Deep-sea asellote isopods of the north-east Atlantic: the family Thambematidae

A collection of thambematids (Crustacea, Isopoda, Asellota) from depths of 1400–2900 m in the Rockall Trough, west of the British Isles, is considered. The type species of the genus Thambema Stebbing, T. amicorum Stebbing, is rediagnosed and three new species, T. golanachum, T. tanum , and T. fiatum , are described. The genera Thambema and Microthambema Birstein are contrasted and taxonomic characters separating these genera are provided. The difficulty of providing effective definitions for higher category taxa is discussed and a new definition is provided for the Asellota.     

AmphiNom: an amphibian systematics tool

Large-scale comparative and systematic studies rely on the seamless merging of multiple datasets. However, taxonomic nomenclature is constantly being revised making it problematic to combine data from different resources or different years of publication, which use different synonyms. This is certainly true for amphibians, which have experienced a spike in taxonomic revisions in part as the result of the widespread use of DNA barcoding to resolve cryptic species delimitation issues and large-scale collaborative efforts to revise the entire amphibian tree. The ‘Amphibian Species of the World Online Reference’ (ASW) is one of the most widely used and most regularly updated databases for amphibian taxonomy, but existing R tools for querying synonyms such as ‘taxize’ do not include this resource. ‘AmphiNom’ is a tool suite written in the R programming language designed to facilitate batch-querying amphibian species names against the ASW database. This facilitates the merging of datasets that use different nomenclature and its functionality is easily integrated into customizable R workflows. Moreover, it allows direct querying of the ASW website using R and straightforward reporting of summary information on current amphibian systematics.     

Rank and sequence in Caspar Bauhin's Pinax

CAIN, A. J., 1994. Rank and sequence in Caspar Bauhin's Pinax. Bauhin's consistent use of genera, species and binominals, applauded by historians as anticipating Linnaeus's theory and practice, does not appear on closer examination to be intended as anything of the sort. His use of the terms genus and species is as in Aristotelian logic, with a shifting reference, at all taxonomic levels. His typographical layout, emphasizing (but far from invariably employing) single-word names for effectively generic entities, often qualified by ‘and its species’, gives the impression of Linnaean practice, and coincides with it not infrequently, but not with Linnaean theory. The main entities for which it can be said that Bauhin uses fairly consistently a biverbal binominal name-phrase, like Linnaeus' trivial names, were in fact in Linnaeus's eyes two levels of supraspecific groupings. The main entities in Bauhin which Linnaeus recognized as species, as is shown by his quotations in the Species plantarum, are subdivisions of his biverbally or nearly biverbally named groupings, but themselves have multiverbal names. These correspond closely to Linnaeus's diagnostic specific names, not at all to his biverbal trivial names. Bauhin probably had no conception of the species and genus as ranks in the modern sense, first adumbrated by Tournefort and utilized by Linnaeus. Bauhin certainly tried to group forms by natural affinity, as did Theophrastus before him and Linnaeus afterwards. Not being alerted to the importance of the details of the flower and fruit, he used what characters he could find, notably, but not by any means exclusively, leaf shape. He composed the Pinax as a nomenclatural concordance to earlier authors, notably Dioscorides, Theophrastus and Pliny. He retained the sequence of major groups of Theophrastus (as the greatest authority on plants) but reversed it to start with the best-known plants, grasses. Where Theophrastus gave no help, in the cryptogams, Bauhin inserted as a pendant his own series from ferns down to fungi, using the Aristotelian principles of the gradation of forms. His overall arrangement, therefore, is not a simple progression but a chain with pendants. Bauhin is far closer to earlier authors than to Linnaeus, but his typography, along with other authors, may well have helped to incite Linnaeus to a more rigorous and consistent use of ranked groups and biverbal names.     

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.     

Nomencurator: a nomenclatural history model to handle multiple taxonomic views

Evolutionary studies are generating increasing numbers of phylogenies which, in turn, sometimes result in changes to hierarchical organization and therefore changes in taxonomic nomenclature. A three-layered data model for a nomenclature database has been developed in order to elucidate the information structure in nomenclature and as a means to organize and manage a large, dynamic knowledge-base. In contrast to most other taxonomic databases, the model is publication-oriented rather than taxon-oriented and dynamic rather than static, in order to mimic the processes that taxonomists use naturally. The three-layered structure requires data integrity localized to each publication, instead of global data integrity, which relaxes constraints common to taxonomic databases and permits multiple taxonomic opinions: taxon names are made available as metadata within the model. Its prototype implementation, written in C ⁺⁺, has an autonomous self-identification mechanism to avoid spurious data-inflation in a publication-oriented data model. Self-identification is also desirable for distributed implementations of the nomenclature database. Publication-oriented design also will make maintenance easier than for taxon-oriented databases, much of the maintenance workload being amenable to automation. The three-layered data model was designed for use by taxonomists, but is also able to provide concise, reduced expression for non-experts required in biodiversity research, for example.     

我国进境检疫性菌物名录亟待修订完善

中华人民共和国现行进境检疫性菌物名录中共有130种。近年来由于菌物分类研究的快速发展,许多检疫性菌物的分类地位已经发生变化。本文对我国进境检疫性菌物名录中的名称与国际公认的分类体系和现用名进行了初步的比较和分析,进一步以茎点霉属和轮枝菌属为例说明分类系统的变化对菌物名称的影响。另外,名录中很多汉语学名的使用也不符合规范。我国进境检疫性菌物名录亟需修订。     

中国农业植物病原菌物常见种属名录

植物病原菌物是造成植物病害的主要病原物,可对生态安全、粮食安全、生物多样性造成重要威胁和灾害.近年来,菌物分类学的研究逐步深入,大量新分类单元被描述、高阶分类系统被修订和完善.在墨尔本和深圳两届国际植物学大会上,对《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》中涉及菌物的部分做出了重大调整以实现"一菌一名".上述研究进展和改变对植物...     

Invalidly published names inJanchen's “Catalogus florae Austriae”: Survey,analysis, and notes

Names of species and subspecies fromJanchen's Catalogus were revised with regard to their validity; invalidly published names were compiled in a commented list of 120 names. About sixty of them were analyzed at length from nomenclatural and taxonomical viewpoints. The cause of the invalidity of these names were discussed; omission of citations of basionyms to proposals of new nomenclatural combinations is the main reason for the invalidity ofJanchen's names. Taxonomic reclassifications and nomenclatural revisions resulted in 23 new nomenclatural combinations, five of these proposals representing direct validations ofJanchen's invalidly published names. Some more general problems of nomenclature are discussed: indirect validation of invalidly published names; omission of infraspecific homonymy; the correctness and necessity to attach neglected authors' names to the names of plants based on those names distinctly taken over from such authors; problems of autonyms in the ICBN Code. The use of the category “convarietas” in cultivated plants (instead of subspecies) is emphasized. Names validated byJanchen himself in his paper of 1959 should be used with this publication place instead of their invalid publication in the Catalogus. Some propositions for future research by other authors are also added.     

Should taxon names be explicitly defined?

Overviews are provided for traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature. In traditional nomenclature, a name is provided with a type and a rank. In the rankless phylogenetic nomenclature, a taxon name is provided with an explicit phylogenetic definition, which attaches the name to a clade. Linnaeus’s approach to nomenclature is also reviewed, and it is shown that, although the current system of nomenclature does use some Linnaean conventions (e.g., certain rank-denoting terms, binary nomenclature), it is actually quite different from Linnaean nomenclature. The primary differences between traditional and phylogenetic nomenclature are reviewed. In phylogenetic nomenclature, names are provided with explicit phylogenetic definitions, whereas in traditional nomenclature names are not explicitly defined. In phylogenetic nomenclature, a name remains attached to a clade regardless of how future changes in phylogeny alter the clade’s content; in traditional nomenclature a name is not “married” to any particular clade. In traditional nomenclature, names must be assigned ranks (an admittedly arbitrary process), whereas in phylogenetic nomenclature there are no formal ranks. Therefore, in phylogenetic nomenclature, the name itself conveys no hierarchical information, and the name conveys nothing regarding set exclusivity. It is concluded that the current system is better able to handle new and unexpected changes in ideas about taxonomic relationships. This greater flexibility, coupled with the greater information content that the names themselves (i.e., when used outside the context of a given taxonomy or phytogeny) provide, makes the current system better designed for use by all users of taxon names.     

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.     

