Search

A decade ago, an electron-attachment process called interatomic Coulombic electron capture has been predicted to be possible through energy transfer to a nearby neighbor. It has been estimated to be competitive with environment-independent photorecombination, but its general relevance has yet to be established. Here, we evaluate the capability of alkali and alkaline earth metal cations to capture a free electron by assistance from a nearby water molecule. We introduce a characteristic distance rIC for this energy transfer mechanism in equivalence to the Förster radius. Our results show that water-assisted electron capture dominates over photorecombination beyond the second hydration shell of each cation for electron energies above a threshold. The assisted capture reaches distances equivalent to a fifth to seventh solvation shell for the studied cations. The far reach of the assisted electron capture is of significant general interest to the broad spectrum of research fields dealing with low-energy electrons, in particular radiation-induced damage of biomolecules. The here introduced distance measure will enable quantification of the role of the environment for assisted electron attachment.

Alpha taxonomy endeavours to propose a coherent vision of existing species and, simultaneously, to individualize the natural entities useful to understand evolutionary processes. This ideal is especially difficult when available data lack congruence. Here we address the polytypic species Synallaxis rutilans (ruddy spinetail), a suboscine passerine widely distributed in the Amazon Basin and whose taxonomy could, potentially, aid our understanding of processes shaping its biodiversity. Combining genetic [genomic ultraconserved elements (UCE) and mtDNA] and morphological data, we demonstrate that while delimitation of genetic lineages and their phylogenetic relationships are strongly associated with classic Amazonian geographic barriers, such as rivers, different coloration patterns appear to be more associated with local selection processes for phenotype. Employing an evolutionary approach, whereby the species is considered a taxonomic category, rather than a nomenclatural rank, we propose to recognize five species: S. amazonica, S. caquetensis, S. dissors, S. omissa and S. rutilans. The taxonomic arrangement proposed here permits better understanding of the similarities and differences among taxa from different areas of endemism, and represents patterns of genetic and morphological diversity resulting from distinct processes acting across certain time frames. This arrangement draws attention to the importance of understanding the evolutionary processes operating in the complex and constantly changing Amazonian landscape.

The present work proposes a precise formal definition and an expansion of the concept of ‘nomenclatural act’ which is present in the Code but not clearly delimitated from other related concepts, and provides a list of the published statements that correspond to this concept, a terminology for this and related acts, as well as for information affecting zoological nomenclature. These technical terms will be useful for unambiguous designation of the concepts of zoological nomenclature related to this concept, which are denoted in the Code by ‘common language’ terms having often widely different meanings. They will also be of great help for a future computerisation of the Rules of the Code, which will be possible only if distinct concepts are identified and pointed to by distinct terms. An important outcome of the present work is that genuine nomenclatural acts (onomatergies), as well as statements about nomenclatural status (cataphasy), acquire nomenclatural availability (i.e., existence) only if promulgated in paper or electronic publications complying with Article 8 of the Code, but cannot be made available online in electronic databases or other labile documents failing to comply with these Rules as revised in 2012.

This sixth report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to the result of the enquiry launched by this Committee in 2021 about the status of new nomina and nomenclatural acts published so far on CD-ROMs. After a discussion of some problems of interpretation raised by Articles 8.4.2, 8.1.2 and 9.12 of the Code, we provide information about four periodicals (Pod@rcis, Snudebiller, Euscorpius and Palaeontologia Electronica) and an isolated paper originally published on CD-ROMs. Only two periodicals respected the Code’s requirements for nomenclatural promulgation of works on CD-ROMs before 2013, and therefore made new nomina and nomenclatural acts available through this mode of publication: Snudebiller for all its papers so published from 2000 to 2009 and for a few of its papers so published from 2010 to 2012; and Euscorpius for all its papers published from 2001 to 2012. All the other CD-ROM publications of new nomina and nomenclatural acts that we examined did not respect the Code’s criteria and are therefore nomenclaturally unavailable.

The history of the taxonomy and nomenclature of the giant Eurasian salamanders of the genus Andrias is provided, with a complete list of available nomina of all extinct and extant species, indicating their current nomenclatural status, their type-specimens and type-localities.

