Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zoological nomenclature in the century of extinctions: priority vs. ‘usage’

  • Forum Paper
  • Published:
Organisms Diversity & Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our epoch is a crucial one for scientific knowledge of the organisms that live on our planet. The combination of the biodiversity crisis and the taxonomic gap results in taxonomic urgency. In this context, great attention should be paid to the nomenclatural rules helping taxonomists in their urgent task, rather than diverting their time and energy to secondary questions or debates. In zoology, the new criterion of ‘prevailing usage’, introduced in the 1999 edition of the Code of nomenclature to ‘protect’ some nomina, raises four kinds of problems: (1) it weakens the binding value and strength of the Code, thus indirectly bringing support to the development of alternative nomenclatural systems; (2) it encourages personal debates among taxonomists, giving undue importance to the ‘argument of authority’ in nomenclatural decisions; (3) it sends a wrong message to non-taxonomists as regards completion of the taxonomic work; (4) it acts as a threat against natural history museums, in devaluing onomatophores (type specimens), the conservation of which is one of their major ‘visible’ functions. In conclusion, it is suggested that ‘protection’ of some nomina ‘threatened’ by rules of the Code should be limited strictly to nomina well-known outside the small world of systematics. This would require new rules for the Code to clearly define categories of usage on the basis of objective criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anonymous (1994). Systematics Agenda 2000: Charting the biosphere: a global initiative to discover, describe and classify the world’s species. Technical report. New York: American Museum of Natural History, American Society of Plant Taxonomy, Society of Systematic Biologists, Willi Hennig Society.

  • Arnold, E. N. (1981). Estimating phylogenies at low taxonomic levels. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutions-Forschung, 19, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, M. J. (2000). Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews, 75, 633–648.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bredekamp, H. (2003). Darwins Korallen. Frühe Evolutionsmodelle und die Tradition der Naturgeschichte. Berlin: Wagenbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, K., Bremer, B., Karis, P. O., & Källersjö, M. (1990). Time for change in taxonomy. Nature, 343, 202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, O. F. (1898). Stability in generic nomenclature. Science, 8(189), 186–190.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, P. F. S. (1987). Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a solution for an old problem. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44, 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisci, J. V. (2006a). One-dimensional systematist: perils in a time of steady progress. Systematic Botany, 31, 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisci, J. V. (2006b). Making taxonomy visible. Systematic Botany, 31, 439–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayrat, B. (2005). Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 85, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., de Vivo, M., de Toledo-Piza, M., Menezes, N. A., et al. (2005). Revisiting the taxonomic impediment. Science, 307, 353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., Brandão, C. R. F., de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, J. L., et al. (2007). Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology, 34, 140–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., & Brandão, C. R. F. (2008). Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evolutionary Biology, 35, 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez, E., & Wheeler, Q. D. (1997). Taxonomic stability is ignorance. Cladistics, 13, 367–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (1994). Comment on the proposed conservation of Hemidactyliini Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 51, 264–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (1997) Proposals concerning the conditions needed for a name being eligible for conservation. In Dubois and Ohler (1997), 317–320.

  • Dubois, A. (1998). List of European species of amphibians and reptiles: will we soon be reaching “stability”? Amphibia-Reptilia, 19, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2000). Synonymies and related lists in zoology: general proposals, with examples in herpetology. Dumerilia, 4, 33–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2003a). The relationships between taxonomy and conservation biology in the century of extinctions. Comptes rendus Biologies, 326(suppl. 1), S9–S21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2003b). Should internet sites be mentioned in the bibliographies of scientific publications? Alytes, 21, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2004). The higher nomenclature of recent amphibians. Alytes, 22, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2005a). Les règles de la nomenclature familiale en zoologie. Biosystema, 23, 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2005b). Propositions pour l’incorporation des nomina de taxons de rang supérieur dans le Code international de nomenclature zoologique. Biosystema, 23, 73–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2005c). Proposed rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1. Some general questions, concepts and terms of biological nomenclature. Zoosystema, 27, 365–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2005d). Proposals for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 62, 200–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2006a). Proposed rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. The proposed rules and their rationale. Zoosystema, 28, 165–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2006b). New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Comptes rendus Biologies, 329, 823–840.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2006c). Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: some basic questions. Zootaxa, 1337, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2006d). Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, 42, 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2007a). Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks. Zootaxa, 1519, 27–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2007b). Genitives of species and subspecies nomina derived from personal names should not be emended. Zootaxa, 1550, 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2007c). Naming taxa from cladograms: some confusions, misleading statements, and necessary clarifications. Cladistics, 23, 390–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2008a). Identifying some major problems and their possible solutions. In Future trends of taxonomy, 21–23 January 2008, Carvoeiro (Algarve, Portugal) (pp. 38–42). European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy.

  • Dubois, A. (2008b). A partial but radical solution to the problem of nomenclatural taxonomic inflation and synonymy load. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93, 857–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2008c). Handicap taxinomique et crise de la biodiversité: un nouveau paradigme pour la biologie au 21e siècle. In D. Prat, A. Raynal-Roques, & A. Roguenant (Eds.), Peut-on classer le vivant? Linné et la systématique aujourd’hui (pp. 141–160). Paris: Belin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2008d). Le Code international de nomenclature zoologique: présentation, philosophie, règles majeures, problèmes actuels. In D. Prat, A. Raynal-Roques, & A. Roguenant (Eds.), Peut-on classer le vivant? Linné et la systématique aujourd’hui (pp. 355–402). Paris: Belin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2008e). Un nouveau paradigme pour la biologie au xxi e siècle. Biosystema, 25, 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2008f). Phylogenetic hypotheses, taxa and nomina in zoology. Zootaxa, 1950, 51–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2009). Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: the nomenclatural status of class-series zoological nomina published in a non-latinized form. Zootaxa, 2106, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A. (2010a). Nomenclatural rules in zoology as a potential threat against natural history museums. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 10, doi:10.1007/s13127-010-0015-1

  • Dubois, A. (2010b). Registration as a fourth floor of the nomenclatural process. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (In press)

  • Dubois, A., & Ohler, A. (1997). Early scientific names of Amphibia Anura. I. Introduction. Bulletin du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 4 me Série, A Zoologie, 18, 297–320.

  • Dubois, A., & Ohler, A. (2001). Systematics of the genus Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae, Rhacophorinae): some historical and metataxonomic comments. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 5, 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A., & Raffaëlli, J. (2009). A new ergotaxonomy of the family Salamandridae Goldfuss, 1820 (Amphibia, Urodela). Alytes, 26, 1–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A., Ohler, A., & Brygoo, E.-R. (2010). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (In press)

  • Fosberg, F. R. (1964). Do we want a Code or a Committee? Taxon, 13, 177–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, U., & Kraus, K. (2009). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). (20). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. R., Grant, T., Faivovich, J., Bazin, R. H., Haas, A., Haddad, C. F. B., et al. (2006). The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 297, 1–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney, E. S. (1979). An introduction to the logic of phylogeny reconstruction. In J. Cracraft & N. Eldredge (Eds.), Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology (pp. 79–111). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, J. (2009). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). (19). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 184–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Oreja, J. A. (2008). The Encyclopedia of Life vs. The Brochure of Life: exploring the relationships between the extinction of species and the inventory of life on earth. Zootaxa, 1965, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1990). Bully for Brontosaurus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 47, 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge, B. (Ed.). (1992). Global biodiversity: status of the earth’s living resources. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, D. (2009). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). (16). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershkovitz, P. (1958). Document 27/6. A critique of Professor Chester Bradley’s “Principle of Conservation”. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 15, 911–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, V. H., & Watson, R. T. (Eds.). (1995). Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hołynski, R. B. (1994). Structure and function or: what kind of nomenclatural regulations do we need? Crystal, (ser. Zool.), 2, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICZN. (1997). Opinion 1873. Hemidactyliini Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 54, 140–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICZN. (1999). International code of zoological nomenclature (4th ed.). London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICZN = International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (1985). International code of zoological nomenclature (3rd ed.). London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, J. B. (2009). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). (26). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 284–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. A., Boyd, R. N., & Wheeler, Q. D. (2003). The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. The Botanical Review, 69, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecointre, G., Philippe, H., Lê, H. L. V., & Le Guyader, H. (1993). Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, 2, 205–224.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Tomus I. Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii.

  • May, R. M. (1988). How many species are there on earth? Science, 241, 1441–1449.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • May, R. M. (2004). Tomorrow’s taxonomy: collecting new species in the field will remain the rate-limiting step. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B), 359, 733–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, R. V. (1958). Document 27/9. Objection to the introduction of a “Principle of Conservation” into the “Règles”. Bulletin of zoological Nomenclature, 15, 1247–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melville, R. V. (1995). Towards stability in the names of animals. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. S. (1940). Zoological nomenclature. Nature, 145, 264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1997). Biodiversity II. Washington: Joseph Henry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J. M. (1990a). Meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 39, 424–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J. M. (1990b). ICZN meetings. Copeia, 1990, 1205–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J. M. (1991). Meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Amphibia-Reptilia, 12, 116–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J. M. (2009). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). (26). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G. (1940). Types in modern taxonomy. American Journal of Science, 238, 413–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of animal taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork, N. E. (1997). Measuring global biodiversity and its decline. In M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), Biodiversity II (pp. 41–68). Washington: Joseph Henry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland, H. E., Henslow, J. S., Phillips, J., Shuckard, W. E., Richardson, J., Waterhouse, G. R., et al. (1843). Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent, being the report of a committee for the consideration of the subject appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, 1, 259–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tottenham, C. E. (1958). Document 27/7. Draft “Règles”, Article 5: continuity and universality of usage: discussion and proposals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 15, 1080–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdecasas, A. G., Williams, D., & Wheeler, Q. D. (2008). “Integrative taxonomy” then and now: a response to Dayrat (2005). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93, 211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welter-Schultes, F., Eikel, O., Feuerstein, V., Hörnschemeyer, T., Klug, R., Lutze, A., et al. (2009). Comment on the proposed amendment of articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 215–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the royal Society of London, 359, 571–583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D., Raven, P. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2004). Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science, 303, 285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1985). The global biodiversity crisis: a challenge to science. Issues in Science & Technology, 2, 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (Ed.). (1988). Biodiversity. Washington: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (2004). Taxonomy as a fundamental discipline. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B), 359, 739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zug, G. R. (2009). Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines). (26). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 66, 80.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Olaf R. P. Bininda-Emonds, Quentin D. Wheeler and Norbert Bahr for their very constructive comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de Systématique & Evolution, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Vertébrés: Reptiles & Amphibiens, UMR 7205 OSEB, CP 30, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France

    Alain Dubois

Authors
  1. Alain Dubois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alain Dubois.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dubois, A. Zoological nomenclature in the century of extinctions: priority vs. ‘usage’. Org Divers Evol 10, 259–274 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-010-0021-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-010-0021-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation