HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Trüper, H. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Trüper, H. G. Agricola Articles by Trüper, H. G.

Is ‘localimania’ becoming a fashion for prokaryote taxonomists?

Institut für Mikrobiologie & Biotechnologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, Germany

Correspondence
Hans G. Trüper
(trueper{at}uni-bonn.de)

Using a geographical name when forming the genus name or specific epithet for a newly discovered organism, e.g. that of the locality of its natural environment (area), or the laboratory where it was isolated, or the university, city or country where this laboratory is situated, is easy. It only requires that the Latin ending -ensis (in the neuter: -ense) is attached to the respective locality's name.

This is a good old custom that was introduced in biological nomenclature in Carolus Linnaeus' time, and with the often seen regional ocurrence of animals and plants it makes a lot of sense. Also, it has always been used with moderation.

In the last few years, I have witnessed that naming prokaryotes after localities has become quite a fashion, especially – but far from only – after localities in Eastern Asian countries. A rough calculation from the Validation Lists and Notification Lists published in IJSEM in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004 shows that 11, 13, 15 and 26 %, respectively, of all new specific epithets were formed from local names by adding -ensis (-ense); this does not include other (classical) epithets formed after localities, such as hispanicus, indicus and antarcticus. It becomes clear that the slow increase in the percentage of epithets formed from a locality since 1998 has suddenly shown a boost in 2004. That this is not just an intermediate peak is shown by looking through the original papers in the May 2005 issue of IJSEM, where slightly more than 24 % of all new specific epithets are formed by adding -ensis (-ense).

This fashion, let me call it ‘localimania’ (in order to avoid the harder classification as a disease, namely ‘ensitis’), must have more than one reason. I can envisage the following.

(1) Ease. Forming a name this way is easy, as it meets the capabilities of non-Latinists without dictionaries.

(2) Less work. One can avoid looking for many phenotypical properties in order to find one that differentiates the novel isolate from other species and genera besides just DNA data.

(3) Laboratory esteem. A scientist may gain esteem from his laboratory directors or owners by using the laboratory's name for a newly isolated microbe. If so, he could perhaps end up with better financial support.

(4) Local pride. A village or park administration may be proud of a bacterium named after it. I do not think that this would be the case if it were a new worm detected or even a pathogenic bacterium.

(5) National pride. A scientist may gain esteem from government and national science agencies because he/she has named an organism after the country. This could perhaps also lead to public esteem and better funding.

(6) Geopolitical aims. Certainly surpassing the aim of national pride would be to name organisms after areas of territorial dispute between two neighbouring countries, together with stating that this was done in order to support the claim of his/her own country. Nowhere in the Principles of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria does it mention the use of prokaryote nomenclature for other than just scientific purposes. Recommendations 10a(1) and 12c(3) give indications that persons quite unconnected with bacteriology or at least with natural sciences should not be honoured in a prokaryote genus name or specific epithet. These sentences were placed into the Code in order to avoid the naming of prokaryotes after politicians, and they certainly underline the non-political aims of the Code. A geopolitical aim in prokaryote nomenclature parallels the use of politicians' names and – in my eyes – must be considered a misuse of the Code and of biological nomenclature in general. Action should be taken by the Judicial Commission by adding an appropriate paragraph to the Principles of the Code.

In my opinion, a name of a prokaryote formed from a geographical name makes sense only in very few cases because there is very little proof against the ubiquitous occurrence of prokaryotes.

How important is the property ‘local origin’? It is only important when that particular environment is a very special one with very unique features. Even then it would be better to use the special properties of such an environment in a specific epithet rather than the name of the place.

Although geographically every square centimetre of the Earth is unique due to its geographical position in longitude and latitude, I do not think that there is any really unique microbial environment on Earth. There will always be another that is alike but in a different part of the world. In principle, all environments may be classified by their physical (including climatic) and chemical (including geological) parameters as well as by their biotic communities, and then their geographical location is of less importance.

So my appeal to my fellow microbiologists is to use local origin for specific epithets (and genus names) only when there is no other way to differentiate the organism from others by clear and typical phenotypical features, which they consequently might have to look out for more seriously. This could cure ‘localimania’, and perhaps the frequency of such names could drop back to below 10 %.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Trüper, H. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Trüper, H. G. Agricola Articles by Trüper, H. G.