ArticlePDF Available

Synonymies and related lists in zoology: General proposals, with examples in herpetology

January 2000
Dumerilia 4(2):33-98

January 2000
4(2):33-98

Authors:

Alain Dubois

Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle

Content uploaded by Alain Dubois

Content may be subject to copyright.

Dumerilia

Juin 2000 Volume 4

Dumerilia, 2000, 4 (2): 33-98.

Synonymies and related lists in zoology:

general proposals, with examples in herpetology

Alain DUBOIS

Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens,

Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle,

25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France

E-mail: dubois@mnhn.fr

So-called “synonymies”, usually presented at the beginning of

taxonomic accounts, play a major role for the storage and retrieval

of taxonomic information (nomenclatural history of a taxon and of

names once used to designate it, references to studies of this taxon,

etc.). This paper is devoted to a careful study of the concepts of

synonym and synonymy, and of related ones. Many traditional so-

called “synonymies” are in fact heterogeneous lists, which convey

both nomenclatural information on scientific names (nomina) and

bibliographic information on publications. Proposals are offered

regarding the terms to be used to designate the various kinds of

nomina and nomen uses that may appear in such lists, and the

designation and presentation of these different kinds of lists.

Proposals are also given concerning the use of various other terms

related with these matters, and formal definitions are provided for

all these terms, whether new or of traditional use. It is suggested that

adoption of such precise technical terms and standardization of the

presentation of lists would greatly enhance communication between

animal taxonomists and with other members of the scientific

community, especially within the frame of the development of

international electronic connections which encourage the creation

and world-wide diffusion of large computerized data-bases dealing

with the nomina of animal species.

34 Dumerilia

CONTENTS

Introduction

Information storage and retrieval in zoological taxonomy

Taxonomy, nomenclature and onymology

Synonymy

Synonyms and relationships among them

Basic rules and terms in zoonymology

Name, nomen, substantive, epithet, nominal-complex, onomatophore

Taxon and taxomen

Spelling, onymorph, rank, morphonym

Synonymisation

Lists of synonyms and of references

“Suppression” of nomina by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Proposals concerning the terminology of nomina, nomen uses and lists

Introduction

Availability and validity of nomina

Changes in spelling, rank and onymorph

Correctness and current use of morphonyms

Kinds of synonyms and homonyms

Kinds of lists of nomina and references

Conclusion

Appendix 1 - Some examples of logonymies

Appendix 2 - Suggestions for the presentation of logonymies

General suggestions

Authors’ names

Heading of logonymy

Order of nomina

Protonyms

Aponyms

Chresonyms

Anoplonyms

The use of nec and non

The use of partim

The use of query

The use of “equals”

Appendix 3 - Examples of presentation of logonymies

Examples in the family-series

Examples in the genus-series

Examples in the species-series

Acknowledgements

Literature cited

Additional comments of the Editorial Committee

Table 1 and figures 1-8

Figures 1-8

DUBOIS

INTRODUCTION

INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL IN ZOOLOGICAL TAXONOMY

The real number of animal species on our planet is unknown, but probably

higher or much higher than eight million, of which less than two million have yet been

collected, studied and named (HAMMOND, 1992). Despite this incompleteness of the

work, the information accumulated by biologists and paleontologists over more than

two centuries about animal species has become gigantic, and the need of efficient

systems of storage and retrieval of this information is now overwhelming.

Computerization of data-bases, electronic connections, and other recent technical

developments may offer good material conditions for such efficient systems, but the

latter also require, beside technical progress, pertinent conceptual frameworks. If

biologists proved unable to devise and organize such frameworks, a great deal of the

information accumulated on the organisms might become unavailable to the scientific

community, which would almost amount to the same as if this information had never

been gathered at all.

All the information concerning the diversity of animal species is currently

arranged and stored under a taxonomic system, i.e. a system of classification of animal

taxa. Continuity through time of storage and retrieval of all information (whether

biological, biogeographical, evolutionary, etc.) once collected on any animal taxon is

maintained owing to the existence of a unique nomenclatural system, presented in the

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ANONYMOUS, 1999; cited below as

“the Code”) [a]. This system has force of law for all zoologists worldwide, and its rules

can be modified or suspended only by an official international body, the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (cited below as “ICZN”).

Zoological nomenclature has a rather bad reputation among zoologists. Many of

them consider this discipline, at best, as a “necessary trouble”, and, at worst, as a purely

useless game of maniacs. The rules of zoological nomenclature are often viewed as an

obscure forest of arbitrary juridical regulations, which are considered so complex that

many professional zoologists never read them and that many institutes and researchers

have not found it useful to have a copy of the Code in their libraries. As a result, in the

recent years, quite numerous zoological taxonomic papers were published that

contained minor or even major nomenclatural mistakes in regard of the current Code

(see e.g., in the group of Amphibia: DUBOIS, 1987a-c, 1995, 1998a-b, 1999a-c; DUBOIS

& OHLER, 1995a-b, 1997a-b, 1998, 1999): these errors point to the existence of a bad

knowledge or understanding of the Code not only by taxonomists but also by editors

and publishers of many zoological books and periodicals; unfortunately, in the recent

years, this tendency has been reinforced by the failure of ICZN to play correctly its role

36 Dumerilia

of “Keeper of the Law” (for more details, see e.g.: DUBOIS & OHLER, 1997a; DUBOIS,

1999b). However, if zoological taxonomy is to remain a non-ambiguous universal

system of reference, it cannot do without precise and stringent international rules of

zoological nomenclature.

TAXONOMY, NOMENCLATURE AND ONYMOLOGY

Two possible reasons for the poor understanding and rating of the Code among

zoologists can be suggested. The first may be that, perhaps in order to appear “simpler”

or “more accessible to all”, the Code contains few “technical terms” and rather uses

“common-language terms”, such as “name”, “valid” or “type”: this may be an important

source of confusion if these terms are understood by some in their “trivial” sense, not as

strictly defined terms with very precise technical meanings and uses. The second reason

may be the confusion, made by some zoologists but also entertained, in some respect,

by the Code itself (see below), between zoological taxonomy (classification of animals

in a hierarchical system of taxa) and zoological nomenclature (international rules for

non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous attribution of names to these taxa).

I suggest that one possible way to reduce both these sources of confusion is for

zoological nomenclature to clearly claim its being a well-defined technical field, with its

own concepts, terms and techniques. This requires the development of a specific

discipline, that is better recognized if given also a specific technical designation. The

term nomenclature is a common-language term that applies to various situations. In

biology, the meaning of this term can be restricted to the designation of the system of

scientific names used by taxonomists, but excluding the “provisions for their formation

and use” (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 111) and the theory that underlies these rules and uses. In

order to designate the study and theory of concepts and terms related to the scientific

nomenclature of living beings, I proposed (DUBOIS, 2000a) the term onymology (from

the Greek onymos, “name” and logos, “speech”) [b]. According to the organisms

studied, this field can be divided in various subfields, including zoonymology (from the

Greek zoon, “animal”) for the theoretical study of zoological nomenclature. The present

paper is a contribution to the latter subfield. It proposes a specific terminology for

precise technical concepts of zoological nomenclature that have until now remained

unclear for many zoologists, possibly in part for their lacking precise technical terms: as

is often the case in science, and particularly in biology (see e.g.: MAYR, 1997; DUBOIS,

1997c), such a lack is a major source of confusion in communication between scientists

and therefore of mistakes.

Given this aim of the present paper, it is bound to propose a number of new

terms, or of new definitions for terms already used by zoologists, but sometimes in a

loose, imprecise sense. An important question must be fully addressed here. Several

DUBOIS

readers of an earlier manuscript of this paper suggested to drop the proposal of the new

terms, although keeping the part dealing with the clarification of concepts. These

readers feared that these numerous neologisms might lead to a global rejection of my

proposals. They suggested that part of the resistance of some members of the zoological

community to zoological nomenclature takes its roots in the “complexity” of the Code

and they think that the best should be done to “simplify the rules so that practicising

zoologists will follow them”. I fully disagree with this analysis. For the group of

Amphibia, I have repeatedly provided elsewhere (see e.g. references above) detailed

information showing that currently many zoologists and editors worldwide do not

follow the rules of zoological nomenclature, irrespective of these rules being “simple”

or “complicated”. I do not think that the solution to this problem will come from

nomenclature trying to make itself artificially “simpler”, at the expenses of its rigour

and precision. Quite to the contrary, I think that the current trend for some zoologists,

including some members of ICZN, to accept a quickly growing number of

nomenclatural errors in zoological publications, is an encouragement for carelessness

and lack of respect for the Code, which in the long term might have dramatic

consequences for the unity of zoology (DUBOIS, 1999b). I think that taxonomists should

not feel ashamed of being careful about nomenclatural matters, and that the role of

ICZN should be to help them in this respect. Most probably, accepting to “simplify” the

Code would only lead to its being still less respected by those who today ask for this

simplification. Quite frankly, the Code is not so “complicated”, at least as compared

with many other intellectual or scientific activities: its good use only needs care, rigour

and patience. Contrary to the trend just evoked, I think that zoological nomenclature

would have much to gain, not to lose, from claiming being a well-defined technical

field, needing a special training and competence, rather than trying to give the

misleading image of a simple domain easily accessible to all. One of the ways for

zoonymology to claim its specific technicity is to use precisely defined technical terms,

rather than “common-language” terms which seem to be easily understandable by

anyone without a proper training. For this reason, I think that if the clarification of

concepts here proposed is useful, it should also be accompanied by a proper

terminology, for “the importance of a phenomenon is not recognized unless it has a

special name” (GOULD & ELDREDGE, 1977: 139).

A final comment may be added here. Quite often I have wondered, when I found

severe nomenclatural mistakes in papers of some colleagues, whether these mistakes

were isolated, or whether in a way they might not express a general careless attitude in

scientific work, then casting some doubt on the trust that can be put on some of the

published results or conclusions. Despite the tendency of some of these colleagues to

declare that nomenclatural problems are unimportant and that scientists should not lose

their precious time on such trivial matters, I tend to find it difficult to believe that

someone who lacks rigour, care and patience in the nomenclatural part of a taxonomic

work will show these qualities when it comes to electrophoresis, anatomy or cladistic

38 Dumerilia

analysis. In my opinion, a high quality of the nomenclatural analysis in a taxonomic

paper is not a negative, but a positive sign regarding the overall quality of the work.

SYNONYMY

The current nomenclatural system in zoology has two important characteristics

that allow it to play correctly its universal role regarding information storage and

retrieval: (1) the Fundamental Principle of the Code, the Principle of Priority, ensures

that ultimately, and automatically, each animal species or higher taxon receives a single,

unique and non-ambiguous name, even if it has been described several times and under

several names by different authors (see e.g.: HOLYNSKI, 1994; DUBOIS & OHLER,

1997a); (2) all such distinct names once given to the taxon, with all the information

once attached to them, remain connected to the valid name of the taxon through the

process of synonymy.

Most taxonomic publications in zoology, and particularly works presenting new

taxa, revisions, catalogues and checklists, include “taxonomic accounts”, i.e. chapters or

subchapters devoted to the historical presentation, diagnosis, description, study and/or

discussion of individual taxa, such as species, genera or families. Very often, any such

taxonomic account starts with a synonymy (usually printed in small letters), i.e. a list of

names regarded as applying to the studied taxon, each name being followed by a single

reference or by a list of references to its use. Such synonymies provide information on

the nomenclatural status of the names listed, but also, often, bibliographic information

on publications where these names were used. Although this is a common practice, few

discussions have been devoted to the principles of construction of synonymies and to

the different kinds of “synonymies” that exist in zoological literature. This is the main

purpose of this paper. As shown below, close examination of this question points to the

existence of several confusions and to the need of a precise, technical terminology,

which is wanting for the time-being. Before we enter in full in the age of zoology when

most taxonomic data on organisms are computerized and available to all users

worldwide in data-bases, it may be useful to devise a precise system of classification

and terminology of concepts related to synonymies.

The Glossary of the current Code (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 118) acknowledges the

existence of two distinct meanings of the term synonymy: “(1) The relationship between

synonyms. (2) A list of synonyms.” Let us consider these two meanings successively.

DUBOIS

SYNONYMS AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM

BASIC RULES AND TERMS IN ZOONYMOLOGY

The term synonym has a precise technical meaning in zoonymology. Two

scientific names are to be considered synonyms if both apply to the same zoological

taxon, as currently understood by taxonomists, i.e. to the same taxonomic taxon as

defined by the Code (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 119). In the Code, the term scientific name

also has a precise technical meaning, which makes it distinct from a vernacular name.

A scientific name may be either available or unavailable in zoological nomenclature

(see e.g. ANONYMOUS, 1999: 108, 123). An available scientific name is either a single

Latin (or pseudo-Latin) word (for family-group and most genus-group scientific names)

or an association of two or three words (for species-group and some genus-group

scientific names) published after 1757 and meeting a number of criteria of availability;

any available name has its own author and publication date, and its (real or potential)

name-bearing type, the latter being either a specimen in the case of species-group

names, or a nominal taxon in the case of genus-group and family-group names (see

DUBOIS & OHLER, 1997a).

Before going further, some liminar terminological clarifications may be useful.

First of all, as in previous papers (DUBOIS & OHLER, 1997a-b), the technical expressions

which are used in the Code or derived from expressions used therein, will always be

written below with dashes, in order to show that they are well defined formulae with a

precise technical meaning: e.g., type-specimen, type-species, type-locality, first-reviser,

nominal-taxon. For the sake of brevity, in this paper I will always refer to author in the

singular, although of course a publication or a nomen may have several authors. Further

clarification is also needed regarding the terms name and taxon and related ones.

NAME, NOMEN, SUBSTANTIVE, EPITHET, NOMINAL-COMPLEX, ONOMATOPHORE

As already suggested elsewhere (DUBOIS, 2000a), in order to avoid possible

confusions with the general term name as used in common language, and also in

nomenclature to designate the name of the author of a scientific name, in the course of

this paper I will use the Latin term nomen (plural nomina) to designate the precise

technical concept of scientific name as defined by the Code. This is consistent with the

use of the term nomen in the Code, although the latter does not use it alone, but

combined, either in expressions like nomen dubium, nomen novum, nomen nudum or

nomen oblitum, or in compound terms like binomen or trinomen. As defined here, a

nomen may be composed either of a single word (uninomen, for family-group and

genus-group nomina) or of two or more words (binomen or trinomen, for species-group

40 Dumerilia

nomina). In the latter case, I will here use the terms generic substantive, subgeneric

substantive, specific epithet and subspecific epithet to designate the different words

composing the nomen. Besides, I will use the new formula nominal-complex to

designate the complex [nomen + its author + its date] when these three pieces of

information are given together as a single expression, which in this context can be

viewed as an indissociable unit.

Replacement of the Code’s formula scientific name by the term nomen entails

some other changes, e.g. replacement of the formula name-bearing-type by nomen-

bearing-type, or better, more concisely, by onomatophore (SIMPSON, 1940; DUBOIS &

OHLER, 1997a: 303; DUBOIS, 2000b), or of the formula new replacement name by new

replacement nomen: for this latter concept, the Code uses also the Latin formula nomen

novum, which is liable to cause confusion and would better be replaced by nomen

substitutum (see DUBOIS, 2000b), but other, still simpler, proposals in this respect will

be made below in this paper. Besides, for reasons also explained in more detail

elsewhere (DUBOIS, 2000b), I propose to use the general term nominal-series to

designate any of the three sets of nomina applying to one of the three categories of taxa

of the species-series, genus-series or family-series recognized, as “groups”, in the Code,

and also of the class-series, i.e. the “class-group” as defined by DUBOIS (1984a, 1987c).

TAXON AND TAXOMEN

As for the term taxon, as defined by the Code it is an ambiguous term, that

designates both a taxonomic and an onymological concepts. The Code first defines

“taxon” as “a taxonomic unit, whether named or not” (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 118), which

clearly points to a taxonomic concept. However, just below, the Code recognizes under

this general term both a taxonomic concept, that of “taxonomic taxon” (a taxon as

recognized by a zoologist) and an onymological concept, that of “nominal taxon” (a

“concept of a taxon”, denoted by an available nomen). The concept of “zoological

taxon”, defined in the Code as “a natural taxon of animals”, is most unclear, especially

as the term “natural” is not defined: I suggest to simply abandon it. The term

“taxonomic taxon” is not only tautological and highly unpalatable, but also unnecessary

as distinct from the simple term “taxon”. To clarify this matter, I proposed (DUBOIS,

2000b) to restrict the meaning of the term taxon, when used alone, to the taxonomic

concept, and to use the formula nominal-taxon (with a dash), or better, more concisely,

the new term taxomen (from taxon and nomen; plural taxomina) for the onymological

concept. Besides, in order to distinguish them for the taxa species, genus, family, etc., I

suggested to designate the corresponding taxomina as nominal-species, nominal-genus,

nominal-family, etc., always written with a dash, or better, more concisely, to use the

following new terms: speciesomen (plural speciesomina) for any taxomen of the

species-series, generomen (plural generomina) for any taxomen of the genus-series,

DUBOIS

familiomen (plural familiomina) for any taxomen of the family-series, and classomen

(plural classomina) for any taxomen of the class-series. More detailed clarifications on

this matter were given elsewhere (DUBOIS, 2000b).

Contrary to what some zoologists seem to believe, a taxomen is not a class of

individuals that would include at least one member (the onomatophore) and possibly

others (individuals or taxomina subjectively referred to the taxomen). A taxomen has

neither a content nor a diagnosis, it is only a bridge between language and reality.

Whether or not an author included other individuals in the taxon when proposing the

new nomen is of no relevance for the further taxonomic status of this nomen: this status

is only determined by the taxonomic status of the onomatophore. The role of the

taxomen is merely, but very importantly, to provide an objective and permanent

connection between the nomen (or nomina, in case of existence of nomina substituta)

and the onomatophore, and, consequently, between the nomen (or nomina) and a taxon:

this allows the latter to be unambiguously and universally designated by the same label

for all zoologists worldwide.

SPELLING, ONYMORPH, RANK, MORPHONYM

In the original publication where it is created, any new nomen is established

under a particular spelling, designated in the Code as the original spelling. Furthermore,

but only in the case of species-series nomina, any new nomen is first published as a

particular association between several words, at least two (generic substantive and

specific epithet) and sometimes three (generic substantive, specific and subspecific

epithets); additionally, it may also be associated with other words, interpolated between

the generic substantive and the epithet or between two epithets, which are not counted

by the Code in the number of words of the binomen or trinomen, but which are

nevertheless part of the nomen, such as subgeneric substantives or epithets for

aggregates of species or subspecies (see Article 6 of the Code and BERNARDI, 1980). As

the Code (Article 48) expressly restricts the use of the term combination to a given

association of a generic substantive and an epithet, irrespective of the other words of the

nomen, SMITH & PÉREZ-HIGAREDA (1986) provided the more general new term

onymorph to designate every unique word association between genus-series

substantives and species-series epithets: this term is of a more general meaning than the

term combination as defined in the Code, which is only a particular case of this larger

category. The original association of words in the original publication of a new nomen

may be therefore called the original onymorph. Finally, in the original publication the

new nomen is afforded an original rank: the latter is explicit from the nomen itself only

in some cases, but in other cases the situation is less clear. Thus, a new epithet

published as the third word of a trinomen is clearly of subspecific rank, and a recent

new family-series nomen ending with the suffix -idae is clearly of familial rank, but a

42 Dumerilia

genus-series nomen first published without being included in a combination may be

either of generic or of subgeneric rank, and a family-series nomen first published in the

early days of zoology (e.g. 1850) with a suffix like -idi or -idea is of unclear rank: in the

latter cases, this rank, if not given in full words in the original publication, must be

established through indirect inference from other elements of the original text.

It may be useful to designate collectively by a single term the three aspects of

the original nomen in which it may subsequently be modified, i.e. its spelling,

onymorph and rank. For this I suggest to use the already existing term morphonym,

initially proposed by SMITH & SMITH (1993: 5) as a strict synonym of SMITH & PÉREZ-

HIGAREDA’s (1986) term onymorph, but which is more useful to designate a more

general category.

As a matter of fact, any nomen, once established, is liable to be modified

subsequently to its original publication. Such changes may concern any aspect of its

morphonym, i.e. either its spelling (mandatory changes, justified and unjustified

emendations, incorrect subsequent spellings), and/or its rank (subgenus raised to genus

rank, etc), and/or, but for species-series nomina only, its onymorph (new generic

allocation, raising of subspecies to species rank, downgrading of species to subspecies

rank, change in generic or subgeneric rank, taxonomic recognition of aggregates of

species or subspecies, etc.). However, in onymological terms, despite all these possible

changes, in most of these cases the nomen remains essentially the same, as according to

the Code it keeps its original author, date and onomatophore: all these distinct

spellings, onymorphs and/or ranks must be viewed only as different morphonyms,

without independent and distinct nomenclatural status. I will here designate the person

who first published such a modified subsequent nomen as the first-user of this modified

nomen, in order to stress the difference with a genuine author in the precise, technical

and restrictive sense of this term in the Code (in cases of possible doubt or uncertainty,

the latter can also be designated by the longer formula nomenclatural author). The sole

exception to this rule is the case of unjustified emendations, which have an independent

status in nomenclature and therefore their proper authors and dates, and which for this

reason must be clearly distinguished from other kinds of subsequent spellings (see

DUBOIS, 1987c: 31-48).

SYNONYMISATION

Discovery by any taxonomist that two distinct nomina apply in fact to the same

taxon gives rise to the process of synonymization: statement of the synonymy between

two nomina and of the valid one for the taxon. Validity among two competing

synonyms is determined by the Principle of Priority: the first published nomen remains

the valid one for the taxon, whereas the nomen published later becomes invalid as a

DUBOIS

junior synonym of the former. In some rare cases, the Code allows to retain the junior

nomen as the valid one, either because of special rules (see e.g. Article 40 of the Code),

or through an action of ICZN making use of its Plenary Powers, usually to protect a

“well-known” nomen “threatened” by an “obscure” senior synonym (but see DUBOIS &

OHLER, 1997a).

The term synonym is another term with an ambiguous meaning, both

onymological and taxonomic. According to the Code, two nomina are objective

synonyms if both are based on the same onomatophore: this is an onymological concept,

which is clearly acknowledged in the botanical code (GREUTER et al., 1994) by their

designation as nomenclatural synonyms. In contrast, two nomina are subjective

synonyms (taxonomic synonyms in botany) if they are based on different onomatophores

but subjectively considered by a taxonomist to apply to the same taxon. Whereas

objective synonymies, once determined, are definitive, subjective synonymies depend

on the judgement of taxonomists and are therefore liable to change as taxonomic

research progresses. We will come back below to the problems posed by this existence

of two rather distinct meanings of the term synonym, and also of the different kinds of

homonyms.

LISTS OF SYNONYMS AND OF REFERENCES

Synonyms, as defined above, are different nomina (in the precise technical sense

of the latter term defined above) originally created for seemingly different taxa (or by

different authors ignoring each other’s work), but that are now considered to apply to

the same taxon, either for objective or for subjective reasons. Strictly defined, therefore,

and in the sense of the second definition of the Code’s Glossary, a synonymy is a list of

such nomina, each one being mentioned only once, with its author and date (i.e.,

reference to the original work where it was first published) and under its original

morphonym. Although some published synonymies conform to this definition, many

other so-called “synonymies” do not. In such “synonymies”, beside “true synonyms” as

defined above, other kinds of nomina appear, including the same nomina as above but

under different morphonyms, and sometimes also other nomina, not considered as “true

synonyms” but as “misidentifications” of the studied taxon (i.e., when this taxon was

mistakenly mentioned under a nomen that in fact applies to another one). Furthermore,

each nomen, onymorph or spelling of this list may be followed by more than one

bibliographic reference, instead of only the reference to the original publication where

the new nomen was proposed. Such lists, which may be very long, provide mostly

bibliographic information on references to nomina, spellings and onymorphs used in

the past to designate a given taxon, rather than nomenclatural information on nomina,

as does a genuine synonymy. Mixing all these kinds of information, nomina and nomen

44 Dumerilia

uses under the same general term of “synonymy” is a source of confusion and some

clarification is needed.

