Standardizing the scientific names of biological organisms allows researchers to discuss findings (including the discovery of new species).
As the study of biology became increasingly specialized, specific codes were adopted for different types of organism.
[4] But as early as 1622, Gaspard Bauhin introduced in his book Pinax theatri botanici (English, Illustrated exposition of plants) containing many names of genera that were later adopted by Linnaeus.
On the other hand, bacteriology started anew, making a clean sweep in 1980 (Skerman et al., "Approved Lists of Bacterial Names"), although maintaining the original authors and dates of publication.
[14] A more radical approach was made in 1997 when the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB) presented the long debated Draft BioCode, proposed to replace all existing Codes with a harmonization of them.
[15][16] The originally planned implementation date for the BioCode draft was January 1, 2000, but agreement to replace the existing Codes was not reached.
In 2011, a revised BioCode was proposed that, instead of replacing the existing Codes, would provide a unified context for them, referring to them when necessary.
This new approach requires using phylogenetic definitions that refer to "specifiers", analogous to "type" under rank-based nomenclature.
Such definitions delimit taxa under a given phylogeny, and this kind of nomenclature does not require use of absolute ranks.
[27][28][29] Groups claimed by both protozoologists and phycologists include euglenids, dinoflagellates, cryptomonads, haptophytes, glaucophytes, many heterokonts (e.g., chrysophytes, raphidophytes, silicoflagellates, some xanthophytes, proteromonads), some monadoid green algae (volvocaleans and prasinophytes), choanoflagellates, bicosoecids, ebriids and chlorarachniophytes.
Slime molds, plasmodial forms and other "fungus-like" organisms claimed by both protozoologists and mycologists include mycetozoans, plasmodiophorids, acrasids, and labyrinthulomycetess.