International audience; Zoological nomenclature is the discipline of taxonomy responsible for regulating the scientific names of animal species. It has its roots in Carolus Linnaeusʼ work and has been governed by an international Code since the turn of the 20 th century. Its vocabulary, on the other hand, is not always clear. Various authors have established new terminology in order to reduce ambiguity. To make these new terms, but also the classical terms used by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, accessible, an electronic thesaurus (link: https://www.loterre.fr/skosmos/FM8/en/) was created, allowing to compare existing terminologies. This thesaurus is also a tool for reflection and discussion, targeting taxonomists and experts in nomenclature.

The nomenclatural status of 17 class-series nomina (13 diplorhizonyms and 4 haplorhizonyms), based on the single or primary stems Anura, Urodela and Batrachia that had been set aside in our previous papers of this series is examined. None of them is currently valid under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, four of them are unavailable (including "Batrachoidaria" Betancur-R. et al., 2017), and the status of four of them, based on fossil nucleogenera, is still unsettled because of missing information concerning the phylogenetic relationships of some of these genera.

The first issue of the journal Bionomina was published by Magnolia Press (Auckland, New Zealand) on 24 December 2010. The journal originated from an evolution and expansion of the section ‘Theory and methodology’ introduced in 2006 in the journal Zootaxa, itself founded in 2001 (Zhang 2007). The purpose of this new journal was wider than that of this section, being presented as “to open a space of free discussion among colleagues involved in or interested in all aspects of the terminology of comparative and evolutionary biology, including, but not limited to, taxonomy and nomenclature of taxa” (Dubois 2010: 8).

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Anonymous 1999; ‘the Code’ below) provides Rules for the nomenclature of the ‘names of the group family’, or family-series nomina (Dubois 2000). These Rules have long been ignored or disregarded by some taxonomists, so that the authorship(s) and date(s) currently attached in the literature and in some taxonomic online databases to some family-series nomina of Annelida Oligochaeta[1] prove to be wrong according to the Code. For example, the database Taxonomicon credits the nomina Naididae to Ehrenberg (1828), Tubificidae to Vejdovský (1876), Enchytraeidae to Vejdovský (1879) and Lumbriculidae to Vejdovský (1884a). Vejdovský (1884b: 59) also claimed authorship for the nomen Lumbricidae. All of these attributions are incorrect, as will be established below through a chronological survey of the relevant works where these nomina were made available. [1] The nomen Oligochaeta is here used in its original sense (Grube 1850), i.e. excluding the Hirudinea.

The snake generic nomen Typhlops was derived from the Greek words τυφλός (tuphlós), ‘blind’ and ὤψ (ops), ‘eye, face’. In the herpetological and taxonomic literature and databases, there are two competing opinions regarding the authorship and date of this generic nomen: either Schneider (1801) or Oppel (1811).

A taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order, encompassing all recent taxa of caecilians and their close fossil relatives, is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent cladistic analyses of Amphibia. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among 12 nomina available in the literature, only one, Gymnophiona Rafinesque, 1814, qualifies as a sozodiaphonym and should be used for this amphibian taxon. We show here that the authorship of this nomen, as well as of 32 other nomina published in 1814, is ‘Rafinesque’, not ‘Rafinesque-Schmaltz’. The nomen Apoda Oppel, 1811, that has often been used for this taxon, proves to be a distagmonym and a junior homonym of Apodes Linnaeus, 1758 and five other distagmonyms, and as such it is invalid under DONS. In total, we identified 34 distinct class-series nomina derived from the stems ἄπους (apous) or Apus in 13 distinct zoological groups, only two of which are valid under DONS Criteria: Apodiformia Wetmore, 1947, for the suborder of Aves currently known as Apodi Wetmore, 1947, and Apodomorpha Sibley, Ahlquist & Monroe, 1988 for the order of Aves currently known as Apodiformes Peters, 1940. Several other nomenclatural findings were made in the course of this study: [1] in the Teleostei, the nomina "Eupercaria" and "Syngnatharia", like all the other new nomina proposed in the paper by Betancur-R. et al. (2017) are anoplonyms and cannot be used as valid; [2] in the Mammalia, the nomina Cetus and Cetacea should be credited to Brisson (1759); [3] in the Holothuroidea, the nomen Apoda Claus, 1868, currently considered valid under the apograph Apodida, is invalid and should be replaced by the nomen Paractinopoda Ludwig, 1891; [4] in the Isopoda, the subordinal nomen Cymothoida Wägele, 1989 should be replaced by its senior synonym Darwinida Lakshminarayana & Rama Rao, 1977.

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.

A taxon encompassing all recent taxa of amphibians and their close fossil relatives is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent phylogenetic analyses of amphibians. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among twenty nomina available for this taxon, only one, Lissamphibia Gadow, 1898, qualifies as a sozodiaphonym and appears to be the one that should be used for this taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order. However, because of the current uncertainties in the phylogenetic relationships among basal amphibians, the allocation of this nomen to this taxon is still questionable. If it turned out to apply in fact to another, more comprehensive, taxon, its stabilisation under its current acceptation should be realised through an act of archoidy.

This third report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee provides comments and proposals regarding the concepts, terminology and Rules used to establish the nomenclatural availability of publications, whatever their support and mode of distribution (on paper, on discs or electronic).

This fourth report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to a detailed survey of the problems raised by the current Rules of the Code regarding the nomenclatural availability of works published on paper, concerning their dates, material and administrative parameters of publication, and various other matters. It proposes a few changes (clarifications and simplifications) in these Rules.

This second report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to a careful analysis of the concept of nomenclatural availability in zoological nomenclature, a concept often misunderstood and misused in recent taxonomic publications. It provides a definition of this expression and establishes a new nomenclatural principle, the Principle of Availability. It addresses a number of terminological problems related to this concept and makes new proposals regarding this terminology.

This fifth report of activities of the Linz Zoocode Committee is devoted to a detailed survey of the problems raised by the current Rules of the Code, published in 2012, regarding the nomenclatural availability of works published online and registered on the database Zoobank. It points to various deficiencies in these Rules and in the conception and functioning of Zoobank, which result in uncertainties regarding the availability of these works and of their various versions. It proposes new wordings for these Rules, as well as for the terminology used regarding electronic publications.

We address here a few nomenclatural problems concerning some salamander nomina of the plethodontid genus Desmognathus Baird, 1850: the identification of the scriptores (first users) of aponyms (subsequent spellings) in cases of primary homonymy; the validity of airesies (first reviser actions) in special cases; and the validity of neotype designations. Accordingly, we validate Pyron & Beamer’s (2020) invalid designation of a neotype for Salamandra nigra Green, 1818, and we provide a synonymic and aponymic list for Desmognathus fuscus (Green, 1818).

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 nomen Batrachia has been very extensively used in the scientific literature since 1800, but for two different taxa of recent amphibians. The first one, originally introduced by Brongniart (1800), corresponds to a taxon encompassing all recent taxa of frogs and salamanders but excluding the caecilians. The second one, used first by Oppel (1811), corresponds to a taxon including all recent amphibians (frogs, salamanders and caecilians). Both these nomina are shown here to be sozodiaphonyms, and therefore, under DONS, the latter must be definitively rejected as invalid, in favour of the nomen Lissamphibia Gadow, 1898. As for Batrachia Brongniart, 1800, we also consider it for the time being as invalid, as the trichotomy involving the three main groups of recent amphibians is not yet resolved. But if the sister-taxa relationship between Anura and Urodela is later confirmed, the nomen Batrachia, which is currently a hypnokyronym, will be available for it.

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.

Wallach (2020a: 10) erected a new genus Virgotyphlops for the typhlopid snake species Eryx braminus Daudin, 1803, which had previously been referred by Hedges et al. (2014) to their genus Indotyphlops. Unfortunately, this new generic nomen is nomenclaturally unavailable, and should therefore not be used as valid as long as it has not been properly published.

Sunagar et al. (2021: 1) erected the new snake species Bungarus romulusi on the basis of the molecular study of mitochondrial markers, venom proteomics and venom gland transcriptomics. Unfortunately, this new specific nomen is nomenclaturally unavailable, and should therefore not be used as valid as long as it has not been properly published.

This work introduces a series of papers devoted to the ascertainment of the valid nomina, under the revised Duplostensional Nomenclatural System (DONS-2), of the highest taxa (from the rank order to the rank class) of recent amphibians and ‘reptiles’. The main general features of the DONS approach to class-series nomenclature (above the rank superfamily) are explained in detail, the DONS-2 procedure for ascertaining the availability, allocation, validity and correctness of class-series nomina is described, and a Glossary of all the technical nomenclatural terms used in this work is provided.

