• Like
  • Save
Hooker taxonomy&nomenclature seminarsection1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Hooker taxonomy&nomenclature seminarsection1

on

  • 1,715 views

Introduction to Zoological Nomenclature (Part 1). Approximately 1 hour, 38 slides, in English. By Jerry Hooker, Dep't of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London, UK

Introduction to Zoological Nomenclature (Part 1). Approximately 1 hour, 38 slides, in English. By Jerry Hooker, Dep't of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London, UK

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,715
Views on SlideShare
1,657
Embed Views
58

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
61
Comments
0

2 Embeds 58

http://iczn.org 57
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Hooker taxonomy&nomenclature seminarsection1 Hooker taxonomy&nomenclature seminarsection1 Presentation Transcript

    • Introduction to Zoological Nomenclature (Part 1)
      • Jerry Hooker, Department of Palaeontology
      • The Natural History Musuem, London
    • TAXONOMY STABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PROVIDES VITAL UNDERPINNING FOR TAXONOMY. Taxonomists must ensure that a given taxon can have only one name by which it is properly known, thereby avoiding:
      • Multiple names for one taxon: SYNONYMS
      • The same name for multiple taxa: HOMONYMS
      This is accomplished through PRIORITY, TYPIFICATION and PUBLICATION. Universality is achieved by the use of Latin for the construction of names.
    • CODES Originally two, each ensuring stability of names in the two divisions of life then recognized: Kingdoms PLANTAE and ANIMALIA. Later, the Bacteriological Code split from the Botanical Code and a code of Virus nomenclature was established. NAME STARTING POINTS 1ST CODE ZOOLOGY: 1st Jan. 1758 (Linnaeus) 1961 BOTANY: 1st May 1753 (Linnaeus) 1906 BACTERIOLOGY: 1st Jan. 1980 1958 Athough the first comprehensive international codes long postdated the starting points in binominal nomenclature, their origins go back to Strickland, Darwin, Owen & Westwood (1843) (Zoology) and de Candolle’s Lois of 1867 (Botany).
    • MODERN CLASSIFICATIONS Today, thanks to cladistics, there are many more taxa of kingdom rank, grouped into three domains.
      • Zoological Code covers: Metazoa; protistan taxa when workers treat them as animals for purposes of nomenclature; and ichnotaxa.
      • Botanical Code covers: Plants (Embryophyta), Algae, protists
      • regarded as plants, Fungi and Cyanobacteria.
    • HOMONYMY BETWEEN CODES: OK Genus Ficus - the fig tree Genus Ficus - the fig shell
    • UNACCEPTABLE HOMONYMS Troglodytes Viellot, 1806 Troglodytes É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 The earlier genus name for the wren is valid. The chimp is changed to the next oldest available name: Pan Oken, 1816.
    • SYNONYMS Law of priority determines that Glis Brisson, 1762 rather than Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 is the valid genus name for the edible dormouse.
    • BINOMINAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE SPECIES Extract from Linnaeus (1758) 10th edition of Systema Naturae Vol. 1 Regnum Animale. Genus Vespertilio , with species V. vampyrus , V. spectrum and V. perspicillatus (bats). Pre-Linnaean non-binominal names resembled diagnoses, so separation of the two was a milestone in taxonomy.
    • HIERARCHY - ZOO CODE
      • Type of the family is the type genus
      • Type of the genus is the type species
      • Type of the species is the type specimen(s)
      Such a system allows economy of diagnoses. Thus, e.g. species A can be diagnosed as genus A with the following characters…. In the case of a monotypic nominal family or genus, the diagnosis of the next rank down is the same as the nominal taxon. Ranks above the family group (highest: superfamily) and below the species group (lowest: subspecies) are not regulated by the Zoological Code.
    • SUBSPECIES & SUBGENERA Gemmula (Gemmula) acutisinuata stubbingtonensis (Cossmann, 1899) Troglodytes troglodytes troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) Trinominal or quadrinominal names resulting from use of subspecies and/or subgenera do not affect the principle of binominal nomenclature. The nominate subspecies takes its authorship and date from the species. Same procedure with super- and sub- categories of genus and family.
    • RISKS OF INSTABILITY Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874 If Brisson (1762) is unavailable through being inconsistently binominal, the replacement name Agouti Lacépède, 1799 must be used. The result is that the established name for the rabbit, Oryctolagus , must be changed to the older name Cuniculus. Paca Rabbit
    • Submissions are made to the ICZN and a vote results in an “Opinion” published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. E.g. Opinion 1894 in 1998 ruled that Brisson (1762) should be rejected for nomenclatural purposes because it is not consistently binominal, but that certain genera from that work should be conserved. These included both Cuniculus and Glis . PROBLEMS NOT SOLVED BY THE CODE ALONE
    • SECONDARY HOMONYMY OF SPECIES When Maurimontia was synonymized with Ailuravus , A’s species name had to be changed and became Ailuravus stehlinschaubi Wood, 1976. B. Ailuravus picteti Rütimeyer, 1891 A. Maurimontia picteti Stehlin & Schaub, 1951 If the genus name for Maurimontia picteti had originally been Ailuravus , this would represent primary homonymy.
    • OBJECTIVE SYNONYMS SUBJECTIVE SYNONYMS Platychoerops richardsonii Charlesworth, 1855 Miolophus planiceps Owen, 1865 based on same type specimen. Cebochoerus minor Gervais, 1876 based on different type specimens. Cebochoerus helveticus (Pictet & Humbert,1869)
    • N.B. These are minimal criteria and much more is expected now: primary type designation, a stand-alone diagnosis, differential diagnosis, type horizon & locality, thorough description, high quality illustrations, phylogenetic analysis, synonymy list etc. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS To be an AVAILABLE NAME
      • Before 1931, it must have:
        • Been published after 1757
        • Used Latin alphabet
        • Been consistently binominal if for a species
        • Been valid for a taxon when first proposed
      • These criteria constitute an INDICATION
      • After 1930, in addition it must:
        • Have a description or definition purporting to differentiate the taxon or
        • Have a bibliographic reference to such or
        • Be a replacement name
    • VALID NAME A VALID NAME is an available name that is: The correct name in an author’s taxonomic judgement (i.e. not a junior synonym or a junior homonym), so long as it is code-compliant. A name that does not fulfill the criteria necessary to be an available name is: A NOMEN NUDUM
    • NOMEN OBLITUM NOMEN DUBIUM A name of unknown or doubtful application. E.g. if the type is lost or indeterminate. Names in common use that turn out to be nomina dubia require a Neotype. Others are best ignored and if unused since 1899 a nomen dubium can become a: if applied from 2000 onwards. A younger homonym or synonym takes precedence, but a nomen oblitum remains an available name.
    • PUBLICATION
      • Criteria:
      • Issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record
      • Obtainable, when first issued, free or by purchase
      • Produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies
      • Before 1986: on paper using conventional printing, hectographing or mimeographing
      • After 1985 & before 2000: includes other than conventional printing providing other criteria are met.
      • After 1999: includes other than printing on paper provided it contains a statement that copies have been deposited in art least 5 major publicly accessible libraries identified by name in the work itself
    • NOT A PUBLICATION
      • When the work contains a disclaimer that it is not for public and permanent scientific record or for the purposes of zoological nomenclature
      • Parts of a work where some or all of the names or nomenclatural acts are disclaimed for nomenclatural purposes
      • Published works suppressed by the Commission using its plenary power, except as a source of descriptions & illustrations
      • After 1930 handwriting reproduced in facsimile
      • Photographs as such
      • Proof sheets
      • Microfilms
      • Acoustic records as such
      • Labels on specimens
      • Copies of an unpublished work
      • Text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals
      • Abstracts issued primarily to participants at meetings
    • ‘ WORKS, NAMES & NOMENCLATURAL ACTS’ (1999 Zoo code, p.123)
    • TYPE SPECIMENS 1
      • PRIMARY TYPES
      • Holotype - original single specimen either designated or because there were no other specimens (monotypy).
      • Syntype - original multiple specimens either designated; or all the material interpreted to have been used by an author in the definition of a species, but where no types were designated.
      • Lectotype - single specimen selected subsequently from a syntype series to resolve confusion.
      • Neotype - single specimen designated subsequently to replace a missing holotype or lectotype or previously designated neotype or all the syntypes, specifically to resolve a confusion.
      • Hapantotype - original single or multiple preparations or cultures of an extant protistan, which cannot be restricted by lectotype selection, although some may be excluded if more than one species is found to be included.
    • TYPE SPECIMENS 2
      • “ SECONDARY” TYPES
      • Paratype - Each specimen of a type series other than the holotype.
      • Paralectotype - Each specimen of a former syntype series remaining after selection of a lectotype.
      • OTHER TYPES, NOT REGULATED BY THE CODE
      • Topotype - specimen from the type locality of the species or subspecies with which it is identified. Important for judging variation where primary type is a single specimen, and as a potential neotype.
      • Allotype - A designated specimen of opposite sex to the holotype.
