When does a species name officially change

[brisbane trees]

Hi

 

I know species names change quite a bit. I was reading today that Caeselpinia ferrea, leopard tree, was proposed to be changed to Libidibia ferrea in 2005 and was accepted in 2006.

 

I understand that the change would be proposed in a journal article, is that right? Who then has to accept the change? Is there an international body that oversees plant nomenclature?

 

Thanks

[Mountain man]

Some boyos in Switzerland apparently...or Austria.

 

Plant Taxonomy: Why Plant Names Change (CNPS-CI)

Edited March 15, 2015 by Mountain man

[brisbane trees]

No, that's not it. That articles just says how the rules of nomenclature were last changed and decided by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress held in Vienna, Switzerland, in 2006, which is referred to as the Vienna Code.

 

What I'm wondering is, when a journal publishes a paper that proposes a name change, does that have to be accepted or is the publication enough? Further, what resources exist to research name changes?

 

This isn't an academic question. Many species and genera have been getting shuffled around due to advances in molecular biology and DNA testing.

 

From my own neck of the woods (I'm in Brisbane, Australia), Eucalyptus has been broken up into three genera while Calllistemons are being moved back into Melaleuca. Considering the second example, I've read that my state's herbarium isn't using the changed name while our national one is. How confusing is that? So, I'm wondering if anyone knows when the change in trees' names officially take effect.

[Gary Prentice]

The answer will probably be in the articles of the international code of nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, as I think was said above.

 

I think the change has to be proposed in a publication that is widely published, and then agreed at a convention.

[KTSmith]

As touched on above, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) determines the rules for the valid publication of a species name for plant and fungi. The ICBN is revised at the Botanical Congresses that are held every five years. The particular "current" version of the ICBN is referred to by the city at which the Congress was held. The current version is the Melbourne Code which superseded the earlier Vienna code.

http://www.iapt-taxon.org/index_layer.php?page=s_ICBN

However, the ICBN determines the process for valid naming but does not dictate what is or is not the correct name, with a very few exceptions. For example, when I was more involved in formal taxonomy of fungi, a description or "diagnosis" of the fungus was required to be in Latin. More recent versions of the ICBN have dispensed with that.

The "correct" name is the earliest valid publication consistent with the taxonomic concept of the user. The Congress can dispense an exception to that "earliest" requirement if doing so would reduce confusion. That last bit of taxonomic concept requires some scholarship, but is open for those willing to bear the burden. As for the other elements of what makes for a valid publication of a "new" name, I could go on but I've probably lost everybody by now.

The key point for this thread, perhaps, is that No central authority rules on the name to use. Scholars present arguments and validly (we hope) publish names that fit with current concepts of what makes a critter related to another critter. Those concepts are in flux due to the input of molecular genetics. It is up to the users of those names, primarily other academics, to see what makes useful sense through time.

Many of the "new" genera of wood decay fungi were erected from the 1880s-1930s, and only now has the generational shift caused them to be commonly used and be part of the assumptive world.

So, unless I am willing to wade into the academic fray with my own scholarship, I'll choose an authority for a group which could be a textbook or institution and use the names they use.

[daltontrees]

I have always found this subject a little hard to pin down, and as the last post shows, it's a complex business.

 

But it is important to realise that synonyms can persist almost indefinitely. It is possible that the same species could be identified and named differently in different places, then later found to be the same species or indistinguishable. So if something gets re-named, it's not strictly wrong to use an old name. However, you would be doing yorself no favours if you persevere blindly with an old name if the speces has been reallocated to another genus or family because you could be missing out on the understanding of underlying differences between genuses or families.

 

The only thing that is truly unacceptable to me is use of redundant names that leaves room for mistakes. Species binomial names must be unique.

[Jon Heuch]

I have always found this subject a little hard to pin down, and as the last post shows, it's a complex business.

 

But it is important to realise that synonyms can persist almost indefinitely. So if something gets re-named, it's not strictly wrong to use an old name. However, you would be doing yorself no favours if you persevere blindly with an old name if the speces has been reallocated to another genus or family because you could be missing out on the understanding of underlying differences between genuses or families.

 

The only thing that is truly unacceptable to me is use of redundant names that leaves room for mistakes. Species binomial names must be unique.

 

I sympathise but how important nomenclature is will depend upon what you are doing:

 

If you are trying to tell people what you are working on and most people you are communicating with haven't caught up with the latest changes it probably doesn't matter. I found out this week that Chalara is now Hymenoscyphus fraxineus......with reference to a 2014 publication; I am still trying to work out what the correct latin name is for leyland cypress...but it seems to change quite regularly. I am sure some nurseries will use old latin names and some might be trying to keep up to speed.

 

If you are dealing with something as difficult as Phytophthora species you may have a problem; I learnt today that "hybridisation" is not the right concept - horizontal transfer of genetic material between "species" is possible; so you are dealing with a moving feast.

 

If you are searching for information you probably want to know about the various names as if you just use the new name you won't find any of the old information e.g. Eucalyptus is a very good term to use!

 

So what to do - refer to as many of the names as you are aware of and preferably use the authority at the end if it is at all important. Most of the older well established names are "L." for Linneaus.

 

It's all about communication, not about being right.

 

For the most part the name changes are cosmetic i.e. the splitters or the clumpers have not been at work, it's just that the taxonomists consider that things need to be grouped differently. You probably need to take more care if the change of name reflects splitting/clumping

 

Jon