A critique of the use of species and below-species taxonomic terms for viruses-time for change?

The International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) regulates assignment and names of virus species and higher taxa through its taxonomy proposal and ratification process. Despite using similar taxonomic ranks to those used elsewhere in biology, the ICTV has maintained the principle that species and other taxa are strictly categories with a formal nomenclature, whereas the viruses as objects are referenced through a parallel inventory of community-assigned virus names. This is strikingly different from common and scientific name synonyms for species used elsewhere in biology. The recent introduction of binomial names for virus species resembling biological scientific names has intensified this confusion in terms within the virology community and beyond. The ICTV taxonomy furthermore does not engage with or regulate classification below species and consequently lacks taxonomic terms or descriptions for important viral pathogens such as polioviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2, HIV-1, and avian influenza as examples. The consequent reliance on community-adopted virus names, genotypes, and other categories often lacks clarity for clinical, biocontainment, and other regulatory purposes. This article proposes a revision of rules and procedures for species and below-species level classification. It recasts virus and virus species names as 'common' and 'scientific' names that are used in other biology nomenclature codes, each with expanded reference to both object and taxon. It further advocates the creation of a formal below-species taxonomic rank to define a new inventory of approved taxa and specified nomenclature below species. Adoption of the proposed changes will realign virus taxonomy with other biological nomenclatural codes and provide greater transparency and clarity in virology, medical, and regulatory fields.