New concepts and methods for phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature in zoology, exemplified by a new ranked cladonomy of recent amphibians (Lissamphibia)

Although currently most taxonomists claim to adhere to the concept of ‘phylogenetic taxonomy’, in fact most of the zoological classifications currently published are only in part ‘phylogenetic’ but include also phenetic or gradist approaches, in their arbitrary choices of the nodes formally recognised as taxa and in their attribution of ranks to these taxa. We here propose a new approach to ‘phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature’, exemplified by a phylogenetic classification or cladonomy of the extant amphibians (subclass Lissamphibia of the class Amphibia) derived from a supermatrix-based phylogenetic analysis using 4060 amphibian species, i.e. about half of the 8235 species recognised on 31 October 2020. These taxa were represented by a mean of 3029 bp (range: 197–13849 bp) of DNA sequence data from a mean of 4 genes (range: 1‒15). The cladistic tree thus generated was transferred into a classification according to a new taxonomic and nomenclatural methodology presented here, which allows a bijective or isomorphic relationship between the phylogenetic hypothesis and the classification through a rigorous use of suprageneric ranks, in which their hierarchy mirrors the structure of the tree. Our methodology differs from all previous ones in several particulars: [1] whereas the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature uses only three ‘groups of names’ (species, genus and family), we recognise four nominal-series (species, genus, family and class); [2] we strictly follow the Code for the establishment of the valid nomen (scientific name) of taxa in the three lower nominal-series (however, in a few situations, we suggest improvements to the current Rules of the Code); [3] we provide precise and unambiguous Criteria for the assignment of suprageneric nomina to either the family- or the class-series, excluding nomina proposed expressly under unranked or pseudoranked nomenclatural systems; [4] in the class-series, for which the Code provides only incomplete Rules concerning availability, we provide precise, complete and unambiguous Criteria for the nomenclatural availability, taxonomic allocation and nomenclatural validity and correctness of nomina; [5] we stress the fact that nomenclatural ranks do not have biological definitions or meanings and that they should never be used in an ‘absolute’ way (e.g., to express degrees of genetic or phenetic divergence between taxa or hypothesised ages of cladogeneses) but in a ‘relative’ way: two taxa which are considered phylogenetically as sister-taxa should always be attributed to the same nomenclatural rank, but taxa bearing the same rank in different ‘clades’ are by no means ‘equivalent’, as the number of ranks depends largely on the number of terminal taxa (species) and on the degree of phylogenetic resolution of the tree; [6] because of this lack of ‘equivalence’, some arbitrary criteria are necessary to fix a starting point for assigning a given suprageneric rank to some taxa, from which the ranks of all other taxa will automatically derive through a simple implementation of the hierarchy of ranks: for this purpose we chose the rank family and we propose a ‘Ten Criteria Procedure’ allowing to fix the position of this rank in any zoological classification. As a result of the implementation of this set of Criteria, we obtained a new ranked classification of extant lissamphibians using 25 suprageneric ranks below the rank class (11 class-series and 14 family-series ranks), and including 34 class-series and 573 family-series taxa, and where the 575 genera we recognise are referred to 69 families and 87 subfamilies. We provide new nomina and diagnoses for 10 class-series taxa, 171 family-series taxa, 14 genus-series taxa and 1 species. As many new species of amphibians are permanently described, this classification and its nomenclature will certainly have to change many times in the future but, using the clear, explicit, complete, automatic and unambiguous methodology presented here, these changes will be easy to implement, and will not depend on subjective and arbitrary choices as it has too often been the case in the last decades. We suggest that applying this methodology in other zoological groups would improve considerably the homogeneity, clarity and usefulness of zoological taxonomy and nomenclature.

Explicit and hidden zoological categories in early Chinese taxonomies

The present article investigates the problems of zoological taxonomical categories in texts that range from the Warring States (ca. 453–221 BCE) to the Eastern Han periods (25–220 CE). It focuses its attention on the Erya (attested 3rd c. BCE), a work that had a pivotal role during the development of Chinese lexicography. This terse glossary is probably one of the first texts that deal with the problem of taxonomical classification in early China through the use of syntactical devices that I call “categorical markers”, i.e. normalised characters that introduce an ontologically independent category of entities. By dint of the analysis of selected case studies, it will be shown that along fairly well attested “categorical markers” that constitute dichotomous systems (such as shou 獸 “quadruped furred creatures” versus niao 鳥 “bipedal winged creatures”), early Chinese taxonomies reveal less explicit linguistic devices that are implied in zoological classification, e.g. the presence of “sub-categorical markers” as noun modifiers (chou 醜 “being physically similar” or shu 屬 “to belong to a category”) used in order to create embedded taxonomies within the standard “categorical markers”. This complexity reveals an organised taxonomical system that helps us to better define the early Chinese conception of the natural world.

Entomological Images in the Worldview of the Buryats

Purpose. The aim of this study is to identify a set of traditional views of the Buryats associated with insects. Results. In the popular zoological classification of the Buryats, the insects were distinguished as a separate class due to their small size. Another sign of this class was the characteristic of insects being nimble. Insects were divided into such groups as “winged insects”, “worms and beetles”, “social insects” and others. Images of insects that live in the sky, water and on earth were not always determined by their habitat. According to the Buryat views, there was a group of chthonic creatures, such as midges, flies, lice, fleas and beetles. At the same time, there existed a popular belief that insects appeared as falling from the sky. By contrast with other classes of animals, insects in Buryats beliefs were not personified in a single spirit as the patron of insects. Images of representatives of the order of Lepidoptera, such as butterflies and moths, are rarely present in the traditional worldview of the Buryats. According to their views, in addition to the presence of wings, the most important feature of many Diptera insects is their ability to produce monotonous sounds while flying – buzz, and this quality is reflected in the Buryat vocabulary. The Buryats believed that certain insects had unique features. For instance, the bee had a feminine essence. It is worth noting that the bee was included into a limited group of animals, together with a swallow and an ant, whose presence in the Buryat dwelling was considered favorable for the life of the family. According to the Buryats’ mythological views, only ants had a hierarchy in their groups. Conclusion. Our analysis has shown that insects were not very important creatures in the Buryats’ beliefs. However, some insects had distinct characteristics. The ant and the bee were considered to be positive, while the gadfly, mosquito, wasp, moth, bug, louse and flea negative. It should also be noted that the chthonic origin of the ant did not determine its final connotation. The Buryats often compared insects to other animal species. The material considered shows that they associated a soul with opposite images of bees and wasps. Some insects were connected with the idea of lycanthropy and the symbolism of fertility, such as the ant and the bee. Unlike other classes of animals, insects were vaguely represented in the myth-ritual practices of the Buryats. Some Buryat views on insects find parallels with the mythological judgments of other peoples, such as the Mongols, Slavic tribes, etc., which is explained by the universal character of the images, typological coincidences and intercultural contacts (primarily with the Mongols).

Cloning and sequencing of GH, H-FABP and HSP72 genes in yak

The growth hormone (GH) gene, the heart fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) gene and the heat shock protein 72 (HSP72) gene of the yak (Bos grunniens) were cloned and sequenced. The sequences were compared with those of other animals, and phylogenetic trees were constructed by the NJ (neighborhood joining) method. Results showed that the yak GH gene was composed of five exons (13, 161, 117, 162 and 198 bp) and four introns (248, 225, 229 and 275 bp). The cDNA of GH was a 654 bp nucleotide encoding a putative protein of 217 amino acid (AA) residuals, with a signal peptide of 26 AAs and the mature peptide of 191 AAs. The H-FABP gene was composed of four exons (73, 173, 102 and 54 bp) and three introns (3460, 1892 and 1495 bp). The cDNA was 402 bp encoding a putative protein of 133 AAs. The yak HSP72 gene was an intron-free 1926bp nucleotide, encoding a protein of 641 AAs. The data suggest that the three genes from the yak were highly conserved with other species at the nucleic acid level. The results of the phylogenetic trees reflect the molecular evolution relationship among these species, consistent with the zoological classification. The genetic distance calculated by the nucleotide sequence of the GH gene’s coding region indicated that genetic distances among yak, cattle, gayal and zebu were relatively small, but genetic distances between these four species and buffalo were relatively large. Therefore, it was more reasonable to consider yak, cattle, gayal and zebu as independent species of the genus Bos, while buffalo belongs to another category (Bubalus). Key words: Yak, GH gene, H-FABP gene, HSP72 gene, phylogenetic evolution