Abstract
Intentional departures from Linnaean nomenclature are common, and are due to different causes, including deliberate refusal to obey a specific rule of the Code, full rejection of Linnaean nomenclature in favour of an alternative system, use of formulae for special kinds of organisms and especially the use of informal names, or formulae, for kinds of organisms provisionally recognized as corresponding to still undescribed species, whose actual description and naming are reserved for a subsequent study. Special attention should be paid to the mixed usage of names and formulae in the BOLD and GenBank databases. Save for BINs in the BOLD databases, that are an excellent example of how to create and use non-Linnaean formulae for segments of biological diversity, the other kinds of grey nomenclature are seriously faulty in three respects: first, the lack of rules for the creation and usage of these names or formulae precludes unambiguous understanding of what the name or formula is for; second, it is often unclear, especially in database entries, if the alphanumeric specifiers added to a genus name, or even to a Linnaean binomen, are intended to provide unambiguous labelling of a single specimen, or of a taxon, or both; third, and most important, because of the subjectivity of the criteria according to which these non-Linnaean names are created and used, it is generally impossible to compare them across studies, or databases. When using names (or formulae) other than Linnaean binomens, it should be always made clear what the label is intended for. This requires an international agreement on a small set of simple, clear principles, fixing the standard format for each of the objects we need to distinguish, starting with the definition of a number of standard formats for the different kinds of objects (or hypotheses) we need to label, such as individual, species, undescribed new species.
Highlights
Intentional departures from Linnaean nomenclature are common, and are due to different causes, including deliberate refusal to obey a specific rule of the Code, full rejection of Linnaean nomenclature in favour of an alternative system, use of formulae for special kinds of organisms and especially the use of informal names, or formulae, for kinds of organisms provisionally recognized as corresponding to still undescribed species, whose actual description and naming are reserved for a subsequent study
It is generally taken for granted that animal names used in the scientific literature and in professional databases are in agreement with the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999; hereinafter, the Code), except for occasional exceptions due to oversight or sloppiness
Pontohedyle species 1 through 9 of Jörger et al (2013) have been eventually described and named by Jörger et al (2013) who have followed the rules of the Code, despite the lack of morphological traits differentiating these cryptic new species from one another; the new taxa have been established based on diagnostic nucleotides in DNA sequences of four genetic markers and DNA samples have been preserved as holotypes
Summary
Some articles of the Code do not meet with universal favour and a few of them are intentionally violated by a number of zoologists. I will not discuss here comparatively arguments pro and against this rule; I will only mention, that gender agreement is systematically rejected by a sensible number of lepidopterists – not a symptom of inadequate familiarity with the Code, but the consequence of a deliberate rejection of this article. In their list of the gelechiid Lepidoptera of the Italian fauna, Huemer & Karsholt (1995) listed four species of the genus Isophrictis with specific epithets in feminine form and another two in masculine form, e.g. Isophrictis kefersteiniellus and Isophrictis anthemidella, while the first of these species had been originally described as Ypsolophus kefersteiniellus, the latter as Cleodora anthemidella.. In their list of the gelechiid Lepidoptera of the Italian fauna, Huemer & Karsholt (1995) listed four species of the genus Isophrictis with specific epithets in feminine form and another two in masculine form, e.g. Isophrictis kefersteiniellus and Isophrictis anthemidella, while the first of these species had been originally described as Ypsolophus kefersteiniellus, the latter as Cleodora anthemidella. Let‟s remark here, marginally, that one of the benefits of gender agreement is that you always (usually) know the ending of the specific name
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