This paper explores two aspects of the question of the allocation of nomina to taxa in zoological nomenclature. The widespread belief that this allocation is effected only through onomatophores (‘types’) is shown to be wrong: if onomatophores only were involved, each zoological nomen would apply to all the taxa including the specimen(s) designated as onymophoront of each species-series nomen, up to the animal kingdom. Onomatophores do not provide the limit(s) of the taxon/taxa to which they apply. These limits are provided by two other pieces of information: the nominal-series to which the nomen of a taxon is assigned and the onomatostasis of this nomen, i.e. the onomatophore of the sister-taxon of the taxon under consideration. In species-, genus- and family-series nomenclature, the onomatostasis of a nomen is not fixed but depends on the ergotaxonomy (working classification) adopted, which is ideally based on at least one accepted phylogenetic hypothesis. The situation is more complex in the class-series nomenclature. So far, the stages of taxonomic allocation and nomenclatural validity in this nomenclature have not been regulated by formal Rules shared by all zootaxonomists, so that chaos and miscommunication are in order regarding the Criteria to be used in these domains, which is detrimental to zoological nomenclature and its perception by the international scientific community. The adoption of clear and strict Rules in this respect appears as an urgent need. These Rules should allow both to provide clear objective Criteria for the allocation of class-series nomina to taxa, but also to validate the few very well known and consensually adopted class-series nomina (pansozonyms). For this purpose, five possible nomenclatural systems of allocation of nomina are compared. The best solution appears to have two different systems, one for almost all nomina (distagmonyms), and one only for pansozonyms. The latter system relies on a special kind of onomatostases, which are fixed and do not depend on the classification adopted: this allows to attach permanently these nomina to some well-known higher taxa, whatever changes are brought to the cladistic hypotheses and ergotaxonomic frames.

In 2012, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided to change the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and to provide a path to afford nomenclatural availability to new nomina and nomenclatural acts through their publication online, as long as the work containing them is preregistered on the website Zoobank under precise conditions. This 2012 Amendment soon raised a number of problems. First, it allows ‘admissible errors’ in this registration, which serves to encourage zootaxonomists, referees, editors and publishers not to pay close attention to this Amendment and to make inadmissible errors, which results in the unavailability of the new nomina and nomenclatural acts at stake. Another source of errors is the fact that Zoobank, contrary to initial plans, does not currently allow the preregistration of nomenclatural acts other than the establishment of new nomina. Other issues are the fuzzy or controversial distinctions made in this Amendment between ‘facsimiles of unavailable works’ and ‘available paper publications’ on one hand, and between ‘preliminary versions’ and ‘final versions’ of online publications on the other hand. Less than ten years after its promulgation, this Amendment has already contributed to the publication of hundreds of unavailable nomina and, which is perhaps worse, of nomina the nomenclatural status regarding availability of which is unclear, according to different interpretations of some terms or rules. The best solution to these problems would no doubt be the publication, as soon as possible, of a revised version of this Amendment addressing these problems, but in the meanwhile better attention given by authors, referees, editors and publishers to the details of this Amendment could limit the damages. Precise proposals are offered in this respect. A distinction is introduced here between two kinds of scientific publications, according to whether they contain nomenclatural acts or not. Those which do but which have first been published online without complying with the requirements of the 2012 Amendment, then later in a Code-compliant manner, may have to be cited as two distinct works, one (publication sensu lato) containing non-nomenclatural information and one (nomenclatural publication or promulgation) providing availability to some nomenclatural acts, which will be a source of confusion and misunderstanding. Proposals are also provided to cope with this new difficulty.

Precise detection of low-dose X-radiation using purely organic direct detectors is vital for tissue-equivalent dosimeters and safety control in medical radiation treatment, but it still remains a challenge. Here, we report a promising organic radiation detector based on 4-hydroxycyanobenzene (4HCB, C7H5NO) single crystals. Plate-like 4HCB single crystals up to 18 × 15 × 1.2 mm3 in size are obtained by an optimized solvent evaporation method, thanks to the clarification of the two-dimensional nucleation growth mechanism. After post surface treatment, the leakage current of the 4HCB detector is no larger than 0.1 pA under an electric field of 600 V cm−1. The fabricated detectors show a capability of detecting 241Am 5.49 MeV α particles with a well resolved full energy peak. The calculated hole mobility (μh) and hole mobility lifetime product (μτ)h are 3.40 cm2 V−1 s−1 and 8.50 × 10−5 cm2 V−1, respectively. Simultaneously, under a 50 kVp X-ray beam, a detection limit as low as 0.29 μGyair s−1 with a high sensitivity of 10 μC Gyair−1 cm−2 is achieved in the bias range of 40–100 V, contributing to a superior X-ray imaging capability with a spatial resolution of 0.9 lp mm−1 at a low-dose rate (below 150 μGyair s−1) of exposure.

