Naming and gaming: The illicit taxonomic practice of 'nomenclatural harvesting' and how to avoid it

We coin the term 'nomenclatural harvesting' to identify a distinct form of taxonomic vandalism, in which practitioners generate taxon names for operational taxonomic units (OTUs) identified in phylogenetic trees published by others, even when there is no scientifically useful or practical basis for doing so. This practice can destabilize the nomenclature of scientifically established groups by swamping them with questionable new names, and this may have broader impacts in the application of taxon names to clinical toxinology, studies of biodiversity and conservation, and it may contribute to further erode the trust placed by the public in science. A change to Article 73 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the addition of suitable language in publications presenting taxonomic decisions to authenticate research effort and specimen work would alleviate the problem.

Automated summary

We introduce the term 'nomenclatural harvesting' to describe the act of generating taxon names for operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in phylogenetic trees without any scientific or practical basis. This can disrupt established nomenclature by flooding it with questionable new names, and has wider implications for clinical toxinology, biodiversity studies, and public trust in science. Implementing changes to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and including language in publications to authenticate research and specimen work could help address this issue.