SMITH & SMITH (1973) provided useful proposals in this respect. They created

the term chresonymy (from the Greek chresis, “usage”) to designate a list or “summary

of occurrences of usages of any given scientific name or set of names”. A chresonymy

is therefore not a list of nomina, but a list of subsequent uses of already existing nomina

to refer to a taxon. Such a list may include both the original morphonyms of the

currently valid nomen of the taxon and of its synonyms, and other, subsequent

morphonyms of all these nomina; it may also include the nomina of other, distinct taxa,

which are not genuine synonyms of the studied taxon, but which have been applied by

mistake in the past by some authors to this taxon. Chresonymies therefore do not

provide nomenclatural information on nomina but bibliographic information on the

history of the study and biological understanding of the taxon. Notwithstanding this

difference, in many cases this information may be quite valuable for users of revisions,

checklists or catalogues, and presentation of both nomenclatural and bibliographic

information as a set of references at the beginning of a taxonomic account often appears

justified. It is however important: (1) to recognize that any such list is not a synonymy

sensu stricto, but a synonymy and chresonymy (SMITH & SMITH, 1973) or a chreso-

synonymy, either complete or partial; (2) to clearly identify and distinguish chresonyms

(DUBOIS, 1982a: 267), which in fact are not nomina but references, from true

synonyms, e.g. by use of a colon, a semicolon or a hyphen between the nomen and the

name of the author of the cited work. Although many authors and editors tend to follow

spontaneously such a distinct presentation for synonyms and chresonyms, only a few

zoological journals give express recommendations in this respect in their Instructions to

Authors (e.g. DUBOIS, 1997a: 184-185).

A further clarification appears justified here. Citations of nomina in a

chresonymy may be of two distinct kinds. They may include mere citations of nomina

(both the valid nomen of the taxon and its synonyms) under their original morphonyms,

and citations of other morphonyms, i.e. slightly different but derived versions of these

nomina (modified subsequent spellings, onymorphs or ranks). These two kinds of

chresonyms must be distinguished. Except unjustified emendations, the “slightly

modified versions” of nomina just mentioned have no independent status in

nomenclature, but it may be useful, for a better and quicker understanding of the

nomenclatural history of a taxon, to identify them as such and to have information on

their first-users and on the dates of these first-uses. Even further, it would seem justified

to consider the possibility of including this information in the presentation of the

currently valid nomen of any given taxon, as this would facilitate information storage

and retrieval concerning the nomenclatural history of a nomen. As a matter of fact, as

was aptly stressed by NG (1994), help to information retrieval is the major purpose of

adding the author and date of a nomen after the latter (thus forming together the

nominal-complex as defined here), and this function could also be extended to other

DUBOIS

information. Such data would particularly be useful in large computerized data-bases,

the importance of which will be growing in the future, especially as they will be made

available to the world community through electronic connections, and as they will tend

to replace, for many purposes, paper printed lists. Detailed proposals in this respect are

made below in app. 2.

Even if one does not wish to follow these proposals, it seems useful to identify

changes of spelling, onymorph or rank in the set of references at the beginning of a

taxonomic account. This requires a slight increase of the complexity of chreso-

synonymies and recognition of several new categories of nomina. Before going into this

question, however, let us discuss another terminological problem, regarding the use of

the term “suppression” in zoological nomenclature.

“SUPPRESSION” OF NOMINA

BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Zoological taxonomists tend to have a very living perception of nomina which

they are using in their scientific activity. Hence the use to deal with nomina of terms

which would be appropriate to designate living beings, such as “protection”,

“conservation”, “suppression” or “resurrection”. Zoological nomenclature would

probably benefit from using more precise and specific technical terms that would not be

liable to cause confusion. Thus the term “conservation” has now a precise meaning in

biology (e.g. in the title of the journal Conservation Biology), and many non-

taxonomists may sometimes be troubled or mistaken when they read in the Bulletin of

Zoological Nomenclature about the “conservation” of, e.g., “Phrynobatrachinae

Laurent, 1941” (DUBOIS, 1994): what is at stake then is not conservation of the

populations of the biological species of the subfamily Phrynobatrachinae, but

continuation of use of the nomen Phrynobatrachinae for this subfamily, although

according to the Code it should bear another nomen.

In order to clarify the matters concerning definite nomenclatural actions, some

terminological changes may be considered. Thus, it appears improper to use the term

“suppression” for the action sometimes taken under the Plenary Powers by the

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In common language,

something “suppressed” does not exist any more, whereas nomina “suppressed” by

ICZN continue to exist, not only outside but also inside zoological nomenclature: hence

the enclosing of the term “suppression” between quotation marks, first used by DUBOIS

& OHLER (1995a: 141, 1997a). As a matter of fact, in most cases, “suppression” by

ICZN only affects validity, not availability of a nomen.

46 Dumerilia

Availability of nomina applies regarding three distincts purposes: priority,

homonymy and typification. Thus, any nomen published respecting the rules of the Code

for publication of nomina: (1) competes for priority for the taxon it denotes; (2)

competes for homonymy against all other potential nomina of same spelling; (3) can be

used to denote the taxomen being the onomatophore for a taxomen of the immediately

higher nominal-series. These three aspects of availability are independent, and each one

of them can be “suppressed” by ICZN.

Most Opinions issued by ICZN result in the “suppression” of a nomen for the

sole purpose of the Principle of Priority. These “suppressed” nomina continue to have

an existence in zoological nomenclature for three distinct reasons, beside a purely

historical interest: (1) just like normal junior synonyms and homonyms, these nomina

must still be cited, although as invalid, in synonymies and related lists, nomen

catalogues and checklists, etc. (see DUBOIS & OHLER, 1995a: 141); this is very

important: otherwise, all the information once attached to these nomina would be lost

(actually, avoiding this loss is the major function of synonymies and related lists); (2)

unless specifically “suppressed” for this purpose (which is rare), they still compete for

homonymy; (3) although rarely, and unless specifically “suppressed” for this purpose

(which quite possibly never occurred), they can still denote the onomatophores of

taxomina of the next higher nominal-series.

For these reasons, I suggest that the action of ICZN which has until now been

called “suppression” of nomina would more appropriately be qualified as an

invalidation of these nomina, which remain available in nomenclature but do not

remain the valid ones for the taxa they designate. This invalidation is generally

pronounced by ICZN in order to allow the “conservation” or “protection” of well-

known nomina which according to the Code are in fact invalid, usually because they are

junior synonyms or homonyms. Beside its better appropriateness, the term

“invalidation” may have another small advantage over “suppression”. Invalidation often

has been made necessary, not because of mistakes made by the original author of the

nomen, but because of the action (or absence of action) of subsequent authors. The term

“invalidation” means that, but for this action of ICZN, the nomen would remain the

valid one for the taxon it denotes. It may therefore carry a less depreciatory connotation

than the term “suppression”, which, as very aptly stressed by DUPUIS (1995: 273), may

throw some shadow on the works of the authors of the invalidated nomina, who are

often some of the leading zoologists of the past.

Invalidation of a nomen by ICZN can be total or partial. Total invalidation of a

nomen is rare: it applies to nomina “suppressed” for all nomenclatural purposes, i.e.

altogether for priority, homonymy and typification; this is e.g. the case of nomina

created in publications that have been “suppressed” altogether by ICZN. Partial

invalidation is the usual situation. A nomen may be “suppressed” for the purposes of

both Principles of Priority and of Homonymy, or only of the former. Although

DUBOIS

theoretically possible, I am not aware of cases where ICZN would have pronounced a

partial invalidation of a nomen for the purposes of typification only. However, this latter

aspect has remained unclear until now, at least for some authors (e.g., DUBOIS, 1981:

250-251, 1987e; POYNTON & BROADLEY, 1985b: 135; DUELLMAN, 1993: 251), who

have considered that a nomen “suppressed” for the purposes of both priority and

homonymy (such as Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 or Xenophrys monticola Günther,

1864; see CHINA, 1964 and ANONYMOUS, 1994, respectively) could no longer be used

to denote the onomatophore of a higher taxomen. This interpretation is not supported by

the current ICZN Secretariat (TUBBS & GENTRY, personal communication), which has

important consequences in some precise nomenclatural cases like the two frog cases just

mentioned (see DUBOIS, 1997b; DUBOIS & OHLER, 1998). In order to avoid further

discussions or uncertainties in this respect, this point should be made quite clear in

further editions of the Code.

Total invalidation of nomina by ICZN amounts to suppressing nomenclatural

availability of nomina, and is usually needed when the work where these nomina were

published is, or may be interpreted as, not following the basic principles of Linnaean

binominal nomenclature. As for partial invalidation of nomina by ICZN, two major

categories can be distinguished. (1) Partial invalidation for the purposes of both priority

and homonymy is needed in order to “conserve” a nomen which is a junior objective

synonym or a junior homonym (a junior primary homonym in the species-series) of the

former: such an invalidation is absolute and permanent, and cannot be reverted (except

by another action of ICZN). (2) Partial invalidation for the purposes of priority alone is

usually called upon when a junior subjective synonym, or a junior secondary homonym

in the species-series, is at stake. In such cases, ICZN simply procedes to a reversal of

the order of priority between nomina: this can also be referred to as the seniorization of

one nomen and the juniorization of the other one. Such an invalidation by reversal of

priority is not only partial, it is also conditional and can be only temporary: the

invalidation of the juniorized nomen stands only as long as both nomina are considered

synonyms (or secondary homonyms), but in case of taxonomic change this nomen can

be validated again.

The modest terminological changes suggested above could allow clearer

communication between taxonomists and with non-taxonomists. If adopted in the Code,

they would have a bearing on the wording of most Opinions issued by ICZN. The

standard formula with which many Opinions start would have to adopt the following

formulation (which should of course be adapted to the kind of invalidation pronounced

by ICZN): “Under the Plenary Powers, the nomen XXX is hereby partially invalidated

for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of

Homonymy or of the Principle of Onomatophores”; or, more shortly: “Under the

Plenary Powers, the nomen XXX is hereby partially invalidated for the purposes of

priority but not for those of homonymy or typification”.

48 Dumerilia

It should be clear that invalidation of a nomen never results in the validation of

another one (the “conservation” of which had justified the action of ICZN). All ICZN

can do is to take an action that will have the consequence to make a nomen potentially

valid, an equivalent in zoological nomenclature of the term legitimate in botanical

nomenclature (GREUTER et al., 1994), but decision to consider a nomen as valid is a

taxonomic judgement and is not of the competence of ICZN or of the Code. Invalidation

of a nomen does not constitute by itself a definitive “protection” of another nomen:

even after inscription on an “official list”, a nomen can be threatened by rediscovery of

an overlooked senior synonym, or for other reasons. This is well exemplified by the

case of the amphibian generic nomen Kassina Girard, 1853, which had to be

“conserved” twice by invalidation (“suppression”) of two senior synonyms (MELVILLE

& CHINA, 1968; MELVILLE, 1985).

Of course, invalidation of a nomen can occur without active intervention of

ICZN using its Plenary Powers. By far, the most common cases are those of automatic

invalidation of a nomen whenever it is found to be a (subjective or objective) junior

synonym or a (primary or secondary) homonym of another nomen. Such an invalidation

is permanent in the case of objective synonyms and primary homonyms, and conditional

in case of subjective synonyms and secondary homonyms.

Finally, in some rare cases invalidation of a nomen may result from a normal,

automatic application of some exceptional rules of the Code: e.g., in the case of a

family-series nomen replaced before 1961 for being based on a generic nomen rejected

as a junior synonym, and having won general acceptance since then, which remains

invalid, unless taxonomy changes, by virtue of Article 40.2; or in the case of a junior

secondary homonym replaced before 1961, which according to Article 59.3 is

permanently invalid if taxonomy has not changed since then. In both cases, application

of these exceptional rules results in the “automatic invalidation” of nomina which

otherwise would be the valid ones for their taxa according to the general rules of the

Code. This situation was quite rare under the third edition of the Code (ANONYMOUS,

1985), where it applied only in very special cases. However, the number of situations

where simple application of the Code will result in such an automatic invalidation of

nomina will be much more numerous under the rules of the fourth edition of the Code,

where a new “nomen protectum rule” was introduced, but this matter will not be

discussed further here, as it would deserve a long discussion by itself (see DUBOIS,

1999b).

DUBOIS

PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE TERMINOLOGY

OF NOMINA, NOMEN USES AND LISTS

INTRODUCTION

The precise designation of the different kinds of nomina and of nomen uses

distinguished above, as well as of the different kinds of nomen and nomen-use lists,

requires the existence of several technical terms. For the sake of consistency, I suggest

to use a set of terms of similar form. To coin them, I used prefixes derived from Greek

words, combined with the suffix onym (from the Greek onymos, “name”) that was

already used for the construction of related terms (synonym, homonym, chresonym,

etc.). Definitions of these and other terms, as well as references to their use in the sense

suggested here, are provided in tab. 1, and the relationships among some of these terms

are illustrated in fig. 1-8.

In order to have a single set of terms based on the same suffix, in some cases I

had to coin replacement terms for already existing ones, such as gymnonym for nomen

nudum. It is clear that such terms are less necessary than those which are here proposed

for concepts or categories identified here for the first time. However, as stated above,

one of the aims of the present proposals is to provide a set of concepts and of terms that

can be used universally for the computerization of all information available on

zoological nomina and for its worldwide distribution through electronic channels. For

such a purpose, we need a set of well-defined technical terms for fields and attributes in

zoological data-bases. My feeling is that it is better to have a homogeneous set of all

similar terms, based on related stems or suffixes, rather than an heterogeneous list of

terms of different shapes and origins, some Latin (like nomen nudum), some derived

from Greek (like synonym), some English or from other languages (like new

replacement name or nouveau nom de remplacement), as is the case in the current Code.

For this reason I provided similar terms for all related concepts, even for some of those

that had already other designations. I also managed to have a single term for all

identified categories of nomina and nomen uses, rather than double or multiple terms

(such as objective synonym). I did my best to coin terms as short and euphonious as

possible, while being based on roots allowing them to carry the needed information on

their meaning. I finally tried to propose terms sufficiently different in their aspects to

avoid confusions between them simply because of their similarity. The set of terms

proposed below is not viewed, however, as a closed “system” that should be adopted or

rejected as a whole. Subsequent followers of my proposals will be free, of course, to

adopt them altogether, or in part only.

50 Dumerilia

AVAILABILITY AND VALIDITY OF NOMINA

Let us now present these concepts and terms. Regarding any given nomen or

morphonym, its usability in zoological nomenclature may be considered in the light of

four different qualifications: availability, validity, correctness and current use. The first

and second of these terms concern nomina, and the third and fourth ones concern

morphonyms of nomina; the first and third terms refer to purely onymological concepts,

while the second and fourth imply both onymological and taxonomic considerations.

The first important distinction concerns the availability and validity of nomina.

A nomen published but nomenclaturally unavailable according to the Code, either

because it is excluded under Article 1.3 or because it is not conform to the provisions of

Articles 10 to 20, cannot be used as the valid nomen of a taxon. The same is true for a

nomen totally or partially invalidated (as defined above) by ICZN or through use of the

standard rules or of some special rules of the Code. Only a nomen available under the

Code, and not invalidated by ICZN or by such rules, can be potentially valid for the

taxon it denotes. I propose to designate a nomenclaturally available nomen by the term

hoplonym (from the Greek hoplon, “arm, weapon”), and to call a nomen published, but

nomenclaturally unavailable under the Code, an anoplonym (from the Greek anoplos,

“unarmed”).

Nomenclatural unavailability of a published nomen may be due to various kinds

of causes, so that there are several kinds of anoplonyms. A well-known kind is that for

which the Code uses the designation of nomen nudum, the Greek-derived equivalent of

which is gymnonym (from the Greek gymnos, “naked”): according to the Glossary of

the Code (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 111), it is a nomen first published without fulfilling the

requirements of Articles 12 (if published before 1931) or 13 (if published after 1930).

But other kinds of anoplonyms do exist, although they are less often encountered, e.g. a

nomen: (1) first published as a junior synonym (a) either after 1960, or (b) before 1961

but not having been treated as an available nomen before that year (Article 11.6); or (2)

published anonymously after 1950 (Article 14); or (3) proposed conditionally or as the

nomen of a “variety” after 1960 (Article 15); or (4) published after 1999 without being

explicitly indicated as intentionally new or without some other pieces of information

(Article 16).

Among hoplonyms, the distinction must be made between valid and invalid

nomina. Validity of a nomen may depend on both nomenclatural and taxonomic

conditions. A nomen may be rendered permanently invalid for being an objective junior

synonym or homonym of another nomen, or for having been invalidated by ICZN or by

special rules of the Code (see above). It may also become conditionally invalid for

being a subjective junior synonym or a secondary junior homonym of another nomen: in

these cases, its status is liable to change if taxonomy changes.

DUBOIS

I propose to call a valid nomen a kyronym (from the Greek kyrios, “proper,

correct”), and an invalid nomen an akyronym (from the Greek akyros, “improper,

incorrect”). Two subcategories can be recognized among akyronyms: a permanent

akyronym or exoplonym (from the Greek exoplos, “disarmed”) is permanently invalid

(e.g. in the cases of junior objective synonyms or primary homonyms, of total or partial

invalidation of a nomen by ICZN, or of junior secondary homonyms replaced before

1961 and made permanently invalid by Article 59.3 of the Code); a conditional

akyronym or hypnonym (from the Greek hypnos, “sleep”) is liable to be reinstated if

taxonomy changes, e.g. if a subjective synonymy is rejected (e.g. in the cases of junior

subjective synonyms and secondary homonyms, of juniorization of subjective

synonyms by ICZN, or of family-series nomina rejected by virtue of Article 40.2 of the

Code for being based on generic nomina considered as junior synonyms).

Anoplonyms, i.e. nomina which are not nomenclaturally available, have no

author, date and onomatophore in the sense of the Code, and do not compete for

synonymy or homonymy. In many cases, a nomen first published as an anoplonym was

later used as a valid nomen by the same or another author (this is in particular often the

case with gymnonyms); in some other cases, this nomen was never used by subsequent

authors and never obtained a status in nomenclature. Anoplonyms are therefore quite

special chresonyms, which have no proper author in the sense of the Code but do not

derive from valid original nomina as do “normal” subsequent spellings (see below) and

chresonyms. In lists of nomina and nomen uses, they should therefore be clearly

distinguished from other kinds of nomina.

An akyronym, on the other hand, was made available in zoological nomenclature

like any hoplonym, it has an author, a date and an onomatophore, but, having been

invalidated for being a junior synonym or homonym, or because of some articles of the

Code, or by ICZN, it cannot be used as the valid nomen of a taxon.

CHANGES IN SPELLING, RANK AND ONYMORPH

Any given nomen may exist in the taxonomic literature under different

morphonyms (which may sometimes be quite numerous). The original hoplonym as

published in the original publication, with its original spelling, rank, and, if relevant,

onymorph, has until now received no special technical designation. I am therefore led to

propose the new term protonym (from the Greek protos, “first”), to designate the

original morphonym of a nomen in the original publication where it was first made

nomenclaturally available. Genuine synonymies should only list protonyms, as these are

the nomina to which the author, date and onomatophore are attached.

52 Dumerilia

On the other hand, I propose the new term aponym (from the Greek apo,

“coming from”) to designate any morphonym resulting from a subsequent change,

either justified or unjustified, introduced in a protonym after the original publication.

Such changes may concern only spelling (following mandatory change, justified

emendation, incorrect subsequent spelling), only onymorph (following new generic

allocation, raising of subspecies to species rank, downgrading of species to subspecies

rank, change in subgeneric status, taxonomic recognition of aggregates of species or

subspecies, etc.), or both (e.g., mandatory change of ending of epithet following new

generic allocation), or even simply the rank of the nomen without spelling change (e.g.,

when a generic nomen is downgraded to subgeneric rank, or when a family-series

nomen is used with the same suffix as in a previous work but for a taxon of different

rank). The concept of aponym is akin to but wider than those of nomen translatum and

of nomen correctum sometimes found in zoology or paleontology. Thus, in the Treatise

on Invertebrate Paleontology, the formula nomen translatum is used for nomina of the

family-series and of the class-series (as defined here) that have had a change of rank in

the taxonomic hierarchy, whether or not this change of rank was followed by a change

in spelling (see e.g. KAESLER, 1997: xi, xiv), and the formula nomen correctum is used

to designate family-series or class-series nomina whose spelling had to be modified

either in its stem or in its ending (see e.g. KAESLER, 1997: xi-xii, xiv). The concept of

aponym is a combination and extension of these two concepts, as it applies to nomina of

all nominal-series and to all kinds of changes (in spelling, onymorph and/or rank),

whether justified or unjustified. At this stage, I do not think it useful to distinguish all

these various kinds of changes by different terms.

Among the various kinds of changes that can affect nomina, changes of spelling

deserve particular attention. After the original publication of a nomen, the latter may be

used in subsequent works either under a spelling identical to the original one, or under

different spellings. These subsequent spellings may be referred to several categories,

which are sometimes difficult to distinguish (for more details, see DUBOIS, 1987c: 31-

48). Only some of them are aponyms of the original nomen, while others represent new

nomina. Thus, a new replacement nomen (nomen novum), in the precise sense given to

this term in the Code, is available in nomenclature with its own author and date, and is

therefore a protonym. The same is true of an unjustified emendation, which is but a

particular case of new replacement nomen, but not of a justified emendation, which is a

mere aponym of the original nomen. For more clarity, I propose the general term

neonym (from the Greek neos, “new”) to designate collectively all new replacement

nomina. Two subcategories can be recognized among neonyms: an autoneonym (from

the Greek autos, “same”) is a neonym directly derived from a protonym through

unjustified emendation, whereas an alloneonym (from the Greek allos, “other”) is a

brand new nomen, not directly derived from a protonym. As I have already stressed

(DUBOIS, 1985, 1987c), in some cases allocation of a nomen to one of these two

subcategories may be difficult, if not arbitrary. A neonym has its own author and date,

DUBOIS

but, by definition, its onomatophore is the same as that of the replaced nomen and it

denotes the same taxomen as the latter (see DUBOIS, 2000b).

The concept of protonym is distinct from that of basionym used in the botanical

code (GREUTER et al., 1994). The basionym is the correct spelling (in the precise

onymological sense of this term) of the original hoplonym, while the protonym is the

original spelling, rank and onymorph of the latter. In many cases, the original spelling is

correct, so that the basionym is also the protonym, but in the cases where the nomen as

published in the original publication is incorrect under our current Code, the basionym

will correspond to one of the aponyms of the hoplonym. Thus, for example, the

amphibian familial nomen Ranae published by GOLDFUSS (1820) is incorrect under our

current rules, but it remains nevertheless the protonym of the familial nomen Ranidae

currently in use. As understood here, the concept of aponym applies to all changes in

spelling, even very slight, e.g. bearing on a single letter or considered by the current

Code (Article 58) as “variant spellings deemed to be identical”. However, in agreement

with the botanical code (GREUTER et al., 1994: 73), the use of an initial capital or small

letter is not here considered a different spelling, this being a matter of typography, not

of orthography1.

Altogether, the protonym and its aponyms (and sometimes also its anoplonyms)

constitute the set of morphonyms that have been used, at a given time, for a given

nomen. Only the protonym has an author in the sense of the Code, whereas aponyms

and anoplonyms can only be ascribed first-users. I propose to designate collectively all

these related forms as paronyms (from the Greek para, “beside”). The term paronym

exists in common language, where it can be defined as “a word cognate with another”

(THOMPSON, 1995: 994), and “cognate” as “related to or descended from a common

ancestor” (THOMPSON, 1995: 256), which corresponds to the use here proposed for the

term, but other meanings of the latter can also sometimes be found. The use of this term

here proposed is a technical, restricted meaning for the purpose of zoological

nomenclature, a situation similar to that found for many other terms used in science in a

special sense, just like synonym and homonym in zoological nomenclature.

