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.     

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.     

The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century

HAWKSWORTH, D. L., 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century. The procedures of biological nomenclature are now under immense pressure to change. Users are frustrated by the instability of names and lack of consensus, and increasingly undertake work previously the province of taxonomists; data are presented to show they tend to ignore unwelcome changes. Taxonomists themselves are deflected from both systematic and phylogenetic investigations, and documenting the world's biodiversity, by nomenclatural matters. A survey of 60 U.K. botanical taxonomists revealed that about half spent 10–75% of their research time on nomenclatural matters; extrapolated to the U.K. as a whole, botanical nomenclature could occupy up to 52 full-time posts at a cost of £ 1.3 million. Further, an analysis of 15 monographs of fungal genera showed that overall 85% of the names investigated were not accepted. The major problems to confront relate to concepts of priority, effective and valid publication, illegitimacy, types, ambiregnal organisms and the decision-making bodies. While most of these issues have been overcome by bacteriologists, only now are those concerned with botanical and zoological nomenclature starting to tackle them in earnest. A more effective biological nomenclature could be produced by extending the concept of lists of nomenclaturally protected names. This would resolve questions of effective and valid publication, priority, and application. Such lists would primarily assist taxonomists by dealing with much of the nomenclatural ‘noise’ of the past. Registration procedures are needed to complement such lists for names introduced in the future. The need for standard names and classifications fixed for limited periods is increasingly being met by specialist user groups and also concerns some taxonomists, but is best handled outside formal systems by appropriate specialist bodies. Increased harmonization of the Codes is possible when facing common problems and essential to resolve the difficulties posed by ambiregnal organisms. The image of taxonomy is adversely affected by unsatisfactory nomenclatural systems. Taxonomists should be responsible and refrain from changing names only for nomenclatural reasons while these matters are in discussion. Users and taxonomists need to work with nomenclaturalists to improve the effectiveness of biological nomenclature, if they are to ensure that it will fulfil both their requirements in the 21st century. The prospects for systematics are bleak if it fails to consummate the dual responsibilities of scientific endeavour and user requirements     

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.     

Where is Darwin 200 years later?

The theory of evolution is perceived by many people, particularly but not only in the United States, as a controversial theory not yet fully demonstrated. Yet, that living organisms, including humans, have evolved from ancestors who were very different from them is beyond reasonable doubt, confirmed by at least as much evidence as any other widely accepted scientific theory. I argue that Darwin’s contribution to science goes much beyond the theory of evolution in itself. The theory of natural selection explains the adaptations of organisms, their ‘design’. The ‘Copernican Revolution’ brought the phenomena of the physical universe into the realm of science: explanations by natural causes that can be tested by observation and experiment. However, the scientific revolution that occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries had left the living world out of scientific explanations, because organisms seemingly show that they are ‘designed,’ and thus call for an intentional designer. It was Darwin’s greatest contribution to science, to demonstrate that the adaptations of organisms, their apparent ‘design’, can be explained by natural processes governed by natural laws. At that point, science came into maturity, because all natural phenomena in the universe, living as well as nonliving, could be investigated scientifically, and explained as matter in motion governed by natural laws.     

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.     

The List of Available Names (LAN): A new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology?

The List of Available Names in Zoology (LAN) is an inventory of names with specific scope in time and content, presented and approved in parts, and constituted as a cumulative index of names available for use in zoological nomenclature. It was defined in Article 79 in the fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The LAN is likely to gain importance with the development of the online Official Registry for Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) as it is potentially a source of many nomenclaturally certified names. Article 79 describes the deliberative process for adding large numbers of names to the LAN simultaneously, detailing steps and chronology for submission of a candidate Part to the LAN and consideration of a candidate Part by the public and Commission, but it is largely mute about the contents of a candidate Part. It does make clear that a name within the scope of a Part but not on the LAN has no nomenclatural standing, even if it had previously been considered available, thereby preventing long-forgotten names from displacing accepted ones and the accumulation of nomina dubia. Thus, for taxa on the LAN, nomenclatural archaeology – the resurrecting of old unused names to replace by priority names in current usage – will not be worthwhile. Beyond that, it has been unclear if Article 79 is intended to document every available name known within the scope of the Part, or if its intention is to pare the inventory of available names within the scope of the Part. Consideration by the Commission and two committees to deal with the LAN have defined steps to implement Article 79 with the latter intent. Procedures for consideration of a candidate Part are defined in a manual, published as an appendix in this volume.     

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.     

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.     

Italian natural history museums on the verge of collapse?

The Italian natural history museums are facing a critical situation, due to the progressive loss of scientific relevance, decreasing economic investments, and scarcity of personnel. This is extremely alarming, especially for ensuring the long-term preservation of the precious collections they host. Moreover, a commitment in fieldwork to increase scientific collections and concurrent taxonomic research are rarely considered priorities, while most of the activities are addressed to public events with political payoffs, such as exhibits, didactic meetings, expositions, and talks. This is possibly due to the absence of a national museum that would have better steered research activities and overall concepts for collection management. We here propose that Italian natural history museums collaborate to instate a “metamuseum”, by establishing a reciprocal interaction network aimed at sharing budgetary and technical resources, which would assure better coordination of common long-term goals and scientific activities.     

Career insurance: Enabling intellectual risks

Professional science has become risk-averse. In terms of papers per dollar science is more productive than ever, but, in terms of pushing through new, applicable understanding of life, it has stagnated. This is because the career structure in professional science rewards cautious, me-too productivity over investment in long-term, high-risk programmes. Exploring new fields requires that the investigator forgo papers, grants, students, and other measurables on which their future promotion will be based. The potential reward is not sufficient to balance this downside. I suggest that funding bodies could help to remedy this by creating a ‘Career Insurance’ scheme for young, imaginative scientists who want to take career risks to protect them against the downside of those risks. Most plausibly this could be by providing back-up funding for the investigator so that, if the speculative path fails, they have resources to return to ‘normal’ science and rebuild their productivity.     

数字植物标本在科学研究中的应用: 进展及挑战

全球自然历史博物馆中保存着约3.9亿份植物标本,这些标本为科学研究提供了重要支撑。近20年来,随着标本数字化的发展,数字植物标本在科学研究中的应用日益广泛。数字植物标本不仅为标本传统的用途提供了便利,而且衍生出了新的研究主题和方向。鉴于目前中文文献中缺乏数字植物标本在科学研究中的应用概述及所面临挑战的分析,该文概述了全球植物标本数字化的现状,并对数字标本在生物地理学、入侵生物学、气候变化和保护生物学等领域中的应用情况进行了综述。主要集中在以下5个方面:(1)生物地理学研究中物种分布格局及其成因;(2)编制入侵植物名录、重建入侵历史和预测入侵风险;(3)气候变化情景下植物分布格局的变迁机制;(4)生物多样性编目和保护区规划;(5)其他相关应用(如农业和民族药物学等)。最后,针对数字植物标本应用中存在的问题进行了讨论,并提出了应对策略,同时提出开发将数字标本与其他学科大数据进行整合分析的新理论、新方法和新工具,为植物学及相关学科提供参考。     

818. WISTERIA FLORIBUNDA WITH THE TORTUOUS TALE OF THE JAPANESE WISTERIA WITH THE LONGEST RACEMES

The history of the Japanese Wisteria with the longest racemes is fully investigated, with a review of all the names applied to it. The name W. macrobotrys is shown to belong to a different cultivar group now widely grown under the names ‘Burford’, ‘Honko’ and ‘Hocker Edge’. The new combination W. floribunda f. multijuga (Van Houtte) J. Compton & G. Thijsse is made in order to establish long‐term nomenclatural stability. A lectotype is designated for the hybrid name W. × formosa Rehder.     

Comparative review of the developmental biology of the genera Sarcocystis, Frenkelia, Isospora, Cystoisospora, Hammondia, Toxoplasma and Besnoitia (author's transl)]

A review is given of the advances in our knowledge of the developmental biology of the so-called cyst-forming coccidia in the years from 1974 to 1978. Until 1970 only 6 Isospora species were known to occur in cats, dogs and men. After the discovery of the coccidian nature of the genera Toxoplasma, Sarcocystis, Besnoitia and Frenkelia, and after the discovery of the new genus Hammondia the number of known species rose to over 30. In addition it could be shown that also birds of prey, owls and reptiles serve as final hosts for several Sarcocystis and Frenkelia species. The coccidia with isosporoid oocysts can be classified into two major groups: Species with gamogony and sporogony in the final host (Sarcocystis, Frenkelia) and species with schizogony and gamogony in the final host and sporogony on the ground (Isospora, Cystoisospora, Hammondia, Toxoplasma, Besnoitia). The subdivision of the first group into the genera Sarcocystis and Frenkelia based on the localization of their cysts in the musculature and in the brain, respectively, cannot be upheld in the future. Their classification into organisms with small cystozoites of about 7 microm with birds or reptiles as final hosts (Sarcocystis and Frenkelia species of rodents) and those with large cystozoites of about 15 microm and mammals as final hosts (Sarcocystis spp. of domestic animals and rodents) would be more significative. The second group can be subdivided into monoxenous species (Isospora), species with an optional intermediate host in which no or only slight multiplication occurs (Cystoisospora) and in genera with a multiplication in two phases in the intermediate host (Hammondia, Toxoplasma, Besnoitia). The nomenclature of single species is very controversial. As an example the controversial apprehension of the taxonomy of the Sarcocystis species of cattle is discussed. An application has been submitted to the International Commission for the Zoological Nomenclature to delcare a number of names as nomina dubia and to introduce unambiguous names for those organisms for which type specimens are available.     

Historical Museology Meets Tropical Biodiversity Conservation

The great scientific importance of historical collections is a well-established fact. On the contrary, their value as vehicles to promote public awareness and effective conservation projects in some of the most valuable biodiversity hotspots in the tropics appear to have been greatly overlooked by Natural History Museums and similar institutions. Utilising the vertebrate collections of Italian institutions as a case study, the great potential of these medium-sized museums to popularising and promoting biodiversity in some of the most valuable regions of the world, utilising the history of their collections and of the men which collected and studied them, is emphasised.     

A Perspective on Protistan Nomenclature

ABSTRACT. The nomenclature of protists is more complicated than that of plants or animals because more than one code of nomenclature applies (i.e. the taxa may be ambiregnal), because of the frequent absence of type material, and because of changing perspectives of the phylogenetic relationships of various groups of protists. These factors often lead to uncertainty over the meaning of names of taxa. If nomenclatural instability is to be avoided, some changes in current practices are required. The nature of the problems and some possible changes are discussed.