21st Century Biological Nomenclature—the Enduring Power of Names

Synopsis

Nomenclature and taxonomy are complementary and distinct aspects of the study of biodiversity, but the two are often confused even by biologists. Taxonomy is the part of the science of systematics that deals with identifying, describing, and categorizing organisms from species to higher taxa. Nomenclature is a system of giving names to organisms based on rules established for the process. Adoption of a system of binomial nomenclature by end of the 18th century helped standardize the process of naming the wealth of new organisms collected during the Age of Exploration, but before the middle of the 19th century, the turmoil resulting from differences in procedures and philosophies among practicing taxonomists necessitated the development of codes of nomenclature to regulate naming. By the early 20th century, codified sets of rules for the names of both plants and animals, nowadays usually abbreviated as ICBN (Botanical Code) and ICZN (Zoological Code), were in place internationally. These codes worked reasonably well through most of the 20th century, under the aegis of various international bodies, in part because procedures exist to bypass them when their provisions threaten nomenclatural stability. They also inspired the development of other nomenclatural codes for specific groups of organisms like bacteria, and, alternatively, the proposal of unified codes for all organisms. The rapid development of electronic communications and various means of electronic publication at the end of the 20th century, combined with what may be the advent of a new age of biological extinction, resulted in pressure to revise the codes to allow at least some degree of electronic publication and speedier description of new taxa in the 21st century. Consistent and unambiguous names are the platforms on which biological research and conservation practices are built. As we pursue the goals of documenting and conserving biodiversity, for which a stable nomenclature is essential, we must do so without restricting the freedom of the science of systematics.