4.6 Article

Tightening the requirements for species diagnoses would help integrate DNA-based descriptions in taxonomic practice

Journal

PLOS BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002251

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The advancements in DNA sequencing technology have made it possible to describe new organisms with increasing precision, but the current bionomenclature codes have poorly defined requirements for species diagnoses, which is a problem for DNA-based taxonomy. The commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature suggest tightening the definition of species diagnosis in future editions of the codes, in order to improve taxonomic standards and ensure that all diagnoses, including DNA-based ones, provide adequate taxonomic context.
Modern advances in DNA sequencing hold the promise of facilitating descriptions of new organisms at ever finer precision but have come with challenges as the major Codes of bionomenclature contain poorly defined requirements for species and subspecies diagnoses (henceforth, species diagnoses), which is particularly problematic for DNA-based taxonomy. We, the commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, advocate a tightening of the definition of species diagnosis in future editions of Codes of bionomenclature, for example, through the introduction of requirements for specific information on the character states of differentiating traits in comparison with similar species. Such new provisions would enhance taxonomic standards and ensure that all diagnoses, including DNA-based ones, contain adequate taxonomic context. Our recommendations are intended to spur discussion among biologists, as broad community consensus is critical ahead of the implementation of new editions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and other Codes of bionomenclature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available