Nomenclature codes From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Biological nomenclature) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2010) Nomenclature codes or codes of nomenclature are the various rulebooks that govern biological taxonomic nomenclature, each in their own broad field of organisms. To an end- user who only deals with names of species, with some awareness that species are assignable to families, 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. The successful introduction of two-part names for species by Linnaeus was the start for an ever-expanding system of nomenclature. With all naturalists worldwide adopting this approach to thinking up names 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-nineteenth century onwards there were several initiatives to arrive at worldwide-accepted sets of rules. Presently nomenclature codes govern the naming of: • Algae, Fungi and Plants – International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), which in July 2011 replaced the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) and the earlier International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. • Animals – International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) • Bacteria – International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (ICNB) • Cultivated plants – International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) • Plant associations – International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature • Viruses – International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV); see also virus classification Contents • 1 Differences between codes o 1.1 Starting point o 1.2 Workings o 1.3 Terminology o 1.4 Types • 2 Other codes • 3 Ambiregnal protists • 4 Unregulated taxa • 5 See also • 6 References • 7 External links 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. In botany and mycology the starting point is often 1753, in zoology 1758. On the other hand bacteriology started anew, making a clean sweep in 1980, although maintaining the original authors and dates of publication. 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.[1] Other codes A more radical approach was to replace all existing codes with a new BioCode, basically a synthesis of the existing Codes.[2][3] The originally planned implementation date for the BioCode draft was January 1, 2000, but agreement was not reached. A revised BioCode that, instead of replacing the existing codes, would provide a unified context for them, was proposed in 2011.[4][5][6] The International Botanical Congress of 2011 declined to consider the BioCode proposal. Another code in development is the PhyloCode, which would regulate phylogenetic nomenclature rather than Linnaean nomenclature (that is, it requires phylogenetic definitions for every name, and does not contain mandatory ranks). The accompanying volume (meant to serve the code as Systema naturae functions relative to the Zoological code) is however still on the draft stage, and it is uncertain when, or even if, the code will see any form of implementation. 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.[7][8] These unnecessary duplications introduced a double language throughout protist classification schemes that resulted in confusion.[9][10] Groups claimed by 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 protozoologists and mycologists include mycetozoans, plasmodiophorids, acrasids, labyrinthulomycetess and chytrids. Other problematic groups are the Cyanobacteria and Microsporidia. Unregulated taxa The zoological code doesn't 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,[11][12] including the use of typified nomenclature, of the PhyloCode, or also of circumscriptional nomenclature.[13][14] The botanical code is applied primarily to the ranks of family and below. There are some rules for names above the rank of family, 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.[15] 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 presents special problems for microrganisms.[16] Binomial nomenclature From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Latin name" redirects here. For personal names in the Roman Empire, see Roman naming conventions. For the system used for voting, see Binomial System. Binomial nomenclature (also called binominal nomenclature or 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 or a scientific name; more informally it is also called a Latin name. The first part of the name identifies the genus to which the species belongs; the second part identifies the species within the genus. For example, humans belong to the genus Homo and within this genus to the species Homo sapiens. The formal introduction of this system of naming species is credited to Swedish natural scientist Carl Linnaeus, effectively beginning with his work Species Plantarum in 1753.[1] The application of binomial nomenclature is now governed by various internationally agreed codes of rules, of which the two most important are the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) for animals and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) for plants. Although the general principles underlying binomial nomenclature are common to these two codes, there are some differences, both in the terminology they use and in their precise rules. In modern usage, the first letter of the first part of the name, the genus, is always capitalized in writing, while that of the second part is not, even when derived from a proper noun such as the name of a person or place. Similarly, both parts are italicized when a binomial name occurs in normal text. Thus the binomial name of the annual phlox (named after botanist Thomas Drummond) is now written as Phlox drummondii. In scientific works, the "authority" for a binomial name is usually given, at least when it is first mentioned, and the date of publication may be specified. • In zoology o "Patella vulgata Linnaeus, 1758". The name "Linnaeus" tells the reader who it was that first published a description and name for this species of sea snail; 1758 is the date of the publication in which the original description can be found (in this case the 10th edition of the book Systema Naturae). o "Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)". The original name given by Linnaeus was Fringilla domestica; the parentheses indicate that the species is now considered to belong in a different genus. The ICZN does not require that the name of the person who changed the genus be given, nor the date on which the change was made, although nomenclatorial catalogs usually include such information. • In botany o "Amaranthus retroflexus L." – "L." is the standard abbreviation used in botany for "Linnaeus". o "Hyacinthoides italica (L.) Rothm. – Linnaeus first named this bluebell species Scilla italica; Rothmaler transferred it to the genus Hyacinthoides; the ICN does not require that the dates of either publication be specified. Contents • 1 History • 2 Value