Lectotypification of three species names of Australian Alpinia Roxb. (Zingiberaceae)

In the list of the type material of Germalus ashlocki new species (page 362) the depository of the holotype was omitted by error. As a consequence, the name of the species is unavailable (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth edition, Art. 16.4.2). It is hereby stated that the holotype is a male deposited in the Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas (SEMC). The purpose of this note is to validate the name of the new species from the publication date of this erratum by a reference to the original description as indication.

In the publication of Erman et al. (2010), the depository for the holotypes of Atractides (Atractides) anatolicus Pešić, Erman & Esen sp. nov. and Atractides (Atractides) martini Pešić, Erman & Esen sp. nov., respectively, was not given. Therefore, the names of both species are invalid (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1999, Art. 16.4.2). We declare here that the holotype male of Atractides anatolicus and the holotype male of Atractides martini are deposited in the Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden (RMNH). The purpose of this note is to validate the name of both new species (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1999, Art. 13.1.2).

Dayrat, B. & Gosliner, T. M. (2005). Species names and metaphyly: a case study in Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina) —Zoologica Scripta, **, ***–***.Absence of resolution in phylogenetic trees, or metaphyly, is a common phenomenon. It mainly results from the fact that each data set has its own limit and can hardly be expected to reconstruct alone an entire hierarchy. Because metaphyly helps point out which regions of a tree merit further investigation, one should not avoid metaphyly but rather should try to detect it by addressing carefully node reliability. In this paper we explore the implication of metaphyly for species names. We present a phylogenetic analysis of Discodorididae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Nudibranchia, Doridina), with an emphasis on relationships among species of Discodoris and its traditionally close ‘allies’ such as Peltodoris and Anisodoris. We demonstrate that some species must be transferred to different discodoridid subclades with which they share synapomorphies, but that many species form a metaphyletic group at the base of Discodorididae, and therefore cannot be placed in any taxon of genus level. We demonstrate that the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not allow taxonomists to handle this situation because it requires selecting a taxon name of genus rank for every species binomial. Then we evaluate the results provided by new forms of species names, both in a rank‐based system, such as the current nomenclature, and a rank‐free system. All solutions considered would cause radical changes to the ‘spirit’ of the current ICZN (and, by extension, to the other current codes). In a rank‐free system of nomenclature, such as the PhyloCode, the best result is obtained with an epithet‐based form that does not mention supra‐specific relationships. Under this method, official species names would take the form ‘boholiensis Bergh, 1877’, although page numbers and letters can be added for uniqueness purposes. Taxonomists would then be free to add supra‐specific taxon names in ‘common’ species names, such as Discodorididae boholiensis Bergh, 1877 or simply Discodorididae boholiensis. Here we wish to stimulate discussion of a problem that we believe merits wide debate: absence of resolution in phylogenetic reconstruction and its impact on species nomenclature.

To identify in the literature how Middle-Range Theories (MRT) are being developed in Nursing. Integrative review on the databases Lilacs (Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences), Scopus, Cinahl (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science and PubMed portal, using the keywords middle range theory and nursing, as well its Portuguese correspondents (Lilacs), and the Boolean operator AND. The sample included 25 articles. All articles presented concepts related to MRT. Most developed a synthesis picture. Some theories have formulated specific propositions, hypotheses, and names. Only 16 articles cited the methodological framework, while 22 used theories or models for theoretical foundation and 11 carried out literature reviews. The development of MRT included the presentation of fundamental concepts, synthesis, propositions, hypotheses and specific name. The MRT is recognized as a way of developing knowledge to guide the nursing practice.

