Nomenclatural rules in zoology as a potential threat against natural history museums

Natural history museums store millions of organisms from the whole world that are of great use to understand the evolution, structure and problems of biodiversity. One of their main functions is to act as repositories of so-called type specimens or onomatophores. These allow long-term universality and stability of biological nomenclature through providing an objective and permanent link between the world of language and the world of organisms. Threats currently exist against this function, in two directions at least. ( 1) Recent changes to the nomenclatural rules put the emphasis on 'usage' of nomina and challenge 'priority' as the basic principle of nomenclature. This entails a shift from specimens to concepts or tradition for the establishment of the valid nomina of taxa. Beside its encouraging taxonomists to work carelessly and hastily, this attitude weakens the significance and importance of those specimens in taxonomy, undermining their important flag function for the image, funding and even the mere existence of natural history museums. To counter this tendency, any validation of junior synonyms or homonyms to protect usage should be strictly limited to nomina in well-documented very widespread use, not only in specialized systematic publications but in the general scientific and non-scientific literature and in society as a whole. ( 2) For the same reason, nomenclatural systems that rely not on onomatophores but on verbal definitions of nomina should not be encouraged. It is crucial that the unique value of onomatophores be highlighted, and that the institutions which care for their long-term conservation and scientific managing be recognised and permanently provided with appropriate funding and staff. Many other disciplines of biology do or will benefit from such a support to museums.