Abstract
This issue of the journal Bionomina is entirely devoted to the debate regarding the need for actual physical reference specimens, nomen-bearers, and their deposition in (accessible) institutions and venues as the foundation for the attribution (assignment) of nomina for new species and/or subspecies.
References
Aguiar, J. J. M., Santos, J. C. & Urso-Guimarães, M. V. (2017) On the use of photography in science and taxonomy: how images can provide a basis for their own authentication. Bionomina, 12: 44–47. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.4>.
Bricmont, J. (2006) Humanitarian imperialism: using human rights to sell war. New York (Monthly Review Press): 1–176.
Dubois, A. (2017a) The need of reference specimens in zoological taxonomy and nomenclature. Bionomina, 12: 4–38. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.2>.
Dubois, A. (2017b) Diagnoses in zoological taxonomy and nomenclature. Bionomina, 12: 63–85. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.8>.
Grandcolas, P. (2017) Loosing the connection between the observation and the specimen: a by-product of the digital era or a trend inherited from general biology? Bionomina, 12: 57–62. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.7>.
Löbl, I. (2017) Assessing biodiversity: a pain in the neck. Bionomina, 12: 39–43. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.3>.
Orrico, V. G. D. (2017) Photography-based taxonomy is still really inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. A reply to Thorpe (2017). Bionomina, 12: 48–51. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.5>.
Raposo, M. A. & Kirwan, G. M. (2017) What lies beneath the controversy as to the necessity of physical types for describing new species? Bionomina, 12: 52–56. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.12.1.6>.