Nomenclatural comments on the authorship and orthography of Besserʼs Seriphidium (currently Artemisia, Asteraceae)

In formal virus taxonomy, the names of orders, families, subfamilies, and genera are always printed in italics and the first letters of the names are capitalized. Informal taxonomic names are not italicized or capitalized. For example, the informal names ‘vesiculovirus’, ‘rhabdovirus’ and ‘mononegavirus’ refer to a member of the genus Vesiculovirus, the family Rhabdoviridae, and the order Mononegavirales, respectively. This vernacular use of taxon levels poses no difficulty when referring to virus families whose names are clearly distinct from genus names. In 40 of the 71 virus families, however, the family name is derived from one of the genus names of this family (e.g., Coronaviridae from Coronavirus). This problem is particularly obvious for the 12 families of plant-infecting viruses, ten of which derive their names from a genus name. Furthermore, the genus name Parvovirus has served as basis for coining both the family (Parvoviridae) and subfamily names (Parvovirinae). In all these cases, the use of informal names such as parvovirus lacks precision as it remains unclear if what is referred to is a member of the family Parvoviridae or only a species of the subfamily Parvovirinae or the genus Parvovirus. If one has to make precise distinctions between the taxonomic categories in a description of a virus family or order, some authors ignore the aforementioned problem while others opt for the formal usage of the various taxonomic categories. Whereas this is not a problem when one refers only occasionally to a taxon level, the frequent use of formal virus taxonomy often appears somewhat awkward and clumsy. Therefore, there is a need for informal vernacular usage of taxonomic terms which not only can be used both as nouns and in adjectival forms but also precisely denote the various taxon levels. For all those families whose names have been derived from a genus name, the above mentioned problem could be solved by renaming all genera whose names served as the basis for coining the names of higher taxa, i.e., by analogy to the genus Orthobunyavirus in the family Bunyaviridae, the genus Potyvirus would be renamed ‘Orthopotyvirus’. Since this would violate the stability principle in taxonomy and is likely to meet considerable opposition, the aforementioned problem could be solved by coining suffixes for vernacular names that are derived from the suffixes used in formal virus taxonomy and, by definition, denote the various taxonomic categories. Therefore, the following taxon-specific suffixes are proposed for vernacular use:

The present paper is a by-product of the author's collaboration in the Index Nominum Genericorum project which has given him the pleasure of scrutinizing Io090 Pyrenomycete generic names. Not unexpectedly, several of these turned out to be problematic in different ways. As the ING-cards are not the proper place for nomenclatural expositions, it seems appropriate to publish a separate commentary. New lectotypes are proposed for some names and four names are proposed for conservation. The causes of the muddle are various: Several names have proven to be first published as nomina nuda, like Cryptovalsa Cesati & De Notaris, and Calospora, Fuckelia, Melanops, Melomastia, and Nitschkia, all published by Fuckel. In these cases we have to get hold of the first valid publication, not least because it can be decisive for the typification. Other names are, on the contrary, older than has been generally assumed, owing to their first publication being in more or less disregarded works. Among such books are a couple of Fries's, viz. Systema Orbis Vegetabilium (Gibbera), and Flora Scanica (Dothiora and Saccothecium). A kind of publications containing several new generic names are the exsiccatae, which fact has often been overlooked. Among those names are some early fallen into oblivion, like Ascoxyta and Xeilaria, both validly published in Madame Libert's Plantae Cryptogamicae, and further Hapalocystis, Microstoma, and Wuestneia, in Fuckel's Fungi Rhenani. But also well known generic names have without being noticed first seen the light of the day in exsiccatae, like Fuckel's Herpotrichia, Ohleria, and Phyllachora, in Fungi Rhenani, and Karsten's Rebentischia and Rhynchostoma, in Fungi Fenniae.

The plant later to be named E. brucei was discovered by James Bruce somewhere in the region of Lake Tana in 1770 or 1771. He obtained seeds of what he took to be the same species and, on his return to Europe in 1773, these were among those which, as he describes on p. 59-64 of vol. 5 of his 'Travels', were presented, in a rather confused state, to the King of France while he (Bruce) was sick and thought likely to die in Marseilles. After his return to London, Bruce (Travels 5: 65) published in 1790 a description and plate of his Erythrina under the amharic name 'Kuara' (Plate 3, opposite). Although this plate was wrongly cited by A. Richard in 1847 as E. tomentosa R. Brown ex A. Rich., Schweinfurth in 1868 pointed out that it was not that species but agreed with a flowering specimen collected by Steudner in the Gidda (Dschidda) valley NW. of Magdala. Schweinfurth accordingly described the new species as E. brucei, making the Steudner specimen the basis of his description of the leaves and flowers and using Bruce's plate and description for the fruits and seeds. Meanwhile one or more young plants had grown in Paris from the seed supplied by Bruce and these seem to have been given the garden name Erythrina abyssinica. As such they are mentioned by Lamarck in a note at the end of his treatment of the genus from which it does not appear that he intended to describe the plant as a species nor to differentiate it from other species of Erythrina but merely to mention its existence and that it had 'foliis ternatis latissimis caule aculeato'. It seems probable that this does not constitute valid publication of the binomial under the International Code. However, in 1825 De Candolle took up Lamarck's name and, using shoots obtained from a plant in the garden of the Petit Trianon in Paris grown from Bruce's seeds, described it as fully as possible from this sterile material, stating that it is a 'species non satis nota'. This certainly constitutes valid publication and E. abyssinica Lam. ex DC. is thus the oldest validly published binomial applied to any Ethiopian species of Erythrina, though antedated by the 'nomen nudum' E. tomentosa R. Brown. In 1846 Hochstetter described Chirocalyx tomentosus from a sheet of Schimper (1842) 531 and Ch. abyssinicus from another Schimper specimen collected near Djeladjeranne. In his choice of epithets Hochstetter followed Steudel who had previously identified these Schimper specimens as E. tomentosa R. Br. and E. abyssinica Lam. but with doubt, having seen neither Brown's plant nor Lamarck's. In 1847 A. Richard, independently of Hochstetter, described another sheet of Schimper (1842) 531 as E. tomentosa and a Quartin Dillon specimen collected at Add'erbati as E. abyssinica. Richard also expressed doubt about the identity of E. abyssinica Lam. with his plant but he had seen a sterile specimen from the Jardin des Plantes in Paris labelled E. abyssinica which added weight to his identification. Botanists are now agreed that both Hochstetter's and Richard's names all apply to tomentose and glabrescent forms of one and the same species and that this is distinct from E. brucei. But there has been no agreement as to whether it is conspecific with E. abyssinica Lam. On the one hand the shape of the leaflets

As pointed out by Davies & Brummitt (in Taxon 35: 883–884. 1986), the Code specifies only for the ranks of subfamily, tribe, or subtribe that names must be formed from a generic name (Art. 19.1 and 19.3). For other ranks of subdivisions of families, the Code, as now phrased, allows names that are not formed from a generic name: descriptive names. Davies & Brummitt mentioned the names Diandrae, Monandrae, Convolutae, and Duplicatae for groups in the Orchidaceae. However, Art. 10.9 (dealing with types of names of families and subdivisions of families) assumes that all names of families and subdivisions of families are formed from a generic name, excepting only nine family names (Art. 18.5) and one subfamily name (Art. 19.8). Therefore, Art. 10.9 and Art. 19 are in conflict. There appear to be three options to reconcile Art. 10.9 and Art. 19: (1) allow descriptive names of subdivisions of families to be untypified (as those in Art. 16.1); this would require making an exception to Art. 7.1 (and Art. 10.9); (2) alter Art. 10.9 to prescribe how descriptive names of subdivisions of families are to be typified; or (3) reconsider the proposal of Davies & Brummitt (l.c.: 884) to the Berlin Congress, in updated form. This last option seems simplest and least disruptive. At the Berlin Congress, the proposal of Davies & Brummitt was rejected; several attendees arguing that it would limit the use of informal names and clade names (in Englera 9: 71. 1989). Given that informal names and clade names are outside the remit of the Code, this seems an argument that should not be given undue weight (or any). “19.1. The name of a subdivision of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by adding the an appropriate termination (see Art. 19.3) -oideae instead of -aceae.” “19.3. The name of a tribe or subtribe is formed in the same manner as the name of a subfamily (Art. 19.1), except that the termination is -oideae for a subfamily, -eae for a tribe, and -inae (but not -virinae) for a subtribe.” This would disallow the descriptive names of subdivisions of families, mentioned by Davies & Brummitt. These descriptive names would hereby cease to be validly published (Art. 32.1), and would no longer be formal names (they can still be used as informal names, if so desired). There is the slight difficulty that Art. 19 specifies terminations at only three ranks, so that “the appropriate termination” would be too much, whereas “an appropriate termination” is not as specific as would be possible in the case of those three ranks. A further option would be to join Art. 19.3 to 19.1.

(106) Larix archangelica P. Lawson & C. Lawson, Agric. Man.: 389. 1836 [Gymnosp.: Pin.]. (107) Larix dahurica P. Lawson & C. Lawson, Agric. Man.: 389. 1836 [Gymnosp.: Pin.]. “IV. LARIX ARCHANGELICA—Archangel or Russian Larch. Native of the north of Russia. Seems a hardy, compact, but not vigorous grower.” “VI. LARIX DAHURICA—Dahurian Larch. Seems a stinted, bushy, and irregular grower; which characteristics it may, however, have partly acquired from being generally propagated by cuttings or layers. Native of Dahuria; from whence it was first introduced to Britain in 1827.” These Lawson names were generally considered nomina nuda by later authors, and thus they have not been taken into general use. The name Larix dahurica was validly published a few years later by Trautvetter (L. dahurica Turcz. ex Trautv., Pl. Imag. Descr. Fl. Russ. 7: 48, t. 32. 1846), and it was accepted by a number of authors in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. However, Trautvetter's name is not the earliest one available for the species in question, as the same species had been described as Abies gmelinii in 1845 by Ruprecht (Fl. Samojed. Cisural. in Beitr. Pflanzenk. Russ. Reiches 2: 56. 1845) and, consequently, by the second half of the 20th century Dahurian larch was generally known under the name L. gmelinii (e.g., Ostenfeld & Larsen in Biol. Meddel. Kongel. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. 9: 1–107. 1930; Chater in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 1: 29–35. 1964; Bobrov in Komarovskie Chteniya (Moscow & Leningrad) 25: 1–96. 1972; Khanminchun in Krasnoborov, Fl. Sibir. 1: 76–81. 1988; Koropachinskij in Kharkevich, Sosud. Rast. Sovetsk. Dal'nego Vostoka 4: 9–20. 1989; Moore in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur., ed. 2, 1: 37–44. 1993). The name Larix archangelica is referable to larch populations from the north of the European part of Russia (west of the Urals) that are often considered conspecific with Siberian larch (L. sibirica) (Bobrov in Fedorov, Fl. Evrop. Chasti S.S.S.R. 1: 100–116. 1974; Christensen in Jonsell, Fl. Nordica 1: 91–115. 2000). Only a few authors have recognized those populations as specifically distinct, doing so under the name L. sukaczewii Dylis (in Dokl. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 50: 489. 1946) (e.g., Ukhanov in Sokolov & Shishkin. Derev. Kustarnik. S.S.S.R. 1: 153–176. 1949). The general recognition of the two Lawson names as nomina nuda was challenged by Tsvelev (in Bot. Zhurn. 79(11): 90–91. 1994). He came to the conclusion that the descriptive statements associated with the names in question fulfilled the requirements for valid publication, and thus should be accepted as the earliest legitimate names at specific rank for Dahurian larch and Archangel larch. Tsvelev's publication resulted in the situation in which two conflicting opinions on the valid publication of the Lawson names coexist. The names are still not considered validly published in IPNI (https://ipni.org/), and they are not accepted either in the major taxonomic databases such as POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/), WFO (https://wfoplantlist.org/) or Euro+Med PlantBase (https://europlusmed.org/) (all accessed 18 Mar 2023) nor in such reference works as Fu & al. (in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 4: 11–52. 1999), Christensen (in Jonsell, Fl. Nordica 1: 91–115. 2000), Farjon (Handb. World's Conif. 2010), Urgamal & al. (Consp. Vasc. Pl. Mongol. 2014). The name L. gmelinii is still predominantly accepted for Dahurian larch in scientific publications, with approximately 11,600 publications indexed in Google Scholar (the number is limited to publications that appeared after 1995). Nevertheless, there is a growing number of publications that accept either one or both of the Lawson names. About 120 publications that appeared after 1995 (94 of them appeared after 2012) are listed in Google Scholar, and this number is likely incomplete. The Lawson names have been accepted, among others, in local floristic checklists (e.g., Gafurova, Sosud. Rast. Chuvashskoĭ Respubl. 2014), in regional floristic works (e.g., Orlova in Geltman & Tzvelev, Konsp. Fl. Vost. Evr. 1: 49–90. 2012; Malyshev in Bajkov, Konsp. Fl. Aziatsk. Ross.: 24–26. 2012), and in online resources such as Pan-Arctic Flora (http://panarcticflora.org/; accessed 18 Mar 2023). Some of the most recent examples of publications accepting at least one of the Lawson names are: Byalt & al. in Hortus Bot. 17: 103–138. 2022 (L. archangelica); Firsov & Fadeeva in Vestn. Udmurtskogo Univ., Ser. Biol. Nauki Zemle 32(2): 119–129. 2022 (L. archangelica); Sofronov & al. in Geogr. Nat. Resources 43: 50–58. 2022 (L. dahurica). Even if the number of authors accepting the Lawson names in question remains relatively small, it clearly indicates the existence of two conflicting opinions on the status of those names, and thus cannot be neglected. A binding decision on the descriptive statements associated with those two names will help to resolve this issue and to restore the nomenclatural stability. AK, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8704-4644

A brief history of the publication of Musci Alleghanienses, an exsiccata distributed by William Starling Sullivant in 1846, is outlined. An annotated list of 11 new species and one new variety of moss distributed in this exsiccata is presented. It is shown that names of 10 species were effectively published in a review of this exsiccata by Asa Gray in 1846, before 15 January, and only Leucophanes leanum Sull. [ ≡ Brothera leana (Sull.) Müll.Hal.] was validly published on 28 January 1846 on the corrected label of No. 172 in the exsiccata. In addition, the material distributed in No. 60, as an unnamed variety of Leskea polyantha Hedw. [ ≡ Pylaisia polyantha (Hedw.) Schimp.], was described in 1848 by Sullivant as a new species, Leskea tenuirostris Bruch & Schimp. ex Sull. [ ≡ Pylaisiadelpha tenuirostris (Bruch & Schimp. ex Sull.) W.R.Buck]. All these names of moss taxa described from the material distributed in Musci Alleghanienses, except one (Leptodon ohioensis Sull. [ ≡ Forsstroemia ohioensis (Sull.) Lindb.]), are lectotypified in the present paper and their current taxonomic status is indicated. Hypnum paludosum Sull., hom. illeg., distributed in No. 7 of the exsiccata, is discussed in detail and it has been proven that the epithet paludosum was legitimised in 1880 as Thuidium paludosum Rau & Herv. This species now belongs within Helodium Warnst., and it is shown that Elodium (Sull.) Austin, an orthographic variant of this conserved generic name, was invalidly published in 1870 in Musci Appalachiani. The material distributed in No. 50 in this exsiccata was named Hypnum deplanatum Schimp., and this is a nomen nudum, which was validated by Sullivant in 1848 as H. deplanatum Bruch & Schimp. ex Sull., not by Karl Müller Hallensis in 1851 as suggested in Index Muscorum. This name is lectotypified, and it currently refers to the widespread eastern North American species Taxiphyllum deplanatum (Sull.) M.Fleisch.

