Zoological Nomenclature Research Articles

Erratum: An annotated checklist of damselfishes, Family Pomacentridae Bonaparte, 1831

Correction After the publication of this article (Parenti, 2021) it came to my attention that I have missed out the LSID code mandatory to publish any new nomenclatural act. Then, that article has been registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) as [urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C2FD477B-1B9B-4F27-8E90-1F30B291E40C]

Раковины моллюсков в голландских натюрмортах XVII века

Dutch still-life is a distinctive cultural phenomenon of the 17th century. Collecting of rarities, curiosities, plants, paintings, sculptures and many other rare things was characteristic for that period. Seashells which were brought from the exotic countries attracted the attention and love of collectors and artists. J. Hoefnagel was one of the first who took an interest to seashells in the emblems. In the early Dutch flower still-life shells were found occasionally but from the beginning of the first quarter of the 17th century artists started to add these graceful creations almost into all compositions with flower bouquets and fruits. New type of still-life with seashells appeared abundantly in painting of Balthasar van der Ast, Jan Davidsz de Heеm, Abraham Beyeren, Willem Kalf and others. While the naturalism in still-life painting brought to the maximum, there was a problem of veracity in depicting shells in the engravings, for example, in Rembrandt’s work. This problem was eventually solved only in the second half of the 17th century, so engravings and zoological illustrations began to show the curl of the shells in its correct direction, exactly clockwise. This research poses problems of the appearance of shells as collectibles and Dutch still-life’ motifs, visual traditions and shells’ classification in the paintings. The article is relevant with interdisciplinary method; some mollusks zoological names with indication of their origin place are given; the cultural and historical context is generalized; the stylistic analysis takes into account the emblematics’ traditions.

INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC VOCABULARY AS PART OF THE REGISTER OF THE «MOSCOW-UKRAINIAN DICTIONARY» BY VICTOR DUBROVSKYI

The article covers the study of industry-specific vocabulary in Ukrainian translated lexicography of the early twentieth century (post-revolutionary era). The analysis is based on the “Moscow-Ukrainian Dictionary” (1918) written by V. Dubrovskyi. Sector-specific vocabulary in the analyzed source has its remarks as most lexicographical works have. We selected all marked units with the help of a specially created lexicographic system. The previously published article has its detailed description. The studied material thus, counts around 4 % of industry-specific words.
 According to our calculations, the most numerically predominant dictionary units are the units of both biology (including botanical, zoological and anatomical terms) and medicine.
 The most numerous nomenclature is the botanical one. To one Russian word, we can find multiple Ukrainian equivalents including various dialectal, regional, folk names, etc. Generally speaking, synonymy is a prevailing phenomenon to many fields of knowledge.
 The zoological nomenclature is quite frequent in the analyzed dictionary too. There are many names of animals (mostly non-local) that cannot be found in the Ukrainian language today. They are absent in modern lexicographical works too. Many of them even cannot be found in the dictionaries of the post-revolutionary era.
 Many little-known, colloquial, dialectal and even stylistically reduced names are can be found in the field of anatomy. Numerous names of diseases that are recorded in the “Moscow-Ukrainian Dictionary” are not part of the common medical terminology.
 Comparing to the above mentioned fields, the analyzed work presents fewer terms from the field of grammar, mineralogy, mathematics, chemistry, music, military affairs, and technology. The biggest number of words that belong to the modern Ukrainian scientific language can be found in the fields of grammar, mathematics and chemistry.
 Few single terms that were mentioned in the dictionary belong to such sciences as veterinary medicine, hunting, construction, etc.
 Consequently, the “Moscow-Ukrainian Dictionary” contains a number of industry-specific vocabulary that is not registered in the modern Ukrainian scientific language. Moreover, synonymy is considered to be a prevailing phenomenon, despite being not typically used in all industries. Largely as a result of the analysis made, the author indeed desires to choose Ukrainian terms that would be as different as possible from the Russian equivalents.

