Are the ICZN and PhyloCode that incompatible? A summary of the shifts in Stromboidean taxonomy and the definition of two new subfamilies in Stromboidae (Mollusca, Neostromboidae)

The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-51
Author(s):  
Stephen Maxwell ◽  
Tasmin Rymer
Keyword(s):  
New Taxa ◽  
Molecular Data ◽  
Current Understanding ◽  
Lateral Tooth ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Evolutionary Relationships ◽  
International Code ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

The taxonomy of Stromboideans has, historically, been simplistic. However, recent revisions have seen new taxa introduced to distinguish relationships between species clusters. We discuss these numerous advancements in Stromboidean systematics, and describe two new subfamilies here. The key diagnostic characteristic, the basal peg on the first lateral tooth, splits the Strombidae into two clades similar to those observed with molecular data. In defining the new subfamilies, Neoaligerinae and Neostrombinae, we demonstrate that the practical application of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode 2020), can also conform to the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). This revision further advances and strengthens the framework of Stromboidean nomenclature such that it is able to reflect the current understanding of the evolutionary relationships between members of the Stromboidea.

Primary, secondary and tertiary syntypes and virtual lectotype designation in zoological nomenclature, with comments on the recent designation of a lectotype for Elephas maximus Linnaeus, 1758

Bionomina ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Dubois ◽  
André Nemésio ◽  
Roger Bour
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Data ◽  
Elephas Maximus ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Live Animal ◽  
Eighteenth And Nineteenth Centuries ◽  
The Way

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 a live 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.

NOMENCLATURAL STATUS AND AUTHORSHIP OF SOME FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN THE ERIOPHYOIDEA (ACARINA: PROSTIGMATA)

1974 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evert E. Lindquist
Keyword(s):  
New Taxa ◽  
Family Group ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
New Family ◽  
Eriophyoid Mites ◽  
Made In

AbstractThe following suggestions in use of family-group names for eriophyoid mites are made in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (1) The name Sierraphytoptidae Keifer 1944 should have priority over Nalepellidae Roivainen 1953 sensu Newkirk and Keifer (1971). (2) The name Diptilomiopidae Keifer 1944 should have priority over Rhyncaphytoptidae Roivainen 1953 sensu Keifer (1961). (3) The superfamily concept of Shevchenko (1968, 1971) should take the name Nalepelloidea Roivainen 1953 rather than Trisetacoidea (a justified emendation of "Trisetoidea") Shevchenko 1968. (4) The names Nalepellidae and Nalepellini should take Roivainen 1953 as author rather than Newkirk and Keifer (1971). (5) Similarly, the names Sierraphytoptini Keifer 1944, Mackiellini Keifer 1946, Diptilomiopinae Keifer 1944, and Trisetacini Shevchenko 1968 should retain their authors and dates as first proposed for new family-group taxa, rather than being new taxa as proposed by Newkirk and Keifer (1971).

Resolving phylogenetic and classical nomenclature: A Revision of Canarium Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca, Neostromboidae, Strombidae)

The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-43
Author(s):  
Virgilio Liverani ◽  
Aart Dekkers ◽  
Stephen Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Maximum Likelihood ◽  
Morphological Characters ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

This revision of the genus Canarium Schumacher, 1817 after Abbott (1960) advances our understanding of the phylogeny of Strombidae. Morphological characters were used to generate a phylogeny using maximum likelihood and including all of the recognised species. This resulted in the recognition of one tree, and within that tree the existing genera Canarium Schumacher, 1817 Tridentarius Kronenberg & Vermeij, 2002 and Terestrombus Kronenberg & Vermeij, 2002, and two more Maculastrombus n. gen. and Neostrombus n. gen. were recognisable clades. Furthermore, within the genus Canarium, four subgenera, Canarium (Canarium), Canarium (Conundrum), Canarium (Elegantum), and Canarium (Stereostrombus), were identified and described. We describe and define taxa that are compatible with the requirements of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode 2020), and also conform to the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). This revision assists in generating a system of nomenclature that reflects the hypothetical relationships, and is at the same time practical in its application. We designate type localities and types for included species that were not yet addressed up until now.

