Nomenclature codes

Last updated

Nomenclature codes or codes of nomenclature are the various rulebooks that govern the naming of living organisms. Standardizing the scientific names of biological organisms allows researchers to discuss findings (including the discovery of new species).

Contents

As the study of biology became increasingly specialized, specific codes were adopted for different types of organism.

To an end-user who only deals with names of species, with some awareness that species are assignable to genera, families, and other taxa of higher ranks, it may not be noticeable that there is more than one code, but beyond this basic level these are rather different in the way they work.

Binomial Nomenclature

In taxonomy, binomial nomenclature ("two-term naming system"), also called binary nomenclature, is a formal system of naming species of living things by giving each a name composed of two parts, both of which use Latin grammatical forms, although they can be based on words from other languages. Such a name is called a binomial name (which may be shortened to just "binomial"), a binomen, binominal name, or a scientific name; more informally it is also historically called a Latin name. In the ICZN, the system is also called binominal nomenclature, [1] "binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is not a typographic error, meaning "two-name naming system". [2]

The first part of the name – the generic name – identifies the genus to which the species belongs, whereas the second part – the specific name or specific epithet – distinguishes the species within the genus. For example, modern humans belong to the genus Homo and within this genus to the species Homo sapiens . Tyrannosaurus rex is likely the most widely known binomial. [3]

The formal introduction of this system of naming species is credited to Carl Linnaeus, effectively beginning with his work Species Plantarum in 1753. [4] But as early as 1622, Gaspard Bauhin introduced in his book Pinax theatri botanici (English, Illustrated exposition of plants) containing many names of genera that were later adopted by Linnaeus. [5] The introduction of two-part names (binominal nomenclature) for species by Linnaeus was a welcome simplification because as our knowledge of biodiversity expanded, so did the length of the names, many of which had become unwieldy. [6]

Codification of Scientific Names

With all naturalists worldwide adopting binominal nomenclature, there arose several schools of thought about the details. It became ever more apparent that a detailed body of rules was necessary to govern scientific names. From the mid-19th century onwards, there were several initiatives to arrive at worldwide-accepted sets of rules. Presently nomenclature codes govern the naming of:

Differences between codes

Starting point

The starting point, that is the time from which these codes are in effect (usually retroactively), varies from group to group, and sometimes from rank to rank. [7] In botany and mycology, the starting point is often 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum ). In zoology, it is 1 January 1758 (Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, 10th Edition). On the other hand, bacteriology started anew, making a clean sweep in 1980 (Skerman et al., "Approved Lists of Bacterial Names"), although maintaining the original authors and dates of publication. [8]

Exceptions in botany: [9] [10] [11]

Exceptions in zoology: [13]

Workings

There are also differences in the way codes work. For example, the ICN (the code for algae, fungi and plants) forbids tautonyms, while the ICZN, (the animal code) allows them.

Terminology

These codes differ in terminology, and there is a long-term project to "harmonize" this. For instance, the ICN uses "valid" in "valid publication of a name" (=the act of publishing a formal name), with "establishing a name" as the ICZN equivalent. The ICZN uses "valid" in "valid name" (="correct name"), with "correct name" as the ICN equivalent. Harmonization is making very limited progress.

Types

There are differences in respect of what kinds of types are used. The bacteriological code prefers living type cultures, but allows other kinds. There has been ongoing debate regarding which kind of type is more useful in a case like cyanobacteria. [14]

Other codes

BioCode

A more radical approach was made in 1997 when the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB) presented the long debated Draft BioCode, proposed to replace all existing Codes with an harmonization of them. [15] [16] The originally planned implementation date for the BioCode draft was January 1, 2000, but agreement to replace the existing Codes was not reached.

In 2011, a revised BioCode was proposed that, instead of replacing the existing Codes, would provide a unified context for them, referring to them when necessary. [17] [18] [19] Changes in the existing codes are slowly being made in the proposed directions. [20] [21] However, participants of the last serious discussion of the draft BioCode concluded that it would probably not be implemented in their lifetimes. [22]

PhyloCode

Many authors encountered problems in using the Linnean system in phylogenetic classification. [23] In fact, early proponents of rank-based nomenclature, such as Alphonse de Candolle and the authors of the 1886 version of the American Ornithologists' Union code of nomenclature already envisioned that in the future, rank-based nomenclature would have to be abandoned. [24] [6] Another Code that was developed since 1998 is the PhyloCode , which now regulates names defined under phylogenetic nomenclature instead of the traditional Linnaean nomenclature. This new approach requires using phylogenetic definitions that refer to "specifiers", analogous to "type" under rank-based nomenclature. Such definitions delimit taxa under a given phylogeny, and this kind of nomenclature does not require use of absolute ranks. The Code took effect in 2020, with the publication of Phylonyms, a monograph that includes a list of the first names established under that code.

Ambiregnal protists

Some protists, sometimes called ambiregnal protists, have been considered to be both protozoa and algae, or protozoa and fungi, and names for these have been published under either or both of the ICZN and the ICN. [25] [26] The resulting double language throughout protist classification schemes resulted in confusion. [27] [28] [29]

Groups claimed by both protozoologists and phycologists include euglenids, dinoflagellates, cryptomonads, haptophytes, glaucophytes, many heterokonts (e.g., chrysophytes, raphidophytes, silicoflagellates, some xanthophytes, proteromonads), some monadoid green algae (volvocaleans and prasinophytes), choanoflagellates, bicosoecids, ebriids and chlorarachniophytes.

Slime molds, plasmodial forms and other "fungus-like" organisms claimed by both protozoologists and mycologists include mycetozoans, plasmodiophorids, acrasids, and labyrinthulomycetess. Fungi claimed by both protozoologists and mycologists include chytrids, blastoclads, and the gut fungi.

Other problematic groups are the Cyanobacteria (ICNP/ICN) and Microsporidia (ICZN/ICN).

Unregulated taxa

The zoological code does not regulate names of taxa lower than subspecies or higher than superfamily. There are many attempts to introduce some order on the nomenclature of these taxa, [30] [31] including the PhyloCode, the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, [32] [33] and circumscriptional nomenclature. [34] [35]

The botanical code is applied primarily to the ranks of superfamily and below. There are some rules for names above the rank of superfamily, but the principle of priority does not apply to them, and the principle of typification is optional. These names may be either automatically typified names or be descriptive names. [36] [37] In some circumstances, a taxon has two possible names (e.g., Chrysophyceae Pascher, 1914, nom. descrip.; Hibberd, 1976, nom. typificatum). Descriptive names are problematic, once that, if a taxon is split, it is not obvious which new group takes the existing name. Meanwhile, with typified names, the existing name is taken by the new group that still bears the type of this name. However, typified names present special problems for microorganisms. [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

Genus is a taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms as well as viruses. In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family. In binomial nomenclature, the genus name forms the first part of the binomial species name for each species within the genus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxon</span> Grouping of biological populations

In biology, a taxon is a group of one or more populations of an organism or organisms seen by taxonomists to form a unit. Although neither is required, a taxon is usually known by a particular name and given a particular ranking, especially if and when it is accepted or becomes established. It is very common, however, for taxonomists to remain at odds over what belongs to a taxon and the criteria used for inclusion, especially in the context of rank-based ("Linnaean") nomenclature. If a taxon is given a formal scientific name, its use is then governed by one of the nomenclature codes specifying which scientific name is correct for a particular grouping.

In biology, a tribe is a taxonomic rank above genus, but below family and subfamily. It is sometimes subdivided into subtribes. By convention, all taxa ranked above species are capitalized, including both tribe and subtribe.

<i>International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants</i> Code of scientific nomenclature

The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is the set of rules and recommendations dealing with the formal botanical names that are given to plants, fungi and a few other groups of organisms, all those "traditionally treated as algae, fungi, or plants". It was formerly called the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN); the name was changed at the International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in July 2011 as part of the Melbourne Code which replaced the Vienna Code of 2005.

The International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature, known as the PhyloCode for short, is a formal set of rules governing phylogenetic nomenclature. Its current version is specifically designed to regulate the naming of clades, leaving the governance of species names up to the rank-based nomenclature codes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Type (biology)</span> Specimen(s) to which a scientific name is formally attached

In biology, a type is a particular specimen of an organism to which the scientific name of that organism is formally associated. In other words, a type is an example that serves to anchor or centralizes the defining features of that particular taxon. In older usage, a type was a taxon rather than a specimen.

In the scientific name of organisms, basionym or basyonym means the original name on which a new name is based; the author citation of the new name should include the authors of the basionym in parentheses. The term "basionym" is used in both botany and zoology. In zoology, alternate terms such as original combination or protonym are sometimes used instead. Bacteriology uses a similar term, basonym, spelled without an i.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Type genus</span> Term in biological taxonomy

In biological taxonomy, the type genus is the genus which defines a biological family and the root of the family name.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syntype</span> Taxonomic term

In biological nomenclature, a syntype is any one of two or more biological types that is listed in a description of a taxon where no holotype was designated. Precise definitions of this and related terms for types have been established as part of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Botanical nomenclature is the formal, scientific naming of plants. It is related to, but distinct from taxonomy. Plant taxonomy is concerned with grouping and classifying plants; botanical nomenclature then provides names for the results of this process. The starting point for modern botanical nomenclature is Linnaeus' Species Plantarum of 1753. Botanical nomenclature is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), which replaces the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). Fossil plants are also covered by the code of nomenclature.

In botany, the correct name according to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) is the one and only botanical name that is to be used for a particular taxon, when that taxon has a particular circumscription, position and rank. Determining whether a name is correct is a complex procedure. The name must be validly published, a process which is defined in no less than 16 Articles of the ICN. It must also be "legitimate", which imposes some further requirements. If there are two or more legitimate names for the same taxon, then the correct name is the one which has priority, i.e. it was published earliest, although names may be conserved if they have been very widely used. Validly published names other than the correct name are called synonyms. Since taxonomists may disagree as to the circumscription, position or rank of a taxon, there can be more than one correct name for a particular plant. These may also be called synonyms.

In botany, an infraspecific name is the scientific name for any taxon below the rank of species, i.e. an infraspecific taxon or infraspecies. A "taxon", plural "taxa", is a group of organisms to be given a particular name. The scientific names of botanical taxa are regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). This specifies a three part name for infraspecific taxa, plus a connecting term to indicate the rank of the name. An example of such a name is Astrophytum myriostigma subvar. glabrum, the name of a subvariety of the species Astrophytum myriostigma.

In zoological nomenclature, the valid name of a taxon is the correct scientific name for that taxon. The valid name must be used for that taxon, regardless of any other name that may currently be used for that taxon, or may previously have been used. A name can only be valid when it is an available name under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN); if a name is unavailable, then it cannot be considered either valid or invalid.

In biology, a homonym is a name for a taxon that is identical in spelling to another such name, that belongs to a different taxon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conserved name</span> Conserved name (a protected scientific name)

A conserved name or nomen conservandum is a scientific name that has specific nomenclatural protection. That is, the name is retained, even though it violates one or more rules which would otherwise prevent it from being legitimate. Nomen conservandum is a Latin term, meaning "a name to be conserved". The terms are often used interchangeably, such as by the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (ICN), while the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature favours the term "conserved name".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paratype</span> Taxonomic term

In zoology and botany, a paratype is a specimen of an organism that helps define what the scientific name of a species and other taxon actually represents, but it is not the holotype. Often there is more than one paratype. Paratypes are usually held in museum research collections.

The Botanical and Zoological Codes of nomenclature treat the concept of synonymy differently.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Principle of priority</span> Principle of botanical and zoological nomenclature

Priority is a fundamental principle of modern botanical nomenclature and zoological nomenclature. Essentially, it is the principle of recognising the first valid application of a name to a plant or animal. There are two aspects to this:

  1. The first formal scientific name published for a plant or animal taxon shall be the name that is to be used, called the valid name in zoology and correct name in botany.
  2. Once a name has been used, no subsequent publication of that name for another taxon shall be valid (zoology) or validly published (botany).

In zoological nomenclature, an available name is a scientific name for a taxon of animals that has been published after 1757 and conforming to all the mandatory provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for the establishment of a zoological name.

In botanical nomenclature, a validly published name is a name that meets the requirements in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants for valid publication. Valid publication of a name represents the minimum requirements for a botanical name to exist: terms that appear to be names but have not been validly published are referred to in the ICN as "designations".

References

  1. ↑ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999 , Chapter 2, Article 5. Principle of Binominal Nomenclature ( "Article 5. Principle of Binominal Nomenclature | International Code of Zoological Nomenclature". Archived from the original on 29 March 2023. Retrieved 29 March 2023.)
  2. ↑ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999 , Glossary – "binomen", "nomenclature, binominal" ( "Glossary | International Code of Zoological Nomenclature". Archived from the original on 6 February 2023. Retrieved 29 March 2023.)
  3. ↑ Busby, Arthur III; et al. (1997). A Guide to Rocks and Fossils. p. 103.
  4. ↑ Knapp, Sandra. "What's in a name? A history of taxonomy: Linnaeus and the birth of modern taxonomy". NHM.ac.uk. Natural History Museum, London. Archived from the original on 18 October 2014. Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  5. ↑ Bauhin, Gaspard. "Pinax theatri botanici". Kyoto University Library. Archived from the original on 17 October 2016. Retrieved 19 June 2016.
  6. 1 2 Laurin, Michel (3 August 2023). The Advent of PhyloCode: The Continuing Evolution of Biological Nomenclature. CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781003092827. ISBN   978-1-003-09282-7.
  7. ↑ Nicolson, Dan (1991). "A history of botanical nomenclature". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 78 (1): 33–56. doi:10.2307/2399589. JSTOR   2399589.
  8. ↑ Skerman, V. B. D.; McGowan, V.; Sneath, P. H. A. (1980). "Approved lists of bacterial names". Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 30: 225–420. doi: 10.1099/00207713-30-1-225 .
  9. ↑ Chitwood, B. G. (1958). "The designation of official names for higher taxa of invertebrates". Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 15: 860–895. doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.19410 .
  10. ↑ Silva, P. C. (1958). "Later starting points in algae" (PDF). Taxon. 7 (7): 181–184. doi:10.2307/1216399. JSTOR   1216399.
  11. ↑ ( Turland et al. 2018 , Article 13)
  12. ↑ ( Turland at al. 2018 , Article F.1.1)
  13. ↑ ICZN - International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, UK. 306 pp., .
  14. ↑ Oren, Aharon (2004). "A proposal for further integration of the cyanobacteria under the Bacteriological Code". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 54 (Pt. 5): 1895–1902. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.03008-0 . PMID   15388760.
  15. ↑ "Draft BioCode". 1997.
  16. ↑ McNeill, John (4 November 1996). "Chapter 2. The BioCode: Integrated biological Nomenclature for the 21st Century?". Proceedings of a Mini-Symposium on Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century.
  17. ↑ "The Draft BioCode (2011)". International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB).
  18. ↑ Greuter, W.; Garrity, G.; Hawksworth, D. L.; Jahn, R.; Kirk, P. M.; Knapp, S.; McNeill, J.; Michel, E.; Patterson, D. J.; Pyle, R.; Tindall, B. J. (2011). "Draft BioCode (2011): Principles and rules regulating the naming of organisms". Taxon. 60: 201–212. doi:10.1002/tax.601019.
  19. ↑ Hawksworth, D. L. (2011). "Introducing the Draft BioCode (2011)". Taxon. 60 (1): 199–200. doi:10.1002/tax.601018.
  20. ↑ DL Hawksworth (2011) BioCode 2011. Introduction. http://www.bionomenclature.net/biocode2011.html
  21. ↑ Werner Greuter (2011) BioCode 2011. Explanatory prologue. http://www.bionomenclature.net/biocode2011.html
  22. ↑ Oren, Aharon (2019). in Bergey's Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (1 ed.). Wiley. p. 1-12. doi:10.1002/9781118960608.bm00004.pub2. ISBN   978-1-118-96060-8. S2CID   240836383.
  23. ↑ de Queiroz, K.; Gauthier, J. (December 1990). "Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names" (PDF). Systematic Zoology. 39 (4): 307–322. doi:10.2307/2992353. JSTOR   2992353. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 November 2017.
  24. ↑ Laurin, Michel (23 July 2023). "The PhyloCode : The logical outcome of millennia of evolution of biological nomenclature?". Zoologica Scripta. 52 (6): 543–555. doi:10.1111/zsc.12625. ISSN   0300-3256. S2CID   260224728.
  25. ↑ Corliss, J. O. (1995). "The ambiregnal protists and the codes of nomenclature: A brief review of the problem and of proposed solutions". Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 52: 11–17. doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.6717 .
  26. ↑ ( McNeill et al. 2012 , Preamble: 8)
  27. ↑ Adl, S. M. et al. Diversity, Nomenclature, and Taxonomy of Protists. Systematic Biology, p. 684-689, 2007, .
  28. ↑ Elbrächter, M. et al. Establishing an Agenda for Calcareous Dinoflagellates Research (Thoracosphaeraceae, Dinophyceae) including a nomenclatural synopsis of generic names. Taxon 57, p. 1289–1303, 2008,
  29. 1 2 ( Lahr et al. 2012 )
  30. ↑ Dubois, A. (2006). Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. The proposed Rules and their rationale. Zoosystema, 28 (1): 165‒258, .
  31. ↑ Frost, D. R. et al. (2006). The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1–291, ,
  32. ↑ Dubois, Alain (2015). "The Duplostensional Nomenclatural System for higher zoological nomenclature". Dumerilia. 5: 1–108.
  33. ↑ Dubois, Alain; Ohler, Annemarie; Pyron, R. Alexander (26 February 2021). "New concepts and methods for phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature in zoology, exemplified by a new ranked cladonomy of recent amphibians (Lissamphibia)". Megataxa. 5 (1). doi: 10.11646/megataxa.5.1.1 . ISSN   2703-3090.
  34. ↑ Klüge, N. J. (2010). Circumscriptional names of higher taxa in Hexapoda. Bionomina, 1, 15-55, .
  35. ↑ Kluge, N. J. (1999). "A system of alternative nomenclatures of supra-species taxa. Linnaean and post-Linnaean principles of systematics". Entomological Review. 79 (2): 133–147.
  36. ↑ ( McNeill et al. 2012 , Article 16)
  37. ↑ ( Turland et al. 2018 , Article 16)

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.