Systema Naturae Research Articles

The taxonomy of primary progressive aphasia

Taxonomy—the science of classification—helps to create a sense of order out of chaos. In the 18th century, Linnaeus1 published his great Systema Naturae , organizing everything in nature into 3 kingdoms, then subdividing it into classes, orders, genera, and species—everything in its own logical place. Medicine has its own disease-based taxonomy, but only when the discriminating features of a clinical disorder are crystal clear can the clinician use the classification to make accurate diagnoses, provide prognoses, and develop rational treatments. Classification of neurodegenerative disorders has presented a particular challenge. To deal with diagnostic uncertainty, and to facilitate clinical trials, scientific studies, and patient care, Delphi panels of experts have hammered out consensus criteria, setting standards for the classification of these conditions. Best known is the 1984 report of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke–Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association Task Force on Alzheimer disease (AD),2 cited more than 13,000 times. Subsequent expert panels have published criteria for vascular dementia,3 progressive supranuclear palsy,4 Lewy body dementia,5 and frontotemporal dementia.6 In this issue of Neurology ®, another panel of 20 experts has published consensus criteria for the Classification of Primary Progressive Aphasia and its Variants.7 First described more …

Reclaiming our taxonomic umwelt: a book review

The history and rationale of scientific taxonomy, has been covered in grandly titled works like Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology by Panchen. But do we have any stake in it, as biodiversity disappears? The subtitle of author Carol Kaesuk Yoon’s rambunctious exploration better reveals her radical thrust. We are ever reliant on best selling field guides to showcase biodiversity and its representative species although the species concept has proven elusive “as each [biologist] tried endlessly to patch his ... deflating definition [of a species], to what ... has been absolutely no good end.” Darwin’s reiteration from a private letter still stands: “the opinion of naturalists having sound judgement and wide experience seems the only guide to follow ... this may not be a cheering prospect, but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.” (Schilthuizen M., Frogs Flies & Dandelions, The Making of Species) As child naturalists, we probably recognized species guided by our primeval umwelt, a perceived sense of the natural world, but have ended up deferring to science to explain it. Yoon begins by broaching the consequences of taxonomic systems that have eliminated “fish” and zebras as real categories while three species disappear per hour, “1,000 times the rate ... they were disappearing before humanity” often eliciting a collective yawn. Why? Yoon wants her fish back. In 1735, Linnaeus’ fourteen page Systema Naturae was an almost instant hit and D a r w i n ’ s e v o l u t i o n explained its underpinning. Darwin cut his taxonomic teeth over “eight gruelling years” on barnacles but the eventual “revelation of evolution was no clarifying gift to taxonomy” as Darwin had assumed. Taxonomic work couched within Darwinism remained relatively unchanged though “[20th century evolutionary] Taxonomy had undergone one dramatic change however. It was now entirely the territory, the sole property of the professional taxonomists. ... No longer did the ordering of any particular living thing seem to capture the interest of anyone outside the confines of an increasingly limited group of specialists.” Headed by giants like Mayr, taxonomic vindication retained a certain subjectivity as quoted from Mayr and Amadon: “No one believes any longer that the pipits or ‘tit-larks’ are related to the true larks.” There were always the debates between lumpers and splitters, but Mayr realised species were real, when his identification of 137 species of New Guinean birds of paradise was corroborated by Arfak tribesmen who recognized 136. Perhaps both Mayr and the Arfak people relied on an instinct that even animals share. Classifying nature is a multifarious survival trait such as differentiating between food and non-food. Yoon expands upon a wealth of evidence such as cases of brain damage where people have lost the ability to name organisms but retain the capacity to name inanimate objects. She indicates how we can correctly differentiate between birds or fish just by listening to novel pairings of unfamiliar names from obscure tribal sources, e.g., which of the following is a bird, a yawarach or tuikcha? Indeed, there seems to be a limit to how many genera trained naturalists can easily recall to around 600 that influences our nomenclatural systems. Traditional, authoritative if subjective taxonomy as practiced by Mayr did not amount to experimental science. The separation between taxonomy and science “went much deeper than a mere two centuries of tradition. [They] were devoted to a tradition as ancient as humanity ... the vision of their umwelt.” The objectification of taxonomy into science took the routes of numerical, molecular and cladistic approaches, OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD Date of publication (online): 26 July 2010 Date of publication (print): 26 July 2010 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)