The ternary metal halide perovskites have gradually attracted attention for application in the optoelectronic field, owing to their tunable crystal structure and appropriate bandgap. Lead free Cs3Bi2I9 perovskite, with a 0D layered structure containing molecular [Bi2I9]3− dimers, exhibits prominent optical and electrical anisotropies. Here, the anisotropic properties of the Cs3Bi2I9 crystals were evaluated using terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS); meanwhile, the effect of phonon vibration on the THz transmission was confirmed using density functional perturbation theory (DFPT). Accordingly, the refractive index and extinction coefficient are estimated using THz-TDS, thanks to the high transmission in the range of 0.2–0.9 THz. The anisotropic refractive index was observed for the Cs3Bi2I9 crystals, and was found to be 3.2–3.7 for the (100) plane (CBI(100)) in contrast to 2.8–3.2 for the (001) plane (CBI(001)). Furthermore, the Lorentz model was employed to extract the dielectric constant of Cs3Bi2I9, in which anisotropy is obviously indicated by the static dielectric constant and the high-frequency dielectric constant. These anisotropic behaviors are determined by the dipole moment, which is attributed to the anisotropic packing density of [Bi2I9]3− dimers. This study is significant and provides a deeper insight into the anisotropic photoelectric properties of Cs3Bi2I9, thus contributing to the development of metal halide perovskites in the field of optoelectronics.

This study seeks to clarify the taxonomic identity of three adult frogs and two tadpoles from Rara Lake situated in Rara National Park, Mugu district, Western Nepal, using both phenotypic and mitochondrial sequence data (16S rRNA gene). Based on the molecular data, we determined our specimens belonged to two species; Paa cf. ercepeae (Dubois, 1974) and Paa rarica (Dubois, Matsui, and Ohler, 2001), and this assignment is also supported by morphology. Principal component analysis of phenotypic data clustered species into large-bodied (SVL > 55 mm) and small-bodied (SVL < 55 mm) groups. The molecular data suggest that Paa rarica belonged to a group that contains several undescribed lineages and that Paa liebigii (Günther, 1860) hosts extensive cryptic diversity. Our study also documents that Paa species in the Himalayan region are more widely distributed than previously believed.

In July 2014, the international meeting “Burning questions and problems of zoological nomenclature” was held in Linz (Austria). It acknowledged the presence in the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature of a number of severe problems, and accordingly decided the creation of a new international body, the Linz Zoocode Committee (LZC), in charge of writing the Linz Zoocode, a set of new proposals regarding the terminology, the Principles and Rules of zoological nomenclature. Here we present the first report of the activities of this Committee, covering the period 2014‒2019. It contains the presentation of our work, and the first documents adopted by the Committee: the Preamble and Principles of the Zoocode, the description of its structure and a first instalment of the Zoocode Glossary. The Zoocode regulates the status of zoological nomina and nomenclatural acts (onomatergies). Its aim is to provide an explicit, precise and objective nomenclatural system for the unambiguous and universal naming of all zoological taxa recognised by taxonomists, so that, in the frame of a given classification, the nomen of each taxon is unique and distinct. It relies on a Nomenclatural Process consisting in four main stages: nomenclatural assignment and availability, taxonomic allocation, nomenclatural validity and correctness, and registration of nomina and onomatergies. Whereas the Code currently in force is based on six stated Principles, the Zoocode recognises 17 distinct ones. We here submit these documents to the consideration of the international community of zootaxonomists, in the perspective of the incorporation of these proposals into the next version of the Code.

Here we present the first new data about the mysterious «anomaly P» of green frogs (genus Pelophylax) in about 50 years. We established that the gastropod Planorbarius corneus could be an intermediate host (or vector) of the infectious agent of the anomaly P. Symmetrical cases of polydactyly, the anomaly «cross» and heavy cases of the anomaly P, which were previously found in natural populations in the European part of Russia and recently obtained in laboratory, can be caused by this infectious agent. As the most probable cause, we assume a species of trematodes, for which the first intermediate host is P. corneus, from which they infest tadpoles of green frogs.

