The Experts below are selected from a list of 4326 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alexey Shipunov - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
numerical ranks to improve Biological Nomenclature of higher groups
arXiv: Populations and Evolution, 2017Co-Authors: Alexey ShipunovAbstract:Simple method to improve traditional approaches to name taxa of higher ranks has been proposed. Instead of base name + postfixes (which vary between codes of Nomenclature and sometimes not standardized at all), use numerical prefixes, where numbers designate the rank of taxon, from lowest (species = 1) to highest (kingdom = 7). This "numerical ranks" method is not only more simple and straightforward then current practice, but also easy to extend for numerous additional uses. There is a hope that numerical ranks will facilitate creation of typified names for all higher-level taxomonic groups.
-
The problem of hemihomonyms and the on-line hemihomonyms database
2016Co-Authors: Alexey ShipunovAbstract:Hemihomonyms (same nomina which are used for taxa from different Nomenclature jurisdictions) are an overlooked but genuine nuisance in Biological Nomenclature. We compiled the first list of hemihomonyms for nomina in bacteriological, botanical and zoological Nomenclatures and prepared an on-line database, the “Hemihomonym database ” or HHD
-
the problem of hemihomonyms and the on line hemihomonyms database hhdb
Bionomina, 2013Co-Authors: Alexey ShipunovAbstract:Hemihomonyms (same nomina which are used for taxa from different Nomenclature jurisdictions) are an overlooked but genuine nuisance in Biological Nomenclature. We compiled the first list of hemihomonyms for nomina in bacteriological, botanical and zoological Nomenclatures and prepared an on-line database, the "Hemihomonym database" or HHDB ( ). HHDB now includes 1164 nomina, including 12 triple hemihomonyms. A simple suffix-based solution (like " Oenanthe (z)" for Oenanthe in zoology) could be used in case of hemihomonymy. More effort should be afforded towards the resolution of long-standing Nomenclature confusing situations such as hemihomonymy, including regarding the nomina of higher taxa, nomina of intermediate ranks and ambiregnal nomina.
Michel Laurin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the splendid isolation of Biological Nomenclature
Zoologica Scripta, 2008Co-Authors: Michel LaurinAbstract:Recent arguments against phylogenetic Nomenclature (PN) rest on the assumption that, generally, consensus about the meaning of taxon names arises spontaneously. A brief historical review shows that this is not the case. Comparisons with other fields as diverse as physics, geology and geopolitics show that precision in the meaning of terms is essential to produce consensus, which is precisely the opposite as the avowed aims of rank-based Nomenclature (RN). The difficulty in reaching consensus increases with the weight of tradition and decreases with the number of objective tests to falsify competing theories. In both respects, Biological Nomenclature is handicapped because the weight of tradition is extreme and rules of Nomenclature cannot be discovered in nature. These facts may explain the difficulty in reaching consensus on the most appropriate system of Nomenclature for the 21st century. Therefore, comparisons between RN and PN should focus on minimal taxonomic stability, rather than realized or maximal stability. A four-taxon example shows that in this respect, PN vastly outperforms RN. Opponents of PN often predict that implementation of PN will cause considerable confusion. A comparison with computer science shows that confusion is often associated with progress, and may be unavoidable for Nomenclature to prosper in the new millennium.
Jacques A Gauthier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
toward a phylogenetic system of Biological Nomenclature
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1994Co-Authors: Kevin De Queiroz, Jacques A GauthierAbstract:Despite the widely held belief that modem Biological taxonomy is evolutionary, some of the most fundamental concepts and principles in the current system of Biological Nomenclature are based on a nonevolutionary convention that pre-dates widespread acceptance of an evolutionary world view by more than a century. The development of a phylogenetic system of Nomenclature requires reformulating these concepts and principles so that they are no longer based on the Linnean categories but on the tenet of common descent.
Werner Greuter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biological Nomenclature terms for facilitating communication in the naming of organisms
ZooKeys, 2012Co-Authors: John David, George M Garrity, Werner Greuter, David L Hawksworth, Regine Jahn, Paul M Kirk, John Mcneill, Ellinor Michel, Sandra Knapp, David J PattersonAbstract:A set of terms recommended for use in facilitating communication in Biological Nomenclature is presented as a table showing broadly equivalent terms used in the traditional Codes of Nomenclature. These terms are intended to help those engaged in naming across organism groups, and are the result of the work of the International Committee on BioNomenclature, whose aim is to promote harmonisation and communication amongst those naming life on Earth.
-
recent developments in international Biological Nomenclature
Turkish Journal of Botany, 2004Co-Authors: Werner GreuterAbstract:After a period of several decades of general neglect, Biological systematics and taxonomy are again surfacing to the awareness of the scientific community and of policy makers. This we owe to the fact that they are the core disciplines of biodiversity research, now perceived to be a priority task in view of the impending threat of loss through extinction of a great number of species, and the wholesale destruction of ecosystems. Yet the renaissance of systematics and taxonomy is hampered by the inadequacy of the traditional rules governing the formation and use of scientific names of organisms. Names are a core aspect of human communication. They are the means by which scientists and laymen alike refer to organisms, the indispensable labels that enable the storage, retrieval and communication of any and all organism-linked data. This paper highlights the fundamental inadequacy of traditional nomenclatural Codes to fulfil their role. Past attempts to introduce new concepts into botanical Nomenclature, such as the registration of new names and the stabilisation of the existing ones which are presently used, are mentioned - as well as their failure to gain acceptance by the small and highly self-centred community of specialists in the field. Recent attempts to launch competing sets of rules, the "Phylocode" in particular, are also discussed. While they may be a suitable means of breaking the dire monopoly of the Codes, they also have a dangerous destabilising potential. New solutions, which are doubtless needed, require great care lest we end up by undoing the achievements of the past.
Kevin De Queiroz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biological Nomenclature from linnaeus to the phylocode
2012Co-Authors: Kevin De QueirozAbstract:Linnaeus and other 18th Century naturalists practiced Nomenclature in a way that associated taxon names more strongly with taxa (groups) than with the categorical ranks of the taxonomic (“Linnaean”) hierarchy. For those early naturalists, ranks functioned merely as devices for indicating hierarchical position that did not affect the application or spelling of taxon names. Consequently, taxa did not change their names simply because of changes in rank. For example, the name Reptilia did not change when the rank of the taxon designated by that name was changed from order to class. During the 19th Century, an alternative approach to Nomenclature emerged that made rank assignment fundamental to the application and spelling of taxon names. Under this rank-based approach, which forms the basis of the current Zoological Code, names are implicitly defined in terms of ranks. As a consequence, names are more strongly associated with ranks than with taxa and thus taxa change their names simply because of changes in rank. For example, if the rank of the taxon Iguanidae is changed from family to superfamily, its name must change to Iguanoidea. A new approach to Nomenclature, termed phylogenetic Nomenclature, ties taxon names to explicitly evolutionary concepts of taxa through definitions that describe taxa in terms of ancestry and descent. This treebased approach to Nomenclature once again associates taxon names more strongly with taxa than with ranks and thus represents a return to an approach similar to that practiced by Linnaeus and other early naturalists, updated with evolutionary principles.
-
toward a phylogenetic system of Biological Nomenclature
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1994Co-Authors: Kevin De Queiroz, Jacques A GauthierAbstract:Despite the widely held belief that modem Biological taxonomy is evolutionary, some of the most fundamental concepts and principles in the current system of Biological Nomenclature are based on a nonevolutionary convention that pre-dates widespread acceptance of an evolutionary world view by more than a century. The development of a phylogenetic system of Nomenclature requires reformulating these concepts and principles so that they are no longer based on the Linnean categories but on the tenet of common descent.