      • Plastotype - cast of a type that is lost. May obviate the need for a neotype.
      • ABANDONED TYPES, SOMETIMES WRITTEN ON LABELS
      • Cotype - formerly used for either syntype or paratype.
      • Genotype - replaced by the term “type species”.
    • TYPE ACTIONS HOLOTYPE +/- PARATYPE(S) = stability SYNTYPES = potential instability LECTOTYPE +/- PARALECTOTYPES = stability If loss of primary type(s) means confusion: NEOTYPE
    • RECOGNIZING TYPES You can’t necessarily rely on a statement in a publication or on a label that a given specimen is a type. E.g. All specimens in Paris figured by Cuvier in Ossemens Fossiles are labelled “TYPE”. Some are, but can only be recognized by reference to articles in the Code & the relevant publications.
    • SCOPE OF SYNTYPES: WIDE Depéret (1906) named Catodontherium robiacense from the localities Robiac & Mormont. The only specimens he mentioned were from Mormont previously fig’d by Pictet & Humbert under another name. Sudre (1969) selected a LECTOTYPE from Robiac that had never been figured but was assumed to have been seen by Depéret when he named the taxon. Depéret’s syntypes included all the specimens that he could have used to found his species. Pictet & Humbert 1869 Sudre 1969
    • LOST TYPES Lophiotherium siderolithicum (Pictet, 1857) Holotype by monotypy MISSING. L. siderolithicum from same horizon & locality as holotype: Topotype - potential neotype, but neotype designation unnecessary as figure of the holotype is adequate and consistent with existing topotypes.
    • HONEST COMPOSITES The Syntype feet above are all composites according to the author, so each bone is a separate specimen. Multiple taxa are involved so one bone needs to be selected as Lectotype to stabilize the species. Eurytherium latipes Gervais, 1852
    • CLANDESTINE COMPOSITES Owen’s fig.8 of one of his apparent Syntypes of Thylacinus major appears to be a chimaera, with characters of the genera Thylacinus and Sarcophilus . Examination of specimens studied by Owen shows that the outline of specimen “B” matches cracks in the drawing. Fig.8 is therefore a composite drawing of teeth of Sarcophilus (like A), a fragment of Thylacinus jaw (B), & probably a modern Thylacinus jaw. B is the Syntype as the “teeth” specimen cannot be recognised. A B 8 Owen (1877)
    • HOLOTYPE OR SYNTYPES? The dispersed skeleton on the slab is holotype by monotypy. Lectotype selection is invalid if only 1 individual in total. “ Lectotype”
    • TYPES & VARIATION Treposciurus mutabilis Schmidt-Kittler, 1970 Treposciurus gardneri Hooker, 1991 Treposciurus preecei Hooker, 1986 Variant like T. gardneri Variant like T. mutabilis T. preecei based on designated syntypes to reflect polymorphism and overcome confusion with the other two species.
    • JUSTIFIED SUBSEQUENT EMENDATIONS Microchoerus wardi named after 2 people. Emended to M. wardorum . Plesiarctomys hurzeleri named after Hürzeler. Emended to P. huerzeleri as named before 1985.
    • CONCORDANCE OF ADJECTIVAL SPECIES NAMES WITH THE GENUS Palaeotherium min us Cuvier, 1804 [neuter genus] Recombined as: Plagiolophus min or (Cuvier, 1804) [masculine genus]
    • HYPHEN IN SPECIES NAME BANNED except: “ If the first element is a Latin letter used to denote descriptively a character of the taxon..” E.g. white letter hairstreak - Strymonidia w-album .
    • DOMESTICATED ANIMALS Equus caballus Linnaeus, 1758 Domestic horse Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785 Wild horse Wild and domesticated equivalents do not enter into synonymy. This is to avoid a domestic form taking priority over a wild form as would be the case here.
    • ICHNOTAXA Ophiomorpha Callianassa E.g. The ichnogenus Ophiomorpha is regarded as the fossil burrow of the ghost shrimp Callianassa , but the names are not synonyms . 1. Ichnotaxa must always be fossil. 2. Homonymy with animals is not allowed. 3. An ichnotaxon does not compete in priority with a name established for an animal. 4. When establishing an ichnotaxon, the new name is followed by e.g. igen. et isp. nov., rather than gen. et sp. nov.
    • OPEN NOMENCLATURE (Based mainly on recommendations by Bengtson (1988))
      • aff. : relates a new, undescribed taxon to a named taxon; e.g. aff. Agenus aspecies (for a new genus), Agenus aff. aspecies (for a new species) and aff. Agenus aff. aspecies (for new genus and species).
      • cf. : (positioned as in “aff.”) identification is provisional.
      • ? : identification is uncertain. It is in Roman script and follows the name.
      • sp. or subsp. (the latter clearer than ssp.): specific or subspecific identification impossible or not attempted.
      • ‘…’ : obsolete name. Often used to denote paraphyletic taxon or one that is likely to be replaced following taxonomic revision.
      Comment: In a database, one could infer simply the absence of a species or subspecies name or nothing below a higher rank to indicate the level of identification achieved.
    • SYNONYMY LISTS (from Matthews (1973))
    • Muscardinus avellanariuszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz