【NEWS】Fly in the ointment

linxingxing

Fly in the ointment/ F, r. Q# z$ O
The erudite world of taxonomy is all a flutter over a row about renaming the world’s most famous fly6 y  O  s4 ~  {1 Z) _0 ~
Apr 29th 2010 | From The Economist print edition! j4 B, B4 b1 z
  J' C; @) b* t; k. E! b+ k- A( e
IT IS a small, winged insect that might easily pass unnoticed except as a buzzing annoyance around ripe fruit. Yet Drosophila melanogaster, the humble fruit fly, is so quick and easy to breed that for over 100 years it has been a model organism in a field of research now known as genetics. The fly helped scientists discover that chromosomes contain small units of heredity called genes, and it helped unify research into heredity, evolution and development. Today it is thought to be the most widely studied animal after humans. It is mentioned in countless pieces of literature and its name is taught to older schoolchildren. Which is why, for some scientists, it is almost unthinkable that D. melanogaster may have to be given a new name.9 X  J5 y! u# t' u
/ O) n! B+ r6 j  z
There are around 2,000 species in the genus Drosophila, but for more than three decades taxonomists have struggled with an irksome little annoyance about this group: all the species named Drosophila do not in fact descend from a common ancestor. The genus is, in the jargon, “paraphyletic”. If it is to reflect its evolutionary origins (as taxonomists would prefer) the genus needs to be divided up into many more smaller genera in which the species have similar characteristics.
+ m! z' R+ i) o; e# T2 t5 \$ E; v! \2 a' u: I+ B. C3 j1 r+ B
However, any revision must follow a set of rules that govern the naming of living things. For example, all species have a two-part Latin name, such as Boa constrictor or Homo sapiens. In these cases the “constrictor” and “sapiens” is the species name and “Boa” and “Homo” the genus name. There are other rules, such as those that make sure that every animal has a unique and universally accepted name. If an animal has two different names, or if one name refers to several different species, the result is confusion and chaos.! L# ]- U7 D* j  x6 o; q; _7 o: v. g
* s7 L5 P: q+ _
The problem for the world’s favourite fly is that it is reasonably clear to taxonomists that the genus Drosophila properly refers to a group of flies that do not include melanogaster. And the group of flies that melanogaster is closely related to already has a subgenus called Sophophora. The rules, then, mean that melanogaster should be renamed Sophophora melanogaster.
3 i" K7 L. f/ c9 R$ ^6 F/ b/ t- U
In a flap
  H* S3 L) s5 F. s7 V+ f- b/ ?Well-known creatures have been renamed before. The most famous is Brontosaurus, the genus name of the sauropod dinosaur. Taxonomists renamed it Apatosaurus in 1903, when it was discovered that two different names referred to the same dinosaur. Instead of using the most popular name, it was decided to abide by a code of priority and award the naming rights to the first taxonomist to describe the species. Yet even today, the new name has failed to catch on with the public. 6 P& p# a( C; H; m
# S" G# z: O' k+ ^, _5 v
Disputes over names are referred to scientists on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). It recently rejected an application to protect the name D. melanogaster, which had been made in advance of a proposed revision of the genus. Kim van der Linde, an ecologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, is the would-be tidier of the genus, which she describes as a “mess” and which, until now, nobody has dared to do anything about. She, however, does dare and has a paper in preparation that proposes a revised taxonomy for the group using the latest genetic and morphological data. The only fly in her ointment is that her revision must involve renaming D. melanogaster.
& l5 P  p  x1 m  _1 g& W' Y9 A+ Y/ M0 X; p( S6 b: C% K0 c
The application Dr van der Linde made would have steered clear of this problem through a small sleight of hand. It would have protected the name D. melanogaster by designating it as the “type” specimen of the genus Drosophila. D. melanogaster would then become the reference specimen for the genus Drosophila, and it and all its close relatives would retain the genus name Drosophila. Other less famous flies would then need new names. ) O6 S6 r  F; j

; Z, B) n/ L0 d% P3 bAndrew Polaszek, a researcher in the entomology department at London’s Natural History Museum and a former head of the ICZN, cannot see a problem with this. “It’s such a simple thing to do,” he says. Dr Polaszek believes the overall goal of the ICZN is stability, not just for taxonomists but for science and the broader public. He thinks the ICZN missed a “golden opportunity to prove its usefulness”." X2 G, o6 W) E6 p
. J3 d+ A& b& ^. t( _- R, {
Patrick O’Grady of the University of California, Berkeley, a Drosophila expert who wrote a comment opposing the application, says one reason it was rejected was that approval would have appeared to endorse Dr van der Linde’s findings. “Kim has a view of what the genus is which is a different view from almost everyone working in the field. If they had endorsed her petition it would have endorsed her taxonomic view.”% k- u! k  N; K" g9 A; ?* @

: `" q! g2 e6 O/ w0 sAnother problem is that the ICZN is supposed to rule on things that have been published, and this has not—yet. Dr van der Linde has submitted a paper to the Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research and is awaiting a decision. * U* R9 N+ f4 w' @/ f
4 F2 d# T. j& I$ W+ ^
However, her senior co-author on the paper, Masanori Toda of Hokkaido University in Japan, now has cold feet. On April 9th, he wrote to Dr van der Linde proposing that the manuscript be withdrawn. Dr Toda says that he is removing his name from the paper because, in the light of the ICZN’s rejection, he prefers to leave Drosophila “paraphyletic” rather than cause confusion in biology by renaming it.
5 @) R  \% K0 w4 O! `
# i% A# F' V& H) vSo what will Dr van der Linde do? “I’m pushing ahead,” she says. Although publication of the paper would disturb a three-decade status quo, things may not change quickly. One reason is that scientists seem likely to argue about the validity of her work. Dr O’Grady says: “What she is proposing is not supported in a statistical sense.” More problematic is that the new genus Sophophora may itself be paraphyletic and require revision. Publishing a revision for a large group based on a study of only a few hundred species is a recipe for scientific dispute. Past experience suggests most scientists will either reject or ignore any change that is not widely supported. 3 n1 B6 q+ E# d4 c9 x: M( A
) @" ?+ H' W: ?/ }/ h
When the mosquito which causes yellow and dengue fever, Aedes aegypti, was revised to Stegomyia aegypti, many important journals rejected the new name. One journal editor, who wished to remain anonymous, said changing names causes “substantial confusion”. Some commissioners do not agree: “This application assumes the public cannot learn new words,” said one. Luckily, there is no taxonomic police force, so there is no obligation to abide by any revision to the name of the famous fly. But if taxonomy wants to retain its relevance to the public it might want to think twice before cutting the few ties that bind it to the outside world.

ambassador

Fly in the ointment 好像可以翻译成：小挫折？

linxingxing

可以翻译成：美中不足，瑕疵