Form-classification for microbially induced sedimentary structures

The current International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) prescribes how to form the genitive case for personal names that are not of Latin form and that end in a consonant other than er. Article 60.8(b) specifies that the genitive for masculine nouns is formed by adding ii (singular) or iorum (plural), and for feminine nouns by adding iae (sing.) or iarum (pl.). Thus, one would render the genitive of the personal name “Smith” as, depending on the gender and number, smithii or smithiorum, or as smithiae or smithiarum. Latin grammar books (e.g. LaFleur, Wheelock's Latin, ed. 7. 2011), however, prescribe a slightly different set of genitive endings for these nouns: namely, for masculine, i (sing.) or orum (pl.), and for feminine, ae (sing.) or arum (pl.). As many taxonomists have probably noted, these endings are used by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ed. 4, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999), resulting in names such as Paramecium woodruffi (honouring Woodruff, masculine) and P. grohmannae (honouring Grohmann, feminine). Therefore, by comparison, it would appear that the Shenzhen Code requires an extra i between the noun and its genitive case ending. This interpolated i is called a “stem augmentation” in Art. 60.8(b) and (d). Why does the Shenzhen Code apparently use different endings than those of classical Latin and the zoological Code? Actually, the Shenzhen Code uses the same endings as in classical Latin and the zoological Code. The difference is how the Shenzhen Code creates the stem of the noun to which the genitive endings are added. The process is thus: the surname “Smith” is first put into Latin form by adding ius, resulting in smithius. Note that this process gives rise to stem augmentation because the interpolated i is part of the newly latinized stem. The genitive is then formed by the normal rules of Latin grammar: the us is dropped, resulting in smithi, and then the appropriate genitive ending is added. If the word is a masculine singular noun, i is added, resulting in smithii; or if plural, orum is added, resulting in smithiorum. Nowhere is this process explained in the Code. It should be. Without an explanation, taxonomists will not understand how a stem augmentation arises. Also, they will not readily appreciate why names already of Latin form lack a stem augmentation and end in a single i, as when, for example, Hieronymus (meaning “Jerome”) is inflected with only one i, resulting in hieronymi. To address this deficiency in the Code, we propose the following amendments to Art. 60.8 clauses (b) and (d) and Ex. 17, and a new entry in the Glossary defining “stem augmentation”. “(b) If the personal name ends with a consonant (but not in -er), substantival epithets are formed by latinizing them with -ius, then dropping the -us and adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the gender and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. Lecard-ius, lecard-i-i for Lecard (m), Wilson-ius, wilson-i-ae for Wilson (f), Verlot-ius, verlot-i-orum for the Verlot brothers, Braun-ius, braun-i-arum for the Braun sisters, Mason-ius, mason-i-orum for Mason, father and daughter).” “(d) If the personal name ends with a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed by latinizing the personal name with -ius, then dropping the -us and adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rosa webbi-ana for Webb, Desmodium griffithi-anum for Griffith, Verbena hassleri-ana for Hassler).” “Ex. 17. In Rhododendron ‘potanini' Batalin (in Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 11: 489. 1892), commemorating G. N. Potanin, the epithet is to be spelled potaninii under Art. 60.8(b) because Potanin is first put in Latin form by adding -ius to create potaninius; then the genitive is formed by first dropping the -us to yield potanini- (the final -i- is the stem augmentation) and then adding the masculine genitive singular ending -i, resulting in the epithet potaninii). However, in Phoenix theophrasti Greuter (in Bauhinia 3: 243. 1967), commemorating Theophrastus, it is not spelled ‘theophrastii' because Rec. 60C.1 applies.” “stem augmentation. [Not defined] – the -i- at the end of the stem of a specific or infraspecific epithet derived from a personal name not already of Latin form and ending in a consonant. It results from latinizing the personal name by adding -ius (e.g. Smith to smithius), then dropping the -us to yield the stem (smithi-), to which is added the appropriate genitive ending (smithi-i, masc. sing.; smithi-orum, masc. pl.; smithi-ae, fem. sing.; smithi-arum, fem. pl.) (Art. 60.8(b) and (d)). Similarly, adjectival epithets are formed by first latinizing the personal name by adding -ius, then adding an adjectival suffix (-an-) to which is attached the appropriate nominative singular inflection.”

(219) The Editorial Committee is instructed to provide a glossary of technical terms in the ICBN: A glossary would facilitate interpretation of the Code by obviating the need to find the appropriate entry in the index and then find the definition in the text. More importantly, having the Editorial Committee focus on the definition of terms may help them guard against inconsistencies, redundancies, and ambiguities in the Code. For example, the word is used in at least three different ways. In available element (Art. 9.17; Art. 10.5) the word is used in ordinary sense referring to potential types, but available (Art. 11.5; Art. 58) is a technical term meaning an epithet that does not form a later homonym in its new position or rank. An available (Art. 6.4, Ex. 4; Art. 53.1, Ex. 2) is a name that is either initially legitimate name that has not been suppressed by conservation or sanctioning or initially illegitimate name that has been made legitimate by conservation or sanctioning. An unavailable (Art. 15.2) is a name that may not be used either because it is illegitimate or because it is suppressed by conservation or sanctioning. It would be useful to clarify these various usages and terms in a glossary. Ironically, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature contains a definition of available as used in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 45, Ex. 4, fn.).

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.

Johnson et al. (2020a) provided a comprehensive overview of Teleosauroidea, a diverse group of Mesozoic crocodylomorphs that lived in freshwater-to-marine ecosystems across the world. Johnson et al. (2020a) performed numerous phylogenetic analyses on Teleosauroidea and used them to establish a new taxonomic framework for this long-neglected clade. However, therein the numerous new teleosauroid clades were not properly registered in accordance with the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode). Herein we correct this error. We also replace the clade name Aeolodontinae with Aeolodontini, to ensure we do not inadvertently create two different names for this clade under the PhyloCode and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

For 250 years, taxonomists have relied on having access to physical copies of published works in order to verify information about taxa. The difficulty of tracking down publications can be a substantial impediment to taxonomic work, which has led some researchers to advocate modifying the codes of nomenclature, for plants and bacteria as well as for animals, to allow electronic publication of scientific names (Knapp et al. 2007, Wheeler & Krell 2007).

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.

The spelling of the specific name of an Anormogomphus species in its original description by Bartenev (1913) was variable, kiritshenkoi (5 times) vs kiritschenkoi (1 time). Bartenev himself did not mention this species in his further publications. Later authors proceeded to use different spelling versions of this name, including those not in the original paper. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the valid spelling should be chosen by the First Reviser. Acting as such, we choose as valid the name spelling Anormogomphus kiritshenkoi Bartenev, 1913, since it predominates in the original description, appears in the species subtitle, and is a proper transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin. It also corresponds to the spelling of his name used by A.N. Kiritshenko himself. Information of the type locality of the species is provided.

Naming of Cryptosporidium pestis is in accordance with the ICZN Code and the name is available for this taxon previously recognized as C. parvum ‘bovine genotype’

The tiger is one of the most iconic extant animals, and its origin and evolution have been intensely debated.Fossils attributable to extant pantherine species-lineages are less than 2 MYA and the earliest tiger fossils are from the Calabrian, Lower Pleistocene.Molecular studies predict a much younger age for the divergence of modern tiger subspecies at ,100 KYA, although their cranial morphology is readily distinguishable, indicating that early Pleistocene tigers would likely have differed markedly anatomically from extant tigers.Such inferences are hampered by the fact that well-known fossil tiger material is middle to late Pleistocene in age.Here we describe a new species of pantherine cat from Longdan, Gansu Province, China, Panthera zdanskyi sp.nov.With an estimated age of 2.55-2.16MYA it represents the oldest complete skull of a pantherine cat hitherto found.Although smaller, it appears morphologically to be surprisingly similar to modern tigers considering its age.Morphological, morphometric, and cladistic analyses are congruent in confirming its very close affinity to the tiger, and it may be regarded as the most primitive species of the tiger lineage, demonstrating the first unequivocal presence of a modern pantherine species-lineage in the basal stage of the Pleistocene (Gelasian; traditionally considered to be Late Pliocene).This find supports a north-central Chinese origin of the tiger lineage, and demonstrates that various parts of the cranium, mandible, and dentition evolved at different rates.An increase in size and a reduction in the relative size of parts of the dentition appear to have been prominent features of tiger evolution, whereas the distinctive cranial morphology of modern tigers was established very early in their evolutionary history.The evolutionary trend of increasing size in the tiger lineage is likely coupled to the evolution of its primary prey species.

