Phylogenetic systematics of Glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) and their sister taxon Allophryne ruthveni

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

(258–260) Proposals to eliminate contradiction between Articles 11.7 and 11.8 and to equate non‐fossil with fossil names of dinophytes for purposes of priority

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

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).

This revision of the genus Canarium Schumacher, 1817 after Abbott (1960) advances our understanding of the phylogeny of Strombidae. Morphological characters were used to generate a phylogeny using maximum likelihood and including all of the recognised species. This resulted in the recognition of one tree, and within that tree the existing genera Canarium Schumacher, 1817 Tridentarius Kronenberg & Vermeij, 2002 and Terestrombus Kronenberg & Vermeij, 2002, and two more Maculastrombus n. gen. and Neostrombus n. gen. were recognisable clades. Furthermore, within the genus Canarium, four subgenera, Canarium (Canarium), Canarium (Conundrum), Canarium (Elegantum), and Canarium (Stereostrombus), were identified and described. We describe and define taxa that are compatible with the requirements of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode 2020), and also conform to the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). This revision assists in generating a system of nomenclature that reflects the hypothetical relationships, and is at the same time practical in its application. We designate type localities and types for included species that were not yet addressed up until now.

Within the last two decades, there has been suggestions to change common and scientific names to honor indigenous peoples or when a matronym or patronym was discovered to pursue reprehensible activities. While I applaud the changing of common names, I urge caution in changing scientific names, because I think that it would disrupt the stability of scientific nomenclature established by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, since 1867.

Bibliography resembles some species complexes with such overlapping diversity that they can be regarded as a single polymorphic species or as an assemblage of several closely allied and subtly distinguishable species or as a hybrid swarm derived from intercrossing in past. It is a matter of definition. As John Carter has said in his ABC for Book-Collectors (1952), may be enumerative, analytical or descriptive; broadly defined, it is the description or knowledge of books in regard to their authors, subjects, editions and history. Thus in biological terms biblio­ graphy is a polymorphic species embracing numerous variants, i.e. lines of enquiry. Some of these, however, interest only bibliophiles. Others are highly relevant to procedures in natural history and have accordingly received much attention within Natural History Museum during past hundred years; moreover their utility will continue. The importance of bibliography for such an institution as Natural History Museum at South Kensington, which is primarily taxonomic in its research, comes from importance of printed record as a long-lasting continuously usable source of taxonomic information. For this information to be retrievable with minimum of inconvenience and loss of time, stability of nomenclature and resolving of synonymy are in turn important. As stated in International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, principle III, the nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature puts same emphasis on priority: the valid name of a taxon is oldest available name applied to it... provided that name is not invalidated by any provision of this Code or has not been suppressed by Commission. Relative dates of publication of competing different names for same organism or of like names for different organisms can thus determine name which should be adopted. To ascertain relative dates of publication often involves difficult and time-consuming bibliographical enquiry but this must nevertheless be undertaken when result may be crucial for correct nomenclature. That is why Natural History Museum has long been a major centre of such bibliographical enquiry and why Society for Bibliography of Natural History was formed under Museum's auspices in 1936 and has received so much support from Museum. The Society has never been officially part of Museum, but this Museum support has been vital to its maintenance and success. On other hand Society, by publishing results of bibliographic al and associated biographical enquiry relevant to natural history, has much benefited workers in Museum and elsewhere. The relations of two, in biological terms, have not been simply commensal but symbiotic.

