Various problems posed by the 2012 Amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are reviewed. They concern mainly the nomenclatural availability and the promulgation date of works published online and of the new nomina and nomenclatural acts they contain. A methodology is proposed for the analysis of these problems in many works published after 3 September 2012. A detailed survey of 120 herpetological online publications having nomenclatural implications is presented: 63 of them include unavailable nomina and nomenclatural acts, and 57 of them were made available through their printed versions at dates subsequent to that stated on their PDFs. Detailed proposals and recommendations to authors, editors and referees, publishers, libraries, and concerning the Code, Zoobank and the Commission, are offered to try to limit the negative impact of these problems in zootaxonomy.

Failure to follow the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature can lead to significant confusion in taxonomic literature. This study examines five reptilian names (for two species, two genera and one family) that should be considered unavailable due to non-compliance with specific Code’s criteria. Proper adherence to the Code is essential for maintaining consistency and clarity in taxonomy. However, interpreting the Code is often challenging, and some of its rules require improvement. Despite these difficulties, taxonomists must remain knowledgeable about the Code regulations to ensure the nomenclatural availability of their work and stability of zoological nomenclature.

We formally name the distinct population of Dravidogecko in Coonoor Hills of the Upper Nilgiris, Western Ghats, India. The initial attempt that demonstrated molecular and geographical divergence of this species, unfortunately fell short on Code compliance for nomenclatural availability. We here sampled the very same population from the same location as that by the previous authors who erected an unavailable name. Following its published critic, we here erect the nomen Dravidogecko coonoor sp. nov. for this species, along with the first typification and full-fledged specimen description.

Two extant cave-dwelling bivalves of the dreissenid genus Congeria were recently described by Morton et Bilandžija in Bilandžija et al. (2013) as Congeria jalzici Morton et Bilandžija and C. mulaomerovici Morton et Bilandžija. Unfortunately, the volume of the Frontiers in Zoology in which the descriptions were published was online-only and did not include a Zoobank registration number (LSID), which is required for validation of new names in electronic-only publications (ICZN, 2012). In consequence, the names C. jalzici and C. mulaomerovici should not be available according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999, 2012). Therefore, the present note serves to validate the names C. jalzici and C. mulaomerovici by fulfilling the ICZN conditions for nomenclatural availability. The holotypes of both species are deposited in the General Collection of Recent Molluscs, Croatian Natural History Museum, Zagreb and in The National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo. Accordingly, the date and authorship of the new species names are those of this note and not those of Bilandžija et al. (2013).

This paper is the first of a series devoted to the analysis of the early classifications of amphibians and reptiles published from 1758 onwards, and of the nomenclatural status of all the nomina of herpetological taxa established in these works. In this introductory paper, we present the new methodology and the terminology used for these analyses, which propose a new approach to the understanding of the hierarchy of nomina and taxa in taxonomic publications. The hierarchical relationships between the taxa in these works have strong nomenclatural implications and consequences on the understanding of the nomenclatural status (nominal-series assignment, nomenclatural availability; taxonomic allocation; nomenclatural validity and nomenclatural correctness) of all early nomina, and in particular those of the higher nominal-series (family- and class-series), which have so far been misinterpreted in many cases.

Thirteen examples mainly taken from ciliatology illustrate the increasing work load of serious taxonomists interested in the reliability of nomenclatural information and trying to be Code-compliant. Weaknesses of the “Amendment” of five articles to expand methods of publication of the Code resulted in the increasing vagueness of dating a nomen (and/or even authorship). The statuses of periodicals with two ISSNs (Print and Online), online-only versions not being or incompletely registered in Zoobank and Corrigenda are often questionable. It is necessary to check in detail the nomenclatural availability of novelties included in them. The Zoobank registration of works published on ciliates is of little help in this respect. There was also retrieval inefficiency and bias of the search engine Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) tested for a subset of ciliate nomina (nearly 350 nomina and/or spellings) involved in unavailability, mainly objective synonymy and homonymy. The results clearly indicate that the taxonomic status is privileged and nomenclatural revisionary work, which often is spread over three or more decades, is very fragmentarily recognised. Moreover, the main subcategories of synonymy (including alloneonymy) and the correctness of information on senior and junior homonyms are disregarded. Recent monographies are not adequately represented in online databases and websites, forcing genuine taxonomists (after the promulgation of the revisionary work) to check a second time and often to correct each single record in the internet.

