Bionomina最新文献

{"title":"The inordinate unpopularity of changing all eponymous bird and other organismal names","authors":"Kevin Winker","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.37.1.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.37.1.3","url":null,"abstract":"A proposal by Foley & Rutter (2020) to eliminate all eponymous English bird names was published in the Washington Post, a Washington D.C. newspaper. Fears (2021) reported in this same newspaper that a racist and colonialist history is perpetuated in some English bird names, especially eponyms, and that a social movement is working to change those names. These articles generated hundreds of online comments. I used sentiment analysis on these comments to quantify public reaction to this proposal and topic. Among the 340 scored comments to Foley & Rutter (2020), negative opinions outnumbered positive ones by 3.36:1. Scoring comments by relative magnitude of their sentiment (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3) yielded an average score of -1.18. These results indicate this proposed action is very unpopular among these readers and causes pronounced divisiveness. The 570 scored comments to the Fears (2021) article were also negatively skewed (2.3:1), though less so (average score -0.58). Politicization and the left-right nature of the issue were rampant in the comments on both articles, indicating that the subject was immediately brought into the culture wars (i.e., conflict between liberal and conservative groups over cultural issues). The divisive nature of the topic was also evident within self-identified left-leaning respondents. These results likely underestimate public negativity to this proposal, because the Washington Post is a left-leaning newspaper. Similarly, Guedes et al. (2023) called for eliminating all eponymous organismal names, and a sentiment analysis of comments about that article was even more starkly negative, showing 90 % of commenters opposed. More data like these are needed. There is considerable risk that broadly de-commemorating eponymous organismal names will create more negative than positive outcomes (e.g., through asymmetric polarization and the culture wars). We must also ask: does excluding people who do not share our views achieve our objective of inclusiveness? When is it acceptable to take away someone’s hard-won knowledge by changing key terms in our shared biodiversity linguistic infrastructure? There are more constructive ways to address diversity, equity and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140228625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Wagler vs. Fitzinger: Leposternon microcephalus, a fight over gender (Sauria, Amphisbaenidae)","authors":"Wolfgang Denzer","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.37.1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.37.1.4","url":null,"abstract":"This short note provides some insight into an academic “battle” between early 19th century herpetologists about a small but interesting nomenclatural issue, namely the grammatically correct gender of a species epithet. Most texts used in the current note (Wagler in Spix 1824; Fitzinger 1826a‒b; Schlegel 1826; Wagler 1827) were published in 19th century German, which sometimes made use of vocabulary that is no longer employed nowadays. The old German texts are translated here into English in a way that they reflect modern language as much as possible.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":"26 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140229847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Nomenclatural problems raised by the recent description of a new anaconda species (Squamata, Serpentes, Boidae), with a nomenclatural review of the genus Eunectes","authors":"Alain Dubois, Wolfgang Denzer, O. M. Entiauspe-Neto, Thierry Frétey, A. Ohler, A. M. Bauer, Alexander Pyron","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.37.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.37.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"A recent paper proposing taxonomic changes in the South American snake genus Eunectes Wagler, 1830 (anacondas) is analysed. This paper raises an unusually high number of taxonomic and nomenclatural problems. The work does not rely on an explicit species concept, the analysis of the molecular data based on three mitochondrial genes is shown to be unreliable, and the validity of the ‘clades’ proposed in this work is questioned. The nomen proposed for a purported new species is a nomen nudum (nomenclaturally unavailable), and the designation of a ‘lectotype’ for the nominal species Eunectes murinus (Linnaeus, 1758) is invalid. We provide a review of the nomenclatural status of 18 nominal species (including four unavailable ones) once or still now referred to the genus Eunectes, we identify their ‘types’ (nomen-bearing specimens), we designate five lectotypes, which are all specimens figured and briefly described in ancient publications, and we explain the rationale behind this action, which will allow the subsequent designation as neotypes of recently collected specimens associated with precise type localities and molecular data. We show that the generic nomen Eunectes Wagler, 1830 does not apply to the taxonomic genus accommodating anacondas but, this nomen having been used for these giant and spectacular snakes for about 200 years and being well-known even outside the field of taxonomy, we argue that its traditional use should be maintained through an action of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature using its plenary power. Finally, we provide various recommendations regarding nomenclatural actions and publications presenting them. \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":"115 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140237761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On the validity of the recently described northern green anaconda Eunectes akayima (Squamata, Serpentes)","authors":"Juan D. Vásquez-Restrepo, Andrés Alfonso-Rojas, Ricardo Palacios-Aguilar","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.37.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.37.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"Recently, a taxonomic work was published concerning the existence of a new cryptic species of green anaconda. The authors justified the recognition of a phylogenetic lineage as a new species, which they named Eunectes akayima, based on genetic and geographical distribution differences. Regardless of whether the evidence provided to justify the recognition of this new species is sufficient, the article in question violates fundamental aspects of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such as the principle of priority and the rules for the designation lectotypes. Furthermore, the authors make unjustified assumptions regarding the type locality of Eunectes murinus, compromising the integrity of their nomenclatural actions. Here, we present a critique of this work grounded in the application of the rules of zoological nomenclature, leading to the synonymizing of the recently described species.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":"40 159","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140236880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating nomina of the phylum Ciliophora: examples for increasing work load of serious taxonomists","authors":"E. Aescht","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.36.1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.36.1.4","url":null,"abstract":"Thirteen examples mainly taken from ciliatology illustrate the increasing work load of serious taxonomists interested in the reliability of nomenclatural information and trying to be Code-compliant. Weaknesses of the “Amendment” of five articles to expand methods of publication of the Code resulted in the increasing vagueness of dating a nomen (and/or even authorship). The statuses of periodicals with two ISSNs (Print and Online), online-only versions not being or incompletely registered in Zoobank and Corrigenda are often questionable. It is necessary to check in detail the nomenclatural availability of novelties included in them. The Zoobank registration of works published on ciliates is of little help in this respect. There was also retrieval inefficiency and bias of the search engine Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) tested for a subset of ciliate nomina (nearly 350 nomina and/or spellings) involved in unavailability, mainly objective synonymy and homonymy. The results clearly indicate that the taxonomic status is privileged and nomenclatural revisionary work, which often is spread over three or more decades, is very fragmentarily recognised. Moreover, the main subcategories of synonymy (including alloneonymy) and the correctness of information on senior and junior homonyms are disregarded. Recent monographies are not adequately represented in online databases and websites, forcing genuine taxonomists (after the promulgation of the revisionary work) to check a second time and often to correct each single record in the internet.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":" 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139142031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"LTH 1. Literatura Taxonomica Herpetologica.1. Presentation","authors":"Alain Dubois, Thierry Frétey","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.36.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.36.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is the first of a series devoted to the analysis of the early classifications of amphibians and reptiles published from 1758 onwards, and of the nomenclatural status of all the nomina of herpetological taxa established in these works. In this introductory paper, we present the new methodology and the terminology used for these analyses, which propose a new approach to the understanding of the hierarchy of nomina and taxa in taxonomic publications. The hierarchical relationships between the taxa in these works have strong nomenclatural implications and consequences on the understanding of the nomenclatural status (nominal-series assignment, nomenclatural availability; taxonomic allocation; nomenclatural validity and nomenclatural correctness) of all early nomina, and in particular those of the higher nominal-series (family- and class-series), which have so far been misinterpreted in many cases.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":" 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139143521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The nomenclatural status of Agama cristata Merrem, 1819 and Corytophanes Schlegel, 1826 (Squamata, Corytophanidae) and of other tropical lizard nomina, with comments on some tricky issues of zoological nomenclature","authors":"Wolfgang Denzer, Alain Dubois, Thierry Frétey, A. Ohler","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.36.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.36.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"The nomenclatural status of the nomina Agama cristata and Corytophanes (Squamata, Corytophanidae) are examined. The former should be credited to Merrem (1819), not Merrem (1820), and the latter to Schlegel (1826a), not H. Boie in Schlegel (1826b). The nomen Iguana superciliosa Latreille in Sonnini & Latreille, 1801 is shown to be a senior synonym of Agama cristata Merrem, 1819. Article 23.9 is used here to protect the latter through reversal of precedence. Several other nomenclatural problems related to these nomina and related ones are explored. Updated synonymies and aponymies are provided for all the nomina of the genus Corytophanes currently considered valid and for the family, the valid nomen of which is Corytophanidae Fitzinger, 1843 [Frost & Etheridge, 1989] based on Article 35.4.1 and through reversal of precedence. Attention is drawn to several nomina and spellings present in the literature but forgotten by all or most authors until now.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139146353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"LTH 4. Literatura Taxonomica Herpetologica. 4. Year 1759","authors":"Alain Dubois, Thierry Frétey","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.36.1.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.36.1.8","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents the analysis of the single work published in 1759 that contains classifications of amphibians and reptiles, by Linnaeus. The nomenclatural status of the herpetological nomina in this work, particularly regarding their availability and taxonomic allocation, is clarified.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":"229 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139145553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"LTH 3. Literatura Taxonomica Herpetologica.3. Year 1758","authors":"Alain Dubois, Thierry Frétey","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.36.1.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.36.1.7","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents the analysis of six works by five authors (Linnaeus, Borlase, Gesnerus, Roesel von Rosenhof and Vogel) published in 1758 that contain classifications of amphibians and reptiles. The nomenclatural status of the herpetological nomina in these works, particularly regarding their availability and taxonomic allocation, is clarified.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":" 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139143010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"LTH 2. Literatura Taxonomica Herpetologica.2. Glossary","authors":"Alain Dubois, Thierry Frétey","doi":"10.11646/bionomina.36.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.36.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper presents the etymologies, definitions and bibliographic references of the technical nomenclatural and other terms used in the LTH series of papers, as well as their equivalent terms used for the same concepts in the Code in the rather rare cases when they exist.","PeriodicalId":503362,"journal":{"name":"Bionomina","volume":" 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139144187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}