title: New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
abstract: The recent multiplication of cladistic hypotheses for many zoological groups poses a challenge to zoological nomenclature following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: in order to account for these hypotheses, we will need many more ranks than currently allowed in this system, especially in lower taxonomy (around the ranks genus and species). The current Code allows the use of as many ranks as necessary in the family-series of nomina (except above superfamily), but forbids the use of more than a few ranks in the genus and species-series. It is here argued that this limitation has no theoretical background, does not respect the freedom of taxonomic thoughts or actions, and is harmful to zoological taxonomy in two respects at least: (1) it does not allow to express in detail hypothesized cladistic relationships among taxa at lower taxonomic levels (genus and species); (2) it does not allow to point taxonomically to low-level differentiation between populations of the same species, although this would be useful in some cases for conservation biology purposes. It is here proposed to modify the rules of the Code in order to allow use by taxonomists of an indeterminate number of ranks in all nominal-series. Such an 'expanded nomenclatural system' would be highly flexible and likely to be easily adapted to any new finding or hypothesis regarding cladistic relationships between taxa, at genus and species level and below. This system could be useful for phylogeographic analysis and in conservation biology. In zoological nomenclature, whereas robustness of nomina is necessary, the same does not hold for nomenclatural ranks, as the latter are arbitrary and carry no special biological, evolutionary or other information, except concerning the mutual relationships between taxa in the taxonomic hierarchy. Compared to the Phylocode project, the new system is equally unambiguous within the frame of a given taxonomic frame, but it provides more explicit and informative nomina for non-specialist users, and is more economic in terms of number of nomina needed to account for a given hierarchy. These ideas are exemplified by a comparative study of three possible nomenclatures for the taxonomy recently proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) for American frogs traditionally referred to the genus Rana.
authors.affiliation: Vertébrés : Reptiles et Amphibiens, USM 0602 Taxonomie & collections, département de systématique et évolution, Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, 25, rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France. adubois@mnhn.fr
authors.forename: Alain
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dubois
mesh_terms: D000663:Amphibians / Q000145:classification*; D000818:Animals; D002965:Classification / Q000379:methods*; D010802:Phylogeny; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D015046:Zoology / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends