Rules Of Zoological Nomenclature Research Articles

History Extended: Migration of Systema Dipterorum into TaxonWorks

Now 40-year old, Systema Dipterorum was originally created in a FileMaker™ database by F.C. Thompson and is currently maintained by N.L. Evenhuis and T. Pape (Evenhuis and Pape 2024a). Recent conversations as to its future led to an effort to transition Systema Dipterorum into TaxonWorks. A web-based platform tailored to the requirements of biodiversity-informatics scientists, TaxonWorks meets the evolving needs of Systema Dipterorum. TaxonWorks provides tools designed to facilitate data migration, management, validation, and packaging for exports, such as Darwin Core-Archives (DwC-A) and Catalogue of Life Data Package (CoL-DP) formats. While TaxonWorks offers batch upload functionality, the intricate nature of the Systema Dipterorum database necessitated specialized handling, i.e., a custom migration script. A TaxonWorks version of Systema Dipterorum is now accessible for preview and validation. This preview is particularly valuable for nomenclature validation, as TaxonWorks includes many tools ensuring compliance with the rules of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999). Additionally, this preview version now directly feeds the pipeline serving Systema Dipterorum to the Catalogue of Life. By migrating Systema Dipterorum into TaxonWorks, a wide range of utilities expanding the decades of effort behind the data are unlocked. TaxonWorks enables the creation of paper-style catalogs and the sharing of data via its public interface, TaxonPages. A test version of Systema Dipterorum stored in TaxonWorks and rendered with TaxonPages is now available on-line (Evenhuis and Pape 2024b). The data are also accessible via a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) API, enabling computing (e.g., scripted synonymy queries) against the TaxonWorks dataset. Complexity and diversity of the data are illustrated in Fig. 1. While many technical hurdles are resolved, major challenges remain in building a new community around Systema Dipterorum, one that will collectively take over the efforts of the few curators who have worked for so long on this broadly used resource.

How not to describe a species: lessons from a tangle of anacondas (Boidae: Eunectes Wagler, 1830)

Abstract A recent revision of the anacondas (Serpentes: Boidae: Eunectes), with the description of a new species of green anaconda, generated extensive publicity, but also provoked considerable controversy due to inadequacies of the evidence used and errors in nomenclature. We here use the case of this problematic publication to: (i) highlight common issues affecting species delimitations, especially an over-reliance on mitochondrial DNA data, and reiterate best practices; (ii) reanalyse the data available for anacondas to establish the true current state of knowledge and to highlight lines of further research; and (iii) analyse the nomenclatural history and status of the genus. While our analysis reveals significant morphological variation in both green and yellow anacondas, denser sampling and an analysis of informative nuclear markers are required for meaningful species delimitation in Eunectes. Tracing the history of name-bearing types establishes Trinidad as the type locality for Boa murina Linnaeus, 1758 and allows identification of the extant lectotype for the species. Finally, we emphasize the responsibility of both journals and authors to ensure that published taxonomic work meets the burden of evidence required to substantiate new species descriptions and that species are named in compliance with the rules of zoological nomenclature.

Threes Company: discovery of a third syntype of Stegonotus lividus, a species of colubrid snake from Pulau Semau, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia, with comments on an unpublished 19th Century manuscript by the naturalist Salomon Mller.

We report on the discovery of a third, male specimen of Stegonotus lividus in the collection of the Musum National dHistoire Naturelle in Paris, France, and demonstrate that it is not only a member of the original type series but the only one of the three syntypes, whose morphology was detailed in the original description. We herein identify it as a paralectotype. In their description of S. lividus, Dumril et al. (1854) attributed authorship of the name to the German zoologist Salomon Mller, whose work was never published. By the rules of zoological nomenclature, author attribution solely via an unpublished manuscript is inadmissible, and the species is therefore properly listed as Stegonotus lividus (Dumril et al., 1854). The recent discovery of Mllers handwritten manuscript, along with an unpublished drawing of one of these snakes by the Dutch artist Pieter van Oort, allows a better assessment of color and pattern for a species that remains known from only three preserved vouchers, as well as improved differentiation from other taxa occurring in the Lesser Sundas and Moluccas.

