Corrigendum

This book inventories all available (and some unavailable) names in the family, genus, and species groups of extant members of orders Actiniaria and Corallimorpharia [cnidarian subclass Hexacorallia (Zoantharia) of class Anthozoa], providing a benchmark of names, their status, and taxon membership. I have attempted to make the compilation complete as of 2010; some names created after 2010 are included. The book is derived from a database I compiled that was available through a website. Most of the book is from the literature that defines taxa and documents their geographic distribution-primarily publications on nomenclature, taxonomy, and biogeography, but also some on ecology, pharmacology, reproductive biology, physiology, etc. of anemones (the common name for these groups); the reference section comprises 845 entries. As for previous anemone catalogs, this contains taxonomic as well as nomenclatural information, the former based on subjective opinion of working biologists, the latter objectively verifiable and unchanging (except by action of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). Each family-group name, genus-group name, and original combination for species-group names has an entry. The entry contains the bibliographic reference to the publication in which each name was made available. This book contains for Corallimorpharia seven family names (four considered valid [57%]), 20 generic names (10 considered valid [50%] and one unavailable), and 65 species names (46 considered valid [70%]). It contains for Actiniaria 86 family names (50 considered valid [58%] and three unavailable), 447 generic names (264 considered valid [59%] and two unavailable), and 1427 species names (1101 considered valid [77%] and nine unavailable). Type specimens are inventoried from more than 50 natural history museums in Africa, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and North America, including those with the largest collections of anemones; the geographic sources of specimens that were the bases of new names are identified. I resolve some nomenclatural issues, acting as First Reviser. A few taxonomic opinions are published for the first time. I have been unable to resolve a small number of problematic names having both nomenclatural and taxonomic problems. Molecular phylogenetic analyses are changing assignment of genera to families and species to genera. Systematics may change, but the basics of nomenclature remain unchanged in face of such alterations. All actions are in accord with the principles of nomenclature enunciated in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. These include the type concept, the Principle of Coordination, and the Principle of Priority. Nomenclatural acts include the creation of new replacement names; seven actiniarian generic names and one species name that are junior homonyms but have been treated as valid are replaced and an eighth new genus name is created. I designate type species for two genera. Except for published misspellings, names are rendered correctly according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; I have altered spelling of some species names to conform to orthographic regulations. I place several species that had been assigned to genera now considered junior synonyms in the genus to which the type species was moved; experts on these anemones should determine whether those generic placements, which follow the nomenclatural rules, are taxonomically appropriate. This inventory can be a useful starting point in assembling the literature and trying to understand the rationale for the creation and use of names for the taxonomic matters yet to be resolved. Some nomenclatural conundra will not be resolved until taxonomic uncertainties are. A taxonomist familiar with the animals needs to ascertain whether the published synonymies are justified. If so, the senior synonym should be used, which, in many instances, will involve determining the proper generic assignment of the species and the correct rendering of the name; if changing the name would be disruptive, retaining the junior name would require an appeal to the Commission (Code Article 23.11).

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. Editorial Committee: N. R. Stoll (Chairman), R. Ph. Dollfus, J. Forest, N. D. Riley, C. W. Sabrosky, C. W. Wright and R. V. Melville (Secretary). Published for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Pp. i-xvii + 1 + 176, 8 vo, cloth. Published [6 November] 1961. Obtainable from Int. Trust for Zool. Nomenclature, 19 Belgrave Square, London, S.W. 1, England. Price, $3.00 postpaid. Get access International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. Editorial Committee: N. R. Stoll (Chairman), R. Ph. Dollfus, J. Forest, N. D. Riley, C. W. Sabrosky, C. W. Wright and R. V. Melville (Secretary). Published for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Pp, i-xvii + 1 + 176, 8 vo, cloth. Published [6 November] 1961. Obtainable from Int. Trust for Zool. Nomenclature, 19 Belgrave Square, London, S.W. 1, England. Price, $3.00 postpaid. E. Raymond Hall E. Raymond Hall Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 43, Issue 2, 29 May 1962, Pages 284–286, https://doi.org/10.2307/1377122 Published: 29 May 1962

Journal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologyVolume 65, Issue 2 p. 290-290 CorrigendumFree Access Corrigendum to ″Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. is the Molecular Sister of the Large Oxytrichid Clade (Ciliophora, Hypotricha) by Foissner et al. 2014″ This article corrects the following: Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. is the Molecular Sister of the Large Oxytrichid Clade (Ciliophora, Hypotricha) Wilhelm Foissner, Sabine Filker, Thorsten Stoeck, Volume 61Issue 1Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology pages: 61-74 First Published online: December 10, 2013 First published: 20 November 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12481AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat In the article: Foissner, W., Filker, S., and Stoeck T. 2014. Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. is the Molecular Sister of the Large Oxytrichid Clade (Ciliophora, Hypotricha). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 61(1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12087, the ZooBank registration number was omitted. Foissner et al. (2014) described the morphology, ontogeny, and phylogeny of a new Schmidingerothrix species in this electronic-only journal. Since the electronic article does not contain ZooBank registration, it is not published (available) with respect to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999, 2012, Articles 8.5, 9.11). However, such work likely remains available as source for further purposes, similar to a suppressed work (ICZN 1999, Article 8.7.1). To become available, Schmidingerothrix salinarum must be registered in ZooBank (ICZN 2012). ZooBank registration http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:33751519-8DAB-42CD-814E-C72926D5E39F Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. (Table 2 and Fig. 1A–L, 2A–M, 3A–D, 4A–H, 5, 6A–F, 7A–I, 8A–D in Foissner et al. 2014) Diagnosis (from Foissner et al. 2014, p. 73). Size in vivo about 95 × 17 μm. Body slender (~5.5:1), usually widest in mid-portion, with short but distinct tail. Four macronuclear nodules, forming a series near right margin of cell; zero to two micronuclei. Cortical granules in loose rows, colorless, about 1 μm across. Three frontal cirri and three frontoventral cirral rows. Frontal cirrus 1 subapical close to ventral part of adoral zone of membranelles. Frontoventral row 1 composed of an average of four cirri; row 2 of 18 cirri; row 3 of five cirri. Right marginal row composed of an average of 23 cirri, left of 17. Adoral zone about 32% of body length, composed of an average of three frontal and 21 ventral membranelles. Endoral membrane 12 μm long on average. Type locality. Solar saltern in the Ria Formosa National Park near to the town of Faro, Portugal, W7°57′41.0684″, N37°00′29.4851″. Type material. The holotype slide and two paratype slides with protargol-impregnated specimens and two paratype slides with hematoxylin-stained cells have been deposited in the Biologiezentrum of the Oberösterreichische Landesmuseum in Linz (LI), Austria, reg. no. 2013/33–37. Relevant specimens have been marked by black ink circles on the coverslip. Etymology. See same section in Foissner et al. (2014, p. 74). Morphology of Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. See same section in Foissner et al. (2014, p. 63, Table 2, and Fig. 1A–L, 2A–M, 3A–D, 4A–H). Molecular phylogeny. See same section in Foissner et al. (2014). GenBank accession number. KC991098 (SSU rDNA; length 1,769 bp; GC content 45.11%). Ontogenesis of Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. See same section in Foissner et al. (2014, p. 67 and Fig. 6A–F, 7A–H, 8A–D). Discussion. For comparison of Schmidingerothrix salinarum Foissner et al., 2017 with S. extraordinaria Foissner, 2012, type of the genus, see same section in Foissner et al. (2014, p. 72). Remarks: In future, this species has to be cited as “Schmidingerothrix salinarum Foissner, Filker & Stoeck, 2017” (for justification, see introduction). Literature Cited Foissner, W. 2012. Schmidingerothrix extraordinaria nov. gen., nov. spec., a secondarily oligomerized hypotrich (Ciliophora, Hypotricha, Schmidingerotrichidae nov. fam.) from hypersaline soils of Africa. Eur. J. Protistol., 48: 237– 251. Foissner, W., Filker, S. & Stoeck, T. 2014. Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. is the molecular sister of the large oxytrichid clade (Ciliophora, Hypotricha). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 61: 61– 74. ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, 306 p. ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature) 2012. Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. Bull. Zool. Nom., 69: 161– 169. Volume65, Issue2March/April 2018Pages 290-290 ReferencesRelatedInformation

A group of 19 authors (Dubois et al. 2013) recently raised concerns about the latest Amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 2012a,b,c), that allows new names and other nomenclatural acts to gain legislative acceptance (become “available”) from publications issued and distributed electronically. Two editorials by publishers have already responded to some of the concerns (Anonymous 2013, Harold et al. 2013); some others will be dealt with here. Technological advances in electronic scientific communication have had a dramatic effect on scientific research and publication in recent years. Addressing this, and following a four-year period of public discussion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) voted to accept an Amendment to the 4th edition of the Code, thereby adapting the rules of zoological nomenclature to new realities of publication media and methods (ICZN 2012a,b,c). The Amendment dealt with the most important issues of publishing in an electronic world, but in all transitional times new regulatory guidelines may have difficulties keeping up with the rate of change. As mentioned by Harold et al. 2013, the “devil may be in the detail”, but it is a process that must nevertheless be started. The ICZN encourages all interested individuals and groups to participate in the discussion leading up to the 5th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, whether by the ICZN e-mail discussion list, the 5th edition Wiki, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or through other media, to help make the next edition satisfy the needs of the community.

Following four years of highly charged debate the rules for publication of scientific names of animals have been changed to allow electronic publications to meet the requirements of the stringent International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. In a landmark decision, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) has passed an amendment to its rules that will accept an electronic-only publication as ‘legitimate’ if it meets criteria of archiving and the publication is registered on the ICZN’s official online registry, ZooBank. A brief discussion of the amendment is available from: Zootaxa : http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/list/2012/3450.html Zookeys: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/3944/

Zoological nomenclature is the obligate medium by which we communicate taxonomic information, and a series of precise nomenclatural rules are designed to minimize confusion and ambiguity. The longest used, internationally applicable system of nomenclature is “Linnaean Nomenclature” (LN) (Polaszek & Wilson 2005), which has provided a stable platform capable of simultaneously designating discrete taxa and conveying their phylogenetic relationships, through the use of scientific names (nomina; Dubois 2000). Precise adherence to the rules of nomenclature as defined by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is all the more important today when zoologists have millions of taxa to name. The recent importation of exogenous practices into LN is both confusing and inacceptable under the rules of the ICZN. Such practices include the use of a prefix Pan- in the family-series nomenclature. The nomenclature of all taxa from rank subspecies to superfamily is regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN Code; Anonymous 1999). This means that all zoologists who endorse LN should use nomina complying with the rules of the ICZN Code for taxa of all ranks, including those from superfamily to subtribe and additional intermediate ranks of the nominal family group, also called family-series. However, some recent publications using LN do not follow the ICZN Code in several respects, concerning in particular (1) the rules of formation of nomina and (2) their authorship and date. Recent articles involving fossil birds (Smith 2011, 2013; Smith & Mayr 2013), explicitly or implicitly following the ICZN Code, illustrate both problems, representative of these recent practices. We wish to emphasize that our comments are in no way criticisms directed toward the core information of these studies, otherwise extremely useful, but rather a more general and formal invitation to follow more closely the ICZN Code. We found few other published examples of similar practice concerning birds (“Pan-Apodidae” in Mayr & Manegold 2002, also used by Ksepka et al. 2013; “Pan-Trochilidae” in Mayr & Manegold 2002 and Mayr 2007; “Pan-Hemiprocnidae” in Mayr & Manegold 2002; for articles published in a LN frame). We use hereafter the “Pan-Alcidae” example.

We recently established the leafhopper genus Tricella with the type species Tricella antonellae from Ecuador (Catalano & Dietrich 2017). Unfortunately, Tricella n.gen is junior homonym of Tricella Daniels, 1975 (Diptera). Therefore, we propose a new replacement name Carpaneura nom. nov. for Tricella Catalano & Dietrich, 2017 as required by Article 60 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The genus is named in honor of the first author's husband, Pablo Carpane. The name combines his family name with the suffix of the type genus of the tribe and is treated as a feminine noun. Replacement of the junior homonym also requires the following new combination for the originally designated type species: Carpaneura antonellae (Catalano & Dietrich), comb. nov.

