International Commission On Zoological Nomenclature Research Articles

An Invited Reply to: A Comment on: An Eocene army ant (2022) by Sosiak CE et al.

Open AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Sosiak Christine E., Borowiec Marek L. and Barden Phillip 2023An Invited Reply to: A Comment on: An Eocene army ant (2022) by Sosiak CE et al.Biol. Lett.192023014020230140http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0140SectionOpen AccessInvited replyAn Invited Reply to: A Comment on: An Eocene army ant (2022) by Sosiak CE et al. Christine E. Sosiak Christine E. Sosiak http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9057-8636 Federated Department of Biological Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark 07102-1982, USA Contribution: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Marek L. Borowiec Marek L. Borowiec Department of Agricultural Biology and C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Contribution: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Phillip Barden Phillip Barden http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6277-320X Federated Department of Biological Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark 07102-1982, USA Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA [email protected] Contribution: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Christine E. Sosiak Christine E. Sosiak http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9057-8636 Federated Department of Biological Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark 07102-1982, USA Contribution: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Marek L. Borowiec Marek L. Borowiec Department of Agricultural Biology and C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Contribution: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Phillip Barden Phillip Barden http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6277-320X Federated Department of Biological Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark 07102-1982, USA Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA [email protected] Contribution: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:26 April 2023https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0140We first establish that we agree with a central concern of Dubovikoff & Zharkov [1] regarding the provenance of the army ant specimen we reported [2]. Indeed, the collection the authors note, housed within the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St Petersburg), is one of two collections we were made aware of shortly after the publication of our article. Although not mentioned in their reply, we were informed by one of the authors that the copal within this collection was initially dated as Baltic amber in the 1920s. This collection date was concerning as the specimen we reported, housed at the Museum of Comparative Zoology and labelled as Baltic amber, was included in a museum ledger from the 1930s. News of this historical collection at the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as another in Germany from the same timeframe, prompted us to investigate the provenance of our reported specimen via Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. Our FTIR analyses indicated that the specimen we reported did not possess a unique spectroscopic characteristic of Baltic amber and was most likely subfossil resin (copal); these results constituted the basis of our retraction [3].There is no doubt that the specimen is not Baltic amber; however, there are three elements that Dubovikoff & Zharkov raise that we feel are inaccurate and require a response in the literature [1]. These issues relate to the identification of copal specimens, CT-scan segmentation and repeatability, and the nature of taxonomic assignment.Baltic amber and copal cannot always be discerned by eye or with basic physical testsDubovikoff & Zharkov suggest that the specimen could have been identified as copal through visual assessment or what the authors refer to as a ‘simple test’ involving polishing or exposure to ethanol. The authors note that the cracks visible on the surface of the specimen (also known as crazing) suggest that it is a young resin such as copal. It is true that copal can craze rapidly relative to amber; however, authentic Baltic amber can exhibit such crazing, particularly historic specimens exposed to light or humidity fluctuations [4,5]. The authors note that the copal specimens they have studied melt during polishing and/or exposure to ethanol. While we did not undertake polishing or an ethanol trial, the specimen we reported was affixed to a microscope slide. The identity of the slide mountant is not known to us; however, it was treated throughout with some kind of tacky material. Historically, Baltic amber researchers used Canada balsam or other resins to affix amber to slides [5,6]. Canada balsam and other resin mountants are soluble in ethanol and would melt during polishing, rendering these indicators unreliable unless one were to trim deep into the specimen. We noted in the initial paper that no preparation was