TurkJBot 28(2004)17-26 ©TÜB‹TAK RecentDevelopmentsinInternationalBiologicalNomenclature WernerGREUTER BotanischerGarten&BotanischesMuseumBerlin-Dahlem,Königin-Luise-Str.6-8,D-14191Berlin,Germany. Received:08.11.2002 Accepted:29.01.2003 Abstract: Afteraperiodofseveraldecadesofgeneralneglect,biologicalsystematicsandtaxonomyareagainsurfacingtothe awarenessofthescientificcommunityandofpolicymakers.Thisweowetothefactthattheyarethecoredisciplinesofbiodiversity research,nowperceivedtobeaprioritytaskinviewoftheimpendingthreatoflossthroughextinctionofagreatnumberofspecies, andthewholesaledestructionofecosystems.Yettherenaissanceofsystematicsandtaxonomyishamperedbytheinadequacyof thetraditionalrulesgoverningtheformationanduseofscientificnamesoforganisms.Namesareacoreaspectofhuman communication.Theyarethemeansbywhichscientistsandlaymenalikerefertoorganisms,theindispensablelabelsthatenablethe storage,retrievalandcommunicationofanyandallorganism-linkeddata.Thispaperhighlightsthefundamentalinadequacyof traditionalnomenclatural Codes tofulfiltheirrole.Pastattemptstointroducenewconceptsintobotanicalnomenclature,suchas theregistrationofnewnamesandthestabilisationoftheexistingoneswhicharepresentlyused,arementioned–aswellast heir failuretogainacceptancebythesmallandhighlyself-centredcommunityofspecialistsinthefield.Recentattemptstolaunc h competingsetsofrules,the“ Phylocode”inparticular,arealsodiscussed.Whiletheymaybeasuitablemeansofbreakingthedire monopolyoftheCodes,theyalsohaveadangerousdestabilisingpotential.Newsolutions,whicharedoubtlessneeded,requiregreat carelestweendupbyundoingtheachievementsofthepast. KeyWords: botany,zoology,codesofnomenclature,taxonomy,biocode,phylocode,namesincurrentuse,registration Introduction associationofdustyspecimenstacksandcobwebby Thispaperendeavourstolookdispassionatelyatthe libraryshelves.Theageingclanoftaxonomists,forthe qualitiesandshortcomingsofourpresentrulesand mostpart,revelledinself-pity.Theytearfullydeclared techniquesfornamingorganisms,seenagainstthe themselves,orrathertheirlackofstrengthand resources,asanimpediment–anduptoadegreethey backgroundoftoday’sneedsofthesystematicdisciplines, weresurprisinglysuccessfulinalertinggeneralopinionto datastorageandaccessingrequirements,anduser theirneedsandpotentialusefulness. demands.Ihavetriedtodojusticebothtothe nomenclaturalspecialist’sinsideknowledgeandthe Someyearsago,the“taxonomicimpediment”was customer’snaiveexpectations.Whilenotneglectingthe recognisedasacauseofconcernbythepartnerstatesto historicalrootsofthediscipline,Ishallplacegreater theConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD)andtheir emphasisonpossiblesolutions,onproposedalternatives SubsidiaryBodyonScientific,TechnicalandTechnological andfutureprospects.Noneofthisisneworhighly Advice(SBSTTA).In1996theConferenceofParties original,butrecentdiscussionofthisgeneraltopicby (COP)totheCBDendorsedaGlobalTaxonomyInitiative datamanagersandgeneralbiologistsshows,Ibelieve,the (GTI)topromotecapacitybuildingintaxonomy.A desirabilityofhavingthesubjectcompetentlyreviewed. workshopto“RemovetheTaxonomicImpediment”took place(3-5February1998)inDarwininAustralia’s SystematicsToday:FromtheTaxonomic NorthernTerritory,andthe“DarwinDeclaration”it ImpedimenttotheGlobalTaxonomyInitiative produced(Anonymous,1998)becameanapproved Oncetheproudflagshipofthenaturalsciences, documentoftheCOP.Thisopenednewperspectivesfor systematicbiologyhasseenitsreputedwindlinggradually systematicbiology,bothforachievingscientific overtime.Twodecadesagolittlewasleftoftheformer respectabilityandforobtainingappropriatefundingfor glorybutthesmellofoldnaturalhistorycabinets,an research. 17 RecentDevelopmentsinInternationalBiologicalNomenclature Atpresent,taxonomyisgettingasecondchance.Will essentiallycorrect.“Today”hewrites“muchoftaxonomy wetaxonomistsseizeit?Conditionsforsuccessarenot isperceivedtobefacinganewcrisis–alackofprestige thesameastheyusedtobe.Efficiencyandexpediency andresourcesthatiscripplingthecontinuingcataloguing arerequested.Muchoftheresearchwillbeperformed ofbiodiversity”;andheconcludes,“taxonomycan wherebiologicaldiversityisgreatest,inthetropicaland prosperagain,butonlyifitreinventsitselfasatwenty- subtropicalrealmofthedevelopingworld,farawayfrom first-centuryinformationscience”. thetraditionalcentresoflearningwherethetreasuriesof Godfrayasksfortheobvious,andheisnotthefirst. thepast–specimensandpublicationsalike–arestored. Tocitefromhisanalysis:“Manytaxonomistsspendmost Datawillhavetobemadereadilyaccessiblefromany oftheircareertryingtointerprettheworkofnineteenth- pointontheglobe.Bioinformaticsarearisingasanew centurysystematicists...Adepressingfractionof disciplineintimatelylinkedwithandcomplementaryto publishedsystematicresearchconcernstheseissues... taxonomicwork.Thechangeofourscientific Thepastactsasadeadweightonthesubject.”When environmentisdramaticinitsextentandspeed.Maywe writingthis,hemayhaveknown(butdoesnotcite)the expectthatnomenclaturealone,ameretechnicalityalbeit studybyHawksworth(1992),whoassessedtheamount afundamentalone,willremainunaffected? oftimeandmoneythatgoesintothatkindofwork:For NomenclatureandSystematics:Unequal botanistsintheUKalone,timespentonnomenclatural SiameseTwins mattersaddsupto52full-timeresearchpositions,which Thenomenclatural Codes (seebelow)arecarefulto atthattimewereequivalentto£1.3millionperyear. distinguishbetweenthefieldsofnomenclature(the Justimagine:Taxonomistsworldwidearespending20% techniqueofnamingplantsandchoosingbetween oftheirresearchtimeonfutilenomenclaturalexercises competingnames,whichisthe Codes’ domain)and whichatbestconfirmwhatwaspreviouslyknownandat taxonomy(thescience[orart]ofrecognising,defining worstupsetwellestablishedplantandanimalnames, andcircumscribingtaxa).Therulesofnomenclaturesteer causinghavocinourdiscipline’sinformationsystemsand clearoftaxonomicdecision-making,whichisthe earningtheirandourdisreputeinthepubliceye–when taxonomists’properprerogative. theirlegitimateprioritytaskistodescribeandname unknownspecies,writemonographicrevisionsofgenera Yettheworldatlargeisnotoriouslyunableor andfamiliesandprepareaidsforidentification.Onemore unwillingtomakethisdistinction.Taxonomyisviewed quotationfromGodfray:“Itisnotsurprisingiffunding throughandjudgedbyitsmostgenerallyvisibleoutput, bodiesviewmuchofwhattaxonomistsdoaspoorvalue thenamesitproduces.Whatessentiallytranspiresof formoney.” organismsandtaxa,outsideofsystematicbiology,istheir scientificnames.Theyappearonfoodwrappings,tinsand TheAncientRootsofToday’sNomenclatural pillboxes,incourtsoflawandpatentoffices,in Tools:FromAristotletothe“BlackCode” newspapers,books,tradecataloguesandonTVscreens. WhenAristotle,inthe3 rd century B.C.,builtthe Fewofthepeoplewhoreadandusethemhaveseenthe edificeofscientificbiologyduringasinglegenialhuman correspondingplantoranimal,andtheycouldnotcare being’slifetime(Greuter,2002),oneofhismajor less.Theyconfidentlyassumethatanameiscongruent achievementswastheinventionofthehierarchicalsystem withagiventaxon(say,acertaingenusorspecies),that ofclassificationthatsomanynowadaysinappropriately thosewhousethatnamearecompetenttoknowwhat attributetoLinnaeus.Hedidsowithunrivalledsimplicity theyaretalkingaboutandthatnobodywilleverdisagree. andappropriateness,bycoiningthesimplephrase:“a Abasicallybenevolentcommentaryontaxonomy speciesisdefinedbythegenusandthedifference”.From recentlypublishedin Nature, byapopulationbiologist thereon,foradeptsofAristotelianlogics,anytaxon (Godfray,2002),ispervadedbythatold (“species”)wasdefinedandnamedbybeingattributedto misunderstanding,mixingandconfusingoverandagain ahigher-rankingtaxon(the“genus”),andcontrasted issuesoftaxonomyandnomenclature.Thispaperhas againstallitssistertaxawithinthat“genus”bya generatedalivelydiscussion,stillongoing,whichhasso diagnosis(the“difference”).Linnaeusinheritedthat farfailedtoclarifythatdistinction.Yetthebaselineof systemofclassificationandnaming,butatsomepoint, Godfray’sargumentisvalidandhisanalysisoftaxonomy, justforconvenience,hereplacedthe“difference”(thathe 18 W.GREUTER stillconsideredasthe“legitimate”specificname)bya Atpresentthenamesoforganismsaregovernedby4 singleepithet(thetrivialname).Hethusinventedbinary differentmainCodes:theInternationalCodeofbotanical speciesnomenclature,themajorinnovationthatmadehis nomenclature (Greuteretal.,2000),the International nameimmortal,aswhathethoughtofasaminorby- CodeofZoologicalNomenclature (Rideetal.,1999),the producttohisdescriptiveandclassificatoryneeds. InternationalCodeofnomenclatureofBacteria (Sneath, Linnaeus(1736,1737,1750)publishedextensive 1992)andthe CodeofVirusclassificationand nomenclaturalrulesinhisworks,butthesearenow nomenclature (includedinRegenmorteletal.,2000).In utterlyforgotten.Theyconcerned,basically,thechoice addition,thereareseparatesetsofrulesforspecial categoriessuchascultivatedplants(Trehaneetal.,1995) andcreationofappropriategenericnamesandtheartof andplantcommunitiesor“syntaxa”(Weberetal.,2000). coiningconciseandmeaningfuldiagnosticphrasenames forspecies.Theformationofspecificepithetswasbarely Thisconcisehistoricalsketchofbiological mentioned(Linnaeus,1750),andnorulesforchoosing nomenclature,whichcouldeasilybeexpandedintoafull- betweencompetingnamesweregiven.Nonewereindeed sizevolume,maygivearoughideaofhowdeeplyrooted necessary,becauseoneoverridingrulewasevident thetraditioninthisdomainisandhowmuchthoughtand enoughtoLinnaeus’smind:thatHewasentitledtocreate discussionmusthavegoneintothepresentbodiesoflaw andrejectnamesashedeemedfit–alawtowhichnone asthedecadesandcenturieswentby.TherulesorCodes whomatteredatthetimedaredobject. themselvesaretheleastpartofthattradition:Thereare