Search

There’s a secret pleasure in naming new species. Besides traditional etymologies recalling the sampling locality, habitat, or morphology of the species, etymologies may be tributes to some meaningful person (for example, the species’ collector, the author’s husband or wife, or a celebrity), pop culture references, and even exercises of enigmatography. The possibility of choosing witty or even playful names for new species departs from the otherwise impersonal and old-fashioned writing style that’s common in taxonomic papers; but, how has the descriptor’s choice for specific etymologies changed over the 300+ years since the introduction of the Linnaean binomial system of nomenclature? Using an unprecedented dataset of 48,464 etymologies (all valid species and subspecies of spiders described between 1757 and May 2020), we tested the hypothesis that species names given by taxonomists are deeply influenced by their cultural background. In particular, we asked whether naming practices change through space (continent in which the species was found) or have changed through time (year of description). We observed spatial and temporal differences in the way taxonomists name new species. In absolute terms, etymologies referring to morphology were the most frequently used. In relative terms, however, references to morphology peaked in 1850–1900 and then began to decline, with a parallel increase in etymologies dedicated to people and geography. Currently, these are the most widely used, with ∼38% of all etymologies of spider species described in the last ten years referring to geography, ∼25% to people, and ∼25% to morphology. Interestingly, there has been a dramatic increase in etymologies referring to pop culture and other cultural aspects in the last two decades, especially in Europe and the Americas. While such fashionable names often carry little or no biological information regarding the species itself, they help give visibility to the science of taxonomy, a discipline currently facing a profound crisis within academia. Taxonomy is among the most unchanged disciplines across the last centuries in terms of background, tools, rules, and writing style; but our analysis suggests that taxonomists remain deeply influenced by their living time and space.

The type series boundary and the name-bearing type designation of each cyclophorid taxon originally described by Godwin-Austen are clarified based on an interpretation that complies with the ICZN. Previous statuses of type specimens designated by previous authors are reconsidered. Lectotypes of Spiraculum oakesi Godwin-Austen, 1915, Spiraculum kempi Godwin-Austen, 1915, Pterocyclos aborensis Godwin-Austen, 1915, Pterocyclos miriensis Godwin-Austen, 1915, Pterocyclos brahmakundensis Godwin-Austen, 1915, Spiraculum luyorensis Godwin-Austen, 1915, Spiraculum putaoensis Godwin-Austen, 1915, and Theobaldius oakesi Godwin-Austen, 1915 are here designated to stabilize the existing nomenclature. In addition, the type specimens of Pterocyclos miriensis and Theobaldius oakesi are photographed and figured for the first time.

The genus Nemesis Furfaro & Mariottini, 2021, was recently introduced for an independent lineage of aeolid nudibranchs, and Dondice banyulensis Portmann & Sandmeier, 1960, established as its type species. Anyway, the presence of a senior homonym, Nemesis Risso, 1826, was evidently missed. In fact, in 1826, Risso established this genus for a group of Copepoda (Arthropoda, Crustacea) and according to the Principle of Priority (ICZN) only the senior homonym may be used as a valid name. Therefore, a new replacement name is here proposed. Furthermore, the genus name Nanuca Er. Marcus, 1957, has priority over Dondice Er. Marcus, 1958 and consequently, the species in this clade should be classified under Nanuca, mostly as new combinations.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) proposes amendments to its Constitution and solicits constructive feedback from the zoological community. In compliance with the Constitution, the proposed amendments are made broadly available, and there will be a one-year period for submission of comments starting on 30 April 2020. The amendments may be modified in the light of the comments, before the final version is voted on by the Commissioners.

As a service to taxonomists and ecologists using names in the well-known and species-rich ship-fouling serpulid genus Hydroides we present an update of all 107 non-synonymised scientific names, with additional information on Hydroides nomenclature, original names, etymologies, and type localities derived from original literature, and in accord with the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) database. An update is needed because the gender of genus Hydroides has from 1 January 2000 reverted to the original feminine, due to a change in the wording of International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which was overlooked at that time, and is contrary to the usage in practice of Hydroides as masculine which had started about 1992, although Code-required from the 1960s. We match 31 further original names of current WoRMS subjective junior synonyms to each non-synonymised name, and also report on the world distribution of the genus as illustrated by type localities of the valid names. We include notes on seven species inquirenda. The correct rendering is given of six names that have been altered for gender agreement for the first time herein. Hydroides gottfriedi nom. n. replaces junior homonym Hydroides rostrata Pillai, 1971. Currently there are 41 non-synonymised species-group names in Hydroides which should be gender invariant, and 23 names which would only change if moved to a neuter genus; the remaining 43 names are fully gender variable. Place-names (23), and personal names (16) make up more than a third (36%) of the species names, with most of the remainder (68) being descriptive of species character states, usually of operculum morphology (54). All species, except Hydroides norvegica (63°N), have type localities in shallow-water coastal locations in temperate to tropical waters below latitude 44°, with the highest number of new species (54) from the adjoining Western Pacific and Indian Ocean areas. The other concentration of new species (31) are those first found on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of North America and in the Caribbean.

Family †Caproberycidae Patterson 1967 †Caproberycinae Patterson 1967: 88 (subfamily) † Caproberyx Regan 1911 †Alloberycinae Gayet 1982a: 28 (subfamily) † Alloberyx Gaudant 1969 † Stichocentridae Gayet 1982a: 32 (family) † Stichocentrus Patterson 1967 [name only, published after 1960, not available, Art. 13.1.1] † Stichocentridae Gayet 1982b: 99 (family) † Stichocentrus Patterson 1967, Published as part of Laan, Richard Van Der, 2018, Family-group names of fossil fishes, pp. 1-167 in European Journal of Taxonomy 466 on page 74, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2018.466, http://zenodo.org/record/5557557, {"references":["Patterson C. 1967. New Cretaceous berycoid fishes from the Lebanon. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology 14 (3): 67 - 109. Available from https: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / page / 36368748 [accessed 17 Jul. 2018].","Regan C. T. 1911. The anatomy and classification of the teleostean fishes of the orders Berycomorphi and Xenoberyces. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (series 8) 7 (37): 1 - 9. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222931108692901","Gayet M. 1982 a. Essai de definition des relations phylogenetiques des Holocentroidea nov. et des Trachichthyoidea nov. (Pisces, Acanthopterygii, Beryciformes). Bulletin du Museum national d'histoire naturelle, Section C, Sciences de la Terre, paleontologie, geologie, mineralogie (serie 4) 4 (1 - 2): 21 - 41. Available from http: // bibliotheques. mnhn. fr / EXPLOITATION / infodoc / ged / viewportalpublished. ashx? eid = IFD _ FICJOINT _ BMCTE _ S 004 _ 1982 _ T 004 _ N 001 _ 1 [accessed 16 Sep. 2018].","Gayet M. 1982 b. Etude anatomique et systematique des acanthopterygiens du Senonien de Sahel-Alma (Liban). Palaeontographia Italica 72: 98 - 136."]}

We present a review of the etymology of zoological taxonomic names with emphasis on the most unusual examples. The names were divided into several categories, starting from the most common – given after morphological features – through inspiration from mythology, legends, and classic literature but also from fictional and nonfictional pop-culture characters (e.g., music, movies or cartoons), science, and politics. A separate category includes zoological names created using word-play and figures of speech such as tautonyms, acronyms, anagrams, and palindromes. Our intention was to give an overview of possibilities of how and where taxonomists can find the inspirations that will be consistent with the ICZN rules and generate more detail afterthought about the naming process itself, the meaningful character of naming, as well as the recognition and understanding of names.

The fears expressed by Santos et al. (2016) that description of typeless species (new species described based on field photographs) can be fatal for the practice of taxonomy which will succumb to an uncontrollable stream of “species of questionable delimitation” are, in our opinion, exaggerated. The Code already protects taxonomic practice from subjectivity quite well by limiting opportunities for descriptions of new species based on field photos by rigid requirements, and only skilled taxonomists with extensive knowledge of a group are capable of fulfilling them. If a taxonomist has omitted to compare the new typeless species with the known species externally similar to it, the latter cannot be diagnosed and its name in that case becomes nomen nudum. Typeless species can coincide with species described earlier, but can represent a new species differing in internal features. To describe typeless species without infringement of Article 13.1 a taxonomist should compare this species to all related and similar species described earlier.

Segers, Hendrik, De Smet, Willem H., Fontaneto, Diego, Hinz, Claus, Hussey, Charles, Michaloudi, Evangelia, Wallace, Robert L., Jersabek, Christian D. (2015): Period of public commentary begins on the revised proposal of species-group level names, and on the proposal of genus-group level names of the Candidate Part of List of Available Names (LAN) in the phylum Rotifera. European Journal of Taxonomy 165: 1-3, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2015.165

Current descriptions add natives Aporodrilus aotea sp. n., A. ponga sp. n. and Notoscolex repanga sp. n., plus new exotic records to the numbers of megadrile earthworms known from New Zealand, which are now raised from 193 to 222 species in five families, viz: Acanthodrilidae, Octochaetidae and Megascolecidae, plus Lumbricidae and Glossoscolecidae for exotics. Overlooked spermathecal diverticula have been located for Notoscolex equestris Benham, 1942 and for Megascolex animae Lee, 1959 and non-tubular prostrates were misconstrued as tubular in Megascolides tasmani Lee, 1959. Of these latter three species, a lectotype is designated for N. equestris and holotypes of the other two are briefly redescribed. Whereas M. tasmani now belongs in Notoscolex Fletcher, 1887 and M. animae belongs in Anisochaeta Beddard, 1890, further lack of dorsal pores in N. equestris as with Notoscolex esculentus (Benham, 1904) and N. mortenseni (Michaelsen, 1924) newly qualifies all three as additional combs. novae in primarily Tasmanian genus Aporodrilus Blakemore, 2000.

McDiarmid et al. (1999) published the first part of their planned taxonomic catalog of the snakes of the world. Since then, several new python taxa have been described in both the scientific literature and non-peer-reviewed publications. This checklist evaluates the nomenclatural status of the names and discusses the taxonomic status of the new taxa, and aims to continue the work of McDiarmid et al. (1999) for the family Pythonidae, covering the period 1999 to 2010. Numerous new taxa are listed, and where appropriate recent synonymies are included and annotations are made. A checklist and a taxonomic identification key of valid taxa are provided.

The contents of the application to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, case 3017, are presented with an explanation of how its publication fell between the third and fourth editions of the Code. In so doing, the genus Pseudobiotus Nelson, 1980 (In: Schuster, Nelson, Grigarick & Christenberry, 1980) was left without a type species, which is hereby designated under article 70 of the fourth edition of the code.

International audience; This paper is an addendum for the availability of the names of 11 new species proposed in Al khatib et al. (2014).

We describe a method to publish nomenclatural acts described in taxonomic websites (Scratchpads) that are formally registered through publication in a printed journal (ZooKeys). This method is fully compliant with the zoological nomenclatural code. Our approach supports manuscript creation (via a Scratchpad), electronic act registration (via ZooBank), online and print publication (in the journal ZooKeys) and simultaneous dissemination (ZooKeys and Scratchpads) for nomenclatorial acts including new species descriptions. The workflow supports the generation of manuscripts directly from a database and is illustrated by two sample papers published in the present issue.