Raja mauritaniensis: a replacement name for Raja africana Capapé, 1977 (Rajiformes: Rajidae), a junior homonym of Raja africana Bloch amp; Schneider, 1801 (Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae).

Raja africana Capapé, 1977 is a primary junior synonym of Raja africana Bloch Schneider, 1801 and therefore permanently invalid (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, article 57.2) and must be replaced. Raja africana Bloch Schneider, 1801 was first described by Bloch Schneider (1801: 367), based on a specimen from Guinea, West Africa (eastern Atlantic Ocean). The unique holotype is extant in the Zoologisches Museum of the Humboldt University, Berlin (ZMB 7837, a partial dry skin). The species was treated as valid as Urogymnus africanus (Bloch Schneider 1801) by Compagno Roberts (1984: 285), but later synonymized with Urogymnus asperrimus (Bloch Schneider 1801) in the subfamily Urogymninae of the family Dasyatidae (Myliobatiformes) by Compagno (1986: 141), Capapé Desoutter (1990: 63) and Séret (2016: 1418). It is widespread in the eastern Atlantic, Red Sea and IndoWest Pacific.

Unnecessary “axiotypes”

ABSTRACT Contrary to common perception, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not contain provisions that turn (ichno)specific names into nomina dubia if their holotype is lost or destroyed. Such names are only nomina dubia if the original diagnosis and/or description is insufficient to recognise the taxon. For this reason, there is no need to introduce a category “axiotype” to be recognized in the Code as a possible name-bearing type, as proposed recently. The designation of neotypes is tied to a formalized process that can be the ultima ratio under certain conditions only.

Defining and Bringing Relevance of Meaning to Species Group-Level Taxa

[Extract] A definition for differing terminal taxa in nomenclature is needed to make them practically relevant. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature(1999) provides for two levels: species and subspecies. At present species and subspecies are used interchangeably and arbitrarily. We examine both concepts, with a focus on practical applications of these terms.

New records of Anomala tibialis Lansberge, 1886 and a new replacement name for Anomala tibialis Schaeffer, 1906 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Anomalini).

The species Anomala tibialis Schaeffer, 1906 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Anomalini) was described based on a single specimen from Texas, United States of America, and is currently treated as a valid species. However, Anomala tibialis Schaeffer, 1906 is a junior homonym of the widespread African Anomala tibialis Lansberge, 1886. This primary junior homonym has no known available and potentially valid synonyms and must therefore be rejected and replaced by a new substitute name (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999, Articles 57.2 and 60.1). In this paper, full bibliography, distribution data, and new records for the species concerned are provided, and a new replacement name for Anomala tibialis Schaeffer, 1906 is established.

Revised nomenclature of the sea pen genus Balticina Gray, 1870 (= Halipteris Kölliker, 1870) (Anthozoa: Octocorallia)

The pennatulacean genus Balticina has had a long and confusing taxonomic history, with serious nomenclatural problems that remain unresolved. Owing to disagreements about authorships and dates of publication, the names Pavonaria, Norticina and Halipteris have all been used as valid in place of Balticina, or else been regarded as its junior synonyms, even simultaneously. In this paper, after an extensive literature review, we determine the authorships and dates for all the taxa involved in accordance with the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and establish Balticina Gray, 1870 (=Halipteris) and Balticinidae Balss, 1910 (=Halipteridae) as the valid genus and family names, respectively, for this group of sea pens. We also propose the replacement name Rakollikeria for the preoccupied genus name Pavonaria Kölliker, 1870 (Balticinidae) (nec Schweigger, 1819 - Funiculinidae).

Opinion 2470 (Case 3744) – Bidessus Sharp, 1880 (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Bidessini): usage conserved

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has conserved current usage of the generic name Bidessus Sharp, 1880 by designating Dytiscus unistriatus Schrank, 1781 as its type species and suppressing Dyticus parvulus Müller, 1776 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has used its specific powers to confirm that authorship of the nominal taxon Dytiscus unistriatus is to be attributed to Schrank, 1781, as the work published by Goeze in 1777 is not consistently binominal and the names proposed in it are, therefore, unavailable (aside from some few that were previously ruled available by the Commission).

