Bemisia tabaci nomenclature: lessons learned

Authors

  • Laura M Boykin

    Corresponding author
    1. ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
    • Correspondence to: Laura M Boykin, ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, M316, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009 Western Australia, Australia. E-mail: lboykin@mac.com

    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The nomenclature used within the whitefly research community for different putative species within Bemisia tabaci (sensu Russell) remains highly variable and confused. This was evident by the many different naming schemes researchers were using in their presentations at the 1st International Whitefly Symposium in Kolymbari, Crete, Greece (20–24 May 2013). I wanted to try to document how we, as a community, have arrived at such a state of confused nomenclature. This also included an investigation of the nomenclature used in the literature (from 2002 to 2012) by means of two online search tools (Web of Science and Scirus).

RESULTS

Nomenclatural data were collected at the 1st International Whitefly Symposium, based on oral presentations and posters. There were 17 different names used for the MED species and 12 different names used for the MEAM1 species of the B. tabaci species complex. Investigation of the literature revealed limited uptake of the intermediate names.

CONCLUSION

The intermediate names for the various species in the B. tabaci species complex – MED, MEAM1, New World, etc. – are not being used by the wider whitefly community. To move forwarrd as a community, we must work towards a formal revision of the B. tabaci complex. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry

Ancillary