undertaken to avoid further damage due to crazing or chemical reactions to previously applied polymers. While the provenance test suggested may be useful in some cases, it is not a definitive approach. If an amber piece was previously treated with an unknown substance, using solely the criteria suggested by Dubovikoff & Zharkov may lead to instances of false negatives: incorrect identification of copal where genuine Baltic amber is present. For this reason, we turned to FTIR spectroscopy to definitively assess the provenance of the specimen after learning of other mislabelled copal material.CT-scan segmentation includes a trade-off between precision and accuracyIn CT-scan reconstruction, X-ray attenuation and absorption is denoted solely as relative grey values of pixels in two-dimensional images. These two-dimensional images comprise a series of slices termed a Z-stack. Any three-dimensional representation of CT-scan data is the result of selectively rendering certain pixels within this stack. Because it is not possible to resolve differences between pixel grey values at critical morphological features in our scan, we chose to present a three-dimensional representation of a clearly differentiated selection of pixels within our Z-stack data: the internal void space within the specimen. Amber and copal-entombed insects are frequently preserved as thin shells of cuticle with air trapped inside. X-ray transmission is starkly different between these void space regions compared to insect cuticle and resin matrix, which share similar X-ray attenuation properties. This stark difference allows for a clear delineation that allows for a conservative and, importantly, repeatable segmentation process. Using the published Z-stack slices from Sosiak et al. [2], Dubovikoff & Zharkov generated what they term a ‘complete’ or ‘full model reflecting the true structure of the described specimen’. There is no question that they presented more features in their final segmentation; however, the authors indicate that this was done by manually segmenting the scan (i.e. drawing one's interpretations of what is and is not valid inclusion structure). While this approach can remove artefacts, it also introduces subjective interpretations into the segmentation process and reduces repeatability [7]. Three-dimensional reconstructions of CT-scan data are hypotheses and include inherent assumptions. A method of manual segmentation may be appropriate when a large series of putative conspecific specimens can guide interpretations, but such a segmentation can contain inconsistent and subjective criteria for what is and is not included in a final model (figure 1). With a single specimen of putatively unique geological origin, we presented a model with the least number of assumptions that was fundamentally repeatable. We did rely on void space to delineate some regions (particularly the mandibles and frontal lobe shape) included in our taxonomic diagnosis; however, this was only after we could not resolve these regions via light microscopy or through assessment of grey values within raw Z-stack slices themselves. Figure 1. Z-stack data from the CT scan of PALE-8463. (Left) Cross-section of the head at the anterior margin; segmented elements from the three-dimensional reconstruction of Dubovikoff & Zharkov [1] in green. (Right) Squares infilled with grey-scale values demonstrating examples of nearby pixels with identical or near identical grey values that were both included and excluded in the manual segmentation process. Labels on squares denote associated pixels. Scale = 0.25 mm.Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointEstablishing a conspecific without diagnostic features and name validityWe agree in principle that our reported taxon should be synonymized with Dorylus Fabricius, 1793. However, we were recently made aware that, as the initial description was published in an electronic format journal, the names are not considered valid under the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) unless registered with ZooBank [8]. We did not complete such registration and so the synonymizations proposed by Dubovikoff & Zharkov do not hold authority under the current ICZN Code [8]. Moreover, we do feel that more data and clear diagnostic features are needed to establish that the specimen we reported is conspecific with an extant taxon, particularly as there does not appear to be a clear locality or age estimate associated with the copal specimens reported so far.Data accessibilityThis article has no additional data.Authors' contributionsC.E.S.: conceptualization and writing—review and editing; M.L.B.: conceptualization and writing—review and editing; P.B.: conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft and writing—review and editing.All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.Conflict of interest declarationWe declare we have no competing interests.FundingWe received no funding for this study.FootnotesThe accompanying Comment can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0603.© 2023 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

Short and sweet: an analysis of the length of parasite species names

In its advice to taxonomists, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) recommends that scientific species names should be compact, memorable, and easy to pronounce. Here, using a dataset of over 3000 species of parasitic helminths described in the past two decades, we investigate trends in the length of Latin specific names (=epithets) chosen by taxonomists. Our results reveal no significant temporal change in the length of species epithets as a function of year of description, with annual averages fluctuating around the overall average length of just over 9 letters. We also found that lengths of species epithets did not differ among the various host taxa from which the parasites were recovered, however acanthocephalan species have been given longer species epithets than other helminth taxa. Finally, although species epithets were shorter than genus names for three-quarters of the species in our dataset, we detected no relationship between the length of species epithets and that of genus names across all species included, i.e., there was no evidence that shorter species epithets are chosen to compensate for long genus names. We conclude by encouraging parasite taxonomists to follow the recommendations of the ICZN and choose species epithets that are, as much as possible, compact and easy to remember, pronounce and spell.

Doubts about the validity of the species name Hipparchia hermione (Linnaeus, 1764), it being associated with the two species Hipparchia alcyone ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775) and Hipparchia genava (Fruhstorfer, 1908) following the designation of a lectotype by Kudrna (1977) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae) - First part -

In 1977, Otakar Kudrna (*1939-†2021, obituary see Balletto and Leigheb, 2021) published his “Revision of the Genus Hipparchia”, where he classified all the known species and forms of this genus according to characters of wings, androconia, male genital armatures and further subjective criteria. Until today, Kudrna’s study is considered as the guideline of systematics of the genus Hipparchia. He selected there a lectotype specimen of a Rock Grayling male in the Linnaean collection. “Hipparchia hermione Linnaeus, 1764” is therefore, at the moment, the technically correct name to identify the species. The “International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature” (ICZN) has nothing to add at this point; it only comments on cases submitted to it in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Within the meaning of the present study and in accordance with Verity (1913), this damaged specimen without abdomen represents the same species as Ignaz Schiffermüller – allegedly the only author of the Vienna directory (see Kudrna and B., 2005, p. 5) – has described under H. alcyone from the Vienna region by referring to a coloured copper engraving published by Rösel von Rosenhof (1755). Kudrna’s “Revision” became the starting point of an extended scientific research activity during my free time containing, as a matter of priority, the examination of problem cases of systematics by checking the preimaginal characters of many rearing series from different sites. It turned out that a number of classifications proposed by Kudrna (1977) had to be reassessed as soon as characters of the pre-imaginal stages were available. The most complex case I have verified concerned the third European Grayling species which Leraut (1990) introduced under the name of Hipparchia genava (Fruhstorfer, 1908). Kudrna (1977) failed to separate this species from H. alcyone (D. & S., 1775). Throughout his life, he never agreed with Leraut’s opinion. In recent years, Kudrna had hoped that genetic examinations would make redundant every rearing attempt by amateur lepidopterists and furnish the proof that his opinion was the correct one. Since he never undertook any rearing experiments, his systematics were based only on prepared imagines being housed in museum collections. He saw himself as a person with the competency to decide within a few minutes upon complex questions of taxonomy and ignored completely the assessments of others. For verifying the effective rank of H. genava, I had to examine also the two most closely related species: Hipparchia fagi and H. alcyone by rearing them all ex ovo with material from several widely spaced sites. Already on finalising my rearing work of this group, it became apparent that Leraut (1990) had been on the absolutely right path by accepting a third Grayling species, within this group. For the first time, I published the results of my rearing attempts between 2002 and 2006 in several articles in the quarterly bulletin Linneana Belgica and I readily provided information on this case to interested colleagues. Over time only, I realized that the Rock Grayling I knew from the volume on butterflies (Diurna) by Forster and Wohlfahrt (1955) as from the guides by Higgins and Riley (1970-84) under the name of H. alcyone had become H. hermione, because of the lectotype designation by Kudrna (1977). A stony path was in front of me to substantiate the factual correctness of the view taken by Leraut (1990). Complex clarifications by Peter Russell furnished well-founded arguments on the complex scientific issue why the use of the name “hermione Linnaeus, 1764” should be rejected for the Rock Grayling previously known as H. alcyone.

Recontextualising the style of naming in nomenclature

In this paper, we brought compelling clarities as to why the current practices of binomial nomenclature should be revised and adjusted by the scientific governing bodies. We highlighted the current emphasis on Latinisation and Greek forms for scientific names has given fewer possibilities for the inclusion of cultural and native scientific names. With regard to zoological matters, we further pointed out that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) has an obligation to rationalise the applicability and suitability of the existing Articles and Recommendations in the Code. The Code has been designed to assist scientists in naming an organism with its guidelines. However, the practicality of the Articles and Recommendations need to be further explained in order to reduce several misperceptions within the scientific community; which include the correct usage of Latinised and Greek language forms that can be quite confusing to those who are not well-versed in the structures. The discussion also underlined the novelty of having more localised and hybridised scientific names, and the necessity to avoid norms of abusive, offensive and colonising names since the Code did not emphasise enough on the level of integrity needed with the naming procedures. We further illustrated the magnitude of having a gender-neutral naming system in the world of nomenclature, as the current practices of Latinised and Greek forms are heavily navigated towards masculine naming styles. We also suggest that the non-compulsory Recommendation section of the Code to be made relevant, and perhaps mandatory in some cases, with an infinite approach to accentuate beyond inclusivity and diversity.

Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) proposes amendments to its Constitution and solicits constructive feedback from the zoological community. In compliance with the Constitution, the proposed amendments are made broadly available, and there will be a one-year period for submission of comments starting on 30 April 2020. The amendments may be modified in the light of the comments, before the final version is voted on by the Commissioners.

Interesting new Chinese species of Leptoceridae and Odontoceridae (Insecta: Trichoptera) from several recent collecting efforts.

In contravention of Article 16.4.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999), the repository for the holotypes of these species was not mentioned by Yang et al. (2020), such that the names proposed for these species are presently nomina nuda.

The “Plastotype Problem” in Ichnological Taxonomy

When naming ichnotaxa based on uncollectable trace fossils, the holotype is the actual ichnofossil in the outcrop, though some ichnologists identify the holotype as a replica (cast) held in a museum collection, and refer to it as a “plastotype,” although not all such replicas are made from plaster. Nevertheless, through its Code, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) makes it clear that an artificial, human-made replica (plaster cast or otherwise) is not eligible to be the holotype of an ichnotaxon. This directive is potentially destabilizing to much ichnological taxonomy, which is based on holotypes left in the field that have disappeared or will disappear. One possible solution for ichnologists will be to petition the ICZN to recognize that artificial, human-made replicas of ichnofossils can serve as name-bearing types. These may best be called “axiotypes” (from the Greek axios, meaning “of equal value”).

On the taxonomic status of Teyuwasu barberenai Kischlat, 1999 (Archosauria: Dinosauriformes), a challenging taxon from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil.

The controversial dinosauriform Teyuwasu barberenai Kischlat, 1999 (Fig. 1B) is based on a right femur (BSPG AS XXV 53) and tibia (BSPG AS XXV 54), formerly referred to the pseudosuchian 'Hoplitosuchus raui' (= Hoplitosaurus raui) Huene, 1938 (see also Huene, 1942). This material comes from a classic Late Triassic (Carnian) locality in southern Brazil (Fig. 1A), the Cerro da Alemoa outcrop on the Alemoa complex, that has yielded several noteworthy tetrapod specimens (see Garcia et al., 2019, for a complete list of references). When reviewing these abovementioned materials, Kischlat (1999) considered it to belong to a "robust saurischian dinosaur", but later this taxon was considered to be a nomen dubium (Langer et al., 2010; Ezcurra, 2012). Foremost, the initial description of this taxon is problematic, because Kischlat (1999) presented it in a symposium abstract which does not constitute a published work [which is not allowed under the Art. 9.10 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)]. Moreover, the author did not list traits that clearly differentiated Teyuwasu from other coeval dinosauriforms (cf. Art. 13 of the ICZN, see further below). In particular, it was not adequately distinguished from Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970 (Fig. 1B), which also comes from the same Alemoa complex, but from another nearby outcrop (Sanga Grande/Sanga de Baixo) considered equivalent in stratigraphic level and horizon with the lower levels of the Cerro da Alemoa site (Huene, 1942; Colbert, 1970; see also Garcia et al., 2019) (Fig. 1A). However, Huene (1942) did not clearly specify that the materials (femur and tibia) later assembled by Kischlat (1999) into the holotype of Teyuwasu were found in close association, although Huene (1942) cited that they come from the same stratigraphical level and horizon, and to our interpretation, their morphology and preservational features are compatible. Still, assigning these bones as part of a single individual is tentative.

The usage of subgenera in mammalian taxonomy

Abstract In this note, I discuss the advantages of the usage of subgenera as a practical taxonomic rank in mammalian taxonomy. Use of this category preserves traditional usage, reduces nomenclatural instability and avoids unnecessary change of names. Subgenera are useful to label diagnosable clades of closely related species, especially in morphologically and ecologically diverse monophyletic genera, without alteration of traditional binomial usage. Contrary to informal names such as “divisions” or “groups”, subgenera are governed by the rules of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), having usage constrained (and stability promoted) by typification and priority.

On the identity ofDidelphis marsupialisLinnaeus 1758

AbstractGiven the confusion ensuing from a recent study suggesting that the nameDidelphis marsupialisshould be applied to white-eared opossums instead of the traditional view that it represents a black-eared opossum, we reviewed all the sources employed by Linnaeus to describeD. marsupialisand examined photographs of the putative type specimen, comparing them with specimens of black- and white-earedDidelphis. We conclude that the type specimen presents characters that would allow us to diagnose it as a black-eared opossum species. We believe that the proposed nomenclatural changes not only are unjustified but also disrupt the stability advocated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN).

Catálogo de los especímenes tipo de la Colección Herpetológica de la Fundación Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina

Fil: Scrocchi Manfrini, Gustavo Jose. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico - Tucuman. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina

Corrigendum to ″Schmidingerothrix salinarum nov. spec. isthe Molecular Sister of the Large Oxytrichid Clade (Ciliophora, Hypotricha) by Foissner et al. 2014″.

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

Correction to 'The role of climatic and geological events in generating diversity in Ethiopian grass frogs (genus Ptychadena)'.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170021.].

Redescription and establishment of a holotype and three paratypes for the species Hemimycale mediterranea sp. nov.

BackgroundIn a recent paper, we described a new sponge species named Hemimycale mediterranea Uriz, Garate & Agell, 2017. However, we failed to designate a holotype and a type locality, as required by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Although the validity of the previous conclusions remains unchanged, the species name cannot be considered available according to ICZN regulations until a holotype is designated.ResultsThe present work fulfills the requirements of the ICZN by designating a holotype, three paratypes and the type locality for the new species Hemimycale mediterranea and has been registered in ZooBank.

Editorial: BZN goes electronic-only

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will be published only in electronic form starting with volume 74. Reduced costs, smoother workflow, and more efficient service to our community are the primary drivers.

Acasta sulcata akanthosa, new replacement name for Acasta sulcata spinosa.

Acasta sulcata spinosa Daniel, 1955 has been discovered to be a junior homonym of Acasta spinosa Hiro, 1939. As both names were originally described in the genus Acasta, ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Article 57.2 defines A. sulcata spinosa as a primary junior homonym, even though it is of subspecific nature.

Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond

Charles Davies Sherborn provided the bibliographic foundation for current zoological nomenclature with his magnum opus Index Animalium. In the 43 years he spent working on this extraordinary resource, he anchored our understanding of animal diversity through the published scientific record. No work has equaled it and it is still in current, and critical, use. Figure 1. Charles Davies Sherborn aged 25 (A), 32 (B), 61 (C) and 72 (D). Until now, Sherborn’s contribution has been recognized and relied upon by professional taxonomists worldwide but he has escaped the celebration of his accomplishment that is his due. This changed on 28 October 2011, with a symposium held in his honour at the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, on the 150th year of his birth. The symposium was organized by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), in collaboration with the Society for the History of Natural History (SHNH). The full-day meeting included an international panel of experts on bibliography and biodiversity bioinformatics who linked a view of the past with an active debate on the future of these related fields. There were fifteen talks from distinguished speakers from around the world, and ten posters, including an exhibition of ‘Sherborniana’, or artifacts from Sherborn’s tenure at the NHM. This volume expands on that meeting, with contributions from most of the presenters and selected additional contributors. The global and temporal reach of this event was extended through high quality recordings of all the talks, posters and discussion, including slides and poster downloads, through this site: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2011/10/anchoring-biodiversity-information-from-sherborn-to-the-21st-century-and-beyond/ and videos of all the talks through http://www.iczn.org/Sherborn. The papers in this volume fall into three general areas. In the first section, seven papers present different facets of Sherborn as a man, scientist and bibliographer, and describe the historical context for taxonomic indexing from the 19th century to today. In the second section, five papers (with a major appendix) discuss current tools and innovations for bringing legacy information into the modern age. The final section, with three papers, tackles the future of biological nomenclature, including innovative publishing models and the changing tools and sociology needed for communicating taxonomy. Because this volume is being produced as both a bound book and set of independent, Open Access papers free to download from the Web, there is a degree of overlap in some of the material covered. The papers need to be able to stand on their own, as well as to weave in to the whole overview of the accomplishments of this great man, his legacy and the roadmap for the future. In addition, because of the varied topics, the papers vary in style and length, some being more literary, some historical, some technical and some philosophical. Some are richly illustrated, others not at all. The only instructions to the authors were to attempt to reference each other’s papers to the greatest practical degree, simulating the kind of cross-topic communication one might have by being present at a symposium. The papers were all peer reviewed - most had critical input from three independent specialists in the field. I hope this diversity of approaches, rigorous oversight and the cross-pollination make the volume stimulating to read as a whole.

Establishment of a lectotype for the species Plesiochelys langii Rütimeyer, 1873.

Background. In a recent paper, we proposed a lectotype for the species Plesiochelys langii Rütimeyer, 1873. However, we failed to register this publication in ZooBank as required by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) for electronic publication. Although our conclusions remain unchanged, this particular nomenclatural act cannot be considered as published under ICZN regulations.Results. The present work fulfills the requirements of the ICZN for a lectotype designation and has been registered in ZooBank.

Note on Rondibilis similis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae).

Eryssamena was erected by Bates (1884) based on three species E. saperdina, E. acuta and E. spinidorsis, which Breuning (1977) recognised to be the same species: Eryssamena saperdina Bates, 1884. Although Eryssamena had been accepted as an independent genus for a long time, Kusama & Takakuwa (1984) and Hashimoto (2008) considered it as a subgenus of Rondibilis Thomson, 1857. Holzschuh (2003) treated Eryssamena as a synonym of the nominotypical subgenus. Ohbayashi & Niisato (2007) and Löbl & Smetana (2010) considered Eryssamena as a synonym of Rondibilis.We have found that the Laotian Eryssamena similis Breuning, 1965 is a secondary homonym of Rondibilis similis Gahan, 1907. According to the Art 57.3.1 of ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999), we hereby propose the replacement name Rondibilis subquadrinotata nom. n. for Eryssamena similis Breuning, 1965. The lectotype and a paralectotype are designated for Rondibilis similis Gahan, 1907.

Terrestrial isopods from the Oued Laou basin, north-eastern Morocco (Crustacea: Oniscidea), with descriptions of two new genera and seven new species

Thirty-four species of terrestrial isopods (Crustacea: Oniscidea) from the Oued Laou basin, in the Rif area of north-eastern Morocco, are recorded. One genus (Paractenoscia) and seven species (Trichoniscus microphthalmus, Paractenoscia cavernicola, Bathytropa rifensis, Soteriscus gibbosus, S. laouensis, Porcellio pseudornatus, and Eluma praticola) are described as new. The genus Soteriscus, unavailable according to article 13.3 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), is here revalidated by choosing S. gaditanus as type species. Six species (Graeconiscus thermophilus, Ctenoscia minima, Platyarthrus parisii, Porcellio humberti, Porcellio flavocinctus and Eluma caelata) have been fully illustrated to facilitate their identifications. Ctenoscia dorsalis Verhoeff is considered to be a junior synonym of C. minima Dollfus. Porcellio ornatus from southern Spain is also figured for comparison with P. pseudornatus sp. nov. The composition and origin of the oniscidean fauna of the Rif region is briefly discussed.http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DCBF3103-1463-4A32-9BC0-A4CFE8B762AE