On biotas and their names

Abstract

Biogeographers working under different approaches have proposed several terms to refer to biotas, e.g. the flora and fauna of a region, and to name subsets of taxa within such biotas. It is not clear whether they refer exactly to the same entities and which is the most adequate term to refer to them. Ten concepts refer to the set of taxa that inhabit an area at a single temporal plane (concrete biota, chronofauna, area of endemism, nuclear area, phytocorion, centre of endemism, generalized track, biogeographical assemblage, taxonomic assemblage, and species assemblage), whereas another nine concepts refer to subsets of taxa within a biota (biotic element, historical source, historical component, faunal element, cenocron, dispersal pattern, distributional pattern, lineage, and historical biota). Three concepts can be ascribed to both groups, depending on the author considered (horofauna, chorotype and biotic component). I propose to use the terms ‘biota’ and ‘cenocron’ as general terms, within a framework of integrative pluralism. Biotas can be considered individuals, for which the terms area of endemism, generalized track or chorotype can be preferred for specific analyses. Cenocrons incorporate a temporal dimension when implying explicitly or implicitly a different time of their incorporation to the biota.