New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS: A HISTORICAL BOTANICAL STANDPOINT

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.

Hope, W. D., and D. C. Murphy. A Taxonomic Hierarchy and Checklist of the Genera and Higher Taxa of Marine Nematodes. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, number 187, 101 pages, 1972.—The genera and higher taxa of free-living marine nematodes are presented in the form of a taxonomic hierarchy with an alphabetical list of doubtful genera, an alphabetized index to all taxa in the hierarchy, and a list of the literature cited. The hierarchy includes only those orders of the Class Adenophorea whose representatives are predominately marine—namely, Enoplida, Chromadorida, Desmodorida, Desmoscolecida, Monhysterida, and Araeolaimida. Presentation of the classification in the form of a hierarchy is intended to provide the user with a comprehensive overview of taxonomic relationships. The data included with the name of each taxon are: (1) author and date of publication, (2) page number at which the description originally appeared, (3) synonyms and homonyms. In addition, the typespecies and synonyms, with author, date, and page number, are listed for each genus. The present authors have adopted largely the opinions of the most recent investigator of each taxon. In some of the more important instances, where the authors have found it necessary to exercise their own judgment or to apply the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the circumstances of these actions are discussed in the Introduction. Official publication date is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in tlie Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hope, W.D., 1935A taxonomic hierarchy and checklist of the genera and higher taxa of marine nematodes. (Smithsonian contributions to zoology, no. 137) Bibliography: p. 1. Nematoda. 2. Marine invertebrates. I. Murphy, D.G., 1934joint author. II. Title. III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian contributions to zoology, no. 137. QL1.S54 no. 137 [QL391.N4] 591'.08s [59.V.182'09162] 72-10077 For lale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402 Price S2 (paper cover)

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

The typographical layout of the present Draft conforms to that of the International code of botanical nomenclature (Tokyo Code) (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994, abbreviated ICBN hereafter) and therefore differs from the usual Taxon style, and also from that of the current editions of the International code of zoological nomenclature (Ride & al., London, 1985: the ICZN) and of the International code of nomenclature of bacteria (Lapage & al., Washington, 1992: the BC). The Draft does not yet include Recommendations, Notes, or Examples. For further relevant explanations, botanists may find it useful to refer to the Introductory comments by Greuter & Nicolson (in Taxon 45: 343-348. 1996), a document initially prepared for the benefit of members of the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature, now published in a slightly updated form. A set of explanatory Notes addressed to all biologists interested in nomenclatural matters is in preparation and expected to be ready for distribution at a half-day symposium on The New Bionomenclature at the Fifth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) in Budapest, 17-24 August 1996 (see Hawksworth in Taxon 44: 447-456. 1995). To help all interested biologists who wish to compare the proposed new rules with the corresponding entries in the current Codes (BC, ICBN, ICZN), cross-references

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.

At the beginning of the century of extinctions, science has only inventoried a very small proportion of the living species of the globe. In order to face the taxonomic urgency that results from this taxonomic gap combined with the biodiversity crisis, zootaxonomy needs efficient, rigorous and automatic nomenclatural Rules, that allow to spend a minimal time on nomenclatural problems—rather than investing time, energy and money in renaming millions of already named taxa in order to follow alternative nomenclatural systems, e.g., “phylogenetic” ones, that furthermore do not show theoretical superiority to the current Linnaean-Stricklandian one. The current Code, result of a 250-year improvement process, is based on very sound and healthy Rules, being theory-free regarding taxonomy, relying on objective allocation of nomina to taxa by a system of ostension using onomatophores, and on an objective basic Principle, priority, for recognizing the valid nomen of a taxon in case of synonymy or homonymy. Nevertheless, this nomenclatural system is certainly not perfect. It should be modified at least in nine directions: (1) it should adopt a technical terminology avoiding possible misinterpretations from outsiders of the field and even from specialists, and allowing a precise formalisation of its mode of functioning; (2) its plan should be drastically modified; (3) its Principles should be redefined, and some added; (4) material evidence for the allocation of nomina to taxa through specimens deposited in permanent collections should be given more weight; (5) it should incorporate all nomina of higher taxa, providing clear and strict universal Rules for their naming, whereas conserving the traditional nomina largely used in non-specialized systematic literature; (6) it should allow for the recognition of many more ranks at lower nomenclatural levels, i.e., just above genus, between genus and species, and below species; (7) it should provide much more stringent Rules for the protection against priority of “wellknown” nomina or sozonyms; (8) various “details” should be addressed, various Rules and Recommendations changed before a new edition of the Code is published; (9) the procedure of implementations of changes in the Code should be modified in order to involve zootaxonomists of the whole world in the decisions. In several instances, the Rules of the Code should become much more compulsory for all zoologists, editors and publishers, to avoid the publication of endless and sometimes most detrimental discussions among taxonomists which give a poor image of nomenclature and taxonomy among the biological sciences, such as bitter discussions about the “best” nomen to be used under a so-called “usage” philosophy, or about nomina to be applied to higher taxa. Code-compliance in zootaxonomic publications should be highlighted, and editors and publishers should require from authors who follow alternative nomenclatural Rules (or no rule at all) to make it clear by using particular modes of writing their nomina. It is argued here that if the Code of the 21st century does not evolve to incorporate these changes, it will prove unable to play its role in front of several important recent theoretical and practical developments of taxonomy and run the risk of being abandoned by a part of the international community of zootaxonomists. The latter could then adopt alternative “phylogenetic” nomenclatural Rules, despite the severe practical problems and theoretical flaws posed by such projects. This would be most detrimental for all comparative biological disciplines including systematics, and even for the unity of biology. In the course of this discussion, a few recommendations are given concerning the standards and guidelines suggested by recent authors for a good, modern, integrative taxonomy.

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).

THE International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature announces its intention of publishing at an early date a revised and up-to-date edition (1) of the "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature" and (2) of the "Official List of Generic Names in Zoology". The last edition of the English text of "The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature" was published some years before the War and is now out of date for various reasons, including the adoption by the International Congress of Zoology of changes in some of the Articles in the International Code. The revised edition will consist of the substantive French text (on left-hand pages) and the English translation (on right-hand pages). The volume, which will be fully indexed, will also contain a detailed analysis of all the "Opinions" so far rendered by the International Commission in regard to the interpretation of the provisions of the Code. "The Official List of Generic Names in Zoology" was established by the International Congress of Zoology at its meeting at Monaco in 1913 for the purpose of recording full particulars relating to the names of the 5,000–10,000 best known and most important genera in the animal kingdom with their type species. So far, however, only about seven hundred names have been placed on the "Official List", due largely to the fact that the decisions taken by the International Commission have never hitherto been brought together in a single volume and with a full index. It is hoped that the "Official List" will now develop into a powerful instrument for stabilizing zoological nomenclature. It is hoped that its publication in book form will stimulate specialists to make proposals for the addition of other generic names important not only in systematic zoology but also in the applied sciences and in the teaching of zoology at the universities.

BackgroundIn order to designate the various concepts of taxa in biology, evolution and paleontology, scientists have developed various rules on how to create unique names for taxa. Different Codes of Nomenclature have been developed for animals, plants, fungi, bacteria etc., with standard sets of Rules that govern the formation, publication and application of the nomina of extant and extinct species. These Codes are the result of decades of discussions, workshops, publications and revisions. The structure and complexity of these Codes have been criticized many times by zoologists. This project aims, using the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as a case study, to show that the structure of these Codes is better reflected and understood as networks.MethodsThe majority of the text of the Code has been divided into hundreds of Nodes of different types, connected to each other with different types of Edges to form a network. The various mathematical descriptors of the entire system, as well as for the elements of the network, have been conceptually framed to help describing and understanding the Code as a network.ResultsThe network of the Code comprises 1,379 Nodes, which are connected with 11,276 Edges. The structure of the Code can be accurately described as a network, a mathematical structure that is better suited than any kind of linear text publication to reflect its structure.DiscussionThinking of the Code as a network allows a better, in-depth understanding of the Code itself, as the user can navigate in a more efficient way, as well as to depict and analyze all the implied connections between the various parts of the Code that are not visible immediately. The network of the Code is an open access tool that could also help teaching, using and disseminating the Code. More importantly, this network is a powerful tool that allows identifying a priori the parts of the Code that could be potentially affected by upcoming amendment and revisions. This kind of analysis is not limited to nomenclature, as it could be applied to other fields that use complex textbooks with long editing history, such as Law, Medicine and Linguistics.