Opinion on ‘papers and nomenclatural Code-compliance’

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

In his recent self-published book "Reptiles en Chile", Diego Demangel Miranda presented 13 taxonomic changes for liolaemid and tropidurid lizards. While these could be considered validly published according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, we show that these taxonomic propositions lack the necessary scientific rigor in terms of replicability, specimen work, lack of peer review and that they do not follow best practices accepted by the herpetological community. Therefore, we hereby invalidate all 13 taxonomic changes proposed in this book, leaving the taxonomy unaffected. Finally, we call attention to the potentially negative consequences of using these taxonomic changes in conservation and environmental impact studies as incorrect decisions might be taken in relation to the species involved.

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

Cryptosporidium tyzzeri and Cryptosporidium pestis: Which name is valid?

In the recent years, it has been debated whether the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should be cited as ‘Anonymous’ or as having an ‘author’, i.e. the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This question is addressed here, starting with the meaning of the term ‘anonymous’ in common language as well as in the Glossary of the Code: in both cases, it designates a work which does not contain, in its original edition, any information about the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for its authorship. A collective body like the Commission is not a person, and therefore not eligible as an ‘author’ in the sense of the Glossary of the Code. The Code is a text that provides Rules for the regulation of zoological nomenclature, and the format of bibliographic references in publications is not a matter of nomenclature but of editorial policy, and therefore out the scope of the Code. It is suggested that a flexible attitude be adopted. This question should be left at the discretion of authors and editors and the Code should not interfere with it. Several possible formats for the citation of the Code are presented. This paper also proposes a distinction between two categories of ‘anonymous’ works.

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find a modus vivendi that promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.

NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS: A HISTORICAL BOTANICAL STANDPOINT

Self-published taxon descriptions, bereft of a basis of evidence, are a long-standing problem in taxonomy. The problem derives in part from the Principle of Priority in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which forces the use of the oldest available nomen irrespective of scientific merit. This provides a route to ‘immortality’ for unscrupulous individuals through the mass-naming of taxa without scientific basis, a phenomenon referred to as taxonomic vandalism. Following a flood of unscientific taxon namings, in 2013 a group of concerned herpetologists organized a widely supported, community-based campaign to treat these nomina as lying outside the permanent scientific record, and to ignore and overwrite them as appropriate. Here, we review the impact of these proposals over the past 8 years. We identified 59 instances of unscientific names being set aside and overwritten with science-based names (here termed aspidonyms), and 1087 uses of these aspidonyms, compared to one instance of preference for the overwritten names. This shows that when there is widespread consultation and agreement across affected research communities, setting aside certain provisions of the Code can constitute an effective last resort defence against taxonomic vandalism and enhance the universality and stability of the scientific nomenclature.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code) aims to support taxonomic science by providing rules for creating and applying taxon names and thereby stabilizing taxonomic output. However, this stability is only achievable when the Code is supported by robust scientific practices. We here respond to the monograph on chelonian genus-series nomina by Frétey (2024) and critique the author’s inclusion of unscientific and controversial taxon names, with which he undermines the herpetological community’s decade-long consensus to reject such names. As part of Frétey’s decision to treat such nomina as available, the author failed to mention the widespread use of aspidonyms (shield names) to protect taxonomic integrity and in so doing elevates accounting over science. We argue that adherence to the Code alone is insufficient to counteract the destabilizing effects of taxonomic vandalism. Instead, the herpetological community’s unified stance against unscientific nomina, exemplified by the ‘Kaiser Veto’, has effectively safeguarded taxonomic stability even as it operates beyond the Code. By including consistently ignored names, Frétey’s work disrupts this consensus and risks reintroducing nomenclatural instability. We urge authors and editors to uphold scientific integrity by excluding unscientific nomina from taxonomic discourse, thereby preserving the spirit of the Code and ensuring the reliability of taxonomic science for its many users, including ecologists, conservationists and policymakers.

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.

Recently, a taxonomic work was published concerning the existence of a new cryptic species of green anaconda. The authors justified the recognition of a phylogenetic lineage as a new species, which they named Eunectes akayima, based on genetic and geographical distribution differences. Regardless of whether the evidence provided to justify the recognition of this new species is sufficient, the article in question violates fundamental aspects of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such as the principle of priority and the rules for the designation lectotypes. Furthermore, the authors make unjustified assumptions regarding the type locality of Eunectes murinus, compromising the integrity of their nomenclatural actions. Here, we present a critique of this work grounded in the application of the rules of zoological nomenclature, leading to the synonymizing of the recently described species.

Recently in this journal, Gregory & Dickinson (2012) replaced Prosopeia Bonaparte,1854, the widely used and long-accustomed generic name for the Fijian shining parrots, with Pyrrhulopsis Reichenbach, 1850. This action was then followed in the influential Howard & Moore global checklist of birds (Dickinson & Remsen 2013: 377) and the websites Avibase (2013) and TiF Checklist (2013). Gregory and Dickinson’s decision rested on information in Kashin (1978), which showed that G.R. Gray (1855) was the first to assign a type species to Pyrrhulopsis Reichenbach. Gray designated “Coracopsis? personata G.R. Gray,1848”, one of the shining parrots, by subsequent monotypy. Until then, Prosopeia had been used for the shining parrots for most of the 20th century into the 21st, following Peters (1937: 250, footnote). Gregory & Dickinson’s (2012) action nevertheless contravenes the purpose of Article 23.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, hereafter “the Code”, which stresses that the Principle of Priority is not to be used to upset long-accepted names in their accustomed meaning. Because of this, we had been preparing an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve Prosopeia—until we discovered an evident error in Gregory & Dickinson’s argument. The apparent error, which makes application to conserve Prosopeia unnecessary, is explained here to affirm Prosopeia as the valid generic name for the shining parrots.