1、raising standards worldwideNO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWBSI Standards PublicationBS EN 16164:2013Water quality Guidancestandard for designing andselecting taxonomic keysBS EN 16164:2013 BRITISH STANDARDNational forewordThis British Standard is the UK implemen
2、tation of EN 16164:2013.The UK participation in its preparation was entrusted to TechnicalCommittee EH/3/5, Biological Methods.A list of organizations represented on this committee can beobtained on request to its secretary.This publication does not purport to include all the necessaryprovisions of
3、a contract. Users are responsible for its correctapplication. The British Standards Institution 2013. Published by BSI StandardsLimited 2013ISBN 978 0 580 72638 5ICS 13.060.99Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer immunity fromlegal obligations.This British Standard was published under the
4、 authority of theStandards Policy and Strategy Committee on 31 January 2013.Amendments issued since publicationDate Text affectedBS EN 16164:2013EUROPEAN STANDARD NORME EUROPENNE EUROPISCHE NORM EN 16164 January 2013 ICS 13.060.99 English Version Water quality - Guidance standard for designing and s
5、electing taxonomic keys Qualit de leau - Guide pour la conception et le choix des cls taxonomiques Wasserbeschaffenheit - Anleitung zur Gestaltung und Auswahl von taxonomischen Bestimmungsschlsseln This European Standard was approved by CEN on 24 November 2012. CEN members are bound to comply with t
6、he CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Manageme
7、nt Centre or to any CEN member. This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre has the same status
8、 as the official versions. CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
9、Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION COMIT EUROPEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPISCHES KOMITEE FR NORMUNG Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels 2013 CEN All rights of
10、exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members. Ref. No. EN 16164:2013: EBS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 2 Contents Page Foreword . 3 Introduction 4 1 Scope 5 2 Terms and definitions 5 3 Principles of biological identification 5 4 Requirements for taxonomic k
11、eys 5 4.1 General principles 5 4.2 Title and scope . 6 4.3 Characters 7 4.4 Layout . 7 4.5 Description of Morphology 7 4.5.1 Couplets . 7 4.5.2 Illustrations. 8 4.5.3 Binding . 9 4.6 Linguistics 9 5 Summarised criteria . 9 6 Glossary . 10 7 Synopsis of classification 10 8 Methods for collecting, pre
12、serving and examining samples . 11 9 Testing and validation of a key 11 Bibliography 12 BS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 3 Foreword This document (EN 16164:2013) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 230 “Water analysis”, the secretariat of which is held by DIN. This European Standard sha
13、ll be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by July 2013, and conflicting national standards shall be withdrawn at the latest by July 2013. Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document
14、may be the subject of patent rights. CEN and/or CENELEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organisations of the following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austr
15、ia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden
16、, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. BS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 4 Introduction The importance of ecology in new legislation such as the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) means, that ecological data from aquatic environments shall be of a known and verifiable quality. European
17、 Standards recognise the need for ecologists to use reliable and up-to-date taxonomic keys when performing their assessments. However, determining the most appropriate literature to use for any particular analysis is not always straightforward. This guidance standard is designed to provide an overvi
18、ew of the characteristics of a taxonomic key appropriate to applied ecological analyses. This has two goals: first, to help end-users to determine the most suitable taxonomic literature to use for a particular analysis and, second, to help those commissioning new identification guides to produce fit
19、-for-purpose specifications, and those writing keys to meet such specifications. It is important to state very clearly at the outset that the role of this document is not to replace but rather to complement the guidance on nomenclature and taxonomy given by ICBN 3 and ICZN 4. Identification material
20、s are increasingly being presented using electronic, rather than conventional printed, media. The general principles are the same, regardless of the media. BS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 5 1 Scope This European Standard defines standard principles for the design of taxonomic keys to ensure proper
21、 use of nomenclatural rules and reproducible and traceable identification. These principles also allow for the selection of the best key available. 2 Terms and definitions For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply. 2.1 accuracy correct identification of a specimen
22、to the relevant taxonomic category (e.g. family, genus, species) Note 1 to entry: The definition refers to the context of this European Standard. 2.2 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature ICBN official international taxonomic code for botany 2.3 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature I
23、CZN official international taxonomic code for zoology 2.4 nomenclatural rules rules for naming of organisms that are laid down in official taxonomic codes 2.5 traceable identification identification of a taxon which can be traced back to its original publication either directly or indirectly 3 Princ
24、iples of biological identification The objective of all biological identification is to assign the correct biological name to a specimen, irrespective of the amount of morphological or other variability shown by the taxon in question. This should be done as efficiently as possible, in order to minim
25、ise time and resources. Identification provides a link between a specimen of an organism and the original type specimen of that taxon. This is often one or more individuals of the species, preserved in a museum collection (or, in the case of many algae, an illustration), which has been described acc
26、ording to the rules of the ICBN or ICZN using text, measurements and illustrations. There are two methods of identifying organisms: by matching (pattern recognition) and by logical comparison (typically through the use of keys). The academic taxonomic literature often assumes that logical reasoning
27、is used exclusively but, in practice, most biologists use a combination of approaches: relying on memory for naming common organisms and a mix of pattern recognition and logical reasoning for the less common organisms. It is arguably the poor quality of identification literature that causes biologis
28、ts to switch from logical reasoning to pattern recognition. 4 Requirements for taxonomic keys 4.1 General principles Most identification guides assume that logical comparison plays a large part in the identification of organisms, and the guides have a key, or similar device, at their core. These wor
29、k by presenting users with a limited number of choices from which to choose either in sequence (dichotomous keys) or in parallel (multiaccess keys). The same principles apply, regardless of the type of key. BS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 6 Taxonomic keys are used to come to an accurate and reprod
30、ucible identification. Within this context, accurate is defined as the correct identification of all specimens of a taxonomic group likely to be encountered in a defined geographical region. Therefore, any lack of clarity which may lead to mis-identification should be anticipated at all taxonomic le
31、vels. Requirements for an appropriate identification guide include: keys appropriate to the geographic area under consideration; appropriate taxonomic level for the analysis in question; all known taxa from the region; written in a language familiar to the analyst. The key itself should provide: a c
32、learly defined title and scope (completeness of taxonomic group); robust characters; clear layout; clear language; complete glossary. The points mentioned above are especially relevant since academic taxonomists often write from the perspective of an expert and do not always empathise with the skill
33、s of those performing the analyses. These points are described in more detail below. 4.2 Title and scope An identification guide should be clear about the taxonomic groups and life stages covered, and the geographical scope of the guide. These should be reflected both in the title and, in more detai
34、l, in the introduction. EXAMPLE 1 Titles like “Chironomidae larvae of the Lowlands of Northwesttern Europe”, “Oligochaeta of North-West Europe” and “Chironomidae exuviae of the West Palaearctic Region” suggest a defined overview of the content. However, a number of terms within each title would need
35、 amplification in the introduction. Terms such as lowlands would need to be explained in more detail, whilst maps and text showing the limits of the authors understanding of North-West Europe and West Palaearctic would also be useful. On the other hand, it is often inappropriate to define the geogra
36、phical scope too precisely; firstly, because the geographical ranges of many species are themselves known only imprecisely and secondly, because the ranges of many species are changing. EXAMPLE 2 Two species of the Trichopertan genus Drusus have been recorded from the Netherlands: D. trifidus and D.
37、 annulatus. A third species, D. biguttatus is similar to D. annulatus and has been recorded from sites close to the Dutch border, though not yet from within the Netherlands. A Dutch Trichopteran key which made no reference at all to D. biguttatus runs the risk of users shoehorning specimens into D.
38、annulatus. A similar situation exists for the Mollusc genus Corbicula in Britain and Ireland. C. fluminea is described in “Freshwater Bivalves of Britain and Ireland”; however, C. fluminalis has not yet been recorded from Britain and Ireland and is omitted. Users may not realise that C. fluminalis i
39、s spreading throughout Europe and may, in time, also spread to Britain and Ireland. BS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 7 For this reason, authors should always produce an accurate description of the geographical region primarily covered by the key and illustrate it by a detailed map. In addition, all
40、 species recorded from the region should be mentioned in the key. Relevant species known from adjacent regions should be explicitly listed. If data are absent this should also be clearly mentioned. 4.3 Characters Choosing the best characters: How easy are they to describe? Are they appropriate for t
41、he potential users? Are they very fragile or easily damaged? Are they sex specific? Are they restricted or limited to particular regions? Are they restricted to particular seasons? Are they adult or juvenile? Use obvious characters even if they do not differentiate all specimens or do not define the
42、 taxon (e.g. habitat, markings, size). The use of characters requiring very high magnification or special preparations should be avoided where possible, and included only as a last resort. If such characters are essential then this should be mentioned as part of the description. 4.4 Layout The layou
43、t of the key should guarantee easy routing through the identification couplets enabling accurate identification in the minimum time. Layout comprises both typography and graphics. 4.5 Description of Morphology 4.5.1 Couplets 4.5.1.1 As far as possible, couplets in a dichotomous key (or choices in a
44、multi-access key) should be discrete and categorical in nature. Common and obvious taxa should be differentiated early in the key. Couplets should be simple and focus on those aspects of a taxons morphology that best distinguish it from similar taxa. The number of features which are not relevant sho
45、uld be limited. Avoid geographical and ecological characters within the body of the key itself as far as possible (although such information may, occasionally, be useful: for example, if all the taxa in one couplet are all endo-parasites and those in the other are free living). As far as possible, e
46、ach choice within a couplet should be based on positive attributes of the taxa in question and it is especially important to give clear guidance when the absence of a character is used to differentiate between taxa. The presence of an adipose fin, for example, is a useful means of recognising a Salm
47、onid fish. However, the absence of an adipose fin is only a useful taxonomic character of a non-Salmonid fish if the key contains a clear description (ideally alongside the couplet) showing what an adipose looks like and where, on the fish, it can be found, so that the user can be sure that s/he has
48、 recorded a genuine absence. It is useful to have illustrations of critical characteristics. BS EN 16164:2013EN 16164:2013 (E) 8 The step-wise routing through a key should be easily traced back to the origin. This can be accomplished by indicating the number of the last couplet especially when a ste
49、p involves more than one couplet. At the end of each key, reference should be made to a complete description of the identified taxon for final confirmation of the identification. All descriptions within a guide should be structured in the same way, to make it easy for users to find the information they require. Descriptions vary in format, but always start by giving the correct latin name of the taxon, along with the authority and year of publication, and consist of three further sections: 4.5.1.2 Morphological c
