Search

We briefly analyse the history of Queen Ulrika’s and of Linnaeus’ butterfly collections. We show that the type materials of some species were likely moved from Queen Ulrika’s to Linnaeus’ collection before 1803. We provide evidence that Honey and Scoble (2001) correctly designated the lectotypes of 101 of the 159 species listed in Linnaeus’ (1764) publication. We likewise conclude that, although it did not respect of the prevailing concept of the species, the lectotype of Papilio hermione was validly designated by Kudrna (1977); consequently, the neotype of P. hermione designated by Russell and Vane-Wright (2024) is invalid.

The lectotype and paralectotype of Synodontis victoriae Boulenger, 1906, designated by Poll (1971), were examined. Inconsistencies between data presented for the designated lectotype and the illustrated individual raise the question of whether lectotypification by Poll is valid. This case is not formally regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but based on Article 74.5, the lectotypification for S. victoriae should be considered invalid because it cannot unambiguously indicate a single name-bearing specimen. Thus, we designate a new lectotype for S. victoriae (BMNH 1906.5.30.191, Entebbe, standard length 188.2 mm) out of two syntypes and provide illustrations and new morphometric and meristic data for both specimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is a privilege to recognize a new species and immortalize it with a name. Taxonomists may use etymologies recalling the sampling locality, habitat, species morphology, people (actor, writer, singer, politician, scientist), culture (customs, beliefs), fictional characters (gods, demons, cartoons), brands, ancient names, and others. Naming a species is a creative act that allows scientists to express their love for nature. By drawing on personal and cultural associations, species names are often imbued with far greater meaning than one might initially assume. Unconventional names for species can be an effective way to capture the imagination of the public and make the species memorable. In other words, species names can be both meaningful and whimsical. The central focus of this study was to pinpoint species in the subfamily Microgastrinae that share the same specific epithet that often creates confusion regarding which species is being referred to. The findings showed that 153 specific epithets were repeated representing 340 species in 52 genera, while the remaining 2,823 species have unique epithets. Three of the five categories proposed accommodate the majority of the etymologies: people (42%), morphology (27%), and geography (15%) whereas the categories of other (9%) and biology (7%) achieve the least representation. Approximately 95% of the same specific epithets had a single clear meaning, while for the remaining 5%, it was not possible to trace etymology. The study revealed that the average length of specific epithets was 9.01 letters, the longest contains 18 (eliethcantillanoae) while the shortest four (eros and erro). Additionally, most identical specific epithets were repeated two times (85.25% of the occurrences), although three (12.82%), five, six, and even nine (each one with 0.64%) repetitions were also found. Finally, a list of recommendations for taxonomists when faced with the task of naming a new species is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a secret pleasure in naming new species. Besides traditional etymologies recalling the sampling locality, habitat or morphology of the species, names may be tributes to some meaningful person, pop culture references and even exercises of enigmatography. Using a dataset of 48 464 spider etymologies, we tested the hypothesis that species names given by taxonomists are deeply influenced by their cultural background. Specifically, we asked whether naming practices change through space or have changed through time. In absolute terms, etymologies referring to morphology were the most frequently used. In relative terms, references to morphology peaked in 1850–1900 and then began to decline, with a parallel increase in etymologies dedicated to people and geography. We also observed a dramatic increase in etymologies referring to pop culture and other cultural aspects in 2000–2020, especially in Europe and the Americas. While such fashionable names often carry no biological information regarding the species itself, they help give visibility to taxonomy, a discipline currently facing a profound crisis in academia. Taxonomy is among the most unchanged disciplines across the last centuries in terms of tools, rules and writing style. Yet, our analysis suggests that taxonomists remain deeply influenced by their living time and space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The enigmatic Cuban araneids Araneus bipunctatus Franganillo, 1931 and Araneus lineatus Franganillo, 1931, neither located nor redescribed since their original descriptions, are discussed. A. bipunctatus is considered a nomen dubium due to the very short and vague description and the absence of type material. A. lineatus is proposed as a junior synonym of Eriophora ravilla (C. L. Koch, 1844) syn. nov. based on examination of the recently rediscovered holotype. Other taxa described by Franganillo in other works are also addressed; 29 other taxa are thereby treated as nomina dubia: Anasaitis arcuata fulgida (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Araneus fistulosus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Araneus excavatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Ceratinopsis ruberrimaFranganillo, 1926nomen dubium, Hasarius bisetatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Leucauge pulcherrima ochrerufa (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Lycosa anclata Franganillo, 1946 nomen dubium, Lycosa ovalata Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Lycosa rostrataFranganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Lyssomanes antillanus fasciatus Franganillo, 1935 nomen dubium, Mecaphesa celer olivacea (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Mecaphesa celer punctata (Franganillo, 1926) nomen dubium, Menemerus depressusFranganillo, 1930nomen dubium, Menemerus fascialatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Menemerus ochraceusFranganillo, 1930nomen dubium, Menemerus proximus Franganillo, 1935 nomen dubium, Meta serrana Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Misumena pictaFranganillo, 1926nomen dubium, Misumena quadrivulvataFranganillo, 1926nomen dubium, Nagaina olivacea Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Parasteatoda lunata serrata (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Pardosa bidentata Franganillo, 1936 nomen dubium, Pardosa maculata Franganillo, 1931 nomen dubium, Scytodes longipes simplexFranganillo, 1926nomen dubium, Spintharidius viridisFranganillo, 1926nomen dubium, Stethorrhagus mandibulatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Theridion fuscum Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Theridion triangulare Franganillo, 1936 nomen dubium, Witica alobatus (Franganillo, 1931) nomen dubium. Four subspecies, Zosis geniculata altissima (Franganillo, 1926), Zosis geniculata humilis (Franganillo, 1926), Zosis geniculata quadripunctata (Franganillo, 1926), and Zosis geniculata similis (Franganillo, 1926), all described from Havana, are confirmed to be conspecific with the nominate species Zosis geniculata (Olivier, 1789) as first proposed by Bonnet (1959) syns. conf., based on their congruent morphological descriptions. Four non-existent nomina purported to be authored by Franganillo per lapsus of Bryant (1940) and/or Roewer (1955) are also discussed: Ctenonima Franganillo, 1946, Ctenus rufibarbis Franganillo, 1930, Strotarchus striatus Franganillo, 1934 and Thalerothele striatipes Franganillo, 1936. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The enigmatic Cuban araneids Araneus bipunctatus Franganillo, 1931 and Araneus lineatus Franganillo, 1931, neither located nor redescribed since their original descriptions, are discussed. A. bipunctatus is considered a nomen dubium due to the very short and vague description and the absence of type material. A. lineatus is proposed as a junior synonym of Eriophora ravilla (C. L. Koch, 1844) syn. nov. based on examination of the recently rediscovered holotype. Other taxa described by Franganillo in other works are also addressed; 29 other taxa are thereby treated as nomina dubia: Anasaitis arcuata fulgida (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Araneus fistulosus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Araneus excavatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Ceratinopsis ruberrima Franganillo, 1926 nomen dubium, Hasarius bisetatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Leucauge pulcherrima ochrerufa (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Lycosa anclata Franganillo, 1946 nomen dubium, Lycosa ovalata Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Lycosa rostrata Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Lyssomanes antillanus fasciatus Franganillo, 1935 nomen dubium, Mecaphesa celer olivacea (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Mecaphesa celer punctata (Franganillo, 1926) nomen dubium, Menemerus depressus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Menemerus fascialatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Menemerus ochraceus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Menemerus proximus Franganillo, 1935 nomen dubium, Meta serrana Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Misumena picta Franganillo, 1926 nomen dubium, Misumena quadrivulvata Franganillo, 1926 nomen dubium, Nagaina olivacea Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Parasteatoda lunata serrata (Franganillo, 1930) nomen dubium, Pardosa bidentata Franganillo, 1936 nomen dubium, Pardosa maculata Franganillo, 1931 nomen dubium, Scytodes longipes simplex Franganillo, 1926 nomen dubium, Spintharidius viridis Franganillo, 1926 nomen dubium, Stethorrhagus mandibulatus Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Theridion fuscum Franganillo, 1930 nomen dubium, Theridion triangulare