SummaryRatification of appointment of repositories by the International Mycological Congress is reported. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Chrysotrichaceae against Pulverariaceae; and the teleomorph‐typified Erysiphaceae against the anamorph‐typified Oidiaceae. The following family name is not recommended for conservation: Dothioraceae against Saccotheciaceae. The following 10 generic names are recommended for conservation: the teleomorph‐typified name Blumeria against the conserved anamorph‐typified name Oidium; Catenaria Sorokïn (Fungi) against Catenaria Roussel (Algae); Chrysothrix, nom. cons., against an additional name, Alysphaeria; Flammula (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (Fungi) against Flammula (Webb ex Spach) Fourr. (Spermatophyta) with a conserved type; Fuscopannaria against Moelleropsis; Geastrum with a conserved type; Hebeloma with a conserved type; Polycaryum with that spelling; Pseudocyphellaria with a conserved type; and Talaromyces against Lasioderma. Conservation of Detonia Freng. (Algae) against Detonia Sacc. (Fungi) is not opposed. The following generic name is not recommended for conservation: Catillaria with a conserved type. The proposal to conserve the generic name Wickerhamomyces against Hansenula was withdrawn. The following 17 species names are recommended for conservation: Agaricus laterinus (Hebeloma laterinum) against the sanctioned A. fastibilis (H. fasti‐bile); Agaricus tabescens against A. socialis; Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens) against Lichen chalybeiformis and A. subcana; Armillariella ostoyae (Armillaria ostoyae) against Agaricus obscurus, A. occultans, and Armillaria solidipes; Ganoderma camphoratum with a conserved type; Hebeloma fragilipes against Hebelomina domardiana (Hebeloma domardianum); Helminthosporium maydis Y. Nisik. & C. Miyake (Bipolaris maydis) againstH. maydis Brond. and Ophiobolus heterostrophus; Lecidea oederi (Rhizocarpon oederi) against L. koenigii; Lichen fuscatus Schrad. (Acarospora fuscata) against L. fuscatus Lam. with a conserved type; Lichen leucomelos (Heterodermia leucomelos) with that spelling; Lichen muralis (Lecanora muralis, Protoparmeliopsis muralis) with a conserved type; Lichen vulgatus (Opegrapha vulgata) with a conserved type; Morchella semilibera against Phallus crassipes, P. gigas and P. undosus; Peziza ammophila Durieu & Lev. against P. ammophila Saut.; Polycaryum branchipodianum with that spelling; Stereocaulon pileatum with a conserved type; and Torula stilbospora with a conserved type. The following 22 species names (teleomorph‐typified) are recommended for conservation against anamorph‐typified names: Erysiphe arcuata against Oidium carpini; Erisyphe biocellata against Oidium erysiphoides; Erysiphe buhrii against Oidium dianthi; Erysiphe catalpae against Oidium bignoniae; Erysiphe celosiae against Oidium amaranthi; Erisyphe magnicellulata against O. drummondii; Erysiphe quercicola against Oidium anacardii; Erisyphe verbasci against Oidium balsamii; Golovinomyces sonchicola against Oidium sonchi‐arvensis; Leveillula rutae against Oidium haplophylli; Microsphaera azaleae against O. ericinum; Microsphaera oehrensii against Oidium robustum; Phyllactinia alni against Ovulariopsis alni‐formosanae; Phyllactinia ampelopsidis against Ovulariopsis ampelopsidis‐heterophyllae; Phyllactinia chubutiana against Oidium insolitum; Phyllactinia dalbergiae against P. subspiralis; Phyllactiniagmelinae against Ovulariopsisgmelinae‐arboreae; Phyllactiniapopuli against Ovulariopsis salicis‐warburgii; Podosphaera solanacearum against Oidium saeforthiani; Sphaerotheca euphorbiae‐hirtae against Oidium pedilanthi; Sphaerotheca filipendulae against Torula botryoides; and Sphaerotheca leucotricha against Oidium farinosum. The following two species names are not recommended for conservation: Cylindrocladium buxicola against C. pseudonaviculatum; and Verrucaria subcerasi (Arthopyrenia subcerasi) against A. subalbicans. It is recommended that the generic name Aspidelia and the species name Lichen quis‐quiliaris not be rejected under Art. 56. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Botrytis farinosa (Peronospora farinosa) and Saccharomyces sphaericus. As a result of reference under Art. 53.5, it is recommended that the following two pairs of names are not to be treated as homonyms: Bertia De Not. and Bertya Planch.; and Otidea (Pers.) Bonord. and Otidia Sweet.

Summary Conservation of the 6 generic names Chamaemelum Mill. vs. Chamaemelum Daubenton, Ctenitis vs. Atalopteris , Molopospermum vs. Cicutaria , Sonerila vs. Codigi , Spergularia vs. Corion , and Stylochiton with that spelling and masculine gender is recommended. Conservation of the 3 generic names Bellucia vs. Myriaspora and Loreya , Brochoneura with conserved type, and Cephalosphaera is not recommended. Rejection of the generic name Colax is recommended. Conservation of the following 22 species names is recommended: Adiantum villosum with conserved type, Astrocaryum gynacanthum vs. A. aculeatum , Carludovica brachypus vs. C. jonghei , Cordiada trichotoma vs. Cordia frondosa , Cyathea muricata with conserved type, Cyathea patens H. Karst. vs. C. patens hort. ex Houlston & T. Moore, Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. vs. D. candelabrum (B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss) Neubert), Elaphoglossum metallicum vs. E. pachycraspedon , Erythroxylum suberosum vs. Steudelia brasiliensis , Ficus wassa vs. F. teregam , Ficus botryocarpa vs. F. peru‐teregam , Gymnosporia royleana , Hypericum olympicum with conserved type, Indigofera linnaei vs. I. tsiangiana , Juniperus navicularis vs. J. microphylla and J. hochstetteri , Mimulus violaceus with conserved type against Torenia edentula , Phalaenopsis lobbii (Rchb. f.) H.R. Sweet vs. P. lobbii Veitch ex Beaton, Polypodium asperum with conserved type, Polypodium lineare with conserved type, Rubus canescens vs. R. aetnicus and R. argenteus , Stellaria graminea with conserved type, and Trichostema brachiatum with conserved type. Conservation of the following 3 species names is not recommended: Acalypha ostryifolia vs. A. persimilis (because not necessary), Marattia attenuata vs. M. acuminata , and Rumex tianschanicus vs. R. paulsenianus . Rejection of the following 21 species names is recommended: Annona sariffa , Arisaema cochinchinense , Arum pentaphyllum , Avoira conanam , Avoira nodosa , Avoira sylvestris , Avoira uliginosa , Bignonia coccinea , Bignonia hirta , Bignonia triflora , Bubon rigidius , Cistus pilosus , Elaeis cirrhosa , Elaeis humilis , Elaeis racemosa , Elaeis scandens , Gentiana poculifera , Hieracium rupicaprae , Ludovia subacaulis , Lycopsis virginica , and Viola tenella . Rejection of the following 7 species names is not recommended: Argemone pyrenaica , Camphorosma glabra , Cheiranthus armeniacus , Dolichos pungens , Gymnogramma plantaginea , Opuntia aulacothele , and Sobralia lindenii . It is recommended that Ixora lobbii J. Veitch Sr. & J. Veitch Jr. be treated as validly published, and that Larix archangelica and Larix dahurica be treated as not validly published. No recommendation is considered necessary to treat Shorea longisperma as validly published. It is recommended that Cryptanthela and Cryptanthella , Deppea and Deppia , and Hieracium greenei and H. greenii be treated as homonyms. The Committee recommends against making binding decisions regarding whether Blackiella and Blakiella , Blackiella and Blakella , or Blakiella and Blakella should be treated as homonyms. Regarding names potentially validly published following changes to Art. 20.2 of the ICN , it is recommended that Ala , Bracteola , and Bulbulus be treated as not validly published, and that Solitaria be treated as validly published; no recommendation is needed regarding Podocarpium (Benth.) Y.C. Yang & P.H. Huang, which is validly published but illegitimate.

The morphology of Ilyocryptus tuberculatus Brehm, 1913 is redescribed, based on material from the Niger basin, Africa. The species name was given by Brehm erroneously, because under an optical microscope he mistook internal structures (the columns between the outer and inner walls of the valves) for the tubercules on the valve surface. But this species is undoubtedly valid, and `incorrect' species names must be conserved. Differences between I. tuberculatus and the most similar I. agilis (probably absent from the majority of African waters), I. spinifer (common in Africa), and some other species are discussed. Currently, I. tuberculatus is known for the Central African Republic, Mali and Niger.

SynopsisA nomenclature is proposed for the alluaudite and wyllieite complex series which is based on sequentially distributing the cations in the cell according to increasing polyhedral size, matching that size with increasing ionic radii of the cations. For oxidized members, the largest site may be partly occupied to empty after all the cations have been distributed. This is supported by structural study.For alluaudites, the cell formula is X(2)4X(I)4 M(I)4M(2)8(PO4)12 and is written according to decreasing size of the discrete sites. The X(I) and X(2) sites are appended as suffixes in the trivial nomenclature, that is specific name—X(I)X(2).For wyllieites, the cell formula is X(2)4X (1a)2X(1b)2M(I)4M(2a)4A14(PO4)12. The X(1a), X(1b), and X(2) sites are appended as suffixes in the trivial nomenclature, that is specific name--X(la) X(Ib)X(2).The nomenclature proposed is:Seventeen analyses are discussed (of which five are new) for alluaudite and four analyses (of which three are new) for wyllieites. Their distribution is given parenthetically above. One analysis revealed predominant Mg2+ in M(2). It is named maghagen-dortite.Six new analyses are presented for the arrojadite family of minerals including re-examination of dickinsonite from Branchville, Connecticut. Al3+ is always present. We propose X1 Al (OH,F)(PO4)12, Z = 4, where X = large cations (K+, Ba2+, Pb2+, etc.), Y = Na1+, Ca2+, and M = Fe2+ Mn2+, Mg2+. A range of cations X, Y, M, and Al between 76.8 and 85.9 in the cell (84 for proposed formula) suggests the likelihood of some vacancies in the structure.

