Validation of Stenus (Hypostenus) primivenatus and Stenus (Hypostenus) yiae (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Steninae) 

Zootaxa ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4881 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-592
Author(s):  
CAI-YUN ZHAO ◽  
HONG-ZHANG ZHOU
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Important Message

Holotype depository was not indicated for the new species, Stenus (Hypostenus) primivenatus and Stenus (Hypostenus) yiae, described as new in the publication Zhao & Zhou (2008). Missing this important message made these two species-group names unavailable according to the fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code, ICZN, 1999: Article 16.4). This problem was first denoted by Schülke, M. & Smetana, A. (2015).

On the availability of the name Poecilia kempkesi Poeser 2013 (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4927 (2) ◽  
pp. 294-296
Author(s):  
PEDRO H. N. BRAGANÇA ◽  
FELIPE P. OTTONI
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Type Species ◽  
Poecilia Reticulata ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Fourth Species

The poeciliid species, Poecilia kempkesi Poeser, 2013, was the fourth species of the subgenus Acanthophacelus Eigenmann, 1907 to be described, based on individuals from a single urban anthropized locality close to Paramaribo, Suriname (Poeser, 2013). The description itself lacked any section clearly distinguishing the new species from the remaining species of Poecilia Bloch & Schneider 1801, and in particular from the species of the subgenus Acanthophacelus, type species Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859. According to Article 13 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) the criteria of availability for a species-group name are: 

THE TACHINID TAXA OF LOUIS P. MESNIL, WITH NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE (INSECTA: DIPTERA)

1996 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. O’Hara
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
New Genus ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code

AbstractLouis Paul Mesnil (1904–1986) wrote more than 90 published articles on the Tachinidae between 1936 and 1980. He proposed, in those works, a total of 172 new genus-group names and 838 new species-group names. These genus-group and species-group names are listed here along with annotations and a complete record of Mesnil’s publications on the Tachinidae. Certain nomenclatural problems concerning the taxa of Mesnil are addressed, namely difficulties arising from the fascicle format of the series “Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region”, determination of the type status of primary types (syntypes vs. holotypes), improperly labeled types in collections, taxa described in cryptic fashion, type depositories not slated or since changed, and manuscript names in collections. The rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are followed to standardize usage of Mesnil’s names.

The name Synallaxis whitneyi Pacheco and Gonzaga, 1995, is not a synonym of Synallaxis cinereus Wied, 1831 (Aves: Passeriformes: Furnariidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 1166 (1) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
RENATA STOPIGLIA ◽  
MARCOS A. RAPOSO
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
New Name ◽  
Nomen Novum ◽  
A New Species

Synallaxis whitneyi Pacheco and Gonzaga, 1995, was described from specimens collected in Bahia, Brazil. Some years later, following analysis of the specimens used by Wied (1831) to describe Synallaxis cinereus, Whitney and Pacheco (2001) considered S. whitneyi a junior synonym of S. cinereus because three of the specimens in Wied’s series were identical to those collected in Bahia by Pacheco and Gonzaga (1995). They also designated a lectotype for Synallaxis cinereus. Our analysis of the description of Synallaxis cinereus reveals that Wied was merely providing a new name for Parulus ruficeps Spix, 1824, to avoid problems of homonymy (Wied 1831). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is explicit in such cases, stating that if an author proposes a new species-group name as a replacement (nomen novum) for an earlier available one, then the two names are objective synonyms and have the same name-bearing type. Thus, the syntypes of S. cinereus are the specimens previously used by Spix in describing Parulus ruficeps and not those used by Wied (1831) in his description (and subsequently referred to as syntypes in the literature). The lectotype of Synallaxis cinereus proposed by Whitney and Pacheco (2001) is invalid, as it is not a former syntype. Therefore, the correct name for the Bahia Spinetail is Synallaxis whitneyi Pacheco and Gonzaga, 1995.

scholarly journals Erratum: PÉTER KÓBOR (2020) An overview of the big-eyed bug fauna of French Polynesia (Heteroptera: Lygaeoidea: Geocoridae). Zootaxa, 4743: 359–370.

