The controversy of nomenclatural changes: three cases studies in plants

Abstract

Modern systematics attempts to build classifications that are natural, i.e, based on phylogenetic relationships and the recognition of monophyletic groups. As more evidence is gathered about the evolutionary relationships of organisms, new opportunities arise to reconsider their classification, thus maintaining life in a dynamic nomenclature. In order to recognize lineages that contain a common ancestor and all of its descendants, it is often necessary to split or lump taxa that are not coherent with the evidence accumulated. This should be done without impairing the predictability and stability necessary for biological classifications. Taxonomists have a great responsibility, to provide classifications that agree with accepted theories, are accessible, and reflect evolutionary relationships. However, paradoxically, given the care and complexity of these changes, taxonomists occasionally are reluctant to propose them, and the users of scientific names to adopt them. In this publication, we present three case studies of plants that have recently undergone major and controversial taxonomic changes: Acacia, Mimulus and Salvia. The response by the scientific community often has been inconsistent, as is shown by multiple publications with different points of view.  However, we emphasize that the challenges that these changes represent are in fact inherent to scientific advances.