Tools for Reordering: Commonplacing and the Space of Words in Linnaeus's Philosophia Botanica

While much has been written on the cultural and intellectual antecedents that gave rise to Carolus Linnaeus’s herbarium and his Systema Naturae, the tools that he used to transform his raw observations into nomenclatural terms and categories have been neglected. Focusing on the Philosophia Botanica, the popular classification handbook that he published in 1751, it can be shown that Linnaeus cleverly ordered and reordered the work by employing commonplacing techniques that had been part of print culture since the Renaissance. Indeed, the functional adaptability of commonplace heads allowed him to split and combine the book’s chapters and tables and played a notable conceptual role in the way in which he spatialized words and, to a certain extent, specimens.

Primates of All Types Swing Through the Pages of The Anatomical Record

Painting of a spider monkey (Ateles) in an arboreal setting, gripping tree branches with hands, feet, and prehensile tail. Superimposed is a radiograph of a spider monkey (Ateles) tail (USNM 536100). The original painting is in acrylic, by Tim D. Smith. A special thanks to Leo W. Smith for allowing us to use his bedroom wall mural for the cover of this issue.

Boer, Bushman, and Baboon: Human and Animal in Nineteenth-Century and Early Twentieth-Century South African Writings

British occupation of the Cape in the late eighteenth century coincided with the rise of natural history as global knowledge of the created world. Linnaeus's Systema Naturae (1735) had provided a t...

Identities of Tenebrio Linnaeus types at Uppsala, and the resulting changes in old darkling beetle names (Insecta: Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)

In this paper, five names used for darkling beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in the Linnaeus collection at the Museum of Zoology, Uppsala University (UUMZ) are evaluated based on specimen examinations, modern species concepts, and review of the original species diagnoses. The types are of species described in Systema Naturae (Tenebrio caraboides L., 1758, Tenebrio gibbus L., 1760, Tenebrio gigas L., 1767, and Tenebrio muricatus L., 1758) and Museum Ludovicae Ulrica (Tenebrio spinosus L., 1764). Tenebrio caraboides L., 1758, refers to a composite type series consisting of two UUMZ paralectotypes, identified herein as Pachychila hispanica Solier, 1835, and gaditana Rosenhauer, 1856, and the lectotype in the Linnean Collection, Natural History Museum, London (BMNH), for the ground beetle Cychrus caraboides (L. 1758). The three specimens in the De Geer Collection, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm (NHRS), under Tenebrio gibbus L., 1760, are determined as Psammodes gibbus (L., 1760), comb. nov.; this includes the “lost” type of Linnaeus, whereas the UUMZ Linnaeus specimen is not a type and identified as an undetermined species of Amnodeis Miller, 1858, similar to A. giganteus Reiche & Saulcy, 1857. The type of Tenebrio spinosus L., 1764, represents an Egyptian species, Akis spinosus (L., 1764), which has often been misidentified as Akis trilineata Herbst, 1799, a West Mediterranean species. The holotype of Tenebrio muricatus L., 1758, is Adesmia muricatus (L., 1758), comb. nov., a species appearing in recent publications as Adesmia austera Baudi di Selve, 1881, syn. nov. Two Linnean specimens preserved with the UUMZ types under the unpublished names “Tenebrio impressus” and “Tenebrio variolosus” are an undetermined species of Erodius Fabr., 1775, and Pimelia fornicata Herbst, 1799, respectively. Psammodes gibbus (L., 1760), comb. nov., is the valid name for Psammodes striatus (Fabr., 1775), syn. nov., a South African species. Pimelia gibba Fabr., 1787, and Tenebrio gibbus Pallas, 1781, are synonyms, making the current combination and attribution for this species name Moluris gibbus (Pallas, 1781). Pimelia simplex Solier, 1836, is restored as valid, resulting in changes for three subspecies names: Pimelia simplex simplex Solier, 1836, stat. rest., Pimelia simplex oasis Koch, 1941, comb. nov., and Pimelia simplex substriata Koch, 1941, comb. nov. Two new synonyms are recognized for Centorus elongatus (Herbst 1797): Calcar variabilis Gebien, 1906, syn. nov. (an unavailable subsequent usage of Tenebrio variolosus Fabr., 1801), and Tenebrio variolosus Fabr., 1801, syn. nov.

