Virus nomenclature descending into chaos.

Abstract

Taxonomy with its two faces, systematics and nomenclature, is the mother of sciences; we must know what we are talking about, and that is the function of names. Hence rules of nomenclature in biology at large, including virology, aim to promote the meaningfulness, reliability and stability of names. That is why it is surprising that the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) breaks two of the basic rules it promulgates in the recently published Revisions of the Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature [6]. It is stated in the Foreword to this revision states that the Code “is revised occasionally to conform with accepted virological practice”, and in Rule 3.9 that “Existing names of taxa and viruses shall be retained whenever feasible”. Nonetheless the ICTV then issues edicts (new Rule 3.40) telling all virologists to italicize all ICTV-approved virus names, and to capitalize the first letter of all names of virus species (e.g. Frangipani mosaic virus). It thus insists that virologists should stop using the informative taxonomy-based non-Latinized binomial system of naming viruses (e.g. frangipani mosaic tobamovirus and Iris fulva mosaic potyvirus), that has been increasingly widely used since first proposed informally in the second ICTV report [4]. The new orthographic ‘rules’ thus change, in essence, all existing virus names, conflict with other Codes of biological nomenclature, hinder proper notation of scientific names of host species included in virus names (such as Iris fulva) and distinction between such names and geographic names [1, 3], and are contrary to currently “accepted virological practice”. Thus the ICTV breaks the rules it advocates, but nonetheless has given no cogent reasons for doing so. Van Regenmortel [9] states that non-Latinized binomials have been widely accepted by plant virologists, but opposed by animal virologists, but he gives no details of how this opinion has been gauged nor, if true, why the views of the former are less important than those of the latter. It seems strange that he can give no more compelling reason for virology to become unique among the biological disciplines by returning to preLinnaean mononomials, even though they are to be superficially dignified by italicization to draw attention to the ICTV [10]. Plant virologists, who have a greater call on nomenclature than most working animal virologists, and widely use the vernacular binomials, are to be ignored. Furthermore a quick glance at Bos’s latest textbook [2] shows the great value of the