Search

Until mid-1970s, cyanobacteria have been interpreted as algae despite they differed from other members of this taxonomic group by the absence of cell nucleus (that is currently considered among the characters of prokaryotic organization). However, when bacteria were interpreted as prokaryotes, blue-green algae became reattributed as cyanobacteria, and bacteriologists began to study their cultured strains with microbiology methods. But since these objects did not obey the provisions of bacteriological code (ICNB), development of their taxonomy had certain problems, especially regarding nomenclature, that could not be solved until early-2010s. Current changes in taxonomy of cyanobacteria result from the general progress in taxonomy of prokaryotes due to explosive accumulation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data, particularly for uncultured objects. Advances in description of new cyanobacteral taxa are as follows: (I) based on polyphasic approach, new taxa ranging from species to order were published; (II) "dark" cyanobacteria demonstrating several types of non-photosynthetic metabolism were described; I(II) strains producing red-shifted chlorophylls d and f were published. Advances in nomenclature of cyanobacteria are: (IV) taxa validly published according to botanical code (ICN) are also considered valid under prokaryotic code (ICNP); (V) the category of phylum was introduced into ICNP, and due to valid publication of the type genus Cyanobacterium, phylum name Cyanobacteriota became legitimate; (VI) names of uncultured Candidatus objects could get a standing in nomenclature based on SeqCode in which type material is represented by genomic DNA sequences. Advances in classification of cyanobacteria are: (VII) evolutionary tree of oxygenic phototrophs and related phylotypes was construed; (VIII) phylogenomic system of orders and families was elaborated; (IX) ecogenomic system combining genomie analysis with genome distribution data was offered. A subject for future research is restriction of taxonomic redundancy in cyanobacteria, and further attempts to establish their species concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The names Arenaria mattfeldii, A. pallens, A. peruviana, A. pintaudii, and A. stuebelii (Caryophyllaceae, Arenarieae) from Peru and Bolivia were studied and neotypified based on specimens preserved at B and P. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unambiguous application of fungal names is important to communicate scientific findings. Names are critical for (clinical) diagnostics, legal compliance, and regulatory controls, such as biosafety, food security, quarantine regulations, and industrial applications. Consequently, the stability of the taxonomic system and the traceability of nomenclatural changes is crucial for a broad range of users and taxonomists. The unambiguous application of names is assured by the preservation of nomenclatural history and the physical organisms representing a name. Fungi are extremely diverse in terms of ecology, lifestyle, and methods of study. Predominantly unicellular fungi known as yeasts are usually investigated as living cultures. Methods to characterize yeasts include physiological (growth) tests and experiments to induce a sexual morph; both methods require viable cultures. Thus, the preservation and availability of viable reference cultures are important, and cultures representing reference material are cited in species descriptions. Historical surveys revealed drawbacks and inconsistencies between past practices and modern requirements as stated in the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (ICNafp). Improper typification of yeasts is a common problem, resulting in a large number invalid yeast species names. With this opinion letter, we address the problem that culturable microorganisms, notably some fungi and algae, require specific provisions under the ICNafp. We use yeasts as a prominent example of fungi known from cultures. But viable type material is important not only for yeasts, but also for other cultivable Fungi that are characterized by particular morphological structures (a specific type of spores), growth properties, and secondary metabolites. We summarize potential proposals which, in our opinion, will improve the stability of fungal names, in particular by protecting those names for which the reference material can be traced back to the original isolate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The name Cleome heptaphylla was published by Linnaeus in the second edition of Species plantarum and is still untypified. Analysis of the protologue and the associated pre‐Linnaean names indicated the absence of original material that could serve for lectotypification. A specimen from Miller's herbarium at BM is designated as its neotype. The neotype of C. heptaphylla is also original material of C. erucago, another untypified name in this group, published a few years later by Miller. Cleome erucago is lectotypified using the same specimen and, as such, it is a homotypic synonym of C. heptaphylla. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fourth edition of the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (ICPN) was prepared by the Steering Committee of the IAVS Working Group for Phytosociological Nomenclature (GPN). The edition consists of 14 Definitions, 7 Principles, 53 Articles, and 7 Appendices. When compared with the previous edition, the main amendments are: (a) the acceptance of electronic publications (Art. 1); (b) the introduction of binding decisions (Definition XIV, Principle II, Articles 1, 2b, 3c, 29b, 40, 42, 44, Appendices 6 and 7); (c) the mandatory use of the English or Latin terminology for syntaxonomic novelties (Definition II, Principle II, Articles 3d and 3i); (d) the introduction of autonyms for the main ranks when the corresponding secondary ranks are created (Articles 13b and 24); (e) the automatic correction of the taxon names (name‐giving taxa) used in the names of syntaxa in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) (Article 44); (f) the possibility to mutate the name of a syntaxon in using other correct, alternative names for the name‐giving taxa (Article 45); (g) the introduction of inadequate names, a new category of rejected names (Definition V, Articles 43 through 45); and (h) the introduction of a conserved type (Definition XIII, Article 53). The fourth edition of ICPN was approved by the GPN on 25 May 2019 and becomes effectively binding on 1 January 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to an influential twentieth‐century narrative, Linnaeus's taxonomic endeavors rested on a suspect metaphysical basis of "typological thinking" or "essentialism". Since the beginning of this century, historians and philosophers have shown that this narrative is deeply problematic and fails to be supported by the close study of Linnaeus's actual taxonomic principles and practices. Magnus Lidén has recently argued in Taxon that this revisionist literature on Linnaeus nevertheless preserves a residue of unwarranted attributions of typological thinking aimed at Linnaeus. I argue that this is incorrect and contend that Lidén misinterprets the recent literature on the history of "type concepts" in taxonomy, which has nothing to do with typological thinking. With this article, I hope to show that the historiography of taxonomy is helped, not hindered, by enquiring into Linnaeus's use of certain type concepts and his unfamiliarity with others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fears expressed by Santos et al. (2016) that description of typeless species (new species described based on field photographs) can be fatal for the practice of taxonomy which will succumb to an uncontrollable stream of "species of questionable delimitation" are, in our opinion, exaggerated. The Code already protects taxonomic practice from subjectivity quite well by limiting opportunities for descriptions of new species based on field photos by rigid requirements, and only skilled taxonomists with extensive knowledge of a group are capable of fulfilling them. If a taxonomist has omitted to compare the new typeless species with the known species externally similar to it, the latter cannot be diagnosed and its name in that case becomes nomen nudum. Typeless species can coincide with species described earlier, but can represent a new species differing in internal features. To describe typeless species without infringement of Article 13.1 a taxonomist should compare this species to all related and similar species described earlier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Encyonema leibleinii and E. lacustre were among the first species of Encyonema to be described, in 1830 and 1824, respectively. Until now, however, only light microscopic features (and SEM of non-type material for E. lacustre) of these species have been documented. Here, we provide ultrastructural (scanning electron micrograph) characterization of their type material. We find that the SEM , as well as LM, features of E. leibleiniiare indistinguishable from those of E. prostratum and E. paradoxum. Consequently, the results support the synonomization of the three taxa, with E. leibleinii having priority as the first name applied to this entity. Encyonema leibleinii and E. lacustre have similar ultrastructural characteristics, mainly concerning the internal stria structure, and the terminal and central raphe fissures. Based on this information and SEM characterizations in the literature, ultrastructural features of the genus Encyonema are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Sarcococca longipetiolata" was not validly published by Cheng (1979) because two gatherings were simultaneously indicated as type, the flowering material using Latin and Chinese and the fruiting material using Chinese alone (contrary to the requirements of Art. 40). "Sarcococca longipetiolata M.Cheng" was not validly published by Li (2009) because the type indicated was a lectotype in conflict with Art. 40.6 (and not correctable; Art. 9.9 Note 6). The name Sarcococca longipetiolata is validated here by indicating a single gathering as the holotype. Given the requirements of Art. 40 of the ICN, researchers and editors need to make sure that type indications made in Latin and a modern language refer to the same gathering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some have concluded that Sarcococca longipetiolata M.Cheng was not validly published in the 1979 publication where it was originally proposed because, even though only one gathering (Gao 53542) was cited as type in English, two gatherings (Gao 53542, Gao 54811) were indicated as types in Chinese, contrary to Art. 40. However, based on further evaluation of Cheng's trilingual (Chinese, English, Latin) protologue, it is concluded that the Chinese and English portions indicate the same thing, namely, two specimens from two gatherings were cited, with only one (Gao 53542) being given as the type. Therefore, S. longipetiolata M.Cheng was validly published in 1979. A lectotype for S. longipetiolata is designated using one of the two specimens at I BSC from the Gao 53542 gathering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]