57.2),有几位地衣学家为了避免在地衣方面引起争论,当时在会上提出地衣的名称不受这一规则管辖。随着深圳大会清除了规则57.2,任何有关地衣的特殊规定都一起消失。(5)模式标定:包括有模式注册、培养物作为模式、DNA序列作为模式、解释模式、图片后选模式等问题。从2019年1月1日起,指定菌物名称的后选模式、新模式或解释模式必须在3个认可的菌物名称注册网站(即Fungal Names,Index Fungorum或Myco Bank)上注册,获得注册号。从2019年1月1日开始,任何被指定为模式的培养物都必须指明是保留在代谢不活跃的状态,如果没有这个说明,该模式标定将被作为不合格发表。有关DNA序列作为模式的提案没有得到通过,但成立了一个专门委员会对这个问题进行研究。指定解释模式必须是因为现有的模式明显模糊不清才有必要进行。在没有实物标本情况下是否必须指定图片作为后选模式,而不管图片能否显示鉴别特征的问题没有得到解决,但由新成立的模式标定专门委员会进一步研究。(6)作者引证:关于删除名称作者引证中冒号":"的提案没有得到通过,但同意推荐可以"nom.sanct."作为替代使用,以表明其认可名称的地位。(7)同名:从2019年1月1日起,新发表的菌物名称如果与已有的细菌或原生动物名称相同将被判定为不合格的名称。(8)注册:此次大会除了规定后标定的模式必须注册外,没有其他注册问题的变化。(9)特型(special forms):有关接受那些以特型发表、符合基原名要求的名称的提案在会上获得通过。     

真菌、地衣汉语学名命名法规(1986年11月1日第二届全国真菌、地衣学大会通过)

<正> 一、绪论国际植物学大会为各国植物学家、真菌学家及地衣学家提供了一个共同使用的、精确而简明的命名制度,即《国际植物命名法规》。实践证明,这个命名法规在植物学科的发展中已经并将继续起到巨大作用。在我国,由于植物、真菌及地衣的汉名缺乏一个供大家共同使用的明名法规,致使植物、真菌及地衣在汉名命名方面存在着极大混乱。例如     

国际植物学墨尔本大会上命名法规的变化

2011年7月在第18届国际植物学大会命名法分会上通过了命名法规的一系列重大改动,并在全体大会上得到了接受批准。文中就命名法规的变化进行了简单概述,同时也讨论了这些变化的意义,特别是对菌物研究的意义,以期引起广大研究人员的关注。     

动态

经过彻底修改过的国际动物命名法规(第三版),自1985年2月公布之日起生效,以前所有版本同时废止。法规正文从绪言开始,接着是18章88条法规条文,各条文包括强制性的规则,其中部分附有荐则和实例。后面有6个附录和详细的词汇及索引。是当今国际动物命名的最新统一规则。该书已由朱弘复教授等译成中文,科学出版社即将于近期出版。     

对几个植物名称的厘定与辨析

为正确理解和规范使用植物的各种名称,按照《国际植物命名法规》和《国际栽培植物命名法规》的规则,对几组常见且容易混淆的植物名称进行了厘定和辨析。     

国际生物命名法规的协调与统一

根据林奈双名制原则,不同的生物学科曾先后制定出相应的命名法规,使各自学科的生物命名规范化。现行的国际生物命名法规有5个,即动物命名法规、植物命名法规、细菌命名法规、栽培植物命名法规以及病毒命名法规（草案）。这些法规经过不断地修改,逐渐使生物的命名严谨和完善。在制定这些法规时,拟定者虽参考了其它生物命名的原则、规则和条例,但主要是考虑自身学科内生物的实际情况而定的,因此,上述5个不同的命名法规之间存在着一定的差异,自然会出现一些混乱。为了使国际生物命名的统一化,在国际科协（ICSU）的支持下,1994年国…     

新版国际植物命名法规(维也纳法规)中的主要变化

出版于2006年9月的最新版的《国际植物命名法规》,即维也纳法规（Vienna Code）,取代了圣路易斯法规（Saint Louis Code）而成为管理植物学（包括藻类学和真菌学）科学命名的唯一有效法规。本文报道了维也纳法规和圣路易斯法规之间的主要区别。这些区别包括两版法规在起始日期、有效发表、合格发表、化石植物、多型真菌、拼写和附录诸方面的不同。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor