The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature must be drastically improved before it is too late

Bionomina ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain DUBOIS
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Integrative Taxonomy ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Biodiversity Crisis ◽  
Higher Taxa ◽  
Standards And Guidelines ◽  
Living Species ◽  
Code Compliance ◽  
Material Evidence ◽  
Current Code

At the beginning of the century of extinctions, science has only inventoried a very small proportion of the living species of the globe. In order to face the taxonomic urgency that results from this taxonomic gap combined with the biodiversity crisis, zootaxonomy needs efficient, rigorous and automatic nomenclatural Rules, that allow to spend a minimal time on nomenclatural problems—rather than investing time, energy and money in renaming millions of already named taxa in order to follow alternative nomenclatural systems, e.g., “phylogenetic” ones, that furthermore do not show theoretical superiority to the current Linnaean-Stricklandian one. The current Code, result of a 250-year improvement process, is based on very sound and healthy Rules, being theory-free regarding taxonomy, relying on objective allocation of nomina to taxa by a system of ostension using onomatophores, and on an objective basic Principle, priority, for recognizing the valid nomen of a taxon in case of synonymy or homonymy. Nevertheless, this nomenclatural system is certainly not perfect. It should be modified at least in nine directions: (1) it should adopt a technical terminology avoiding possible misinterpretations from outsiders of the field and even from specialists, and allowing a precise formalisation of its mode of functioning; (2) its plan should be drastically modified; (3) its Principles should be redefined, and some added; (4) material evidence for the allocation of nomina to taxa through specimens deposited in permanent collections should be given more weight; (5) it should incorporate all nomina of higher taxa, providing clear and strict universal Rules for their naming, whereas conserving the traditional nomina largely used in non-specialized systematic literature; (6) it should allow for the recognition of many more ranks at lower nomenclatural levels, i.e., just above genus, between genus and species, and below species; (7) it should provide much more stringent Rules for the protection against priority of “wellknown” nomina or sozonyms; (8) various “details” should be addressed, various Rules and Recommendations changed before a new edition of the Code is published; (9) the procedure of implementations of changes in the Code should be modified in order to involve zootaxonomists of the whole world in the decisions. In several instances, the Rules of the Code should become much more compulsory for all zoologists, editors and publishers, to avoid the publication of endless and sometimes most detrimental discussions among taxonomists which give a poor image of nomenclature and taxonomy among the biological sciences, such as bitter discussions about the “best” nomen to be used under a so-called “usage” philosophy, or about nomina to be applied to higher taxa. Code-compliance in zootaxonomic publications should be highlighted, and editors and publishers should require from authors who follow alternative nomenclatural Rules (or no rule at all) to make it clear by using particular modes of writing their nomina. It is argued here that if the Code of the 21st century does not evolve to incorporate these changes, it will prove unable to play its role in front of several important recent theoretical and practical developments of taxonomy and run the risk of being abandoned by a part of the international community of zootaxonomists. The latter could then adopt alternative “phylogenetic” nomenclatural Rules, despite the severe practical problems and theoretical flaws posed by such projects. This would be most detrimental for all comparative biological disciplines including systematics, and even for the unity of biology. In the course of this discussion, a few recommendations are given concerning the standards and guidelines suggested by recent authors for a good, modern, integrative taxonomy.

Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature:the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks

Zootaxa ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 1519 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAIN DUBOIS
Keyword(s):  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Biodiversity Crisis ◽  
Storage And Retrieval ◽  
Taxonomic Impediment ◽  
Living Species ◽  
Is Theory ◽  
Time And Energy ◽  
New Situation ◽  
Taxonomic Categories

The use of ranks and nominal-series in zoological nomenclature has recently been challenged by some authors who support unranked systems of nomenclature. It is here shown that this criticism is based on a double misunderstanding: (1) the confusion between nomenclatural ranks and taxonomic categories; (2) the request for a monosemic nomenclatural system, not for scientific reasons, but to please non-taxonomists, especially customers of the web. It is here argued that nomenclatural ranks and taxonomic categories should be clearly distinguished and designated by different terms, and that the Code should be modified in order to make this distinction clear. Whereas taxonomic categories have biological definitions, nomenclatural ranks do not, as they express only a position in a taxonomic hierarchy. If used consistently (which is not always the case), the system of nomenclatural ranks is very useful for the storage and retrieval of taxonomic and phylogenetic information. Taxa referred to a given rank in different groups cannot therefore be considered equivalent by any criterion, so that using ranks for comparisons between taxa (e.g., for biodiversity richness assessment) is irrelevant and misleading. Although the current Code needs to be improved in several respects, the superiority of this nomenclatural system, which is theory-free regarding taxonomy as it relies on ostensional allocation of nomina to taxa rather than on intensional definitions of nomina, is again stressed. It is suggested that all taxonomists should follow the Code for the allocation and validity of nomina, whatever taxonomic theory they favour, and in particular whatever kinds of definitions or diagnoses they wish to use for taxa. This would avoid the considerable loss of manpower, time and energy that would be required by the implementation of a new nomenclatural system (e.g., in order to require “phylogenetic definitions” for nomina, or to make nomenclature fully monosemic), and the confusion that would result for most users of nomina. The new paradigm imposed to biology by the combination of the taxonomic impediment and of the biodiversity crisis requires from taxonomists, who are already considerably much less numerous than required by this new situation, to concentrate on what should be their priority at the beginning of the century of extinctions, namely the inventory of the living species of our planet before they get extinct.

Optical discs in zoological nomenclature: problems and proposed solution

Bionomina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAIN DUBOIS ◽  
PANAKKOOL THAMBAN ANEESH ◽  
AARON M. BAUER ◽  
LUIS M. P. CERÍACO ◽  
GIMO M. DANIEL ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Community ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Technology Dependence ◽  
Optical Discs ◽  
Current Code

According to the Code currently in force, taxonomic works presenting nomenclatural novelties published on optical discs may be nomenclaturally available only if published between 1985 and 2013, and respecting some conditions allowing their nomenclatural promulgation. These works will remain accessible to readers only as long as the technologies allowing to read such discs are available to all, but will become inaccessible when these technologies become obsolete. In order to overcome this technology dependence, the Linz Zoocode Committee has decided to publish facsimiles of these works, both on paper and online. For this to be possible, a list of these works needs to be built. We are therefore sending an appeal to the international community to provide information on all taxonomic works including nomenclatural novelties published so far on optical discs, whether available or not under the current Code.

Further proposals about higher zoological nomenclature, and a lesson of humility: the solution to a recent controversy about the authorship and date of the nomen Amphibia had already been published one century ago

Bionomina ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Alain Dubois
Keyword(s):  
Original Work ◽  
The Other ◽  
Simple Solution ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Unexpected Finding ◽  
The Past ◽  
Higher Taxa ◽  
Biological Literature

The absence in the Code of Rules for the nomenclature of zoological taxa above the rank superfamily is an impediment to universal and unambiguous communication about the higher taxonomy of animals. Pending the possible fixing of the Code in this respect, it appears justified to develop a set of simple ‘guidelines’ which could be adopted consensually by the taxonomists who wish so. They could include: (1) the convention that the ‘same name’ given to different higher taxa results in the existence (and therefore availability) of different homonymous nomina, having different authors and dates; (2) the convention that a nomen of higher taxon first introduced clearly as a scientific, not vernacular, name but in a non-Latin form, and that was latinised subsequently in the literature, should be credited to the author of the original work; (3) the need to ‘protect’ the best known and most often used higher zoological nomina (sozonyms and sozodiaphonyms), with the dominant meanings and spellings that they have had for decades or centuries in the biological literature, irrespective of being or not the first ones to have been proposed for the taxa at stake or among homonyms; (4) the implementation of the Principles of Homonymy and of Priority among all the other nomina of higher taxa. These proposals are illustrated by examples in amphibian higher nomenclature, concerning the well-known nomina Amphibia and Batrachia, which have been the matter of recent controversies. An unexpected finding is reported here: that a similar debate on this same question developed in the years 1889–1910, mostly in the journal Science, and was closed by a clear and simple solution, which has fallen into complete oblivion since then. This suggests that our databases are incomplete and that we should be more humble in our debates than we often are, as we are still missing important pieces of information on the past literature.

Galathea nasimae, new name for Galathea keijii Tirmizi & Javed, 1993, preoccupied by Galathea keijii Karasawa, 1993 (Decapoda: Anomura: Galatheidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4590 (2) ◽  
pp. 296
Author(s):  
HIROAKI KARASAWA
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Arabian Sea ◽  
Andaman Sea ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Fossil Species ◽  
Squat Lobster ◽  
New Name ◽  
Reference Collection ◽  
Living Species

The name, Galathea keijii, was given to a Miocene fossil species of squat lobster from Japan by Karasawa (1993: 39, pl. 6, figs. 1, 2, 3, 10). In the same year, the name, Galathea keijii, was established for a living species from the Andaman Sea and Arabian Sea (Tirmizi & Javed 1993: 50, fig. 22). Therefore, both names are homonymous. The description of Karasawa was published in the Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum, no. 20, which, on the inside back cover states the date of publication as December 25, 1993. The description of Tirmizi & Javed was published in “Indian Ocean galatheids (Crustacea: Anomura)” by the Marine Reference Collection and Resource Centre, University of Karachi. This work was published in 1993 but the day and month of publication were not cited in the publication. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the date of publication for “Indian Ocean galatheids (Crustacea: Anomura)” is deemed to be the last day of 1993, by application of Article 21.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999: 20). As such, application of Article 52 on the principle of homonymy of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999: 56) shows that Galathea keijii Karasawa, 1993, takes precedence over Galathea keijii Tirmizi & Javed, 1993. In accordance with Article 60 on the replacement of junior homonyms (ICZN 1999: 62, 63) a new replacement name, Galathea nasimae, is here proposed for Galathea keijii Tirmizi & Javed, 1993. It is dedicated to the late Dr. Nasima M. Tirmizi (Marine Reference Collection and Resource Centre, University of Karachi).

The Encyclopedia of Life vs. the Brochure of Life: Exploring the relationships between the extinction of species and the inventory of life on Earth

Zootaxa ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 1965 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOSÉ ANTONIO GONZÁLEZ-OREJA
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
First Century ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Biodiversity Crisis ◽  
Number Of Species ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Living Species ◽  
Life On Earth

One of the most crucial questions of twenty-first century systematic biology deals with the determination of the real number of living species currently sharing the Earth with us (Cracraft 2002); answers vary widely, but commonly range between 3 and 100 million (see, for example, Stork 1997 or May 2002 and references therein). However, in terms of completeness and correctness, our current inventory of living species is certainly unsatisfactory (Dubois 2003), as the total number of species described so far is known to correspond to only a very small fraction of the Earth´s biodiversity. Indeed, large numbers of species remain to be discovered, primarily insects, small invertebrates and, above all, microorganisms (Chevalier et al. 1997). On the other hand, this gap of knowledge regarding the magnitude of the Earth´s biodiversity limits our capacity to properly manage the world´s biotic resources and conserve biological diversity in this so-called Century of Extinctions (Dubois 2003): the current biodiversity crisis is wiping out a significant fraction of living species at an alarming rate and, sadly, an unknown number of species is being forever lost before being discovered, described, and named. Likewise, conservation priorities are clearly constrained by our limited knowledge of the total biodiversity (Dubois 2003, Scotland et al. 2003).

Chronospecies' longevities, the origin of genera, and the punctuational model of evolution

Paleobiology ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Mass Extinction ◽  
Distinct Species ◽  
Evolutionary Change ◽  
Late Cenozoic ◽  
Bottleneck Effect ◽  
Survivorship Curve ◽  
Higher Taxa ◽  
As Species ◽  
Living Species ◽  
Evolutionary Lineages

Taxonomists working with late Cenozoic faunas tend to view living species as starting points for the evaluation of chronospecies (i.e., segments of evolutionary lineages subjectively designated as species) that extend backward in time from the Recent. This practice makes it possible to construct a survivorship curve for late Cenozoic chronospecies by evaluating all fossil lineages believed to have survived to the present day. A survivorship curve is produced by plotting the fraction of these lineages existing at any time that have not undergone enough phyletic evolution that their extant representatives are assigned to new species. This kind of surviviorship curve has been plotted for chronospecies of mammals using the beginning of the Würm, rather than the Recent, as an endpoint in order to avoid the effects of the Würm and post-Würm mass extinction. The survivorship curve reveals that all but a small fraction of established chronospecies have long durations relative to intervals of time during which distinctive higher taxa have arisen. Phyletic turnover of species has been remarkably slow. Most net evolutionary change must have been associated with saltational speciation. Even the large majority of genera must have arisen rapidly by one or more divergent speciation events. Estimates of rates of extinction suggest that the bottleneck effect, in which constriction of a lineage is followed by re-expansion as a distinct species, cannot be a major source of evolutionary change. These conclusions, based on the evaluation of mammalian phylogeny, seem also to apply to other taxa of animals, supporting the punctuational model of evolution. The long durations of hominid species imply that the evolution of humans, like that of other mammals, conforms to this model.

Zoological nomina with typus or typicus as the specific epithet

Bionomina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
ALESSANDRO MINELLI
Keyword(s):  
Close Contact ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Specific Epithet ◽  
Changing Practice ◽  
Higher Taxa

More than one hundred nomina with typus as the specific epithet were introduced between 1810 and 1999. These nomina are discussed in respect to the different notions of typicality—morphological, taxonomic and nomenclatural—that may have motivated the use of this epithet by different authors in different times and the significance of these epithets in respect to the changing practice and regulation of zoological nomenclature since the time of the Strickland Report (1842). Traditions specific to particular higher taxa and shared usage of the typus epithet by zoologists in close contact with each other are suggested. Nomina with typicus (-a, -um) as the specific epithet are also briefly discussed.

Allocation of nomina to taxa in zoological nomenclature

Bionomina ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
ALAIN DUBOIS
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Special Kind ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Phylogenetic Hypothesis ◽  
International Scientific Community ◽  
Animal Kingdom ◽  
Higher Taxa ◽  
Widespread Belief ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Clear Objective

       This paper explores two aspects of the question of the allocation of nomina to taxa in zoological nomenclature.       The widespread belief that this allocation is effected only through onomatophores (‘types’) is shown to be wrong: if onomatophores only were involved, each zoological nomen would apply to all the taxa including the specimen(s) designated as onymophoront of each species-series nomen, up to the animal kingdom. Onomatophores do not provide the limit(s) of the taxon/taxa to which they apply. These limits are provided by two other pieces of information: the nominal-series to which the nomen of a taxon is assigned and the onomatostasis of this nomen, i.e. the onomatophore of the sister-taxon of the taxon under consideration.       In species-, genus- and family-series nomenclature, the onomatostasis of a nomen is not fixed but depends on the ergotaxonomy (working classification) adopted, which is ideally based on at least one accepted phylogenetic hypothesis. The situation is more complex in the class-series nomenclature. So far, the stages of taxonomic allocation and nomenclatural validity in this nomenclature have not been regulated by formal Rules shared by all zootaxonomists, so that chaos and miscommunication are in order regarding the Criteria to be used in these domains, which is detrimental to zoological nomenclature and its perception by the international scientific community. The adoption of clear and strict Rules in this respect appears as an urgent need. These Rules should allow both to provide clear objective Criteria for the allocation of class-series nomina to taxa, but also to validate the few very well known and consensually adopted class-series nomina (pansozonyms). For this purpose, five possible nomenclatural systems of allocation of nomina are compared. The best solution appears to have two different systems, one for almost all nomina (distagmonyms), and one only for pansozonyms. The latter system relies on a special kind of onomatostases, which are fixed and do not depend on the classification adopted: this allows to attach permanently these nomina to some well-known higher taxa, whatever changes are brought to the cladistic hypotheses and ergotaxonomic frames.

New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen

Zootaxa ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 1761 (1) ◽  
pp. 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS M. DONEGAN
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
New Taxa ◽  
Type Specimen ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Type Specimens ◽  
Conservation Action ◽  
Current Code

Dubois & Nemésio (2007) recently considered that the present International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (“Code”) could reasonably be interpreted as requiring the deposition of dead vouchers for new species and subspecies descriptions. They considered that, to the extent that there is lack of clarity, the Code should be amended so as to require the deposition of a dead voucher. They doubted the utility of photographs and other materials for descriptions and suggested that ethical or moral concerns about the taking of dead type specimens were poorly supported. Dubois & Nemésio (2007)’s preferred interpretations of the current Code are not supported by members of the Commission. Possible reasons why the collection of a dead type specimen might not be necessary or recommended include the setting of a good example to communities in whose hands conservation action lies, government permit issues and the description of new taxa on the brink of extinction where collecting may impact populations. The Code should be liberal in relation to the nature of type specimens to enable taxonomists, who are the persons best placed to take decisions, to make appropriate judgments for particular descriptions.

Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: some basic questions

Zootaxa ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 1337 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAIN DUBOIS
Keyword(s):  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Special System ◽  
Higher Taxa ◽  
The Future ◽  
Long Time

Several proposals have recently been published regarding the possible incorporation of nomenclature of higher taxa (class-series nomina) into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Some basic questions related to this problem are discussed here. Introducing standard endings for the nomina of these taxa would probably be a kind of hara-kiri for LinnaeanStricklandian nomenclature of higher taxa: it would upset nomenclatural stability by introducing many new nomina and abandoning most of the nomina that have been in constant use in zoology for a long time to other nomenclatural systems alternative to the Code. Nomina of higher taxa should rather all belong in a single nominal-series, the class-series. They should not be submitted to a Rule of Coordination (except for identical taxa of different ranks), and their allocation to taxa should not be made through extensional or intensional definitions, but through ostension with a special system combining onomatophores (the conucleogenera) and onomatostases (the alienogenera). This system provides clear, unambiguous, stringent and universal Rules for the nomination of higher taxa in the future, compatible with all taxonomic systems including “phylogenetic” ones, while respecting the freedom of taxonomic thought and actions, as well as the tradition long attached to nomina of higher taxa in zoology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document