https://mapress.com/bn/issue/feed Bionomina 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 Alain Dubois adbionomina@gmail.com Open Journal Systems <p><strong>Bionomina</strong> is an international journal of biological nomenclature and terminology.</p> https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.1 <p><strong><em>Bionomina</em></strong><strong>, a forum for biological terminology and nomenclature: the first 10 years</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:26+12:00 ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr ANNEMARIE OHLER annemarie.ohler@mnhn.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">The first issue of the journal <em>Bionomina</em> was published by Magnolia Press (Auckland, New Zealand) on 24 December 2010. The journal originated from an evolution and expansion of the section ‘Theory and methodology’ introduced in 2006 in the journal <em>Zootaxa</em>, itself founded in 2001 (Zhang 2007). The purpose of this new journal was wider than that of this section, being presented as “to open a space of free discussion among colleagues involved in or interested in all aspects of the terminology of comparative and evolutionary biology, including, but not limited to, taxonomy and nomenclature of taxa” (Dubois 2010: 8).</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.2 <p class="NormalParagraphStyle"><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina. </strong><strong>5. Anura, Urodela, Batrachia: addenda and corrigenda</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">The nomenclatural status of 17 class-series nomina (13 diplorhizonyms and 4 haplorhizonyms), based on the single or primary stems <strong>Anura</strong>, <strong>Urodela</strong> and <strong>Batrachia </strong>that had been set aside in our previous papers of this series is examined. None of them is currently valid under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, four of them are unavailable (including "<strong>Batrachoidaria</strong>" Betancur-R. <em>et al.</em>, 2017), and the status of four of them, based on fossil nucleogenera, is still unsettled because of missing information concerning the phylogenetic relationships of some of these genera.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.3 <p><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina. </strong><strong>6. Gymnophiona Rafinesque, 1814</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">A taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order, encompassing all recent taxa of caecilians and their close fossil relatives, is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent cladistic analyses of <strong>Amphibia</strong>. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among 12 nomina available in the literature, only one, <strong>Gymnophiona</strong> Rafinesque, 1814, qualifies as a sozodiaphonym and should be used for this amphibian taxon. We show here that the authorship of this nomen, as well as of 32 other nomina published in 1814, is ‘Rafinesque’, not ‘Rafinesque-Schmaltz’.</p><p class="NormalParagraphStyle"> The nomen <strong>Apoda</strong> Oppel, 1811, that has often been used for this taxon, proves to be a distagmonym and a junior homonym of <strong>Apodes</strong> Linnaeus, 1758 and five other distagmonyms, and as such it is invalid under DONS.</p><p class="NormalParagraphStyle"> In total, we identified 34 distinct class-series nomina derived from the stems ἄπους<em> </em>(<em>apous</em>) or <em>Apus </em>in 13 distinct zoological groups, only two of which are valid under DONS Criteria: <strong>Apodiformia </strong>Wetmore, 1947, for the suborder of <strong>Aves</strong> currently known as <strong>Apodi</strong> Wetmore, 1947, and <strong>Apodomorpha</strong> Sibley, Ahlquist &amp; Monroe, 1988 for the order of <strong>Aves</strong> currently known as <strong>Apodiformes </strong>Peters, 1940.</p><p> Several other nomenclatural findings were made in the course of this study: [1] in the <strong>Teleostei</strong>, the nomina "<strong>Eupercaria</strong>" and "<strong>Syngnatharia</strong>", like all the other new nomina proposed in the paper by Betancur-R. <em>et al.</em> (2017) are anoplonyms and cannot be used as valid; [2] in the <strong>Mammalia</strong>, the nomina <em>Cetus</em> and <strong>Cetacea</strong> should be credited to Brisson (1759); [3] in the <strong>Holothuroidea</strong>, the nomen <strong>Apoda</strong> Claus, 1868, currently considered valid under the apograph <strong>Apodida</strong>, is invalid and should be replaced by the nomen <strong>Paractinopoda </strong>Ludwig, 1891; [4] in the <strong>Isopoda</strong>, the subordinal nomen <strong>Cymothoida</strong> Wägele, 1989 should be replaced by its senior synonym <strong>Darwinida </strong>Lakshminarayana &amp; Rama Rao, 1977.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.4 <p><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina. </strong><strong>7. Lissamphibia Gadow, 1898</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">A taxon encompassing all recent taxa of amphibians and their close fossil relatives is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent phylogenetic analyses of amphibians. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among twenty nomina available for this taxon, only one, <strong>Lissamphibia</strong> Gadow, 1898, qualifies as a sozodiaphonym and appears to be the one that should be used for this taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order. However, because of the current uncertainties in the phylogenetic relationships among basal amphibians, the allocation of this nomen to this taxon is still questionable. If it turned out to apply in fact to another, more comprehensive, taxon, its stabilisation under its current acceptation should be realised through an act of archoidy.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.5 <p><strong>Herpetological higher taxa nomina. </strong><strong>8. Amphibia Blainville, 1816</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, the valid nomen of the class including all recent amphibians and all the Palaeozoic groups of anamniote tetrapods subsequent to the ‘lissamphibian-amniote phylogenetic split’ is the sozodiaphonym <strong>Amphibia</strong> Blainville, 1816. This corresponds to the usage that has been in force for two centuries in thousands of publications, and it should not be challenged, as this would entail instability and confusion.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.6 <p><strong>The authorship and date of the generic nomen <em>Typhlops</em> and of the familial nomen Typhlopidae (Serpentes)</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">The snake generic nomen <em>Typhlops</em> was derived from the Greek words τυφλός (<em>tuphlós</em>), ‘blind’ and ὤψ (<em>ops</em>), ‘eye, face’. In the herpetological and taxonomic literature and databases, there are two competing opinions regarding the authorship and date of this generic nomen: either Schneider (1801) or Oppel (1811).</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.7 <p><strong>It is high time that taxonomists follow the <em>Code. </em></strong><strong>2. The <em>Virgotyphlops</em> case (Serpentes, Typhlopidae</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">Wallach (2020<em>a</em>: 10) erected a new genus <em>Virgotyphlops</em> for the typhlopid snake species <em>Eryx</em> <em>braminus</em> Daudin, 1803, which had previously been referred by Hedges <em>et al.</em> (2014) to their genus <em>Indotyphlops</em>. Unfortunately, this new generic nomen is nomenclaturally unavailable, and should therefore not be used as valid as long as it has not been properly published.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.8 <p class="NormalParagraphStyle"><strong>It is high time that taxonomists follow the <em>Code. </em></strong><strong>3.</strong> <strong>The <em>Bungarus romulusi</em> case (Serpentes, Elapidae)</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr THIERRY FRÉTEY fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr IVAN INEICH userexample@mapress.com <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">Sunagar <em>et al.</em> (2021: 1) erected the new snake species <em>Bungarus romulusi</em> on the basis of the molecular study of mitochondrial markers, venom proteomics and venom gland transcriptomics. Unfortunately, this new specific nomen is nomenclaturally unavailable, and should therefore not be used as valid as long as it has not been properly published.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.9 <p class="NormalParagraphStyle"><strong>Nomenclatural comments on and corrections of nomina of some non-marine </strong><strong>fossil gastropods</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 DIETRICH KADOLSKY dieter.kadolsky@gmail.com <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">Nomenclatural issues pertaining to selected non-marine gastropods of Cretaceous and Tertiary age are discussed and resolved as follows.