Proc. 14th INA Conf., Reston VA, USA (Guest Ed. J. Self-Trail) J. Nannoplankton Res. 35 (2), 2015, pp.141-154 © 2015 International Nannoplankton Association 141 ISSN 1210-8049 Printed by The Sheridan Press, USA Nannoplankton taxonomy and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) Richard W. Jordan Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Yamagata University, 1-4-12 Kojirakawa-machi, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan; [email protected] Manuscript received 2nd June, 2015; revised manuscript accepted 1st July, 2015 Abstract In 2012, the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants was published, which has ramifications for nannoplankton workers. The main changes that are relevant to us are: 1) certain forms of electronic publication are now acceptable, 2) English instead of Latin may now be used in descriptions and diagnoses of extant organisms, and 3) the morphotaxon concept for fossil plants and algae has been abandoned. Furthermore, names of genera based on extant types now have priority over those based on fossil types. This may cause a potential problem in the future for at least four genera with fossil types: Cruciplacolithus and Reticulofenestra (nannoplankton) and Dictyocha and Stephanocha (silicoflagellates). Herein, some of the rules and recommendations are explained, with nannoplankton and silicoflagellate examples. Keywords nannoplankton, nannofossils, silicoflagellates, taxonomy, ICBN, ICN 1. Introduction name, all names for which it is the basionym Explanatory notes on the rules and recommendations of are similarly rejected, and none is to be used previous versions of the International Code of Botanical (see Rec. 50E.2). Nomenclature (ICBN), and how they relate to nannoplank- 56.2. The list of nomina utique rejicienda (sup- International Nanno- ton research, were published in the pressed names) will remain permanently open plankton Association (INA) Newsletter and its successor, for additions and changes. Any proposal for re- the Journal of Nannoplankton Research (JNR), as a series jection of a name must be accompanied by a de- of fourteen papers (van Heck, 1990-1996) that were in- tailed statement of the cases both for and against dexed by Burnett (1997). Since then, numerous changes to its rejection, including considerations of typifica- these rules have been made at subsequent meetings of the tion. Such proposals must be submitted to the International Botanical Congress. In this paper, the most General Committee (see Div. III), which will relevant articles and recommendations that affect nanno- refer them for examination to the committees plankton nomenclature are shown below ad verbatim from for the various taxonomic groups (see also Art. 14.12 and 34.1). McNeill et al. (2012), and are annotated with examples of nannoplankton nomenclatural problems. Some of the 56.4. When a proposal for the rejection of a more important parts of the ICN articles and recommenda- name under Art. 56 has been approved by the tions have been enboldened, in order to emphasise the key General Committee after study by the Com- points – i.e. the bold type does not appear in the original mittee for the taxonomic group concerned, text. In addition, it should be noted that not all of the ar- rejection of that name is authorized subject to ticles and recommendations cited in the copied text are the decision of a later International Botanical reproduced here, so where necessary, please consult the Congress (see also Art. 14.16 and 34.2). ICN. Unlike the ICN and the van Heck papers, the articles Recommendation 56A.1. When a proposal for and recommendations have been organised under similar the rejection of a name under Art. 56 has been themes, in the hope of making the rules easier to under- referred to the appropriate Committee for study, stand. authors should follow existing usage of names as far as possible pending the General Com- 2.1 General mittee’s recommendation on the proposal (see also Rec. 14A and 34A). Preface. Like other international codes of no- menclature the ICN has no legal status and is Proposals for changes to the Code are first considered dependent on the voluntary acceptance of its by a number of nomenclature committees, established by rules by authors, editors, and other users of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (in our names that it governs. case, the one for algae or the one for fossils). Modifications to the rulings and wordings of the ICN, as with previous Art. 56.1. Any name that would cause a disad- vantageous nomenclatural change (Art. 14.1) ICBN editions, can only be decided upon at the plenary may be proposed for rejection. A name thus re- session of an International Botanical Congress, which is jected, or its basionym if it has one, is placed held every four years. Few nannoplankton workers have on a list of nomina utique rejicienda (sup- ever sat on a nomenclature committee. This means that, if pressed names, App. V). Along with each listed we want to change a ruling or reject/conserve a name, we 142 Jordan must publish our proposal in a journal such as Taxon, and 4.2. If a greater number of ranks of taxa is ask the relevant committee to consider it at the next Con- desired, the terms for these are made by add- gress. There is no guarantee of success. This is emphasised ing the prefi x “sub-” to the terms denoting by the case where a proposal submitted by Hay (1967) the principal or secondary ranks. An organ- ism may thus be assigned to taxa of the follow- was rejected by the Committee for Algae (Silva, 1975). ing ranks (in descending sequence): kingdom Although we could ignore this set of rules and do as we (regnum), subkingdom (subregnum), division please, the result will ultimately be nomenclatural chaos. or phylum (divisio or phylum), subdivision or It should be noted that there also have been some suc- subphylum (subdivisio or subphylum), class cesses in the past. Notably, there was the conservation of (classis), subclass (subclassis), order (ordo), Isochrysidaceae Bourrelly and the rejection of Ruttnerace- suborder (subordo), family (familia), subfamily ae Geitler in the ICBN (see Nicolson, 1993a). In the Inter- (subfamilia), tribe (tribus), subtribe (subtribus), national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Braarud et al. genus (genus), subgenus (subgenus), section (1964) proposed the conservation of Coccolithidae Poche (sectio), subsection (subsectio), series (series), subseries (subseries), species (species), subspe- Coccolithus (now written as Coccolithaceae Poche) and cies (subspecies), variety (varietas), subvari- Schwarz, with Coccosphaera pelagica Wallich conserved ety (subvarietas), form (forma), and subform over C. oceanicus Schwarz, and the suppression of the (subforma). genera Cyatholithus Huxley and Rhabdolithes Schmidt, the latter in favour of Rhabdosphaera. This proposal was 5.1. The relative order of the ranks specifi ed in approved three years later (Evans & China, 1967). Art. 3 and 4 must not be altered (see Art. 37.6 and 37.9). Preamble 14. This edition of the Code super- sedes all previous editions. 11.2. A name has no priority outside the rank in which it is published (but see Art. 53.4). This means we should follow the most up-to-date Code, and not use older Codes for guidance. Hence, while Article 4.2 outlines the order of the ranks, particu- most of the rules in the van Heck (1990-1996) papers are larly those of subspecifi c taxa. Although many authors still relevant today, subtle changes to the wordings have consider the ranks of subspecies, variety and form to be occurred in subsequent ICBN editions, as well as some old interchangeable, others consider that they have different rules having been replaced, and new rules having been in- meanings and priority in ranking order (see Hamilton & troduced. At the time this article was written, the current Reichard, 1992, for a discussion). This seemingly chaotic Code is the Melbourne Code (McNeill et al., 2012). For situation is not just restricted to higher plants, but is also the fi rst time, algae, fungi and plants were included in the evident in nannoplankton taxonomy. However, it could be title of the Code. Thus, there is no longer a current Inter- minimalised by adopting the following approach: national Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), rather subspecies – for those that slightly differ at the genetic the offi cial name and abbreviation is the International level (or with one life-cycle phase different from the type, Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). but with a cryptic alternate phase) variety – for those that are morphologically different (i.e. Principle I. The nomenclature of algae, fungi, not part of the natural variation of the type variety), with- and plants is independent of zoological and out evidence of life-cycle phases bacteriological nomenclature. This Code ap- form – for different phases of a life-cycle (e.g. haploid and plies equally to names of taxonomic groups diploid phases of the same species). treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether or not Subspecies and varieties may be separated in time and these groups were originally so treated (see space, whereas forms are likely to be found in the same Pre. 8). sample or samples in different seasons, but from the same Principle VI. The rules of nomenclature are locality. In the case of fossil coccoliths, variety would be retroactive unless expressly limited. the most appropriate choice, since life-cycle phases are rarely (if ever) known. In the Code, some rules have time limitations, such as Although a species is the sum of all its subordinate the use of Latin diagnoses. However, some changes can taxa (see Art. 25.1, below), it is probably better if we do be made using the new Code that weren’t possible before not create varieties that are signifi cantly older than the with older Codes, and I will deal with these problems later type variety – to avoid something akin to the chicken and on.