A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 1. Introduction

2026-05-18T09:49:56+12:00

International nomenclatural Rules are indispensable for zootaxonomy and the study and management of zoodiversity. However, the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not provide operational Rules for the nomenclature of taxa above the rank superfamily, which hampers unambiguous and universal scientific communication about zootaxonomy and zoodiversity. It is more than time to remedy this situation, and to provide detailed Rules for the three main stages of the Nomenclatural Process of class-series nomina (assignment and availability; nomenclatural and taxonomic allocation; validity and correctness). However, the long delay in incorporating these nomina in the Code complicates this task. This should be done carefully, on the basis of a careful and critical analysis of the needs of taxonomy and of biology as a whole, and of the concepts, criteria and practices of nomenclatural systems. This analysis will be developed in the coming papers of this series.

A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 2. The Principles of the Code

2026-05-18T09:51:08+12:00

The Code regulates the status of zoological nomina and nomenclatural acts. Its aim is to provide an explicit, precise and objective nomenclatural system for the unambiguous and universal naming of all zoological taxa recognised by taxonomists, so that, in the frame of a given classification, the nomen of each taxon is unique and distinct. It relies on a Nomenclatural Process consisting in four main stages: nomenclatural assignment and availability, nomenclatural and taxonomic allocation, nomenclatural validity and correctness, and registration of nomina and nomenclatural acts. Whereas the Code currently in force is based on six stated Principles, the Linz Zoocode Committee recognises 18 distinct ones, implemented throughout the Code but not mentioned as such in this text. We here submit proposals to the international community of zootaxonomists, in the perspective of their incorporation into the next version of the Code. Particular attention is devoted here to 11 Principles, those of Availability, Nominal-Series, Coordination, Neonymy, Onomatophores, Zygoidy, Homonymy, Synonymy, Sozoidy, Archoidy and Registration.

[1] Principle of Availability: [1.1] we stress its relevance not only for nomenclatural acts but also for taxonominal (both taxonomic and nomenclatural) acts, in order to avoid ambiguity and disagreements regarding the availability of the latter when published electronically; [1.2] we do not support the recent proposal of the Commission to replace in the Code the term ‘valid’ by the term ‘accepted’, as this would imply confusion between the concepts of availability and validity.

[2] Principle of Nominal-Series: [2.1] we support the distinctions between nomenclatural ranks and taxonomic categories, and between nomenclatural ranks and nominal-series; [2.2] we distinguish taxa which are in a direct relationship of hierarchy in a given classification (being superordinate, parordinate or subordinate to each other) from taxa which have no direct hierarchical or sister-taxa relationship (being alienordinate); [2.3] we argue that the Code should require that, in any given classification, nominal-series do not overlap hierarchically and that the same Rule should apply, within each of them, among nomenclatural ranks, so that parordinate taxa be always assigned the same nomenclatural rank in the same nominal-series.

[3] Principle of Coordination: we argue that it should not be implemented in the class-series, except in the case of a taxon that includes only one taxon of the just subordinate rank.

[4] Principle of Neonymy: [4.1] we distinguish the concept of ‘nomen’ (scientific name) from that of ‘paronym’ (avatar of a nomen), the paronyms of a nomen including its ‘protonym’ (original paronym) and ‘aponyms’ (subsequent paronyms); [4.2] we support the introduction in the Code of the terms ‘neonym’ (nomen novum), ‘archaeonym’ (nomen for which a neonym has been established) and ‘allelonym’ (one of two or more alternative nomina used in the same work for the same taxon); [4.3] we consider that the Code’s concepts of ‘unjustified emendation’ and of ‘new replacement name’ are just two kinds of neonyms, respectively ‘autoneonym’ and ‘alloneonym’, which should be submitted to the same nomenclatural Rules; [4.4] we suggest that the current Rules concerning neonyms and apographs are unclear and insufficient, and should be improved.

[5] Principle of Onomatophores: [5.1] we support the replacement in the Code of the term ‘type’ by the term ‘onomatophore’, with two main categories, ‘onymophoront’ (nomen-bearing specimen) and ‘nucleomen’ (nomen-bearing nominal taxon); [5.2] we stress that the taxonomic allocation of nomina under the Code is made through bidirectional (both inclusive and exclusive) ostension, not only by inclusive ostension or by intension or extension.

[6] Principle of Zygoidy: we support the introduction in the Code of the nomenclatural concept of zygoidy to designate all situations of nomenclatural conflict for validity or correctness between two nomina, spellings or onomatophore designations.

[7] Principle of Homonymy: we propose a detailed classification of the different kinds of homonymy recognised by the Code within (but not between) the different nominal-series.

[8] Principle of Synonymy: [8.1] the concept of synonymy, which applies only between nomina of the same nominal-series, is a nomenclatural (objective synonymy) or taxonominal (subjective synonymy) concept, not a purely taxonomic one; [8.2] two nomina applying to the same taxon but assigned to different nominal-series are not synonymous but ‘synotaxic’.

[9] Principle of Sozoidy: we argue that the conditions of the Code for the interpretation of ‘reversal of precedence’ are too permissive and should be replaced by conditions based on precise ‘categories of usage’ of nomina in the literature.

[10] Principle of Archoidy: we note that the Commission has the power to invalidate permanently a nomen or a nomenclatural act, but not to validate a nomen permanently, as even a nomen entered in an Official List, if found to be a junior synonym or homonym of another available nomen, may later be invalidated.

[11] Principle of Registration: we are very sceptical about the long-term permanency of electronic documents in view of the various threats that they already face, which may become much worse in the coming decades, and we think that the information currently registered in the lists managed by the Commission should be mirrored in paper publications that should be deposited in several libraries in all major regions of the world.

**A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 3. What the current Code says and does not say regarding class-series nomenclature**

2026-05-18T09:52:28+12:00

Contrary to a widespread belief, the Code does provide some Rules concerning class-series nomenclature (applying to nomina above the rank superfamily). However, except for a few isolated statements concerning homonymy (that are not part of a thorough system of regulations about it) and a few details about their spelling, they only concern the first stage of the Nomenclatural Process, nomenclatural availability. We surveyed the Code to establish which of its Rules apply, or could apply, to class-series nomenclature, and we provide comments about them and recommendations for changes that could be brought to make them more useful—pending our future suggestions about the possible adoption of a complete system for this nomenclature.

Bionomina

A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 1. Introduction

A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 2. The Principles of the Code

A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 3. What the current Code says and does not say regarding class-series nomenclature

**A nomenclatural system for class-series zoological nomina. 3. What the current Code says and does not say regarding class-series nomenclature**