Identity Crisis for Fly thats the Apple of Scientists Eye Article Analysis - Assignment Example

A Critique on Drosophila Melanogaster The article en d “Identity crisis for fly that’s the apple of scientists’ eye” published by The Sunday Times on April 8, 2010 presented a controversial issue on proposed renaming of the Drosophila Melanogaster, the fruit fly. The argument was initiated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), an organization that is “responsible for assigning unique scientific names to animals in keeping with existing international taxonomic standards” (Kayne, 2010, par. 1). According to ICZN, “D. melanogaster, which means “dark-bellied dew-lover”, does not properly belong to the genus Drosophila and should be renamed Sophophora melanogaster, or “dark-bellied bearer of wisdom” (Henderson, 2010, par. 4). Other scientific parties presented opposing contentions on the proposed renaming due to the following rationale, to wit: (1) renaming would confuse the public and serve as a betrayal of historical facts; (2) retention of the name would necessitate a “redesignation of hundreds of other fruit fly species” (Henderson, 2010, par. 5); and (3) the current name was questioned due to its broad classification requiring subdividing; among others. Kim van der Linde, an ecologist, biologist, geneticist and profound researcher in the fields of community genetics, local adaptation, modularity in genetic architecture, biodiversity, life history evolution, and sexual size dimorphism (Kim vad der Linde, 2009) supports the preservation of D. melanogaster name. According to her website, “The genus Drosophila as currently defined is paraphyletic and to resolve this issue, sooner or later, the genus need to be split. Unfortunately, if the normal rules regarding naming of genera in this case is followed, Drosophila melanogaster would be renamed to Sophophora melanogaster as it is positioned within the subgenus Sophophora. In order to avoid wide-scale confusion and instability with regard to Drosophila melanogaster, a proposal (Case 3407) to conserve the name Drosophila melanogaster is currently under consideration with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Drosophila melanogaster will become the type species for the genus Drosophila (currently Drosophila funebris). If this is not approved, Drosophila melanogaster will become Sophophora melanogaster as soon as the genus is split” (Kim vad der Linde, 2009). Personal Contention The name Drosophila Melanogaster has historically been associated to the fruit fly, which, according to Miller & Harley (2007, 46), “is a classic tool for studying inheritance patterns. Its utility stems from its ease of handling, short life cycle, and easily recognized characteristics”. In this regard, vast amount of research information and data has been generated using Drosophila Melanogaster, and entered into respective databases and filed in academic journals and publications. A change in name to Drosophila Sophophora would cause scientists considerable efforts in accessing previously compiled data bearing the original name at some points in time in the future. Likewise, D. Melanogaster’s role in scientific biological research has been considered pivotal and critical as it became “a model organism for studying how DNA affects development because of its simple genetic architecture and the speed with which it can be bred” (Henderson, 2010, par. 9), it is understandable that the enormity and volume of research studies undertaken on the subject is immeasurable. In this regard, the repercussions in terms of reclassification of previous studies in the broader world would be tremendous and chaotic. One might simply consider retaining the name and changing others, as required. In studying the other side of the coin, the need to propose for a change in the name of such an important and well-known species would not be suggested if not significantly warranted. The ICZN has been the authorized organization since its inception in 1895 to address dilemmas which emerge due to the discovery of new entries and the need to subdivide large classifications. They have instituted standards, rules, regulations and standard operating procedures which would ensure that problems are addressed in the most objective and effective manner. As such, renaming D. Melanogaster would limit more disruptions as emphasized by the opinion of members of the ICZN and reported by Dalton (2010, par. 7), to wit: “Drosophila melanogaster fits within a subgenus called Sophophora, which includes some 350 members. Splitting this group off to form a new genus would require fewer renamings than would be needed if D. melanogaster became the type species for Drosophila. In that case, roughly 1,100 species would be pushed off into new genera”. The consequences of the action would obviously be weighed against its costs and benefits to the international zoological community in the long run. It is only a matter of disseminating the effectivity data of the corrected information regarding the new name, as implemented. Further, since the practitioners who would use the new name are scientists, biologists and other scholars and professionals in the same field, the renaming would clearly be understood as the ICZN’s process was to solicit the comments and academic responses from the zoological community before any problems on nomenclature is resolved. According to Kayne (2010, par. 5), “due to the complexities involved and the ever-flowing multitude of new entries, problems are inevitable. When they are brought to the attention of ICZN, they are published in the quarterly Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, so that the zoological community can discuss them prior to ICZN deciding the matter”. As indicated, the option which is deemed more beneficial to the international zoological community and to various scientific practitioners on the field would be selected. Therefore, after weighing the pros and cons, it is also my personal contention that a renaming is approved and put into effect in view of the advantages it would generate for the classification in the long-run. Conclusion Changes in names of certain species are inevitable given the discovery of new biological species that need to be accounted for. It is fortunate that the international zoological society has recognized that the ICZN is the authorized international agency tasked to review, evaluate and resolve issues pertaining to nomenclature. As proffered in the article on “Identity crisis for fly that’s the apple of scientists’ eye”, despite the popularity of the original name given for Drosophila Melanogaster and the accomplishments accorded by studies on the species, when circumstances dictate the necessity for it to be renamed and reclassified according to standards and universally accepted rules of nomenclature, the best option is decided on based on facts and procedures rather than popularity. Works Cited Dalton, Rex. What’s in a name? Fly world in abuzz. 7 April 2010. Web. 30 August 2010. < http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100407/full/464825a.html> Henderson, Mark. “Identity crisis for fly that’s the apple of scientists’ eye”. The Sunday Times. 08 April 2010. Web. 30 August 2010. Kayne, R. What is the ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)? 2010. Web. 30 August 2010. Miller, Stephen A. & Harley, John P. Zoology. 7th edition. McGraw Hill International Edition. Print. Read More