scholarly journals Registration of Neostromboidae Clades in the RegNum of the PhyloCode, and Errata

The Festivus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-209
Author(s):  
Stephen Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Current Understanding ◽  
International Code ◽  
Phylogenetic Nomenclature

This paper provides the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature RegNum repository registration numbers for the clades defined in The Festivus. The definitions are based on the current understanding of the internal resolution within Stromboidae, and maybe amended as further taxa are resolved. This set of registration references reflects the refined definitions that have become necessary with the activation of the PhyloCode (2020) and the RegNum protocols. The use of types is not a requirement of the PhyloCode, but there use herein does resolve much of the differences between the IZCN and PhyloCode in practice. Errata for Maxwell and Rymer (2021) are noted at the end.

scholarly journals Who’s who in Magelona: phylogenetic hypotheses under Magelonidae Cunningham & Ramage, 1888 (Annelida: Polychaeta)

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11993
Author(s):  
Kate Mortimer ◽  
Kirk Fitzhugh ◽  
Ana Claudia dos Brasil ◽  
Paulo Lana
Keyword(s):  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Formal Definition ◽  
Great Care ◽  
Phylogenetic Hypothesis ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Phylogenetic Hypotheses ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Nuchal Organs ◽  
Published Account

Known as shovel head worms, members of Magelonidae comprise a group of polychaetes readily recognised by the uniquely shaped, dorso-ventrally flattened prostomium and paired ventro-laterally inserted papillated palps. The present study is the first published account of inferences of phylogenetic hypotheses within Magelonidae. Members of 72 species of Magelona and two species of Octomagelona were included, with outgroups including members of one species of Chaetopteridae and four of Spionidae. The phylogenetic inferences were performed to causally account for 176 characters distributed among 79 subjects, and produced 2,417,600 cladograms, each with 404 steps. A formal definition of Magelonidae is provided, represented by a composite phylogenetic hypothesis explaining seven synapomorphies: shovel-shaped prostomium, prostomial ridges, absence of nuchal organs, ventral insertion of palps and their papillation, presence of a burrowing organ, and unique body regionation. Octomagelona is synonymised with Magelona due to the latter being paraphyletic relative to the former. The consequence is that Magelonidae is monotypic, such that Magelona cannot be formally defined as associated with any phylogenetic hypotheses. As such, the latter name is an empirically empty placeholder, but because of the binomial name requirement mandated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the definition is identical to that of Magelonidae. Several key features for future descriptions are suggested: prostomial dimensions, presence/absence of prostomial horns, morphology of anterior lamellae, presence/absence of specialised chaetae, and lateral abdominal pouches. Additionally, great care must be taken to fully describe and illustrate all thoracic chaetigers in descriptions.

New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen

Zootaxa ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 1761 (1) ◽  
pp. 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS M. DONEGAN
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
New Taxa ◽  
Type Specimen ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Type Specimens ◽  
Conservation Action ◽  
Current Code

Dubois & Nemésio (2007) recently considered that the present International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (“Code”) could reasonably be interpreted as requiring the deposition of dead vouchers for new species and subspecies descriptions. They considered that, to the extent that there is lack of clarity, the Code should be amended so as to require the deposition of a dead voucher. They doubted the utility of photographs and other materials for descriptions and suggested that ethical or moral concerns about the taking of dead type specimens were poorly supported. Dubois & Nemésio (2007)’s preferred interpretations of the current Code are not supported by members of the Commission. Possible reasons why the collection of a dead type specimen might not be necessary or recommended include the setting of a good example to communities in whose hands conservation action lies, government permit issues and the description of new taxa on the brink of extinction where collecting may impact populations. The Code should be liberal in relation to the nature of type specimens to enable taxonomists, who are the persons best placed to take decisions, to make appropriate judgments for particular descriptions.

