van der Gulik Peter T S, Hoff Wouter D, Speijer David
Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, P.O. Box 94079, 1090 GB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics and Department of Chemistry, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2023 Apr;98(2):584-602. doi: 10.1111/brv.12920. Epub 2022 Nov 10.
During the last century enormous progress has been made in the understanding of biological diversity, involving a dramatic shift from macroscopic to microscopic organisms. The question now arises as to whether the Natural System introduced by Carl Linnaeus, which has served as the central system for organizing biological diversity, can accommodate the great expansion of diversity that has been discovered. Important discoveries regarding biological diversity have not been fully integrated into a formal, coherent taxonomic system. In addition, because of taxonomic challenges and conflicts, various proposals have been made to abandon key aspects of the Linnaean system. We review the current status of taxonomy of the living world, focussing on groups at the taxonomic level of phylum and above. We summarize the main arguments against and in favour of abandoning aspects of the Linnaean system. Based on these considerations, we conclude that retaining the Linnaean Natural System provides important advantages. We propose a relatively small number of amendments for extending this system, particularly to include the named rank of world (Latin alternative mundis) formally to include non-cellular entities (viruses), and the named rank of empire (Latin alternative imperium) to accommodate the depth of diversity in (unicellular) eukaryotes that has been uncovered. We argue that in the case of both the eukaryotic domain and the viruses the cladistic approach intrinsically fails. However, the resulting semi-cladistic system provides a productive way forward that can help resolve taxonomic challenges. The amendments proposed allow us to: (i) retain named taxonomic levels and the three-domain system, (ii) improve understanding of the main eukaryotic lineages, and (iii) incorporate viruses into the Natural System. Of note, the proposal described herein is intended to serve as the starting point for a broad scientific discussion regarding the modernization of the Linnaean system.
在上个世纪，我们对生物多样性的理解取得了巨大进展，这涉及到从宏观生物到微观生物的巨大转变。现在出现的问题是，卡尔·林奈引入的自然系统作为组织生物多样性的核心系统，能否适应已发现的生物多样性的大幅扩展。关于生物多样性的重要发现尚未完全整合到一个正式、连贯的分类系统中。此外，由于分类学上的挑战和冲突，人们提出了各种建议，要摒弃林奈系统的关键方面。我们回顾了生物界分类学的现状，重点关注门及以上分类级别的类群。我们总结了反对和支持摒弃林奈系统某些方面的主要论点。基于这些考虑，我们得出结论，保留林奈自然系统具有重要优势。我们提出了相对较少的修订建议来扩展这个系统，特别是正式纳入命名等级“界”（拉丁语替代词为mundis）以包括非细胞实体（病毒），以及命名等级“总界”（拉丁语替代词为imperium）以适应已发现的（单细胞）真核生物的多样性深度。我们认为，在真核生物域和病毒的情况下，分支分类法本质上是失败的。然而，由此产生的半分支分类系统提供了一条富有成效的前进道路，有助于解决分类学挑战。所提出的修订建议使我们能够：（i）保留命名的分类级别和三域系统，（ii）增进对主要真核生物谱系的理解，以及（iii）将病毒纳入自然系统。值得注意的是，本文所述的建议旨在作为关于林奈系统现代化的广泛科学讨论的起点。