Franganillo, 1936 nomen dubium, Witica alobatus (Franganillo, 1931) nomen dubium. Four subspecies, Zosis geniculata altissima (Franganillo, 1926), Zosis geniculata humilis (Franganillo, 1926), Zosis geniculata quadripunctata (Franganillo, 1926), and Zosis geniculata similis (Franganillo, 1926), all described from Havana, are con- firmed to be conspecific with the nominate species Zosis geniculata (Olivier, 1789) as first proposed by Bonnet (1959) syns. conf., based on their congruent morphological descriptions. Four non-existent nomina purported to be authored by Franganillo per lapsus of Bryant (1940) and/or Roewer (1 are also discussed: Ctenonima Franganillo, 1946, Ctenus rufibarbis Franganillo, 1930, Strotarchus striatus Franganillo, 1934 and Thalerothele striatipes Franganillo, 1936. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1930, Alfred Eisenack suggested the term âchitinozoanâ for a microfossil group that he discovered from erratic boulders on the Baltic Sea coast. They are known from the Early Ordovician until the end of the Devonian and have a broad paleogeographic distribution in marine deposits. Even though they are useful biostratigraphy markers, their biological affinity is unknown. Several theories have been proposed through the years, with the most widely accepted to date being that they are the eggs of soft-bodied metazoans. Nevertheless, some studies suggest that chitinozoans are fossils of individual microorganisms (protists) rather than of metazoan origin. The aim of this contribution is to summarize the advantages of the current chitinozoan classification and analyze the status quo of the current chitinozoan databases in order to make the classification less subjective and data more accessible. Since the beginning of their study, chitinozoan workers have used a binominal taxonomy describing genera and species based on morphological features. In 1999, Florentin Paris and co-authors introduced a revised suprageneric classification regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), which proved very efficient and has since been followed by all workers on this group. According to the ICZN, the concept of âspeciesâ is the only one that refers to an actual population or entity and all higher categories are abstract entities. This means that any feature can be selected to separate the genera and families. In chitinozoans, scanning electron microscope (SEM) images are used to distinguish morphologic features such as the vesicle, aperture, neck, and ornamentation. These main characteristics were used as the basis of classification. The category of âOrderâ is not regulated by the ICZN; however, in 1972, Eisenack proposed the useful subdivisions of âOperculatiferaâ and âProsomatiferaâ that have been maintained until today. This classification gives stability to the nomenclature, prevents overlap of generic descriptions, and provides a framework for phylogenetic analysis. It was highlighted by the authors of this classification that a computer-assisted system of identification could be developed if a digital taxonomic database were available. There are several databases with the potential to be useful for chitinozoan taxonomic classification. ZooBank is the official registry of the ICZN. It records nomenclatural acts and includes the original descriptions of new scientific names and their publications. For occurrence-based paleontological records, the Paleobiology Database and the Geobiodiversity Database are extremely useful. Both have an intuitive and simple interface for the user to see the taxa distribution and taxonomic information. These three databases complement each other, but they either have few chitinozoan records or lack complete taxonomic information. There is a desktop taxonomic database CHITINOVOSP for chitinozoans, designed by Florentin Paris, which has proven to be useful but needs to be purchased. Achab et al. developed in Canada another chitinozoan database CHITINOS that is not currently used. The most complete and useful chitinozoan database at present seems to be CHITDB, where browsing and searching for chitinozoan taxa, samples, sections, references, and SEM images is simple. However, it is focused only on material from the Baltic region. Databases such as the Encyclopedia of Life, the Catalogue of Life and the World Register of Marine Species lack chitinozoan records but they are collaborative and provide free global access to knowledge. This collaborative formula seems to be efficient enough to have a trusted digital source of information. Since at present the taxonomic classification of chitinozoans is no longer under discussion and it has proven to be workable, the following step for chitinozoan researchers would be to have a complete database. We believe that a collaborative effort should be made as there are only a few specialists in the area nowadays. It is not crucial which database should be completed, but it should be useful, as complete as possible, and freely accessible. In particular, we believe that the Baltic CHITDB database is an excellent starting platform to achieve that goal in the near future.

O. B. Lower described, in 1911, the hesperiine skipper Telicota augias mesoptis Lower, 1911, but he neither stated the number of specimens before him nor designated a holotype. Our investigations indicate that Lower had at least 11 syntypes (7 males, 4 females), which are now registered in the Australian Museum, Sydney and South Australian Museum, Adelaide (SAMA). At least two authors (G. A. Waterhouse in 1933, and M. J. Parsons in 1998) attempted to resolve the taxonomy of mesoptis but neither of them made a valid lectotype designation in that the syntype they specified cannot be located and unambiguously identified to act as the unique type of the taxon. Thus, we designate a male specimen in SAMA (registration number: SAMA Database No. 31-001600) as the lectotype to become the unique bearer of the name mesoptis. This action does not affect the name or rank of the taxon, rather it constitutes a formal subsequent fixation since Lower's name was introduced 110 years ago. With regard to nomenclature, the taxonomic status of mesoptis has changed several times, both in terms of rank and with the species or genus in which it has been combined. Currently, the correct nomenclature is Telicota paceka mesoptis Lower, 1911 and we recommend that this name be used to designate the Australian population rather than Telicota mesoptis mesoptis Lower, 1911 in which it has been known for the past 87 years (since 1934). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authorships of 14 species-group names of chilopods introduced by Yoshioki Takakuwa in 1934 are clarified. Four names, viz., Dicellophilus latifrons Takakuwa, 1934, Tygarrup moiwaensis Takakuwa, 1934, Prolamnonyx obtusus Takakuwa, 1934, and P. dentatus Takakuwa, 1934 should be attributed to Takakuwa’s work published in Japanese in April 1934 in Volume 2, Issue No. 4 of the journal Shokubutsu oyobi Dobutsu (=Botany and Zoology). The specific names of two other Mecistocephalus species, viz., M. ongi Takakuwa, 1934 and M. brevisternalis Takakuwa, 1934, should be attributed to the Takakuwa’s work published in German in April 1934, in Volume 14, Issue No. 3 of the journal Annotationes Zoologicae Japonenses. The correct attributions of six more names, viz., Geophilus monoporus Takakuwa, 1934, Nesogeophilus kozuensis Takakuwa, 1934, N. tiosianus Takakuwa, 1934, N. littoralis Takakuwa, 1934, Thalthybius tenuicollis Takakuwa, 1934, and Cryptops japonicus Takakuwa, 1934, is to Takakuwa’s work published in Japanese in September 1934, in Volume 46, Issue No. 551 of the journal Dobutsugaku Zasshi. In addition to the 14 species-group names, the correct attribution of Mecistocephalus takakuwai, which has traditionally been attributed to the work by Karl W. Verhoeff published in November 1934, is clarified. This species was described by Takakuwa in the work published in April 1934, but nonetheless, it is concluded that its correct attribution is to Takakuwa’s work published in Japanese in October 1932 in Volume 30, Issue No. 47 of the journal Hakubutsugaku Zasshi. Synonymies showing earlier authors’ attributions are given for each of these species, and, when possible, the composition of the original type series of each of these species is inferred. In 1955 some of the type material was still said to exist, but by now all of Takakuwa’s specimens of these species seem to have been lost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The name Dicrotendipes sinicus was originally proposed in 2018, but the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature were not fulfilled to make the name available. We here re-propose the name with full Code compliance and redescribe and illustrate all life stages of the species to make the name available.

The spider taxa included by James Barbut in his work 'The genera insectorum of Linnæus exemplified in various specimens of English insects drawn from nature' from 1781 are discussed alongside some other early works of spider literature. Barbut discusses and depicts three previously described species, Araneus diadematus Clerck, 1757, Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757) and Xysticus cristatus (Clerck, 1757). Four taxa are newly described by Barbut (1781) but are unavailable nomina per Article 11.4 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The taxonomic acts of Bonnet, who failed to notice that Barbut's work was invalid for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, are discussed. Two nomina, Aranea subterranea Barbut in Meyer, 1794 and Aranea hortensis Barbut in Meyer, 1794 - both made