DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ZOOLOGICAL & BOTANICAL CODES
IN COMMON: stability, priority, hierarchy, types, Latin names
DIFFERENCES:
•Suprageneric name endings
•Italicization
•Ranks covered
•Infraspecific connecting terms
•Principle of Coordination & autonyms
•Different terminologies
•Different kinds of type specimens
•Recombining author
•Square brackets
•Tautonyms
•Illegitimacy
•Recent vs date for priority
•Hyphens allowed in genus & species names
SUPRAGENERIC NAME ENDINGS
These are very different for equivalent ranks in the two
codes.
Examples of “homonyms”:
ZOOLOGICAL CODE
-idae
Family
-inae
Subfamily
BOTANICAL CODE
Subclass
Subtribe
ITALICIZATION
ZOOLOGICAL CODE: Genus & species ranks only
BOTANICAL CODE: All ranks; however, this is not yet
mandatory, only encouraged.
RANKS COVERED
ZOOLOGICAL CODE
BOTANICAL CODE
(Kingdom)
Kingdom
(Phylum)
Division or Phylum
(Class)
Class
(Order)
Order
Family
Family
Tribe
Tribe
Genus
Genus
Section
Series
Species
Species
Variety
Form
[plus sub-categories of all
[plus subcategories of all]
& super-categories above Genus]
[“( )“ indicates: not regulated by the code except for certain basic
principles]
INFRAGENERIC & INFRASPECIFIC
CONNECTING TERMS
Because there are multiple infrageneric & infraspecific ranks in
Botanical nomenclature, these are specified in the name.
E.g.: Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.
Because there are intermediate ranks between subform and
species, the taxon can be referred to in full in a combination of
‘name plus classification’ as:
Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis
subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.
In Zoological nomenclature, they are unnecessary. Subgenera
are placed in round brackets. Infrasubspecific names are not
available, unless before 1961 they were termed variety or form,
in which case they are deemed subspecific, or unless before
1985 they were adopted as subspecific names.
PRINCIPLE OF COORDINATION
In Zoological nomenclature: each subordinate rank within a
given rank group (family, genus, species) takes the same
author & date (the prior one).
E.g.: Subfamily Microchoerinae was originally erected as family
Microchoeridae Lydekker,1887. The subfamily keeps the same
author and date despite its rank being changed by another
author. Likewise, if a superfamily Microchoerioidea were to be
erected it would also be attributed to Lydekker, 1887 and
without brackets.
In Botanical nomenclature: priority is established within each
rank, with individual authors & dates for each. The Principle of
Coordination is not a part of the Botanical Code.
AUTONYMS
If a new subsidiary rank of a particular taxon is named where no
nominate equivalent previously existed, that nominate
equivalent is deemed to have been thereupon named
automatically with the same author and date as the nonnominate one.
Hypothetical scenario:
•Family Planteaceae Smith (1754) has never been divided into
subfamilies.
•Bloggs (2006) names a subfamily Botanioideae.
•In naming this new subfamily, he is considered to have
automatically named a nominate subfamily too, which is the
autonym Planteoideae Bloggs (2006).
DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGIES
ZOOLOGICAL CODE
Junior homonym
Objective synonym
Subjective synonym
Available
Valid name
BOTANICAL CODE
Later homonym
Nomenclatural synonym
Taxonomic synonym
Validly published
Correct name
Specific name
Binomen, name of a species
Specific epithet
Specific name
DIFFERENT KINDS OF TYPES
•HOLOTYPE, SYNTYPE & NEOTYPE are essentially the
same as in the Zoological code, but the first 2 must be from
a single gathering.
•ISOTYPE is a duplicate of the HOLOTYPE from one and
the same gathering. (A specimen cited in the original work
but from e.g. a different horizon and/or locality is a
PARATYPE, not an ISOTYPE).
•ISOSYNTYPE is likewise a duplicate of SYNTYPES.
•PARATYPE is an originally cited additional specimen that is
neither ISOTYPE nor SYNTYPE nor ISOSYNTYPE. It can
exist alongside these unlike in Zoology.
•LECTOTYPE can be selected from ISOTYPES, SYNTYPES
or, if these are lost, from ISOSYNTYPES or PARATYPES.
•EPITYPE is selected when original types are ambiguous (=
NEOTYPE designation for Nomen Dubium in Zoology Code).
RECOMBINING AUTHOR
ZOOLOGICAL CODE
E.g.:
BOTANICAL CODE
E.g.:
Motacilla troglodytes L., 1758
Petrophiloides richardsonii
Bowerbank (1840)
Viellot (1806) makes recombination:
Chandler (1964) makes recombination:
Troglodytes troglodytes (L., 1758)
Platycarya richardsonii (Bowerbank)
Chandler (1964)
Original author in ( ) with date, no
recombining author.
Original author in ( ) without date,
recombining author added.
[N.B. in botany, brackets round date
not mandatory. Abbreviated author
not followed by comma.]
