Do we need to sequence all algal type specimens?

Abstract

Recent studies sequencing algal type specimens, particularly in the green seaweed genus Ulva , have resolved longstanding nomenclatural uncertainties but have also triggered extensive name changes through the strict application of the principle of priority. Because the identity of a taxon name, for example, the name of a species, is ultimately determined by its nomenclatural type, sequencing type specimens can provide a powerful means to connect historical names with contemporary molecular species concepts. However, we argue that comprehensive type sequencing is unlikely to provide a practical or lasting route to nomenclatural stability across algae. The large backlog of historical names, the continuing description of new taxa, changing species concepts, and substantial technical and logistical challenges associated with sequencing historical material suggest that a complete sequence‐based nomenclatural framework will remain difficult to achieve. In addition, repeated nomenclatural changes may reduce the accessibility and usability of accumulated biological knowledge for both specialists and non‐specialists. Here, we invite the phycological community to reflect on the balance of taxonomic accuracy, scientific progress, and nomenclatural stability. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of alternative mechanisms already available under the International Code of Nomenclature , including epitypification and conservation of names, and highlight the concept of protection, currently available for fungi, as potential approaches to promote nomenclatural stability in algae.