Species names of animals are not always presented correctly by those who write scientific
papers. There is a comprehensive International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
which anyone who does taxonomy should study, but most other biologists will get by with a
knowledge of a few simple rules derived from the Code. Here are the basics for intelligent usage
of names, followed by some of the traps for the unwary.
Those are the basics. Now to examine the traps into which careless writers fall.
The traps
Trap one - Genus as species: It is never permissible to refer to a species
by its generic name alone. Thus "Nereis is a green species" is an incorrect
statement because we cannot tell which of the many species of Nereis it might be, although
you might legitimately say "this [particular] Nereis species is green [as
opposed to all the blue Nereis species]". If you are presenting information derived
from known species but think you will leave out the species names and only use genus names
because it looks cleaner that way, you are certainly omitting important information for others
that would add value to your paper.
If, however, the species is unknown or just not identified
then it is fine to say so - "Our amphipods living in Zostera species [or sp.] leaves
were eaten by a Nereis species" [or " ... by an unidentified nereidid."]. A
generic name by itself denotes the group of animals of that sort, not the species; thus we can say
"larval Nereis are mostly planktonic."
There are occasions when the
temptation to use just the generic name of an animal is irresistible. In less formal science
writing if there is only one species in the genus, or if only one member of the genus is the
animal that is very well known, then we can expect 'genus as species' to occur. We assume that the
writer either doesn't know the full name, or thinks it is unimportant in the context - thus we
never learn the species name of the Brontosaurus in S. J. Gould's entertaining essay 'Bully
for Brontosaurus' (concerning the Code rule on priority). Ultimately some generic names of animal
groups (and plants) are so often used in everyday talk that they become the ordinary English
words for the type of animal, such as amoeba (protozoans), and drosophila (flies). Used thus
they are not given an initial capital letter or italics. However, your scientific papers are
required to be more accurate than everyday talk or popularised science, so such casual usages are
likely to be inappropriate; always use binominals if possible.
Trap two - Alternate name as subgenus: Sometimes a species is better known by an older
scientific name and you may wish to point this out. However, it is never permissible to include an
alternate generic name as part of the binomen. The only genus-group name that may be between the
generic name and specific name is the subgenus. Thus Nereis (Hediste)
diversicolor is correct because Hediste can be a subgenus of Nereis. The
other way around, as Hediste (Nereis) diversicolor, is wrong however,
because in this case Nereis is not, and never will be, a subgenus of Hediste. If you
wish to indicate that some people in the past or at present know your Hediste species by
another name - Nereis diversicolor - then you should write "Hediste
diversicolor (formerly in Nereis)." That is the recommendation of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for this problem of presentation.
People also write formulations such as Hediste ( = Nereis) diversicolor (also
with square brackets used), but this is wrong, since the interpolated name is really a comment and
not part of the current name. Others may confuse it with the subgenus name. They may also be
confused as to which name - Nereis or Hediste - is the current one.
Trap three - Misleading author: Any author name placed immediately after a species name
is assumed to be the person who described it - Nereis diversicolor Müller, 1776. Do
not put other references there. Do not combine your citation of other references with the
taxonomic authority. Nereis diversicolor (Read 1999) would be misleading, and Nereis
diversicolor (Müller, 1776, Read 1999) would be bizarre. If there is no elegant way to
avoid the adjacency then add 'see' before the other reference - "Nereis diversicolor
(Müller, 1776), (see Read 1999)".
Trap four - Excessive abbreviation: Sometimes you will find a paper where the sentences
are bristling with abbreviated names of numerous species - for some reason the author seems
determined not to spell out genera, and readers need to strain their brains just to follow which
species is being discussed. This problem arises because in earlier days it was expensive to 'set
type' laboriously by hand. Abbreviating the genus name to just one letter was one way of saving a
bit of time and money. That reason no longer applies, yet the practice is deeply entrenched. Many
people still abbreviate with excessive zeal, and lay people in popular articles (gardening columns
in newspapers come to mind) may even never tell us the genus full name at all. They think it is
somehow more 'scientific' that way. It is not. Clarity and ease of reading should be the main
considerations.
Further online reading
References