Opinion 2472 (Case 3754) – Circus assimilis Jardine & Selby, 1828 and Circus approximans Peale, 1848 (Aves, Accipitriformes): usage conserved

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has conserved current usage of the specific name of Circus assimilis Jardine & Selby, 1828 for the Australo-Wallacean spotted harrier by designating a neotype for this nominal species. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has also conserved current usage of the specific name of Circus approximans Peale, 1848 by suppressing, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, its objective synonym Circus juxta Peale, 1848, which was published simultaneously with it but was designated as the senior synonym by the first reviser.

Official Correction 134 (Opinion 1039) – Entry on Official List of Generic Names in Zoology amended

Official Correction 134 (Opinion 1039) – Entry on Official List of Generic Names in Zoology amended

Opinion 2471 (Case 3752) – Curculio antirrhini Paykull, 1800 (currently Rhinusa antirrhini; Insecta, Coleoptera, Curculionoidea, Curculionidae): usage conserved

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has conserved current usage of the specific name of Curculio antirrhini Paykull, 1800 (currently Rhinusa antirrhini) for a common Palaearctic weevil species by giving this nominal species precedence over its little-used older subjective synonym Curculio noctis Herbst, 1795, whenever the two are considered synonyms.

Opinion 2474 (Case 3760) – Chrysomela tenebricosa Fabricius, 1775 (currently Timarcha tenebricosa; Insecta, Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae): specific name conserved

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has conserved current usage of the specific name of Chrysomela tenebricosa Fabricius, 1775 for a common and widespread species of European bloody-nosed beetle in the genus Timarcha (Chrysomelidae) by giving it precedence over the misinterpreted and unused senior synonym Tenebrio laevigatus Linnaeus, 1767.

Opinion 2473 (Case 3759) – Costaclymenia Schindewolf, 1920 and Costaclymeniidae Ruzhencev, 1957: current usage conserved

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has conserved current usage of the name of the Late Devonian ammonite genus Costaclymenia Schindewolf, 1920 and, consequently, the family Costaclymeniidae Ruzhencev, 1957 by designating a neotype for the type species of this nominal genus, Goniatites binodosus Münster, 1832.

Opinion 2469 (Case 3742) – Galago demidoff Fischer, 1806 (currently Galagoides demidoff; Mammalia, Primates, Galagidae) and Lemur minutus Cuvier, 1797: neotypes not designated

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has declined to use its plenary power to rule on the validity of the specific names of Galago demidoff Fischer, 1806 and Macropus (Galago) demidovii, Fischer, 1808 or to designate neotypes for Galago demidoff Fischer, 1806 and Lemur minutus Cuvier, 1797. As a result, the specific name demidoff Fischer, 1806, as published in the original binomen Galago demidoff remains available from normal application of the Code, and the specific name demidovii Fischer, 1808, as published in the original binomen Macropus (Galago) demidovii remains an unjustified emendation. Neotypes for both Galago demidoff Fischer, 1806 and Lemur minutus Cuvier, 1797 can be designated without application to the Commission by meeting all conditions of Article 75.3 of the Code.

Opinion 2468 (Case 3601) – Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, Elapidae) and Australasian Journal of Herpetology issues 1–24: confirmation of availability declined; Appendix A (Code of Ethics): not adopted as a formal criterion for ruling on Cases

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature finds no basis under the provisions of the Code for regarding the name Spracklandus as unavailable, nor for regarding any of issues 1–24 of Australasian Journal of Herpetology as being unpublished in the sense of the Code, but the Commission has declined to use its powers to confirm what is obvious. The Commission is not empowered to take Appendix A of the Code (Code of Ethics) into account in its rulings on this or any other Case.