Zoological nomenclature in the digital era

Creation and use of the scientific names of animals are ruled by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Until recently, publication of new names in a work produced with ink on paper was required for their availability. A long awaited amendment to the Code issued in September 2012 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature now allows publication of new names in online-only works, provided that the latter are registered with ZooBank, the Official Register of Animal Names. With this amendment, the rules of zoological nomenclature have been aligned with the opportunities (and needs) of our digital era. However, possible causes for nomenclatural instability remain. These could be completely removed if the Code-compliant publication of new names will be identified with their online registration, under suitable technological and formal (legal) conditions. Future developments of the ZooBank may provide the tool required to make this definitive leap ahead in zoological nomenclature.     

Third meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature: a report

The Third Meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature (ISPN) convened at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, from 20 to 22 July 2008. In addition to contributed talks, the conference included a progress report on the PhyloCode 'Companion Volume', a discussion of how to complete this book in a timely fashion, a demonstration of the online registration data base (RegNum), plenary talks, and Council and business meetings. Topics discussed at the meeting include problems created by rank-based nomenclature in various eukaryotic taxa, dealing with hybrids in rank-based and phylogenetic nomenclature, phyloinformatics, the choice of names to use when the taxonomic content associated with available names varies, teaching phylogenetic nomenclature, and the application of phylogenetic nomenclature to specific taxa.     

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.     

CONTRIBUTION TOWARD A MONOGRAPH OF RAMARIA III. R. SANGUINEA,R. FORMOSA. AND TWO NEW SPECIES FROM EUROPE

A neotype specimen is designated for R. formosa and a representative specimen for R. sanguined, thus securing taxonomic concepts for these names. Two very similar taxa are proposed as new: R. eosanguinea, which differs from R. sanguinea chiefly in exhibiting clamp connections, and R. neoformosa which differs from R. formosa chiefly in the absence of clamps. The subject of mimic taxa is briefly discussed.     

When does a clone deserve a name? A perspective on bacterial species based on population genetics.

Molecular population-genetic analysis has revealed that for several human diseases, including tuberculosis, plague and shigellosis, the generally accepted taxonomic status of the organisms involved does not fit the usually accepted genus or species criteria. This raises the question of what species concept to apply to bacteria. We suggest that the species definition in bacteria should be based on analysis of sequence variation in housekeeping genes, and also that the "clone" be given official status in bacterial nomenclature. This will allow demotion of the species or genus status of several traditionally recognized human pathogens, but retention of current names of anomalous species and genera as clone names.     

R. A. Fisher: a faith fit for eugenics

In discussions of ‘religion-and-science’, faith is usually emphasized more than works, scientists’ beliefs more than their deeds. By reversing the priority, a lingering puzzle in the life of Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1890–1962), statistician, eugenicist and founder of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, can be solved. Scholars have struggled to find coherence in Fisher’s simultaneous commitment to Darwinism, Anglican Christianity and eugenics. The problem is addressed by asking what practical mode of faith or faithful mode of practice lent unity to his life? Families, it is argued, with their myriad practical, emotional and intellectual challenges, rendered a mathematically-based eugenic Darwinian Christianity not just possible for Fisher, but vital.     

红菇科可食真菌的若干分类问题

红菇科Russulaceae包含大量全球广泛采食的野生食用菌,同时也有一定数目的毒菌。该科特别是红菇属的分类是大型真菌分类的难点。近年来DNA数据大量应用于红菇科的分类,更新了属的界定和概念,发现了大量新物种,为食用菌和毒菌的识别和鉴定带来了可用的名称。然而,DNA证据并不总是与形态证据吻合,这又为食用菌和毒菌的识别和名称的使用带来了困扰和不便。本文针对乳菇属、多汁乳菇属和红菇属中的重要食用菌类群,回顾了近年来的分类研究进展,分析了研究背后的数据实情和存在的分类问题。认为：在食用菌和毒菌的确定上,依靠物种复合群共有的形态特征更具有可操作性;依据DNA序列进行的劈分式分类和依靠少数样品的特征及DNA序列上的少量差异发表新种的做法可能产生不便于使用的后果;在乳菇属和红菇属中,“BLAST相似度低的即为新种”的分类实践存在错误风险;充分结合历史资料和各个类群的特点,确定物种划分的阈值,才能有望解决红菇科真菌的分类问题。