Bionomina

**On the validity of the recently described northern green anaconda Eunectes akayima (Squamata, Serpentes)**

2024-03-15T23:41:47+13:00

Recently, a taxonomic work was published concerning the existence of a new cryptic species of green anaconda. The authors justified the recognition of a phylogenetic lineage as a new species, which they named Eunectes akayima, based on genetic and geographical distribution differences. Regardless of whether the evidence provided to justify the recognition of this new species is sufficient, the article in question violates fundamental aspects of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such as the principle of priority and the rules for the designation lectotypes. Furthermore, the authors make unjustified assumptions regarding the type locality of Eunectes murinus, compromising the integrity of their nomenclatural actions. Here, we present a critique of this work grounded in the application of the rules of zoological nomenclature, leading to the synonymizing of the recently described species.

Nomenclatural problems raised by the recent description of a new anaconda species (Squamata, Serpentes, Boidae), with a nomenclatural review of the genus Eunectes

2024-03-15T23:54:48+13:00

A recent paper proposing taxonomic changes in the South American snake genus Eunectes Wagler, 1830 (anacondas) is analysed. This paper raises an unusually high number of taxonomic and nomenclatural problems. The work does not rely on an explicit species concept, the analysis of the molecular data based on three mitochondrial genes is shown to be unreliable, and the validity of the ‘clades’ proposed in this work is questioned. The nomen proposed for a purported new species is a nomen nudum (nomenclaturally unavailable), and the designation of a ‘lectotype’ for the nominal species Eunectes murinus (Linnaeus, 1758) is invalid. We provide a review of the nomenclatural status of 18 nominal species (including four unavailable ones) once or still now referred to the genus Eunectes, we identify their ‘types’ (nomen-bearing specimens), we designate five lectotypes, which are all specimens figured and briefly described in ancient publications, and we explain the rationale behind this action, which will allow the subsequent designation as neotypes of recently collected specimens associated with precise type localities and molecular data. We show that the generic nomen Eunectes Wagler, 1830 does not apply to the taxonomic genus accommodating anacondas but, this nomen having been used for these giant and spectacular snakes for about 200 years and being well-known even outside the field of taxonomy, we argue that its traditional use should be maintained through an action of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature using its plenary power. Finally, we provide various recommendations regarding nomenclatural actions and publications presenting them.

The inordinate unpopularity of changing all eponymous bird and other organismal names

2024-03-19T09:20:54+13:00

A proposal by Foley & Rutter (2020) to eliminate all eponymous English bird names was published in the Washington Post, a Washington D.C. newspaper. Fears (2021) reported in this same newspaper that a racist and colonialist history is perpetuated in some English bird names, especially eponyms, and that a social movement is working to change those names. These articles generated hundreds of online comments. I used sentiment analysis on these comments to quantify public reaction to this proposal and topic. Among the 340 scored comments to Foley & Rutter (2020), negative opinions outnumbered positive ones by 3.36:1. Scoring comments by relative magnitude of their sentiment (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3) yielded an average score of -1.18. These results indicate this proposed action is very unpopular among these readers and causes pronounced divisiveness. The 570 scored comments to the Fears (2021) article were also negatively skewed (2.3:1), though less so (average score -0.58). Politicization and the left-right nature of the issue were rampant in the comments on both articles, indicating that the subject was immediately brought into the culture wars (i.e., conflict between liberal and conservative groups over cultural issues). The divisive nature of the topic was also evident within self-identified left-leaning respondents. These results likely underestimate public negativity to this proposal, because the Washington Post is a left-leaning newspaper. Similarly, Guedes et al. (2023) called for eliminating all eponymous organismal names, and a sentiment analysis of comments about that article was even more starkly negative, showing 90 % of commenters opposed. More data like these are needed. There is considerable risk that broadly de-commemorating eponymous organismal names will create more negative than positive outcomes (e.g., through asymmetric polarization and the culture wars). We must also ask: does excluding people who do not share our views achieve our objective of inclusiveness? When is it acceptable to take away someone’s hard-won knowledge by changing key terms in our shared biodiversity linguistic infrastructure? There are more constructive ways to address diversity, equity and inclusion.

**Wagler vs. Fitzinger: Leposternon microcephalus, a fight over gender (Sauria, Amphisbaenidae)**

2024-03-19T09:21:11+13:00

This short note provides some insight into an academic “battle” between early 19^th century herpetologists about a small but interesting nomenclatural issue, namely the grammatically correct gender of a species epithet. Most texts used in the current note (Wagler in Spix 1824; Fitzinger 1826a‒b; Schlegel 1826; Wagler 1827) were published in 19^th century German, which sometimes made use of vocabulary that is no longer employed nowadays. The old German texts are translated here into English in a way that they reflect modern language as much as possible.