Names, taxa and databases: some aspects of diatom nomenclature

Abstract

The relationship among diatom names, taxa and the various databases available is explored from a nomenclatural point of view. An example using the names in Entomoneis and Amphiprora are discussed in this context. The key point is that there need not be a connection between the name of a validly described species and its actual existence as a biological entity. Interpreting the names found in current databases as if they were all names of real biological entities may yield incorrect conclusions when documenting various aspects of diatom diversity.

Keywords:

• Names
• taxa
• databases
• nomenclature
• taxonomy

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mike Guiry and Pat Kociolek for advice and comment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The validity of Amphiprora, and its use relative to Entomoneis, is still not that straightforward and may need revisiting: ‘Ex. 1. Amphiprora Ehrenb. (in Abh. Königl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1841: 401, t. II(VI), fig. 28. 1843), available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the name of a genus of animals, was first treated as belonging to the algae by Kützing (Kieselschal. Bacill.: 107. 1844). Under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, Amphiprora is validly published and dates from 1843, not 1844’ (Art. 45, example 1 from Turland et al. 2018; this text is reproduced in AlgaeBase, Guiry & Guiry 2020 [2019]).

2 This is a slightly different count to that which appears on the website page.

3 DiatomBase has three categories: Uncertain, Alternative Representation, and Accepted.