Phylogenetics, Zoological Nomenclature And Electronic Databases <B>Phylogenetics, Zoological Nomenclature And Electronic Databases</B><P> </B><EM><B></B></EM><B>Michael Schmitt</B><BR> Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany<P> During the past five years, a lively discussion has been held on "Phylogenetic Taxonomy" or "Phylogenetic Nomenclature". Self-evidently, nomenclature should be based on sound scientific reasons. However, I feel that the need for stability of zoological (or biological) nomenclature is greatly underestimated.<BR> Of course, names should refer to "natural units" like monophyletic taxa or species. But, there is no objective means to decide which of several competing phylogenetic hypotheses should be preferred. Even if an objective criterion existed, it would leave us with the necessity to alter names and/or endings with every new phylogenetic hypothesis on a given taxon. This would automatically lead to immense problems in retrieving scientific information, especially when using electronic tools searching for taxon names.<BR> Therefore, I see considerable advantages in separating nomenclature from phylogenetics. Phylogenetic hypotheses should, in my opinion, be expressed without using Linnean ranks and, consequently, without respective endings of names. The Linnean ranks ruled by the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature should be used as tools for storing and retrieving information and should be kept as stable as possible. They should only be changed if paraphyly or polyphyly of the taxon in question was shown.<BR> The whole problem is the more important as biological names do not only affect "insiders" (taxonomists, phylogeneticists), but also "consumers" of nomenclatorial activities, i.e. all biologists intending a correct scientific naming of their objects. Taxonomists will certainly lose impact if their nomenclatorial activities create confusion rather than clarity. If they do not want to marginalize themselves they should respect the need of their "clients" for stable and intelligible names. Therefore, a maximum match of scientific names and common-sense concepts should be kept.<P>