Bionomina

Species nomina corrections in the Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera), concerning specific epithets based on letters used to refer to characters of taxa

2023-07-26T09:20:36+12:00

This paper proposes to distinguish three Cases regarding the grammatical gender of species nomina which are composed of an isolated letter connected by a hyphen to a word. [Case 1] The first element is a Latin letter, the second element is another noun: the nomen is a noun in apposition, and its ending is unchanged. [Case 2] The first element is a Latin letter used to denote descriptively a character of the taxon, the second element determines the first and answers the question of its nature: the nomen is a noun in apposition, so its ending must not be changed to agree with the generic nomen but is always neuter, as the Latin letter. [Case 3] The first element is a Latin letter, the second element is a regular adjective which is specified by the first element: the nomen is an adjective, its ending must agree in gender with the generic nomen with which it is combined. Accordingly, 50 species nomina in the family Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) are analyzed and corrected when necessary.

**Rediscovery of a syntype of Chalcocopris hesperus (Olivier, 1789) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae), a possible specimen from Captain Cook’s first voyage round the globe (1768–1771)**

2023-07-26T09:29:23+12:00

Chalcocopris hesperus (originally Scarabaeus hesperus) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae, Dichotomiini) is a common and unmistakable dung beetle species from the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. In 2015, a neotype was designated for its valid name based on the belief that the original type series had been lost. However, the designation was invalid for failing to comply with Article 75.3.1 of the Code. Moreover, even if it had been originally valid, the neotype would now lose its type status for we found a syntype precisely where it was originally said to be, in the material of the Joseph Banks collection, now preserved in the Natural History Museum, London. We present the evidence supporting the recognition of this specimen as a syntype and designate it as the lectotype. The specimen, from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, may have been collected by Sir Joseph Banks himself during the first Cook voyage round the world (1768–1771), but we discuss aspects that might indicate that it may actually have been caught later and by someone else. Finally, we show that Scarabaeus hesperus was fixed as the type species of Chalcocopris not in 2016, as recently argued by one of us, but in 1998 by Olivier Montreuil. The data gathered and discussed here will hopefully prove to be valuable to anyone investigating the history and type status of specimens from the Banksian entomological collection.

Calotes megapogon (Squamata, Agamidae, Draconinae): nomenclatural and taxonomic ramifications of the naming of an undescribed species

2023-07-26T09:30:19+12:00

During a field expedition to New Guinea in 1828, Salomon Müller discovered a new agamid lizard that was described in his notebook and accompanied by an illustration. He named the species Calotes megapogon, but a formal description was never published. Duméril & Bibron (1837) listed the name as a synonym of Lophyrus dilophus (comb. nov. pro Tiaris dilophus Duméril & Bibron, 1836), and later Gray (1845) treated Tiaris megapogon as a valid species. Through Gray’s action, the name became nomenclaturally available according to Article 11.6.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. We rediscovered the type specimens of Calotes megapogon in the collection of the Naturalis Biodiversity Center and studied the unpublished notes from Müller as well as the illustration. By comparison with morphologically similar species, we conclude that Calotes megapogon Duméril & Bibron, 1837 constitutes a senior subjective synonym of both Hypsilurus auritus (Meyer, 1874) and Hypsilurus spinosus (Duméril & Bibron, 1851), and that the name Hypsilurus megapogon (Duméril & Bibron, 1837) needs to be applied to this biological species.

Why Toxicocalamus longhagen Roberts, Iova & Austin, 2022 (Serpentes, Elapidae) is a taxonomic nomen dubium

2023-07-26T09:30:51+12:00

Roberts et al. (2022) presented a taxonomic decision, in which they proposed the species name longhagen for a single, poorly preserved specimen of elapid New Guinean snake in the species assemblage known as the Toxicocalamus loriae Group. Geographically widespread populations in this species group had long been united under a single name even though some character variation had been noted, and only a thorough morphological study by Kraus et al. (2022), published shortly after the description of T. longhagen, confirmed additional species-level diversity and the detail of character analysis needed to differentiate species in this group. Their work made clear that only examination of many specimens would allow an assessment of interspecific variation and species boundaries, and this had been explained to the authors of the Roberts et al. paper ahead of their manuscript submission. The authors of the Kraus et al. paper had examined the specimen used to diagnose T. longhagen, as well as a series of similar specimens, and found it impossible to make a reliable species-level determination. Our detailed evaluation of the taxon longhagen reveals that it is insufficiently differentiated from the now-known species of the T. loriae Group, that it cannot confidently be assigned to any of these species, and that none of the existing specimens of snakes in this group can be assigned to T. longhagen. It follows that T. longhagen as currently defined is a taxonomic nomen dubium. It will retain this status until such time when additional data or additional material can lead to a resolution of its taxonomy.

Systematic sexism: gender-neutral rule changes are needed

2023-07-26T09:31:25+12:00

The development of an inventory of earth’s biodiversity—identifying and naming all living species—is a central tenet of biological science. For over 250 years, the Linnean system has been the predominant naming approach, with new species designated by a unique Latinized binomina following rules laid out by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Anonymous 1999; “the Code” below) for animal taxa, while the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Turland et al. 2018) is the set of rules dealing with formal botanical names.