Draft Biocode: Prospective International Rules For The Scientific Names Of Organisms

Greuter, Werner; Hawksworth, D. L.; McNeill, John; Mayo, Michael; Minelli, Alessandro; Sneath, P. H. A.; Tindall, B. J.; Trehane, R. P.; Tubbs, Philip K.

doi:10.5962/bhl.part.14144

Cited by 17 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4. By means of minor changes to data integrity rules and insertion of some additional attributes, it can accommodate the zoologists' and bacteriologists' requirements, as well as the needs under the proposed BioCode (Greuter & al., 1996). This structure is able to handle a multitude of tasks, among them conceptual circumscription of taxa, acceptance, synonymy, classification in alternative taxonomies (even with incomplete trees), and systematic taxa sequence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This is not accidental, but rather a direct consequence of the rules of botanical nomenclature (see Art. 47.1. of the Code, Greuter & al., 1994).…”

Section: Potential Taxamentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The homonym warning flag in the entity type Taxon Name serves to draw attention to the existence of homonyms which otherwise could be erraneously linked to new potential taxon names. Because of the existence of parahomonyms ("confusingly similar names" based on different types, Greuter & al., 1994) and because homonyms for a given potential taxon may be cited in various forms ("non", "vix") and to varying degrees of completeness, the homonym declaration must be explicit (i.e., not only handled by a flag but also by a separate entity type).…”

Section: Basionyms -Structurally a Basionym Is Just Another Synonymmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…-The data model closely follows the rules and recommendations given in Appendix I of the Code (Greuter & al., 1994). Hybridity is indicated by an attribute in the Taxon Name entity type (attribute "Hybrid Qualifier", value: multiplication sign).…”

Section: Taxon Names (Scientific Names and Other Designations)mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A taxonomic information model for botanical databases: the IOPI Model

Berendsohn

1997

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Berendsohn, W. G.: A taxonomic information model for botanical databases: the IOPI Model – Taxon 46: 283‐309. 1997. – ISSN 0040‐0262. A comprehensive information model for the recording of taxonomic data from literature and other sources is presented, which was devised for the Global Plant Checklist database project of the International Organisation of Plant Information (IOPI). The model is based on an approach using hierarchical decomposition of data areas into atomic data elements and – in parallel – abstraction into an entity relationship model. It encompasses taxa of all ranks, nothotaxa and hybrid formulae, “unnamed taxa”, cultivars, full synonymy, misapplied names, basionyms, nomenclatural data, and differing taxonomic concepts (potential taxa) as well as alternative taxonomies to any extent desired. The model was developed together with related models using a CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering) tool. It can help designers of biological information systems to avoid the widely made error of over‐simplification of taxonomic data and the resulting loss in data accuracy and quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This is not accidental, but rather a direct consequence of the rules of botanical nomenclature (see Art. 47.1. of the Code, Greuter & al., 1994).…”

Section: Potential Taxamentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Basionyms -Structurally a Basionym Is Just Another Synonymmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Taxon Names (Scientific Names and Other Designations)mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A taxonomic information model for botanical databases: the IOPI Model

Berendsohn

1997

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No code of nomenclature, existing (Greuter et al, 2000;ICNB, 1992;ICZN, 1999) or proposed (PC and BioCode; Greuter et al, 1998), is flawless, as the numerous criticisms have repeatedly pointed out. Further, to take effect and for subsequent refinement, any new code needs congressional endorsement (Blackwell, 2002).…”

Section: Need For Compromisementioning

confidence: 96%

Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature

Kuntner

Agnarsson

2006

Systematic Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A combination approach between the rules and recommendations from the Linnean (rank-based) and phylogenetic nomenclature is proposed, with a review of the debate. Advantages and drawbacks of both systems are discussed. Too often the debates are biased and unconstructive, and there is a need for dialogue and compromise. Our recommendations for the future of biological classification, to be considered by new editions of all codes of nomenclature, would enable the Linnean and the phylogenetic nomenclatural systems to coexist, or be combined. (1) We see it as essential that species binomen, including the formal rank of genus, are retained, and (2) species should continue to be linked to type specimens. (3) The use of other formal ranks should be minimized; however, we suggest retaining the classical supergeneric ranks (family, class, order, phylum, kingdom) for purely practical reasons. (4) For these ranks and any formally defined clades, type taxa (species, genera) should be replaced by phylogenetic definitions that explicitly hypothesize monophyly. (5) In contrast, species monophyly should not be required, because theory predicts that many species are not monophyletic. (6) It should be stressed that equal ranks do not imply comparable evolutionary histories.

show abstract