Naming the groups: developing a stable and efficient nomenclature

Summary McNeill, J.: Naming the groups: developing a stable and efficient nomenclature. – Taxon 49: 705–720. – ISSN 0040‐0262. The binomial system of botanical nomenclature has existed for almost 250 years, the principle of a taxon having a single correct name determined on the basis of priority of publication was formalized almost 150 years ago, and the type method for the application of scientific names of plants has had international acceptance for almost 75 years. In this historic time‐frame, the achievements of the past 50 years are outlined and the question posed as to whether the next 50 years hold any prospect of change, and indeed whether any change is possible or even desirable. The requirement of botanical nomenclature to provide a stable, unambiguous reference system for plant information implies an inherent conservatism of rules and procedures—even the smallest change to the Code , however beneficial it may be in general, is virtually certain to have some destabilizing effect. Despite this truism, it is suggested that the next few years will see quite major change. One of the least of these may be the development of a separate specialist nomenclature for communication about major phyletic lineages, not so dissimilar in practice from the specialist nomenclature currently in existence for the micro‐variants important in cultivated plants. Bionomenclature provides the mechanism for communication about the elements of taxonomy—elements that generally seek to reflect the greatest information on patterns of biodiversity. It will continue to communicate the general information content of taxa effectively, only if it evolves to take fuller advantage of the opportunities of the electronic age. The historical tendency to improve the rules of nomenclature by continuous “tinkering” with the Code needs to give way to a recognition that stability and simplicity are key requirements of users of names (amongst whom professional biologists are a relatively small minority), and that web access to authoritative lists will generally be their preferred approach to answering the nomenclatural questions that arise in study and use of plants, animals and micro‐organisms. To remain relevant, the botanical Code , like the bacteriological, and now, to a degree, the zoological, must provide mechanisms for the endorsement of nomenclatural lists that represent the products of sound scholarship.