International rules for zoological nomenclature

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The International Regulations for the Zoological Nomenclature ( English International Code of Zoological Nomenclature , ICZN ) are a convention by which the designation and classification of all animals is governed internationally. The rules, often just called "code" in the literature, determine above all,

  1. how names are correctly introduced in the zoological binomial nomenclature ,
  2. which name is chosen if an animal has been given more than one name,
  3. how the names should be quoted in scientific texts.

The aim of this international set of rules is to try to keep the naming and scientific literature internationally on a uniform and continuous level. At the same time, however, it should also show the freedom in naming new species and their limits. In botany , the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) applies accordingly .

History of the nomenclature code

Until about 1840 authorship was understood according to a principle of authority, an unwritten convention according to which the name was often assigned to the person who was the best expert or specialist in the field. The resulting chaos in the nomenclature reached such proportions that in 1842 the English paleontologist Hugh Edwin Strickland was asked to form a committee of experts, including Charles Darwin and Richard Owen , in order to create a code of rules for zoological nomenclature. This first attempt at an International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, which appeared in 1843, is known as the Strickland Code .

This first code was followed by others inside and outside Great Britain, some of which only had regional or national effects. The international zoological congresses in Paris in 1889 and Moscow in 1892 dealt with the necessity of standardizing these rules. At the Third International Congress of Zoology (Leiden 1895) it was decided to set up a commission to set up the three regionally used and partly incompatible sets of rules (an English, a French and a German) should unite. After further clarification at the 4th Congress in Cambridge (1898), a trilingual text proposal was presented at the 5th Congress in Berlin (1901), which was recognized. The text, which was subsequently revised, was published in three languages ​​in 1905. This is now considered to be the first edition of the Code. Only the French text was considered legally binding.

These rules were repeatedly amended and supplemented in 8 further congresses up to 1958 (Boston 1907, Graz 1910, Monaco 1913, Budapest 1927, Padua 1930, Paris 1948, Copenhagen 1953, London 1958), and published in the congress reports, exclusively in English . One problem was that the original edition from 1905 was soon out of print and the many changes could hardly be overlooked. In 1953 the decision, which is still effective today, was made that the English and French texts were legally equivalent.

In 1958, at the London Congress, a seven-person Editorial Committee was commissioned to prepare a second edition of the Code, which was published on November 9, 1961 in English and French. A German edition appeared in 1962, in which the history of the code was briefly presented.

After 1972 (17th International Zoological Congress, Monte Carlo, others did not follow until 2000), the decisions were no longer taken at zoological congresses, but decided by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN Commission, also ICZN, currently 28 members) henceforth relatively self-sufficient under the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), also with regard to the appointment of new members. In practice, this has resulted in the zoological nomenclature no longer being decided in a democratic manner since 1972.

The 3rd edition of the ICZN Code was published in 1985.

The 4th edition of the ICZN Code was published in 1999 and came into force on January 1, 2000. The 1985 procedure was repeated. This edition was also prepared by an editorial committee made up of seven people, appointed by the ICZN commission. In the run-up, there was the opportunity to express opinions, but the Editorial Committee took decisions on its own initiative and without having to justify itself.

Contents of the rules for zoological nomenclature

Overview

The ICZN is divided into 18 chapters with a total of 90 articles. The articles regulate the use of names for taxa up to the superfamily level. Higher taxa (from subordination upwards) are not covered by the conventions.

The rules essentially set out detailed rules for:

  • the availability of a zoological name (= when a name was correctly introduced)
  • the validity of a zoological name (= when a name can also be used for an animal)
  • the procedure for synonyms and homonyms
  • Formation and spelling of names
  • Definition of types
  • Procedure for derogations.

The International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature does not take any position on questions of zoological systematics , but only on their taxonomic handling. For example, it is always at the discretion of the respective author whether two different names denote the same animal species, but the set of rules determines which is the valid name in this case.

