Virus Taxonomy: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

axonomy, the science of identifying and naming entities , has long been an integral component of biologic sciences, both in botany and zoology. Not all biologists are actively engaged in taxonomy (only a few truly enjoy working in this field), yet everyone, even lay persons, recognizes the value of consistency and standardization in the naming of animate and inanimate objects. The naming of biologic entities is an exact tool that conveys a precise meaning and ensures maximal continuity and universality for present and future generations. It further confirms that when reference is given to a scientific name, such as Quercus albus or Gorilla gorilla beringei, everyone recognizes we are speaking about white oak trees or mountain gorillas, respectively, and not northern red oak trees (Quercus rubra) or lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). However, taxonomy has not been, and still is not, without difficulties. Very early on, it was recognized that universal " codes " needed to be developed to guide the naming of biologic entities so that each name would be as unique and distinct as the object being named. Virologists seem to be struggling with taxonomy more than scientists in other disciplines. Much of this struggle seems self-induced, and the article by van Regenmortel and Mahy, " Emerging Issues in Virus Taxonomy " (1), continues to provide highly controversial reading for those who might have an interest in how to approach taxonomic issues. For taxonomists and other scientists with a strong sense of historical perspective, that article may be difficult reading. The article illustrates the inconsistencies between viral taxonomy and taxonomy of other biologic disciplines. The authors do continue to chip away at several fundamental issues, and they are to be commended for that. For instance, the authors acknowledge that viruses are biolog-ic entities, they advocate applying species names in virus taxonomy, and they recognize that use of a binomial naming system is preferred. That virologists also recognize the value of using a combination of characters to define a species is not novel but reflects that elements other than morphologic features, i.e., host and geographic distribution , vector requirements, and molecular sequences, contribute to defining a species. Although seemingly at the very core of taxonomy, agreement on such basic principles is a major step, when one considers that not all virologists subscribe to standard biologic principles. As the authors note, virus taxonomy is an emerging discipline that allows working …