Abstract
Coral taxonomy has entered a historical phase where nomenclatorial uncertainty is rapidly increasing. The fundamental cause is mandatory adherence to historical monographs that lack essential information of all sorts, and also to type specimens, if they exist at all, that are commonly unrecognizable fragments or are uncharacteristic of the species they are believed to represent. Historical problems, including incorrect subsequent type species designations, also create uncertainty for many well-established genera. The advent of in situ studies in the 1970s revealed these issues; now molecular technology is again changing the taxonomic landscape. The competing methodologies involved must be seen in context if they are to avoid becoming an additional basis for continuing nomenclatorial instability. To prevent this happening, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) will need to focus on rules that consolidate well-established nomenclature and allow for the designation of new type specimens that are unambiguous, and which include both skeletal material and soft tissue for molecular study. Taxonomic and biogeographic findings have now become linked, with molecular methodologies providing the capacity to re-visit past taxonomic decisions, and to extend both taxonomy and biogeography into the realm of evolutionary theory. It is proposed that most species will ultimately be seen as operational taxonomic units that are human rather than natural constructs, which in consequence will always have fuzzy morphological, genetic, and distribution boundaries. The pathway ahead calls for the integration of morphological and molecular taxonomies, and for website delivery of information that crosses current discipline boundaries.
Highlights
Coral taxonomy has entered a historical phase where nomenclatorial uncertainty is rapidly increasing
As most users of coral taxonomy appreciate, this notoriously subjective science has gone through three historical phases: (1) studies of collections made during early expeditions of discovery; (2) reef-based studies using scuba; and (3) molecular studies
This was once a language firmly entrenched in the international law, religion, history, astronomy, anatomy, and taxonomy of the western world, but it is no longer, and yet the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) still requires that the rules of Latin declension take priority over names that an unwary taxonomist might create, even to the point that a species name must be changed to match the gender of its genus should this be changed
Summary
Coral Reef Research, 10 Benalla Road, Oak Valley, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4064, Australia James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. The competing methodologies involved must be seen in context if they are to avoid becoming an additional basis for continuing nomenclatorial instability To prevent this happening, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) will need to focus on rules that consolidate well-established nomenclature and allow for the designation of new type specimens that are unambiguous, and which include both skeletal material and soft tissue for molecular study. As most users of coral taxonomy appreciate, this notoriously subjective science has gone through three historical phases: (1) studies of collections made during early expeditions of discovery; (2) reef-based studies using scuba; and (3) molecular studies These phases are each linked to such different methodologies and perceptions that they have little in common; they do have a common goal, which is to classify corals according to a concept of natural order.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
