Although most people (and certainly most scientists) are familiar with the practice of assigning scientific names to organisms, many are not aware of the history of the practice, the current rules and regulatory bodies for assigning scientific names to organisms, the subtle but important distinctions between “taxonomic names” and “taxonomic concepts” (and the corresponding implications to biodiversity informatics), or the minefield of potential pitfalls surrounding the ambiguous and inconsistent terminology used in associated discussions.
There are five major realms of scientific names for organisms, each associated with a particular “Code” of practice (Botanical, Zoological, Bacteriological, Viral, and plant cultivars). Although these five realms are reasonably well-delineated, there is some area of overlap and/or uncertainty about which Code certain kinds of organisms fall under. Moreover, each Code has a different starting date, different regulatory bodies and mechanisms, and different rules in force for assigning new names and treating existing names.
From an informatics perspective, there has been a great deal of discussion on the difference between scientific names of organisms, and the taxonomic concepts they are intended to represent. Although these issues have long been recognized, the biodiversity informatics community has paid particular attention, in terms of database object definitions and information management approaches. Although much progress has been made addressing these issues, there is still some confusion about contexts and priorities, and semantic ambiguities remain.