Scientific names and progress

Science is all about progress. In the field of systematics (the study of the evolution of organisms), progress often results in new names replacing or supplementing old names. A species may be split into numerous new species. Or new evidence may support grouping of organisms into new arrangements based on what we know about their evolutionary histories. However, this progress makes more difficult another scientific endeavor, classification.

Classification

Taxonomy is the practice of giving organisms names, and organizing those names in a hierarchy called a classification. Biologists use classifications as filing systems. They determine how scientific specimens are stored in museums, how field guides present maps and pictures and text about species, how libraries store and provide access to scientific studies about organisms. These scientific names and ranks are used in communication among biologists around the world. Thus, to be useful a classification needs to be broadly understandable and relatively stable. Right now, there are rules of nomenclature (slightly different in different parts of the tree of life) that govern the form of any name that is proposed, and that govern when a name can be added or changed. For example, names at certain ranks must have a suffix that indicates their rank (e.g. "–idae" indicates a rank of "Family" in Kingdom Animalia), and new names must be accepted by a nomenclatural authority. It might be discovered that a name was proposed for something that already had a name; usually the first-described name is given precedence.

The dilemma of changing classifications

Ideally, classifications reflect what we know about evolutionary history. It is impractical, however, to change the classification every time that new evidence is proposed for new or changed names. All the file cabinets mentioned above would need to be re-organized constantly, and the stability that makes it possible for people to communicate about these organisms would be lost. Yet, the classification must periodically be updated -- otherwise it is confusing or impossible to communicate about some of these new names and the newly described evolutionary histories of animals using the old, outdated names.

The bottom line is that even occasional updates to classification hamper our ability to pull together information about the same creatures.

The urgency

This communication problem is not new; in fact, it has probably existed in some form ever since humans started naming living things and sharing information about them. However, the rise of digital information technology means that many more people are trying to communicate about many more organisms. Vast databases now exist online that catalog and provide information about organisms. But because classifications occasionally change it is nearly impossible to reliably and completely connect the information across these databases, and even historically within the same database.

Proposed solutions

We at ADW can attest to the personal headaches changing classifications have caused us. Here are some proposed solutions to this problem:

Give every kind of organism a number. I don't know if there have been serious proposals to codify particular numbers for each kind of organism. However, databases already typically generate their own numbers for each name, and if there were some official way to all start using the same numbers, then the names could change but the connections between databases would still work. But it isn't nearly as fun to announce you've seen 1345890 down at the marsh the other day, and I doubt that field guides publishers or buyers will find the numbers as compelling.

Change the rules so names never need to change. PhyloCode is a hotly debated proposal to replace the various codes of nomenclature with new rules that will allow better communication about organisms and their phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships. Ranks disappear, names get registration numbers and never need to be changed. PhyloCode could solve some problems going forward, but could also create more problems than it solves (see this critique of phylocode).

Maintain a name translator. A seemingly simple solution: let the computers do the work. In practice, translators are only as good as the resources they are connected to. Putting together even a single classification for the entire tree of life (Species 2000) has been taking a very long time. Now imagine adding multiple classifications where there is controversy, including every synonym (obsolete name) or misspelling that has ever been used. And it still doesn't help with the printed field guides. Still, information technology is pretty powerful and uBio has potential.

Animal Diversity Web takes no formal position on these solutions at this point. A related effort to make taxonomic databases more accessible is TaxonTree. This program combines a phylogenetic view (at higher levels) and classification (at lower levels), and allows searching and browsing of the tree in hopes that people will eventually find information about the animals they want and understand how these animals fit into larger context of Kingdom Animalia.