Abstract
The epithet obsolerus recently used to name a new species of shark is doubtless an “incorrect original spelling” which must be corrected into obsoletus. However, a strict respect of Article 32.5.1 of the Code would not allow this correction, as the original paper did not provide “clear evidence of an inadvertent error”, which can be established only through recourse to an “external source of information” such as a Latin dictionary. There are many other cases in zoological nomenclature where the fact that an original spelling was a misprint can be established only through recourse to the etymology of the term, which was not provided in the original work. Two such examples are given, which strongly point to the need to reconsider the wordings of Articles 32.2, 33.2 and 32.5 of the Code.