<em> </em>[1] <em>Viviparus hammeri </em>(Defrance, 1825) is reinstated; <em>Helicites viviparoides</em> Schlotheim, 1820 is a <em>nomen nudum</em>, made available as <em>Paludina viviparoides</em> Bronn, 1848, a new objective synonym. [2] <em>Viviparus</em> <em>frauenfeldi</em> Le Renard, 1994 is a new objective synonym of<em> Viviparus</em> <em>oulchyensis</em> Wenz, 1919. [3] <em>Lorus</em> is proposed as a <em>nomen</em> <em>novum</em> for <em>Liris</em> Conrad, 1871 [<em>nec</em> Fabricius, 1804]. [3] <em>Wesselinghia</em> is proposed as a <em>nomen</em> <em>novum</em> for <em>Longosoma</em> Wesselingh &amp; Kadolsky, 2006 [<em>nec</em> Hartman, 1944]. [4] <em>Hydrobia</em> <em>incerta</em> (Deshayes, 1862) is reinstated; <em>Hydrobia</em> <em>antoni </em>Le Renard, 1994 is a new objective synonym of this nomen. [5] The species <em>Paludina</em> <em>frauenfeldi</em> Hoernes, 1856 is designated as type species of <em>Sarmata</em> B. Dybowski &amp; Grochmalicki, 1920. [6] The misidentified type species of <em>Annulifer</em> Cossmann, 1921, so far known as ‘<em>Paludina</em> <em>protracta</em> <em>sensu</em> Cossmann 1921, <em>non</em> Eichwald, 1850’, is fixed under Article 70.3 of the <em>Code</em> as understood by Cossmann (1921), and renamed <em>Annulifer</em> <em>annulifer</em> new species. [7] <em>Pomatias</em> <em>turgidulus</em> (Sandberger, 1872) is reinstated; <em>P.</em> <em>turonicus</em> Wenz, 1923 and <em>Cyclostoma</em> <em>squamosum</em> Peyrot, 1932 are its new objective synonyms. [8] <em>Valvata</em> <em>inflata</em> Sandberger, 1875 is reinstated; <em>V.</em> <em>gaudryana</em> Wenz, 1928 [<em>nec</em> Mortillet, 1863] is its new objective synonym. [8] <em>Catinella</em>? <em>montana</em> Pierce, new species, originally published as “[<em>Succineidae</em>] <em>montana</em> Pierce, 1992”, is made available by associating the species epithet with a generic nomen. [9] <em>Proalbinaria</em> <em>subantiqua</em> (d’Orbigny, 1850) is reinstated; its senior synonym <em>Pupa</em> <em>antiqua</em> Matheron, 1832 is a primary junior homonym of <em>Pupa</em> <em>muscorum</em> <em>antiqua</em> Eichwald, 1830. [10] The type species of <em>Palaeostoa </em>Andreae, 1884 is <em>Pupa fontenayi</em> Sandberger, 1871 by subsequent designation by Cossmann (1905), which has precedence over the designation of <em>Clausilia crenata</em> Sandberger, 1871 by Wenz (1923). [11] <em>Palaeostoa</em> <em>elongata</em> (Melleville, 1843), whose original combination was <em>Pupa</em> <em>elongata</em>, is a primary junior homonym of <em>Pupa</em> <em>elongata</em> Bouillet, 1836, an unused name for an unidentified nominal species; pending more information on the taxon at stake, maintenance of the existing usage is recommended. [12] <em>Scalaxis</em> <em>columnella</em> (Deshayes, 1863) is reinstated, with <em>Scalaxis</em> <em>sinister</em> Wenz, 1923 as its new synonym. [13] <em>Eurystrophe</em> <em>olla</em> (Serres, 1844) is reinstated, with <em>Helix</em> <em>janthinoides</em> Noulet, 1868 [<em>nec</em> <em>Helix</em> <em>janthinoides</em> Serres, 1829, a <em>nomen nudum</em>] as its new synonym.</p> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.21.1.10 <p class="NormalParagraphStyle"><strong>Authorship and date of five family-series nomina in Oligochaeta (Annelida): </strong><strong>Lumbricidae, Naididae, Enchytraeidae, Tubificidae and Lumbriculidae</strong></p> 2021-06-03T19:56:27+12:00 TON VAN HAAREN tonvanhaaren@eurofins.com PATRICK MARTIN patrick.martin@naturalsciences.be ALAIN DUBOIS adubois@mnhn.fr <p class="NormalParagraphStyle">The <em>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature</em> (Anonymous 1999; ‘the <em>Code</em>’ below) provides Rules for the nomenclature of the ‘names of the group family’, or family-series nomina (Dubois 2000). These Rules have long been ignored or disregarded by some taxonomists, so that the authorship(s) and date(s) currently attached in the literature and in some taxonomic online databases to some family-series nomina of <strong>Annelida Oligochaeta</strong><a title="" href="#_ftn1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a><strong> </strong>prove to be wrong according to the<strong> </strong><em>Code</em>. For example, the database <em>Taxonomicon</em> &lt;http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/&gt; credits the nomina <em>Naididae</em> to Ehrenberg (1828), <em>Tubificidae </em>to Vejdovský (1876), <em>Enchytraeidae </em>to Vejdovský (1879) and <em>Lumbriculidae</em> to Vejdovský (1884<em>a</em>). Vejdovský (1884<em>b</em>: 59) also claimed authorship for the nomen <em>Lumbricidae</em>. All of these attributions are incorrect, as will be established below through a chronological survey of the relevant works where these nomina were made available.</p><p> </p><div><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div><p class="Reference"><a title="" href="#_ftnref1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> The nomen <strong>Oligochaeta</strong> is here used in its original sense (Grube 1850), i.e. excluding the <strong>Hirudinea</strong>.</p><p class="Reference"> </p></div></div> 2021-06-03T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina