JOURNAL POLICY ON NAMES OF AEDINE MOSQUITO GENERA AND SUBGENERA

BackgroundMosquitoes are vectors for diseases such as dengue, malaria and La Crosse virus that significantly impact the human population. When multiple mosquito species are present, the competition between species may alter population dynamics as well as disease spread. Two mosquito species, Aedes albopictus and Aedes triseriatus, both inhabit areas where La Crosse virus is found. Infection of Aedes albopictus by the parasite Ascogregarina taiwanensis and Aedes triseriatus by the parasite Ascogregarina barretti can decrease a mosquito’s fitness, respectively. In particular, the decrease in fitness of Aedes albopictus occurs through the impact of Ascogregarina taiwanensis on female fecundity, larval development rate, and larval mortality and may impact its initial competitive advantage over Aedes triseriatus during invasion.MethodsWe examine the effects of parasitism of gregarine parasites on Aedes albopictus and triseriatus population dynamics and competition with a focus on when Aedes albopictus is new to an area. We build a compartmental model including competition between Aedes albopictus and triseriatus while under parasitism of the gregarine parasites. Using parameters based on the literature, we simulate the dynamics and analyze the equilibrium population proportion of the two species. We consider the presence of both parasites and potential dilution effects.ResultsWe show that increased levels of parasitism in Aedes albopictus will decrease the initial competitive advantage of the species over Aedes triseriatus and increase the survivorship of Aedes triseriatus. We find Aedes albopictus is better able to invade when there is more extreme parasitism of Aedes triseriatus. Furthermore, although the transient dynamics differ, dilution of the parasite density through uptake by both species does not alter the equilibrium population sizes of either species.ConclusionsMosquito population dynamics are affected by many factors, such as abiotic factors (e.g. temperature and humidity) and competition between mosquito species. This is especially true when multiple mosquito species are vying to live in the same area. Knowledge of how population dynamics are affected by gregarine parasites among competing species can inform future mosquito control efforts and help prevent the spread of vector-borne disease.Graphical

The Mosquitoes of Eastern Tennessee: Studies on Abundance, Habitat Preferences, and Host-Seeking Behaviors

Is Myxomycetes (Amoebozoa) a Truly Ambiregnal Group? A Major Issue in Protist Nomenclature

This Editorial provides advice on how to upload information to ZooBank for manuscripts that include new taxonomic names. This is a requirement of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, to ensure that new taxonomic names are accepted as valid in electronic publication of manuscripts prior to print publication. Hence, the Journal of Fish Biology requires that the procedure outlined below is followed for any new taxonomic names. Amendment of Article 8 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2012 69, 161–169) requires that: Article 8.5. To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred. Accordingly, the Journal of Fish Biology requires that any manuscript dealing with the description of new species, genera or families, submitted to the journal, must be registered in ZooBank and the name of each new taxonomic name (e.g. new family, genus or species) should be added to ZooBank. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:XXXXXXXX-XXXXX-XXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX (a series of numbers and letters). urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX (a series of numbers and letters). Note the identification numbers for publications include ‘pub’ in the sequence number. The ZooBank identification number for the manuscript must be included in your manuscript on the title page of your manuscript submitted to the Journal of Fish Biology, following the author names and affiliations for your manuscript. The ZooBank identification number for each new species should appear at the start of the definition of the new taxon, as below: Aus bus, new species urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:XXXXXXXX-XXXXX-XXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX Figure 1; Tables I & II (While the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not require the species register numbers to be included in the electronic publication, the Journal of Fish Biology requests this information, to conform with protocols of several other taxonomic journals.) Once your manuscript has been published electronically, please ensure to update the status of your ZooBank record for the manuscript from ‘not yet published’ to ‘published.’ This will then ensure the name is publicly searchable in the ZooBank database. ZooBank has tutorial videos on all steps of the process (creating an account; registering a publication; then registering the new names in that publication): http://zoobank.org/VideoGuide/ We are grateful to C. Ferraris for bringing this information to our attention, and to M. DeJong (Cline Library, Northern Arizona University) for providing information about online archives that store the Journal of Fish Biology. I.J.H. is grateful to the American Museum of Natural History (Department of Ichthyology) for supporting Research Associate status.

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

Article 79 of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (henceforth Code) describes an official List of Available Names in Zoology (henceforth LAN), consisting of a series of “Parts” (of defined taxonomic and temporal scope), compiled by relevant experts. The LAN represents a comprehensive inventory of names available under the Code. The aim of this manual is to define a procedure for implementing Article 79, with format suggestions for zoologists aiming to create a Part of the LAN for family-group, genus-group, or species-group names in zoological nomenclature. Because the LAN may serve as an important basis for retrospective content in ZooBank, the structure outlined here is designed to allow easy importation to ZooBank. A Part ultimately adopted for the LAN will contain nomenclaturally available names but not necessarily all those within the scope of the Part: the comprehensiveness of the candidate Part is at the discretion of the experts proposing the Part. They may choose to include all nomenclaturally available names or use the proposal of a Part to pare away nomina dubia so they lose “status in zoological nomenclature despite any previous availability” (to quote Articles 10.7 and 79.4.3; that this was the intention of the framers of Article 79 is clear from the Preface to the Code). Nonetheless, we advocate that the proposing body include an inventory of all known names deemed to be available so it will be obvious that names not advocated for inclusion in the Part have not simply been overlooked. Because a candidate Part of the LAN is for an entire taxon at the specified rank and for the specified period, it must include the names of both living and fossil representatives of the taxon. In the proposal for adding a Part to the LAN, an unavailable name corresponding to a later available one should be included in the Remarks section of the available name. Unavailable names that have not subsequently been made available can be added at the end of the candidate Part, along with information explaining them. The Commission and reviewers of the candidate Part will thereby have a list of such names and an understanding of why they are not available. Moreover, these names can be discussed during the periods required by Article 79 for input by the zoological community, when change in their status can be advocated by members of the community interested in the taxon under consideration.

Various problems posed by the 2012 Amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are reviewed. They concern mainly the nomenclatural availability and the promulgation date of works published online and of the new nomina and nomenclatural acts they contain. A methodology is proposed for the analysis of these problems in many works published after 3 September 2012. A detailed survey of 120 herpetological online publications having nomenclatural implications is presented: 63 of them include unavailable nomina and nomenclatural acts, and 57 of them were made available through their printed versions at dates subsequent to that stated on their PDFs. Detailed proposals and recommendations to authors, editors and referees, publishers, libraries, and concerning the Code, Zoobank and the Commission, are offered to try to limit the negative impact of these problems in zootaxonomy.

NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS: A HISTORICAL BOTANICAL STANDPOINT

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

Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life

We are now over four decades into digitally managing the names of Earth's species. As the number of federating (i.e., software that brings together previously disparate projects under a common infrastructure, for example TaxonWorks) and aggregating (e.g., International Plant Name Index, Catalog of Life (CoL)) efforts increase, there remains an unmet need for both the migration forward of old data, and for the production of new, precise and comprehensive nomenclatural catalogs. Given this context, we provide an overview of how TaxonWorks seeks to contribute to this effort, and where it might evolve in the future. In TaxonWorks, when we talk about governed names and relationships, we mean it in the sense of existing international codes of nomenclature (e.g., the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)). More technically, nomenclature is defined as a set of objective assertions that describe the relationships between the names given to biological taxa and the rules that determine how those names are governed. It is critical to note that this is not the same thing as the relationship between a name and a biological entity, but rather nomenclature in TaxonWorks represents the details of the (governed) relationships between names. Rather than thinking of nomenclature as changing (a verb commonly used to express frustration with biological nomenclature), it is useful to think of nomenclature as a set of data points, which grows over time. For example, when synonymy happens, we do not erase the past, but rather record a new context for the name(s) in question. The biological concept changes, but the nomenclature (names) simply keeps adding up. Behind the scenes, nomenclature in TaxonWorks is represented by a set of nodes and edges, i.e., a mathematical graph, or network (e.g., Fig. 1). Most names (i.e., nodes in the network) are what TaxonWorks calls "protonyms," monomial epithets that are used to construct, for example, bionomial names (not to be confused with "protonym" sensu the ICZN). Protonyms are linked to other protonyms via relationships defined in NOMEN, an ontology that encodes governed rules of nomenclature. Within the system, all data, nodes and edges, can be cited, i.e., linked to a source and therefore anchored in time and tied to authorship, and annotated with a variety of annotation types (e.g., notes, confidence levels, tags). The actual building of the graphs is greatly simplified by multiple user-interfaces that allow scientists to review (e.g. Fig. 2), create, filter, and add to (again, not "change") the nomenclatural history. As in any complex knowledge-representation model, there are outlying scenarios, or edge cases that emerge, making certain human tasks more complex than others. TaxonWorks is no exception, it has limitations in terms of what and how some things can be represented. While many complex representations are hidden by simplified user-interfaces, some, for example, the handling of the ICZN's Family-group name, batch-loading of invalid relationships, and comparative syncing against external resources need more work to simplify the processes presently required to meet catalogers' needs. The depth at which TaxonWorks can capture nomenclature is only really valuable if it can be used by others. This is facilitated by the application programming interface (API) serving its data (https://api.taxonworks.org), serving text files, and by exports to standards like the emerging Catalog of Life Data Package. With reference to real-world problems, we illustrate different ways in which the API can be used, for example, as integrated into spreadsheets, through the use of command line scripts, and serve in the generation of public-facing websites. Behind all this effort are an increasing number of people recording help videos, developing documentation, and troubleshooting software and technical issues. Major contributions have come from developers at many skill levels, from high school to senior software engineers, illustrating that TaxonWorks leads in enabling both technical and domain-based contributions. The health and growth of this community is a key factor in TaxonWork's potential long-term impact in the effort to unify the names of Earth's species.