In September 2012, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was amended in order to allow the online publication of new nomina and nomenclatural acts, provided some conditions are respected. One of them is that such electronic publications be pre- and postregistered in the database Zoobank, and that this registration be mentioned in their PDFs. Unfortunately, these requirements were ignored by part of the international community of zootaxonomists and of publishers. Here we draw the attention to the fact that the famous Journal of Herpetology, which has been published only online since 2021, has since then not respected them in most (10 out of 13) of its taxonomic papers including nomenclatural novelties, thus failing to provide nomenclatural availability to them.

Santana et al. (2022) described a new genus and species of fossil crab, Chronocancer camilosantanai, from carbonate concretions of the Romualdo Formation of the Araripe Sedimentary Basin. The journal in which the description appeared was published online only and the new name did not include a ZooBank registration number (LSID), as required for validation of new names in electronic-only publications. The present note serves to validate the name Chronocancer camilosantanai by fulfilling the ICZN conditions for nomenclatural availability. The date and authorship of the specific name, accordingly, are those of this note, not Santana et al. (2022).

This sixth report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to the result of the enquiry launched by this Committee in 2021 about the status of new nomina and nomenclatural acts published so far on CD-ROMs. After a discussion of some problems of interpretation raised by Articles 8.4.2, 8.1.2 and 9.12 of the Code, we provide information about four periodicals (Pod@rcis, Snudebiller, Euscorpius and Palaeontologia Electronica) and an isolated paper originally published on CD-ROMs. Only two periodicals respected the Code’s requirements for nomenclatural promulgation of works on CD-ROMs before 2013, and therefore made new nomina and nomenclatural acts available through this mode of publication: Snudebiller for all its papers so published from 2000 to 2009 and for a few of its papers so published from 2010 to 2012; and Euscorpius for all its papers published from 2001 to 2012. All the other CD-ROM publications of new nomina and nomenclatural acts that we examined did not respect the Code’s criteria and are therefore nomenclaturally unavailable.

The present work proposes a precise formal definition and an expansion of the concept of ‘nomenclatural act’ which is present in the Code but not clearly delimitated from other related concepts, and provides a list of the published statements that correspond to this concept, a terminology for this and related acts, as well as for information affecting zoological nomenclature. These technical terms will be useful for unambiguous designation of the concepts of zoological nomenclature related to this concept, which are denoted in the Code by ‘common language’ terms having often widely different meanings. They will also be of great help for a future computerisation of the Rules of the Code, which will be possible only if distinct concepts are identified and pointed to by distinct terms. An important outcome of the present work is that genuine nomenclatural acts (onomatergies), as well as statements about nomenclatural status (cataphasy), acquire nomenclatural availability (i.e., existence) only if promulgated in paper or electronic publications complying with Article 8 of the Code, but cannot be made available online in electronic databases or other labile documents failing to comply with these Rules as revised in 2012.

A recent proposal to seek to suppress the name Strix pumila is shown by a careful search of the old literature to be unnecessary as the name was first applied to one species where it ranks as a junior synonym, and later applied to a different species where it has no nomenclatural availability as it is preoccupied.

This second report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to a careful analysis of the concept of nomenclatural availability in zoological nomenclature, a concept often misunderstood and misused in recent taxonomic publications. It provides a definition of this expression and establishes a new nomenclatural principle, the Principle of Availability. It addresses a number of terminological problems related to this concept and makes new proposals regarding this terminology.

This third report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee provides comments and proposals regarding the concepts, terminology and Rules used to establish the nomenclatural availability of publications, whatever their support and mode of distribution (on paper, on discs or electronic).

This fifth report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to a detailed survey of the problems raised by the current Rules of the Code, published in 2012, regarding the nomenclatural availability of works published online and registered on the database Zoobank. It points to various deficiencies in these Rules and in the conception and functioning of Zoobank, which result in uncertainties regarding the availability of these works and of their various versions. It proposes new wordings for these Rules, as well as for the terminology used regarding electronic publications.