available through the translation work by Meyer - are evaluated. Aranea subterranea Barbut in Meyer, 1794 is proposed as a nomen dubium. Aranea hortensis Barbut in Meyer, 1794 is proposed as a junior synonym of Araneus diadematus Clerck, 1757 syn. nov. and is thus an objective senior homonym of Araneus hortensis (Blackwall, 1859). The replacement name Araneus blackwalli nom. nov. is proposed for the latter taxon. Additionally, Aranea livido-rufa Panzer, 1804 is removed from synonymy with Metellina segmentata (Clerck, 1757) and is declared a nomen dubium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pyramidalia is a brachiopod genus with Spirifera simplex as the type species. Imprecise diagnosis and misidentification of the material studied in the original description resulted in a plethora of interpretations (a valid genus belonging either to the order Spiriferida or to the Spiriferinida; synonym of the spiriferide Thomasaria; synonym of Squamulariina or Cyrtinaella, both spiriferinides). To address this problem we designated the specimen GSM 6915 from Wolborough quarry near Newton Abbot (Devon, England; Givetian) as the lectotype of Spirifera simplex. We examined microstructure and internal characters of a topotypic specimen and found out that Spirifera simplex has an impunctate shell and is thus a spiriferide, not a spiriferinide. No significant differences in morphology or internal characters of Thomasaria and Pyramidalia can be found, so the latter is interpreted as a junior subjective synonym of the former. The procedure used in the present analysis is equivalent to the epitypification provided for in the ICN; formalisation of a similar procedure under the ICZN is recommended.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The buthid scorpion Janalychas tricarinatusSimon, 1884 is a species distributed in most parts of the Indian peninsula. I assessed morphological and molecular data for representatives of this species from peninsular India, which hints at the presence of multiple species within the broadly distributed J. tricarinatus sensu lato. Conjugation of morphological and molecular data allow me to describe two new species of the genus Janalychas that were, until now, considered conspecific with J. tricarinatus. Re-examination of the type specimens of Lychas aareyensisMirza & Sanap, 2010 revealed the lack of a tibial spur, a character of the genus Reddyanus Vachon, 1972 and not LychasKoch, 1845 or JanalychasKovařík, 2019, which leads me to transfer the species to the genus Reddyanus (Reddyanus aareyensis (Mirza & Sanap, 2010) comb. nov. as db is situated between et and est on the pedipalp manus. Discovery of two new species highlights the need for employing integrated taxonomic approaches to define and delimit species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The erigonine genus Hypsocephalus Millidge, 1978 is a homonym of the genus Hypsocephalus Swift & Ellwood, 1972 (Lutjanidae, Perciformes, Pisces). The replacement name Staveleya nom. nov. is thus proposed for the preoccupied spider genus nomen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Two haemogregarine "species" names, Haemogregarina tarentannulari and Haemogregarina rawashi, were cited by Saoud et al. (1995) as having been described by Mohammed and Ramadan (1996, in press). However, the paper by Mohammed and Ramadan (1996) was never published and, therefore, these names and their authorities must be suppressed because they violate Chapter 3 (Criteria for Publication), Article 8 (What Constitutes Published Work) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The following new names are introduced to replace them based on the Principle of Priority (Chapter 6, Article 23, 23.1, and Chapter 11, Article 51, Recommendation 51E): Hepatozoon rawashi (Mohammed and Ramadan in Saoud, Ramadan, Mohammed and Fawzi, 1995) n. comb., with gamonts in the erythrocytes and meronts in the lungs and liver of the fan-footed gecko, Ptyodactylus hasselquisiti (Donndorff, 1798) from Egypt, and Haemogregarina tarentannulari (Mohammed and Ramadan in Saoud, Ramadan, Mohammed and Fawzi, 1995), with gamonts in the erythrocytes and meronts in the lungs and liver of the white-spotted wall gecko, Tarentola annularis (St. Hilaire, 1827) also from Egypt. This latter species was determined to be a junior synonym of Haemogregarina annularis El-Naffar, Mandour, and Mohammed 1991, which was later reassigned to the genus Hepatozoon based on their phylogenetic analysis of 18S rDNA gene sequences., (© American Society of Parasitologists 2024.)