Mitochondrial phylogeny and taxonomic revision of Italian and Slovenian fluvio-lacustrine barbels, Barbus sp. (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae)

BackgroundBarbels are ray finned cyprinid fishes of the Old-World with partially unresolved, intricate taxonomy. Within the Barbus sensu lato paraphyletic assemblage, Barbus sensu stricto is a monophyletic tetraploid lineage of Europe, northern Africa and Middle East, including two monophyletic sibling genera: Barbus and Luciobarbus. Italy, Slovenia and northern Croatia are natively inhabited by several entities of the genus Barbus, whose relationships and taxonomic ranks are still unclear. Aim of the present work is to focus on phylogeography of Italian and Slovenian barbels, with an appraisal of their current taxonomy.ResultsOne hundred fifty specimens were collected in 78 sampling sites from 33 main watersheds, widely distributed along Italian and Slovenian ichthyogeographic districts. We amplified two mitochondrial markers, cytochrome b (cytb) and control region (D-loop), to infer a robust phylogeny for our sample and investigate on species delimitation.Our results strongly indicate all Italian and Adriatic Slovenian fluvio-lacustrine barbels to be comprised into at least three distinct species. We provide a proposal of taxonomic revision and a list of synonymies for two of them and a new description under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature rules for the third one.ConclusionsIf nuclear data will confirm our findings, at least three specific entities should be acknowledged across our sampling area. Namely, the three species are (i) Barbus plebejus, in the Padano-Venetian district; (ii) Barbus tyberinus, in the Tuscany-Latium district; (iii) Barbus oscensis Rossi & Plazzi sp. nov., in the Tyrrhenian and southernmost-Adriatic parts of Apulia-Campania district. Finally, we briefly discuss the implications of such a taxonomic scenario on conservation policies.

Confronting taxonomic vandalism in biology: conscientious community self-organization can preserve nomenclatural stability

Abstract 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 curious case of "innies": Articles 50.1, 50.1.1 and the citation of authorities in Decapoda Crustacea-a way forward.

In the majority of species and genus names in Decapoda Crustacea, the author(s) of the name equate with the author(s) of the work. In a relatively small number of cases, however, the author(s) of the name are either a subset of the authors of the work or are not an author on the work-a phenomenon herein termed "innies". We demonstrate that these two categories should be differentially interpreted according to Articles 50.1 and 50.1.1 of the ICZN Code. To promote stability in cited authorship of historical names, it is proposed that 1) if the author(s) of the name are also an author on the work, these should be universally accepted as "innies", irrespective of any further explanation in the text (including a mere attribution following the taxon name); and 2) that if the author(s) of the name are not an author(s) of the work, these should only be considered as "innies" if a more expansive explanation is given in the text, not merely an attribution of authorship to the taxon name.

Why neotypification of emLophorina/em emsuperba/em (Pennant, 1781) (Aves: Paradisaeidae) is justified-and necessary.

We review Irestedt et al.'s (2017) neotypification of the senior species name superba Pennant, 1781 in the bird-of-paradise genus Lophorina in response to Elliott et al. (2020) who challenged the resultant shift in name from the small isolate in New Guinea's Vogelkop to the widespread species in the island's central cordillera. In nine male plumage traits which differentiate the two species, six of which had been identified as novel by Irestedt et al., we show that the only two figures of the perished male holotype of superba match the central cordillera species more closely than the Vogelkop. We find as well that not only was the trading of bird-of-paradise skins from the central cordillera to coastal ports in the Vogelkop feasible before European contact, but application of superba to the central cordillera species also promotes nomenclatural stability: the name has been used overwhelmingly at species rank for that widespread form throughout post-19th century media. Re-assessment of Irestedt et al.'s point-by-point justification of neotypification under Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999) Code establishes, furthermore, that their case meets the requirements of every condition specified in the article; the neotypification is thus valid. Elliott et al.'s alternative to fix superba to the Vogelkop isolate by type locality restriction is not Code-compliant, nor is their evidence for interpreting J.R. Forster as the author of the name. In conclusion, we lay out the correct nomenclature for the taxa of Lophorina under the Code.