(2716) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Melanocenchris</i> against <i>Gracilea</i> (<i>Gramineae</i>)

(97) Request for a binding decision on the descriptive statement associated with <i>Aethionema kopetdaghi</i> (<i>Cruciferae</i>)

Daucus species vegetated in the island Dae-heug-san-do off the Korean Peninsula has been recorded as Daucus littoralis Sibth. et Sm. var. koreana Nakai, endemic to Korea in several flora. However, the name was revealed as a naked name, nomen nudum, because the valid publication and type specimens were found anywhere. Comparative observation on morphological characters between the Korean taxon of Daucus and D. littoralis reveals that the Korean vegetated in the island Dae-heug-san-do is not the D. littoralis, but the D. carota L. subsp. carota. The Korean name of the latter is designated newly as San-dang-geun. The new korean name, Seon-dang-geun, of the unrecorded taxon, D. carota subsp. maritimus (Lam.) Batt., is also given.

SummaryLonchitis aurita L. has proved to be a synonym of Pteris arborea L. Lonchitis hirsuta L. is the type of Lonchitis, and Anisosorus Trev. ex Maxon must be placed in synonymy under it.

In two recent accounts of the fern family Cyatheaceae in India (see below) two names that appeared in Wallich's A numerical list of dried specimens of plants and that previous authors had considered to be nomina nuda were considered to be validly published. As acceptance of these names questions the nature of the requirement for a “description” (Art. 38.1(a) of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), and hence has wider implications, a binding decision on their valid publication is needed. (79) Polypodium contaminans Wall., Numer. List: No. 320. 1829 Fraser-Jenkins & al. (Annot. Checkl. Indian Pterid. 1: 122. 2016) considered Polypodium contaminans Wall. (Numer. List: No. 320. 1829) to be a validly published name and treated Alsophila contaminans, published by Hooker (Sp. Fil. 1: 52. 1844), not as the first valid publication of a name with the epithet “contaminans”, but as a new combination based on Wallich's name. Wallich (l.c.) stated only “320 Polypod. contaminans Wall. in Herb. 1823 / Polypod. latebroso, Wall. valde affine / Arbor – Penang”, i.e., the nature of the similarity to P. latebrosum (also a tree fern) is not mentioned, and the only descriptive material is that the species is a tree. The term “diagnosis” is defined in Art. 38.2 of the ICN as “a statement of that which in the opinion of its author distinguishes a taxon from other taxa”. However, the descriptive statement associated with Polypodium contaminans cannot explain how to distinguish this species from others and it is certainly not acceptable as a diagnosis, and also, I believe, should not be considered a description satisfying the requirement of Art. 38.1(a). Polypodium contaminans Wall. was accepted as validly published by Kholia & Sinha (in Indian J. Forest. 39: 401–405. 2016), but Hassler & Schmitt (Checkl. Ferns Lycophytes World, https://worldplants.webarchiv.kit.edu/ferns/, last accessed 31 May 2019) did not accept the validity of Wallich's name. The species is currently known as Sphaeropteris glauca (Blume) R.M. Tryon (in Contr. Gray Herb. 200: 21. 1970), based on Chnoophora glauca Blume (Enum. Pl. Javae 2: 243. 1828), or, in Cyathea, as C. contaminans (Wall. ex Hook.) Copel. (in Philipp. J. Sci., C 4: 60. 1909), based on Alsophila contaminans Wall. ex Hook. (Sp. Fil. 1: 52. 1844), this author citation being the only nomenclatural matter affected by the issue of valid publication of Wallich's name. (80) Alsophila brunoniana Wall., Numer. List: No. 7073. 1832 Fraser-Jenkins & al. (Ferns Fern-allies Nepal 1: 154. 2015, l.c. 2016: 125), accepted Alsophila brunoniana Wall. (Numer. List No. 7073. 1832) as a validly published name as Wallich included the following statement in the protologue: “Alsophila Brunoniana Wall. (Caet. spec. n. 180, 318, 320, 329? 336 et 385) / Mt Sillet W.G. (Hujus filicis arborea caudex ped. 45 altus ab ampliss. Procuratione Brit. Ind. Orient Museum Britanico anno 1831 donatio).” Wallich thus reported that this tree fern was represented by the trunk of a tree about 45 feet or more in height, collected by William Gomez from “Mt Sillet” (the Khasi Hills in Assam, India; see http://wallich.rbge.info/node/17499) and donated to the British Museum (now Natural History Museum, London) in 1831. However, a trunk 45 feet (13.7 m) tall is not a diagnostic feature at species level as Alsophila spinulosa (Wall. ex Hook.) R.M. Tryon (l.c.: 32), for example, produces a trunk 5–15 m or sometimes more than 20 m (Zhang & Nishida in Fl. China 2–3: 136. 2013). Wallich's descriptive statement, i.e., length of trunk does not explain how to distinguish Alsophila brunoniana from other species and is not, therefore, acceptable as a diagnosis and, in my view, insufficient as a description. This species is currently known as Sphaeropteris brunoniana (Wall. ex Hook.) R.M. Tryon (l.c.: 21) or, in Cyathea, as C. brunoniana (Wall. ex Hook.) C.B. Clarke & Baker in J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 24: 409. 1888). The author citations given assume that Alsophila brunoniana was not validly published by Wallich, but by Hooker (l.c.). Nevertheless, it is also apparently arguable that these two descriptive statements by Wallich satisfy the requirement for a “description” as set out in Art. 38.1(a). Consequently, I request a binding decision on the descriptive statements associated with these two names. JM, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6127-2737 I sincerely thank Prof. J. McNeill (E) for critical reading, editing and improving this request.

The taxonomy of the Recent members of the crustacean subclass Pentastomida is based on nine accepted family names derived from 12 available names, 24 generic names derived from 37 available names (plus two incorrect subsequent spellings and one nomen nudum) and 124 accepted species names derived from 183 available names of which six remain incertae sedis as to their generic assignment. Compilation of this list has revealed that existing catalogues have included misspellings, wrong attributions and dates of the authors of taxa, and incorrectly nominated type-species. These are corrected here with reference to the original descriptions and diagnoses. Notably, all families except one were erected much earlier and by authors other than Fain (1961), who was credited by Martin & Davis (2001) and other authors before and afterwards with seven of the nine families they recognised. Other significant taxonomic anomalies are revealed. Raillietiellidae Sambon, 1922 is a senior synonym of Cephalobaenidae Heymons, 1922, the name in popular usage for the family including Cephalobaena Heymons, 1922 and Raillietiella Sambon, in Vaney & Sambon, 1910; here the two genera are placed in separate families following Almeida & Christoffersen (1999). Heymonsia Hett, 1934, considered a junior synonym of Raillietiella, is a nomen nudum. Raillietiella geckonis (Diesing, 1850) is a potential senior synonym of several SE Asian species of this genus. Raillietiella frenata Ali, Riley & Self, 1981 is a widely used species name but is a subjective junior synonym of R. hebitihamata Self & Kuntz, 1960 according to its own authors. Morphological and molecular evidence suggest that R. indica Gedoelst, 1921 is a subjective senior synonym of both species. The priority of Linguatulidae Haldeman, 1851 over Linguatulida Vogt, 1851, erected as a family in the same year, is established by applying the First Reviser rule. Linguatula serrata Frölich, 1789 is herein selected as the type-species of Prionoderma, making it an objective synonym of Linguatula Frölich, 1789. The priority of L. serrata over Taenia rhinaris Meyer, 1789 and T.capraea Abildgaard, 1789, all published in the same year, is established by applying the First Reviser rule. The purported synonymy of Netrorhynchus Zenker, 1827, also misspelled Nettorhynchus, with Armillifer Sambon, 1922 would seem to be ill-founded and without popular support. Armillifer australis Heymons, 1935, published as a subspecies of A. moniliformis (Diesing, 1836), is both a senior synonym and a homonym of A. australis Riley & Self, 1981. Humboldt (1812) is confirmed as the author of Porocephalus Humboldt, 1812 and P. crotali Humboldt, 1812. Pentastomidae Shipley, 1909 is an older family name than its subjective synonym Porocephalinae Sambon, 1922, but prevailing usage allows the latter to be retained as a family name. Cayerina mirabilis Kishida, 1927 is a genus and species from a Japanese frog that has not appeared in the more recent pentastome literature. Sebekia minor (Wedl, 1861) is an objective senior synonym of the more widely used S. wedli Gigioli, in Sambon, 1922. The importance of the many junior synonyms will become evident should refined morphological and molecular evidence reveal cryptic species or greater host-specificity than presently recognised.