Zootaxa ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4763 (4) ◽  
pp. 600-600
Author(s):  
PÉTER KÓBOR
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Original Description ◽  
French Polynesia ◽  
Type Material ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
International Code ◽  
University Of Kansas ◽  
Fourth Edition

In the list of the type material of Germalus ashlocki new species (page 362) the depository of the holotype was omitted by error. As a consequence, the name of the species is unavailable (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth edition, Art. 16.4.2). It is hereby stated that the holotype is a male deposited in the Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas (SEMC). The purpose of this note is to validate the name of the new species from the publication date of this erratum by a reference to the original description as indication. 

The Réunion Fody and Sonnerat’s Shrew and the validity of scientifically naming animals described without physical types

Zootaxa ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4382 (3) ◽  
pp. 592
Author(s):  
ANTHONY S. CHEKE ◽  
JULIAN P. HUME
Keyword(s):  
Species Group ◽  
Southern India ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Reunion Island ◽  
Essential Requirement ◽  
Logical Paradox ◽  
Réunion Island

An essential requirement of the current edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) is to designate a holotype or syntypes for a species or subspecies newly described after 1999. Where specimens exist this makes sense (and is indeed essential), but is meaningless when describing a species-group taxon from an old illustration or written account in which specimens were not preserved or even necessarily taken at all. The naming of two species which one or both of us described post-1999 from old accounts without designating types has been singled out as invalid on this basis. As the revisers of the ICZN apparently did not anticipate further naming of taxa from old accounts, and thus allowed a logical paradox to arise, we strongly recommend that, in respect of descriptions from old accounts with no specimens, this rule be waived by a retrospective amendment, as it is likely that other similar cases exist, and it serves no-ones’ interest to strike down otherwise properly described names on a pointless technicality. Prior to our proposed change in the Code, in this note Foudia delloni Cheke & Hume sp. nov. (Aves: Passeriformes: Ploceidae), from Réunion Island, and Diplomesodon sonnerati Cheke sp. nov. (Mammalia: Soricomorpha: Soricidae), from southern India, are named anew using the same names and the original diagnoses. 

New synonymy for a species of mealybug in the genus Pseudococcus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) that occurs on fruit trees in Chile

Zootaxa ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3230 (1) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
ROBERTO H. GONZÁLEZ ◽  
ERNESTO PRADO
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Fruit Trees ◽  
Economic Importance ◽  
Morphological Data ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Exact Date ◽  
And Control ◽  
New Synonymy

In July of 2011, we each became aware that we were studying the same Chilean mealybug species.  The research by González (2011) emphasized the biology, economic importance, and control of the species on fruit, and described it as the new species Pseudococcus rubigena González.  The research by Prado in Correa et al. (2011) provided a detailed description using molecular and morphological data and described the new species as P. meridionalis Prado.  Based on the Principle of Priority (Article 23) in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999), one of these names must have precedence.  Unfortunately, both papers were published at approximately the same time.  The date of publication of the Correa et al. paper is clearly marked as June 22, 2011.  The exact date of publication of the González book was not clear because it did not give a specific date, only 2011.  To establish the exact date, a certificate of publication was requested from the publisher (Imprenta Italiana Ltda.) by González.  In a letter dated November 23, 2011, Nelson Cannoni  M.,  Gerente General,  Impreta  Italiana  indicated “ULTIMO DESPACHO DE EJEMPLARES: 30 de junio de 2011.” This is considered the date of publication for the name P. rubigena which was predated by P. meridionalis by just nine days.  Therefore the following synonymy is proposed.

Solving a nomenclatural conundrum: Cernosvitovia crainensis (Mršić, 1989) and Aporrectodea macvensis Šapkarev in Mršić, 1991 (Lumbricidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4496 (1) ◽  
pp. 156
Author(s):  
DAVID NICOLSON ◽  
CSABA CSUZDI
Keyword(s):  
Species Group ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
History Of

This contribution deals with the names and authorship of two lumbricid taxa endemic to the Balkans (see Stojanović et al., this volume). Although their validity has never been questioned, it has been unclear up to now which publication has made these two species-group names available according to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Articles in "the Code," ICZN 1999). In the following, we review the somewhat intricate history of these names and explain why the correct citation and spelling of these names are "Cernosvitovia crainensis (Mršić, 1989)" and "Aporrectodea macvensis Šapkarev in Mršić, 1991," respectively. 

