Hi Chamundeeswari,

While I haven't encountered many such errors myself, my guess is that errors might arise because taxonomy is constantly changing and being revised. New work (e.g., molecular phylogenetic analyses) leads to the same organisms being assigned to different species names, either invalidating the species to which a given sample was originally assigned (and thus combining it with a different, earlier identified species) or assignment to a new species, breaking up an older “species” (actually containing several cryptic species) into several others.

In principle, actual errors should be rare in published papers – the peer-review process should help to identify incorrectly assigned or erroneous species names. I can see this perhaps failing in the case of species whose status is being debated or constantly revised, as in the case of many microbes and cryptic species; then it is possible the incorrect name may be published due to the rapid pace at which taxonomy changes (i.e. no one is sure at the time of publishing what the correct name is!).

Of course, if you look at older papers dealing with many species, you are very likely to find that a different name is used than that currently accepted. This is not an error, because at the time such papers were published the older name was correct, but it is important to keep in mind. One should be careful when publishing to check the current status of any species names used, and make sure to use to most up-to-date accepted name – not doing so might lead to errors. A good resource for this is the World Registry of Marine Species (“WoRMS”) (http://www.marinespecies.org/), which lists accepted and invalidated/synonymized names for marine taxa along with their taxonomic authorities.

When the species name of a given organism changes, the taxonomic authority (reference) for that name may also change. Taxonomic authorities are often neglected in published papers, which can also lead to confusion. While some fields and journals require they be included (e.g., Journal of Crustacean Biology), most major journals don’t, so it is easy to lose track. Many non-taxonomist researchers are not very familiar with how these work, either, so might mis-cite them (e.g., assume same authority for genus and species name, which is not always the case). WoRMS is a useful resource for tracking these, as well.

In more blatant cases of the wrong species name being used, this may be more a case of author neglect and/or poor peer-review. There are many “predatory” journals online today, including a number of emerging taxonomic ones, which have little to no peer-review and thus might allow big errors to get published. These are an increasing problem and should be watched for.

Hope this helps! Best regards,

Brady

Hi Chamundeeswari,

While I haven't encountered many such errors myself, my guess is that errors might arise because taxonomy is constantly changing and being revised. New work (e.g., molecular phylogenetic analyses) leads to the same organisms being assigned to different species names, either invalidating the species to which a given sample was originally assigned (and thus combining it with a different, earlier identified species) or assignment to a new species, breaking up an older “species” (actually containing several cryptic species) into several others.

In principle, actual errors should be rare in published papers – the peer-review process should help to identify incorrectly assigned or erroneous species names. I can see this perhaps failing in the case of species whose status is being debated or constantly revised, as in the case of many microbes and cryptic species; then it is possible the incorrect name may be published due to the rapid pace at which taxonomy changes (i.e. no one is sure at the time of publishing what the correct name is!).

Of course, if you look at older papers dealing with many species, you are very likely to find that a different name is used than that currently accepted. This is not an error, because at the time such papers were published the older name was correct, but it is important to keep in mind. One should be careful when publishing to check the current status of any species names used, and make sure to use to most up-to-date accepted name – not doing so might lead to errors. A good resource for this is the World Registry of Marine Species (“WoRMS”) (http://www.marinespecies.org/), which lists accepted and invalidated/synonymized names for marine taxa along with their taxonomic authorities.

When the species name of a given organism changes, the taxonomic authority (reference) for that name may also change. Taxonomic authorities are often neglected in published papers, which can also lead to confusion. While some fields and journals require they be included (e.g., Journal of Crustacean Biology), most major journals don’t, so it is easy to lose track. Many non-taxonomist researchers are not very familiar with how these work, either, so might mis-cite them (e.g., assume same authority for genus and species name, which is not always the case). WoRMS is a useful resource for tracking these, as well.

In more blatant cases of the wrong species name being used, this may be more a case of author neglect and/or poor peer-review. There are many “predatory” journals online today, including a number of emerging taxonomic ones, which have little to no peer-review and thus might allow big errors to get published. These are an increasing problem and should be watched for.

Hope this helps! Best regards,

Brady

Dear Chamundeeswari,

It cannot be expected that reviewers can always make everything correct. The authors themselves should take adequate care. From my personal experiences I can tell you that some authors do not see the original publications at all. They cite everything from secondary sources. In case of errors in those secondary sources, the same errors get published again and again.

In addition to what Brady and Subir said, I see errors that are caused by lack of taxonomic training. Since the rise of genetics, some countries/universities/teachers have stopped teaching the rules of nomenclature and taxonomy and now many younger scientists don't understand how to read taxonomic papers. They misunderstand the importance of brackets () surrounding a species authority and they cannot differentiate between original authorities and references to usage of a name. Thus they then conclude that the author of the species must be the author of the reference and create an error. 

Other errors are caused by the lack of training in Latin. The grammatical gender of the specific name follows the gender of its genus. When someone describes a species and is unaware of this or gets the gender of the genus wrong, the specific name gets the wrong ending.

Getting the year right can be difficult even when you have the original paper in hand, because older papers were not always dated, or they may have been presented at a meeting of a scientific society but printed in the following (or later) year. Print year is usually the valid year. It gets tricky when reprints were printed early and distributed before the complete volume. Then the year of the reprint is valid but can be very hard to know.

As one of those editing WoRMS, I know how hard it is to find all obscure sources and variations of a name. WoRMS is based on published information, which means I cannot make changes based on my own opinion. I can only make a note if I think a species name should be invalid but has not been published. And I cannot find the time to publish such necessary changes.

Generic assignments of species vary over time. What is important is the specific name and authority to tell us which species it is. Old names that are not accepted/valid now are not wrong, just old information. When classification is based on phylogeny and we get a better understanding of evolution, we can hope that these changes become less frequent and stabilize.

Yes Sabine; you are absolutely correct. Many of the colleges do not have teachers with specialization in taxonomy.

I agree with what was stated; especially with what Sabine said. Undoubtedly, as we go to the past, the nomenclatural confusion is due to the fact that communication between scientists was very difficult, there were no networks or databases, so many names for the same species proliferated, expanding The synonymy. The current errors, should be attributed for the most part to negligence or ignorance of the rules of nomenclature. At least for algae, fungi and plants these rules are very well detailed in the corresponding international code. On the other hand, serious databases like The Plant List or Tropicos help to clarify doubts on the matter.

Thank you Brady for the general instructions to be followed in taxonomy and most valid points are peer-review and confusion leading by neglecting author following species names in your statement. 

I thank Dr. Subir for sharing the point some authors not referring the original publication.

I thank Dr. Sabine for sharing the lack of taxonomic training, information & importance of understanding Latin grammar in assigning gender for species. Taxonomy based on phylogeny for reducing such kind of errors are much useful for me. 

finally I thank Dr. Pedro for sharing the point less proper communication among taxonomist in olden days.

Thank you all for sharing your diversified opinion and suggestions.

These errors are created due to the lack of taxonomic knowledge especially of rules of nomenclature.Moreover the interest in taxonomic works is shrinking.In many journal's citation authority is being ignored while the scientific names without authority is not correct. Sometimes a name has been given which has already been validly published.Such ignorance is being occurred  in the literature.Some of the databases like IPNI and tropics are helpful  in such  matters