From Taxonomic Accuracy to Toxin Naming: A Welcome Dialogue in Toxicon
By Luis A. Roque | Arácnido Taxonomy
When I submitted my correspondence, “When tarantula venom comes from a misnamed spider: The importance of taxonomic accuracy in theraphosid toxinology,” to Toxicon, I hoped it would encourage a broader conversation. The purpose was to draw attention to a problem that benefits from the experience of people working across taxonomy, venom research, and biological databases.
Dr. Volker Herzig’s response, “The need for a unified toxin nomenclature for consistent toxin naming,” is precisely the kind of engagement I hoped to see. His contribution acknowledges the importance of identifying venom-source organisms accurately while bringing another essential question into focus: How do we maintain continuity in toxin names when taxonomy and our understanding of toxin function change?
Two connected challenges
My original correspondence focused on the biological source of venom. In tarantula toxinology, an incorrect identification or an inadequately documented specimen can leave uncertainty about which species actually supplied the material being studied. Voucher specimens, identification authorities, locality information, diagnostic photographs, and molecular evidence, where available, can help researchers evaluate and revisit those identifications.
Dr. Herzig agrees that accurate identification matters, extending that concern to all venomous and poisonous organisms. However, he argues that taxonomic documentation alone cannot resolve inconsistent toxin naming.
That distinction deserves attention.
A specimen can be correctly identified when a study is published and later receive a different scientific name following a taxonomic revision. Likewise, a toxin’s name may incorporate a description of its biological activity that becomes incomplete as further research reveals additional functions. Naming systems that depend on those changing details remain vulnerable to disruption, even when the original research was carefully documented.
Correctly identifying an organism and maintaining a stable identifier for its toxins are connected responsibilities, each requiring its own solution.
What Dr. Herzig proposes
In his response, Dr. Herzig discusses the limitations of the rational nomenclature introduced for peptide toxins in 2008. Although that framework brought structure to toxin naming, its incorporation of taxonomic and activity-related information leaves names susceptible to subsequent changes.
He advocates the toxin-ID nomenclature, which he proposed in 2025, as a framework designed to remain stable through taxonomic changes below the class level and revisions to our understanding of toxin pharmacology. He also notes that its scope extends beyond proteinaceous toxins.
Putting that framework into practice requires an online repository capable of assigning and maintaining consistent identifiers. In the response, Dr. Herzig describes plans to implement toxin-ID nomenclature in ArachnoServer 4.0 for spider toxins, followed by broader coverage of other venomous arachnids in a future version.
These are proposed developments, but they provide a concrete direction for addressing the continuity problem he identifies.
Why this exchange matters
I welcome Dr. Herzig’s response, including his criticism that my correspondence did not address the underlying nomenclatural issue he considers central. Contributions like this give a discussion room to develop beyond the scope of its starting point.
From my perspective, the exchange brings two needs into clearer view: reliable evidence about the organism supplying the venom, and stable identifiers that allow researchers to follow toxin records through changes in names and knowledge. A stable toxin identifier cannot establish whether the source specimen was correctly identified. Equally, a well-documented specimen does not, by itself, prevent a toxin name from changing.
Both deserve attention if we want future studies to remain traceable and earlier findings to remain useful.
Taxonomic revision is also part of that process. As evidence improves, classifications change. The practical challenge is to preserve the connections among specimens, historical names, accepted identifications, and toxin records so that those revisions enrich the scientific record without obscuring it.
An invitation to continue
This is primarily why I wanted to initiate this dialogue: to encourage others to examine the problem, challenge the arguments, and contribute solutions from their own areas of expertise.
I am grateful to Dr. Herzig for engaging with the correspondence and bringing toxin nomenclature and database infrastructure into the discussion. I hope others working in taxonomy, venomics, toxinology, and biological data management will follow suit.
There is room here for practical contributions—from better documentation of venom-source specimens to clearer links between historical toxin names and persistent identifiers. Progress will depend on researchers across these fields helping those pieces work together.
The conversation has begun. I hope it continues.
References
Herzig, V. (2026). The need for a unified toxin nomenclature for consistent toxin naming. Toxicon, 284, Article 109318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2026.109318
Roque, L. A. (2026). When tarantula venom comes from a misnamed spider: The importance of taxonomic accuracy in theraphosid toxinology. Toxicon, Article 109262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2026.109262
Herzig, V. (2025). Introducing the toxin-ID nomenclature to enable storage of venom toxin data in online repositories. Toxicon, 267, Article 108592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2025.108592