Plant species, as well as animal and fungi, have a Latin name, which follows the binomial system of Linnaeus (Carl von Linne, 1707–1778). The first name refers to the genus (e.g. Cleistes, Bulbophyllum, Constantia and Cattleya). The second name is the specific epithet (e.g. montana, punctatum, cipoensis and loddigesii). The Latin names can be assigned, for example, according to the habitat of the plant (e.g. Cleistes Montana), floral or vegetative character (e.g. Bulbophyllum punctatum), locality where the plant occurs, mainly when it is considered endemic of a region (e.g. Constantia cipoensis), which occur exclusively in the Serra do Cipo (state of Minas Gerais, Brazil). Some plant names are attributed in honour of a particular person (e.g. Cattleya loddigesii), in honour of Joachin Conrad Loddiges. Names of species are always writing in italics and the first letter of the genus is capitalized. The names of species should always be accompanied by the names of their respective authors (e.g. Cattleya loddigesii Lindley, Bulbophyllum punctatum Barbosa Rodrigues). In citations of plant names, authors’s names are often abbreviated according to Brummit & Powell (1992) “Authors of Plant Names” (e.g. Cattleya loddigesii Lindl., Bulbophyllum punctatum Barb. Rodr.).

The emerging and development of Ukrainian biological nomenclature has a long tradition that dates back more than a century and a half. The Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature of the longhorn beetles is found in scientific publications, starting from the middle of the 19th century. For the most part, these are names collected from oral folk speech. The stage of scientific construction of the Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature began at the beginning of the 20th century. Further development and use of the Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature was artificially interrupted for political reasons in the middle of the 20th century. We examined in detail this historical dimension of the Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature of the longhorn beetles from its origin, development, artificial interruption to the modern need for its restoration, and also proposed a methodology for the formation of the modern names. This is presented in the first part of our study. In the first and second parts, we also provided a detailed Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature of the longhorn beetles for three subfamilies: Spondylidinae, Prionunae, and Cerambycinae. The other three subfamilies - Lepturinae, Necydalinae and Lamiinae are still not codified, and their Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature has not been developed. The current (third) part of our study is devoted to the unification and codification of the Ukrainian national vernacular nomenclature of the names of two subfamilies: Lepturinae and Necydalinae. Ukrainian vernacular names of taxa from these subfamilies are very few and scattered in a number of papers published over the last 160 years, starting from 1864. Such an unusual situation occurred despite the fact that these beetles are among the most common and recognizable in the fauna of Ukraine, numbering 79 species from 37 genera, 9 tribes and 2 subfamilies. Today, there is a critical lack of their vernacular names for use in scientific, technical, popular, educational and fiction literature. The main principles we used for the unification and codification of the longhorn beetles Ukrainian vernacular nomenclature: 1) only the binomial name of a specific taxon consisting of the name of the genus (noun) and the specific epithet (adjective) is suitable for use; 2) the names of taxa in the form of three- and four-nomen, transliterations from Latin, transfers from Russian and other languages, appositions, names with a hyphen are unsuitable for use; 3) priority is given to the oldest or most used Ukrainian names; 4) proposals for new names were made only if necessary. It was revealed that for the indicated subfamilies, only 24 taxa (19%) out of 127 have Ukrainian vernacular names. These include 17 species, 6 genera, 1 tribe. At the same time, only 3 binomens and 8 specific epithets have been considered suitable for use, since they correspond to the defined rules of nomenclature. The rest are unsuitable due to non-compliance with the criteria of the nomenclature. On the whole, we unified and codified 137 names of the longhorn beetles in the Ukrainian language, including 6 subspecies, 79 species, 1 subgenus, 39 genera, 9 tribes, 1 supertribe and 2 subfamilies. For the first time, we proposed Ukrainian names for 123 taxa of different ranks.

E. H. Sellards (1916, p. 96) applied the new binomen “Hipparion minor” to the very small hipparionine horse from the early Pliocene Bone Valley District of peninsular Florida. Since the gender of Hipparion is neuter, the ending of the species name must be amended to agree with it (Articles 32d and 34b, ICZN, 1985), and thus the correct spelling of the original species name for this taxon is Hipparion minus Sellards. This correction was previously instituted by Hay (1930, p. 693). However, this name is a primary junior homonym of Hipparion minus Pavlow, 1890, a Eurasian species of horse, and as such is permanently invalid (Articles 52b, 53c(ii), and 57b, ICZN, 1985). Hipparion minus Pavlow was in common use for small hipparionine horses from Russia and Greece during the first quarter of this century. Although now generally regarded as a nomen dubium, it was used as a valid subspecies as recently as Pirlot (1956). Its present disuse in no way affects the condition of primary homonymy between the two species names.

Frostcstuart Wp - List Of Publications l1957-80rc New Names Proposedc And Species Named In His Honor

How has women's contribution to science developed over multiple generations? We present the first quantitative analysis of the role played by women in publishing botanical species names, and the first complete analysis of women's contribution to a field of science with a timeframe of more than 260 years. The International Plant Names Index and The Plant List were used to analyse the contribution of female authors to the publication of land plant species names. Authors of land plant species were automatically assigned as male or female using Wikipedia articles and manual research. Female authors make up 12.20% of the total number of authors, and they published 2.82% of names. Half of the female authors published 1.5 or more names, while half the male authors published 3 or more names. Female contribution has accounted for more than 1% of new species names since 1900, and now stands at 11.97%. The difference in productivity between male and female authors has declined over time, and female authors are now 80% as productive as their male counterparts. In spite of botany's traditional image as a feminine pursuit, women's contribution was not significantly reflected in species authorship until the twentieth century, around the same time as in other branches of science.

Leptodactylus fallax, commonly known as the mountain chicken frog, is a large terrestrial frog currently found on two islands in the Caribbean. Habitat destruction, overhunting and disease outbreaks have contributed to declining population numbers. In order to identify appropriate conservation strategies, the historic geographic distribution of this frog must first be determined. Because no archeological evidence exists, this was accomplished by reviewing historical documents and inspecting museum collections. Inaccuracies in location and species names were identified in documents as well as in the mislabeling of museum specimens. Two means for natural immigration (dispersal and vicariance) and the artificial introduction by humans were considered. The authors concluded that the Amerindians transported L. fallax to eight islands throughout the Lesser Antilles as potential food resources as they colonized this area. The implication that 75% of the historical distribution is currently unoccupied by this species is considered in light of future reintroduction projects. Key words: Leptodactylus fallax, Amerindians, dispersal, vicariance.

A mesophilic filamentous anoxygenic phototrophic bacterium, designated M50-1, was isolated from a microbial mat of the Chukhyn Nur soda lake (northeastern Mongolia) with salinity of 5-14g/L and pH 8.0-9.3. The organism is a strictly anaerobic phototrophic bacterium, which required sulfide for phototrophic growth. The cells formed short undulate trichomes surrounded by a thin sheath and containing gas vesicles. Motility of the trichomes was not observed. The cells contained chlorosomes. The antenna pigments were bacteriochlorophyll d and β- and γ-carotenes. Analysis of the genome assembled from the metagenome of the enrichment culture revealed all the enzymes of the 3-hydroxypropionate bi-cycle for autotrophic CO2 assimilation. The genome also contained the genes encoding a type IV sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase (sqrX). The organism had no nifHDBK genes, encoding the proteins of the nitrogenase complex responsible for dinitrogen fixation. The DNA G+C content was 58.6%. The values for in silico DNA‒DNA hybridization and average nucleotide identity between M50-1 and a closely related bacterium 'Ca. Chloroploca asiatica' B7-9 containing bacteriochlorophyll c were 53.4% and 94.0%, respectively, which corresponds to interspecies differences. Classification of the filamentous anoxygenic phototrophic bacterium M50-1 as a new 'Ca. Chloroploca' species was proposed, with the species name 'Candidatus Chloroploca mongolica' sp. nov.