Abstract
Abstract Self-published taxon descriptions, bereft of a basis of evidence, are a long-standing problem in taxonomy. The problem derives in part from the Principle of Priority in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which forces the use of the oldest available nomen irrespective of scientific merit. This provides a route to ‘immortality’ for unscrupulous individuals through the mass-naming of taxa without scientific basis, a phenomenon referred to as taxonomic vandalism. Following a flood of unscientific taxon namings, in 2013 a group of concerned herpetologists organized a widely supported, community-based campaign to treat these nomina as lying outside the permanent scientific record, and to ignore and overwrite them as appropriate. Here, we review the impact of these proposals over the past 8 years. We identified 59 instances of unscientific names being set aside and overwritten with science-based names (here termed aspidonyms), and 1087 uses of these aspidonyms, compared to one instance of preference for the overwritten names. This shows that when there is widespread consultation and agreement across affected research communities, setting aside certain provisions of the Code can constitute an effective last resort defence against taxonomic vandalism and enhance the universality and stability of the scientific nomenclature.
Highlights
The highly regarded evolutionary biologist and conservationist E
The impact of these recommendations on the stability and universality of the scientific nomenclature of reptiles and amphibians. We address this through surveys of the literature based on explicit, repeatable search criteria, designed to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent, in terms of establishment of taxon names and their subsequent usage, has the herpetological community rallied behind the recommendations of Kaiser et al (2013)? (2) Have the recommendations of Kaiser et al led to potentially confusing parallel systems of nomenclature, as feared by some critics, or has it produced a stable, sciencebased nomenclature?
Our analyses reveal a pattern of virtually unanimous acceptance by the herpetological community of the proposals of the ‘Kaiser Veto’, as the Kaiser et al (2013) paper was dubbed by Hoser (2014)
Summary
The highly regarded evolutionary biologist and conservationist E. The impact of these recommendations on the stability and universality of the scientific nomenclature of reptiles and amphibians We address this through surveys of the literature based on explicit, repeatable search criteria, designed to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent, in terms of establishment of taxon names and their subsequent usage, has the herpetological community rallied behind the recommendations of Kaiser et al (2013)? We did not find a single case where ‘Broghammerus’ was explicitly used as the valid name in preference to Malayopython
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
