Bionomina

Bionomina, opinion papers and nomenclatural Code-compliance

2025-04-22T09:11:50+12:00

A paper recently published in Bionomina 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 Bionomina dedicated to their discussion.

Nomenclature protects stability only when supported by good science: a response to Frétey’s (2024) list of turtle genus-series nomina

2025-04-22T09:12:32+12:00

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code) 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 Code 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 Code 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 Code. 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 Code and ensuring the reliability of taxonomic science for its many users, including ecologists, conservationists and policymakers.

Review of the literature sources for the class Amphibia in the early editions of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae

2025-04-22T09:13:11+12:00

The first in-depth assessment of the species of amphibians and reptiles referred to the class Amphibia (amphibians and reptiles) in the first nine editions of Systema Naturae 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 Systema Naturae with special focus on the class Amphibia, 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 Amphibia included in these early editions are discussed.

Publication date of the first edition of Sonnini & Latreille’s Histoire naturelle des Reptiles

2025-04-22T09:13:46+12:00

We provide evidence that the four volumes of Sonnini & Latreille’s Histoire naturelle des Reptiles were published in 1801, before the first two volumes of Daudin’s Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, des Reptiles.

**Addenda and corrigenda to “The correct reference, date and page for the species described by Hope in ‘On a new species of Dynastes and other Coleoptera’ (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea)”**

2025-04-22T09:14:22+12:00

In our recent paper (Clavijo-Bustos & Cáceres 2024), we acted as First Revisers under Article 24.2.1 of the Code (Anonymous 1999) to establish that Hope’s “On a new species of Dynastes and other Coleoptera” was made available in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London (hereinafter abbreviated as “the Proceedings”), volume 4 page 11, year 1841 (Hope 1841b) rather than in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History (hereinafter abbreviated as “the Annals”), volume 7, page 147, year 1841 (Hope 1841a). However, our interpretation of Wheeler’s (1912) paper about the dates of the publications of the Entomological Society of London was inaccurate and, therefore, we correct our conclusions here.