International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The use of the term ‘diagnosis’ and of related terms (‘character’, ’description’, ‘definition’, etc.) in the two related fields of taxonomy and nomenclature is quite confusing. The purpose of this work is to propose an unambiguous terminology for these terms, and to discuss the use of diagnoses and related concepts in these two disciplines. In taxonomy, the different kinds of ‘diagnoses’ one uses provide different kinds of information about organisms, their characters and their relationships, and they should be used together rather than be mutually exclusive. In nomenclature, the current Rules of the Code that concern the use of ‘descriptions’ and ‘definitions’ are unclear. Articles 13.1.1 and 75.3.2 are ambiguous, as they allow both a ‘strict’ and a more ‘inclusive’ interpretation. Proposals are offered to improve them.

The occurrence of different sponge species bearing the same Linnean binomial name combination, i.e. homonyms, is to be avoided for obvious reasons. In a review of sponge taxon names of the World Porifera Database, we detected 121 homonymic cases (115 species-group names, 6 genus-group names), involving a total of 272 nominal taxa. It is the object of the present study to remove their occurrence by proposing new names for the junior homonyms following the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature as laid down in the Code (ICZN, 1999) and the on-line edition http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp . Homonym cases are discussed and, where applicable, junior homonyms are either replaced by nomina nova or reassigned to their earliest available synonyms. The order in which the homonyms are treated is alphabetical on original species name, with genus names separately treated at the end. A summary table with all proposed name changes is also presented to allow quick access to the junior homonyms and their proposed new names. A total of 116 nomina nova are proposed, including five new genus names.

The role of primary, secondary and tertiary syntypes in solving nomenclatural problems, especially those related to old nomina from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is discussed. The very useful but rarely implemented procedure of designating virtual lectotypes, i.e., specimens that can be traced as belonging to the original syntypic series but currently
non-extant (e.g., lost, destroyed, misplaced, or originally being alive animal of which only an illustration remains), is here highlighted as potentially opening the way for a neotype designation that better suits stability in zoological nomenclature. This is particularly true when mixed syntypic series, i.e., those comprising specimens belonging to more than one species, are involved. We illustrate the advantages of this procedure by showing that a secondary syntype of Elephas maximus Linnaeus, 1758, although currently missing, would have been a better candidate to lectotype designation than the still available specimen actually selected recently as the lectotype of this species based on molecular data. We welcome the use of molecular data to solve nomenclatural problems, but  point out that a thorough knowledge of the International Code of zoological Nomenclature is essential if the best decisions are to be taken.

In the recent years, it has been debated whether the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should be cited as
‘Anonymous’ or as having an ‘author’, i.e. the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This question is
addressed here, starting with the meaning of the term ‘anonymous’ in common language as well as in the Glossary of the
Code: in both cases, it designates a work which does not contain, in its original edition, any information about the
name(s) of the person(s) responsible for its authorship. A collective body like the Commission is not a person, and
therefore not eligible as an ‘author’ in the sense of the Glossary of the Code. The Code is a text that provides Rules for
the regulation of zoological nomenclature, and the format of bibliographic references in publications is not a matter of
nomenclature but of editorial policy, and therefore out the scope of the Code. It is suggested that a flexible attitude be
adopted. This question should be left at the discretion of authors and editors and the Code should not interfere with it.
Several possible formats for the citation of the Code are presented. This paper also proposes a distinction between two
categories of ‘anonymous’ works.

The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the name Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE) which, as Colotis danae, is well-established as the valid name for a common and widespread butterfly with many subspecies in circa 50 countries in Africa, Arabia, and Asia. The name is threatened by the primary homonym Papilio danae Hufnagel, 1766. It is proposed that Hufnagel's name be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy under the plenary power of the Commission, in the interest of nomenclatural stability.

A report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting recently published in Cladistics conveys several misconceptions about the PhyloCode and presents an erroneous interpretation of discussions that took place at that meeting. Contrary to Pickett's assertions, the PhyloCode is designed to name clades, not paraphyletic groups; the rejection of ranks has never been a fundamental principle of phylogenetic nomenclature; and specifiers under the PhyloCode differ in several ways from types under rank-based nomenclature.