The phylogenetic relationships of the cryptobranch dorids are studied based on morphological characters of species belonging to all previously described genera. The phylogenetic hypothesis supports the cryptobranch dorids as a monophyletic group. There are two major clades within the Cryptobranchia: the radula-less dorids (Porostomata), and the radula-bearing dorids (Labiostomata new taxon). Labiostomata consists of those taxa sharing a more recent common ancestor with Actinocyclus than with Mandelia, and includes several monophyletic groups: Actinocyclidae, Chromodorididae, Dorididae and Discodorididae. The traditional group Phanerobranchia is probably paraphyletic. The new classification proposed for the Cryptobranchia addresses concepts of phylogenetic nomenclature, but is in accordance with the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The following genera of cryptobranch dorids are regarded as valid: Doris Linnaeus, 1758, Asteronotus Ehrenberg, 1831, Atagema J. E. Gray, 1850, Jorunna Bergh, 1876, Discodoris Bergh, 1877, Platydoris Bergh, 1877, Thordisa Bergh, 1877, Diaulula Bergh, 1878, Aldisa Bergh, 1878, Rostanga Bergh, 1879, Aphelodoris Bergh, 1879, Halgerda Bergh, 1880, Peltodoris Bergh, 1880, Hoplodoris Bergh, 1880, Paradoris Bergh, 1884, Baptodoris Bergh, 1884, Geitodoris Bergh, 1891, Gargamella Bergh, 1894, Alloiodoris Bergh, 1904, Sclerodoris Eliot, 1904, Otinodoris White, 1948, Taringa Er. Marcus, 1955 , Sebadoris Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus, 1960, Conualevia Collier & Farmer, 1964, Thorybopus Bouchet, 1977, Goslineria Valdes, 2001, Pharodoris Valdes, 2001, Nophodoris Valdes & Gosliner, 2001. Several genera previously considered as valid are here regarded as synonyms of other names: Doridigitata d’Orbigny, 1839, Doriopsis Pease, 1860, Staurodoris Bergh, 1878, Fracassa Bergh, 1878, Archidoris Bergh, 1878, Anoplodoris Fischer, 1883, Etidoris Ihering, 1886, Phialodoris Bergh, 1889, Montereina MacFarland, 1905, Ctenodoris Eliot, 1907, Carryodoris Vayssiere, 1919, Austrodoris Odhner, 1926, Guyonia Risbec, 1928, Erythrodoris Pruvot-Fol, 1933, Neodoris Baba, 1938, Siraius Er. Marcus, 1955, Tayuva Ev. Marcus & Er. Marcus, 1967, Nuvuca Ev. Marcus & Er. Marcus, 1967, Doriorbis Kay & Young, 1969, Pupsikus Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus, 1970, Percunas Ev. Marcus, 1970, Verrillia Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981 . The genera Artachaea Bergh, 1882, Carminodoris Bergh, 1889 and Homoiodoris Bergh, 1882 have been poorly described and no type material is known to exist. They are regarded as incertae sedis until more material becomes available. The genus names Xenodoris Odhner in Franc, 1968 and Cryptodoris Ostergaard, 1950 are unavailable within the meaning of the Code. Hexabranchus Ehrenberg, 1831 is not a cryptobranch dorid, as suggested by other authors, because of the lack of a retractile gill. Other nomenclatural and taxonomic problems are discussed, and several type species, neotypes and lectotypes are selected. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 136, 535−636.

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.

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.

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 purpose of this application under Articles 78.1 and 81 of the Code is to request the Commission to use its plenary power to choose among two alternatives in order to preserve the genus name Darevskia and nomenclatural stability. In Alternative A, the Commission is asked to accept the microfiche publication (Arribas, 1997) as a published work in the sense of the Code and made available the names included therein, placing Iberolacerta Arribas, 1997 and Darevskia Arribas, 1997 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, their type species on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and the microfiche edition of Arribas (1997) on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. This action will promote stability, as both names are widely accepted and, if the 1997 publication in microfiche is considered unavailable, then Darevskia Arribas, 1997 could potentially be threatened by Caucasilacerta Harris et al., 1998 (by authors who would not consider this name a nomen nudum), which would clearly disrupt stability. Not only would this alternative be the best way to preserve nomenclatural stability as stressed in the ICZN Preamble and repeated in several Articles of the Code, but it would also be the only way to ensure that these names (available at the time of their publication) remain available after the retroactive changes that have been introduced between the third and fourth editions of the Code. If Alternative A is chosen, both Iberolacerta and Darevskia become available from Arribas (1997). In Alternative B, the microfiche publication (Arribas, 1997) is considered invalid and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. Both Iberolacerta and Darevskia would be considered published in Arribas (1999). Also, the Commission is asked to place on the Official Index of Rejected Generic Names in Zoology the name Caucasilacerta Harris et al., 1998 (as a nomen nudum due to the lack of a valid diagnosis) and to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names Iberolacerta Arribas, 1999 and Darevskia Arribas, 1999.

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.

NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS: A HISTORICAL BOTANICAL STANDPOINT