The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century

Abstract

HAWKSWORTH, D. L., 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century. The procedures of biological nomenclature are now under immense pressure to change. Users are frustrated by the instability of names and lack of consensus, and increasingly undertake work previously the province of taxonomists; data are presented to show they tend to ignore unwelcome changes. Taxonomists themselves are deflected from both systematic and phylogenetic investigations, and documenting the world's biodiversity, by nomenclatural matters. A survey of 60 U.K. botanical taxonomists revealed that about half spent 10–75% of their research time on nomenclatural matters; extrapolated to the U.K. as a whole, botanical nomenclature could occupy up to 52 full‐time posts at a cost of £ 1.3 million. Further, an analysis of 15 monographs of fungal genera showed that overall 85% of the names investigated were not accepted. The major problems to confront relate to concepts of priority, effective and valid publication, illegitimacy, types, ambiregnal organisms and the decision‐making bodies. While most of these issues have been overcome by bacteriologists, only now are those concerned with botanical and zoological nomenclature starting to tackle them in earnest. A more effective biological nomenclature could be produced by extending the concept of lists of nomenclaturally protected names. This would resolve questions of effective and valid publication, priority, and application. Such lists would primarily assist taxonomists by dealing with much of the nomenclatural ‘noise’ of the past. Registration procedures are needed to complement such lists for names introduced in the future. The need for standard names and classifications fixed for limited periods is increasingly being met by specialist user groups and also concerns some taxonomists, but is best handled outside formal systems by appropriate specialist bodies. Increased harmonization of the Codes is possible when facing common problems and essential to resolve the difficulties posed by ambiregnal organisms. The image of taxonomy is adversely affected by unsatisfactory nomenclatural systems. Taxonomists should be responsible and refrain from changing names only for nomenclatural reasons while these matters are in discussion. Users and taxonomists need to work with nomenclaturalists to improve the effectiveness of biological nomenclature, if they are to ensure that it will fulfil both their requirements in the 21st century. The prospects for systematics are bleak if it fails to consummate the dual responsibilities of scientific endeavour and user requirements

Phylogenetic position and revised classification ofAcacia s.l.(Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in Africa, including new combinations inVachelliaandSenegalia

“…Botanical nomenclature is occasionally discussed in the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society (e.g. Elliott, 1992;Hawskworth, 1992;Knapp, McNeill & Turland, 2011) even though it is not one of its current focuses. Changes to the code are decided upon every six years at the Nomenclature Sections of the International Botanical Congress, resulting in an updated nomenclatural code, which after the Melbourne Congress in 2011 was renamed the International Code for Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICN, McNeill et al 2011).…”

An Online Database of Names and Descriptions as an Alternative to Registration

“…Taxonomists should spend their time meaningfully with the study of organisms and the publication of novel observations rather than wasting time determining if names are available for use or not (Hawksworth 1992). A compulsory registration of new names and their accessibility on the Internet seemed to be the solution, but the idea of a registration system, which entailed sending copies of publications to a documentation centre, was first mooted in a nomenclature meeting organized under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences in Geneva in 1954 (Hawksworth 1992).…”

“…A compulsory registration of new names and their accessibility on the Internet seemed to be the solution, but the idea of a registration system, which entailed sending copies of publications to a documentation centre, was first mooted in a nomenclature meeting organized under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences in Geneva in 1954 (Hawksworth 1992). After years of preparation (Brummitt et al 1986, Greuter & von Raab-Straube 1998, Wilson 1997, proposals were made in the years 1991-1998 with the aim of making the registration of names of new taxa and other nomenclatural novelties compulsory before they are accepted as validly published (Faegri 1991, Borgen et al 1997.…”

Reconciling Kingdoms with Codes of Nomenclature: Is It Necessary?

“…Even if we consider the alleged nomenclatural problems of biologically misplaced groups, of "uncoded" kingdoms, and of ambiregnal taxa, the present triad of code structure (especially the wording of speci c parts, e.g., Preamble and Article 45.5, ICBN, 1994;Article 10f, ICZN, 1985) allows us to deal effectively, if not perfectly, with the nomenclature of organisms encountered. We are not saying that nomenclature cannot be improved; rather, through many years of hard-wrought revisions in codes, nomenclatural de ciencies may not be as great as sometimes implied (Barnett, 1989;Hawksworth, 1991Hawksworth, , 1992. There is proven value and soundness of method in existing nomenclatural codication.…”

“…For example, we agree with Strother (1995) that the principle of priority (explicit in the codes) is fundamental to nomenclature and to the solution of many nomenclatural problems. We should be cautious of abandoning or ignoring approved nomenclatural documents in favor of temporarily expedient measures such as extended, protected name-lists (Hawksworth, 1992).…”