Naming the groups: developing a stable and efficient nomenclature

The binomial system of botanical nomenclature has existed for almost 250 ye ars, the principle of a taxon having a single correct name determined on Th e basis of priority of publication was formalized almost 150 years ago, and the type method for the application of scientific names of plants has had international acceptance for almost 75 years. In this historic time-frame, the achievements of the past 50 years are outlined and the question posed a s to whether the next 50 years hold any prospect of change, and indeed whet her any change is possible or even desirable. The requirement of botanical nomenclature to provide a stable, unambiguous reference system for plant in formation implies an inherent conservatism of rules and procedures-even the smallest change to the Code, however beneficial it may be in general, is v irtually certain to have some destabilizing effect. Despite this truism, it is suggested that the next few years will see quite major change. One of t he least of these may be the development of a separate specialist nomenclat ure for communication about major phyletic lineages, not so dissimilar in p ractice from the specialist nomenclature currently in existence for the mic ro-variants important in cultivated plants. Bionomenclature provides the me chanism for communication about the elements of taxonomy-elements that gene rally seek to reflect the greatest information on patterns of biodiversity. It will continue to communicate the general information content of taxa ef fectively, only if it evolves to take fuller advantage of the opportunities of the electronic age. The historical tendency to improve the rules of nom enclature by continuous "tinkering" with the Code needs to give way to a re cognition that stability and simplicity are key requirements of users of na mes (amongst whom professional biologists are a relatively small minority), and that web access to authoritative lists will generally be their preferr ed approach to answering the nomenclatural questions that arise in study an d use of plants, animals and micro-organisms, To remain relevant, the botan ical Code, like the bacteriological, and now, to a degree, the zoological, must provide mechanisms for the endorsement of nomenclatural lists that rep resent the products of sound scholarship.