Bionomina 2023-07-31T00:00:00+12:00 Alain Dubois Open Journal Systems <p><strong>Bionomina</strong> is an international journal of biological nomenclature and terminology.</p> <strong>Species nomina corrections in the Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera), concerning specific epithets based on letters used to refer to characters of taxa</strong> 2023-07-26T09:20:36+12:00 MEI-YING LIN GÉRARD LUC TAVAKILIAN <p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Cerambycidae</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (</span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>Coleoptera</strong></span><span lang="en-GB">) are analyzed and corrected when necessary. </span></span></span></span></p> 2023-07-31T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2023 <strong>Rediscovery of a syntype of <em>Chalcocopris hesperus</em> (Olivier, 1789) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae), a possible specimen from Captain Cook’s first voyage round the globe (1768–1771)</strong> 2023-07-26T09:29:23+12:00 MARIO CUPELLO CIBELE S. RIBEIRO-COSTA MAXWELL V.L. BARCLAY <p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB"><em>Chalcocopris hesperus</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (originally </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Scarabaeus hesperus</em></span><span lang="en-GB">) (</span><span lang="en-GB"><strong>Coleoptera</strong></span><span lang="en-GB">, </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Scarabaeidae</em></span><span lang="en-GB">, </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Scarabaeinae</em></span><span lang="en-GB">,</span> <span lang="en-GB"><em>Dichotomiini</em></span><span lang="en-GB">) 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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. 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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Scarabaeus hesperus</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> was fixed as the type species of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Chalcocopris</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> 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.</span></span></span></span></p> 2023-07-31T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2023 <strong><em>Calotes megapogon </em>(Squamata, Agamidae, Draconinae): nomenclatural and taxonomic ramifications of the naming of an undescribed species</strong> 2023-07-26T09:30:19+12:00 WOLFGANG DENZER ESTHER DONDORP <p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Calotes megapogon</em></span><span lang="en-GB">, but a formal description was never published. Duméril &amp; Bibron (1837) listed the name as a synonym of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Lophyrus dilophus</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (comb. nov. pro </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Tiaris dilophus</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836), and later Gray (1845) treated </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Tiaris megapogon</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> as a valid species. Through Gray’s action, the name became nomenclaturally available according to Article 11.6.1 of the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. We rediscovered the type specimens of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Calotes megapogon</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> 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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Calotes megapogon</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1837 constitutes a senior subjective synonym of both </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Hypsilurus auritus</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (Meyer, 1874) and </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Hypsilurus spinosus</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1851), and that the name </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Hypsilurus megapogon</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1837) needs to be applied to this biological species.</span></span></span></span></p> 2023-07-31T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2023 <strong>Why <em>Toxicocalamus longhagen</em> Roberts, Iova & Austin, 2022 (Serpentes, Elapidae) is a taxonomic <em>nomen dubium</em></strong> 2023-07-26T09:30:51+12:00 FRED KRAUS MARK O’SHEA HINRICH KAISER <p align="justify"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">Roberts </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>et al</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. (2022) presented a taxonomic decision, in which they proposed the species name </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>longhagen </em></span><span lang="en-GB">for a single, poorly preserved specimen of elapid New Guinean snake in the species assemblage known as the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Toxicocalamus loriae </em></span><span lang="en-GB">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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>et al</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. (2022), published shortly after the description of </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>T. longhagen</em></span><span lang="en-GB">,</span> <span lang="en-GB">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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>et al</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. paper ahead of their manuscript submission. The authors of the Kraus </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>et al</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. paper had examined the specimen used to diagnose </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>T</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>longhagen</em></span><span lang="en-GB">, as well as a series of similar specimens,</span> <span lang="en-GB">and found it impossible to make a reliable species-level determination. Our detailed evaluation of the taxon </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>longhagen </em></span><span lang="en-GB">reveals that it is insufficiently differentiated from the now-known species of the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>T. loriae </em></span><span lang="en-GB">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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>T</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>longhagen</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. It follows that </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>T. longhagen</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> as currently defined</span> <span lang="en-GB">is a taxonomic </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>nomen dubium</em></span><span lang="en-GB">. It will retain this status until such time when additional data or additional material can lead to a resolution of its taxonomy.</span></span></span></span></p> 2023-07-31T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2023 <strong>Systematic sexism: gender-neutral rule changes are needed</strong> 2023-07-26T09:31:25+12:00 D. JAMES HARRIS JONATHON C. MARSHALL LETICIA ALVAREZ GUTIÉRREZ RAQUEL XAVIER <p align="left"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB">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 </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>International Code of Zoological Nomenclature </em></span><span lang="en-GB">(Anonymous 1999; “the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>Code</em></span><span lang="en-GB">” below) for animal taxa, while the </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> (Turland </span><span lang="en-GB"><em>et al.</em></span><span lang="en-GB"> 2018) is the set of rules dealing with formal botanical names.</span></span></span></span></p> 2023-07-31T00:00:00+12:00 Copyright (c) 2023