what is biocode in botany?plz describe a bit.TY
Answers
Answered by
2
Biology as a science is unusual in that the objects of its study can be named according to five different Codes of nomenclature" (Hawksworth 1995). The rules governing the names of animals and plants, respectively the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (Ride et al. 1985) and the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) (Greuter et al.1994), have origins that diverged in the mid-19th century. Although based on essentially the same principles, notably that there should be a unique name for each taxon and that the choice of competing names should be determined by precedence in date of publication, the two sets of rules have diverged in detail over their 150 or so years of separate existence. A third set of rules, the Bacteriological Code (BC)(Lapage et al. 1992), first developed in 1953 (published in 1958), started essentially as a derivative of the ICBNand 1973 developed what amounted to a new starting date through the establishment of an "Approved List of Bacterial Names". The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) originated in 1953 and represents a set of rules subordinate to those of the ICBN and applicable specifically to cultivated plants. The most recent (6th) edition (Trehane et al. 1995) clarifies the complementary role of the ICNCP relative to the ICBN. The naming of viruses and sub-viral agents (prions etc.) will be covered by the draft International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature, currently being developed from the current Rules of Virus Classification and Nomenclature by the International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) of the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS).
For the general user of scientific names of organisms, there is inherent confusion in many aspects of this situation: different sets of rules have different conventions for citing names, provide for different forms for names at the same rank, and, although primarily each is based on priority of publication, they differ somewhat in how they determine the choice of correct name. This diversity of Codescan also create more serious problems as, for example, in the determination of which Code to follow for those organisms that are not clearly plants, animals or bacteria, the so-called ambiregnal organisms, or those whose current genetic affinity may be well established but whose traditional treatment has been in a different group (e.g. the cyanobacteria, alias the blue-green algae). Moreover, the development of electronic information retrieval, by often using scientific names without clear taxonomic context, accentuates the problem of divergent methods of citation and makes homonymy between, for example, plants and animals a source of trouble and frequently confusion.
The desirability of seeking some harmonization of all biological codes has been appreciated for some time (see Hawksworth 1995) and an exploratory meeting on the subject was held at Egham, U.K. in March 1994. A report of that meeting was published by IUBS as a Special Issue of Biology International (Hawksworth et al.1994a). The key decisions of the meeting are summarized by Hawksworth (1995). Recognizing the crucial importance of scientific names of organisms in global communication, these decisions included not only agreement to take steps to harmonize terminology and procedures, but also that it would be highly desirable to work towards a unified system of biological nomenclature. The Draft BioCode is the first public expression of this.
Following review by the members of the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature who had prepared the initial draft in 1995 (see heading to Draft BioCode), and by others involved in committees dealing with biological nomenclature, the Draft BioCode is now being made available to the general scientific public. It was published in the May 1996 issue of Taxon (45: 349-372) and can be consulted electronically through a Listserver at University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A. ([email protected]; subscribe to
For the general user of scientific names of organisms, there is inherent confusion in many aspects of this situation: different sets of rules have different conventions for citing names, provide for different forms for names at the same rank, and, although primarily each is based on priority of publication, they differ somewhat in how they determine the choice of correct name. This diversity of Codescan also create more serious problems as, for example, in the determination of which Code to follow for those organisms that are not clearly plants, animals or bacteria, the so-called ambiregnal organisms, or those whose current genetic affinity may be well established but whose traditional treatment has been in a different group (e.g. the cyanobacteria, alias the blue-green algae). Moreover, the development of electronic information retrieval, by often using scientific names without clear taxonomic context, accentuates the problem of divergent methods of citation and makes homonymy between, for example, plants and animals a source of trouble and frequently confusion.
The desirability of seeking some harmonization of all biological codes has been appreciated for some time (see Hawksworth 1995) and an exploratory meeting on the subject was held at Egham, U.K. in March 1994. A report of that meeting was published by IUBS as a Special Issue of Biology International (Hawksworth et al.1994a). The key decisions of the meeting are summarized by Hawksworth (1995). Recognizing the crucial importance of scientific names of organisms in global communication, these decisions included not only agreement to take steps to harmonize terminology and procedures, but also that it would be highly desirable to work towards a unified system of biological nomenclature. The Draft BioCode is the first public expression of this.
Following review by the members of the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature who had prepared the initial draft in 1995 (see heading to Draft BioCode), and by others involved in committees dealing with biological nomenclature, the Draft BioCode is now being made available to the general scientific public. It was published in the May 1996 issue of Taxon (45: 349-372) and can be consulted electronically through a Listserver at University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A. ([email protected]; subscribe to
Answered by
0
Biocode in botany:
In biology, the objects are named according to the different codes of nomenclature. The rules are applicable on the animals and plants. So there is "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for Animals" and "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature for Plants".
So there is a specific name is for the individual taxon. So there is a proper biological code for the animals or the plants. Biocode is unique for the plants and the animals.
Similar questions