Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: some basic questions

Abstract

Several proposals have recently been published regarding the possible incorporation of nomenclature of higher taxa (class-series nomina) into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Some basic questions related to this problem are discussed here. Introducing standard endings for the nomina of these taxa would probably be a kind of hara-kiri for LinnaeanStricklandian nomenclature of higher taxa: it would upset nomenclatural stability by introducing many new nomina and abandoning most of the nomina that have been in constant use in zoology for a long time to other nomenclatural systems alternative to the Code. Nomina of higher taxa should rather all belong in a single nominal-series, the class-series. They should not be submitted to a Rule of Coordination (except for identical taxa of different ranks), and their allocation to taxa should not be made through extensional or intensional definitions, but through ostension with a special system combining onomatophores (the conucleogenera) and onomatostases (the alienogenera). This system provides clear, unambiguous, stringent and universal Rules for the nomination of higher taxa in the future, compatible with all taxonomic systems including “phylogenetic” ones, while respecting the freedom of taxonomic thought and actions, as well as the tradition long attached to nomina of higher taxa in zoology.

Optimality of phylogenetic nomenclatural procedures

“…In turn, they argued that a procedure compliant with any paradigm regarding causal factors responsible for the existence of species, various possible patterns of species divergence (i.e. unique or reticulated ancestry), and any method allowing relationships between species to be hypothesized, is preferable (Dubois 2006b(Dubois , 2007aWheeler 2004: 577, but "higher taxon names refer to monophyletic groups", p. 574, implying that Hennig's paradigm is accepted).…”

Nomenclatural rules in zoology as a potential threat against natural history museums

“…It is therefore of great importance that the system of onomatophores, that is theoretically justified as an excellent system for universal and stable biological nomenclature (Dubois 2005), be kept as the unique reference system for the naming of all organisms, and that the use of this system be respected by all biologists, beginning with taxonomists. However, threats currently exist against the universality of this system, for two distinct reasons: (1) some systematists propose to discard onomatophores in some cases, thus weakening the universal function of onomatophores in nomenclature; (2) others go even further and propose to replace the ostensional system of onomatophores with intensional systems using verbal definitions of nomina.…”

“…However, threats currently exist against the universality of this system, for two distinct reasons: (1) some systematists propose to discard onomatophores in some cases, thus weakening the universal function of onomatophores in nomenclature; (2) others go even further and propose to replace the ostensional system of onomatophores with intensional systems using verbal definitions of nomina. Both these recent developments should be countered, not only on theoretical grounds (Dubois 2005), but also because they are a potential threat to the flag function of onomatophores, and consequently to the recognition, permanence and funding of natural history museums. This problem shall be exemplified in detail by a recent case in amphibian taxonomy.…”

“…The object of the Code is not to deal with the theory and practice of the classification of organisms (taxonomy), but to provide rules for the automatic and universal establishment of the unique valid scientific name or nomen (Dubois 2000a) of a given taxon within any given taxonomic frame (nomenclature). This is a three-step process involving first the nomenclatural availability of nomina, then their allocation to taxa, and finally their validity (Dubois 2005). Once made nomenclaturally available, a given nomen is unambiguously allocated to a given taxon in any given taxonomy not through any verbal definition or intension, but through a mechanism of ostension (Dubois 2006(Dubois , 2007a(Dubois , b, 2008Keller et al 2003), this nomen being attached to one or several specimens usually known as types (McNeill et al 2006), name-bearing types (ICZN 1999) or better as onomatophores (Dubois 2000a(Dubois , 2005Dubois and Ohler 1997;Simpson 1940Simpson , 1961.…”

“…This is a three-step process involving first the nomenclatural availability of nomina, then their allocation to taxa, and finally their validity (Dubois 2005). Once made nomenclaturally available, a given nomen is unambiguously allocated to a given taxon in any given taxonomy not through any verbal definition or intension, but through a mechanism of ostension (Dubois 2006(Dubois , 2007a(Dubois , b, 2008Keller et al 2003), this nomen being attached to one or several specimens usually known as types (McNeill et al 2006), name-bearing types (ICZN 1999) or better as onomatophores (Dubois 2000a(Dubois , 2005Dubois and Ohler 1997;Simpson 1940Simpson , 1961. Whenever, according to these rules, two or more nomina apply to the same taxon (synonyms), or are identical (homonyms), the valid one among these competing nomina used to be determined according to a simple principle, that of priority of publication.…”