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.

This exchange stems from an on-going debate between advocates of crown clade (e.g., Gauthier et al., 1988; Rowe, 1988; Laurin, 1998) and those of apomorphybased (e.g., Ahlberg and Clack, 1998; Lee, 1999; Padian et al., 1999; Anderson, 2001) definitions of widely used taxon names (see Table 1 for a glossary of terms). Both types of definitions have advantages: apomorphy-based definitions usually retain a composition of taxa similar to that proposed in most paleontological studies (Lee, 1999), whereas crown clade definitions correspond more closely to the usage of these names by comparative biologists working on extant taxa (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992; but see Bryant, 1994; Lee, 1996). Here, we concentrate on the name Tetrapoda, which has been the subject of recent discussion (Anderson, 2001, 2002; Laurin, 2002), but many of the arguments presented here could be applied to other widely used names, such as Mammalia, Aves, and Vertebrata. Laurin (1998, 2002) adopted the crown clade definition of the name Tetrapoda (the last common ancestor of amniotes and lissamphibians, and all its descendants) proposed by Gauthier et al. (1988). Anderson (2002) objected to the crown clade definition of Tetrapoda and, following Lee (1999), advocated adoption of an apomorphy-based definition of this name (the first sarcopterygian to have possessed digits homologous with those in Homo sapiens, and all its descendants). The following exchange is aimed at clarifying the respective advantages of both types of definitions. Established usage of taxon names is important because the systematic community will soon define many widely used names, and the PhyloCode (Cantino and de Queiroz, 2000) recommends, when defining a name, to disrupt current and historical usage as little as possible (Recommendations 10A, 11A). Furthermore, as stated by Anderson (2002: 824), “the PhyloCode provides mechanisms for the amendment (Article 13) or suppression (Article 15) of definitions with priority if they should contravene long accepted usage and thus create instability in nomenclature.” These considerations are important because name definitions under the PhyloCode delimit taxa (i.e., determine their inclusiveness when applied in the context of a particular phylogenetic hypothesis), whereas definitions under traditional rank-based codes do not. Within the traditional rankbased nomenclature system, debates about the inclusiveness can go on indefinitely, whereas within the PhyloCode system, such debates will be minimized (given a particular phylogenetic hypothesis) after the International Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature (ICPN) determines which of two conflicting phylogenetic definitions, or names with the same definition, should be retained. The ICPN will have ruling authority (although we expect such actions will be rare if the rules of the PhyloCode are followed, similar to current practice under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), but it is more productive to discuss various competing definitions prior to the implementation of the PhyloCode. By ensuring that the most appropriate definition becomes established at the initiation of the PhyloCode system, much future controversy and ICPN action can be avoided. The case of the name Tetrapoda is not unique. Similar disagreements between proponents of crown clade and apomorphy-based definitions have involved several other widely used names, such as Aves (reviewed by Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001) and Mammalia (Rowe, 1988; Desui, 1991; Rowe and Gauthier, 1992; Wible and Hopson, 1995; Ji et al., 1999; Sidor, 2001). Thus, the current debate on the meaning of the word Tetrapoda can serve as a case study that may help with the resolution of similar disputes in the future. In this point–counterpoint, we debate four key issues related to the definition of the name Tetrapoda.

To the Editor: Our 2002 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases about nomenclature changes for organisms in the genus Pneumocystis (1) has been widely cited and probably will remain a source for persons seeking information about this subject. Therefore, we need to correct an error in 1 of the species names presented in our article and in the 1999 article by Frenkel (2) on which our article was based. In the 1999 article, Frenkel proposed that the species of Pneumocystis found in humans be named to honor the Czech parasitologist, Otto Jirovec. The 1999 article was his second proposal for this change. In 1976, he first named the human pathogen Pneumocystis jiroveci (3), at which time it was classified as a protozoan and therefore named according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. By 1999, it had become clear that the organisms in the genus Pneumocystis are fungi, which are named according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) (4). Differences between the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and ICBN resulted in the realization of an error in the species epithet proposed by Frenkel in 1999, and our 2002 article contained this error. Frenkel’s 1999 article should have modified the species epithet from “jiroveci” to “jirovecii,” (ICBN Articles 32.7 and 60.11 and Rec. 60C.1b). The correct and valid name under ICBN is Pneumocystis jirovecii. Redhead et al. further explain the basis for this correction (5).

Zoological nomenclature, the discipline of taxonomy responsible for managing the scientific names of animal taxa, takes its roots in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, and has been governed by an international Code since the beginning of the 20th century. Like any other scientific discipline, it has developed its own vocabulary, which has gotten increasingly complex with time. However, it sometimes lacks clarity in its terminology. New terms have been defined by various authors to reduce ambiguity or replace existing problematic terms. To make these new terms, but also terms used by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), accessible, an electronic Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) thesaurus was created, called Zoonom. Zoonom was built using an open-source thesaurus-making software, Opentheso. Opentheso complies with the most recent standards i.e., ISO 25964-1 (International Organization for Standardization 2011) and ISO 25964-2 (International Organization for Standardization 2013). The thesaurus is shared online through the LOTERRE platform (Linked Open TERminology REssources). SKOS is part of the Semantic Web family of standards and a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recommendation for controlled vocabularies and thesauri. It is itself based on the Web Ontology Language (OWL). See some applications of SKOS and semantic web for biodiversity in Larmande et al. 2013. Zoonom contains 920 terms (excluding terms from the same word families, like plurals), distributed within 794 concepts, 404 etymologies and 58 references. It is divided into 20 collections and covers every aspect of zoological nomenclature, from theoretical nomenclature to taxonomic publications. Find the link to a downloadable file in the description of Zoonom. The thesaurus can be used as a classical glossary, using the search bar, or in alphabetical order, but this is not its only feature. Gathering different terms under a single concept also offers the possibility of refining the terminologies, and thus accessing a less ambiguous equivalent term. A richly developed vocabulary enables better labeling of particular names or situations in databases, software, or in the context of Semantic Web. As an example, let’s focus on the concept of nomen dubium. It is defined by the Code as “a name of unknown or doubtful application” (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999). However, at least four different major categories of nomina dubia exist. Names attached to multiple types belonging to potentially different taxa; names attached to a problematic type; names attached to a non-identifiable type; and names not clearly available because their conditions of availability have not been checked. Concepts have been created to distinguish each of these situations: Synaptonym, Anaptonym, Nyctonym (Dubois 2011) and Aporioplonym. The nomenclatural treatment of these names varies. Some may need the designation of a neotype (nyctonym) or if relevant, lectotype (synaptonym); others may need a referral to the Commission, while some will stay dubious, or even end up being deemed unavailable (aporioplonym). The simple tagging “nomen dubium” gives little to no information about the exact status of the name, only implying that it is not valid. A better description of the scientific names in databases is beneficial both for information retrieval and intercommunication. Zoonom is destined to be updated at least once a year. Any relevant propositions of new concepts are highly welcomed. We are especially looking for terms widely used in a part of the taxonomic community, or associated with a particular taxon, but unknown or obscure outside of these applications. Crosslinking the common concepts with the NOMEN OWL ontology (Yoder et al. 2017) and Wikidata might be implimented in the near future. In conclusion, Zoonom should help provide a better understanding of zoological nomenclature and assist in the curation and management of databases by offering improved tags and definitions.