Pyramidalia is a brachiopod genus with Spirifera simplex as the type species. Imprecise diagnosis and misidentification of the material studied in the original description resulted in a plethora of interpretations (a valid genus belonging either to the order Spiriferida or to the Spiriferinida; synonym of the spiriferide Thomasaria; synonym of Squamulariina or Cyrtinaella, both spiriferinides). To address this problem we designated the specimen GSM 6915 from Wolborough quarry near Newton Abbot (Devon, England; Givetian) as the lectotype of Spirifera simplex. We examined microstructure and internal characters of a topotypic specimen and found out that Spirifera simplex has an impunctate shell and is thus a spiriferide, not a spiriferinide. No significant differences in morphology or internal characters of Thomasaria and Pyramidalia can be found, so the latter is interpreted as a junior subjective synonym of the former. The procedure used in the present analysis is equivalent to the epitypification provided for in the ICN; formalisation of a similar procedure under the ICZN is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2004, Uchida published a partial revision of the family Hesionidae in Japan, where four new genera were proposed and 13 species newly described. However, both the holotype fixations and their depository numbers were omitted in the original article, rendering the names unavailable after Article 16.4 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. In this work, the names are made available by clarifying the depository of the types. We provide diagnoses for the four new genera (Synsyllidia Uchida, Uncopodarke Uchida, Parahesiocaeca Uchida, and Ichthyohesione Uchida) and 13 new species (Synsyllidia alternata Uchida, Oxydromus brevipodius Uchida, O. bunbuku Uchida, O. constrictus Uchida, O. fauveli Uchida, O. longifundus Uchida, O. okudai Uchida, O. parapallidus Uchida, Heteropodarke kiiensis Uchida, Uncopodarke intermedia Uchida, Microphthalmus itoi Uchida, Parahesiocaeca japonica Uchida, and Ichthyohesione gorgasiae Uchida). A key to species of Hesionidae recorded to date from Japan is also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The family-group names of animals (superfamily, family, subfamily, supertribe, tribe and subtribe) are regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Particularly, the family names are very important, because they are among the most widely used of all technical animal names. A uniform name and spelling are essential for the location of information. To facilitate this, a list of family-group names for fossil fishes has been compiled. I use the concept ‘Fishes’ in the usual sense, i.e., starting with the Agnatha up to the †Osteolepidiformes. All the family-group names proposed for fossil fishes found to date are listed, together with their author(s) and year of publication. The main goal of the list is to contribute to the usage of the correct family-group names for fossil fishes with a uniform spelling and to list the author(s) and date of those names. No valid family-group name description could be located for the following family-group names currently in usage: †Brindabellaspidae, †Diabolepididae, †Dorsetichthyidae, †Erichalcidae, †Holodipteridae, †Kentuckiidae, †Lepidaspididae, †Loganelliidae and †Pituriaspididae.

It is a privilege to recognize a new species and immortalize it with a name. Taxonomists may use etymologies recalling the sampling locality, habitat, species morphology, people (actor, writer, singer, politician, scientist), culture (customs, beliefs), fictional characters (gods, demons, cartoons), brands, ancient names, and others. Naming a species is a creative act that allows scientists to express their love for nature. By drawing on personal and cultural associations, species names are often imbued with far greater meaning than one might initially assume. Unconventional names for species can be an effective way to capture the imagination of the public and make the species memorable. In other words, species names can be both meaningful and whimsical. The central focus of this study was to pinpoint species in the subfamily Microgastrinae that share the same specific epithet that often creates confusion regarding which species is being referred to. The findings showed that 153 specific epithets were repeated representing 340 species in 52 genera, while the remaining 2,823 species have unique epithets. Three of the five categories proposed accommodate the majority of the etymologies: people (42%), morphology (27%), and geography (15%) whereas the categories of other (9%) and biology (7%) achieve the least representation. Approximately 95% of the same specific epithets had a single clear meaning, while for the remaining 5%, it was not possible to trace etymology. The study revealed that the average length of specific epithets was 9.01 letters, the longest contains 18 ( eliethcantillanoae ) while the shortest four ( eros and erro ). Additionally, most identical specific epithets were repeated two times (85.25% of the occurrences), although three (12.82%), five, six, and even nine (each one with 0.64%) repetitions were also found. Finally, a list of recommendations for taxonomists when faced with the task of naming a new species is provided., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Mostafa Ghafouri Moghaddam, Diana Carolina Arias-Penna, Minoo Heidari Latibari, Buntika A. Butcher.)

The lectotype and paralectotype of Synodontisvictoriae Boulenger, 1906, designated by Poll (1971), were examined. Inconsistencies between data presented for the designated lectotype and the illustrated individual raise the question of whether lectotypification by Poll is valid. This case is not formally regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but based on Article 74.5, the lectotypification for S.victoriae should be considered invalid because it cannot unambiguously indicate a single name-bearing specimen. Thus, we designate a new lectotype for S.victoriae (BMNH 1906.5.30.191, Entebbe, standard length 188.2 mm) out of two syntypes and provide illustrations and new morphometric and meristic data for both specimens., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Gernot K. Englmaier, Rupert A. Collins.)