CORRECTNESS AND CURRENT USE OF MORPHONYMS

Both protonyms and aponyms can be either correct or incorrect according to the

Code, and they can be in current use or unused in zoological nomenclature according to

the taxonomy followed by authors.

1 Nevertheless, as outlined by Annemarie OHLER (personal communication), for a

German reader, usage of capital or small letter is also a question of orthography, not

only a question of typography.

54 Dumerilia

Correctness of a morphonym depends only on nomenclatural rules. Any nomen

may have been used in zoological nomenclature under different spellings, onymorphs or

ranks, some correct and others incorrect according to the rules. Anyhow, among all

these variants, only one may be the correct one for a given taxon in a given taxonomy.

Any given spelling, for example, cannot be stated to be “correct” by itself, it can be so

only under a given taxonomy: e.g., an epithet’s spelling may have to be changed if the

epithet moves from a genus whose nomen is masculine to a feminine one, or the

spelling of a family nomen will have to change if this taxon is downgraded to subfamily

rank, etc. Therefore, for a given taxon, there is only one “correct” nomen, which may be

either the protonym or one of the aponyms of the kyronym. An incorrect original or

subsequent spelling, the use of a wrong grammatical gender for a species-series epithet,

the use of a binomen or trinomen including an akyronym (e.g., a specific binomen

whose generic substantive is invalid), or the subsequent use of an infrasubspecific rank

for an epithet first validly published as of species or subspecies rank, are to be

considered incorrect morphonyms. I propose the term eunym (from the Greek eu, “well,

easily”) for any correct morphonym of a nomen, and the term nothonym (from the

Greek nothos, “wrong, illegitimate”) for any incorrect morphonym of a nomen.

Incorrect subsequent spellings are quite different from unjustified emendations

(autoneonyms as defined above). The distinction is based on the intentionality of their

proposal. Incorrect spellings may be original (including any spelling rejected by the

first-reviser in case of multiple original spellings) or subsequent. Incorrect spellings are

morphonyms that were introduced by inadvertence either by an author, or by an editor

or a publisher (see examples in Article 32 of the Code). Quite unlike neonyms, they

have no nomenclatural status and cannot be used to designate taxa: according to the

Code, whenever necessary, any such spelling must be replaced by the correct spelling of

the same nomen. I propose to designate such morphonyms under the term ameletonym

(from the Greek ameles, “inattentive, careless”). In contrast, any spelling, either original

or subsequent, proposed intentionally by an author (i.e., a correct original spelling, a

justified or unjustified emendation, or a mandatory change), may be known as a

meletonym (from the Greek melete, “attention, care”).

Current use of a morphonym may depend on both nomenclatural and taxonomic

factors. A nomen may be available and valid, and its morphonym may be correct, but

the nomen may nevertheless not be used under a given taxonomy. This is the case for

example of a trinomen designating the nominotypical subspecies of a species, whenever

the species is considered by taxonomists to be monotypic; or of a family-series

morphonym ending by an unusual suffix, such as -ina or -oidae, if it is used to designate

e.g. a family or a tribe (but the same suffix may be used in some cases to designate

other family-series taxa, if additional categories are recognized above or below the rank

family: see e.g. BOUR & DUBOIS, 1985, 1986). To designate any eunym currently in use

in zoological taxonomy, I propose the term ergonym (from the Greek ergon, “work,

DUBOIS

action”), and for any eunym currently unused in zoological taxonomy the term

argionym (from the Greek argia, “idleness, inaction”).

To sum up, a morphonym in use in zoological taxonomy must be altogether a

hoplonym, a kyronym, an eunym and an ergonym. All other morphonyms are never to

be used in zoological publications to designate a taxon, a fact to which authors and

editors should pay attention.

KINDS OF SYNONYMS AND HOMONYMS

Proposing still new terms for some of the concepts covered by the terms

synonym (from the Greek syn, “with, together”) and homonym (from the Greek homos,

“same, similar”) might appear useless and arrogant, as these concepts have been used

for a long time and would not seem to be liable to raise problems, being well-known by

all zoologists. Unfortunately, this is not true. Both these terms are used in two, and

actually two really different, senses. As mentioned above, the current Code recognizes

two kinds of synonyms, objective synonyms (nomenclatural synonyms in botany) and

subjective synonyms (taxonomic synonyms in botany), and several kinds of homonyms,

including “simple homonyms” in the family-series and in the genus-series, and primary

homonyms and secondary homonyms in the species-series. Despite the long existence of

these concepts and of the formulae used to designate them, and their being clearly

defined in all editions of the Code, these four concepts are not fully understood or

mastered by all zoologists, as will be shown by two recent examples in frog taxonomy.

LYNCH (1996) recently pointed to three cases of homonymy between the

following frog species-series nomina, all currently referred to the genus

Eleutherodactylus: (1) Lithodytes gaigei Dunn, 1931 and Syrrhopus gaigeae Schmidt &

Smith, 1944; (2) Syrhhopus nebulosus Taylor, 1943 and Eleutherodactylus nebulosus

Henle, 1992; (3) Tomodactylus petersi Duellman, 1954 and Eleutherodactylus

petersorum Lynch, 1991 (new replacement nomen for Eleutherodactylus petersi Lynch

& Duellman, 1980). Let us first note that two of these three cases are not genuine cases

of homonymy. Both under the third (ANONYMOUS, 1985) and the fourth (ANONYMOUS,

1999) editions of the Code, gaigei and gaigeae are not homonyms, nor are petersi and

petersorum. LYNCH (1996) stated that the Code (Article 58) considered such spellings

as homonyms because they were variants “of the same origin and meaning”, but what

Article 58 says is different. Of course, not all nomina of the same origin and spelling are

to be considered homonyms, because then homonymy would have a very wide

application (e.g., between chinensis, sinensis and sinicus, montana and monticola, or

vitianus and vitiensis), which would lead to many invalidations of nomina in zoology. In

its last edition (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 61), the Code rightly recommands not to introduce

such similar nomina in zoological nomenclature, but this is only a recommendation, not

56 Dumerilia

a rule. According to the Code, homonymy is established between nomina that are not

only “of the same origin and meaning” (ANONYMOUS, 1985) or “of the same derivation

and meaning” (ANONYMOUS, 1999), but also “that differ in spelling only in any of the

following respects” (ANONYMOUS, 1985, 1999). This is followed by a closed list of

cases of variant spellings of species-series nomina deemed to be identical, that include

e.g. use of -i versus -ii, or of -ae versus -iae, or of -orum versus -iorum, but not between

these different possibilities: thus, -i and -ae or -i and -orum are not deemed identical, so

that the two cases (1) and (3) above are not cases of homonymy and the two nomina

erroneously replaced by LYNCH (1996) in these two cases should be reinstated as valid

nomina. But this paper contains another striking mistake. The three cases above, if they

were genuine cases of homonymy, would clearly be cases of secondary homonymy.

However, LYNCH (1996) considered so only the cases (1) and (3), but the case (2) to be

one of primary homonymy. Had this latter statement been written only once in the

paper, it might be considered a misprint, but it appears on two occasions, at the bottoms

of both p. 278 and p. 279. One is then forced to admit that, in this paper, LYNCH was

using his own concepts of primary and secondary homonymies, different from those of

the Code, and which are difficult to understand. This example is all the more striking as

it was published in a major international journal, by an excellent taxonomist, and with

the advice of several other experienced authors (mentioned in the acknowledgments):

this suggests that misunderstandings around the meaning of these terms are more

widespread among zoologists than one would at first be prepared to believe.

This interpretation is supported by the second example, which also concerns a

paper (DUELLMAN & WIENS, 1993) co-authored by one the best frog taxonomists of our

times. This example was discussed in more details elsewhere (DUBOIS & OHLER, 1997a:

307) and won’t be so again here: it involved in particular the creation of the strange

category of “junior objective homonym”, clearly a lumping between “junior primary

homonym” and “junior objective synonym”.

These examples suggest that the concepts mentioned above, and their current

denominations by double terms, are currently not well mastered by all taxonomists.

Once again, I repeat my conviction that the absence in zoonymology of technical terms

and the use of seemingly simple, trivial terms, is a factor of misunderstanding of the

concepts denoted by these terms. My opinion is that the use for these onymological

concepts of precise technical terms, even if, or even rather because, they may be

disheartening for the layman, would contribute to a better understanding and more

proper use of these concepts by taxonomists.

In both cases, the same term may be used both for a purely onymological

concept and for a concept that straddles taxonomy and nomenclature. I considered the

possibility of showing this similarity by using the same roots for the two categories in

both cases, but I finally refrained from doing so in order to avoid offering a new

possible cause of semantic confusion.

DUBOIS

The concept of objective synonymy is a purely onymological one, that has

nothing to do with taxonomy. Two nomina are objective synonyms simply if they have

the same onomatophore, a fact that is irreversible and is not liable to change according

to one’s opinion. On the other hand, the concept of subjective synonymy relies on a

taxonomic judgement: two nomina are subjective synonyms if, within the frame of a

given taxonomy, their onomatophores are considered to belong in the same taxon. A

subjective synonymy is therefore not irreversible: it is liable to disappear if taxonomy

changes. In order to stress this difference between these two kinds of synonyms, I

propose the term of isonym (from the Greek isos, “equal”) for the concept of objective

synonym, and the term of doxisonym (from isonym and from the Greek doxa, “opinion”)

for the concept of subjective synonym.

The situation is rather similar, although a bit more complicated, for the different

kinds of homonymies. The Code provides different definitions of homonymy in the

three nominal-series. According to its Glossary (ANONYMOUS, 1999: 105-106), two

nomina are homonyms: (1) in the family-series, if they have exactly the same spelling,

or spellings that differ only in suffix: in other words, and more briefly, if they have

exactly the same stem; (2) in the genus-series, only if they have exactly the same

spelling; (3) in the species-series, if their epithets are exactly identical or “deemed to be

identical” under Article 58 of the Code, either originally (primary homonyms) or after a

change of generic allocation (secondary homonyms). Despite this apparent complexity,

all these cases can be referred to two major categories: (1) that of homonyms which

remain so whatever the taxonomy is; (2) that of homonyms which are liable to change if

the taxonomy changes. Just like in the case of synonymy, the first siuation corresponds

to a purely onymological concept. It occurs in all cases of homonymy in the family-

series and genus-series (“simple homonymy”), and in all cases of primary homonymy in

the species-series: both simple homonymy and primary homonymy are irreversible and

cannot change with the evolution of taxonomy. The concept of secondary homonymy,

on the other hand, that only applies to nomina of the species-series, has something to do

with taxonomy, not only with onymology. It designates the situation where identical

epithets, or epithets “deemed to be identical” under Article 58 of the Code, and that had

been originally published in combination with different generic nomina, are now

considered to apply to congeneric taxa. A secondary homonymy is therefore not

irreversible: it may disappear if taxonomy changes. Here also, in order to stress this

difference between these two major kinds of homonyms, I propose two new terms:

hadromonym (from homonym and from the Greek hadros, “robust”) for both the

onymological concepts of “simple homonym” and of primary homonym, and

asthenomonym (from homonym and from the Greek asthenes, “weak”) for the concept

of secondary homonym.

58 Dumerilia

KINDS OF LISTS OF NOMINA AND REFERENCES

According to these proposals, a so-called “synonymy” in the traditional sense is

a list of synonyms, i.e. of different nomina referring, either for onymological (isonyms)

or for taxonomic (doxisonyms) reasons, to the same zoological taxon, to which can also

be added a number of references to the use of these nomina. Any such list can be

referred to one of the three following kinds of lists of nomina and references:

(1) a synonymy sensu stricto, i.e. a list of nomina and references including only

protonyms with their authors and dates (and sometimes anoplonyms with their first-

users);

(2) a synonymy and aponymy, or, more shortly, a paronymy (from paronym as

defined above), i.e. a list of nomina and references including protonyms with their

authors ans dates and their aponyms (and sometimes their anoplonyms) with their first-

users and dates;

(3) a synonymy, aponymy and chresonymy, or, more concisely, a holonymy (from

the Greek olos, “complete”), i.e. a list of nomina and references including protonyms,

aponyms and chresonyms (and sometimes anoplonyms).

In all these three categories, the lists can be either complete or partial, according

to whether all synonyms, aponyms, chresonyms and/or anoplonyms are listed, or not.

A further clarification may be useful, concerning the term chresonym.

Recognition of the new categories of anoplonym (for a published but nomenclaturally

unavailable nomen) and of aponym (for the first-use of any new morphonym of an

already available nomen) restricts the category chresonym to all subsequent uses of a

given morphonym. Still then, however, this category remains heterogeneous. As already

mentioned above, nomina of chresonyms that appear in a holonymy may either be

nomina that stand also in this list under their protonyms, or not. In other words, the

chresonymy of a taxon’s nomen may include, beside citations of the valid nomen of the

taxon and of its synonyms, citations of nomina that have been used in the past by

mistake by some authors to designate this taxon, but which are now considered to apply

to another taxon. In such holonymies, these improper uses of the nomen are often

pointed out by use, just after the cited nomen and before the reference, of the Latin

words nec or non, followed by the author and date of the protonym of this cited nomen,

in order to make clear why this latter protonym does not appear in this holonymy. These

two kinds of chresonymies should be distinguished. For the first kind of chresonymy,

justified or correct chresonymy (the nomen used for the taxon being either its valid one

or that of one of its current synonyms), I propose the term orthochresonymy (from the

Greek orthos, “right, correct”). For the second kind of chresonymy, that of unjustified

DUBOIS

or incorrect chresonymy (the nomen used for the taxon referring in fact to another

taxon), I propose the term heterochresonymy (from the Greek eteros, “other, different”).

Finally, in order to be able to designate all kinds of nomina and nomen-use lists

(synonymies, paronymies, chresonymies and holonymies) under a single term (whose

use is exemplified in the appendices of this paper), I propose the term logonymy (from

the Greek logos, “speech”).

The usefulness of these terms and categories, for a precise designation of the

different kinds of lists usually known as “synonymies” and of nomina and nomen uses

that appear in such lists under the general term of “synonyms”, will be made clearer by

the study of some examples and by precise proposals for the typographical presentation

of such lists in order to make them “self-evident” regarding the information they

provide: this is given below in app. 1-3.

CONCLUSION

Standardization of the presentation of logonymies, through adoption of the

suggestions above, or of other similar but better standards, by all zoologists, zoological

publications and data-bases, would be a good way to increase the efficiency of these

lists for information storage and retrieval in taxonomy and to improve communication

of animal taxonomists between themselves and with other members of the scientific

community. Ultimately, it might be useful to incorporate some at least of these

suggestions as “recommendations” both in the Code, in the Instructions for Authors of

zoological journals, and in the definition of fields and attributes in zoological data-

bases.

60 Dumerilia

APPENDIX 1

SOME EXAMPLES OF LOGONYMIES

A list of examples of different kinds of logonymies (all taken from publications dealing with

Amphibia) will make clearer the distinction made above between different categories of nomina and

nomen uses. In the examples below, a logonymy is recorded as “complete” if it was intended to be so by

the author of the publication, although often, despite this intention of completeness, it proved later to be

incomplete; in other cases however, the author clearly stated that he/she only planned to provide a partial

(e.g., selected on the basis of a geographical, or other, criterion) list. The examples below are not meant at

giving a complete survey of all important revision works on the taxonomy of amphibians, but rather at

illustrating the various situations that can be encountered in works of widely different periods.

Particularly interesting is the fact that several of the authors cited more than twice below changed their

way of working during time, and published different kinds of logonymies in their different works. A

careful examination is therefore necessary to know what kinds of logonymies actually appear in a given

publication.

(1) Complete synonymies (but no apo-chresonymies):

(a) for nomina of family-series and genus-series taxa alone: DUBOIS (1992);

(b) for nomina of family-series taxa alone: DUBOIS (1983);

(1974); DUBOIS & OHLER (1995a);

(d) for nomina of species-series taxa alone: BARBOUR & LOVERIDGE (1928); PERRET (1966);

HEYER (1973, 1978, 1979); LYNCH (1980, 1981); LYNCH & MYERS (1983); ZHAO & ADLER (1993);

GLAW & VENCES (1994: 411-424).

(2) Complete paronymies (but no chresonymies):

(a) for nomina of family-series and genus-series taxa alone: LYNCH (1971); DUBOIS (1981);

(b) for nomina of family-series taxa alone: DUBOIS (1984a);

(d) for nomina of species-series taxa alone: FATIO (1872); DUELLMAN (1961), LYNCH &

DUELLMAN (1973); LYNCH (1975); HARDING (1983); HEYER (1983, 1994); DUBOIS (1984b); HEYER et al.

(1990); DUELLMAN & CAMPBELL (1992).

(3) Complete holonymies:

(a) for nomina of taxa of all 4 nominal-series: BOULENGER (1882); COPE (1889); NIEDEN (1923);

AHL (1931); PARKER (1934);

(b) for nomina of class-series, genus-series and species-series taxa (but not for taxa of the

family-series): STEJNEGER (1907);

DUBOIS

(d) for nomina of genus-series and species-series taxa alone: KELLOGG (1932); SILVERSTONE

(1975, 1976); BLOMMERS-SCHLÖSSER & BLANC (1991);

(e) for nomina of species-series taxa alone: GÜNTHER (1864); CAMERANO (1884); BOULENGER

(1890, 1897, 1898, 1912, 1920a-b); SCHMIDT (1919, 1923, 1924); COCHRAN (1941, 1955); BOURRET

(1942); INGER (1954); KIRTISINGHE (1957); CEI (1962, 1980); COCHRAN & GOIN (1970); LAURENT

(1972, 1976, 1982, 1983); BERRY (1975); SCHIØTZ (1975); LESCURE (1976); LANZA (1981); DUELLMAN

& HOOGMOED (1984);

(f) for nomina of species-series taxa alone, with partial holonymies for nomina of genus-series

taxa: VAN KAMPEN (1923); POYNTON (1964); SCHIØTZ (1967);

(g) for nomina of species-series taxa alone, with complete paronymies for nomina of genus-

series taxa: OKADA (1966).

(4) Partial holonymies (complete paronymies with partial chresonymies):

(a) for nomina of genus-series and species-series taxa alone: DUELLMAN (1970, 1977); POYNTON

& BROADLEY (1985a-b, 1987, 1988);

(b) for nomina of species-series taxa alone: STEJNEGER & BARBOUR (1923); LIU (1950);

SCHMIDT & INGER (1959): MERTENS & WERMUTH (1960); LIU & HU (1961); GORHAM (1966); INGER

(1966); THORN (1969); HEYER (1970); DUBOIS (1974); LYNCH & DUELLMAN (1980); LYNCH & RUIZ-

CARRANZA (1985).

All the works just mentioned were chosen because they demonstrate a consistent choice of the

information to be included in “synonymies”, even if in some cases the latter are not strict synonymies in

the sense of the Code. Unfortunately however, still nowadays, some authors use the term “synonymy” in

a completely loose sense, i.e. as a partial list of nomina of references for the choice of which no clear

rationale can be found: a recent striking example is GASC et al.’s (1997) volume, where most lists of so-

called “main synonyms” (provided for each species) include an unpredictable mixture of partial

synonymy, partial aponymy and sometimes partial chresonymy, and are therefore unsatisfying both for

nomenclatural and bibliographic purposes (see DUBOIS, 1998a).

62 Dumerilia

APPENDIX 2

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTATION OF LOGONYMIES

GENERAL SUGGESTIONS

A slight improvement of the traditional presentation of logonymies at the head of taxonomic

accounts could allow to make such lists more useful to the community of zoologists. The presentation

should allow, by simple inspection of these lists, knowledge of the status of nomina, authors’ names and

dates. Some unformulated rules are often used “spontaneously” by various authors and editors for this

purpose, and I am just proposing below to formalize them more strictly and precisely.

Information on the status of nomina and references can be provided, in the heading of the

logonymy, by the use of brackets enclosing the nomenclatural author’s and some first-users’ names, with

the dates of the publications concerned, and, in the list itself: (1) by the order of presentation of nomina

and references in the list; (2) by the indentation of lines; (3) by the use of quotation marks enclosing the

nomen; (4) by the use of standard signs between the nomen and the name of the author of the reference;

and (5) by typographical conventions in the printing of the latter name. More details are given on all these

matters below.

A general suggestion regarding the format of such publications is that they should preferably use

full-page width, rather than the two-column format. The latter tends to be more and more used in

zoological journals, presumably both to save costs and to facilitate reading over long lines, but it is

particularly ill-adapted for the presentation of logonymies, especially if different kinds of indentation of

lines are used, as suggested here. To reduce problems in the reading of long lines, the size of the page

should not be too large: printed lines from 12 to 14 cm wide would appear to be a good format for

taxonomic publications.

Publications using the two-column format and/or printing all authors’ names with the same

characters (see below) could also follow the present suggestions. Their publishers would just have to

decide to apply a particular format to logonymies, centering the heading of the taxonomic account in the

middle of the page (as is often done for chapter or subchapter headings in such publications), then

presenting the logonymy over the whole width of the page, then reverting to the two-column format for

the rest of the taxonomic account. Furthermore, within logonymies, they could decide to modify their

usual typographical presentation of authors’ names, in order to be able to use the conventions presented

below to distinguish nomenclatural authors of nomina from subsequent users of these nomina.

AUTHORS’ NAMES

As a matter of fact, a puzzling problem for all editors of zoological journals is to show, by the

way they are printed, the difference between the name of the author of a nomen (followed by the date of

the latter), and the name of the author of a quoted reference (followed by the date of the latter). This

problem is solved in a peculiar way in publications that do not quote the names of authors of references in

the text, but only refer to these references by numbers, usually printed in parentheses or between square

brackets: in such cases, the only authors’ names that appear in the text are those of nomenclatural authors

of nomina. But the problem is a real one for all other publications.

Some books or periodicals use printing conventions to make a distinction between both kinds of

names by printing names of nomenclatural authors of nomina in lower-case letters and names of authors

of references cited in the text in small capitals. However, no such conventions can be used in publications

where both kinds of names are printed with the same characters (either lower-case letters or small

capitals). For this reason, it may be useful to suggest that publications which tend to often publish

DUBOIS

taxonomic works, revisions, checklists and catalogues (such as many museum publications) should adopt

a printing format with different letters for the two kinds of names.

An alternative suggestion would be more drastic but perhaps much clearer, in the long run, for

all zoologists: it would be to explore the possibility to quote the names of authors of nomina in a

particular way, that could be recognized immediately in all publications, whatever their printing

conventions. In this respect, the Code does not give very precise recommendations. It only states (Article

51.2) that “the name of an author follows the name of the taxon without any intervening mark of

punctuation, except in changed combinations”. This leaves ground for a number of possibilities.

Furthermore, a clear weakness of the Code’s recommendation is that it recognizes the practice of citing

the taxon’s author’s name without the date, which, as reminded in the text above, is a practice that should

be discouraged, the major purpose of citing this name being to facilitate bibliographic research of the

original description (see NG, 1994).

The use of a particular typography for nomina of the species-series and of the genus-series is

already a quite universal practice in zoological nomenclature: in almost all publications (except a few

amateur or divulgation books), these nomina are written in italics. Why not consider also a universal

convention for printing the author’s names and the dates of nomina, and allow to distinguish them from

normal bibliographic references? If such a convention was adopted by all zoologists, then the nominal-

complex, defined in the text above as the indissociable complex [nomen + author + date], would appear

more clearly than it does now as a single set of information, not liable to be confused with a reference’s

citation.