Bute'sBotanical tables: dictated by Nature

In the final years of his life, after a long and turbulent political career, John Stuart, third Earl of Bute, was at last free to indulge in one of his passions: botany. The publication of Linnaeus's "Systema naturae" in 1735 threw the botanical world into disarray and academic argument raged throughout Europe. The production of the "Botanical tables" (1785) was an ambitious project to explain Bute's individual view of Linnaeus's system of taxonomy and was particularly composed for the "Fair Sex". Twelve volumes were published privately and presented to family, royalty and botanical colleagues across Europe. The "Botanical tables" were illustrated by the renowned botanical artist, John Miller. The illustrations are both aesthetically pleasing and scientifically correct. In this paper we consider the circumstances of the production of the "Botanical tables" and explore how the original sets of this publication and original material have been dispersed.

Accelerating taxonomic discovery through automated character extraction

This paper discusses the following key messages. Taxonomy is (and taxonomists are) more important than ever in times of global change. Taxonomic endeavour is not occurring fast enough: in 250 years since the creation of the Linnean Systema Naturae, only about 20% of Earth’s species have been named. We need fundamental changes to the taxonomic process and paradigm to increase taxonomic productivity by orders of magnitude. Currently, taxonomic productivity is limited principally by the rate at which we capture and manage morphological information to enable species discovery. Many recent (and welcomed) initiatives in managing and delivering biodiversity information and accelerating the taxonomic process do not address this bottleneck. Development of computational image analysis and feature extraction methods is a crucial missing capacity needed to enable taxonomists to overcome the taxonomic impediment in a meaningful time frame.

The XX International Congress of Zoology, 26–29 August 2008, Paris

International Congresses of Zoology (ICZ) provide an opportunity for zoologists working in different fields of zoology to meet and exchange their research and ideas. It is also a venue where topical issues facing the science of zoology, such as the biodiversity crisis, the teaching of zoology and ethics can be discussed. These Congresses were resurrected in 2000 in Athens and held again in Beijing in 2004. In an age of increasing reductionism and complex information management, having a general meeting of zoologists to discuss the whole animal is of vital service to our science. The XX International Congress of Zoology was jointly organized by the University Pierre and Marie Curie (Paris 6), National Museum of Natural History and the University of Paris-South (Paris 11). It was also strongly supported by the Region Ile-de-France, Linnean Society of London, International Union of Biological Sciences, National Centre for Scientific Research and the French National Institute for Agricultural Research. The ICZ held in Paris gathered together 460 attendants from 50 countries and took place in the Jussieu Campus, around the university P6 and the historic Grand Amphitheatre of the National Museum of Natural History. There were four plenary lectures: Professor Jules Hoffmann, President of the French Academy of Sciences presented ‘The antimicrobial defense of Drosophila: a paradigm for innate immunity’; Professor Rosa Polymeni discussed ‘Aristotle, founder of Zoology, when art imitates nature’; Professor Denis Duboule described ‘The rise and fall of Hox gene clusters’; and Professor Claus Nielsen presented his ideas on ‘Zoological systematics and phylogeny at the beginning of the 21 century’. Through 26 symposia, 223 oral communications and 223 poster presentations were delivered. Each symposium consisted of two to four keynote addresses followed by oral and poster communications. These symposia were titled: contemporary approaches in systematic zoology, mechanisms of speciation, animal genitalia in evolution, paleozoology and comparative anatomy, paleontology and evolution, biodiversity, genomics and ecology of protists, sex differentiation in vertebrates, evolution and development, transitions from clonal to sexual reproduction, comparative immunology, venomous animals and their venoms, integrative biology of acoustic communication, current trends in social insects, phenotypical plasticity and behavior, interdisciplinary approaches in ecology, ecotoxicology, marine organisms and symbiotic systems in extreme environments, ecological and evolutionary consequences of global climate evolution, studies of invasive animal species, comparative organogenesis in animals, Lamarck’s Philosophie Zoologique 200 years, a tribute to Darwin, diversity in teaching zoology. Last but not least was a special symposium organized by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature titled ‘Systema Naturae 250’, with Professor E. O. Wilson as a special guest. All Abstracts presented at the Congress are posted on the homepage of the International Society of Zoological Sciences (www.globalzoology.org).

Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) as zoologist

The activity of Carl Linnaeus as zoologist is described. His life is briefly outlined in the context of his zoological interests. All twelve editions of “Systema Naturae” (from 1735 to 1766) are analysed, and the most important changes in the taxonomy of animals are given. So called 13th editions are mentioned as well. The importance of “Fauna Svecica” is considered, with comparison of its both editions (1746 и 1760). Other publications of Linnaeus, as well as numerous dissertations of his students, associated with zoology, are listed. Linnaeus’ contribution to the systematics, including taxonomic ranks and binary nomenclature, is evaluated. His species concept, his views on Homo sapiens and fossil animals are presented as well.

Peter Artedi and Carl Linnaeus – founding fathers of fish classification

The paper is a review of those aspects of the life and scientific activities of Artedi and Linnaeus which are immediately related to the creation of their classifications of fishes and scientific ichthyological nomen clature. A short comparative analysis of Artedi’s and Linnaeus’s publications is done to retrace the development of the fish classification from «Ichthyologia» by Artedi (1738) to 10th and 12th editions of «Systema Naturae» by Linnaeus (1758, 1766–1767).

Linnaeus and the invisible world

Linnaeus expressed his fascination for microscopy in his work Mundum Invisibilem 1767 (the invisible world), which was one of the very first attempts to bring light and order to the microscopic discoveries of the time. Linnaeus wrote about his only microscopic experiment in the same publication. He wanted to know where to place the fungi in his grand ‘Systema Naturae’, but misinterpreted the results of the experiment completely. This is perhaps one of Linnaeus’ greatest and least known mistakes, but one that somehow boosted development anyway.We took the original microscope models used by Linnaeus, took photos, and compared them with images obtained with modern instruments. Our experiments revealed several new findings, and let us understand why Linnaeus made his mistake. One other finding is that Linnaeus must have used the most modern and advanced compound microscope of his time, a large Cuff microscope in his experiment. Only two large microscopes by Cuff were available in Sweden by the time. A large Cuff microscope was found in Sweden lately. This microscope is probably the actual instrument that Linnaeus used.

Coccidology. The study of scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea)

A brief introduction to the science of coccidology, and a synopsis of the history, advances and challenges in this field of study are discussed. The changes in coccidology since the publication of the Systema Naturae by Carolus Linnaeus 250 years ago are briefly reviewed. The economic importance, the phylogenetic relationships and the application of DNA barcoding to scale insect identification are also considered in the discussion section.

Evolving e-taxonomy

Evolving e-taxonomy

ZooBank: Developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying 250 years of biological information

Nomenclature represents the backbone upon which virtually all biological information is organized. However, the practice of zoological nomenclature has changed relatively little since its start in 1758. As modern technology changes the paradigm under which modern scientists exchange information, there is increasing need to capitalize on these same technologies to fortify nomenclature. ZooBank has been proposed as the official registry of names and nomenclatural acts, in zoology, as well as associated published works and their authors, and type specimens. Having a coordinated registry of zoological names, integrated with the existing Code of Zoological Nomenclature, will allow increased efficiency of communication among biologists, and enhanced stability of names. Such a registry would encompass two distinct realms, each with their own set of challenges. Retrospective registration involves the monumental task of aggregating and validating two and a half centuries of existing names, whereas prospective registration must be tightly integrated with the future paradigm in which scientific names are created and managed under new models of publication. The prototype of ZooBank has been hosted at Bishop Museum during its initial development phase. Following the lead of standard-setting bodies in biodiversity informatics, Life Science Identifiers (LSIDs) have been selected for use as the globally unique identifiers for ZooBank registration entries. The first ZooBank LSIDs were issued on January 1 st , 2008, and included five new fish species described in a work published that same day, as well as all 4,819 names established in the 10 th Edition of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae. Three alternate scenarios for implementing mandatory registration in ZooBank have been articulated, each incorporating different degrees of coordination between published works and registration events. A robust discussion involving a broad spectrum of practicing zoological taxonomists is required over the next several years to define the specific implementation aspects of ZooBank.

Chersine Merrem, 1820 and Chersina Gray, 1831: a nomenclatural survey

In the tenth Edition of his ‘Systema Naturae’, Carolus Linnaeus presented among the species of the genus Testudo (including all the turtles and tortoises, thus corresponding to the present order of Chelonians) the species Testudo graeca (Linnaeus 1758). The reference was the description and the plate published by George Edwards (1751) of a tortoise from North Africa, more precisely from the old fort of Santa-Cruz (presently Djebel Murdjadjo or “pic de l’Aïdour” 35°42’N, 0°45’W, Oran, Algeria). Several hypotheses tried to explain Linnaeus’s choice of the name graeca, one proposing that the species is the tortoise of the old Greek authors. Nevertheless, since 1758, the identity of Testudo graeca is rather well established, with a precise type locality, although the pictured holotype is lost. Testudo graeca Linnaeus, 1758 is the type species of Testudo Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation of Bell (1828).

Ancestry Estimation and Correction for Population Stratification in Molecular Epidemiologic Association Studies

Historically, racial groups have been defined by common geographic origins and shared physical characteristics, such as skin color, facial features, and hair texture. Linnaeus's Systema Naturae ([1][1]) described four racial groups (Europeanus, Asiaticus, Americanus, and Africanus), which were

The evolution of the animals: introduction to a Linnean tercentenary celebration

Celebrating 300 years since the birth of Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), a meeting was held in June 2007 to review recent progress made in understanding the origins and evolutionary radiation of the animals. The year 2008 celebrates the 250th anniversary of the publication of the 10th edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae, generally considered to be the starting point of zoological nomenclature. With subsequent advances in comparative taxonomic and systematic studies, Darwin's discovery of evolution by natural selection, the birth of phylogenetic systematics, and the wider interest in biodiversity, it is salutary to consider that many of the major advances in our understanding of animal evolution have been made in recent years. Phylogenetic systematics, drawing from evidence provided by genotype, phenotype and an understanding of the link between them through comparative embryological and evolutionary developmental studies, has provided a wide consensus of the major branching patterns of the tree of life. More importantly, the integrated approaches discussed in the 16 contributions to this volume highlight the identity and nature of problematic taxa, the missing data, errors in existing analytical procedures and the promise of a wealth of additional characters from genomes that need to be accumulated and assessed in providing a definitive Systema Naturae.

Zoological taxonomy at 250: showcasing species descriptions in the cyber era

January 1, 2008 marks the 250th anniversary of the official publication date of Systema Naturae (Linnaeus 1758)recognized by ICZN (1999). During the last two and a half centuries, Linnaeus (1758)’ system for naming, ranking andclassifying organisms has allowed us to document the pattern of life on Earth, Darwin (1850)’s theory of evolution hashelped us to understand the process how this diversity of life came about, and Hennig (1966)’s phylogeneticmethodology has enabled us reconstruct the tree of life. During the last two decades or so, the internet has dramaticallychanged the way we live and work. The rapid advances in bioinformatics have provided taxonomists unprecedentedopportunities to do their research more efficiently and make their findings more accessible. Cybertaxonomy is emergingas an exciting new branch of taxonomy (Wheeler 2007).

A Tribute to Racovitza

Only the passage of time will tell if the contri-bution made by a researcher will be considered a‘landmark’ in the development of his or her disci-pline. This should not be forgotten in an age inwhich specialists involved in a particular area ofresearch often claim for themselves the recognitionof originality, a ‘paradigm shift’, or a landmarkcontribution among other devaluated sociologicalterms. While the perception of contribution toscience is a complex subject, andrelated to financialsupport, only an appropriate perspective can deter-mine who deserves the merit for that contribution.It is easy for us, for instance, to point out to theLinnaeus Systema Naturae as a milestone in thedevelopment of the natural sciences, and as weargue below, a similar case can be made forRacovitza’s contribution to Biospeleology.The development of scientific knowledgeduring the seventeenth and eighteenth centuriesseparated what was ‘natural philosophy’ from allother thought disciplines and transformed it intowhat was called Natural History. As such, it inclu-ded the sciences of the earth and life, while otherphenomena were included in what was called‘recreational physics’ encompassing physics andchemistry, among other disciplines. Finally, asknowledge became more analytic and specialized,labels appeared for the basic disciplines as weknow them today –geology, anthropology, biology–and the concept of Natural History remained ageneral term that included a comprehensive (notholistic!) grouping of all of those specialties. Agood historical exercise on this concept isHutchinson’s (1977) essay on the influence of theNew World on Natural History, in which he selec-ted three earlier researchers that dealt with thedevelopment of animals, the study of organic varia-tion and the numerical progression of populations.A much deeper discussion still current is to befound in the first chapter of Crowson’s (1969)seminal work