Antennoseius (Antennoseius) gwiazdowiczi Kavianpour & Nemati was described based on morphological characters of adult females and published in Iranian Journal of Entomology. This journal was published in electronic form only without permanent archiving and is not available now. Also, the work is not registered in ZooBank. To be considered validly published, according to the ICZN rules a work that has been issued and distributed electronically, must possess several conditions such as registration in ZooBank. Due to the absence of such a condition, this species is not available now. For this reason, the description of this species based on morphological characters of adult females is presented here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The monotypic colubrid snake genus Wallophis is revalidated and rediagnosed. Partial sequence for nuclear gene Oocyte maturation factor Mos (c-mos), mitochondrial Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase subunit 4 (ND4) and cytochrome b (cyt b) were used to assess phylogenetic relationship. Wallophis brachyura type species for the genus was found to be a member of the Western Palearctic clade of Colubrinae and is recovered as a sister taxa to Wallaceophis gujaratensis. Wallophis differs from Wallaceophis in an uncorrected pairwise p-distance of 17% for mitochondrial ND4 gene. Wallaceophis gujaratensis was described in three different spellings in the literature hence we here propose Wallaceophis gujaratensis as the correct spelling for the species based on provisions in the article 24.2.3. of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature allows the naming of new species without a type specimen ever having been preserved. This practice causes problems and is undesirable because if related, cryptic, sibling species are encountered later, it may not be possible either to allocate them with certainty to the earlier named species, or to determine them to be something different., We hypothesised that examination of the instances in which mammalian species were named without preserved types would reveal certain problems that are not unique to them, but are encountered more frequently than when types are preserved. We also thought the Code's stipulation that preserved types are not required in the case of specimens that are no longer 'extant' would present special problems hitherto unremarked upon in the literature., We conducted a review of cases involving putative new species of mammal named since 1900. These were analysed to see what special problems they present and the frequency of such problems., We found that the Code's waiver of the requirement that a type specimen be deposited in a collection if the specimen is no longer extant presents numerous problems-in particular, that a living-at-large type specimen can still be 'extant' even if its whereabouts are unknown at certain times and/or it may no longer be alive. Illustrations alone being used to designate type specimens is especially problematic, owing to mammals' lack of meristic and other obvious distinguishing external characters. Hoaxes, the difficulty in determining that they are hoaxes, and various errors of taxonomic allocation appear to be especially common with names without preserved types. The Code should be revised to require preserved specimens as types for new names. Tissue samples alone for DNA analysis are not ideal for serving this purpose, but should be allowed to meet the requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Busack et al. (2016) concluded that the name Darevskia should be attributed to Arribas (1999) instead of Arribas (1997), rendering the latter name a junior synonym of Caucasilacerta Harris et al. (1998). In this paper, we provide a detailed answer to Busack et al. (2016) and argue that Arribas (1997) fulfilled the publication requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) in place in 1997 and, therefore, Darevskia Arribas, 1997 is a valid name. In order to clarify this issue, a case has been submitted to the ICZN. To avoid unnecessary confusion in Old World Lacertid taxonomy, we recommend that until the commission rules on this case, Arribas (1997) should continue to be considered the authority of both Darevskia and Iberolacerta. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 H. 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 H. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report the rediscovery of the holotype of Characidium sanctjohanni Dahl, previously considered as lost in the ICN collections. We present counts, measurements and photographs, also offering a comparison between the holotype and the original description.

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.