The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the widely used name Helops Fabricius, 1775 for a genus of tenebrionid beetles from Western Palaearctic, Nearctic and Neotropical Regions by designation of Tenebrio caeruleus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. The type species of Helops Fabricius, 1775 is at present Tenebrio lanipes Linnaeus, 1771 (currently Stenomax lanipes). The use of the original designation would seriously affect the nomenclatural stability of long-recognized generic and subtribal concepts in the tribe HELOPINI. It is proposed that all type fixations for the nominal genus Helops Fabricius, 1775 before that of Tenebrio caeruleus Linnaeus, 1758 by Hope (1840) be set aside.

An annotated review of the known Italian distribution of Hydrometra gracilenta Horváth, 1899 is provided, plus unpublished data including a new record which increases the previously known range of the species in Italy. An updated map shows the currently known distribution of the taxon in Italy. An overlooked nomenclatural change is discussed, and the date of description for the genus Hydrometra Lateille is corrected from 1796 to 1797. The presence of H. gracilenta is excluded from Egypt, Sudan, and Rwanda.

Modifications to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
The contents of the recent amendment to some articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature passed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the platform “ZooBank” working are presented.

Dozens of publications, mostly in the last 45 years, have been devoted to nomenclatural problems concerning the status of the zoological nomina Hysaplesia, Hylaplesia, Dendrobates and related nomina. The Commission finally voted on this case in 2009, but this vote shows a misunderstanding of several of the problems at stake, as it contains a double and contradictory decision: the change in the type species of Hysaplesia and its suppression, although one only of these two acts would have been necessary and sufficient to solve this case, whereas taking them both together has other unforeseen
and negative nomenclatural consequences. A final comprehensive solution to these nomenclatural problems is presented here, which does not require any more action from the Commission. However, the fact that the Commission, as well as the whole international community, have proved to be unable to understand fully the nomenclatural problems at stake and to solve them truthfully, while ignoring deliberately some contributions to the discussion, calls attention. This case suggests that there is a strong risk that nomenclature might become a domain where intellectual fairness and competence are secondary and where problems are ‘solved’ through the medieval ‘Principle of Authority’, through relying on the ‘opinions’ of a few persons, committees or websites rather than on rational discussions based on a knowledge of taxonomic publications and an understanding of the Code. This course would result in dragging zoological nomenclature so to say outside the field of science and contribute to weakening still more a domain, taxonomy, which is already facing major problems, at the time of the crisis of biodiversity. Additional problems concerning taxonomic databases and
websites are pointed out, and suggestions are offered in this respect, including the distinction between the concepts of ‘nomenclatural status’ and ‘taxonomic status’ of nomina.

[Author's summary: The following information about the genus-group name Iguana Laurenti, 1768, is discussed: 1) the type species; 2) the means by which the type species was designated; 3) the valid name for the type species. The spelling of the species-group name "iguana" is also discussed.]

A report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting recently published in Cladistics conveys several misconceptions about the PhyloCode and presents an erroneous interpretation of discussions that took place at that meeting. Contrary to Pickett's assertions, the PhyloCode is designed to name clades, not paraphyletic groups; the rejection of ranks has never been a fundamental principle of phylogenetic nomenclature; and specifiers under the PhyloCode differ in several ways from types under rank-based nomenclature.

The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 and Recommendation 23A of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Mesocrangon Zarenkov, 1965 for a group of boreal crangonid decapods. The genus name Mesocrangon Zarenkov, 1965 is in widespread and current use. This name is threatened by the unused senior primary homonym Mesocrangon Woodward, 1873. It is proposed that the name Mesocrangon Zarenkov, 1965 be conserved by the suppression of Mesocrangon Woodward, 1873.

Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code states that, to be available, a new zoological family-series (‘family-group’) nomen must be
based, not only on an available generic nomen, but also on one used as valid in the newly erected family-series taxon.
This Rule is ignored by many practising taxonomists, which may have deleterious consequences in zoological
nomenclature. This is stressed here by the analysis of five cases where it applies in the group of recent amphibians, for
the nomina or spellings CALAMITAE, SYSTOMATA, PELODRYADIDAE, DICROGLOSSINI, and particularly that of the
salamander family PROTEIDAE: it is shown that the nomen that has been considered as valid for this family for almost two
centuries is not nomenclaturally available and should be replaced by a much more obscure one. Fortunately, Article 23.9
on reversal of precedence allows to validate this nomen, but credited to a subsequent author and date. It is suggested that
a similar survey and analysis of the family-series nomenclature of other zoological groups might disclose similar
nomenclatural problems that have been overlooked until now.