The genus name Centruroides was first introduced by George Marx (in Howard, 1889: 211) for two species of scorpions in the family Buthidae: C. exilicauda (Wood, 1863) and C. luctifer n. sp. The latter species, coming from Indefatigable Is. (Galapagos), lacks a description and has been considered as a nomen nudum and synonym of Centruroides exsul (Meise, 1934) (Lambertz, 2013). Nonetheless, exilicauda Wood (Buthus) is an available and valid species name; thus, Centruroides is available according to the ICZN, 1999, Art. 12.2.5. ("the specific name or names can be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon or taxa").

Gustaf Johan Billberg's review of ichthyology, published in Swedish in 1833 in the Linnéska samfundets handlingar, mentions 92 fish taxa at genus and species level, 41 of which represent new taxa, unnecessary replacement names, or unjustified emendations. Billberg presents his own classification of fishes, in which five new family names are introduced: Ballistidae, Diodontidae, Ooididae, Chironectidae, and Macrorhyncidae. Diodontidae has priority over Diodontidae Bonaparte, 1835. Macrorhyncidae was published earlier than Gempylidae Gill, 1862, but the latter has priority by prevailing usage. Billberg mentions 61 genera of fishes, 41 of them listed only by name. Six generic names proposed by Billberg are available as unjustified emendations: Myxinus, Petromyzus, Scylia, Mustellus, Zyganna, and Ballistes. Brachionus is an unnecessary replacement name. Aphrus, Capriscus, Exormizus, Enneophthalmus, and Oedaus are nomina nuda. Eight new genera of fishes are proposed: Anodon, Posthias, Orbis, Sphaeroides, and Ooides are junior synonyms; Cotilla is a nomen oblitum in relation to Sufflamen Jordan, 1916; Tropigaster a nomen oblitum in relation to Aracana Gray, 1835; and Tetragonizus a nomen oblitum in relation to Lactoria Jordan & Fowler, 1902. Billberg lists 31 species of fishes. Three represent new combinations; two are nomina nuda. The following 14 new species are described based on literature: Raja forskohlii, Cephaloptera dumerillii, Myliobatis lacepedei, Scylia russelii, Anodon macropterus, Cotilla frenata, Monacanthus blochii, M. sebae, M. cuvieri, M. marcgravii, Tetraodon striatus, Orbis psittacinus, Orbis punctulatus, and Orbis guttatus. All of those are invalid, except Scylia russelii, which is a species inquirenda. The following nine species group names are unnecessary replacement names and consequently invalid: Raja arabica, Myliobatis rissoi, Scylia isabellina, Anodon cirrhosus, Anodon cornutus, Zyganna voracissima, Centrina broussonetii, Acipenser vulgaris, and Acipenser ichthyocolla. Three species of pipefishes of the family Syngnathidae are described and figured by Billberg from drawings of specimens observed on the Swedish West Coast. Syngnathus virens and S. pustulatus are junior synonyms of S. typhle Linnaeus, 1758. Syngnathus palmstruchii is a junior synonym of Entelurus aequoreus (Linnaeus, 1758).

A large Percrocutid Carnivore from the Late Miocene (ca. 10–9 Ma) of Nakali, Kenya