Several alternative suggestions can be made in this respect. I am providing below a non-

restrictive list of such suggestions. Each of them will be illustrated showing the resulting way of writing

two early frog nominal-complexes, chosen in order to well point to the problems posed by such situations

as multiple authorship or change of generic allocation of a species: a simple case is the nomen Rana

temporaria, proposed by LINNAEUS (1758) and maintained in the genus Rana Linnaeus, 1758; a more

complex case is the nomen first proposed by LICHTENSTEIN et al. (1856) as Ixalus leucorhinus for a

species then allocated to the genus Ixalus Duméril & Bibron, 1841, but currently placed in the genus

Philautus Gistel, 1848 (e.g., DUTTA, 1997: 82).

(1) The most common way of writing these two nominal-complexes is: Rana temporaria

Linnaeus, 1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens, 1856). This use has

at least two drawbacks. (a) As mentioned above, this mode of writing, especially in the second example,

is clearly different from a normal quotation of a reference only in the case of journals that use different

characters for nomina’s authors and dates and for references’ authors and dates. (b) Two interpretations

can be given of the role and meaning of the comma that appears just before the date in this writing: either

it is understood as equivalent to “opening a parenthesis” to include the date, or just as a separation

between the author’s name and the date, but remaining internal to the nominal-complex. There is no

difference between both interpretations when the nominal-complex occurs alone (e.g., in a title) or at the

end of a sentence. But when it appears at the beginning or middle of a sentence, under the first

interpretation it will always have to be followed by a comma (to “close the parenthesis”), while under the

second interpretation it will have to be followed by a comma only in certain cases, but not in others,

according to the meaning and grammar of the sentence (see e.g. DUBOIS, 1997a). This difference of

interpretation is sometimes a matter of disagreement, if not dispute, between the author of a paper and the

editor of a journal where this paper is being published.

(2) Some publications already use another convention, suppressing the comma after the author’s

name: Rana temporaria Linnaeus 1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von

Martens 1856). This writing is acceptable under the current Code. It allows to suppress the second

problem mentioned in (1), namely the differences of interpretation of the meaning of the comma, but

usually not the first one, because often the same publications also do not include a comma after the

64 Dumerilia

author’s name when citing a reference. However, using a comma in the latter case but not in nominal-

complexes might be a way to point out the difference between the two situations by simple editorial

conventions.

(3) Another suggestion (Philippe BOUCHET, personal communication) would be to use a different

character set to print the names of authors of nomina, e.g., in a text in Times, to use Courier for authors’

names and publication dates: Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758 and Philautus leucorhinus

(Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens, 1856); or Rana temporaria Linnaeus 1758 and

Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens 1856). However, such a

suggestion cannot claim universality, as different publications use widely different character sets.

(4) Beside italics and small capitals, the only other character set that has almost general

universality in all publications is that of bold characters, whose use could also be considered in this

context: Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von

Martens, 1856); or Rana temporaria Linnaeus 1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein,

Weinland & Von Martens 1856). This suggestion could claim universality, but it has a drawback: as the

bold characters are often used to highlight a portion of a text, this might give an excessive weight or

importance to the name of the author of the nomen, to the detriment of the latter. As underlined by NG

(1994), what is important in quoting the author’s name is not a celebration of this person, but an aid for

bibliographic research. A reverse use, with bold characters for the nomen and italics for the author’s name

and date, might be much better, but for this the universal use of italics for nomina would have to be

changed, which seems neither feasible nor desirable.

(5) Another way of finding a universal representation of nominal-complexes would be to use a

sign other than the comma between the author’s name and the date. Several widely used signs, used by all

printers and publishers, could be considered in this respect, including the hyphen, the colon, the dash, the

star or the arobas. The results would be as follows: Rana temporaria Linnaeus–1758 and Philautus

leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens–1856); Rana temporaria Linnaeus:1758 and

Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens:1856); Rana temporaria Linnaeus/1758

and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens/1856); Rana temporaria

Linnaeus*1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens*1856); Rana

temporaria Linnaeus@1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens@1856).

Other signs could also be considered for the same purpose. No confusion with normal references would

remain possible, and such a system, once agreed upon by zoologists, could rather quickly gain

universality in zoological publications.

(6) NG’s (1994) comments can also be the basis for more drastic suggestions. As well argued by

this author, the function of citing the author and date of a nomen is to help for a quick finding of the

original description. Usually the easiest way to achieve this is to survey the Zoological Record or some

other comprehensive bibliographic data-base. Such a research is hierarchised, i.e. it starts with the year

and then goes to the author’s name or to the nomen. Thus, the year somehow appears a more important

information than the author’s name. One could consider inverting the order of these two pieces of

information, as follows: Rana temporaria 1758, Linnaeus and Philautus leucorhinus (1856, Lichtenstein,

Weinland & Von Martens). This could also be combined with some of the other suggestions above, e.g.:

Rana temporaria 1758 Linnaeus and Philautus leucorhinus (1856 Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von

Martens); Rana temporaria 1758–Linnaeus and Philautus leucorhinus (1856–Lichtenstein, Weinland &

Von Martens); Rana temporaria 1758*Linnaeus and Philautus leucorhinus (1856*Lichtenstein,

Weinland & Von Martens); Rana temporaria 1758@Linnaeus and Philautus leucorhinus

(1856@Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens). At first, such modes of notation would no doubt seem

strange to all zoologists, but in the long run they might lead to a much clearer and non-ambiguous

communication in allowing immediate recognition of nominal-complexes and their distinction from the

rather common situation where a nomen alone (without its author and date) is cited, and immediately

followed by a reference to a publication.

DUBOIS

(7) Finally, an even more radical suggestion (Annemarie OHLER, personal communication) goes

even further in the same line of thought, in suggesting to simply withdraw the author’s name from the

nominal-complex: Rana temporaria 1758 and Philautus leucorhinus (1856). This would be greatly

justified, because once one knows the date of a nomen it is usually only a question of minutes to find it in

an appropriate source, such as the Zoological Record. Acceptance of this change would really mean that

taxonomists have become aware that easy tracing of a bibliographic reference is much more important

than knowing who is the author of a nomen. However, beside the fact that the minds are probably not

ready for such a revolutionary change, it would have some drawbacks, in particular of making the

bibliographic research slightly longer and probably more hazardous, especially in the (admittedly quite

rare) situation of two homonyms being published in the same year by two different authors (or the same

author). A way to prepare the minds to this suggestion would be to adopt solution (6), where the change

of order between author’s name and date would already be an important progress towards the

“desanctification” of authors in zoological taxonomy, a process that would do a great service to this

discipline.

I provided all these new suggestions in order to elicit some thoughts and comments from

colleagues, but for the time-being I am not supporting adoption of any of them (although some have my

preference). In this paper, I will keep using the usual way described in (1) above, which in the present

case is fully non-ambiguous as the journal where this paper is published uses lower-case letters for

nomenclatural author’s names and small capitals for authors of references cited in text. Regarding the two

possible interpretations of the role and meaning of the comma in this writing, in this paper like in my

other works I consider this just as an internal separation between the author’s name and the date,

remaining internal to the nominal-complex, which therefore does not have to be automatically “closed”

by another comma whenever the sentence continues after the nominal-complex.

HEADING OF LOGONYMY

On the occasion of its first publication, any species-series epithet is usually associated with a

given generic substantive. DUBOIS (1995: 64) proposed to call this the primary generic-combination: it

points to the association between a genus substantive and an epithet, irrespective of the latter being of

specific or of subspecific rank, and of a subgeneric substantive being or not interpolated between the

generic and specific nomina. If subsequently this epithet is transferred to another genus, this provides a

secondary generic-combination. Article 51.3 of the Code states that, in such a case, the name of the

original author of the epithet is to be enclosed in parentheses. Recommendation 51.G of the Code allows

the citation of the first-user’s name and date of the new combination, by adding them after the

parentheses enclosing the name of the author of the original epithet. Although such a use is rare in

zoology (except in some parasitological publications), it is a rule in botany (see GREUTER et al., 1994),

and it might become more common in zoology. Some authors (SMITH & SMITH, 1980: 9-10; DUBOIS,

1987a: 9-10) also made suggestions for facultative acknowledgement of the first-user of a new spelling

and/or rank in family-series nomina. SMITH & SMITH’s (1980) proposal extended to family-series nomina

recommendations parallel to those of Recommendation 51.G for species-series nomina: in case a family-

series nomen is now used with a spelling different from the original one (change of suffix), the name of

its original author (and the date) should be enclosed in parentheses, followed, off the parentheses, by the

name of the first-user of the current spelling (and the date of this first use); additional names and dates

can even be added in parentheses in case of change of rank or of family-series nomina based on

unjustified emendations of generic nomina (for more details, see: SMITH & SMITH, 1980; DUBOIS, 1987a).

A similar recommendation may be proposed in the species-series for new onymorphs other than new

combination (subspecies upgrading or species downgrading, taxonomic recognition of aggregates of

species or subspecies, etc.), or in the genus-series for new rank for subgenus (upgrading) or genus

(downgrading). However, Article 51.2 of the Code expressly states that the only case in which the

author’s name and date of a nomen should be enclosed in parentheses is the case of a change of

combination for a species-series nomen. For this reason, in all other cases it would seem better to follow

66 Dumerilia

DUBOIS’s (1987a) suggestion, according to which the only author’s name and date off the parentheses

should be those of the original nomen (author in the technical nomenclatural sense of the term), whereas

all other names and dates should be placed in parentheses. An additional distinction might be introduced

in using parentheses only to enclose the names of authors in cases of changed combinations (following

Article 51.3 of the Code), and in using square brackets in all other cases just described. This distinction is

followed below in the examples of app. 3. Adoption by zoologists of such proposals would simply be a

logical extension and generalization of the current Recommendation 51.G of the Code, and might be quite

useful for information retrieval.

In case of adoption of these suggestions, in the heading of the logonymy, the same typographical

conventions should be applied to the names of first-users mentioned after the nomen as to those of

nomenclatural authors (see above).

ORDER OF NOMINA

The first distinction between protonyms, aponyms, chresonyms and anoplonyms should be given

by the order of presentation of these nomina in the logonymy. Rather than listing all these nomina

together, simply presented chronologically, a hierarchical presentation should be used. Except when

preceded by anoplonyms, protonyms should be presented first, in chronological order of their publication.

Each protonym should be followed, if relevant, first by its chresonyms in chronological order, then by its

aponyms in chronological order of their first use, each aponym being in its turn followed by its

chresonyms in chronological order. Anoplonyms, when they exist, should be intercalated between

protonyms in the chronological order of their publication.

PROTONYMS

In order to further sort them without difficulty from all other kinds of nomina and nomen uses,

protonyms, i.e. the only genuine synonyms in the Code’s sense, should always be printed without

indentation, and immediately followed, without intercalation of any punctuation mark or other sign, by

the name, printed in lower-case letters, of their nomenclatural author and their publication date, then

possibly followed by other information (such as publication’s page, collection number of onomatophore,

geographical information on type-locality, collector, etc.).

Neonyms, which are but particular cases of protonyms, should also appear in a logonymy under

the same presentation. However, in order to point to their particular situation, I suggest to add, after the

author’s name and date, and between brackets, a descriptive mention such as “nomen substitutum for...”,

“unjustified emendation of...”, etc., or, more shortly and precisely, “alloneonym for...”, “autoneonym

for...”, etc.

Any logonymy contains only a single kyronym, but may contain several akyronyms. The latter

are also only special protonyms, that were invalidated subsequently to their original publication by use of

normal or exceptional rules of the Code or by a specific action of ICZN. In a logonymy, an akyronym

should also be presented as a protonym. In cases of invalidation of a nomen due to normal rules of the

Code (junior synonyms or homonyms), this should be sufficiently clear from the presentation of the

logonymy by chronological order of nomina, but in other, unusual, cases, that involve invalidation of a

senior nomen, the latter should be followed by a mention, between brackets, stating at least that it is an

akyronym, possibly followed by more detailed information, such as: “nomen partially invalidated by

ICZN for the purposes of priority but not for those of homonymy or typification”.

The suggestion to add some information between brackets after some nomina (neonyms and

akyronyms) is merely an extension to new situations of the current Recommendation 51.F of the Code

(see below).

DUBOIS

APONYMS

Each aponym should be presented with a simple indentation from the margin, and identified by

the use of a colon between the nomen and the name of the publication’s author; furthermore, in the case

of publications that allow this distinction, whereas the name of the author of the protonym is to be printed

in lower-case letters, the name of the first-user of an aponym should be printed in small capitals, being

just the author of a publication, not the nomenclatural author of a nomen.

A special recommendation may be in order here. As defined above, aponyms may differ from

their protonym in three respects (or a combination of them): change of spelling, of onymorph or of rank.

Whereas the first two cases are self-evident (the change can be seen in the nomen itself), it may not be the

case in the third one, at least in the genus-series and in the family-series. In such cases, the reason for

considering the new use as a new aponym should be indicated in clear, in full words, between brackets,

after the nomen. This suggestion is also an extension to new situations of Recommendation 51.F of the

Code (see below).

Let us take two examples of this rather rare situation. The first example concerns genus-series

nomina. FITZINGER (1843: 31) erected a subgenus Limnonectes of the frog genus Rana Linnaeus, 1758;

DUBOIS (1987a: 57, 60) raised Limnonectes to the rank of genus, with five subgenera, including of course

a nominotypical one. In a logonymy, these three different paronyms of this nomen should be written as

follows:

Limnonectes Fitzinger, 1843: 31 [subgenus of Rana Linnaeus, 1758].

Limnonectes [genus]: DUBOIS, 1987a: 57.

Limnonectes [subgenus of Limnonectes Fitzinger, 1843]: DUBOIS, 1987a: 60.

Four other similar cases are presented in app. 3 below under examples [7] to [10].

The second example deals with family-series nomina. GOLDFUSS (1820: xi) erected a family

Ranae. This nomen received a number of different spellings and ranks in the works of subsequent authors

(see DUBOIS, 1984a: 41, 1987c: 53). Among them, two spellings were given by different authors for

several different ranks each: the spelling Ranoidea was used by FITZINGER (1826: 37) for a taxon of

family rank and by BOLKAY (1919: 348) for a taxon probably of superfamily rank; the spelling Ranini

was used by BONAPARTE (1839: [225]) for a taxon of subfamily rank, by BRONN (1849: 684) for a taxon

probably of family rank and by DUBOIS (1981: 231) for a taxon of tribe rank. In both these cases, the

different ranks given to the same spelling are different aponyms, with different first-users. This

information should appear in a paronymy by writing each of these aponyms under a form such as:

Ranoidea [family]: FITZINGER, 1826.

More details are given in app. 3 below under example [5], which gives the complete paronymy

where these nomina appear.

CHRESONYMS

Each chresonym (either of a protonym or of an aponym) should be presented with a double

indentation from the margin, a hyphen being used instead of a colon before the name of the first

publication’s author; here also, in the case of publications that allow this distinction, the name of author

of the cited publications should be printed in small capitals. Whereas protonyms and aponyms refer to a

single bibliographic reference (as there is only one nomenclatural authorship and one first-usership for

each nomen), each chresonym may be followed by numerous bibliographic references.

68 Dumerilia

The presentation of orthochresonyms and heterochresonyms should also allow to distinguish

them. Orthochresonyms just follow the protonym or aponym which appears in the same holonymy, and

therefore need no further identification. On the other hand, any heterochresonym, when appearing in a

holonymy, is like a “stranger”, as its protonym, and usually also its aponym (but here there are some

exceptions) do not occur in this list. It is therefore justified to add between parentheses, after the nomen

of the heterochresonym, the term non, followed by the protonym from which it was derived (with its

nomenclatural author and date). This clearly indicates that the presence of this nomen in the holonymy is

due to a misidentification, but that the correct nomenclatural status of this nomen is different. This may be

further underlined by grouping all heterochresonyms at the end of the holonymy, and by preceding them

by the mention “Other chresonyms” without indentation, as was done by DAVID & VOGEL (1996) or

VENCES et al. (1999), or better by the mention “Heterochresonymy”.

ANOPLONYMS

An anoplonym may appear in a logonymy, and may even be the nomen starting the list, if it was

the first nomen ever given to the taxon. It is important to distinguish such nomina from true protonyms

having a status in nomenclature. Recommendation 51.F of the Code suggests the addition, after a

gymnonym and its “author” (actually its first-user) and date, of the mention nomen nudum in parentheses.

This suggestion could be expanded to other kinds of anoplonyms. Furthermore, for more clarity, I

propose to print such nomina between quotation marks, as I have done in previous works (e.g., DUBOIS,

1981; DUBOIS & OHLER, 1995a-b, 1997b, 1998) . Since an anoplonym does not have an author in the

sense of the Code, its nomen should be separated by a colon from the name of its first-user, which should

be printed in small capitals in journals that allow this distinction. On the other hand, as such nomina do

not derive from protonyms, they have their own independent status and they should not be indented from

the margin.

THE USE OF NEC AND NON

To continue clarification, I suggest to standardize the use of the terms nec (Latin for “and not”)

and non (Latin for “not”) in logonymies. These two terms are often used interchangeably in logonymies

to indicate that a nomen was used in a sense different from that it had in a previous publication. But this

use confounds two different situations. The first one is that of the creation of a new homonymous nomen,

with its own status in nomenclature, its author and date, and its onomatophore. The second one is that of

the simple use of an already existing nomen, but in an improper sense. In this second case, no new nomen

is created and the improper nomen has no independent nomenclatural existence. This latter fact has been

quite often misunderstood in the past by some taxonomists, who considered the user of such a

misidentification as the nomenclatural author of both a “new junior (primary) homonym” of one nomen

and a “new junior synonym” of another nomen: if they were true, i.e. if heterochresonyms had a status in

nomenclature, we would have to recognize the nomenclatural existence of “hundreds, thousands or even

millions” of such nomina (see DUBOIS & OHLER, 1997a: 306-307). In order to stress this difference in

logonymies, I suggest to use the term nec in the first case and the term non in the second case. An

example, chosen in the group of Amphibia (YE et al., 1993: 218-220; DUBOIS & OHLER, 1995a: 162-163,

167), will make this point clearer.

BOULENGER (1879) described a brown frog species under the nomen Rana japonica, and, three

years later (1882), a green frog subspecies under the nomen Rana esculenta var. japonica. According to

the Code (Article 57), the latter nomen has an independent status in nomenclature and is a junior

hadromonym of the former. Application of the proposals made above implies that, in a logonymy, these

nomina be written respectively Rana japonica Boulenger, 1879 [nec Rana esculenta var. japonica

Boulenger, 1882] and Rana esculenta var. japonica Boulenger, 1882 [nec Rana japonica Boulenger,

1879], as shown in examples [14-20] in app. 3 below.

DUBOIS

Several subsequent authors applied the nomen Rana japonica Boulenger, 1879 (VOGT, 1924:

339; CHANG & HSÜ, 1932: 151-153), or its derived onymorph Rana japonica japonica (LIU & HU, 1961:

177-181), to specimens from Sichuan (China), which were recently stated to represent a distinct species

Rana omeimontis Ye & Fei in YE et al. (1993: 218-220). Of course, none of the authors who reported

Rana japonica from Sichuan created a new speciesomen. Mentions of this nomen by these authors should

therefore be cited in a logonymy of Rana omeimontis as a heterochresonym of the latter, as follows:

Rana omeimontis Ye & Fei in YE et al., 1993: 218-220.

Rana japonica [non Rana japonica Boulenger, 1879]: VOGT, 1924: 339; CHANG & HSÜ,

1932: 151-153.

Rana japonica japonica [non Rana japonica Boulenger, 1879]: LIU & HU, 1961: 177-

181.

This example shows clearly how the two kinds of nomina can be distinguished: in the first case

the protonym considered is followed by its author and date, then, in parentheses or between square

brackets, by the term nec followed by the homonymous nomen with its author and date; in the second

case the heterochresonym considered is not followed by any author’s name (as it does not have an author

in the sense of the Code), but is immediately followed, in parentheses or between square brackets, by the

term non followed by the nomen incorrectly used for the taxon, with its author and date.

THE USE OF PARTIM

The term partim (Latin for “in part”) is another common term in logonymies. Use of this term

may be fully justified in chresonymies, as the sense given to an already existing nomen in a given

publication may be heterogeneous, this nomen referring in part to the taxon validly denoted by the

nomen, and in part to another taxon or several other taxa. But this use is not justified in genuine

synonymies, as, through its onomatophore, a given nomen refers to a single taxomen, even when it was

not clearly understood as such by its original author, and irrespective of possible “mistakes” in this

respect in the original description. This is clear in the cases of taxomina created with a single

onomatophore, such as speciesomina created with a holotype (either by monotypy or by original

designation) or genus-series generomina created with a type-species (either by monotypy or by original

designation): even if other specimens or taxomina were referred by mistake to the taxon in the original

description, the taxomen should only be referred to the synonymy where its onomatophore belongs. The

situation may appear more ambiguous in the case of taxomina created with several onomatophores, such

as a speciesomen described on the basis of several syntypes belonging in fact to different biological

species, or a generomen created with several originally included speciesomen, none of which was

designated as type, and considered later to belong in different genus-series taxa. However, in all such

cases, clarification of the nomenclatural status of the nomen requires action of taxonomists, through

subsequent designation of a lectotype among the syntypes or of a type-species among the syntype-species

(see DUBOIS & OHLER, 1997a). As long as this clarification has not been made, the status of the nomen

remains unsettled and the nomen cannot properly be referred to a synonymy; but once it has been made

the nomen properly belongs to a single synonymy and should not appear in other synonymies sensu

stricto (although it may appear in other chresonymies). Misunderstanding of this situation is not

uncommon even in recent works, as will be shown by an example (DUBOIS, 1987b: 141).

AHL (1925) erected the frog genus Pararthroleptis for four speciesomina (including two new

ones), none of which was designated as type. These four speciesomina are currently placed in three

distinct genera (FROST, 1985; DUELLMAN, 1993): the speciesomina Pararthroleptis nanus Ahl, 1925 and

Arthroleptis schoutedeni de Witte, 1921 (a subjective synonym of Phrynobatrachus parvulus Boulenger,

1905 according to SCHMIDT & INGER, 1959: 160-161) are currently placed in the genus Phrynobatrachus

Günther, 1862; the speciesomen Pararthroleptis zimmeri Ahl, 1925 is currently placed in the genus

Arthroleptis Smith, 1849; and the speciesomen Arthroleptis lightfooti Boulenger, 1910 is currently placed

70 Dumerilia

in the genus Arthroleptella Hewitt, 1926. Therefore, as understood by its original author, the genus

Pararthroleptis was clearly heterogeneous, a quite common situation in zoology indeed. Presumably for

this reason, GRANDISON (in FROST, 1985: 443) wrote that the genus Pararthroleptis Ahl, 1925 was only

in part to be considered a synonym of Phrynobatrachus Günther, 1862. However, as was pointed out by

DUBOIS (1981: 253), DECKERT (1938: 166) had designated the speciesomen Pararthroleptis nanus as

type-species of Pararthroleptis, so that this latter generomen is simply a junior subjective synonym of

Phrynobatrachus, without any restriction carried out by terms like “part”, “in part”, “pro parte”, “ex

parte” or “partim”.

THE USE OF QUERY

Whenever publishing a logonymy, a taxonomist should make every possible efforts to present

complete, unambiguous information about all nomina and nomen uses cited therein. Usually, the person

who prepared a logonymy did so after a careful and complete study of the case, and is the best informed

about the latter: the problems that he/she will leave unsolved are likely to remain so afterwards.

Therefore, preparation of a logonymy should be the occasion of a thorough inquiry about the status of all

nomina at stake, including examination of type-specimens and/or designation of lectotypes, description of

neotypes, designation of type-species, etc. Despite these efforts, in some cases the status of a nomen may

remain unclear, e.g. in the case of type-specimens that are known to be still in existence but are

(temporarily) unavailable for study. In such cases, a doubt may remain about the nomenclatural status of

some nomina. This doubt should be mentioned in the logonymy. As is done by a number of taxonomists

already, the simplest way appears to indicate that the presence of a nomen in a logonymy is doubtful by

use of a query, and to add some explanation about the case in full words after the nomen. In order to

distinguish it from a query that may have been written within or after a new nomen by its original author

(e.g., when describing a new species, to indicate a doubtful generic allocation of the latter), the query

pointing to a doubt in the mind of the taxonomist who wrote the logonymy should be placed before the

cited nomen and enclosed between square brackets. The distinction between the two kinds of queries is

made clearer below in examples [11] and [16] of app. 3 below.

THE USE OF “EQUALS”

In the botanical code (GREUTER et al., 1994), the symbol “=” (“equals”) is used to designate

taxonomic synonyms, here called isonyms, but I do not recommand it. As I have pointed elsewhere

(DUBOIS, 1997a: 185), this symbol has a precise meaning in mathematics and is not appropriate in

biological nomenclature to designate synonymies. It should not be used in this context. Instead, phrases

like “Hyla viridis Laurenti, 1768 (junior doxisonym of Rana arborea Linnaeus, 1758)” should be used.

Several cases where this is useful are provided in examples [2] and [10] of app. 3 below.

DUBOIS

APPENDIX 3

EXAMPLES OF PRESENTATION OF LOGONYMIES

The following examples are meant at illustrating the suggestions for presentation made above,

including those concerning unusual situations: use of nec, non, partim and queries, nomina of particular

categories (anoplonyms, neonyms, akyronyms), relative priority of two nomina fixed by first-reviser

action, consequences of Articles 11.6, 32.5, 35.4 and 40.2 of the current Code, etc. They also provide

opportunities for showing, in the heading of each taxonomic account, the use of complete citations of

authorship following Recommendation 51.G of the Code for species-series nomina or the proposals of

DUBOIS (1987a: 9-10) for family-series nomina, completed above for species-series and genus-series

nomina. References cited in the examples of logonymies below are not given in the Literature Cited

section of the present paper (except if they are cited elsewhere in this paper), but should be consulted in

the works from where these logonymies were drawn (see below). To shorten these lists, I limited to 3 the

number of references given for each chresonym; when more references appeared in the original

logonymy, this is indicated by “etc.”. The mention “hypnonym” or “exoplonym” after a nomen is given

only in cases of rejection of the latter through a specific decision of ICZN or through use of some special

articles of the Code, but not in cases of junior synonyms or homonyms, for which the status of akyronym

is immediately evident by direct examination of the logonymy. Mention of some other facultative

information (such as type-genus or type-species) is made only in a few logonymies below, by way of

illustration.

Among recent works in herpetology, the checklists of BAUER (1994) and of DAVID & VOGEL

(1996) provide very carefully prepared partial holonymies (complete paronymies with partial

chresonymies) for species-series nomina, although only partial paronymies (BAUER, 1994) or no

logonymies at all (DAVID & VOGEL, 1996) for taxa above the species-series. These two books can be

taken as models to prepare logonymies, except that the presentation should be slightly modified to follow

the suggestions above. Examples given below that were drawn from these two books will allow to make

clear how these changes in presentation should be made.

Examples of logonymies, presented according to the suggested standards, are given below in the

family-series (examples 1-5), the genus-series (example 6-10) and the species-series (examples 11-20) of

nomina. In each nominal-series, cases are presented by alphabetical order of kyronyms. All these

examples illustrate cases of complete synonymy without apo-chresonymy (examples 11, 14, 16, 20),

complete paronymy without chresonymy (examples 1-10, 17-18) and partial holonymy (complete

paronymy with partial chresonymy) (examples 12-13, 15, 19). These 20 examples were drawn from the

following publications: [1] DUBOIS (1985, unpublished), LESCURE et al. (1986), ANONYMOUS (1987,

1996), NUSSBAUM & WILKINSON (1989); [2] DUBOIS (1982b, 1984a); [3] DUBOIS (1984a, 1987a, 1987d);

[4] DUBOIS (1984a); [5] DUBOIS (1984a, 1985, 1987c, 1992); [6] PARKER (1934), DUBOIS (1987f); [7]

MELVILLE & CHINA (1968), DUBOIS (1981, 1987a), MELVILLE (1985); [8] SAVAGE (1973), DUBOIS &

OHLER (1998); [9] DUBOIS (1982a, 1987c), DUBOIS & OHLER (1998); [10] DUBOIS (1981, 1982a, 1987a,

1992), EMERSON & BERRIGAN (1993); [11] BOURRET (1942), DUBOIS (1992, 2000c), [12] DAVID &

VOGEL (1996); [13] DAVID & VOGEL (1996); [14] HEYER (1983); [15] BAUER (1994); [16] BOULENGER

(1920a), BOURRET (1942), DUBOIS (1992), ZHAO & ADLER (1993); [17] DUBOIS (1995, 1998b); [18] AHL

(1931), BOURRET (1942), ANONYMOUS (1985, 1999), FROST (1985); [19] POYNTON (1964), POYNTON &

BROADLEY (1985b); [20] DUBOIS (1992), DUBOIS & OHLER (1995a). In all this part, “the Code” means

the fourth edition of the Code (ANONYMOUS, 1999), whose rules have force of law since 1st January 2000.

72 Dumerilia

EXAMPLES IN THE FAMILY-SERIES

1. Family Caeciliidae Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 [Gray, 1825] [Bonaparte, 1850]

Gecilinia Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814: 104 [exoplonym]. – Original amelotonym for Cecilinia (see DUBOIS, 1985: 70); authorship

(but not nomen or spelling) to be conserved following ICZN’s Opinion 1830 (ANONYMOUS, 1996).

Cecilidae: BONAPARTE, 1839: 272.

Ceciliina: BONAPARTE, 1852: 480.

Cecilinia: DUBOIS, 1984: 114.

Ceciliidae: DUBOIS, 1985: 71.

Caeciliadae Gray, 1825: 217 [nec Caeciliini Kolbe, 1880]. – (1) Hadromonym of Cecilinia Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814, according to

Article 58.1 of the Code. (2) Nomen (but not authorship or spelling) to be conserved following ICZN’s Opinion 1830

(ANONYMOUS, 1996).

Caecilioidei: EICHWALD, 1831: 177.

Caecilidae: BONAPARTE, 1831: 66.

Caecilina: BONAPARTE, 1839: 124.

Caecilioidea [family]: GISTEL, 1848: 102.

Caeciliidae BONAPARTE, 1850. – Spelling to be conserved following ICZN’s Opinion 1830 (ANONYMOUS, 1996).

Caeciliina: BONAPARTE, 1850.

Caeciliinae: TAYLOR, 1969: 303.

Caeciliaidae: SMITH & POLHEMUS, 1984: 108. – Spelling once to be conserved following ICZN’s Opinion 1462

(ANONYMOUS, 1987), but later rejected following ICZN’s Opinion 1830 (ANONYMOUS, 1996).

Caecilioides: LESCURE et al., 1986: 167.

Caecilioidea [superfamily]: LESCURE et al., 1986: 167.

Caecilioidae: LESCURE et al., 1986: 168.

Caeciliilae: LESCURE et al., 1986: 168.

Caeciliaoidea: LESCURE & RENOUS, 1988: 20.

Caeciliodea: NUSSBAUM & WILKINSON, 1989: 41.

Caeciliodae: NUSSBAUM & WILKINSON, 1989: 41.

Coecilioidea Fitzinger, 1826: 35. – Hadromonym of Cecilinia Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814, according to Article 58.1 of the Code.

Coeciliae: WAGLER, 1828: 736.

Coecilina: BONAPARTE, 1838: 392.

Coeciliadae: HOGG, 1840: 265.

Coeciliidae: GRAY, 1850: 6.

Coecilioides: BRUCH, 1862: 221.

Siphonopina Bonaparte, 1850.

Siphonopidae: DUBOIS, 1984: 113.

Siphonopinae: DUBOIS, 1984: 113.

Siphonopoides: LESCURE et al., 1986: 162.

Siphonopoidea: LESCURE et al., 1986: 162.

Siphonopoidae: LESCURE et al., 1986: 163.

Siphonopilae: LESCURE et al., 1986: 163.

Siphonopoidi: LESCURE et al., 1986: 166.

Siphonopini: LESCURE et al., 1986: 166.

Siphonopiti: LESCURE et al., 1986: 167.

Dermophinae Taylor, 1969: 303.

Dermophiidae: LAURENT, 1984: 199.

Dermophiinae: LAURENT, 1984: 199.

Dermophiini: LESCURE et al., 1986: 166.

Herpelinae Laurent, 1984: 199.

Herpeloidi: LESCURE et al., 1986: 163.

Herpelini: LESCURE et al., 1986: 163.

Herpeliti: LESCURE et al., 1986: 164.

Geotrypetidae Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 145.

Geotrypetoidae: LESCURE et al., 1986: 162.

Oscaeciliidae Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 145.

Oscaecilioidae: LESCURE et al., 1986: 167.

Grandisoniilae Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 163.

Afrocaeciliiti Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 164.

Indotyphlini Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 164.

Pseudosiphonopiti Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 166.

Pseudosiphonopili: LESCURE et al., 1986: 166.

Brasilotyphlili Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 166.

Gymnopiilae Lescure, Renous & Gasc, 1986: 168.

DUBOIS

2. Family Dendrobatidae [Bonaparte, 1850] Cope, 1865

Phyllobatae Fitzinger, 1843 [hypnonym]. – (1) Type-genus: Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841. (2) Juniorization relative to

Dendrobatidae Cope, 1865 (1850) requested to ICZN by DUBOIS (1982b); this case having not yet been voted upon (see e.g.

DUBOIS, 1987c: 40-43), by virtue of Article 82.1 of the Code the “prevailing usage” is to be maintained and the nomen

Dendrobatidae used for this taxon; however, should ICZN persist in ignoring this case, the nomen Phyllobatidae should be

used for the family.

Phyllobatidae: PARKER, 1933.

Phyllobatinae: ARDILA-ROBAYO, 1979.

Eubaphidae Bonaparte, 1850 [exoplonym]. – (1) Type-genus: Eubaphus Bonaparte, 1831 [junior isonym of Dendrobates Wagler,

1830]. (2) Date (but neither nomen nor authorship) to be conserved by virtue of Article 40.2 of the Code, the replacement

proposed by COPE (1865) of this nomen by Dendrobatidae Cope, 1865 (1850) having won general acceptance (see DUBOIS,

1982b).

Eubaphina: BONAPARTE, 1850.

Hylaplesidae Günther, 1858. – Type-genus: Hylaplesia Boie in SCHLEGEL, 1827 [autoneonym for Hysaplesia Boie in SCHLEGEL,

1826; senior isonym of Dendrobates Wagler, 1830]; DUBOIS, 1982b requested partial invalidation of both nomina Hysaplesia

and Hylaplesia to ICZN; should the latter persist in ignoring this case, the nomen Hysaplesia should be used for this genus.

Hylaplesina: GÜNTHER, 1858.

Hylaplesiina: GÜNTHER, 1858.

Hylaplesiidae: COPE, 1875.

Dendrobatidae Cope, 1865. – (1) Type-genus: Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 [alloneonym for Hylaplesia Boie in SCHLEGEL, 1827]; see

above under Hylaplesidae. (2) Nomen and authorship (but not date) to be conserved by virtue of Article 40.2 of the Code, the

replacement proposed by COPE (1865) of Eubaphidae Bonaparte, 1850 by this nomen having won general acceptance (see

DUBOIS, 1982b).

Dendrobatinae: GADOW, 1901.

Colostethidae Cope, 1867. – Type-genus: Colostethus Cope, 1866.

Calostethina Mivart, 1869. – Type-genus: Calostethus Mivart, 1869 [autoneonym for Colostethus Cope, 1866].

Calostethidae: Cope, 1875.

3. Family Discoglossidae [Tschudi, 1845] Günther, 1858

Bombinatorina Gray, 1825 [hypnonym]. – Juniorization relative to Discoglossidae Günther, 1858 requested to ICZN by DUBOIS

(1987d); this case having not yet been voted upon, by virtue of Article 82.1 of the Code the “prevailing usage” is to be

maintained and the nomen Discoglossidae used for this taxon; however, should ICZN persist in ignoring this case, the nomen

Bombinatoridae should be used for the family.

Bombinatoroidea: FITZINGER, 1826.

Bombinatoridae: GRAY, 1831.

Bombinatores: TSCHUDI, 1838.

Bombinatorida: BAYER, 1885.

Bombinatorinae: DUBOIS, 1983.

Bombinatorini: DUBOIS, 1987.

Alytae Fitzinger, 1843 [hypnonym]. – Juniorization relative to Discoglossidae Günther, 1858 requested to ICZN by DUBOIS

(1987d); this case having not yet been voted upon, by virtue of Article 82.1 of the Code the “prevailing usage” is to be

maintained and the nomen Discoglossidae used for this taxon; however, should ICZN persist in ignoring this case, the nomen

Bombinatoridae should be used for the family.

Alytina: BONAPARTE, 1850.

Alytidae: GÜNTHER, 1858.

Alytini: SANCHIZ, 1984.

Alytinae: DUBOIS, 1987.

Bombitatores Fitzinger, 1843. – Juniorization relative to Discoglossidae Günther, 1858 requested to ICZN by DUBOIS (1987d); this

case having not yet been voted upon, by virtue of Article 82.1 of the Code the “prevailing usage” is to be maintained and the

nomen Discoglossidae used for this taxon; however, should ICZN persist in ignoring this case, the nomen Bombinatoridae

should be used for the family.

Colodactyli Tschudi, 1845. – Date (but neither nomen nor authorship) to be conserved by virtue of Article 40.2 of the Code, the use

of the nomen Discoglossidae for this taxon being in “prevailing usage” since the works of COPE (1864, 1865) (see DUBOIS,

1987d).

Colodactylidae: DUBOIS, 1987.

Discoglossidae Günther, 1858. – (1) Nomen and authorship (but not date) to be conserved by virtue of Article 40.2 of the Code, the

use of this nomen for this taxon being in “prevailing usage” since the works of COPE (1864, 1865) (see DUBOIS, 1987d). (2)

Seniorization relative to Bombinatorina Gray, 1825 requested to ICZN by DUBOIS (1987d); this case having not yet been voted

upon, by virtue of Article 82.1 of the Code the “prevailing usage” is to be maintained and this nomen used for this taxon;

however, should ICZN persist in ignoring this case, the nomen Bombinatoridae should be used for the family.

Discoglossina: MIVART, 1869.

Discoglossinae: FÉJERVÁRY, 1921.

Discoglossoidea: [LAURENT, 1948]; LAURENT in FUHN, 1960.

74 Dumerilia

Discoglossini: SANCHIZ, 1984.

Bombininae Féjerváry, 1921.

Bombinidae: TATARINOV, 1964.

4. Subfamily Microhylinae [Fitzinger, 1843] Günther, 1858 [Noble, 1931]

Hylaedactyli Fitzinger, 1843 [hypnonym]. – Juniorization relative to Gastrophrynae Fitzinger, 1843 fixed by the first-reviser action

of PARKER (1934) (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 39).

Hylaedactylidae: BONAPARTE, 1850.

Hylaedactylina: BONAPARTE, 1850.

Gastrophrynae Fitzinger, 1843 [hypnonym]. – (1) Seniorization relative to Hylaedactyli Fitzinger, 1843 fixed by the first-reviser

action of PARKER (1934) (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 39). (2) Date (but neither nomen nor authorship) to be conserved by virtue of

Article 40.2 of the Code, the replacement proposed by PARKER (1934) of Gastrophryninae Fitzinger, 1843 by Microhylinae

Noble, 1931 having won general acceptance (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 39).

Gastrophrynidae: METCALF, 1923.

Gastrophryninae: METCALF, 1923.

Micrhylina Günther, 1858 [exoplonym]. – Authorship (but neither nomen nor date) to be conserved by virtue of Articles 32.5.3.2

and 35.4.1 of the Code, the generic nomen Micrhyla Duméril & Bibron, 1841 being an autoneonym for Microhyla Tschudi,

1838 (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 16).

Micrhylidae: GÜNTHER, 1858.

Kalophrynina Mivart, 1869.

Kalophryninae: NOBLE, 1931.

Microhylinae Noble, 1931. – Nomen (but neither authorship nor date) to be conserved by virtue: (1) of Article 40.2 of the Code, the

replacement proposed by PARKER (1934) of Gastrophryninae Fitzinger, 1843 by Microhylinae Noble, 1931 having won

general acceptance (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 39); (2) of Articles 32.5.3.2 and 35.4.1 of the Code, the generic nomen Micrhyla

Duméril & Bibron, 1841 being an autoneonym for Microhyla Tschudi, 1838 (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 16).

Microhylidae: PARKER, 1934.

Microhyloidea: DUELLMAN, 1975.

Cacopinae Noble, 1931.

Kaloulinae Noble, 1931.

Kaloulidae: PARKER, 1934.

Melanobatrachinae Noble, 1931.

5. Tribe Ranini Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 [Goldfuss, 1820] [Bonaparte, 1839] [Dubois, 1981]

Ranaridia Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 [exoplonym]. – Authorship and date (but not nomen) to be conserved by virtue of Articles

32.5.3.2 and 35.4.1 of the Code, the generic nomen Ranaria Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 being an autoneonym for Rana

Linnaeus, 1758 (see DUBOIS, 1984a: 17, 1985: 65).

Ranarinia: RAFINESQUE, 1815.

Ranae Goldfuss, 1820. – Nomen (but neither authorship nor date) to be conserved by virtue of Articles 32.5.3.2 and 35.4.1 of the

Code, the generic nomen Ranaria Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 being an autoneonym for Rana Linnaeus, 1758 (see DUBOIS,

1984a: 17, 1985: 65).

Ranadae: GRAY, 1825.

Ranina: GRAY, 1825.

Ranoidea [family]: FITZINGER, 1826.

Ranidae: BOIE, 1828.

Ranidi: BONAPARTE, 1837.

Ranini [subfamily]: BONAPARTE, 1839.

Ranini [family]: BRONN, 1849.

Ranoides: BRUCH, 1862.

Ranida: HAECKEL, 1866.

Raninae: BOULENGER, 1888.

Ranoidea [superfamily]: BOLKAY, 1919.

Ranini [tribe]: DUBOIS, 1981.

Ranoidae: DUBOIS, 1992.

Limnodytae Fitzinger, 1843.

Limnodytini: DUBOIS, 1981.

Amolopinae Yang, 1989.

Amolopsinae: YANG, 1991.

DUBOIS

EXAMPLES IN THE GENUS-SERIES

6. Genus Elachistocleis Parker, 1927

Engystoma Fitzinger, 1826 [hypnonym]. – (1) Type-species by subsequent designation of DUMÉRIL & BIBRON (1841: 740): Rana

ovalis Schneider, 1799 (see DUBOIS, 1987f). (2) DUBOIS (1987f) requested ICZN to use its Plenary Powers to designate Rana

gibbosa Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species of this nominal genus; this case having not yet been taken into account by ICZN, by

virtue of Article 82.1 of the Code the “prevailing usage” is to be maintained and the name Elachistocleis used for this taxon;

however, should ICZN persist in ignoring this case, the name Engystoma should be resurrected for this genus.

Microps Wagler, 1828 [nec Megerle, 1823]. – Type-species by monotypy: Microps unicolor Wagler, 1828.

Systoma Wagler, 1830. – Alloneonym for Engystoma Fitzinger, 1830.

Stenocephalus Tschudi, 1838 [nec Latreille, 1825]. – Type-species by monotypy: Stenocephalus microps Tschudi, 1838.

Engistoma Peracca, 1904. – Autoneonym for Engystoma Fitzinger, 1830.

Elachistocleis Parker, 1927. – Type-species by original designation: Rana ovalis Schneider, 1799.

7. Subgenus Kassina Girard, 1853 [Dubois, 1981]

Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843 [exoplonym]. – Nomen partially invalidated by ICZN for the purposes of priority but not for those of

homonymy or typification (MELVILLE, 1985).

Hylambates Duméril, 1853 [genus] [exoplonym]. – Nomen partially invalidated by ICZN for the purposes of priority but not for

those of homonymy or typification (MELVILLE & CHINA, 1968).

Hylambates [subgenus of Kassina Girard, 1853]: DUBOIS, 1981.

Kassina Girard, 1853 [genus].

Kassina [subgenus of Kassina Girard, 1853]: DUBOIS, 1981.

Cassina Cope, 1864. – Autoneonym for Kassina Girard, 1853.

Cassiniopsis Monard, 1937.

Semnodactylus Hoffman, 1939.

Kassinula Laurent, 1940.

Notokassina Drewes, 1985.

8. Subgenus Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838 [Dubois, 1980]

Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838: 81 [genus]. – Original meletonym, under Article 32.5.1 of the Code (see DUBOIS & OHLER, 1998:

21-22).

Septobrachium: TSCHUDI, 1838: 43. – Original ameletonym, under Article 32.5.1 of the Code, of Leptobrachium

Tschudi, 1838 (see DUBOIS & OHLER, 1998: 21-22).

Leptobrachium [subgenus of Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838]: DUBOIS, 1980: 475.

“Leptobatrachium” [anoplonym]: SWAN & LEVITON, 1962: 108; MARX, 1976: 57. – Subsequent ameletonym of Leptobrachium

Tschudi, 1838, therefore nomenclaturally unavailable.

“Lepidobatrachium” [anoplonym]: SAVAGE, 1973: 441. – Subsequent ameletonym of Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838, therefore

nomenclaturally unavailable.

9. Genus Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822

Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a: 104 [genus]. – Original meletonym, under Article 24.2.4 of the Code, being the only of

both original spellings used in KUHL & VAN HASSELT (1822b).

Mogophrys: KUHL & VAN HASSELT, 1822a: 102. – Original ameletonym, under Article 24.2.4 of the Code, of

Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a, the latter being the only of both original spellings used in KUHL & VAN

HASSELT (1822b).

Megophrys [subgenus of Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a]: DUBOIS, 1980: 471.

Megalophrys Wagler, 1830. – Autoneonym for Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a.

Ceratophryne Schlegel, 1858.

Megalofrys Palacký, 1898. – Autoneonym for Megalophrys Wagler, 1830.

Pelobatrachus Beddard, 1908.

“Megalophys” [anoplonym]: SHERBORN, 1928. – Subsequent ameletonym of Megalophrys Wagler, 1830, therefore nomenclaturally

unavailable (see DUBOIS, 1982a: 267).

“Megaphrys” [anoplonym]: SHERBORN, 1928. – Subsequent ameletonym of Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a, therefore

nomenclaturally unavailable (see DUBOIS, 1982a: 267).

10. Genus Occidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822

Occidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a [genus]. – Type-species by subsequent designation (through Oxydozyga Tschudi, 1838) of

STEJNEGER (1925: 33): Rana lima Gravenhorst, 1829.

Occidozyga [subgenus of Occidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a]: DUBOIS, 1987a.

Occidozyga [subgenus of Rana Linnaeus, 1758]: EMERSON & BERRIGAN, 1993.

76 Dumerilia

Ooeidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822b. – Autoneonym for Occidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a.

Occidogyna Gray, 1825. – Autoneonym for Occidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a.

Houlema Gray, 1831. – Type-species by monotypy: Houlema obscura Gray, 1831 [junior doxisonym of Rana lima Gravenhorst,

1829, according to DUBOIS, 1981: 245].

Oxyglossus Tschudi, 1838 [nec Oxyglossus Swainson, 1827; nec Oxyglossus De Chaudoir, 1843]. – Type-species by monotypy:

Rana lima Gravenhorst, 1829.

Oxydozyga Tschudi, 1838. – (1) Autoneonym for Occidozyga Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822a. (2) Nomen published as a junior

doxisonym but made nomenclaturally available before 1961 (Article 11.6.1 of the Code) through its adoption as a kyronym by

STEJNEGER (1925: 33).

“Rhomboglossus” [anoplonym]: DUMÉRIL & BIBRON, 1841. – Nomen published as a junior doxisonym and never treated as a

kyronym before 1961 (Article 11.6 of the Code).

Osteosternum Wu, 1929. – Type-species by original designation: Omeosternum amoyense Wu, 1929 [junior doxisonym of Rana

lima Gravenhorst, 1829, according to POPE, 1931: 482].

EXAMPLES IN THE SPECIES-SERIES

11. Amolops (Amolops) marmoratus (Blyth, 1855) Dubois, 1992

Polypedates (?) marmoratus Blyth, 1855.

Polypedates afghana Günther, 1859.

Ixalus kakhienensis Anderson, 1879.

Rana latopalmata Boulenger, 1882.

Ixalus argus Annandale, 1912.

Rana senchalensis Chanda, 1990.

Amolops nepalicus Yang, 1991.

12. Cerberus rynchops rynchops (Schneider, 1799) [Günther, 1864] Smith, 1930 [Loveridge, 1948]

Hydrus rynchops Schneider, 1799.

Python rhynchops: MERREM, 1820.

Homalopsis rhynchops: BOIE, 1827.

Cerberus rhynchops: GÜNTHER, 1864.

Cerberus rhynchops – BOULENGER, 1890a-b, 1896; etc.

Hurria rynchops: STEJNEGER, 1907.

Hurria rynchops – BARBOUR, 1912; SWORDER, 1922.

Cerberus rynchops: SMITH, 1930.

Cerberus rynchops – TWEEDIE, 1983.

Cerberus rynchops rynchops: LOVERIDGE, 1948.

Cerberus rynchops rynchops – HAAS, 1950; GYI, 1970; WELCH, 1988.

Elaps boaeformis Schneider, 1801.

Cerberus boaeformis: DUMÉRIL et al., 1854.

Cerberus boaeformis – BLEEKER, 1857, 1858, 1860.

Homalopsis boaeformis: JAN, 1863.

Homalopsis boaeformis – HAGEN, 1890; LIDTH DE JEUDE, 1890.

Hydrus cinereus Shaw, 1802.

Cerberus cinereus: CANTOR, 1839.

Cerberus cinereus – GRAY, 1849.

Hurria schneideriana Daudin, 1803a. – Alloneonym for Elaps boaeformis Schneider, 1801.

Coluber schneiderianus: DAUDIN, 1803b.

Coluber cerberus Daudin, 1803b.

Homalopsis cerberus: FITZINGER, 1826.

Cerberus cerberus: CUVIER, 1829.

Homalopsis molurus Boie, 1826.

“Coluber obtusatus” [gymnonym]: SCHLEGEL, 1837.

Homalopsis schneiderii Schlegel, 1837. – Alloneonym for Elaps boaeformis Schneider, 1801.

Homalopsis schneideri: SCHLEGEL & MÜLLER, 1845.

13. Chrysopelea pelias (Linnaeus, 1758) Smith, 1930

Coluber pelias Linnaeus, 1758.

Chrysochlora pelias: ANDERSSON, 1899.

Chrysopelea pelias: SMITH, 1930.

Chrysopelea pelias – BRONGERSMA & WEHLBURG, 1933; HAAS, 1950; MERTENS, 1968; etc.

“Chrysopelea erythrochloris” [gymnonym]: BOIE in SCHLEGEL, 1826; BLEEKER, 1860.

DUBOIS

“Chrysopelea erythromelas” [gymnonym]: REINWARDT in BOIE, 1827.

Dendrophis chrysochloros Schlegel, 1837.

Chrysopelea chrysochlora: BOULENGER, 1896, 1912; FLOWER, 1896; etc.

Chrysopelea hasseltii Bleeker, 1860.

Chrysopelea ornata var. hasselti: BOETTGER, 1887.

Chrysopelea hasselti: HAGEN, 1890.

Heterochresonymy: Leptophis ornatus [non Coluber ornatus Shaw, 1802] – CANTOR, 1847.

Chrysopelea ornata [non Coluber ornatus Shaw, 1802] – GÜNTHER, 1864; LIDTH DE JEUDE, 1890a, 1890b

[partim].

14. Cycloramphus asper Werner, 1899

Cycloramphus asper Werner, 1899 [nec Telmatobius asper Boulenger, 1907].

Telmatobius asper Boulenger, 1907 [nec Cycloramphus asper Werner, 1899].

Niedenia spinulifer Ahl, 1924.

Cycloramphus neglectus Lutz, 1928. – Alloneonym for Telmatobius asper Boulenger, 1907.

Cycloramphus boulengeri Lutz, 1929. – Alloneonym for Telmatobius asper Boulenger, 1907.

15. Cyrtodactylus marmoratus Gray, 1831

“Goniodactylus marmoratus” [gymnonym]: KUHL in SCHLEGEL, 1826; SCHLEGEL, 1827.

“Phyllurus marmoratus” [gymnonym]: BOIE in FITZINGER, 1826.

Cyrtodactylus marmoratus Gray, 1831 [nec Gymnodactylus marmoratus Beddome, 1870].

Cyrtodactylus marmoratus – GRAY, 1845; DORIA, 1874; MEYER, 1874; etc.

Gymnodactylus marmoratus: DUMÉRIL & BIBRON, 1836.

Gymnodactylus marmoratus – SCHLEGEL, 1844; RÜPPELL, 1845; DUMÉRIL, 1851; etc.

Gonyodactylus (Gonyodactylus) marmoratus: FITZINGER, 1843.

Gonyodactylus (Cyrtodactylus) marmoratus: WERMUTH, 1965.

Gonyodactylus (Cyrtodactylus) marmoratus – BRYGOO, 1991.

Gonydactylus marmoratus: KLUGE, 1991.

Gymnodactylus agamensis Bleeker, 1860a.

Gymnodactylus agamensis – BLEEKER, 1860b-d.

Gymnodactylus marmoratus var. quadrilineatus Werner, 1896.

Heterochresonymy: Gymnodactylus fumosus [non Gymnodactylus fumosus Müller, 1895] –

DE ROOIJ, 1915 [partim];

DAMMERMAN, 1929 [partim]; BRONGERSMA, 1929 [partim]; etc.

16. Hoplobatrachus rugulosus (Wiegmann, 1834) Dubois, 1992

[?] Rana chinensis Osbeck, 1765.

[?] Rana picta Gravenhorst, 1829 [nec Rana picta Pallas, 1814].

Rana rugulosa Wiegmann, 1834.

“Hydrostentor pantherinus” [gymnonym]: FITZINGER, 1861.

Rana tigrina var. pantherina Steindachner, 1867.

Rana burkilli Annandale, 1910.

17. Hyla intermedia Boulenger, 1882 [Héron-Royer, 1890]

Hylaria variegata Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 [nec Rana variegata Bonnaterre, 1789; nec Hyla variegata Daudin, 1802].

Hyla variegata: NÖLLERT & NÖLLERT, 1992.

Hyla arborea var. intermedia Boulenger, 1882.

Hyla intermedia: HÉRON-ROYER, 1890.

“Hyla maculata” [gymnonym] [nec Hyla maculata Gray, 1830; nec Hyla maculata Spencer, 1901]: ASTUDILLO & ARANO, 1995.

“Hyla italica” [gymnonym]: BRESSI, 1995.

Hyla italica Nascetti, Lanza, & Bullini, 1995. – Alloneonym for Hylaria variegata Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814.

18. Philautus tuberculatus (Anderson, 1879) Bourret, 1942

Ixalus tuberculatus Anderson, 1879.

Philautus tuberculatus: BOURRET, 1942.

Rhacophorus andersoni Ahl, 1927. – Alloneonym for Ixalus tuberculatus Anderson, 1879 [nec Rhacophorus tuberculatus

Anderson, 1871]; nomen formerly to be conserved by virtue of Article 59.b of the third edition of the Code (ANONYMOUS,

1985), the nomen Ixalus tuberculatus Anderson, 1879 having been rejected (by AHL, 1927) before 1961 for being considered

78 Dumerilia

as a junior asthenomonym (see INGER in FROST, 1985: 526), but now to be rejected according to Article 59.3 of the current

Code (ANONYMOUS, 1999), the relevant taxa being no longer considered congeneric and AHL’s nomen not having been widely

used. R[hacophorus] (P[hilautus]) andersoni: AHL, 1931.

Philautus andersonii: BOURRET, 1942.

Rhacophorus andersonii: BOURRET, 1942.

Rhacophorus (Philautus) andersoni: BOURRET, 1942.

Philautus andersoni: INGER in FROST, 1985.

19. Phrynobatrachus natalensis (Smith, 1849) Günther, 1864

Stenorhynchus natalensis Smith, 1849 [nec Phrynobatrachus natalensis Günther, 1862].

Phrynobatrachus natalensis: GÜNTHER, 1864.

Phrynobatrachus natalensis – BOULENGER, 1882, 1902; PETERS, 1882; etc.

Phrynobatrachus natalensis Günther, 1862 [nec Stenorhynchus natalensis Smith, 1849].

Phrynobatrachus ranoides Boulenger, 1894.

Arthroleptis moorii Boulenger, 1898.

Phrynobatrachus maculatus FitzSimons, 1932.

Phrynobatrachus duckeri Loveridge, 1953.

20. Rana (Pelophylax) nigromaculata Hallowell, 1861 [Dubois, 1992]

“Rana esculenta var. japonica” [gymnonym]: GÜNTHER, 1859.

“Rana esculenta var. japonica” [gymnonym]: MAACK, 1859.

Rana marmorata Hallowell, 1861 [nec Rana esculenta var. marmorata Massalongo, 1854; nec Rana temporaria var. marmorata

Werner, 1897].

Rana nigromaculata Hallowell, 1861 [nec Rana muta var. nigro-maculata Camerano, 1884; nec Rana temporaria var.

nigromaculata Werner, 1897; nec Rana arvalis var. nigromaculata Wolterstorff, 1904].

Hoplobatrachus reinhardtii Peters, 1867.

“Hoplobatrachus davidi” [gymnonym]: DAVID, 1873.

Rana esculenta var. japonica Boulenger, 1882 [nec Rana japonica Boulenger, 1879].

“Rana nigromaculata schybanovi” [gymnonym]: TERENTJEV, 1923.

Rana nigromaculata mongolia Schmidt, 1925.

Rana nigromaculata schybanovi Terentjev, 1927.

Rana tenggerensis Zhao, Macey & Papenfuss, 1988.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For their comments and suggestions on previous manuscripts of this paper, I am

indebted to Philippe BOUCHET, Roger BOUR, Patrick DAVID, Thierry DEUVE, Danièle

GUINOT, Jacques LE RENARD, Annemarie OHLER and Olivier PAUWELS (Paris), Frédéric

CHÉROT (Brussels), Heinz GRILLITSCH (Wien), W. Ronald HEYER and George ZUG

(Washington), Alessandro MINELLI (Milano) and Hobart M. SMITH (Boulder).

DUBOIS

LITERATURE CITED

ANONYMOUS [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1985. – Code international de

nomenclature zoologique. Third edition. London, International Trust for zoological

Nomenclature: i-xiv + 1-328.

––––, 1987. – Opinion 1462. Caeciliidae Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) and

Caeciliidae Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): a ruling to remove the homonymy. Bull. zool.

Nom., 44 (4): 263-264.

––––, 1994. – Opinion 1763. Megophrys montana Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura): generic

and specific name placed on Official Lists, and Leptobrachium parvum Boulenger, 1893

(currently Megophrys parva): specific name conserved. Bull. zool. Nom., 51: 84-85.

––––, 1996. – Opinion 1830. Caeciliidae Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): spelling emended to

Caeciliusidae, so removing the homonymy with Caeciliidae Rafinesque, 1814 (Amphibia,

Gymnophiona). Bull. zool. Nom., 53 (1): 68-69.

––––, 1999. – International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London, International Trust

for zoological Nomenclature: i-xxix + 1-306.

AHL, E., 1925. – Ueber neue afrikanische Frösche der Familie Ranidae. Sber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde

Berlin, 1923: 96-106.

––––, 1931. – Anura III. Polypedatidae. Das Tierreich, 55: i-xvi + 1-477.

BARBOUR, T & LOVERIDGE, A., 1928. – A comparative study of the herpetological faunae of the Uluguru

and Usambara mountains, Tanganyika territory, with descriptions of new species. Mem. Mus.

comp. Zool., 50 (2): 85- 265, pl. 1-4.

BAUER, A. M., 1994. – Familia Gekkonidae (Reptilia, Sauria). Part I. Australia and Oceania. Das

Tierreich, 109: i-xiii + 1-309.

BERNARDI, G., 1980. – Les catégories taxonomiques de la systématique évolutive. Mém. Soc. zool.

France, 40: 373-425.

BERRY, P. Y., 1975. – The amphibian fauna of peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Tropical Press: i-x +

1-130.

BLOMMERS-SCHLÖSSER, R. M. A. & BLANC, C. P., 1991. – Amphibiens (première partie). Faune de

Madagascar, 75 (1): 1-379, pl. 1-12.

BOLKAY, S. J., 1919. – Osnove uporedne osteologije anurskih batrahija. Glasnik zemaljskog Muzeja u

Bosni i Hercegovini, 31: 275-357.

BONAPARTE, C. L., 1839. – Bufo vulgaris. Rospo comune. In: Iconografia della fauna italica per le

quattro classi degli animali vertebrati, vol. II, [fasc. 24], Roma, Salviucci: [223-228], pl. [49].

BOULENGER, G. A., 1879. – Etude sur les grenouilles rousses Ranae temporariae et description d'espèces

nouvelles ou méconnues. Bull. Soc. zool. France, 4: 158-193.

––––, 1882. – Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum.

London, Taylor & Francis: i-xvi + 1-503, pl. 1-30.

––––, 1890. – The fauna of the British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Batrachia.

London, Taylor & Francis: i-xviii + 1-541.

––––, 1897. – The tailless batrachians of Europe. Part I. London, Ray Society: i-iii + 1-210, 2 pl. + pl. 1-

10.

80 Dumerilia

––––, 1898. – The tailless batrachians of Europe. Part II. London, Ray Society: 211-376, 4 pl. + pl. 11-

24.

––––, 1912. – A vertebrate fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore including

the adjacent islands. Reptilia and Batrachia. London, Taylor & Francis: i-xiii + 1-294, 1 pl.

––––, 1920a. – A monograph of the South Asian, Papuan, Melanesian, and Australian frogs of the genus

Rana. Rec. indian Mus., 20: 1-126.

––––, 1920b. – A monograph of the American frogs of the genus Rana. Proc. am. Acad. Arts Sci., 55:

413-480.

BOURRET, R., 1942. – Les Batraciens de l'Indochine. Hanoi, Institut océanographique de l'Indochine: i-x

+ 1-547, 4 pl.

BRONN, H. G., 1849. – Handbuch einer Geschichte der Natur. Dritter Band. Zweite Abtheilung. Stuttgart,

Schweizerbart: i-iii + 1-1106.

CAMERANO, L., 1884. – Monografia degli anfibi anuri italiani. Mem. r. Accad. Sci. Torino, (2), 35: 187-

284, pl. 1-2.

CEI, J. M., 1962. – Batracios de Chile. Santiago de Chile, Ed. Univ. Chile: 1-128 + i-cviii.

––––, 1980. – Amphibians of Argentina. Monit. Zool. ital., (n. s.), Mon. 2: i-xii + 1-609.

CHANG, M. L. Y. & HSÜ, H. F., 1932. – Study of some amphibians from Szechwan. Contr. biol. Lab. sci.

Soc. China (Zool.), 8: 137-181.

CHINA, W. E., 1964. – Opinion 713. Rana fasciata Smith, 1849 (Amphibia): added to the Official List

with suppression of Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824, under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom.,

21: 352-354.

COCHRAN, D. M., 1941. – The herpetology of Hispaniola. U.S. natn. Mus. Bull., 177: i-vii + 1-398, pl. 1-

12.

––––, 1955. – Frogs of southeastern Brazil. U.S. natn. Mus. Bull., 206: i-xvi + 1-423, pl. 1-34.

COCHRAN, D. M. & GOIN, C., 1970. – Frogs of Colombia. U.S. natn. Mus. Bull., 288: i-xii + 1-655.

COPE, E. D., 1889. – The Batrachia of North America. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., 34: 1-525, pl. 1-86.

DAVID, P. & VOGEL, G., 1996. – The snakes of Sumatra. Frankfurt am Main, Chimaira: 1-260.

DECKERT, K., 1938. – Beiträge zur Osteologie und Systematik ranider Froschlurche. Sber. Ges. Naturf.

Freunde Berlin, 1938: 127-184.

DREWES, R. C., 1984. – A phylogenetic analysis of the Hyperoliidae (Anura): treefrogs of Africa,

Madagascar, and the Seychelles Islands. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci., 139: i-x + 1-70.

DUBOIS, A., 1974. – Liste commentée d'Amphibiens récoltés au Népal. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., (3),

213 (Zool. 143): 341-411.

––––, 1981. – Liste des genres et sous-genres nominaux de Ranoidea (Amphibiens Anoures) du monde,

avec identification de leurs espèces-types: conséquences nomenclaturales. Monit. zool. ital.,

(n.s.), 15 (suppl.): 225-284.

––––, 1982a. – Le statut nomenclatural des noms génériques d'Amphibiens créés par Kuhl et Van Hasselt

(1822): Megophrys, Occidozyga et Rhacophorus. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., (4), 4 (A): 261-280.

––––, 1982b. – Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and Dendrobatidae Cope, 1865 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed

conservation. Bull. zool. Nom., 39: 267-278.

––––, 1983. – Classification et nomenclature supragénérique des Amphibiens Anoures. Bull. Soc. linn.

Lyon, 52: 270-276.

DUBOIS

––––, 1984a. – La nomenclature supragénérique des Amphibiens Anoures. Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat.,

(A), 131: 1-64.

––––, 1984b. – Note préliminaire sur le groupe de Rana limnocharis Gravenhorst, 1829 (Amphibiens,

Anoures). Alytes, 3: 143-159.

––––, 1985. – Miscellanea nomenclatorica batrachologica (VII). Alytes, 4 (2): 61-78.

––––, 1987a. – Miscellanea taxinomica batrachologica (I). Alytes, “1986”, 5 (1-2): 7-95.

––––, 1987b. – Living amphibians of the world: a first step towards a comprehensive checklist. Alytes,

“1986”, 5 (3): 99-149.

––––, 1987c. – Again on the nomenclature of frogs. Alytes, 6 (1-2): 27-55.

––––, 1987d. – Discoglossidae Günther, 1858 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Alytes, 6 (1-2):

56-68.

––––, 1987e. – Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura): request for the designation under the

plenary powers of a type-species in agreement with current usage. Alytes, 6 (1-2): 69-74.

––––, 1987f. – Elachistocleis Parker, 1927 (Aphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Alytes, 6 (1-2): 75-

84.

––––, 1992. – Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens Anoures). Bull. Soc. linn. Lyon, 61

(10): 305-352.

––––, 1994. – Phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Bull. zool.

Nom., 51: 240-246.

––––, 1995. – The valid scientific name of the Italian treefrog, with comments on the status of some early

scientific names of Amphibia Anura, and on some articles of the Code concerning secondary

homonyms. Dumerilia, 2: 55-71.

––––, 1997a. – Instructions to authors of papers submitted to Alytes. Alytes, 14 (4): 175-200.

––––, 1997b. – Case 2361. Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed designation of

Rana fasciata Smith, 1849 as the type species. Bull. zool. Nom., 54 (3): 162-166.

––––, 1997c. – An evolutionary biologist’s view on the science of biology. Alytes, 15 (3): 133-136.

––––, 1998a. – Mapping European amphibians and reptiles: collective inquiry and scientific

methodology. Alytes, 15 (4): 176-204.

––––, 1998b. – Lists of European species of amphibians and reptiles: will we soon be reaching

“stability”? Amphibia-Reptilia, 19 (1): 1-28.

––––, 1999a. – South Asian Amphibia: a new frontier for taxonomists. Invited editorial / Book review. J.

South Asian nat. Hist., 4 (1): 1-11.

––––, 1999b. – Editorial. Alytes, 17 (1-2): 1-2.

––––, 1999c. – Miscellanea nomenclatorica batrachologica. 19. Notes on the nomenclature of Ranidae

and related groups. Alytes, 17 (1-2): 81-100.

––––, 2000a. – Réflexions sur la nomenclature zoologique. 1. Taxinomie, nomenclature et onymologie.

Bull. Soc. linn. Lyon, in press.

––––, 2000b. – Réflexions sur la nomenclature zoologique. 2. Quelques concepts zoonymologiques

fondamentaux. Bull. Soc. linn. Lyon, in press.

––––, 2000c. – The influence of man on the distribution of amphibians in the Himalayas of Nepal: an

example of critical evaluation of biogeographical data. Marburger geogr. Schriften, in press

since 1997.

82 Dumerilia

DUBOIS, A. & OHLER, A., 1995a. – Frogs of the subgenus Pelophylax (Amphibia, Anura, genus Rana): a

catalogue of available and valid scientific names, with comments on name-bearing types,

complete synonymies, proposed common names, and maps showing all type localities.

Zoologica Poloniae, “1994”, 39 (3-4): 139-204.

––––, 1995b. – Catalogue of names of frogs of the subgenus Pelophylax (Amphibia, Anura, genus Rana):

a few additions and corrections. Zoologica Poloniae, “1994”, 39 (3-4): 205-208.

––––, 1997a. – Early scientific names of Amphibia Anura. I. Introduction. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., (4),

18 (3-4): 297-320.

––––, 1997b. – Early scientific names of Amphibia Anura. II. An exemplary case: Rana arborea

Linnaeus, 1758. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., (4), 18 (3-4): 321-340.

––––, 1998. – A new species of Leptobrachium (Vibrissaphora) from northern Vietnam, with a review of

the taxonomy of the genus Leptobrachium (Pelobatidae, Megophryinae). Dumerilia, 4 (1): 1-32.

––––, 1999. – Asian and Oriental toads of the Bufo melanostictus, Bufo scaber and Bufo stejnegeri groups

(Amphibia, Anura): a list of available and valid names and redescription of some name-bearing

types. J. South Asian nat. Hist., 4 (2): 133-180.

DUELLMAN, W. E., 1961. – The amphibians and reptiles of Michoacán, México. Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus.

nat. Hist., 15: 1-148, pl. 1-6.

––––, 1970. – The hylid frogs of Middle America. Mon. Mus. nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 1 (1): i-xi + 1-427;

1 (2): 429-753, pl. 1-72.

––––, 1977. – Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Hylidae, Centrolenidae, Pseudidae. Das

Tierreich, 95: i-xix + 1-225.

––––, 1993. – Amphibian species of the world: additions and corrections. Univ. Kansas Mus. nat. Hist.

spec. Publ., 21: [i-ii] + i-iii + 1-372.

DUELLMAN, W. E & CAMPBELL, J. A., 1992. – Hylid frogs of the genus Plectrohyla: systematics and

phylogenetic relationships. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 181: i-vi + 1-32.

DUELLMAN, W. E. & HOOGMOED, M. S., 1984. – The taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships of the

hylid frog genus Stefania. Univ. Kansas Mus. nat. Hist. misc. Publ., 75: i-iii + 1-39.

DUELLMAN, W. E. & WIENS, J. J., 1993. – Hylid frogs of the genus Scinax Wagler, 1830, in Amazonian

Ecuador and Peru. Occ. Pap. Mus. nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 153: 1-57.

DUPUIS, C., 1995. – Comments on the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first

published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. (4). Bull. zool. Nom., 52: 273-275.

DUTTA, S. K., 1997. – Amphibians of India and Sri Lanka. (Checklist and bibliography).

