Nomenclature and Classification

Abstract

Nomenclature, that aspect of taxonomy that deals specifically with the naming of organisms, is perhaps its least-loved aspect, although without it biological science would certainly be in a far poorer state. While nomenclature is littered with pedantry and what often seems to be a wealth of trivia, it forms the basis by which scientists can name and cross-refer to organisms. Without names, after all, where would biology be. In general the Codesthat govern in a gentlemanly way the actions of taxonomists as they affect names, try to be logical in rather the same way as the rules of cricket are logical. However, logic does not always coincide with simplicity. Added to this is another source of contention, namely that the rules governing nomenclature owe a lot to historical accident. Few would doubt that if we could wipe the slate clean, a far more coherent set of rules could be obtained. Unfortunately, for most groups far too much has been published to effect a change now and so taxonomists and the users of taxonomy have to learn the relevant rules and to live with them. Probably the one major annoyance for any general student of taxonomy is that for historical reasons, the nomenclatures of different major groups of organisms have come to be subject to different sets of rules and while it would be nice to have to learn just one set, this is a long way off yet (Ride, 1988).

ArticleNote

In any taxonomic work it is the sole responsibility of the author(s) to judge from the evidence obtained whether taxa are to be (a) described as new species, (b) considered as valid species, or (c) put in synonymy with recognised species. Later studies might then reveal the correctness of the systematics of the group studied.

Jelnes (1986)