SQUARE BRACKETS
ZOOLOGY CODE: Used to enclose author if cited when
external evidence indicates original anonymity.
BOTANY CODE: Used to denote pre-starting point authority
citation; the starting point for palaeobotany is Sternberg 1820,
substantially after the 1753 starting point for modern botany.
TAUTONYMY
Troglodytes troglodytes, i.e. genus and species with same
name not allowed in Botanical Code. If e.g. it resulted from
recombination, the species would have to be changed to
the next oldest legitimate name.
ILLEGITIMACY
“A name of a family, genus or species, unless conserved, or
sanctioned, is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it
is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that
was previously and validly published for a taxon of the same
rank” (ICBN Article 53.1).
Thus a name can be rejected on the grounds of junior
homonymy (and for other reasons), unlike in the Zoological
Code.
PRIORITY RECENT VS. FOSSIL
F
O
S
S
I
L
Petrophiloides Bowerbank, 1840
Hexaprotodon Falconer &
Cautley, 1836 Priority to date
R
E
C
E
N
T
Platycarya Siebold & Zucc., 1843
Choeropsis Leidy, 1853
Priority to Recent & date
•This priority rule only applies,
however, if a plant fossil name is being
used as a biological genus or species
(now regarded as exceptional).
•Fossil diatoms (Bacillariophyceae)
are treated as biological taxa.
•But plant fossil names (excluding
diatoms, but including other fossil
algae, even Cyanobacteria) are
normally treated as MORPHOTAXA.
MORPHOTAXA
“Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa. A
morphotaxon is defined as a fossil taxon which, for
nomenclatural purposes, comprises only the parts, lifehistory stages, or preservational states represented by the
corresponding nomenclatural type.”
Spinizonocolpites:
pollen of the palm genus Nypa.
Araucarioxylon: wood of the
family Araucariaceae
PRIORITY IN MORPHOTAXA
Plant fossil taxa do not compete with modern plant taxa when they
are treated as morphotaxa. E.g., if Petrophiloides is treated as a
catkin morphogenus of family Juglandaceae (walnuts), it is not
synonymised with recent Platycarya.
Often, there are several different names for different parts/organs
of a fossil plant, e.g. the giant lycopod ‘Lepidodendron’:
Lepidodendron – stem
Knorria – older bark
Lepidophylloides – leaves
Lepidostrobus – free-sporing mono- or bisporangiate cones
Lepidocarpon – megasporangiate cones
Stigmaria – rhizophores (roots)
Lycospora – microspores.
All these different names can be used concurrently even though
they may belong to the same organism.
ALTERNATIVE NOMENCLATURES
INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR PHYTOLITH
NOMENCLATURE
Madella et al. 2005
THE PHYLOCODE
•New system of biological nomenclature to provide rules
to govern the naming of clades across all of biology.
•PREMISE: There should be congruence between
phylogenetic hypotheses & nomenclature.
•The system is in draft form but expects to go live in June
2006. Current plans cover taxa above the species level, but
are intended to extend to species later. It is intended to run
concurrently with pre-existing codes, or to replace them once
it is extended to species, if the scientific community decides
that it should.
FEATURES:
1) It ignores rank. Formal endings denoting different ranks have
no hierarchical significance.
2) It is aimed at reflecting phylogenetic hypotheses through
names, whose usage should be explicit, unambiguous & stable.
PHYLOCODE PRINCIPLES
1) REFERENCE. The primary purpose of taxon names is to provide a
means of referring to taxa, as opposed to indicating their characters,
relationships, or membership.
2) CLARITY. Taxon names should be unambiguous in their designation of
particular taxa. Nomenclatural clarity is achieved through explicit definitions.
3) UNIQUENESS. To promote clarity, each taxon should have only one
accepted name, and each accepted name should refer to only one taxon.
4) STABILITY. The names of taxa should not change over time. As a
corollary, it must be possible to name newly discovered taxa without changing
the names of previously discovered taxa.
5) PHYLOGENETIC CONTEXT. The phylocode is concerned with the
naming of taxa and the application of taxon names within a phylogenetic
context.
6) The PhyloCode permits freedom of taxonomic opinion with regard to
hypotheses about relationships; it only concerns how names are to be applied
within the context of a given phylogenetic hypothesis.
3 WAYS OF NAMING A CLADE:
Must be defined by at least 2 specifiers (like Linnaean types)
Forey (2001)
PHYLOGENY:
STEM-BASED
1 included & 1 excluded name
NODE-BASED
2 included names
APOMORPHY-BASED
1 included name & 1 apomorphy
NEW HYPOTHESIS: NAMES DON’T CHANGE
Forey (2001)
NO HOMONYMY
allowed between
node-based, stembased &
apomorphy-based
methods
NO SYNONYMY
SYNONYMY
with revision
PERCEIVED PROBLEMS w. LINNAEAN SYSTEM
1) Ranks are artificial groupings, not reflecting exact position in
hierarchy.
2) Paraphyletic groups like Reptilia are named.
3) Redundancy of ranks through extinction or asymmetry
Forey (2001)
PERCEIVED PROBLEMS w. LINNAEAN SYSTEM
4) Ranks cause instability when relationships change.
Forey (pers. com.)
PERCEIVED PROBLEM SOLVED
Forey (pers. com.)
EXAMPLE OF LINNAEAN INSTABILITY
Forey (pers. com.)
PROBLEM WITH APOMORPHY-BASED
DEFINITIONS IN THE PHYLOCODE
Homoplasy by reversal vs convergence. In (a) the apomorphy
“fingers & toes” defines a clade. In (b) it reflects polyphyly.
Forey (2001)
LINNAEAN SYSTEM: SAVING GRACES
1) Even though ranks are artificial, they are useful boxes and
much used in modern biodiversity studies.
2) Paraphyletic groups don’t have to be used under the Linnaean
system.
3) There is potentially as much instability following revisions with
the 3-system naming procedure under the PhyloCode.
4) In the Linnaean system you don’t have to name every rank.
New classifications commonly list e.g. a genus undifferentiated
within an order. Thus Archaeopteryx need not have its own
monotypic infraclass, supercohort, cohort, subcohort and order.
METHODS OF NAMING IN THE PHYLOCODE
The PhyloCode proposes a registration system whereby clade
names are submitted electronically. The following information is
needed:
1) DEFINITION TYPE: node- stem- or apomorphy-based
(mandatory)
2) PHYLOGENETIC DEFINITION: (mandatory)
3) LIST OF SPECIFIERS: (at least 2 mandatory)
4) QUALIFYING CLAUSE
5) REFERENCE PHYLOGENY: bibliographic reference, URL, or
accession no. in public repository
Linnaean names already being published according to
PhyloCode guidelines (Wyss & Flynn 1993).
New nodebased homonyms
of superfamilies
Ursoidea Fischer
de Waldheim,
1817 & Phocoidea
Gray, 1821.
Superfamily
Arctoidea Flower,
1869 with nodebased definition at
different hierarchical
position.
Stem-based
definition for
Carnivoramorpha
IMPLICATIONS OF PARALLEL SYSTEMS
OF NOMENCLATURE
•Not too serious unless or until the PhyloCode
extends its scope to species, which are intended to be
uninominal.
•One suggestion is to add suffix ‘P’ to names that are
homonyms between Linnaean & PhyloCode systems.
•However, if authors of databases (including MOA)
wish to retain only Linnaean nomenclature, any
PhyloCode classification would have to be interpreted
in terms of Linnaean nomenclature.
PROBLEMS FOR CHARACTER DIAGNOSES
PhyloCode: 2 out of 3 ways of defining a taxon excludes characters
Cladistics: stresses synapomorphies. Diagnosis could differentiate
types of characters.
E.g.:
DIAGNOSES: STAND ALONE OR DIFFERENTIAL?
DIAGNOSES: STAND ALONE & DIFFERENTIAL
Pseudopromerycochoerus
Ekgmowechashala
REFERENCES
Bengtson, P. 1988. Open nomenclature. Palaeontology, 31: 223-227.
Candolle, Alph. De. 1867. Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique adoptées par le Congrès International de
Botanique tenu à Paris en août, 1867, suivies à un deuxième édition de l’introduction historique et du
commentaire qui accompagnaient la rédaction préparatoire présentée au Congrès. H. Georg, Genève & Bale; J.B. Baillière et fils, Paris, 64 pp.
Forey, P.L. 2001. The PhyloCode: description and commentary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58: 81-96.
Greuter, W. et al. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (St Louis Code). Regnum Vegetabile 138,
Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein.
Hughes, N.F. 1989. Fossils as Information; New recording and Stratal Correlation Techniques. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 136 pp.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,
4th ed., ITZN c/o NHM, London, 306 pp.
Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. Vol. 1, Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, 560 pp.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Vol. 1, Regnum Animale, 10th ed., revised. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm,
824 pp.
Madella, M., Alexandre, A. & Ball, T. 2005. International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0. Annals of Botany,
96: 253-260.
Matthews, S.C. 1973. Notes on open nomenclature and on synonymy lists. Palaeontology, 16: 713-719.
Opinion 1894. 1998. Regnum Animale …, Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected for nomenclatural purposes, with
the conservation of the mammalian generic names Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Glis, Cuniculus
and Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus (Perissodactyla), Tragulus and
Giraffa (Artiodactyla). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 55: 64-71.
Strickland, H.E., Darwin, C., Owen, R. & Westwood, J.O. 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)11: 259-275.
Wyss, A.R. & Flynn, J.J. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. In: Szalay, F.S., Novacek,
M.J. & McKenna, M.C. (eds), Mammal Phylogeny, 2: Placentals. New York, Springer: 32-52.