Bionomina

Reflections on defining “taxon names”, and on scientific names in general

2024-11-11T09:20:22+13:00

Some comments are offered on aspects of defining “taxon names”, using as a starting point the debate between Stuessy and Queiroz (plus Cantino), in 2000–2001. It is argued here that both sides in that debate were restating established positions, rather than addressing the basic question. It appears desirable to be more precise and it is important to specify context. The end-user expects a taxon name to be defined, and justly so. A taxonomic definition of a name should not be influenced by nomenclatural considerations but should be based on taxonomy only; a point worth noting is that there can be as many taxonomic definitions as there are taxonomic viewpoints. As to nomenclature, it is pointed out that, by its internal workings, a Code does not govern mere strings of characters (names), but rather formal entities.

Nomenclatural and taxonomic notes on two species of ribbon worms (Nemertea) collected during the La Recherche Expedition (1838–1840)

2024-12-04T09:58:54+13:00

Illustrations of at least three unidentified species of nemerteans from the Nordic Seas, collected during the French La Recherche Expedition (1838–1840), were included in a work published around 1842–1848 as part of a series reporting the results of the expedition. Of these three species, two were later named based on the illustrations: Meckelia borealis Diesing, 1862 and Ditactorrhochma typicum Diesing, 1862, which were subsequently reclassified in 1904 as Cerebratulus borealis (Diesing, 1862) and Amphiporus typicus (Diesing, 1862), respectively, and have been accepted as valid to date. The genus Ditactorrhochma Diesing, 1862, established for D. typicum, has been synonymized with Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 since 1904. In this article, the lineid heteronemertean Cerebratulus borealis is deemed a nomen dubium because it cannot be distinguished with certainty from several similar existing species, including those with higher priority, namely Lineus ruber (Müller, 1774) and L. viridis (Müller, 1774). Meanwhile, the monostiliferous hoplonemertean Amphiporus typicus is identified herein as a junior subjective synonym of Nipponnemertes pulchra (Johnston, 1837). Ditactorrhochma Diesing, 1862 is thus a senior subjective synonym of Nipponnemertes Gibson & Crandall, 1989. Ditactorrhochma has not been used as a valid name since 1900, whereas Nipponnemertes has been used prevalently, meeting the conditions stipulated in Article 23.9.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (fourth edition). Therefore, Ditactorrhochma Diesing, 1862 is now declared a nomen oblitum with respect to Nipponnemertes Gibson & Crandall, 1989, the latter being a nomen protectum.

**About the authorship of Heterophasia desgodinsi (Aves, Passeriformes)**

2024-12-04T10:06:18+13:00

The black-headed sibia (Aves, Passeriformes, Leiothrichidae) was first described in the year 1877 as Sibia desgodinsi. The author of the article (Oustalet 1877) was Jean Frédéric Émile Oustalet (1844‒1905). Most subsequent works mentioned only Oustalet as author: for example Deigan et al. (1964: 418), Dickinson & Christidis (2014: 546), Clements et al. (2024), Gill et al. (2024) and Lepage (2024). Exception are Saunders (1879: 38), who used the authorship E. Oustalet & A. David, Rothschild (1926: 271), Riley (1926: 31), who placed the bird into Leioptila Blyth, 1847 (Blyth 1847: 449) as Leioptila desgodinsi, and Robinson & Kloss (1919: 586), who placed it into Malacias Cabanis, 1851 (Cabanis 1851:113) as Malacias desgodinsi.

**On Hallomenus orientalis Pic, 1951 and Hallomenus orientalis Nikitsky, 1998 (Coleoptera, Tetratomidae), with notes on possibly overlooked papers of Maurice Pic**

2024-12-04T10:11:09+13:00

Recently, Poggi (2024) reported an unusual case of simultaneous homonymy and synonymy in the myrmecophilous beetle subfamily Thorictinae of the family Dermestidae. Unexpectedly, an analogous case was found while consulting the poorly known periodical Diversités entomologiques authored and edited from June 1947 to September 1955 by Maurice Pic. It includes the description of Hallomenus orientalis, a new species with a nomen sounding familiar to us. Indeed, the same binomen was used by Nikitsky (1998) for a species described as new and currently considered as valid (Nikitsky 2020). Obviously, Nikitsky was not aware of Pic’s description.

Simultaneous duplicate species descriptions of isopods from Brazilian caves (Crustacea, Isopoda, Styloniscidae)

2024-12-17T13:00:58+13:00

It has come to our attention that zoological material from the same caves was independently used in two separate studies, both published in 12 December 2024 (Cardoso et al. 2024; López-Orozco et al. 2024), resulting in different names being assigned to the same species.