Comments on the holotype of Alburnus kurui Mangit & Yerli 2018 and re-description of A. carianorum Freyhof, Kaya, Bayçelebi, Geiger & Turan, 2019 (Teleostei: Leuciscidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4550 (4) ◽  
pp. 594
Author(s):  
JÖRG FREYHOF ◽  
CÜNEYT KAYA ◽  
ESRA BAYÇELEBİ ◽  
MATTHIAS GEIGER ◽  
DAVUT TURAN
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Original Publication ◽  
A New Species

Article 16.4. of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) requires that the fixation of name-bearing types for a new species to be explicit: “Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name…, must be accompanied in the original publication 16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype,…..and 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection.” That means that for species described after 1999, the holotype must be finally deposited in a collection and it is obligatory to indicate the name of the collection and where it is located. 

scholarly journals Towards a List of Available Names in Zoology, partim Phylum Rotifera

Zootaxa ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3179 (1) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
HENDRIK SEGERS ◽  
WILLEM H. DE SMET ◽  
CLAUS FISCHER ◽  
DIEGO FONTANETO ◽  
EVANGELIA MICHALOUDI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Species ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Candidate List ◽  
Molecular Approaches ◽  
International Body ◽  
Biodiversity Information ◽  
The Web ◽  
Standard List

Many, mostly older, names of animal species are nomenclaturally problematic, either because their orthography is unstable, orthey cannot be linked reliably to a taxonomic identity, due to the lack of recognisable descriptions and/or types. Yet, they repre-sent available (sensu International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) names and must be taken into account in zoologicalworks. This situation, with available senior, yet dubious names confounding nomenclature, is undesirable. It creates uncertain-ties at a time when molecular approaches are revolutionizing our concepts of species diversity, and fails us when the currentextinction crisis calls for efficient, accurate, and constructive approaches to document, monitor, and conserve biodiversity.The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (The Code) provides a means to address this issue by restricting avail-ability, application and orthography of names to those included in the List of Available Names in Zoology (LAN). The Code(Art. 79) allows an international body of zoologists in consultation with the Commission to propose a candidate part of theLAN for a major taxonomic field. We explore this possibility for 3570 species-group names of Phylum Rotifera (of which 665are problematic), by presenting such a candidate Rotifera part of the LAN. The web site of the International Commission onZoological Nomenclature (http://www.iczn.org) will hold both the candidate list and a forum to facilitate consultation on thecandidate list, while the list itself also can already be freely downloaded from three other Internet sites: http://fada.biodiver-sity.be, http://rotifer.ansp.org/LAN, and www.hausdernatur.at/rotifera. We give here an overview of the general approach andprocedures applied in preparation of the candidate list, and anticipate that our effort will promote the process as well as result in a standard list of names for use in taxonomy, the Global Names Architecture and other biodiversity information initiatives.

 New replacement name for a homonym in Lepeophtheirus (Crustacea: Copepoda: Caligidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4852 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-144
Author(s):  
KEIICHI KAKUI ◽  
DAISUKE UYENO
Keyword(s):  
Species Group ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Feminine Gender ◽  
Platichthys Stellatus ◽  
The Feminine ◽  
Masculine Gender

Markevich (1940) established Pseudolepeophtheirus Markevich, 1940 for Pseudolepeophtheirus longicauda Markevich, 1940 based on copepods collected from the pleuronectid fish Platichthys stellatus (Pallas, 1787). Dojiri & Ho (2013) synonymized the genus and the species with Lepeophtheirus Nordmann, 1832 and Lepeophtheirus parvicruris Fraser, 1920, respectively. Later, Homma et al. (2020) resurrected Markevich’s species as a member of Lepeophtheirus, i.e., as L. longicauda (Markevich, 1940). The last component of the names of both genera is ‘phtheirus’ (transliterated from the Greek φθειρ; Nordmann 1832: 30), a masculine noun, and thus under Article 30.1.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (hereinafter, Code; International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999), both generic names are also masculine. The species-group name longicauda might be regarded as either a noun in apposition or as an adjective in the feminine gender, and Markevich (1940) did not specify his intention in this regard. Bearing in mind that ‘cauda’, meaning ‘tail’, actually is a feminine Latin noun and that Markevich did not change the final ‘-a’ to ‘-us’ to match the masculine gender of the genus, we deem that longicauda Markevich, 1940 is a noun in apposition, a position supported by Article 31.2.2 of the Code. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document