This   level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tree of Life Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology Mid‑importance Binomial nomenclature is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Animals High‑importance Binomial nomenclature is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

One thing that seems to be missing from the article is what happens when a species is moved to another genus in which its specific name/epithet already exists. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I've removed this recent addition to the lead, as it seems too narrow (and recent) a result for the lead: the paper addresses the concern that monotypic genera are an "artifact of human classification", saying that simulated phylogenies produce a similar distribution.

Binomial systematics is shown to be an excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns. ^[1]

I'm not sure if there's a good place for the reference in this article. Opinions? Nitpicking polish ( talk) 15:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Our article is about binomial nomenclature, not about the distribution of the number of species in genera, which is a matter of how taxonomists use binomial nomenclature, not the nomenclature itself. So I don't see that the journal article is relevant. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"Tyrannosaurus rex is probably the most widely known binomial.[1]" doesn't seem to be an important enough sentence to include in the first paragraph, and with only a single citation from a generation ago it may no longer even be correct. 
199.212.55.162 (
talk) 00:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
reply

Well, a Google search for the exact phrase "T rex" (Google ignores punctuation) gave me about 66 million hits as opposed to about 32 million for "E coli" which seems to me another well known abbreviated binomial. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply

What about Homo sapiens? It results in 72 million hits in a Google search, compared to only 9 million for the fully written Tyrannosaurus rex. Should we change the text here? DKMell ( talk) 06:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Definetly should CheeseyHead ( talk) 20:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Do the various naming codes adress how these names should be integrated into various languages? For example, I'm curious as to how the capitalization rules work in German. More interestingly, how should these names be written in languages which use non Latin scripts?

Is there an official international standard for "localization" to various languages? Or is officially it left up to local language authorities? Or do the codes not adress this issue officially at all?

If there is such a standard, it would be nice to mention it in the article. If not, it might be useful to add examples of how various languages adress this issue. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique ( talk) 19:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Scientific names are treated as literal strings of characters. They are always written in exactly the way prescribed in the nomenclature codes. So if you look in Chinese or Russian botanical sources, for example, you will see the scientific names in the Latin script, although there may also be a transcription and of course a vernacular name. See, as just one example, this extract. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That is not an image in the beginning, it's just text. Please change it to a proper image. 111.88.15.184 ( talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It was caused by a bad edit. Now fixed. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The text in the "Problems" section says "At least 1241 instances of such binomial duplication occur", but the paper by Shipunov cited in support of this apparently shows only genus-level name duplication, not duplication of both genus and species names. Other sources, although less authoritative, have only a handful (< 10) of known cases. I think there's a mistake here, but maybe I'm missing something. DKMell ( talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ DKMell: you are quite right; well spotted! I've changed the text to

"Because genus names are unique only within a nomenclature code, it is possible for two or more species to share the same genus name and even the same binomial if they occur in different kingdoms. At least 1240 instances of genus name duplication occur."

I think this is more accurate (and avoids some false precision). Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

In the end of the opening there's a part that reads ""binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is not a typographic error, meaning "two-name naming system"." I feel it's explaining it too much. It's clunky and hard to read. Can we get rid of it altogether? CheeseyHead ( talk) 21:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Clunky it is ( I wrote that version), but for a reason. There is long history of the word "binominal" repeatedly getting removed from the lede. Allow me a few more days to research and elaborate. -- Wotheina ( talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As a reader, I learned from this article that both "binomial" and "binominal" are legitimate terms. I appreciate that, and believe this information is worth kept on the lede. It is notable for being used by ICZN and other literature. ^[1] The problem is that "binominal" has often been removed:

Since 2011, as far as I could find, "binominal" was removed 7 times (excluding apparent graffiti). The "n" is particularly hard to recognize, requiring particular emphasis. Most of the time it was emphasized with an underscore. But this underscore too is a frequent target of removal (at least 9 times since 2007), on the grounds that "the underscored 'n' is not standard English and will mystify readers". A typical pattern goes

1. Someone adds (re-adds) "binominal" with an underscore.
2. A copy editor removes the underscore.
3. A novice mistakes it as redundant and zaps it.

To me, as a reader, the underscored version was helpful and worked well. I understood that it is a plain emphasis and did not mistake it as an "n" with a macron below or a hyperlink. Anyway, even the underscore is insufficient to deter removals. Of the 7 cases,

• 3 cases were when the word was without the underscore (Case 2,6,7).
• 4 cases were when the word had the underscore (Case 1,3,4,5). One soon self reverted (Case 1).

I suspect there are people who do not see that there are people who do not see the "n". This makes things even more difficult. All other ideas to date also failed, so the current version became clunky like designed by committee. Now the conditions we need to meet are:

1. Inform that "binominal" is also a legitimate term.
2. Prevent it mistakenly labeled or removed as "wrong spelling".
3. Prevent it mistakenly removed as "duplicates".
4. Robust against people who don't read citations, templates, and embedded comments.
5. Comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting.
6. Avoid WP:SELFREF such as "note ...", "see ..."
7. Not too clunky

-- Wotheina ( talk) 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply