Welcome to IgMin Research – an Open Access journal uniting Biology Group, Medicine Group, and Engineering Group. We’re dedicated to advancing global knowledge and fostering collaboration across scientific fields.
Welcome to IgMin, a leading platform dedicated to enhancing knowledge dissemination and professional growth across multiple fields of science, technology, and the humanities. We believe in the power of open access, collaboration, and innovation. Our goal is to provide individuals and organizations with the tools they need to succeed in the global knowledge economy.
IgMin Publications Inc., Suite 102, West Hartford, CT - 06110, USA
Two contrasting opinions about virus taxonomy or, more precisely, about virus nomenclature, appeared in the first 2004 issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases [11van Regenmortel MH, Mahy BW. Emerging issues in virus taxonomy. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Jan;10(1):8-13. doi: 10.3201/eid1001.030279. PMID: 15078590; PMCID: PMC3322749.,22Eberhard M. Virus taxonomy: one step forward, two steps back. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Jan;10(1):153-4. doi: 10.3201/eid1001.030945. PMID: 15112667; PMCID: PMC3322753.]. These differring ideas about scientific (vs. common) names of viruses are part of a long disagreement among virologists that can be tracked to the early 1950s [33ANDREWES CH. Viruses and Linnaeus. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1951;28(3):211-25. PMID: 14856728.,44HOLMES FO. The classifications of viruses. J Gen Microbiol. 1955 Apr;12(2):356-7. doi: 10.1099/00221287-12-2-356. PMID: 14367768.].
The three really major progressive steps of virus nomenclature (and taxonomy as well) achieved in the last decades have involved the acceptance of the taxa: 1) "family" and "genus" (the names are written in italics, the initial letter being capitalized); 2) "species" [55Van Regenmortel MH. Virus species, a much overlooked but essential concept in virus classification. Intervirology. 1990;31(5):241-54. doi: 10.1159/000150159. PMID: 2272775.,66Pringle CR. The 20th Meeting of the Executive Committee of ICTV. Arch Virol. 1991;119:303-4.]; 3) the binomial nomenclature. However, the last step has been carried out in an inappropriate way, contradicting the rules of general biological (i.e. Linnean) nomenclature as Mark Eberhard [22Eberhard M. Virus taxonomy: one step forward, two steps back. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Jan;10(1):153-4. doi: 10.3201/eid1001.030945. PMID: 15112667; PMCID: PMC3322753.] points out absolutely correctly. Linnean binomial nomenclature does namely use Latinized (Latin, Greek) but not English common names for specific epitheta, and the specific epitheton (written in italics with the first letter noncapitalized) must always be situated after the generic name (written with the first letter capitalized), not in the reverse order as it has been lately suggested by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). It is a pity that the standard Latinized binomial nomenclature has not been generally adopted by the ICTV for viruses although it does work well in all other areas of life science. Because virologists have already accepted the fact that viruses belong to the field of biology, they have to follow the rules of general, i.e. Linnean biological nomenclature instead of constructing another system that is incompatible with other biological specialties. It is incorrect to object that it might be very difficult to coin Latinized names for an estimated 1,600 [77van Regenmortel MHV, Fauquet CM, Bishop DHL, Carstens EB, Estes MK, Lemon SM, Maniloff J, Mayo MA, McGeoch DJ, Pringle CR, Wickner RB, eds. Virus taxonomy: 7th report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2000.] virus species. For instance, such binomials might be proposed without great difficulties for 50 or so arboviruses that occurred in Europe in the 20th century [88Hubálek Z, Halouzka J. Arthropod-borne viruses of vertebrates in Europe. Acta Sci Nat Brno. 1996;30(4-5):1-95.]: the names have been based on generic names accepted by ICTV [] and on the concept of virus species [4-64-6HOLMES FO. The classifications of viruses. J Gen Microbiol. 1955 Apr;12(2):356-7. doi: 10.1099/00221287-12-2-356. PMID: 14367768.,1010Melnick JL. Taxonomy and nomenclature of viruses, 1982. Prog Med Virol. 1982;28:208-21. PMID: 6283601.]. The examples of the proposed arbovirus names could include, e.g., in the Togaviridae family: Sindbis virus - Alphavirus sindbis but not written as Sindbis Alphavirus (this new name has recently been approved by ICTV in MSL38 list of spp.); in the Orthoflaviviridae: West Nile virus - Flavivirus nili but not West Nile Flavivirus (recently approved by ICTV as Orthoflavivirus nilensis); dengue virus - Flavivirus dengue but not Dengue Flavivirus (recently approved by ICTV as Orthoflavivirus nilensis);tick-borne encephalitis virus - Flavivirus ixodetis (recently approved by ICTV as Orthoflavivirus encephalitidis); in the Peribunyaviridae: Batai virus - Bunyavirus batai (recently approved by ICTV as Orthobunyavirus bataiense); sandfly fever Naples virus - Phlebovirus neapolis (recently approved by ICTV as Phlebovirus napoliense); sandfly fever Sicilian virus - Phlebovirus siciliensis (recently approved by ICTV as Phlebovirus siciliaense); Toscana virus - Phlebovirus toscanae (recently approved by ICTV as Phlebovirus toscanaense); in the Nairoviridae: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus - Nairovirus congocrimae (recently approved by ICTV as Orthonairovirus hemorrhagiae); in the Reovirales: bluetongue virus - Orbivirus linguaecyanei: Tribeč virus - Orbivirus tribeci.
It is obvious that the "Latinized" specific epitheta can be coined easily from the commonly used names, largely with only minor changes (at least in arboviruses whose names are usually formed according to the geographic site of original isolation). These scientific labels of viruses of course do not exclude at all the usage of the common English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, etc. names of viruses. However, the sort of combination of Latin (generic) and English (specific) names in the binomes as suggested by the previous ICTV report (species report MSL 37) is controversial and hardly acceptable from the Linnean bionomenclature point of view. However, the rules of the last species report of ICTV, i.e. MSL 38, are compatible with that nomenclature.
Remark: The text of this contribution was originally presented at the ICTV Discussion Forum in 2008 online [1111Hubalek Z. Virus nomenclature: three steps forward, a half step back. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses - Collaboration, Information, Files, and Discussion. ICTVonline. July 15, 2008.] but without current virus species names as added now here from the MSL 38 report of ICTV. However, this paper has as yet not been published in any scientific journal.
HOLMES FO. The classifications of viruses. J Gen Microbiol. 1955 Apr;12(2):356-7. doi: 10.1099/00221287-12-2-356. PMID: 14367768.
Van Regenmortel MH. Virus species, a much overlooked but essential concept in virus classification. Intervirology. 1990;31(5):241-54. doi: 10.1159/000150159. PMID: 2272775.
Pringle CR. The 20th Meeting of the Executive Committee of ICTV. Arch Virol. 1991;119:303-4.
van Regenmortel MHV, Fauquet CM, Bishop DHL, Carstens EB, Estes MK, Lemon SM, Maniloff J, Mayo MA, McGeoch DJ, Pringle CR, Wickner RB, eds. Virus taxonomy: 7th report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2000.
Hubálek Z, Halouzka J. Arthropod-borne viruses of vertebrates in Europe. Acta Sci Nat Brno. 1996;30(4-5):1-95.
Virus taxonomy, 6th report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Arch Virol Suppl. 1995;10:1-586. PMID: 7742649.
Melnick JL. Taxonomy and nomenclature of viruses, 1982. Prog Med Virol. 1982;28:208-21. PMID: 6283601.
Hubalek Z. Virus nomenclature: three steps forward, a half step back. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses - Collaboration, Information, Files, and Discussion. ICTVonline. July 15, 2008.
Hubalek. Support for the use of Binomial Nomenclature in the Taxonomy of Viruses. IgMin Res. October 23, 2024; 2(10): 846-847. IgMin ID: igmin257; DOI:10.61927/igmin257; Available at: igmin.link/p257
Address Correspondence: Zdenek Hubalek, Institute of Vertebrate Biology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Květná 8, Czech Republic, Email: zdehubalek@seznam.cz
How to cite this article: Hubalek. Support for the use of Binomial Nomenclature in the Taxonomy of Viruses. IgMin Res. October 23, 2024; 2(10): 846-847. IgMin ID: igmin257; DOI:10.61927/igmin257; Available at: igmin.link/p257
HOLMES FO. The classifications of viruses. J Gen Microbiol. 1955 Apr;12(2):356-7. doi: 10.1099/00221287-12-2-356. PMID: 14367768.
Van Regenmortel MH. Virus species, a much overlooked but essential concept in virus classification. Intervirology. 1990;31(5):241-54. doi: 10.1159/000150159. PMID: 2272775.
Pringle CR. The 20th Meeting of the Executive Committee of ICTV. Arch Virol. 1991;119:303-4.
van Regenmortel MHV, Fauquet CM, Bishop DHL, Carstens EB, Estes MK, Lemon SM, Maniloff J, Mayo MA, McGeoch DJ, Pringle CR, Wickner RB, eds. Virus taxonomy: 7th report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2000.
Hubálek Z, Halouzka J. Arthropod-borne viruses of vertebrates in Europe. Acta Sci Nat Brno. 1996;30(4-5):1-95.
Virus taxonomy, 6th report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Arch Virol Suppl. 1995;10:1-586. PMID: 7742649.
Melnick JL. Taxonomy and nomenclature of viruses, 1982. Prog Med Virol. 1982;28:208-21. PMID: 6283601.
Hubalek Z. Virus nomenclature: three steps forward, a half step back. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses - Collaboration, Information, Files, and Discussion. ICTVonline. July 15, 2008.