1.1.3 Nomenclatorial problems in usage of some family and genus names

Taxonomy sensu lato is lately regaining some of its previous prominence in many biodiversity information-related activities and projects, notably for the needed taxonomic backbone in the EU Research Intrastructure Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) (Woodburn et al. 2022), or in training programs such as Transforming European Taxonomy through Training, Research, and Innovations (Tettris). However, the increased visibility has yet to happen for α-taxonomy, which is focused on performing revisions and describing and naming new species. The so-called taxonomic impediment (Engel et al. 2021) remains acute, with fewer and fewer experts available for a wide range of taxa, and a progressive erosion of the specialized expertise needed to document biodiversity. When describing a new species or revising a taxon, respecting the naming conventions governed by the official nomenclatural Codes is essential. There are five Codes currently aknowledged, such as the ICN — International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plant, the ICZN — International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, ICNP — International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, ICNCP — International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants and ICTV Code — International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. However, the complexity of the Codes and the long learning curve can act as a barrier, discouraging early career scientists from engaging in α-taxonomy. Modernising or introducing changes to the existing Codes also involves very strict and relatively lengthy procedures, making it difficult to keep up with technological changes. To overcome these issues, and find common ground, Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) (with the support of the TDWG Partnerships and Fundraising Sub-Committee) and the ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The document is available on the TDWG website*1. The ultimate goal of this MoU is to incorporate correct terminology for zoological nomenclature into TDWG standards with appropriate controlled vocabularies and definitions. It also intends to explore how nomenclature, alongside taxonomy, can be incorporated into biodiversity informatics research projects to attract a new generation of α-taxonomists, and reconnect with the roots of TDWG. This will involve developing tools andapplications and channel the use of software and AI to support new species descriptions and revisions that comply with the Codes of nomenclature. It should also involve organising training sessions dedicated to nomenclatural concepts and encouraging the development of enriched taxonomic publications. Another priority is to strengthen mentoring networks so that early-career researchers can learn directly from experienced taxonomists, ensuring that knowledge of best practices is passed on. This expended to all nomenclatural codes beyond the zoological example discussed here. A coordinated effort between nomenclatural authorities and biodiversity informatics specialists is essential to safeguard and advance online taxonomy. By combining robust standards, innovative technologies, and targeted capacity-building, the community can ensure accurate and efficient species documentation. These actions will hopefully inspirenew generations to explore, describe, and protect world's diversity.

Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life

A revised taxonomy of Cenozoic radiolarian families is of particular importance because exhaustive molecular phylogenetic analyses for Collodaria, Entactinaria, Nassellaria and Spumellaria have shown high level of confidence at family or higher taxonomic ranks. In this sense, this study presents a new comprehensive taxonomy at the family level that integrated a classification based on ribosomal taxonomic marker genes (rDNA) and classical morphological taxonomy. However, many family names commonly used in Cenozoic radiolarians (Polycystinea) are derived from genera whose type species were never illustrated at the time of the generic definition. Obviously, in the vast majority of those cases, the “Principle of Typification” regulated in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999: Art. 61) cannot be logically applied. This has contributed to a century-long misunderstanding about the validity of Cenozoic taxa (species, genera and/or family-group names) erected without any illustration or drawing of their types, in particular the huge contribution of Ernst Haeckel from samples of the Challenger expedition (1872-1876). Reexamination of Haeckel's collection definitively confirmed that all the original types series (the specimens on which Haeckel established the nominal species-group taxon) being nonextant; in other words, all name-bearing specimens (the types) are restricted to the illustrations given in Haeckel's drawings. Because “types” in taxonomy are precious things, a nominal species-group taxon lacking at all of illustration (or indication to a repository) do not ensure the recognition of the species. Following the rules and recommendations of the ICZN, these names should be excluded from all nomenclatorial and taxonomical acts. This revision presents the state of the art of all proposed family-group names (with full synonymy lists) for Cenozoic Polycystinea.The list of family-group nominal taxa and their names was inventoried from 6694 publications (89% of the whole known references on radiolarians). The references were examined in order to clarify and fix the status of family names; hence these family-group names were rigidly classified as: valid, junior synonym, nomen dubium, nomen nudum, homonym, and invalid names. A total of 372 family-group names were proposed for the Cenozoic. These consist of 94 valid family-groups, 118 junior synonym family-groups, 111 nomen dubium family-groups (mainly artificially created in a hypothetical conceptual framework), 6 junior homonym family-groups, 19 nomen nudum family-groups, as well as 24 invalid names. In addition, one nomen novum et four new families are presented. The description of 25 families have been also emended.This study also outlines the advantages of an integrated approach to taxonomy of Polycystinea by the combination of both morphological and molecular systematics. Based on molecular phylogenetic studies, the systematic classification proposed at suprageneric level is arranged as follows:a) Order Spumellaria: three Phylogenetic Molecular Lineages (PM Lineages = suborders), 13 superfamilies and 42 families;b) Order Entactinaria: one PM Lineage, five superfamilies and nine families;c) Order Nassellaria: four PM Lineages, 16 superfamilies and 37 families;d) Order Collodaria: three superfamilies and six families.

Andrew Polaszek and colleagues propose an open-access web-register for animal names, which they believe is vital to move taxonomy into the twenty-first century. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the fourth edition is online at http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp ) was established to bring order to the naming of animal species. It is administered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), a body set up in 1895 to take on the task on behalf of all zoologists. In this issue of Nature, ICZN executive secretary Andrew Polaszek, together with representatives of many of the world's major natural history museums, argues the case for a major upgrade to the ‘Code’ for its next edition. ZooBank would be a web-based open-access resource, bolstered by mandatory registration for new names. ICZN has started a year-long consultation with a view to having ZooBank up and running for the 250th anniversary of Linnaeus' system of animal nomenclature in 2008.

224 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The following application dealing partly with Crustacea was published on 27 June 1991 in vol. 48 part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, pp. 107-134. Comment or advice on this application is invited for publication in the Bulletin and should be sent to the Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Case 2292. Histoire abr6g6e des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762): proposed conservation of some generic names (Crustacea and Insecta), by 1. M. Kerzhner, Zoological Institute, Academy

Sabine Steghaus-Kovac's News Focus article “Researchers cash in on personalized species names” (21 Jan., p. [421][1]) draws attention to BIOPAT, an organization formed by several well-known German institutions to promote the selling of new taxonomic names of animals and plants. BIOPAT's Web site carries illustrations of newly recognized species of (among other organisms) frogs, bees, and orchids and invites both individuals and corporations to name them for a fee of several thousand dollars per taxon. A similar plan already exists in Australia. Many thousands of new species are described and named every year, so the potential global income would be millions of dollars; the resource of names for cash is almost inexhaustible, even though many kinds of organisms would be unattractive to name-sponsors. We wish to make some comments on this situation. We are the president, past-president, and secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), but ICZN has not yet discussed the issue and we write in our personal capacities. However, ICZN has been asked to address the subject. BIOPAT plans to divide the revenue between the institution hosting the taxonomic research and biodiversity conservation efforts in the country from which the organism comes, but it seems likely that name-selling would soon spread to those whose intention is simply their own financial gain. This has already occurred for some names of asteroids and stars, but those names do not have official international status and little harm is caused other than to the wealth of the “purchaser.” The situation is different for a biological taxon: The scientific name is the unique label that enables a species to be referred to without ambiguity. Name-selling could lead to spurious taxonomy because many vendors could “discover” species and invent genera for profit. To do so would be easy: compose a description of any animal or plant, designate a name-bearing type, ensure that the relevant code of nomenclature is complied with, advertise, and await offers. Although many such names would not be universally recognized, they would all irreversibly obscure science and hinder conservation efforts and other initiatives. We note that the authorship of names bestowed for cash might often give rise to nomenclatural uncertainty, especially because under the nomenclature codes, impersonal (corporate) authorship disqualifies a name from biological nomenclature. On the other hand, the temptation to sell names is understandable. The proposals of BIOPAT and others are a striking departure from scientific tradition, but they reflect, and attempt to provide some local relief from, a very real problem—namely, the financial difficulties faced not only by the institutions contemplating name-selling, but also by taxonomy and other branches of biology. We hope that these plans will be abandoned, but we also hope that, by their proposal, they will focus attention on the need for more orthodox and less harmful means of support. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5452.421

The PhyloCode: naming of biodiversity at a crossroads