On the International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN): a reply to Zaragüeta-Bagils et al.

In 2007 the Systematic and Evolutionary Biogeographical Association (SEBA) wrote and ratified the first draft of the International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN), which was posted subsequently on the SEBA website. The ICAN was published, along with an explanatory discussion, by Ebach et al. ( Journal of Biogeography , 35 , 2008, 1153–1157), an article that is the subject of criticism by Zaragüeta-Bagils et al. ( Journal of Biogeography , 36 , 2009, 1617–1618). We welcome discussion of the issues raised by these authors and respond to them briefly here. For many reasons, we reject the proposition that implementation of the ICAN be postponed until it is flawless. The ICAN has already been implemented. Further, it is the nature of nomenclatural codes to be proposed and then revised periodically to suit our applications. Most importantly, standardization of area names in biogeography is long overdue.     

International Code of Area Nomenclature

Biogeography needs a standard, coherent nomenclature. Currently, in biogeography, the same name is used for different areas of biological endemism, and one area of endemism is known by more than one name, which leads to conflict and confusion. The name 'Mediterranean', for example, may mean different things to different people – all or part of the sea, or the land in and around it. This results in ambiguity concerning the meaning of names and, more importantly, may lead to conflicts between inferences based on different aspects of a given name. We propose the International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN), a naming system that can be used to classify newly coined or existing names based on a standard. When fully implemented, the ICAN will improve communication among biogeographers, systematists, ecologists and conservation biologists.