(101) Proposal to add a new paragraph to Recommendation 9B

Taxon, 2014

Cladistics, 2007

on the taxonomy and nomenclature of American ranid frogs. His paper consists not only in a reply to my paper, as it contains in fact three distinct kinds of statements: (1) an attempt to ''save'' the new generic nomina proposed by from being considered nomina nuda under the Code; (2) another plea for the superiority of the Phylocode over the Code, especially as regards the absence of a Rule of Coordination and the substitution of ''phylogenetic definition'' of nomina to the use of onomatophores for the allocation of nomina to taxa; (3) a plea for ''taxonomic stability'' in order not to upset the traditional use of nomina and to please users of electronic data bases. These three points are here commented, as follows: (1) even with the best goodwill, under the rules of the Code it is possible to ''save'' only three or four of the seven new nomina of Hillis and Wilcox , the others being indeed nomina nuda; furthermore, three of these seven nomina are definitively useless and redundant, being junior objective synonyms of other generic nomina; (2) the well-known arguments against the Phylocode do not need to be repeated in detail once again, the most important one being that replacement of a secular nomenclatural system by another one, whose theoretical and practical superiority is highly questionable, would cause considerable chaos and detract taxonomists from their urgent task of accelerating the collection, study and description of the living species of our planet; (3) the claim for taxonomic and nomenclatural stability ignores the importance of the taxonomic impediment and sends a misleading message to the scientific community and to society as a whole: in the present situation of our knowledge, taxonomic stability is ignorance, and the science of taxonomy would have much to lose to adapt its concepts and practices to the needs of databases at the expense of scientific quality. It is once again stressed that, for the quality and accuracy of communication between evolutionary biologists, and above all with other biologists and non-biologists, it is urgent that scientific periodicals impose the use of different systems of notation of nomina following distinct nomenclatural systems, such as the Code and the Phylocode.

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 2007

The recent publication of a new hypothesis of cladistic relationships among American frogs referred to the genus Rana, accompanied by a new taxonomy and a new nomenclature of this group . Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34, 299-314], draws attention to the problems posed by the use of a "double nomenclature", following both the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (designated here as "onomatophore-based nomenclature") and the rules of the draft Phylocode (designated here as "deWnition-based nomenclature"). These two nomenclatural systems, which rely upon widely diVerent theoretical bases, are incompatible, and the latter cannot be viewed as a "modiWcation" of the former. Accordingly, scientiWc names (nomina) following both systems should be clearly distinguished in scientiWc publications. Onomatophorebased nomina should continue to be written as they have been for about 250 years, whereas deWnition-based nomina should be written in a speciWc way, e.g., ͗LITHOBATES͘. The combined use of both nomenclatural systems for the same taxonomy in the same paper requires good knowledge and careful respect of the rules of the Code regarding availability, allocation and validity of nomina. As shown by this example, not doing so may result in various problems, in particular in publishing nomina nuda or in using nomenclatural ranks invalid under the current Code. Attention is drawn to the fact that new nomina published without diagnostic characters are not available under the Code, and that the latter currently forbids the use of more than two ranks (subgenus and "aggregate of species") between the ranks genus and species.

The role of primary, secondary and tertiary syntypes in solving nomenclatural problems, especially those related to old nomina from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is discussed. The very useful but rarely implemented procedure of designating virtual lectotypes, i.e., specimens that can be traced as belonging to the original syntypic series but currently non-extant (e.g., lost, destroyed, misplaced, or originally being alive animal of which only an illustration remains), is here highlighted as potentially opening the way for a neotype designation that better suits stability in zoological nomenclature. This is particularly true when mixed syntypic series, i.e., those comprising specimens belonging to more than one species, are involved. We illustrate the advantages of this procedure by showing that a secondary syntype of Elephas maximus Linnaeus, 1758, although currently missing, would have been a better candidate to lectotype designation than the still available specimen actually selected recently as the lectotype of this species based on molecular data. We welcome the use of molecular data to solve nomenclatural problems, but point out that a thorough knowledge of the International Code of zoological Nomenclature is essential if the best decisions are to be taken.

2016

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.1, 78.2.3 and 81 of the Code, is to conserve the long and continuing usage of the specific name Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 (currently Sistrurus catenatus) for a species of pygmy rattlesnake by designation of a neotype. In addition, in order to will conserve the nearly equally long and continuous usage of the name Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822 (currently Sistrurus tergeminus or Sistrurus catenatus tergeminus) for another pygmy rattlesnake, the Commission is asked to designate a neotype for this nominal species also. Newly found evidence indicates that the name Crotalinus catenatus was based on a specimen of C. tergeminus, and to conserve the names of both nominal taxa designation of neotypes for each is required.