Comments on “Taxonomy of cyanobacteria: a contribution to consensus approach”, by K. A. Palinska and W. Surosz (Hydrobiologia 740: 1–11, 2014, doi:10.1007/s10750-014-1971-9)

Abstract

In their recent paper in Hydrobiologia (Palinska & Surosz, 2014) and in an earlier publication (Palinska et al., 2006), Katarzyna Palinska and coworkers presented an admirable account of a novel approach toward the harmonization of classical, morphology-based, and modern molecular taxonomic approaches for the cyanobacteria, based on molecular studies of type material preserved in herbaria. The Palinska & Surosz (2014) paper also provided a nice summary of the current problems with the nomenclature of the cyanobacteria as the group is covered by two Codes of Nomenclature: the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (McNeill et al., 2012) and the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (Lapage et al., 1992; Parker et al., in press; for updates since the 1990 revision see http://www.bacterio.net/-code.html). In spite of recent attempts to harmonize the nomenclature of the group between the two Codes (Oren, 2004; Oren & Tindall, 2005, and further references cited by Palinska & Surosz, 2014), little progress has been made thus far. Unfortunately, the misconception that the ‘‘botanical’’ and the ‘‘bacteriological’’ Codes deal with taxonomy, phylogeny, and classification led to a number of erroneous statements in the text of Palinska & Surosz (2014). The two Codes are agreed conventions for naming biological groups. The rules of nomenclature fixed in these Codes only regulate the process of validating names of organisms; they do not define the scientific validity of the particular taxon definition (Krichevsky, 2012). The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes even explicitly states ‘‘Nothing in this Code may be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic thought or action’’ (De Vos & Truper, 2000). The only Code of biological nomenclature that also deals with taxonomy and classification is the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature (http://ictvonline.org/codeofvirus classification_2012.asp). Here follows a list of problematic statements in the Palinska & Surosz, 2014 paper: