Virus nomenclature descending into chaos
Virus nomenclature descending into chaos
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s007050070108
复制
发表时间：
2000-01-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Gibbs, AJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gibbs, AJ
分类学具有系统学和命名学两个方面，是科学之母；我们必须知道我们在谈论什么，这就是名字的作用。因此，包括病毒学在内的整个生物学中的命名规则旨在提高名称的意义、可靠性和稳定性。这就是为什么国际病毒分类委员会（ICTV）在最近出版的《病毒分类和命名规则修订版》中颁布的两条基本规则遭到破坏的原因，这令人感到惊讶。在本次修订的前言中指出，守则“偶尔进行修订以符合公认的病毒学惯例”，并在规则3.9中指出，“只要可行，分类群和病毒的现有名称应予以保留”。尽管如此，ICTV还是发布了法令（新规则3.40），要求所有病毒学家将所有ICTV批准的病毒名称斜体化，并将所有病毒物种名称（如花叶病毒）的第一个字母大写。因此，它坚持认为病毒学家应该停止使用基于信息分类的非拉丁化二名系统来命名病毒（如蚊花叶多巴病毒和虹膜花叶多病毒），该系统自ICTV第二次报告bbb中首次非正式提出以来已日益广泛使用。因此，新的正字法“规则”实质上改变了所有现有的病毒名称，与其他生物命名法发生冲突，妨碍了对病毒名称中包含的宿主物种的科学名称（如黄尾虹膜）进行适当的记法，也妨碍了这些名称与地理名称之间的区分[1,3]，而且违反了目前“公认的病毒学惯例”。因此，ICTV打破了它所倡导的规则，但却没有给出令人信服的理由。Van Regenmortel b[9]指出，非拉丁化的二项名称已被植物病毒学家广泛接受，但遭到动物病毒学家的反对，但他没有详细说明这种观点是如何被衡量的，如果是真的，为什么前者的观点不如后者的观点重要。奇怪的是，他找不出更令人信服的理由来解释病毒学为什么会在生物学科中独具特色，回到林奈之前的单名学，尽管表面上用斜体字把病毒学修饰得很有尊严，以引起人们对ICTV的注意。植物病毒学家比大多数动物病毒学家对命名法有更大的需求，并且广泛使用本地的二名法，他们将被忽视。此外，快速浏览一下博斯最新的教科书[2]，就会发现这本书的巨大价值
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 (eg Frangipani mosaic virus). It thus insists that virologists should stop using the informative taxonomy-based non-Latinized binomial system of naming viruses (eg 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 pre-Linnaean 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