Abstract

Effective communication of taxonomic concepts is crucial to meaningful application in all biological sciences, and thus the development and following of best practices in taxonomy and the formulation of clear and practical rules of nomenclature underpin a wide range of scientific studies. The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (the Code), currently the Shenzhen Code of 2018, provides these rules. Although early versions of the Code were designed mainly with extant plants in mind, the Code has been increasingly used for fossil plants and, in recent decades, for organic-walled microfossils, the study of which is called palaeopalynology, or simply palynology. However, rules embodied in the Code do not fully reflect the needs and practices of this discipline; and taxonomic practices between fossil applications, especially in palynology, have tended to diverge from practices for extant plants. Differences in these rules and practices present specific challenges. We therefore review the Shenzhen Code as it applies to palynology, clarifying procedures and recommending approaches based on best practices, for example, in the designation and use of nomenclatural types. The application of nomenclatural types leads to taxonomic stability and precise communication, and lost or degraded types are therefore problematic because they remove the basis for understanding a taxon. Such problems are addressed using examples from the older European literature in which type specimens are missing or degraded. A review of the three most important conventions for presenting palynological taxonomic information, synonymies, diagnoses/descriptions and illustrations, concludes with recommendations of best practices. Palynology continues to play an important role in biostratigraphy, palaeoenvironmental analyses, and evolutionary studies, and is contributing increasingly to our understanding of past climates and ocean systems. To contribute with full potential to such applied studies, consistent communication of taxonomic concepts, founded upon clear rules of nomenclature, is essential.

摘要

分类学概念的有效交流对于在所有生物科学中有意义的应用至关重要，因此分类学最佳实践的发展和遵循以及明确和实用的命名规则的制定为广泛的科学研究奠定了基础。《国际藻类、真菌和植物命名规范》（《规范》），现为 2018 年《深圳规范》，提供了这些规则。虽然早期版本的守则主要考虑现存的植物，但守则越来越多地用于化石植物，近几十年来，用于有机壁微化石，其研究被称为古孢粉学，或简称为孢粉学。然而，守则中包含的规则并没有完全反映该学科的需求和实践；化石应用之间的分类和分类实践，特别是在孢粉学方面，往往与现存植物的实践不同。这些规则和实践的差异带来了特定的挑战。因此，我们审查了深圳守则由于它适用于孢粉学，因此根据最佳实践（例如，命名和使用命名类型）阐明程序并推荐方法。命名类型的应用导致分类稳定性和精确交流，因此丢失或退化的类型是有问题的，因为它们消除了理解分类群的基础。这些问题使用来自欧洲较早文献中的样本缺失或退化的例子来解决。对呈现孢粉学分类信息、同义词、诊断/描述和插图的三个最重要的惯例的回顾，以最佳实践的建议结束。孢粉学继续在生物地层学、古环境分析和进化研究中发挥重要作用，并且越来越有助于我们了解过去的气候和海洋系统。为了充分发挥此类应用研究的潜力，以明确的命名规则为基础的分类学概念的一致交流至关重要。