Circumscription, diagnosis and description of two subfamilies and one genus of Australo-Papuan robins (Aves: Passeriformes: Petroicidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3560 (1) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
LESLIE CHRISTIDIS ◽  
MARTIN IRESTEDT ◽  
DIANNE ROWE ◽  
WALTER E. BOLES ◽  
JANETTE A. NORMAN
Keyword(s):  
New Taxa ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Phylogenetic Study ◽  
International Code ◽  
Generic Level ◽  
New Name

Christidis et al. (2011) conducted a phylogenetic study of the Australo-Papuan robins (Aves: Passeriformes: Petroicidae) and erected three new taxa: two subfamilies, Amalocichlinae and Pachycephalopsinae, and a genus, Cryptomicroeca.  Following the requirements of Article 11.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), these were created giving their circumscription, i.e., the lower taxa included in each, respectively.  Additional requirements for the erection of these new taxa, as set out in Article 13.1 (ICZN 1999), however, were unfortunately not met.  This Article (13.1.1) requires that the formation of a new name, in this case at both family and generic level, also provides a description or definition stating in words the characters that purportedly differentiate it from other taxa.  This requirement was not met in Christidis et al. (2011), so we rectify this omission here.  A similar problem that arose with the erection of the robin subfamily Microecinae by Loynes et al. (2009) was subsequently corrected by Loynes et al. (2011).

scholarly journals Correction to the scientific name of two recently described Brazilian species of crickets (Grylloidea: Phalangopsidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3207 (1) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
HENRIQUE C. COSTA
Keyword(s):  
New Taxa ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Brazilian Species ◽  
Scientific Name

In a work published little over two years ago, Mews et al. (2009) described some new taxa of Brazilian phalangopsid crickets. Two specific names, however, were incorrectly formed under the articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), leading to the need of justified emendations, according to Article 33.2.2 of the Code (ICZN 1999), which I will give below.

Validation of Discolopeus Stiller, 2019 and corrections to figures

Zootaxa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4585 (1) ◽  
pp. 189 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL STILLER
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
New Taxa ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Original Publication

Stiller (2019) described a new leafhopper genus, Discolopeus, with nine new species, but the original publication did not satisfy the criteria for availability for the proposed new taxa because repositories were not indicated for primary types as required by Article 16.4.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999). The previously published (Stiller 2019) names are validated below and additional errors and omissions in the original figures are corrected. 

Lists of European species of amphibians and reptiles: will we soon be reaching "stability"?

1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Dubois
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
New Taxa ◽  
Natural Populations ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Basic Rule ◽  
International Code ◽  
European Species ◽  
Taxonomic Research ◽  
New Research ◽  
Name Changes

AbstractZoologists at the end of our century are faced with a strong demand from "society" for "final and definitive" lists of taxon names: such lists are requested in particular by administrations and users of "official lists" of species. This has entailed, even among some professional taxonomists, a strong movement in favour of artificial stability of taxon names and of a replacement of the basic rule of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the rule of priority, by a so-called "rule of common usage". The aim of this paper is to show, taking the example of European anuran amphibians, that this way of posing the question is wrong. The major factor of change in taxon names in zoology is taxonomic research, not nomenclatural grooming. Contrary to what is often believed, even in "well-known" regions like Europe, numerous new species have recently been discovered, in part through the use of new research techniques (electrophoresis, bioacoustics, etc.), but also as a result of better exploration of natural populations: the misleading idea that "the European fauna is well known" has acted as a brake against recognition of new taxa when these were discovered in the field. Name changes due to the mere application of nomenclatural rules are much less numerous than those due to the progress of taxonomic research, and they would be even much less common if zoologists and editors paid more attention to the international rules of nomenclature. We are still far from reaching the "holy grail" of "final lists" of animal faunae, even in Europe, and, rather than trying to comply with this request from "society", zoologists should explain why this goal will not be reached soon, and that the only way to accelerate the movement towards it would be the creation of numerous positions of professional zoologists and the increase of funds afforded to basic zoological research in Europe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document