Bhubaneswar, Odyssey Publishing House: [i-iii] + i-xiii + 1-342 + i-xxii.

EMERSON, S. B. & BERRIGAN, D., 1993. – Systematics of Southeast Asian ranids: multiple origins of

voicelessness in the subgenus Limnonectes (Fizinger). Herpetologica, 49 (1): 22-31.

FATIO, V., 1872. – Faune des vertébrés de la Suisse. Volume III. Histoire naturelle des reptiles et des

batraciens. Genève & Bâle, Georg: i-iii + 1-603, pl. 1-5.

FITZINGER, L. I., 1826. – Neue Classification der Reptilien. Wien, Heubner: i-viii + 1-66, 1 tab.

––––, 1843. – Systema Reptilium. Fasc. 1. Amblyglossae. Vindobonae, Braumüller & Seidel: 1-106 + i-ix.

FROST, D. R., (ed.), 1985. – Amphibian species of the world. Lawrence, Allen Press & Association of

Systematic Collections: [i-iv] + i-v + 1-732.

DUBOIS

GASC, J.-P., CABELA, A., CRNOBRNJA-ISAILOVIC, J., DOLMEN, D., GROSSENBACHER, K., HAFFNER, P.,

LESCURE, J., MARTENS, H., MARTÍNEZ-RICA, J. P., MAURIN, H., OLIVEIRA, M. E., SOFIANIDOU, T.

S., VEITH, M. & ZUIDERWIJK, A., (ed.), 1997. – Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Paris,

SEH & MNHN: 1-496.

GLAW, F. & VENCES, M., 1994. – A fieldguide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. Second

edition, including mammals and freshwater fish. Köln, Vences & Glaw: 1-480, 48 pl.

GOLDFUSS, G. A., 1820. – Handbuch der Zoologie. Dritter Theil, zweite Abtheilung. Nürnberg, Johann

Leonhard Schrag: i-xxiv + 1-512, pl. 3-4.

GORHAM, S. W., 1966. – Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Ascaphidae, Leiopelmatidea (sic),

Pipidae, Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae, Leptodactylidae, Rhinophrynidae. Das Tierreich, 85: i-xvi

+ 1-222.

––––, 1974. – Checklist of world amphibians up to January 1, 1970. Saint-John, The New Brunswick

Museum: 1-173.

GOULD, S. J. & ELDREDGE, N., 1977. – Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution

reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3: 115-151.

GREUTER, W., BARRIE, F. R., BURDET, H. M., CHALONER, W. G., DEMOULIN, V., HAWKSWORTH, D. L.,

JORGENSEN, P.M., NICHOLSON, D. H., SILVA, P. C., TREHANE, P. & MCNEILL, J., 1994. –

International code of botanical nomenclature. (Tokyo Code). Königstein, Koeltz: i-xviii + 1-

389.

GÜNTHER, A., 1864. – The reptiles of British India. London, Ray Society: i-xxvii + 1-452, pl. 1-26.

HAMMOND, P., 1992. – Species inventory. In: B. GROOMBRIDGE (ed.), Global biodiversity – Status of the

earth living resources, London, Chapman & Hall: 17-39.

HARDING, K. A., 1983. – Catalogue of New World amphibians. Oxford, Pergamon Press: i-xv + 1-406.

HEYER, W. R., 1970. – Studies on the frogs of the genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). VI.

Biosystematics of the melanonotus group. Contrib. Sci. Los Angeles County Mus., 191: 1-48.

––––, 1973. – Systematics of the marmoratus group of the frog genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia,

Leptodactylidae). Contrib. Sci. Los Angeles County Mus., 251: 1-50.

––––, 1978. – Systematics of the fuscus group of the frog genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia,

Leptodactylidae). Nat. Hist. Mus.Los Angeles County Sci. Bull., 29: i-v + 1-85.

––––, 1979. – Systematics of the pentadactylus species group of the frog genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia:

Leptodactylidae). Smithsonian Contrib. Zool., 301: i-iii + 1-43.

––––, 1983. – Variations and systematics of frogs of the genus Cycloramphus (Amphibia,

Leptodactylidae). Arqu. Zool., 30 (4): 235-339.

––––, 1994. – Variation within the Leptodactylus podicipinus-wagneri complex of frogs (Amphibia:

Leptodactylidae). Smithsonian Contrib. Zool., 546: i-iv + 1-124.

HEYER, W. R., RAND, A. S., GONÇALVES DA CRUZ, C. A., PEIXOTO, O. L. & NELSON, C. E., 1990. – Frogs

of Boracéia. Arqu. Zool., 31 (4): 231-410.

HOLYNSKI, R. B., 1994. – Structure and function or: what kind of nomenclatural regulations do we need?

Crystal, Göd, Hungary, (ser. Zool.), 2: 1-50.

INGER, R. F., 1954. – Systematics and zoogeography of Philippine amphibia. Fieldiana: Zool., 33: 181-

531.

––––, 1966. – The systematics and zoogeography of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana: Zool., 52: 1-

402.

84 Dumerilia

KAESLER, R. L., 1997. – Editorial preface. In: Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part H,

Brachiopoda, revised, volume 1, Introduction, Boulder & Lawrence, The Geological Society of

America & The University of Kansas: vii-xix.

KELLOGG, R., 1932. – Mexican tailless amphibians in the United States National Museum. Bull. U.S.

natn. Mus., 160: i-iv + 1-224, pl. 1.

KIRTISINGHE, P., 1957. – The Amphibia of Ceylon. Colombo: i-xiii + 1-112, 1 pl.

LANZA, B., 1981. – A check-list of Somali amphibians. Monit. zool. ital., (n. s.) 14 (suppl.): 151-186.

LAURENT, R. F., 1972. – Tentative revision of the genus Hemisus Günther. Ann. Mus. r. Afri. centr., 194:

i-v + 1-67.

––––, 1976. – Les genres Cryptothylax, Phlyctimantis et Kassina au Zaïre. Ann. Mus. r. Afri. centr., 13: 1-

67.

––––, 1982. – Le genre Afrixalus Laurent (Hyperoliidae) en Afrique centrale. Ann. Mus. r. Afri. centr.,

235: i-v + 1-58.

––––, 1983. – La superespèce Hyperolis viridiflavus (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) (Anura Hyperoliidae) en

Afrique centrale. Monit. zool. ital., (n.s.) 18 (suppl.): 1-93.

LESCURE, J., 1976. – Contribution à l'étude des Amphibiens de Guyane française. VI. Liste préliminaire

des anoures. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., (3), 377 (Zool. 265): 475-525.

LESCURE, J., RENOUS, S. & GASC, J.-P., 1986. – Proposition d’une nouvelle classification des

Amphibiens Gymnophiones. Mém. Soc. zool. France, 43: 145-177, 1 tab.

LICHTENSTEIN, H., WEINLAND, D. & VON MARTENS, E., 1856. – Nomenclator Reptilium et Amphibiorum

Musei zoologici Berolinensis. Berlin, Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: i-iv + 1-48.

LIEM, S. S., 1970. – The morphology, systematics, and evolution of the Old World treefrogs

(Rhacophoridae and Hyperoliidae). Fieldiana: Zool., 57: i-vii + 1-145.

LINNAEUS, C. A, 1758. – Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera,

species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locus. Editio decima, reformata. Tomus I.

Holmiae: i-iv + 1-824.

LIU, C.-C., 1950. – Amphibians of Western China. Fieldiana: Zool. Mem., 2: 1-400, pl. 1-10.

LIU, C.-C. & HU, S.-C., 1961. – [The tailless amphibians of China]. Shanghai: i-xvi + 1-364, pl. 1-6 + 1-

28. [In Chinese].

LOVERIDGE, A., 1957. – Check list of the reptiles and amphibians of East Africa (Uganda; Kenya;

Tanganyika; Zanzibar). Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., 117 (2): 151-362 + i-xxxvi.

LYNCH, J. D., 1971. – Evolutionary relationships, osteology, and zoogeography of leptodactyloid frogs.

Univ. Kansas Mus. nat. Hist.misc. Publ., 53: 1-238.

——, 1975. – A review of the Andean leptodactylid frog genus Phrynopus. Occ. Pap. Mus. nat. Hist.

Univ. Kansas, 35: 1-51.

––––, 1980. – A taxonomic and distributional synopsis of the Amazonian frogs of the genus

Eleutherodactylus. Am. Mus. Novit., 2696: 1-24.

––––, 1981. – Leptodactylid frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus in the Andes of northern Ecuador and

adjacent Colombia. Univ. Kansas Mus. nat. Hist. misc. Publ., 72: i-iii + 1-46.

––––, 1996. – Replacement names for three homonyms in the genus Eleutherodactylus (Anura:

Leptodactylidae). J. Herp., 30 (2): 278-280.

LYNCH, J. D. & DUELLMAN, W. E., 1973. – A review of the centrolenid frogs of Ecuador, with

descriptions of new species. Occ. Pap. Mus. nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 16: 1-66.

DUBOIS

––––, 1980. – The Eleutherodactylus of the Amazonian slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes. Univ. Kansas

Mus. nat. Hist. misc. Publ., 69: i-iv + 1-86.

LYNCH, J. D. & MYERS, C. W., 1983. – Frogs of the fitzingeri group of Eleutherodactylus in Eastern

Panama and Chocoan South America. Bull. am. Mus. nat. Hist., 175 (5): 481-572.

LYNCH, J. D. & RUIZ-CARRANZA, P. M., 1985. – A synopsis of the frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus

from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 711:

1-59.

MAYR, E., 1997. – This is biology. The science of the living world. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London,

England, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: i-xvii + 1-327.

MELVILLE, R. V., 1985. – Opinion 1364. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura): conserved. Bull. zool.

Nom., 42 (4): 355-356.

MELVILLE, R. V. & CHINA, W. E., 1968. – Opinion 849. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia): grant under

the plenary powers of precedence over Hylambates Duméril, 1853. Bull. zool. Nom., 25 (1): 20-

21.

MERTENS, R. & WERMUTH, H., 1960. – Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas. (Dritte Liste, nach dem

Stand vom 1. Januar 1960). Frankfurt am Main, Waldemar Kramer: i-xi + 1-264.

NG, P. K. L., 1994. – The citation of species names and the role of the author’s name. Raffles Bull. Zool.,

42 (3): 509-513.

NIEDEN, F., 1923. – Amphibia. Anura I. Subordo Aglossa und Phaneroglossa, sectio 1 Arcifera. Das

Tierreich, 46: i-xxxii + 1-584.

NUSSBAUM, R. A. & WILKINSON, M., 1989. – On the classification and phylogeny of caecilians

(Amphibia: Gymnophiona), a critical review. Herp. Mon., 3: 1-42, frontispiece.

OKADA, Y., 1966. – Fauna Japonica. Anura (Amphibia). Tokyo, Biogeographical Society of Japan: i-xii

+ 1-234, pl. 1-24.

PARKER, H. W., 1934. – A monograph of the frogs of the family Microhylidae. London, British Museum

(Natural History): i-viii + 1-208.

PERRET, J. L., 1966. – Les Amphibiens du Cameroun. Zool. Jb. (Syst. Ökol. Geogr. Tiere), 93: 289-464.

POYNTON, J. C., 1964. – The Amphibia of Southern Africa: a faunal study. Ann. Natal Mus., 17: 1-334.

POYNTON, J. C. & BROADLEY, D. G., 1985a. – Amphibia Zambesiaca 1. Scolecomorphidae, Pipidae,

Microhylidae, Hemisidae, Arthroleptidae. Ann. Natal Mus., 26: 503-553.

––––, 1985b. – Amphibia Zambesiaca 2. Ranidae. Ann. Natal Mus., 27: 115-181.

––––, 1987. – Amphibia Zambesiaca 3. Rhacophoridae and Hyperoliidae. Ann. Natal Mus., 28: 161-229.

––––, 1988. – Amphibia Zambesiaca 4. Bufonidae. Ann. Natal Mus., 29: 447-490.

SAVAGE, J. M., 1973. – The geographic distribution of frogs: patterns and predictions. In: J. L. VIAL (ed.),

Evolutionary biology of the anurans, Columbia, Univ. Missouri Press: 351-445.

SCHIØTZ, A., 1967. – The treefrogs (Rhacophoridae) of West Africa. Spolia zool. Mus. hauniensis, 25: 1-

346.

––––, 1975. – The treefrogs of Eastern Africa. Copenhagen, Steenstrupia: 1-232.

SCHMIDT, K. P., 1919. – Contributions to the herpetology of the Belgian Congo based on the collection of

the American Congo Expedition, 1909-1915. Part I. Turtles, crocodiles, lizards, and chameleons.

Bull. am. Mus. nat. Hist., 39: 385-624, pl. 7-32.

86 Dumerilia

––––, 1923. – Contributions to the herpetology of the Belgian Congo based on the collection of the

American Congo Expedition, 1909-1915. Part II. Snakes. Bull. am. Mus. nat. Hist., 49: 1-146, pl.

1-22.

––––, 1924. – Contributions to the herpetology of the Belgian Congo based on the collection of the

American Congo Expedition, 1909-1915. Part III. Amphibia. Bull. am. Mus. nat. Hist., 49: 147-

347, pl. 23-42.

––––, 1953. – A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Sixth edition. Chicago, Amer.

Soc. Ichthyol. Herpet.: i-viii + 1-280.

SCHMIDT, K. P. & INGER, R. F., 1959. – Amphibians exclusive of the genera Afrixalus and Hyperolius.

Explor. Parc natn. Upemba, 56: 1-264, pl. 1-9 + 3.

SILVERSTONE, P. A., 1975. – A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Dendrobates Wagler. Nat.

Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Sci. Bull., 21: i-vi + 1-55.

––––, 1976. – A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra (family

Dendrobatidae). Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Sci. Bull., 27: i-vi + 1-53.

SIMPSON, G. G., 1940. – Types in modern taxonomy. Am. J. Sci., 238: 413-431.

SMITH, H. M. & PÉREZ-HIGAREDA, G., 1986. – Nomenclatural name-forms. Syst. Zool., 35: 421-422.

SMITH, H. M. & SMITH, R. B., 1973. – Chresonymy ex synonymy. Syst. Zool., “1972”, 21: 445.

––––, 1980. – Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico. Vol. VI Guide to Mexican turtles. Bibliographic

addendum III. North Bennington, John Johnson: i-xviii + 1-1044.

––––, 1993. – Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico. Volume VII. Bibliographic Addendum IV and

Index, Bibliographic Addenda II-IV 1979-1991. Niwot, Colorado, University Press of Colorado:

i-ix + 1-1082.

STEJNEGER, L., 1907. – Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., 58: i-xx + 1-

577, pl. 1-35.

STEJNEGER, L. & BARBOUR, T., 1923. – A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles.

Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press: i-x + 1-171.

THOMPSON, D., (ed.), 1995. – The concise Oxford dictionary of current English. 9th edition. Oxford,

Clarendon Press: i-xxi + 1-1673.

THORN, R., 1969. – Les salamandres d'Europe, d'Asie et d'Afrique du Nord. Paris, Lechevalier, “1968”: 1-

376.

VAN KAMPEN, P. N., 1923. – The Amphibia of the Indo-Australian archipelago. Leiden, Brill: i-xii + 1-

304.

VENCES, M., GLAW, F. & BÖHME, W., 1999. – A review of the genus Mantella (Anura, Ranidae,

Mantellinae): taxonomy, distribution and conservation of Malagasy poison frogs. Alytes, 17 (1-

2): 3-72.

VOGT, T., 1924. – Reptilien und Amphibien aus Szetschwan, Osttibet und Tschili. Zool. Anz., 60: 337-

344.

YE, C., FEI, L. & HU, S., 1993. – Rare and economic amphibians of China. Chengdu, Sichuan Publishing

House of Science and Technology: [i-iii] + 1-2 + 1-2 + 1-7 + 412. [In Chinese].

ZHAO, E. M. & ADLER, K., 1993. – Herpetology of China. Oxford, Ohio, USA, SSAR: 1-522 + [i-v], pl.

1-48 + 1.

DUBOIS

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Corresponding editor: Roger BOUR. Reviewers: Patrick DAVID (Paris, France),

Alessandro MINELLI [A. M.] (Padova, Italy), Annemarie OHLER [A. O.] (Paris, France),

Rohan PETHIYAGODA (Colombo, Sri Lanka), Bernard TURSCH (Bruxelles, Belgium).

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF THE EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

[a] Why to cite the Code under ANONYMOUS? On page iv of the 1999 edition it is stated

that “The author of this Code is the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature” as, indeed, it appears on the title page. [A. M.]

Author’s reply. – There are two reasons for not following this suggestion: (1) it is

simply a matter of meaning of the term “anonymous”; (2) the Code cannot interfere

with the editorial rules of journals.

(1) The term “anonymous” is defined by all major dictionaries as “made by a person

whose name is unknown”. Thus for example, in the Cambridge international dictionary

of English (PROCTER, 1995: 47):

“a⋅non (...) n (...) abbreviation for ANONYMOUS (= a writer whose name is not

known) (...)

a⋅non⋅y⋅mous (...) adj (made or done by someone) with a name which is not

known or made public”

Interestingly, the Code itself acknowledges this meaning when it defines the terms

“anonymous” and “author” in its Glossary (p. 100):

“anonymous, a. (1) Of a work: one that does not state the name(s) of the

author(s). (2) Of a name or nomenclatural act: one of which the authorship cannot be

determined from the work itself (...). (3) Of an author: one whose identity cannot be

determined from the work itself.

(...)

author (pl. authors), n. The person(s) to whom a work, a scientific name, or a

nomenclatural act is attributed (...). For the purposes of the Code, if a work is attributed

to an editor, or an official (e.g. Secretary), or a body (e.g. a committee or a

commission), only that person(s) actually responsible for the work, name, or act, is

deemed to be the author (...).”

In order not to consider the Code as anonymous, it should not be “attributed to a body”

(the Commission), but to the list of persons who composed this body. However, the

zoological Code does not provide this list, unlike the situation for the codes of botanical

nomenclature (GREUTER et al., 1994) or of nomenclature for cultivated plants

(TREHANE at al., 1995), which both are attributed to a list of persons that can be

considered authors.

88 Dumerilia

(2) Each scientific journal has its own editorial rules. Some journals accept to consider

committees, commissions, institutes, associations, commercial firms, or various other

kinds of organizations, as “authors”, and will accept e.g. to include the abbreviations

designating these bodies (e.g., ICZN, NATO or WWF) as “authors” in their lists of

references at the end of papers. Others refuse this, and will quote all such works as

“anonymous”, unlike works whose authorship is composed of identified persons (see

e.g. DUBOIS, 1997). This is the case of Dumerilia. The Code has no power to oblige any

publication to abandon its own editorial rules for quoting this work, all the more that, as

shown above, this would be contradictory with the definition of “author” given in the

Code itself.

[b] “Onymology” and related terms could be formed in a much better way from Greek

stems. Their prototype seems to be SMITH & PEREZ-HIGAREDA’s (1986) “onymorph”

(also used in this paper) proposed as derived from the Greek onyma, name (and morphe,

form), but (1) onuma is simply a secondary (dialectal) variant form of the much more

used (and much preferred) onoma; (2) compound terms with a derivative of onoma as

first component take the stem onomat-, according to the genitive onomatos, as, by the

way, in onomatophore (SIMPSON’s 1940 term used in this paper). Therefore these terms

should be onomatology and the like. [A. M.]

Author’s reply. – DUBOIS (2000) explained the reasons for his choice of the root onymos

for this and derived terms: (1) names based on the root onomatos would be too long and

quite unpalatable, especially for longer terms designating subfields such as

zoonymology, botanonymology or bacterionymology (see DUBOIS, 2000); (2) names

based on the Latin root nomen would be hybrid Latin-Greek terms, which is not

desirable (although sometimes unavoidable); (3) the root onymos is clearly identifiable

by anyone, as it is present in common language terms such as synonym, homonym or

pseudonym.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

ANONYMOUS [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1999. − International code of

zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London, International Trust for zoological

Nomenclature: i-xxix + 1-306.

DUBOIS, A., 1997. – Instructions to authors of papers submitted to Alytes. Alytes, 14 (4): 175-200.

⎯⎯ 2000. – Réflexions sur la nomenclature zoologique. 1. Taxinomie, nomenclature et onymologie.

Bull. Soc. linn. Lyon, in press.

GREUTER, W., BARRIE, F. R., BURDET, H. M., CHALONER, W. G., DEMOULIN, V., HAWKSWORTH, D. L.,

JORGENSEN, P. M., NICHOLSON, D. H., SILVA, P. C., TREHANE, P. & MCNEILL, J.,

1994. − International code of botanical nomenclature. (Tokyo Code). Königstein, Koeltz: i-xviii

+ 1-389.

PROCTER, P., (ed.), 1995. − Cambridge international dictionary of English. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ.

Press: i-xviii + 1-1774.

DUBOIS

SIMPSON, G. G., 1940. – Types in modern taxonomy. Am. J. Sci., 238: 413-431.

SMITH, H. M. & PÉREZ-HIGAREDA, G., 1986. – Nomenclatural name-forms. Syst. Zool., 35: 421-422.

TREHANE, P., BRICKELL, C. D., BAUM, B. R., HETTERSCHEID, W. L. A., LESLIE, A. C., MCNEILL, J.,

SPONGBERG, S. A. & VRUGTMAN, F., 1995. − International code of nomenclature for cultivated

plants - 1995 (ICNCP or Cultivated Plant Code). Wimborne, UK, Quarterjack Publishing: i-xvi

+ 1-175.

Table 1. – Suggested terms for the designation of logonymies and of related concepts. Ref.: reference to

use of this term: [1] Term recognized in the Code (ANONYMOUS, 1999). [2] New term. [3] Term

used in the botanical code (GREUTER et al., 1994). [4] Term apparently first used by DUBOIS

(1982a). [5] Term proposed by SMITH & SMITH (1973). [6] Term proposed by DUBOIS (1984a).

[7] Term proposed by DUBOIS (2000b). [8] Term recognized in the Code, but used here in

another, precise and technical meaning. [9] Term of traditional use in zoological nomenclature,

but not recognized in the current edition of the Code. [10] Term proposed by DUBOIS (1995).

[11] Term coined by SMITH & SMITH (1993), but used here in another, wider sense. [12] Term

not recognized in the current Code, but used in some zoological or paleontological works (see

e.g. KAESLER, 1997). [13] Term coined by SIMPSON (1940). [14] Term proposed by DUBOIS

(2000a). [15] Term proposed by SMITH & PEREZ-HIGAREDA (1986).

Term Ref. Definition

Act 1 Nomenclatural act: any published action instoring a new taxomen or

modifying the status of a taxomen (e.g., a subsequent onomatophore

designation for a taxomen, or a first-reviser action)

Akyronym 2 Invalid hoplonym of a taxon; the invalidation may be permanent

(exoplonym) or conditional (hypnonym), total or partial

Alloneonym 2 Neonym not directly derived from a hoplonym through unjustified

emendation

Ameletonym 2 Spelling of a nomen used inadvertently by an author, editor or

publisher: either original (including any spelling rejected by the first-

reviser in case of multiple original spellings) or subsequent incorrect

spelling of a nomen (see Articles 32-33 of the Code)

Anoplonym 2 Published but nomenclaturally unavailable nomen according to the

Code, being either (1) excluded under Article 1.3, or (2) not conform to

the provisions of Articles 10 to 20

Aponym 2 Modified morphonym of a protonym

Aponymy 2 List of aponyms of a protonym

Argionym 2 Eunym currently unused in zoological taxonomy

90 Dumerilia

Term Ref. Definition

Asthenomonym 2 Secondary homonym in the Code: any of two or more identical (or

“deemed to be identical” under Article 58 of the Code) species-series

epithets established for different speciesomina and originally combined

with different generic substantives but currently combined with the

same generic substantive

Author

(or nomenclatural author) 1 Person(s) to whom a published work, protonym or nomenclatural act is

attributed

Autoneonym 2 Neonym directly derived from a hoplonym through unjustified

emendation

Available 1 Available nomen: hoplonym

Basionym 3 Correct spelling of a protonym (term used in botanical nomenclature)

Binomen

(pl. binomina) 1 Nomen of a specific taxomen of the species-series

Chresonym 4 Subsequent use of a paronym

Chresonymy 5 List of chresonyms of a nomen

Class-group 6 Denomination given by DUBOIS (1984a) to class-series as used in this

paper

Class-series 7 Class-group in DUBOIS (1984a): in the hierarchy of classification, the

set of taxa ranked above the family-series, whose names are not fully

regulated by the Code; it includes higher taxa at the ranks of class,

order, kingdom, and any additional ranks that may be required

Classification 1 Biological classification: the arrangement of living beings in taxonomic

classes (the taxa)

Classomen

(pl. classomina) 7 Any taxomen of the class-series (nominal-class, nominal-order, etc.)