Important articles

3.1 The zoological naming begins in 1758 with Linnaeus' 10th edition of Systema Naturae , all previously published works are not recognized. All with one exception: the work Svenska spindlar von Clerck , published in 1757 . The passage according to which the names of these spiders should be cited with the year 1758 is controversial, although they appeared in 1757 and the actual year of publication must always be given.

4.1 All ranks above the species have a name that consists of only one word and begins with a capital letter (uninouns).

5.1 Types have a two-part name ( binomials ). It consists of the name of the genus , starting with an uppercase letter, and the species name, starting with a lowercase letter . The term type epithet has not been used in the German-language nomenclature regulations since 1962, instead type name (English specific name ).

5.2 Subspecies have a three-part name ( trinomial ), which consists of the binomial and the subspecies name, the latter starting with a lowercase letter.

6.1 If a sub-genus is mentioned in a binomial or trinomial, it must be in brackets between the genus name and the species name and is not considered part of the binomial or trinomial. It starts with a capital letter.

8–9 This regulates what is and what is not a publication available for zoological nomenclature. For example, electronic files have only been considered publications since September 2012.

11 To be accepted as an available name, a name must meet certain requirements; this includes that it was published according to the rules, in a consistently binomial work, and the name must be written in Latin letters . A new name must also have been used by the author for the animal (not just as a synonym ). The relatively newly introduced and very controversial Article 11.6 is very well known, according to which synonyms can sometimes be made available, although there has been a failure to formulate minimum standards for this.

12 Each name that is to be available must be provided with a description, either directly or by means of a literature reference. An illustration is also used as a description. In the case of genera, it is sufficient if at least one available species is included in the genus. Trivial names, distribution information or names of host organisms do not serve as a description.

13 After 1930, the type species must be clearly evident from the original description of generic names.

16 After 1999, the eponymous type specimen must be mentioned in species descriptions.

21 The actual date of publication is always given as the date. It is specified exactly how this is to be determined.

22 If the year of publication is mentioned in the taxonomic name, it follows the author. According to a recommendation, there should not be more than a comma between author and year (the comma is not required, however).

23 The valid name of a taxon is always the oldest available name, unless it has been invalidated by another rule of the Code or an arbitration by the Commission. This priority principle is used to determine which name should be used in the case of synonyms (different names for a taxon) and to determine which taxon should keep the name in the case of homonyms (the same name for different taxa). Article 23.9 is very important as it allows the priority rule to be suspended in certain cases. For this, the name that actually had priority must not have been used since 1899, and the preferred name must have been used frequently in recent times.

24 If two names have equal rights, for example if two names were published at the same time, the first reviser principle applies. The first author to notice something like this can choose one of the two names.

25 It is recommended to write out a name the first time it is mentioned in a paper. After that, parts of a binomial or trinominative can be abbreviated if these abbreviations are unambiguous. The abbreviated part of the name should be followed by a period.

27 No diacritical marks or other special characters may be used in a name .

29 The name of a superfamily ends with -oidea, a family with -idae, a subfamily with -inae, a tribe with -ini, and a subertribus with -ina. It is formed from the root of the name of the genus with the oldest publication date and the ending mentioned.

32 The spelling used for a name in the original publication is valid unless one of the following reasons requires correction:

  • There is an obvious inadvertent error in the publication for which the author is not responsible, e.g. B. a typographical error; however, a wrong Latinization is not considered an error.
  • A name was published with a diacritical mark.
  • A name of a higher taxon was not formed according to the rules of Article 29.

50 The author of a name is the person who first publishes the name in a manner applicable under Article 11. The English code is ambiguous and does not distinguish between author (Engl. Author ) and publisher (Engl. Publisher ). In practice, it is understood as the person who wrote the text of the description, not the person responsible for printing or financing it.

51 Mentioning an author after the name is optional. If it does, there is no punctuation mark between the name and the author. The author and date are put in brackets in species names if the species is in a different genus than in the first description in which it was originally described.

58 Very frequently consulted article that specifies in detail when two slightly different spellings are considered to be the same.

67–70 Here it is described exactly how the types of genera are determined.

72–73 Here it is precisely specified on which type specimens species names are based.

74 All the rules for lecture types are summarized here.

75 All the rules for neotypes are summarized here.

77–84 This regulates the rights and obligations of the ICZN commission. It does not regulate how to proceed if the Commission goes beyond its rights.

Criticism of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Supporters of the phylogenetic system are particularly critical of the two-part species names with the specified generic name, since genera in the phylogenetic sense are artificial constructs and exist as units in nature just as little as all higher taxonomic ranks.

One of the frequently criticized articles is certainly Article 11.6 (availability of names that were first published as a synonym), which was only introduced after 1985 largely without standards and is sometimes even misused to circumvent the important rule that every name is available should be provided with a description.

Why the spiders of Clerck should unnecessarily be cited as 1758 and not as usual before 2000 as 1757 (Article 3.1) is also an open question. There is no reason to deviate from the basic rule that the actual year of publication must always be given.

The code fails to specify exactly how the author 's name should be spelled and does not directly address the use of initials . In the electronic age, this creates enormous problems when different databases are to be merged. A problem that botany does not know.

Many taxonomists are also unhappy with the fact that Article 8 defines far too vaguely what a publication available for nomenclature should be. The only thing stipulated is that it must have been printed on paper "using a method that allows several identical prints to be made". Today this is possible with any laser printer . Failure to set a minimum number of printed copies.

Others would like to have electronic publications officially recognized and change Article 9.8 (which prohibits this) accordingly. In 2008 an amendment was initiated (Amendment). The discussion on this was not yet concluded in 2010. Several dozen taxonomists have expressed their views in writing, there have been votes for and against, and the survey did not reveal any clear tendency. The main problem is seen in the fact that electronic documents are not automatically durable as long as paper and that there is also no experience with publicly funded library systems for their storage and retrieval after several hundred years.

Last but not least, it is often heavily criticized that the 28-person ICZN commission is oligarchically structured, unevenly composed (English-speaking members are over-represented) and not in any way democratically legitimized, even if this can be done easily via the Internet in modern times would.

The code is occasionally issued in a modified edition (3rd edition 1985, 4th edition 2000), by a committee appointed by the Commission, which consists of about 7 people and often makes questionable decisions (for example, in Article 11.6 not only not thought, but warnings from experts were ignored). The fourth edition was criticized for the fact that, despite extensive discussions in advance, it was not always clearly or at all documented why certain changes were ultimately decided by the committee. Most taxonomists have little or no influence on the legislation that affects them, there are no elections, and also no conferences or congresses on zoological nomenclature.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ R. Blanchard, F. von Maehrenthal, CW Stiles: Règles internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique adoptées par les Congrès Internationaux de Zoologie. International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. International rules of zoological nomenclature. Rudeval, Paris 1905.
  2. ^ Otto Kraus : International rules for zoological nomenclature. Decided by the XV. International Congress of Zoology. S. I-VIII [= 1-8], 1-90. Senckenberg Natural Research Society, Frankfurt am Main 1962.
  3. ↑ a b Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. No. 52, pp. 228-233, 294-302; No. 53, 6-17, 80-88, 235-237.
  4. ↑ Page 74: Explanation of the technical terms: species name. In: O. Kraus: International rules for zoological nomenclature. Decided by the XV. International Congress of Zoology. S. I-VIII [= 1-8], 1-90. Senckenberg Natural Research Society, Frankfurt am Main 1962.
  5. ↑ ICZN Code 4th Edition ( Memento of the original dated May 24, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (English). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.iczn.org
  6. ↑ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication . In: ZooKeys . tape 219 , April 9, 2012, ISSN  1313-2970 , p. 1-10 , doi : 10.3897 / zookeys.219.3944 .
  7. ↑ ICZN Code Art. 12
  8. ↑ iczn.org

literature

  • Otto Kraus (edit.): International rules for zoological nomenclature. Adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences. Official German text. Ed .: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 4th edition. Goecke and Evers, Keltern 2000, ISBN 3-931374-36-X .

Web links