This fourth report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to a detailed survey of the problems raised by the current Rules of the Code regarding the nomenclatural availability of works published on paper, concerning their dates, material and administrative parameters of publication, and various other matters. It proposes a few changes (clarifications and simplifications) in these Rules.

The ‘suppression’ (invalidation) for nomenclatural purposes by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the work Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupèdes Ovipares et des Serpens first published by La Cepède from 1788 to 1790 brought no benefit of any kind to zoological taxonomy and nomenclature but generated several nomenclatural problems. Here we review the history of the many discussions and proposals, as well as the successive and contradictory decisions of the Commission, regarding this work and the new nomina it contains, and we make new proposals to solve some of the problems created by these decisions. We suggest the Commission should take the initiative to restore nomenclatural availability to 18 nomina of La Cepède invalidated or of unclear status following its previous actions. More generally, we think that the use of the Plenary Power by the Commission should be more strictly regulated and made less easy and straightforward, and that the whole invalidation of complete works that have been considered as nomenclaturally available for a very long time in many works (e.g., 100 works in the 100 immediately preceding years) should be forbidden, and that the Commission should rather concentrate its attention and action on nomina rather than on works. Besides, we show that the snake nomen Coluber trigonocephalus Donndorff, 1798, currently considered valid, is invalid, and should be replaced by the nomen Coluber capitetriangulatus Bonnaterre, 1790.

Schnabel, Kou & Xu reported three new species of spongicolid shrimp from New Zealand. The present note, with ZooBank registrations, serve to validate the names Spongicoloides clarki, S. sonne and Spongiocaris antipodes by fulfilling Code conditions for nomenclatural availability. As such, the date and authorship of the species names take the date of publication of this note. Specimens are deposited at the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, Wellington (NIWA) and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington (NMNZ).

Hernáez et al. (2020) described a new fossil species of ghost shrimp, Callichirus santensis, from the Upper Pleistocene Cananéia Formation, southeast Brazil. The article in which C. santensis† was originally proposed was published online only (Hernáez et al., 2020), but did not include a ZooBank registration number (LISD), required for validation of the new names in electronic-only publications [vide Art. 8.5.3 of the amended Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999, 2012)]. Therefore, the present note serves to validate the name Callichirus santensis by fulfilling the ICZN conditions for nomenclatural availability.

Hernáez et al. (2020) described a new species of ghost shrimp, Neocallichirus pinheiroi, from northeastern coast of Brazil, Western Atlantic. Although the description and figures presented by Hernáez et al. (2020) fully characterize the new species, the journal issue in which the description appeared was published online only, and the article in which N. pinheiroi appeared did not include a ZooBank registration number (LISD), required for validation of new names in electronic-only publications [vide Art. 8.5.3 of the amended Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999, 2012)]. As result, the name Neocallichirus pinheiroi Hernáez, Windsor, Paula Santana, 2020, is not available according the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999, 2012). Therefore, the present note serves to validate the name Neocallichirus pinheiroi by fulfilling the ICZN conditions for nomenclatural availability.

In his doctoral thesis, Christian Bussau published 110 new nematode nomina, including 97 nomina of new species, 11 of new genera and two of new subfamilies. The nomenclatural availability of these nomina has not been generally accepted and is evaluated here. It is determined that the doctoral thesis published by Bussau (1993) satisfies the criteria of publication outlined in Article 8 of the Code, and that all nomenclatural acts published in it satisfy the criteria of availability outlined in Articles 11 and 13 of the Code. The correct authority for all nomina first published in Bussau (1993) is ‘Bussau, 1993’, and not ‘Bussau, 1995’ or ‘Bussau & Vopel, 1999’. All nomenclatural acts published in Bussau (1995) and Bussau & Vopel (1999) are junior objective synonyms of acts published in Bussau (1993), except for Bathynox Bussau & Vopel, 1999. Nox Bussau, 1993 is a junior homonym of Nox Nalbant, 1986, and was provided the available new replacement nomen Bathynox Bussau & Vopel, 1999. The correct authority of Bathynox clavata is ‘(Bussau, 1993)’.