ABSTRACTThe genus Machaeroprosopus has long been considered invalid because the type specimen of the Late Triassic phytosaur species, M. validus, has been lost. Re-examination of the primary literature regarding the establishment of the Late Triassic phytosaur genus Machaeroprosopus demonstrates that M. buceros is the correct type species, not M. validus. Thus, the genus level name Machaeroprosopus has priority over the genera Pseudopalatus and Arribasuchus and all nominal species should be reassigned. Reassignment of these species to Machaeroprosopus satisfies the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and preserves historical context. The name Pseudopalatinae is retained as the valid clade name for these phytosaurs because its usage falls outside of the ICZN.

This study reevaluates three phytoseiid mite species: Proprioseiopsis doorco, Indiraseiulus pectoralus, and Paraseiulus parajirofticus, described by Denmark & Evans in 2011. Upon review, we found that the original descriptions of these species did not comply with Article 16.4.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The species were described after 1999 and a statement was not included indicating the repository for the type specimens. Moreover, our examination of the type specimens revealed that if the names of these species had been made available, they would have been junior synonyms of previously described species: Proprioseiopsis mauiensis (Prasad), Ricoseius loxocheles (De Leon) and Paraseiulus soleiger (Ribaga), respectively. Given that, rather than naming a repository to make those names available, we propose keeping them deliberately as nomina nuda.

Taxon names are at the core of communication related to biodiversity. Thus, systems that regulate such names should prevent unnecessary changes. Unfortunately, the current regulatory codes have some articles that produce confusion or, even, generate name instability. To promote nomenclatural stability, while maintaining a system that effectively conveys information about biological diversity and its evolution, we argue in favor of emendations to the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). We propose that taxon names should be created within an evolutionary framework; ideally, this would mean including a phylogenetic tree or, at the very least, formulating a hypothesis in words based on explicit arguments (homologous traits) for the evolutionary relatedness of taxa, avoiding subjective perceptions. Additionally, we consider that some relatively minor changes of the ICZN would greatly increase name stability; the most relevant modifications that would facilitate long-term stability are: (i) immutability of the species epithet of species names, (ii) intercalation of unranked taxa between formal Linnaean ranks, (iii) elimination of homonyms in taxon names at the genus-group level, and (iv) inclusion of flexible phylogenetic definitions when supraspecific taxa are named.

The following subsection should be added beneath the Methods subsection Terminology: Nomenclatural Acts The electronic version of this document does not represent a published work according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), and hence the nomenclatural acts contained herein are not available under that Code from the electronic edition. A separate edition of this document was produced by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies, and those copies were simultaneously obtainable (from May 21st 2009) for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record, in accordance with Article 8.1 of the Code. The separate print-only edition is available on request from PLoS by sending a request to PLoS ONE, 185 Berry Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA along with a check for $10 (to cover printing and postage) payable to Public Library of Science. In addition, this published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been retrospectively registered in ZooBank (http://www.zoobank.org/) , the proposed online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix http://zoobank.org/. The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0357A28C-0547-4423-8E5C-A069128DF888 The LSIDs for the Nomenclature Acts are: Darwinius urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:117EE2BF-DCAD-4311-973A-91366AB04003 D. masillae urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C246EC77-E90B-4FB4-B6CB-ADB473A40320

Web‐based, digital taxonomy is developing rapidly, but the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) still requires that the primary data element of taxonomy, the description, be published in hard copy. If accepted, a recently proposed amendment to the ICZN allows for electronic publication of taxonomic names, with the names to be registered in a global, publicly accessible, web‐based archive called ZooBank. This proposal will allow for contemporary models of publication and begin the process of establishing a global register of zoological names. While on the surface this sounds like a reasonably minor step in the pathway to the new taxonomy, the logical implications of this proposal are many and far reaching. For example, this change may lead to further advances so that zoological taxonomy bypasses traditional journal publication entirely, with ZooBank or some other electronic web‐based outlet operating as the publishing vehicle and names register for the new taxonomy. While electronic publication is an important step in improving taxonomic practice, it is by no means a panacea for the critical shortage of taxonomic expertise in Australia or elsewhere.

We recently established the leafhopper genus Tricella with the type species Tricella antonellae from Ecuador (Catalano & Dietrich 2017). Unfortunately, Tricella n.gen is junior homonym of Tricella Daniels, 1975 (Diptera). Therefore, we propose a new replacement name Carpaneura nom. nov. for Tricella Catalano & Dietrich, 2017 as required by Article 60 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The genus is named in honor of the first author's husband, Pablo Carpane. The name combines his family name with the suffix of the type genus of the tribe and is treated as a feminine noun. Replacement of the junior homonym also requires the following new combination for the originally designated type species: Carpaneura antonellae (Catalano & Dietrich), comb. nov.