https://mapress.com/bn/issue/feedBionomina2025-04-22T09:41:57+12:00Alain Duboisadbionomina@gmail.comOpen Journal Systems<p><strong>Bionomina</strong> is an international journal of biological nomenclature and terminology.</p>https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.41.1.1<strong><em>Bionomina</em>, opinion papers and nomenclatural <em>Code</em>-compliance</strong>2025-04-22T09:11:50+12:00ALAIN DUBOISalain.dubois@mnhn.fr<p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">A paper recently published in </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Bionomina</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> criticises a previous paper published in this journal for mentioning the herpetological nomina published by Raymond Hoser from 2000 to 2024 as nomenclaturally available, despite the decision of the ‘herpetological community’ to ignore these nomina. It is shown here that these nomina, about which the Commission declined to take a decision, are indeed available, but it is suggested that they should be invalidated (‘suppressed’) by the latter, in order to put an end to a situation of dual nomenclature which is highly detrimental not only to herpetology but also to the image of zoological nomenclature and taxonomy among the biological sciences. Colleagues interested in these questions are invited to submit papers for publication in a forthcoming issue of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Bionomina</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> dedicated to their discussion.</span></span></span></span></p>2025-04-22T00:00:00+12:00Copyright (c) 2025 https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.41.1.2<strong>Nomenclature protects stability only when supported by good science: a response to Frétey’s (2024) list of turtle genus-series nomina</strong>2025-04-22T09:12:32+12:00WOLFGANG DENZERlobo@herpetologica.orgHINRICH KAISERhinrich.kaiser@vvc.edu<p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">The </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code</em></span><span lang="en-GB">) aims to support taxonomic science by providing rules for creating and applying taxon names and thereby stabilizing taxonomic output. However, this stability is only achievable when the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> is supported by robust scientific practices. We here respond to the monograph on chelonian genus-series nomina by Frétey (2024) and critique the author’s inclusion of unscientific and controversial taxon names, with which he undermines the herpetological community’s decade-long consensus to reject such names. As part of Frétey’s decision to treat such nomina as available, the author failed to mention the widespread use of aspidonyms (shield names) to protect taxonomic integrity and in so doing elevates accounting over science. We argue that adherence to the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code </em></span><span lang="en-GB">alone is insufficient to counteract the destabilizing effects of taxonomic vandalism. Instead, the herpetological community’s unified stance against unscientific nomina, exemplified by the ‘Kaiser Veto’, has effectively safeguarded taxonomic stability even as it operates beyond the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. By including consistently ignored names, Frétey’s work disrupts this consensus and risks reintroducing nomenclatural instability. We urge authors and editors to uphold scientific integrity by excluding unscientific nomina from taxonomic discourse, thereby preserving the spirit of the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code </em></span><span lang="en-GB">and ensuring the reliability of taxonomic science for its many users, including ecologists, conservationists and policymakers.</span></span></span></span></p>2025-04-22T00:00:00+12:00Copyright (c) 2025 https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.41.1.3<strong>Review of the literature sources for the class Amphibia in the early editions of Linnaeus’s <em>Systema Naturae</em></strong>2025-04-22T09:13:11+12:00LÁSZLÓ KRECSÁKlkrecsak@gmail.com<p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">Th</span><span lang="en-GB">e first in-depth assessment of the species of amphibians and reptiles referred to the class </span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>Amph</strong></span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>ibia</strong></span><span lang="en-GB"> (amphibians and reptiles) in the first nine editions of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Systema Naturae</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> is performed. Although these are not key documents for nomenclature, they contain the origins of the Linnaean classification and enable taxonomists to understand the development of various Linnaean species’ concepts. A short overview is provided of the first nine editions of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Systema Naturae</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> with special focus on the class </span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>Amphibia</strong></span><span lang="en-GB">, a key for all abbreviations used is given and a complete list of primary and secondary references in these editions is included. Changes in Linnaeus’s view about the species of </span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>Amphibia</strong></span><span lang="en-GB"> included in these early editions are discussed.</span></span></span></span></p>2025-04-22T00:00:00+12:00Copyright (c) 2025 https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.41.1.4<strong>Publication date of the first edition of Sonnini & Latreille’s <em>Histoire naturelle des </em><em>Reptiles</em></strong>2025-04-22T09:13:46+12:00THIERRY FRÉTEYfretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr<p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">We provide evidence that the four volumes of Sonnini & Latreille’s </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Histoire naturelle des Reptiles</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> were published in 1801, before the first two volumes of Daudin’s </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, des Reptiles</em></span><span lang="en-GB">.</span></span></span></span></p>2025-04-22T00:00:00+12:00Copyright (c) 2025 https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.41.1.5<strong>Addenda and corrigenda to “The correct reference, date and page for the species described by Hope in ‘On a new species of <em>Dynastes</em> and other <em>Coleoptera</em>’ (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea)”</strong>2025-04-22T09:14:22+12:00JULIÁN CLAVIJO-BUSTOSjclavijo@humboldt.org.coJUAN SEBASTIÁN D. CÁCERESjuansebastianduenascaceres@gmail.com<p align="left"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">In our recent paper (Clavijo-Bustos & Cáceres 2024), we acted as First Revisers under Article 24.2.1 of the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code </em></span><span lang="en-GB">(Anonymous 1999) to establish that Hope’s “On a new species of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Dynastes</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> and other </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Coleoptera</em></span><span lang="en-GB">” was made available in the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London </em></span><span lang="en-GB">(hereinafter abbreviated as “the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Proceedings</em></span><span lang="en-GB">”), volume </span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>4</strong></span><span lang="en-GB"> page 11, year 1841 (Hope 1841</span><span lang="en-GB"><em>b</em></span><span lang="en-GB">) rather than in </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>The Annals and Magazine of Natural History </em></span><span lang="en-GB">(hereinafter abbreviated as “the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Annals</em></span><span lang="en-GB">”), volume </span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>7</strong></span><span lang="en-GB">, page 147, year 1841 (Hope 1841</span><span lang="en-GB"><em>a</em></span><span lang="en-GB">). However, our interpretation of Wheeler’s (1912) paper about the dates of the publications of the Entomological Society of London</span> <span lang="en-GB">was inaccurate and, therefore, we correct our conclusions here.</span></span></span></span></p>2025-04-22T00:00:00+12:00Copyright (c) 2025