In 1930, Alfred Eisenack suggested the term ‘chitinozoan’ for a microfossil group that he discovered from erratic boulders on the Baltic Sea coast. They are known from the Early Ordovician until the end of the Devonian and have a broad paleogeographic distribution in marine deposits. Even though they are useful biostratigraphy markers, their biological affinity is unknown. Several theories have been proposed through the years, with the most widely accepted to date being that they are the eggs of soft-bodied metazoans. Nevertheless, some studies suggest that chitinozoans are fossils of individual microorganisms (protists) rather than of metazoan origin. The aim of this contribution is to summarize the advantages of the current chitinozoan classification and analyze the status quo of the current chitinozoan databases in order to make the classification less subjective and data more accessible. Since the beginning of their study, chitinozoan workers have used a binominal taxonomy describing genera and species based on morphological features. In 1999, Florentin Paris and co-authors introduced a revised suprageneric classification regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), which proved very efficient and has since been followed by all workers on this group. According to the ICZN, the concept of ‘species’ is the only one that refers to an actual population or entity and all higher categories are abstract entities. This means that any feature can be selected to separate the genera and families. In chitinozoans, scanning electron microscope (SEM) images are used to distinguish morphologic features such as the vesicle, aperture, neck, and ornamentation. These main characteristics were used as the basis of classification. The category of ‘Order’ is not regulated by the ICZN; however, in 1972, Eisenack proposed the useful subdivisions of ‘Operculatifera’ and ‘Prosomatifera’ that have been maintained until today. This classification gives stability to the nomenclature, prevents overlap of generic descriptions, and provides a framework for phylogenetic analysis. It was highlighted by the authors of this classification that a computer-assisted system of identification could be developed if a digital taxonomic database were available. There are several databases with the potential to be useful for chitinozoan taxonomic classification. ZooBank is the official registry of the ICZN. It records nomenclatural acts and includes the original descriptions of new scientific names and their publications. For occurrence-based paleontological records, the Paleobiology Database and the Geobiodiversity Database are extremely useful. Both have an intuitive and simple interface for the user to see the taxa distribution and taxonomic information. These three databases complement each other, but they either have few chitinozoan records or lack complete taxonomic information. There is a desktop taxonomic database CHITINOVOSP for chitinozoans, designed by Florentin Paris, which has proven to be useful but needs to be purchased. Achab et al. developed in Canada another chitinozoan database CHITINOS that is not currently used. The most complete and useful chitinozoan database at present seems to be CHITDB, where browsing and searching for chitinozoan taxa, samples, sections, references, and SEM images is simple. However, it is focused only on material from the Baltic region. Databases such as the Encyclopedia of Life, the Catalogue of Life and the World Register of Marine Species lack chitinozoan records but they are collaborative and provide free global access to knowledge. This collaborative formula seems to be efficient enough to have a trusted digital source of information. Since at present the taxonomic classification of chitinozoans is no longer under discussion and it has proven to be workable, the following step for chitinozoan researchers would be to have a complete database. We believe that a collaborative effort should be made as there are only a few specialists in the area nowadays. It is not crucial which database should be completed, but it should be useful, as complete as possible, and freely accessible. In particular, we believe that the Baltic CHITDB database is an excellent starting platform to achieve that goal in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplementing the new edition of the catalogue of Palaearctic Ptiliidae (Sörensson 2015) information on taxonomy, nomenclature and distribution of Palaearctic Ptiliidae is provided. Trichopteryx myrmicophila Motschulsky, 1845 is resurrected from synonymy of Ptenidium formicetorum Kraatz, 1851 due to recognition of original spelling and, thus, non-homonymy of T. myrmecophila Allibert, 1844. Authorship of Millidium minutissimum (Weber et Mohr, 1804), type species of Millidium Motschulsky, 1855, is corrected. Original spelling of Ptiliolum orientale Polilov, 2008 and P. nemtsevi Polilov et Bibin, 2004 is decided according to the zoological Code (ICZN 1999). Further corrigenda to Johnson (2004) are provided. Doubtful distribution records are commented upon. Distribution details are given on 102 species taxa, incl. ca 290 national records for Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canary Islands, Croatia, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Algeria, Tunisia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Japan, Mongolia, Syria and Tadzhikistan. Altogether 33 new species and 3 new genera of Palaearctic Ptiliidae have been described or recognized since Johnson (2004) making a total of 215 species in 34 genera known from the Palaearctic realm (Europe: 139 species; North Africa: 54; Asian region: 117). Comments on distribution patterns, taxon richness and biogeography are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The monotypic genus Indiscelio Veenakumari, Popovici and Talamas was published in the Journal of Asia Pacific Entomology in 2018. Because this journal at that time was electronic-only, but the authors were not aware about this aspect, they did not register the paper in Zoobank and the Zoobank LSID was not included in the paper. As a consequence, the scientific names Indiscelio and Indiscelio aulon (the type species of the genus Indiscelio) are unavailable. The aim of this paper is to provide a concise description of these taxa in order to comply with the ICZN, making them available names. www.zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C7B0D089-5DEF-4535-B530-624082AB54B7 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to describe the circumstances of publication of an unavailable name of chalcid wasps, and to make the name Balcha opaca Fusu sp. n. (Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae) available. www.zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:38F49D79-F5AA-4516-8E48-55CFFA61A71C [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]