Valid Nomen Research Articles

Conservation of Coluber lanceolatus as the valid name of the Martinique fer-de-lance (no matter who its author is)

The fer-de-lance of Martinique is a pitviper of medical importance and conservation concern. It was described by La Cepède in 1789 as Coluber lanceolatus but as a result of a ruling of the Commission (Opinion 1463) this nomen is unavailable. Although a proposed new use of the Plenary Power by the Commission could restore the availability of Coluber lanceolatus La Cepède, 1789, this possibility remains hypothetical and under the Code-compliant interpretation, C. lanceolatus was made available by Bonnaterre in 1790 who proposed a homonymous poieonym. Coluber lanceolatus, which, as Bothrops lanceolatus, is currently universally accepted as the valid nomen of the fer-de-lance, is at risk because of the existence of two older nomina that apply to this taxon, Vipera cærulescens Laurenti, 1768 and its replacement name Coluber glaucus Gmelin, 1789. Consequently, we here provide the evidence necessary to demonstrate that Vipera cærulescens and Coluber glaucus are nomina oblita and to designate Coluber lanceolatus, under both the current proposed interpretations of its authorship, as a nomen protectum. Coluber lanceolatus Bonnaterre, 1790 has precedence over Coluber brasiliensis and C. tigrinus, two nomina with which it is considered synonymous and which were made available in the same work. However, precedence was established as a result of determination by the First Reviser only as recently as 2021. The case of Bothrops lanceolatus highlights that even well-established and widely accepted nomina may be potentially vulnerable to destabilisation by long-forgotten synonyms and illustrates the particular nomenclatural complications that can arise from valid Bonnaterre nomina that are homonymous with long-used but now unavailable La Cepède names.

The nomenclatural status of Agama cristata Merrem, 1819 and Corytophanes Schlegel, 1826 (Squamata, Corytophanidae) and of other tropical lizard nomina, with comments on some tricky issues of zoological nomenclature

The nomenclatural status of the nomina Agama cristata and Corytophanes (Squamata, Corytophanidae) are examined. The former should be credited to Merrem (1819), not Merrem (1820), and the latter to Schlegel (1826a), not H. Boie in Schlegel (1826b). The nomen Iguana superciliosa Latreille in Sonnini & Latreille, 1801 is shown to be a senior synonym of Agama cristata Merrem, 1819. Article 23.9 is used here to protect the latter through reversal of precedence. Several other nomenclatural problems related to these nomina and related ones are explored. Updated synonymies and aponymies are provided for all the nomina of the genus Corytophanes currently considered valid and for the family, the valid nomen of which is Corytophanidae Fitzinger, 1843 [Frost & Etheridge, 1989] based on Article 35.4.1 and through reversal of precedence. Attention is drawn to several nomina and spellings present in the literature but forgotten by all or most authors until now.

Nomenclatural solutions for diagnosing ‘cryptic’ species using molecular and morphological data facilitate a taxonomic revision of the Black-bellied Salamanders (Urodela, Desmognathus ‘quadramaculatus’) from the southern Appalachian Mountains

To be available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, nomina erected after 1930 must “be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon” (Article 13.1.1). For many so-called ‘cryptic’ species, this may prove difficult when relying on external morphology. Yet, such species are likely to be diagnosable by (fixed or variable) differences in DNA sequences, which can also be treated as characters and described in words. While recent authors have proposed such methods, they have rarely been adopted as the primary diagnostic implement in vertebrates. Additionally, morphometrics may reveal subtle but distinct variation in size and shape, which may not be dispositive for identifying individual specimens but can nonetheless characterize overall differences between species. We employ these techniques here to revise the taxonomy of the Black-bellied Salamanders Desmognathus folkertsi and Desmognathus ‘quadramaculatus’ from the southern Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States. While the former was diagnosed by a variety of morphological and molecular characters, the latter was poorly characterized and subsequently found to consist of two distantly related clades of six genetic lineages. Recent nomenclatural work found that the nomen Salamandra quadramaculata Holbrook, 1840 was unavailable for this species and that no valid nomen had ever been applied at the species level. We erect three new species and resurrect one junior synonym to account for species-level geographic genetic variation in the group. All nomina are diagnosed with explicit reference to fixed or varying allelic differences at mitochondrial and nuclear loci, quantitative variation in overall size and shape from linear morphometrics, and qualitative description of color-pattern variation. Despite their gross similarity, we hypothesize that subtle, as-yet undetected phenotypic variation exists between these species, which may be revealed by geometric morphometrics, 3D scanning, and other data such as physiology and behavior. We also utilize recently developed technologies to present DNA-sequence data for these species in a compact, reproducible format to permanently associate the observed characters with the original description, with several thousand base pairs taking up only a few cm2. These approaches may prove useful for future descriptions of amphibians with highly similar external phenotypes.

Three names, one species: junior synonyms for the Atlantic Forest emerald dragonfly Navicordulia atlantica (Odonata: Corduliidae s.s.)

Three Atlantic Forest endemic species of emerald dragonflies of the genus Navicordulia Machado & Costa, 1995 are reviewed through a morphological comparative analysis. All name-bearing types and additional specimens of the Navicordulia atlantica-complex—Navicordulia atlantica Machado & Costa, 1995, Navicordulia mielkei Machado & Costa, 1995 and Navicordulia miersi Machado & Costa, 1995—were investigated to assess their taxonomic and nomenclatural status. Based on our results the hypothesis of these three nomina corresponding to distinct species is no longer supported. The proportional size of caudal appendages, an additional crossvein in cubito-anal space in the hind wing, as well as minor differences in coloration of pterostigma are not reliable diagnostic characters for supporting their specific status. We consider the three simultaneously available nomina as synonyms, and by action of the first reviser, Navicordulia atlantica Machado & Costa, 1995 is selected as valid nomen, hence N. mielkei syn. nov. and N. miersi syn. nov. are their subjective junior synonyms. Photos, other illustrations, and a new species-level diagnosis are given. Despite of the advances of taxonomic knowledge of Navicordulia, the second species-rich corduliid genus in the Neotropical region, the status of some species still necessitates a full revision.

Barton and the forgotten description of Salamandra horrida (Amphibia, Urodela): story of a rediscovery

Cryptobranchus alleganiensis (Sonnini & Latreille, 1801b) was long considered the only species of the genus Cryptobranchus Leuckart, 1821. In this genus, Sabatino & Routman (2009) found eight genetic independent unities isolated from each other, which they treated as Management Units. Later, Hime (2017) recovered five strongly supported species-level lineages within this genus, corresponding more or less to the lineages of Sabatino & Routman (2009). We herein resurrect a valid nomen for one of the lineages of Hime (2017) (Ohio/Allegheny/Susquehanna lineage), the most broadly distributed of the five, which should be named Cryptobranchus horridus (Barton, 1807a). We relate the story of the rediscovery of two forgotten publications of Barton (1807a‒b) preceding that of 1808 so far recognized as the original description of this taxon. We discuss the problem of the onymotope of Cryptobranchus alleganiensis and present logonomic lists for the genus Cryptobranchus and all the taxa described. The nucleospecies of the genus Cryptobranchus is Salamandra horrida Barton, 1807a which is no longer a synonym of Salamandra alleganiensis Sonnini & Latreille, 1801b. The updating of the logonymic lists revealed the forgotten designation of Barnes (1828) for the genus Protonopsis Le Conte, 1824, a synonym of Cryptobranchus. The following nomina can be allocated to three of the five lineages identified by Hime (2017): Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, Cryptobranchus horridus and Cryptobranchus bishopi. Two other lineages require further studies.

Nomenclatural status of Pyuridae and Bolteniidae (Tunicata, Ascidiacea) with comments on several included genera

Detailed discussion of the nomenclatural history of the Pyuridae, Bolteniidae and related families is provided. It is shown that the valid nomen for the family currently known as Pyuridae is Bolteniidae. The generic nomen "Claudenus Kott, 1998" is not available and Claudenus is re-established here as intentionally new nomen (Claudenus Sanamyan & Sanamyan gen. nov.) The generic nomen Cratostigma is not available but no replacement nomen is suggested because we suppose that this genus may be congeneric with Bolteniopsis. The generic nomen Eupera Michaelsen, 1904 is invalid being a junior homonym, but a new replacement nomen is not suggested because it is synonymized here with Culeolus.

<p><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina. </strong><strong>8. Amphibia Blainville, 1816</strong></p>

Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, the valid nomen of the class including all recent amphibians and all the Palaeozoic groups of anamniote tetrapods subsequent to the ‘lissamphibian-amniote phylogenetic split’ is the sozodiaphonym Amphibia Blainville, 1816. This corresponds to the usage that has been in force for two centuries in thousands of publications, and it should not be challenged, as this would entail instability and confusion.

<p><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina </strong><strong>2. Anura Duméril, 1805</strong></p>

A taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order, encompassing all recent taxa of frogs and their close fossil relatives, is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent phylogenetic analyses of Amphibia. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among more than thirty nomina available for this taxon in the literature, two only qualify as sozodiaphonyms: Anura Duméril, 1805 and Salientia Merrem, 1820. The conflict for validity between these two nomina is easily solved by publication dates. The valid nomen for this taxon is therefore Anura Duméril, 1805, which corresponds to the overwhelming majority of uses in the literature, and which should replace all other nomina, authorships and dates sometimes credited to this taxon in publications, catalogues and databases.

<p class="NormalParagraphStyle"><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina </strong><strong>3. Urodela Duméril, 1805</strong></p>

A taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order, encompassing all recent taxa of salamanders and their close fossil relatives, is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent phylogenetic analyses of amphibians. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among about thirty nomina available for this taxon in the literature, two only qualify as sozodiaphonyms: Urodela Duméril, 1805 and Caudata Duméril, 1805. The conflict for validity between these two nomina is solved by the Principle of Airesy (first reviser). The valid nomen for this taxon is therefore Urodela Duméril, 1805, which corresponds to the majority of uses in the literature since their creation, and which should replace all other nomina, authorships and dates sometimes credited to this taxon in publications, catalogues and databases.

The valid nomen for the tree frog (genus Hyla) of Tunisia and Eastern Algeria.

Mediterranean tree frogs, Hyla gr. meridionalis Boettger, 1874 (Anura: Hylidae) are widespread around the Western Mediterranean Basin, where they naturally occur across the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia). Individuals of diverse Moroccan origins have been introduced and have expanded throughout the Iberian Peninsula, southern France and northern Italy (Liguria), but also on the Canary and Balearic archipelagos (Recuero et al. 2007; Dufresnes et al. 2019). Early molecular studies uncovered several mitochondrial lineages and suggested a major cryptic diversification within this taxon, with Tunisian and eastern Algerian (Numidia) populations carrying deeply divergent haplotypes compared with the rest of the range (Recuero et al. 2007; Stöck et al. 2008; Stöck et al. 2012). While intron markers showed little differentiation (Stöck et al. 2008; Stöck et al. 2012), genome-wide data obtained from RAD-sequencing have supported the deep split suspected from mtDNA (Dufresnes et al. 2018).

The taxonomic and nomenclatural status of the nomen Anabates pulvericolorSclater, 1858 (Aves: Furnariidae), with a neotype designation.

Different authors have suggested that Anabates pulvericolor Sclater, 1858 might be the valid nomen for Synallaxis propinqua Pelzeln, 1859 or for Synallaxis gujanensis huallagae Cory, 1919. However, due to doubts regarding the taxonomic identity of Anabates pulvericolor Sclater, 1858, of which the unique type is lost, neither of these nomina has been displaced by the senior nomen pulvericolor. Our analysis of the case reveals that Anabates pulvericolor Sclater, 1858 is correctly identifiable with Synallaxis gujanensis huallagae Cory, 1919, of which it is a senior subjective synonym. According to the Code, the senior subjective synonym Synallaxis gujanensis pulvericolor (Sclater, 1858) should be adopted. Given the fact that the holotype of Anabates pulvericolor Sclater, 1858 is missing and that it has been impossible to identify it from its description until now, we designate a neotype from"Río Napo, Ecuador", its original type locality.

Hyla prasina Burmeister, 1856 meets the requirements of Article 23.9.1 of the Code for a reversal of precedence over Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828 (Anura, Hylidae).

In a recent work, Ohler and Dubois (2018) discussed the correct application of Article 23.9 of the Code (Anonymous, 1999; 2012) and illustrated it with some concrete cases in which the authors considered that the Article was misinterpreted. Article 23.9 of the Code allows the "reversal of precedence", that is, that when a senior homonym or synonym has not been used as a valid nomen after 1899 (Article 23.9.1.1) and its junior synonym or homonym has been used as valid for the same taxon in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years (Article 23.9.1.2), the junior homonym or synonym must be maintained as valid (Article 23.9.1). One of the cases considered by Ohler and Dubois (2018) is the treatment given by Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) to the names Hyla prasina Burmeister, 1856 (under the combination Hypsiboas prasinus), and Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828.

The identity of the South African toad Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura).

The toad species Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 was erected for a single specimen from South Africa which has never been properly studied and allocated to a known species. A morphometrical and morphological analysis of this specimen and its comparison with 75 toad specimens referred to five South African toad species allowed to allocate this specimen to the species currently known as Amietophrynus rangeri. In consequence, the nomen Sclerophrys must replace Amietophrynus as the valid nomen of the genus, and capensis as the valid nomen of the species. This work stresses the usefulness of natural history collections for solving taxonomic and nomenclatural problems.

Zygoidy, a new nomenclatural concept

In zoological taxonomy, unambiguous and universal designation of a given taxon at a given rank in a given classification requires to establish its valid nomen and the correct spelling of the latter. Consequently, a need to resolve the situations of conflict that may exist between available nomina and spellings arises. These situations of nomenclatural conflict are here designated as zygoidy. They are of three kinds: zygonymy (conflicts of omonymy or synonymy between nomina for validity), zygography (conflicts of parography between spellings for correctness) and zygophory (conflicts of airetophory between onomatophore designations for validity). The resolution of these conflicts relies on several basic Principles already formulated in the Code (the Principles of Homonymy, Priority and “First-Reviser”, here renamed “Airesy”), as well as additional ones not yet recognized in this text: the Principles of Zygoidy, Proedry, Nomography and Sozoidy. A detailed analysis of these ituations is provided. It allows to identify in which cases and under which conditions these Principles apply. This omplete inventory of possible situations and solutions will be of great usefulness for a forecoming utomatisation and computerization of the Rules of the Code in forthcoming databases and Web applications.

The <i>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature</i> must be drastically improved before it is too late

At the beginning of the century of extinctions, science has only inventoried a very small proportion of the living species of the globe. In order to face the taxonomic urgency that results from this taxonomic gap combined with the biodiversity crisis, zootaxonomy needs efficient, rigorous and automatic nomenclatural Rules, that allow to spend a minimal time on nomenclatural problems—rather than investing time, energy and money in renaming millions of already named taxa in order to follow alternative nomenclatural systems, e.g., “phylogenetic” ones, that furthermore do not show theoretical superiority to the current Linnaean-Stricklandian one. The current Code, result of a 250-year improvement process, is based on very sound and healthy Rules, being theory-free regarding taxonomy, relying on objective allocation of nomina to taxa by a system of ostension using onomatophores, and on an objective basic Principle, priority, for recognizing the valid nomen of a taxon in case of synonymy or homonymy. Nevertheless, this nomenclatural system is certainly not perfect. It should be modified at least in nine directions: (1) it should adopt a technical terminology avoiding possible misinterpretations from outsiders of the field and even from specialists, and allowing a precise formalisation of its mode of functioning; (2) its plan should be drastically modified; (3) its Principles should be redefined, and some added; (4) material evidence for the allocation of nomina to taxa through specimens deposited in permanent collections should be given more weight; (5) it should incorporate all nomina of higher taxa, providing clear and strict universal Rules for their naming, whereas conserving the traditional nomina largely used in non-specialized systematic literature; (6) it should allow for the recognition of many more ranks at lower nomenclatural levels, i.e., just above genus, between genus and species, and below species; (7) it should provide much more stringent Rules for the protection against priority of “wellknown” nomina or sozonyms; (8) various “details” should be addressed, various Rules and Recommendations changed before a new edition of the Code is published; (9) the procedure of implementations of changes in the Code should be modified in order to involve zootaxonomists of the whole world in the decisions. In several instances, the Rules of the Code should become much more compulsory for all zoologists, editors and publishers, to avoid the publication of endless and sometimes most detrimental discussions among taxonomists which give a poor image of nomenclature and taxonomy among the biological sciences, such as bitter discussions about the “best” nomen to be used under a so-called “usage” philosophy, or about nomina to be applied to higher taxa. Code-compliance in zootaxonomic publications should be highlighted, and editors and publishers should require from authors who follow alternative nomenclatural Rules (or no rule at all) to make it clear by using particular modes of writing their nomina. It is argued here that if the Code of the 21st century does not evolve to incorporate these changes, it will prove unable to play its role in front of several important recent theoretical and practical developments of taxonomy and run the risk of being abandoned by a part of the international community of zootaxonomists. The latter could then adopt alternative “phylogenetic” nomenclatural Rules, despite the severe practical problems and theoretical flaws posed by such projects. This would be most detrimental for all comparative biological disciplines including systematics, and even for the unity of biology. In the course of this discussion, a few recommendations are given concerning the standards and guidelines suggested by recent authors for a good, modern, integrative taxonomy.

The rediscovery of Buffon’s “Guarouba” or “Perriche jaune”: <br />two senior synonyms of Aratinga pintoi Silveira, Lima & Höfling, 2005 <br />(Aves: Psittaciformes)

Buffon’s “Guarouba” or “Perriche jaune” is illustrated in his magnificent “Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux” and was interpreted by Buffon as the same bird described by Marcgrave in the 17th century as “Guarouba” or “Quijubatui”. Nevertheless, the bird described by Marcgrave corresponds to the species formally described by Gmelin (1789) as Psittacus guarouba and currently known as Guarouba guarouba. Buffon’s bird was named Psittacus luteus Boddaert, 1783, became the type-species of the genus Aratinga, and has long been considered a junior synonym of Psittacus solstitialis Linnaeus, 1758 (now Aratinga solstitialis). However, Buffon’s illustration, upon which the description of P. luteus Boddaert, 1783 was based, is not an Aratinga solstitialis, but a similar species recently redescribed and named Aratinga pintoi Silveira, Lima & Höfling, 2005. An earlier, although long overlooked, older synonym of P. luteus, is Psittacus maculatus Statius Müller, 1776, also based on Buffon’s plate, and which turns out to be the valid nomen of this species. Thus, Aratinga maculata (Statius Müller, 1776) comb. nov. is the senior synonym of both Psittacus luteus Boddaert, 1783 syn. nov. and Aratinga pintoi Silveira, Lima & Höfling, 2005 syn. nov. In order to establish nomenclatural stability, the holotype of Aratinga pintoi is here designated as neotype of both Psittacus maculatus and Psittacus luteus, establishing an objective synonymy among the three nomina.

A family-series nomen based on a junior synonym is not thereby made invalid: the case of Adamansini Huber, 2007 (Cyprinotontiformes, Nothobranchiidae)

Huber (1979) described a new genus of fishes (Cyprinodontiformes) under the nomen Adamas. This nomen is a junior homonym of Adamas Malaise, 1945 (Hymenoptera). Özdikmen et al. (2006) proposed the nomen novum Fenerbahce to replace Adamas Huber, 1979. Huber (2007) stated that the latter publication was available only online but not as a paper version. Consequently, he considered the nomen Fenerbahce as nomenclaturally unavailable and he proposed another nomen novum, Adamans, to replace Adamas Huber, 1979. Recently and independently, Sonnenberg & Van der Zee (2008) and Özdikmen (2008) stated that the paper by Özdikmen et al. (2006) had indeed been published in a paper printed version, so that the nomen Fenerbahce is nomenclaturally available, and the nomen Adamans its junior objective synonym. As a result of this succession of events, and ignoring the ethical problems rightly raised by Huber (2007) regarding the publication of Özdikmen et al. (2006), which are not discussed here, the valid nomen for this genus is Fenerbahce Özdikmen et al., 2006 and the nomina Adamas Huber, 1979 and Adamans Huber, 2007 are its invalid objective synonyms.

Systematics of the genus Rhacophorus (Amphibia, Anura): <br /> identity of red-webbed forms and description of a new species from Assam

The taxonomic status of Rhacophorus maculatus Anderson, 1871 and its replacement names (alloneonyms) Rhacophorus bimaculatus Boulenger, 1882 and Rhacophorus bipunctatus Ahl, 1927 is assessed and a lectotype (lectophoront) for this nomen is designated. Morphological evidence supports the nomen Rhacophorus htunwini Wilkinson et al., 2005 being a junior subjective synonym of Rhacophorus maculatus Anderson, 1871. Rhacophorus rhodopus Liu & Hu, 1960 is considered a valid nomen with a new junior subjective synonym, Rhacophorus namdaphaensis Sarkar & Sanyal, 1985. A new species of red-webbed Rhacophorus is described which can be distinguished by the other species by the presence of web between fingers, green dorsal coloration and red web on feet, the absence of blackish spots on web and on flanks, the absence of complete web between fingers and the absence of distinct dermal appendages on forelimbs, tarsi and feet. A key to the red-webbed species of Rhacophorus is given.

Nomenclature of Discoglossus: the status of the nomina Discoglossus hispanicus Lataste, 1879 and Discoglossus algirus Lataste, 1879 (Anura: Discoglossidae)

The nomina Discoglossus hispanicus Lataste, 1879 and Discoglossus algirus Lataste, 1879 have been previously treated as nomina oblita by Lanza et al. (1986) and as unavailable nomina by reason of Article 8.3. of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code hereafter) (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999) by Frost (2004). More recently, Lescure (2005) treated them as available and suggested that they are senior subjective synonyms of, and hence the valid nomina for, the taxa currently called Discoglossus galganoi Capula, Nascetti, Lanza, Bullini & Crespo and Discoglossus pictus auritus Héron-Royer (for the systematics of the western Mediterranean painted frogs, see Fromhage et al. 2004; Zangari et al. 2006). As a result, Discoglossus hispanicus appears as the valid nomen of the western Iberian Discoglossus in various documents in the internet, as revealed by a Google search. None of these treatments is correct, however.

Revision of Dryopithecus brancoi SCHLOSSER, 1901 based on the fossil hominoid material from Rudabánya

The goal of this paper is to clarify the taxonomic relationship among dryopithecine specimens from central Europe, and in particular, from the Hungarian locality of Rudabánya. To this end, Dryopithecus brancoi, a valid nomen given to a single M3 from Salmendingen (Schlosser, 1901), is compared to all other Dryopithecus M3 specimens (from France, Spain and Hungary). Based on the currently available evidence, D. brancoi is found to share several characters exclusively with specimens from Rudabánya, and to be distinguished from D. fontani, D. laietanus and D. crusafonti. Given this pattern, the hominoid taxa identified at Rudabánya are synonymized here with D. brancoi. Because the Rudabánya material is much more abundant than the Salmendingen material, we propose a redefinition of D. brancoi based primarily on the sample from Rudabánya, which is thus included in the hypodigm of D. brancoi.