You may also make a donation by using our donation forms
Cases 3000-3099 (2)
Cases 3100-3199Cases 3200-3299 (25)Cases 3300-3399 (80)
Cases 3400-3499 (100)Case 3400Case 3401Case 3402Case 3403Case 3404Case 3405Case 3406Case 3407Case 3408Case 3409Case 3410Case 3411Case 3412Case 3413Case 3414Case 3415Case 3416Case 3417Case 3418Case 3419Case 3420Case 3421Case 3422Case 3423Case 3424Case 3425Case 3426Case 3427Case 3428Case 3429Case 3430Case 3431Case 3432Case 3433Case 3434Case 3435Case 3436Case 3437Case 3438Case 3439Case 3440Case 3441Case 3442Case 3443Case 3444Case 3445Case 3446Case 3447Case 3448Case 3449Case 3450Case 3451Case 3452Case 3453Case 3454Case 3455Case 3456Case 3457Case 3458Case 3459Case 3460Case 3461Case 3462Case 3463Case 3464Case 3465Case 3466Case 3467Case 3468Case 3469Case 3470Case 3471Case 3472Case 3473Case 3474Case 3475Case 3476Case 3477Case 3478Case 3479Case 3480Case 3481Case 3482Case 3483Case 3484Case 3485Case 3486Case 3487Case 3488Case 3489Case 3490Case 3491Case 3492Case 3493Case 3494Case 3495Case 3496Case 3497Case 3498Case 3499Cases 3500-3599 (85)Cases 3600-Present (20)| Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage |
| OPINION 2245 (Case 3407) Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): Drosophila funebris Fabricius, 1787 is maintained as the type species |
Case 3407 (van der Linde et al., 2007) is a proposal to conserve the binomen Drosophila melanogaster. The combination is threatened by revision of the genus Drosophila. We agree that the binomen should be preserved and we agree that the genus is large and paraphyletic but we disagree with some of the qualifying arguments. We would prefer that the taxonomy of DROSOPHILIDAE be guided, not driven, by molecular biological data.
The application to set aside all previous type fixations for the genus DrosophilaFallén, 1823 and to instead fix Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen, 1830) as the type species should be rejected for several reasons:
The Commission is asked by van der Linde et al. (BZN 64: 238–242) to preserve the binomen Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830. Some obvious points of the application should be stressed and some weak points reviewed.
1. Nomenclatural rules (the Code) regulate nomenclature, i.e. the rules govern how names are used to label recognized taxa formally at family, genus and species level in the Linnean and other systems.
We are writing in opposition to the van der Linde et al. proposal to set aside Drosophila funebris (Fabricius, 1787) as the type of the genus Drosophila Fallén, 1823 and replace it with Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830. Van der Linde and colleagues’ case makes the argument that the paraphyletic nature of the genus Drosophila necessitates a nomenclatural change. This confuses classification, in this case phylogenetic classification, with nomenclature. It essentially asks the commission to rule in support of an unpublished classification without nomenclatural necessity.
We oppose the application to conserve the usage of Drosophila in the sense of melanogaster Meigen. This proposal seeks the endorsement by the Commission of a particular classification and classification paradigm, whereas the preamble of the Code asserts the freedom of taxonomic thought or action. While the stated purpose is the conservation of usage, the proposal in fact seeks to establish by that a new and as yet undefined concept of Drosophila. Today Drosophila is accepted as a large genus of flies, containing a number of species of importance to genetics.
The proposition of Van der Linde et al. (BZN 64: 238–242) to maintain the name of Drosophila melanogaster has two consequences. The first is the loss of the name ‘Sophophora’ through synonymy with Drosophila. The second is the loss of identity of the current genus Drosophila (s.s.). To justify their proposition Van der Linde et al. (BZN 64: 238–242) emphasized the role of D. melanogaster in science and weakened the taxonomical significance of Drosophila (s.l.) and Drosophila (s.s.) that they proposed to split. In my opinion their arguments are oversimplified or not justified.
I tend to be conservative and believe that the Commission should not use its plenary powers every now and then to rescue junior names favoured by a mere handful of researchers, but I agree with Polaszek (BZN 65: 55) that if there be one binomen in zoological nomenclature that should be cast in concrete, it is Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830.
I wish to express my strong support for the application. Drosophila melanogaster is one of the few names in zoology that are recognised as such within numerous biological disciplines, and it is one of the first names that every student of biology meets having entered the field. As such its preservation is a matter of importance far beyond the field of taxonomy. As the object of the Code of Nomenclature is to promote stability and universality, it is difficult to think of a case where a decision by the Commission would be more important.
In my opinion, if the Commission decides to support this application that would be against the rules of the Code and would create bad precedent.