The term metamorph for just metamorphosed amphibians appeared surreptitiously in the batrachological literature. It is shown here that this term is linguistically unjustified and conceptually confusing, as it has never been associated with a clear, formal definition stating in particular when does this developmental stage start and end. The use of the term imago for an individual resulting from the last metamorphosis following a larval stage, which exists for insects since 1767 and for amphibians since 1808, is much preferable. For amphibians, the formal definition of this term was given in 1978 as an animal having completed its metamorphosis, before having substantially grown and until the first major ecological event in its life cycle (such as migration, hibernation or aestivation). In amphibians, this stage is followed by a stage juvenile and a stage subadult until the stage adult is reached, which is defined by sexual maturity and ability to reproduce. Given the diversity of developmental modes in the animal kingdom, it would be vain to try to homogenise the terminology of all detailed developmental stages across all groups. However, the possibility to homogenise the use of the term imago throughout zoology for specimens resulting from the ‘last metamorphosis’ (i.e., drastic change not only of form but also in some anatomical structures), whether followed by growth and minor transformations or not, and whether associated with sexual maturity or not, would certainly be worth considering. This would allow to have a few general descriptive terms to designate the main similar, but not homologous, ‘landmarks’ observed in the development of many animals (egg, larva, imago and adult), just like we have a general term (metamorphosis) for ‘similar’ phenomena which are not homologous. This would not prevent specialists of the various zoological groups to have specific terms for more precisely defined ‘stages’ which are proper to these groups.

Synonymic and related (logonymic) lists play important roles in taxonomy: they give the valid and correct nomina of the taxa of a zoological group, they allow to know whether nomina are available for naming newly recognised taxa, and they provide a condensed history of the taxonomy of the group. To be really useful, such lists should be complete and accurate. This is not always the case, in particular in many taxonomic and nomenclatural online databases, which should be used with great caution. Recommendations are offered concerning the presentation of such lists in order to make them more useful and reliable. They are illustrated by the family-series and genus-series logonymic lists of the amphibian family Cryptobranchidae.

Hillis (2006) recently published a rebuttal of my analysis (Dubois, 2006c) of a paper by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) on the taxonomy and nomenclature of American ranid frogs. His paper consists not only in a reply to my paper, as it contains in fact three distinct kinds of statements: (1) an attempt to “save” the new generic nomina proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) from being considered nomina nuda under the Code; (2) another plea for the superiority of the Phylocode over the Code, especially as regards the absence of a Rule of Coordination and the substitution of “phylogenetic definition” of nomina to the use of onomatophores for the allocation of nomina to taxa; (3) a plea for “taxonomic stability” in order not to upset the traditional use of nomina and to please users of electronic data bases. These three points are here commented, as follows: (1) even with the best goodwill, under the rules of the Code it is possible to “save” only three or four of the seven new nomina of Hillis and Wilcox (2005), the others being indeed nomina nuda; furthermore, three of these seven nomina are definitively useless and redundant, being junior objective synonyms of other generic nomina; (2) the well-known arguments against the Phylocode do not need to be repeated in detail once again, the most important one being that replacement of a secular nomenclatural system by another one, whose theoretical and practical superiority is highly questionable, would cause considerable chaos and detract taxonomists from their urgent task of accelerating the collection, study and description of the living species of our planet; (3) the claim for taxonomic and nomenclatural stability ignores the importance of the taxonomic impediment and sends a misleading message to the scientific community and to society as a whole: in the present situation of our knowledge, taxonomic stability is ignorance, and the science of taxonomy would have much to lose to adapt its concepts and practices to the needs of databases at the expense of scientific quality. It is once again stressed that, for the quality and accuracy of communication between evolutionary biologists, and above all with other biologists and non-biologists, it is urgent that scientific periodicals impose the use of different systems of notation of nomina following distinct nomenclatural systems, such as the Code and the Phylocode. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.

A recent checklist of the Amphibia of Indochina contains several nomenclatural errors that should be corrected before they spread: two species-series and two genus-series treated as valid in this work are invalid; the authorships and dates of several family-series and of all class-series nomina mentioned are wrong; the information provided about onomatophores (nomen-bearing specimens and nomina) are incomplete and for some of them inaccurate. Besides, the ergotaxonomy (classification) adopted is methodologically poorly justified, supported mostly by ‘tradition’ and ‘stability’, and therefore arbitrary, heterogeneous and unreliable.