Combination 1 Any onymorph implying association between a generic substantive and

either a specific (in case of species) or a subspecific (in case of

subspecies) epithet, irrespective of the other words in the binomen or

trinomen

Conditional 8 Conditional synonymy, homonymy, seniorization or invalidation of a

hoplonym, etc.: liable to change as taxonomy changes

Doxisonym 2 Subjective synonym in the zoological Code (taxonomic synonym in the

botanical code): any of two or more nomina based on different

onomatophores but considered, for subjective (taxonomic) reasons, to

denote the same taxon

Epithet 9 Specific or subspecific name being part of a binomen or trinomen

Ergonym 2 Eunym in current use in zoological taxonomy

Eunym 2 Correct spelling, onymorph and rank of a nomen

Exoplonym 2 Permanent akyronym

DUBOIS

Term Ref. Definition

Familiomen

(pl. familiomina) 7 Any taxomen of the family-series (nominal-family, nominal-tribe, etc.)

Family-group 1 Denomination given in the Code to family-series as used in this paper

Family-series 7 Family-group in the Code: in the hierarchy of classification, the

highest-ranking set of taxa whose names are fully regulated by the

Code; it includes taxa at the ranks of family, subfamily, tribe,

superfamily, and any additional ranks that may be required

First-user 2 Person(s) to whom the first publication of an aponym is attributed

Generic-combination 10 Any combination between a generic substantive and an epithet,

irrespective of the rank of the latter: it may be either primary (i.e.,

occurring in the original publication of the epithet) or secondary (i.e.,

established in a subsequent publication), actual or virtual (see DUBOIS,

1995)

Generomen

(pl. generomina) 7 Any taxomen of the genus-series (nominal-genus, nominal-subgenus)

Genus-group 1 Denomination given in the Code to genus-series as used in this paper

Genus-series 7 Genus-group in the Code: in the hierarchy of classification, the set of

taxa ranked between the species-series and the family-series; it includes

taxa at the ranks of genus and subgenus

Gymnonym 2 Nomen nudum in the Code: a particular case of anoplonym; published

but nomenclaturally unavailable nomen according to the Code, for not

being conform to the provisions of Articles 12 or 13

Hadromonym 2 Any of two or more nomina established for different taxomina and

having either (1) in the family-series, exactly the same stem (“simple

homonyms” in the Code), or (2) in the genus-series, exactly the same

spelling (“simple homonyms” in the Code), or (3) in the species-series,

spellings and onymorphs exactly identical or “deemed to be identical”

under Article 58 of the Code, and originally combined with the same

generic substantive (primary homonyms in the Code)

Heterochresonym 2 Chresonym incorrectly used to designate a taxon (misidentification)

Heterochresonymy 2 List of heterochresonyms of a nomen

Holonymy 2 List of synonyms of a nomen (protonyms) with their aponyms,

chresonyms and, if relevant, anoplonyms

Homonym 1 Any of two or more nomina established for different taxomina and

having the same spelling or spellings “deemed to be identical”, either

permanently (hadromonyms) or conditionally (asthenomonyms)

Homonymy 1 The relationship between homonyms

Hoplonym 2 Nomenclaturally available nomen according to the Code, as (1) not

being excluded under Article 1.3, and (2) conform to the provisions of

Articles 10 to 20

Hypnonym 2 Conditional akyronym

92 Dumerilia

Term Ref. Definition

Invalid 1 Invalid hoplonym (akyronym): hoplonym not to be used to denote a

taxon, as (1) being a junior synonym or homonym, or (2) having been

invalidated as a result of automatic application of some special rules of

the Code (e.g., Articles 40.2 or 59.3), or (3) having been invalidated by

ICZN using its Plenary Powers

Isonym 2 Objective synonym in the zoological Code (nomenclatural synonym in

the botanical code): any of two or more nomina based on the same

onomatophore

Invalidation 2 Process by which a hoplonym is rendered invalid; this invalidation may

be permanent or conditional, total or partial

Junior 1 Junior nomen (synonym or homonym): published after the senior one

Juniorization 2 A particular case of invalidation: process by which a senior nomen is

withdrawn priority over a junior nomen as a result of either (1)

automatic application of some special rules of the Code (e.g., Articles

40.2 or 59.3), or (2) a special action of ICZN using its Plenary Powers;

the juniorization may be permanent or conditional, total or partial

Kyronym 2 Valid hoplonym of a taxon

Logonymy 2 Any list of nomina and/or nomen uses

Meletonym 2 Spelling of a nomen used intentionally by an author: either correct

original spelling (including the spelling adopted by the first-reviser in

case of multiple original spellings), or emendation, or mandatory

change (see Articles 32-34 of the Code)

Morphonym 11 Any particular spelling, onymorph or rank of a given nomen

Name 1 Non-technical term used in common language with various meanings,

including several ones liable to apply in zoological nomenclature: (1)

nomen; (2) one of the words of a binomen or of a trinomen; (3)

chresonym; (4) name of author or of first-user of a nomen

Name-bearing 1 Name-bearing type: denomination given in the Code to onomatophore

as used in this paper

Neonym 2 Nomen novum in the Code, or new replacement nomen, or nomen

substitutum: nomen established expressly to replace an already

established nomen

Nomen

(pl. nomina) 7 Scientific name of a taxomen as defined by the Code (uninomen,

binomen or trinomen)

Nomen correctum

(pl. nomina correcta) 12 Aponym, whose spelling was modified in order to comply with the

regulations of the Code, but not following a change in rank of the taxon

denoted by the nomen

Nomen novum

(pl. nomina nova) 1 Denomination given in the Code to neonym as used in this paper

Nomen nudum

(pl. nomina nuda) 1 Denomination given in the Code to gymnonym as used in this paper

DUBOIS

Term Ref. Definition

Nomen substitutum

(pl. nomina substituta) 9 Neonym

Nomen translatum

(pl. nomina translata) 12 Aponym, whose spelling was modified in order to comply with the

regulations of the Code, following a change in rank of the taxon

denoted by the nomen

Nomen-bearing 2 Nomen-bearing-type: onomatophore

Nomenclatural 1 (1) Of or relating to nomenclature. (2) Nomenclatural act: any

published action instoring a new taxomen or modifying the status of a

taxomen (e.g., a subsequent onomatophore designation for a taxomen,

or a first-reviser action). (3) Nomenclatural author: person(s) to whom

a published work, protonym or nomenclatural act is attributed. (4)

Nomenclatural synonyms (in botany) (see GREUTER et al., 1994):

objective synonyms (in zoology) or isonyms

Nomenclature 8 Biological nomenclature: system of scientific names (nomina) for

taxomina and taxa, including information attached to these nomina

Nominal 1 (1) Nominal taxon in the Code: “a concept of a taxon which is denoted

by an available name”; onymological tool denominated taxomen in the

present paper. (2) Nominal-species, nominal-genus, nominal-family,

etc.: taxomen of rank species, genus, family, etc.

Nominal-complex 2 Complex [nomen + author + date], as an indissociable unit providing

the major information on the nomen, authorship and date of a taxomen

Nominal-series 7 Set of nomina applying to any of the following sets of taxa: the species-

series, the genus-series, the family-series or the class-series as defined

in this paper (i.e., the species-group, the genus-group or the family-

group as defined in the Code, or the class-group as defined by DUBOIS,

1984a)

Nothonym 2 Incorrect spelling, onymorph or rank of a nomen

Objective 1 Objective synonym in the zoological Code (nomenclatural synonym in

the botanical code) or isonym: any of two or more nomina based on the

same onomatophore

Onomatophore 13 Objective standard of reference whereby the application of a nomen to

a taxon can be determined

Onymological 14 Of or relating to onymology

Onymology 14 The study of concepts and theory of biological nomenclature

Onymorph 15 Any particular association between genus-series substantive(s) and

species-series epithet(s)

Original 1 (1) Original publication: work where a protonym or a nomenclatural

act was first published. (2) Original spelling, onymorph or rank of a

nomen, type-species designation, description, etc.: appearing in the

original publication

Orthochresonym 2 Chresonym correctly used to designate a taxon

Orthochresonymy 2 List of orthochresonyms of a nomen

94 Dumerilia

Term Ref. Definition

Paronym 2 Protonym or one of its aponyms (or anoplonyms if relevant)

Paronymy 2 List of synonyms of a nomen (protonyms) with their aponyms and, if

relevant, anoplonyms

Partial 2 Partial invalidation of a hoplonym: for one or two nomenclatural

purposes (among priority, homonymy and typification) only

Permanent 2 Permanent synonymy, homonymy, seniorization or invalidation of a

hoplonym, etc.: definitive, not liable to change as taxonomy changes

Priority 1 Precedence of a nomen over another, fixed either by their respective

dates of publication or by seniorization of the junior one

Protonym 2 Original morphonym of a hoplonym

Publication 1 (1) Any published work. (2) Issuing of a work conforming to the

provisions of Articles 8 and 9 of the Code (technical onymological

meaning)

Published 1 (1) Issued for public distribution. (2) Issued conforming to the

provisions of Articles 8 and 9 of the Code (technical onymological

meaning)

Rank 1 Any particular hierarchical rank either within a nominal-series (e.g.,

superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe) or in different nominal-series

(e.g., class, order, superfamily)

Senior 1 Senior nomen (synonym or homonym): published before the junior one

Seniorization 2 Process by which a junior nomen is afforded priority over a senior

nomen, as a result of either (1) automatic application of some special

rules of the Code (e.g., Articles 40.2 or 59.3), or (2) a special action of

ICZN using its Plenary Powers; the seniorization may be permanent or

conditional

Species-group 1 Denomination given in the Code to species-series as used in this paper

Species-series 7 Species-group in the Code: in the hierarchy of classification, the

lowest-ranking set of taxa the names of which regulated by the Code; it

includes taxa at the ranks of species and subspecies, as well as

aggregates of species or of subspecies

Speciesomen

(pl. speciesomina) 7 Any taxomen of the species-series (nominal-species, nominal-

subspecies, etc.)

Spelling 1 Any particular association and arrangement of letters that form a

nomen

Subjective 1 Subjective synonym in the zoological Code (taxonomic synonym in the

botanical code) or doxisonym: any of two or more nomina based on

different onomatophores but considered, for subjective (taxonomic)

reasons, to denote the same taxon

Subsequent 1 (1) Subsequent publication: any publication mentioning a nomen

published after the original publication. (2) Subsequent spelling,

onymorph or rank of a nomen, type-species designation, description,

etc.: appearing in a subsequent publication

DUBOIS

Term Ref. Definition

Substantive 2 Generic or subgeneric name being part of a binomen or trinomen

Synonym 1 Any of two or more nomina considered, either for objective (isonym) or

for subjective (doxisonym) reasons, to denote the same taxon

Synonymization 2 Statement that two or more nomina are synonyms and of the valid one

(kyronym) for the taxon they denote

Synonymy 1 (1) List of synonyms of a nomen (protonyms and anoplonyms only).

(2) The relationship between synonyms

Taxomen

(pl. taxomina) 7 Onymological tool, designated as nominal taxon in the Code: the

permanent association between a nomen (hoplonym) and an

onomatophore, allowing objective, non-ambiguous and stable

allocation of nomina to taxa; the onomatophore may be actual or

potential (e.g., specimens lost or destroyed, but known from their

description or illustration); unlike a taxon, a taxomen has no diagnosis,

content or taxonomic boundaries

Taxon

(pl. taxa) 1 Any taxonomic unit recognized by a zoologist, whether named or not; a

taxon is a class having a diagnosis, a content and boundaries; when

validly named according to the Code, it is denoted by its kyronym

Taxonomic 1 (1) Of or relating to taxonomy. (2) Taxonomic synonyms (in botany)

(see GREUTER et al., 1994): subjective synonyms (in zoology) or

doxisonyms

Taxonomy 1 The theory and practice of biological classification

Total 2 Total invalidation of a hoplonym: for all nomenclatural purposes, i.e.

for priority, homonymy and typification

Trinomen

(pl. trinomina) 1 Nomen of a subspecific taxomen of the species-series

Type-genus 1 Generomen designated as onomatophore of a familiomen or of a

classomen

Type-species 1 Speciesomen designated as onomatophore of a generomen

Type-specimen(s) 1 Specimen(s) designated as onomatophore of a speciesomen: holotype,

syntypes, lectotype or neotype

Typification 1 Process by which a specimen (or a series of specimens) is fixed as the

onomatophore of a speciesomen, or by which a taxomen is fixed as the

onomatophore of a taxomen of a higher nominal-series (e.g., a

speciesomen as onomatophore of a generomen, or a generomen as

onomatophore of a familiomen or of a classomen)

Unavailable 1 Unavailable nomen: anoplonym

Uninomen 2 Nomen of a generomen, of a familiomen or of a classomen

Valid 1 Valid hoplonym (kyronym): hoplonym to be used to denote a taxon, as

(1) not being a junior synonym or homonym, (2) not having being

invalidated as a result of automatic application of some special rules of

the Code (e.g., Articles 40.2 or 59.3), and (3) not having been

invalidated by ICZN using its Plenary Powers

Zoonymology 7 The study and theory of zoological nomenclature

96 Dumerilia

DUBOIS

98 Dumerilia

Nomenclatural problems raised by the recent description of a new anaconda species (Squamata, Serpentes, Boidae), with a nomenclatural review of the genus Eunectes

Article

Mar 2024

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.

The taxonominal status of the nomina Lesueuria Milne Edwards, 1841 and Lesueuriidae Chun, 1880, and introduction of a new genus and a new family for Lesueuria pinnata Ralph & Kaberry, 1950, as well as an additional new species of the new genus (Ctenophora, Lobata)

Article

Dec 2023

The nomenclatural problems posed by the nomen of the ctenophore species Lesueuria vitrea Milne Edwards, 1841, type species of the genus Lesueuria Milne Edwards, 1841 which is type genus of the family Lesueuriidae Chun, 1880, and by a few other species long referred to this genus and family, are addressed, and new solutions are proposed for some of them. For the species Lesueuria pinnata Ralph & Kaberry, 1950, an unusual ‘finned’ lobate ctenophore from the southern Pacific Ocean, a new genus and a new family are introduced. It is shown that the nomenclatural problems discussed in this paper raise difficulties for four distinct reasons, related to four different basic concepts of zoological nomenclature: those of ‘name-bearing type’ or onomatophores, of ‘type species’ of genera or nucleospecies, of availability, validity and nomen dubium, and of ‘nomenclatural stability’. The fact that specimens of this group are ‘fragile’ and difficult or impossible to fix and keep in collections requires recourse to indirect methods (detailed description, good iconography and molecular sequencing) applied to ‘ephemeral’ type specimens (holotypes or neotypes) to objectify and stabilize the nomenclature in this group.

LTH 1. Literatura Taxonomica Herpetologica. 1. Presentation

Article

Dec 2023

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.

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

Article

Dec 2023

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.

The first harvestman described from Bocas del Toro Archipelago: a new Poecilaemula (Opiliones: Cosmetidae) and notes about the genus

Article

Mar 2024

Integrative taxonomy of Cercomacroides serva (Sclater, 1858) demonstrates the validity of C. hypomelaena (Sclater, 1890) comb. nov. (Aves: Thamnophilidae)

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2024

Citation: Cavarzere V, Silveira LF (2024) Integrative taxonomy of Cercomacroides serva (Sclater, 1858) demonstrates the validity of C. hypome-laena (Sclater, 1890) comb. nov. (Aves: Thamnophilidae). Vertebrate Zoology 74 235-247. https://doi. Abstract Cercomacroides serva is widely distributed in northern South America. However, this species has never been thoroughly evaluated taxonomically. We conducted a taxonomic study of three taxa currently classified under Cercomacroides serva, based on a study of 307 skins and 145 recordings of male loudsongs. Females from the northwest Amazonian population differ qualitatively from populations from the southwest Amazon in the coloration of the upperparts, primary, and tail. Male loudsongs are superficially similar between these two populations, but the shape of the notes differs significantly. There is no evidence of intergradation or clinal variation in female plumage or male loudsongs. Based on differences in plumage coloration, loudsongs, and lack of evidence of intergra-dation, we suggest that two species are best recognized. The name Cercomacroides serva is here restricted to populations north of the Marañon River in Peru, to the north in Ecuador, and in southwestern Colombia. The name Cercomacroides hypomelaena comb. nov. is revived. This species is found south of the Marañon River, and on both banks of the Ucayali River in Peru, to the eastern left bank of the Madeira River in Brazil, and in northern Bolivia.

LTH 2. Literatura Taxonomica Herpetologica. 2. Glossary

Article

Dec 2023

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.

Further draining of Discocyrtus to expand Neopachylinae (Opiliones, Gonyleptidae): absorption of taxa and establishment of new genera and species

Article

Mar 2024

The gonyleptids are one of the most diverse groups of harvestmen, exhibiting a vast range of sizes, shapes and behaviors. However, its internal classification, earlier based on meristic characters, particularly in larger groups such as Pachylinae and Discocyrtus, has been called into question by new proposals that consider morphological and molecular synapomorphies. Here, we aspire to evaluate the transfer of seven species currently classified under Discocyrtus sensu lato and the monotypic genus Oliverius from Pachylinae to Neopachylinae. Additionally, we propose the inclusion of two new species in Neopachylinae. To test our hypothesis, we expand upon previous cladistic analyses using maximum parsimony and incorporate 40 terminals representing Gonyleptoidea, including all existing members of Neopachylinae, and 116 morphological characters. Our results confirm the hypothesis of monophyly of Neopachylinae after the inclusion of the new and transferred taxa. To provide a comprehensive assessment of the results, we update some diagnoses at the genus and species-level within Neopachylinae. Furthermore, to accommodate the taxonomic changes resulting from this study, we propose 1) the establishment of two new genera, 2) the reassignment of five taxa at the generic level, and 3) the establishment of two new junior subjective synonymies at the species level.

The genus Gromphas Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae): nomenclature, distribution, and conservation, including a contribution to the debate on electronic publications in zoology

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2024
ZOOSYSTEMA

Mario Cupello

Previously overlooked literature now brought to my attention has resulted in the following nomenclatural conclusions: 1) The species known since 2013 as Gromphas inermis Harold, 1869 must be called G. lacordairii (Oken, 1834), whose original combination was Coprobius lacordairii. Gromphas inermis is a new junior subjective synonym of G. lacordairii; 2) Gromphas was made available by Dejean, in 1836, not Brullé, in 1837; the former, therefore, should be credited with the authorship; and 3) the type species of Gromphas is Coprobius lacordairii Oken, 1834 by original monotypy, not Onitis aerugionosus Perty, 1830 by subsequent monotypy. Also discussed is the publication year of G. jardim Cupello & Vaz-de-Mello, 2015. This leads me to address the problem of zoological works first published in electronic-only versions with their own pagination and which are later reissued integrated into a journal’s volume and repaginated. It is here argued that these two versions – the detached and the volume-integrated ones – should be deemed separate available works, and that new nomenclatural acts can be made available from detached versions. If this is accepted, the later publication of the volume-integrated versions has no bearing on the availability of the earlier detached versions. I also introduce new data on the type series of Onitis aeruginosus (currently, Gromphas aerugionosa) and G. inermis, new specimens of the rare G. jardim, mislabelled specimens of G. amazonica Bates, 1870, and newly discovered specimens of the vanished G. dichroa Blanchard, 1846. The latter include the new record from Santa Catarina state, Brazil. The disappearance of G. dichroa since 1954, including the possibility that it might be extinct, is discussed.

Etymology of nomina of Amphibians and Reptiles of the French Antilles

Article

Dec 2023

Thierry Frétey

We provide a catalogue of 41 genus substantives and 110 species or subspecies epithets of amphibians and reptiles of the French Antilles, with presentation of some nomenclatural consequences that result from our observations, especially for Dryophytes squirella, Iguana rhinolophus, Pholidoscelis cineraceus and Pholidoscelis plei analifer. In order to solve some nomenclatural cases, we had to resort to 9 to 21 technical nomenclatural terms. Once again, this highlights the fact that nomenclatural problems concerning ancient nomina cannot be properly dealt with in a hurry and without a good, but also critical, knowledge of the Code, and that the use of a more detailed terminology than that of the Code facilitates such a work.

Frogs of the subgenus Pelophylax (Amphibia, Anura, genus Rana): A catalogue of available and valid scientific names, with comments on name-bearing types, complete synonymies, proposed common names, and maps showing all type localities

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1994

Miscellanea nomenclatorica batrachologica. 19. Notes on the nomenclature of Ranidae and related groups

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1999

Alain Dubois

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature

Article

Jan 1994

Amphibia Zambesiaca 4. Bufonidae

Article

Jan 1988

Systematics of Southeast Asian ranids: Multiple origins of voicelessness in the subgenus Limnonectes (Fitzinger)

Article

Jan 1993
HERPETOLOGICA

Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered

Article

Mar 1977
PALEOBIOLOGY

We believe that punctuational change dominates the history of life: evolution is concentrated in very rapid events of speciation (geologically instantaneous, even if tolerably continuous in ecological time). Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction. Phyletic gradualism is very rare and too slow, in any case, to produce the major events of evolution. Evolutionary trends are not the product of slow, directional transformation within lineages; they represent the differential success of certain species within a clade—speciation may be random with respect to the direction of a trend (Wright's rule). As an a priori bias, phyletic gradualism has precluded any fair assessment of evolutionary tempos and modes. It could not be refuted by empirical catalogues constructed in its light because it excluded contrary information as the artificial result of an imperfect fossil record. With the model of punctuated equilibria, an unbiased distribution of evolutionary tempos can be established by treating stasis as data and by recording the pattern of change for all species in an assemblage. This distribution of tempos can lead to strong inferences about modes. If, as we predict, the punctuational tempo is prevalent, then speciation—not phyletic evolution—must be the dominant mode of evolution. We argue that virtually none of the examples brought forward to refute our model can stand as support for phyletic gradualism; many are so weak and ambiguous that they only reflect the persistent bias for gradualism still deeply embedded in paleontological thought. Of the few stronger cases, we concentrate on Gingerich's data for Hyopsodus and argue that it provides an excellent example of species selection under our model. We then review the data of several studies that have supported our model since we published it five years ago. The record of human evolution seems to provide a particularly good example: no gradualism has been detected within any hominid taxon, and many are long-ranging; the trend to larger brains arises from differential success of essentially static taxa. The data of molecular genetics support our assumption that large genetic changes often accompany the process of speciation. Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start—it was never “seen” in the rocks; it expressed the cultural and political biases of 19th century liberalism. Huxley advised Darwin to eschew it as an “unnecessary difficulty.” We think that it has now become an empirical fallacy. A punctuational view of change may have wide validity at all levels of evolutionary processes. At the very least, it deserves consideration as an alternate way of interpreting the history of life.

Variation within the Leptodactylus podicipinus-wagneri Complex of frogs (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae)

Article