<p align="left"><strong>The Linz <em>Zoocode</em> project: a set of new proposals regarding the terminology, the Principles and Rules of zoological nomenclature. First report of activities (2014‒2019)</strong></p>

In July 2014, the international meeting “Burning questions and problems of zoological nomenclature” was held in Linz (Austria). It acknowledged the presence in the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature of a number of severe problems, and accordingly decided the creation of a new international body, the Linz Zoocode Committee (LZC), in charge of writing the Linz Zoocode, a set of new proposals regarding the terminology, the Principles and Rules of zoological nomenclature. Here we present the first report of the activities of this Committee, covering the period 2014‒2019. It contains the presentation of our work, and the first documents adopted by the Committee: the Preamble and Principles of the Zoocode, the description of its structure and a first instalment of the Zoocode Glossary. The Zoocode regulates the status of zoological nomina and nomenclatural acts (onomatergies). Its aim is to provide an explicit, precise and objective nomenclatural system for the unambiguous and universal naming of all zoological taxa recognised by taxonomists, so that, in the frame of a given classification, the nomen of each taxon is unique and distinct. It relies on a Nomenclatural Process consisting in four main stages: nomenclatural assignment and availability, taxonomic allocation, nomenclatural validity and correctness, and registration of nomina and onomatergies. Whereas the Code currently in force is based on six stated Principles, the Zoocode recognises 17 distinct ones. We here submit these documents to the consideration of the international community of zootaxonomists, in the perspective of the incorporation of these proposals into the next version of the Code.

TaxonWorks: a Use Case in Documenting of Etymology of Generic Names in Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera)

The 3i World Auchenorrhyncha database (http://dmitriev.speciesfile.org) is being migrated into TaxonWorks (http://taxonworks.org) and comprises nomenclatural data for all known Auchenorrhyncha taxa (leafhoppers, planthoppers, treehoppers, cicadas, spittle bugs). Of all those scientific names, 8,700 are unique genus-group names (which include valid genera and subgenera as well as their synonyms). According to the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, a properly formed species-group name when combined with a genus-group name must agree with the latter in gender if the species-group name is or ends with a Latin or Latinized adjective or participle. This provides a double challenge for researchers describing new or citing existing taxa. For each species, the knowledge about the part of speech is essential information (nouns do not change their form when associated with different generic names). For the genus, the knowledge of the gender is essential information. Every time the species is transferred from one genus to another, its ending may need to be transformed to make a proper new scientific name (a binominal name). In modern day practice, it is important, when establishing a new name, to provide information about etymology of this name and the ways it should be used in the future publications: the grammatical gender for a genus, and the part of speech for a species. The older names often do not provide enough information about their etymology to make proper construction of scientific names. That is why in the literature, we can find numerous cases where a scientific name is not formed in conformity to the Rules of Nomenclature. An attempt was made to resolve the etymology of the generic names in Auchenorrhyncha to unify and clarify nomenclatural issues in this group of insects. In TaxonWorks, the rules of nomenclature are defined using the NOMEN onthology (https://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/nomen).

The correct name of the South-central black rhinoceros is Diceros bicornis keitloa (A.Smith, 1836)

In South Africa, the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) is divided into two subspecies, the South-western in the west and the South-central in the east. The exact boundary between the ranges of these subspecies is uncertain, but has been defined to coincide with the administrative border between the Northern Cape and North West provinces. It is current practice to refer to the South-central black rhinoceros as Diceros bicornis minor, which has Zululand as the type-locality. This needs adjustment, because an earlier valid scientific name was given to a rhinoceros killed near Zeerust in the western part of North West province. In line with the rules of zoological nomenclature, the South-central black rhinoceros should be known as Diceros bicornis keitloa.

On the validity of Noah's giant clam Tridacna noae (Röding, 1798) and its synonymy with Ningaloo giant clam Tridacna ningaloo Penny & Willan, 2014

A new giant clam species, Tridacna ningaloo Penny & Willan, 2014 has been described from Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Meanwhile, it has been suggested that Noah's giant clam, Tridacna noae (Roding, 1798), previously resurrected from synonymy with T. maxima (Roding, 1798), is an invalid name. We assessed the validity of resurrecting T. noae and designating a neotype for it against the rules of zoological nomenclature and found no flaw in these acts. We then compared the genetic and morphological characters used in the respective diagnoses of T. noae and the newly-described Tridacna ningaloo. No difference was apparent between T. ningaloo and T. noae except, possibly, in mantle ornamentation patterns. In particular, the holotype of T. ningaloo possesses a mitochondrial DNA haplotype identical to T. noae. Thus, the hypothesis that T. ningaloo is a species distinct from T. noae was not supported by clear morphological evidence and it was contradicted by the available genetic evidence. Tridacna ningaloo should be regarded as a junior synonym of T. noae.

The taxonomic status of the Italian Sparrow — Passer italiae (Vieillot 1817): Speciation by stabilised hybridisation? A critical analysis

Since its description the taxonomic status of the Italian Sparrow Passer italiae (Vieillot 1817) has changed repeatedly according to the speciation concepts applied. Due to external similarities with hybrid sparrow individuals the hypothesis that italiae is a stabilised hybrid form between Passer domesticus (L. 1758) and P. hispaniolensis (Temm. 1820) has deeply influenced the discussion although some authors do not even accept hybrid forms as taxa. Based upon a comprehensive review of the literature it is shown that the postulation of a hybrid origin of italiae is inadmissible, being based on a methodologically circular argument. There is no convincing proof of stabilised hybridisation. Therefore Passer italiae is a real taxon and not a hybrid form. Applying the Biospecies Concept according to current knowledge of distributional facts and the lack of reproductive isolation between italiae and hispaniolensis I argue that these two forms are conspecific. Passer domesticus is not conspecific with them. According to the rules of zoological nomenclature the taxa have to be designated as Passer italiae italiae (Vieillot 1817) and Passer italiae hispaniolensis (Temminck 1820).

Paranomenclature and the rules of zoological nomenclature; with examples from fossil polychaete jaws (scolecodonts)

Names of zoological taxa are governed by a set of laws, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature or ICZN. In contrast to taxonomy, where decisions are based on interpretations, the laws of nomenclature are explicit and must be obeyed. One of the consequences, as discussed herein, is that paranomenclature, that reflects parataxonomic classifications based on parts of organisms independently of other parts, is not recognized under the ICZN and thus cannot be applied to formally diagnosed taxa. In the case of jawed polychaete annelids, parataxonomic treatments of the jaw elements as well as ICZN-governed naming of the reconstructed apparatus has divided their fossil record into separate but biologically overlapping groups of element-based and apparatus-based taxa. The independent treatment of groups created in this way has the potential for much confusion, if their names are used in formal systematics. Other recommendations of ICZN for effective diagnosis and illustration should also be considered in proposing names within groups such as this, where paranomenclature has been customary in the past.

EPALLAGIDAE VERSUS EUPHAEIDAE REVISITED

Abstract The author's previous rejection of Selys' legions as available family-group taxa is restated and elaborated, strictly based on the provisions of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature (4th ed.).

Ribosomal DNA sequence of Nucleospora salmonis Hedrick, Groff and Baxa, 1991 (Microsporea:Enterocytozoonidae): implications for phylogeny and nomenclature.

Rules of zoological nomenclature, morphological data, and ribosomal DNA sequence data support the validity of the genus Nucleospora, and its placement in the family Enterocytozoonidae. Although Nucleospora exhibits most of the distinguishing morphological characteristics of the family Enterocytozoonidae Cali and Owen, 1990, the distinctively different hosts (fish and humans, respectively) and sites of development (the nuclei of immature blood cells and the cytoplasm of enterocytes) support the placement of Nucleospora and Enterocytozoon into separate genera. Ribosomal DNA sequence comparisons between Nucleospora salmonis and Enterocytozoon bieneusi showed 19.8% genetic divergence in the large and small subunit regions. Although more inter- and intrageneric comparisons are needed before percent homology of ribosomal DNA can be used as a criterion for the separation of genera, the genetic divergence between the two species is sufficiently large to deter suppression of the genus Nucleospora as a junior synonym of Enterocytozoon. A polymerase chain reaction test for the detection of N. salmonis in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), based on N. salmonis-specific ribosomal DNA sequence, is described.

A new Late Triassic (Norian) conodont species

The description of Norian conodonts from northwest Nevada recently published (Meek, 1984) includes reference to a new Late Triassic conodont Epigondolella humboldtensis n. sp. on p. 316, fig. 2 and PL 1, figs. 5-11 and 19. Description of this species was to have been included as appendix 3 to the paper but was inadvertently omitted. In order to conform to the international rules of zoological nomenclature, a description of the species follows and this becomes the valid reference for Epigondolella humboldtensis n. sp.

John Richardson (1787-1865)

Sir John Richarson first achieved fame as a surgeon and naturalist with the two arctic land expeditions led by John Franklin in 1819-22 and 1825-27. A true generalist, Richardson was competent in geology, mammalogy, ichthyology - a soon became knowledgeable in ornithology. He wrote three of the four volumes of Fauna Boreali-Americana, and edited zoological appendices for the voyages of Parry, Ross, Back, Beechey, Kellett, and Belcher. A formidable ichthyologist who described 43 still-accepted genera and over 200 new species of fish, he was also a key member of the Strickland Committee, which set the rules of zoological nomenclature. ... His name is perpetuated by numerous plants, fish, birds, and mammals (including Richardson's ground squirrel), and by such geographical features as the Richardson Mountains and Richardson River. ...

Notes on Nepticulidae (Lepidoptera) I A Revision of the Nepticula ruficapitella Group

AbstractThe European species of the Nepticula ruficapitella group are revised on the basis of authentic material. Four new species, svenssoni, dorsiguttella, roborella and eberhardi, are established. Three species, atricapitella Hw., ruficapitella Hw. and samiatella Z., formerly not satisfactorily defined, are redescribed. N. cerricolella Klim. is reduced to a subspecies of basiguttella Hein. N. ilicivora Peyer. is considered synonymous with the older name suberivora Stt. Five lectotypes are designated, some of these specimens have previously been labelled "Type" or "Lectotype" but as far as known without publication. These lectotypes are here published in accordance with the rules of zoological nomenclature. A list of the Scandinavian and British Nepticulidae was compiled and the species are arranged into groups consisting of allied species. The definition of Stigmella Schrank 1802 is disagreeing with the structural characters distinguishing the family Nepticulidae. Consequently, the generic name Stigmella has to be rejected and the younger but better known and satisfactorily defined name Nepticula Heyden I843 has been used in this paper.

Brachymetopus (Brachymetopus) and B. (Brachymetopina) (Trilobita, Devonian to Upper Carboniferous)

AbstractThe interpretation of Brachymetopus (Brachymetopus) M'Coy and B. (Brachymetopina) Reed in Europe has been contrary to the general interpretation in America. The relevant literature is critically reviewed and it is concluded that both usages have been at fault and neither is in accordance with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. The type species of B. (Brachymetopus) is maccoyi Portlock, 1843, and the type species of B. (Brachymetopina) is ouralica de Verneuil, 1845; B. (Brachymetopina) is a subjective synonym of B. (Brachymetopus).

Whither Zoological Nomenclature?

ZOOLOGICAL nomenclature appears to be approaching a fork in the road. At first sight nomenclatural thinking might appear to be travelling two, perhaps three, different roads at once, but a sounder interpretation is probably that it is in the throes of contemplating a change in direction. In any event the phenomenon affects all zoologists and consequently deserves their careful consideration. The present discussion of these apparent lines of nomenclatural thought is not only preliminary but it is written by one who is interested in nomenclature only in so far as it provides a useful tool for zoological work. The 1901 edition of the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature was based on the principle that if one followed certain prescribed procedures one would arrive at (or if necessary create) the valid scientific name of an animal, and that if everybody would follow the same path he would arrive at the same name. The utility of this concept is directly correlated with the simplicity of the procedures. If these become so complicated that only a nomenclatural technician can determine the valid name, then the amateur, i.e., the zoologist, will go astray. Under such circumstances the recognition value of the valid name would be greatly reduced and the amount of time necessarily transferred from zoological to nomenclatural work increased; in short the value of nomenclature as a zoological tool would be greatly impaired. There is, however, another and more dire possibility, namely that zoologists would simply ignore the Rules, using whatever names they saw fit. If this happened, zoology would revert to the dark nomenclatural ages before there were any Rules. (Unfortunately or fortunately, the International Commission has no enforcement agency other than zoological opinion. This point seems sometimes to have slipped from sight.) Two nomenclatural concepts that can or do lead off in rather different directions have now been superimposed on the procedural method dealt with above. The first of these has its origin in the Opinions. The earlier Opinions took up either applications of the Rules to moot cases or amplifications of the Rules to cover deficiencies. With time, however, the Opinions became increasingly diverted to ad hoc decisions concerning the validity of individual scientific names, e.g., nos. 67, 73, etc. From there it was but a short and logical step to the establishment of the present list of nomina conservanda. Suffice it to say for the moment that any name placed on this list becomes ipso facto the valid name regardless of the Rules. The second innovation is the recent concerted effort to insert into the Rules some law ensuring the conservation of well-known scientific names. The exact framing of such a concept does not seem to have been worked out, but the intent is to prevent the changing of well established names, again regardless of the Rules. These then are the two concepts that seem to point in a somewhat different direction from the old Rules, and it seems advisable to pause and consider where the various roads of nomenclatural thought lead. The Rules themselves have followed a path toward increasing complication. To point up the resulting difficulties, a personal example with obvious defects will here be risked. In teaching nomenclature in a course on systematic zoology over a number of years the author has found it best to start with the 1901 Rules. Stu-

An Unofficial Interpretation of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, as Ammended by the XIII International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 and by the XIV International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953

An Unofficial Interpretation of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, as Ammended by the XIII International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 and by the XIV International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953

A Revised Proposal for Errors and Emendations in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature

A Revised Proposal for Errors and Emendations in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature

Proposed Changes in Article 25 (the Law of Priority) of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature

Proposed Changes in Article 25 (the Law of Priority) of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature

Problems of Ammonite Nomenclature. 1. On the Type of the Ammonite Genus Mortoniceras, Meek

MOST workers on fossils at the present day try to conform to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature,1 but there are cases in which even the most conscientious palaeontologist may be in doubt as to whether any given article or recommendation of the International Code can justifiably be applied. Some workers, I may add, are forgetting that this code should be a good servant, and must not be allowed to become a bad master; again, while others are in favour of applying to the International Commission for standardization of almost every problem, many palaeontologists feel that the rules should not be relaxed except in very special cases. It seems to me of general interest to discuss some doubtful cases; for future workers may be guided by our difficulties, and the overworked Commission will eventually benefit by the discussion.