Bionomina 2021-12-17T10:26:05+13:00 Alain Dubois Open Journal Systems <p><strong>Bionomina</strong> is an international journal of biological nomenclature and terminology.</p> <p><strong>Just metamorphosed amphibians: imagos or metamorphs?</strong></p> 2021-12-13T13:47:38+13:00 ALAIN DUBOIS <p>The term <strong><em>metamorph</em></strong> for just metamorphosed amphibians appeared surreptitiously in the batrachological literature. It is shown here that this term is linguistically unjustified and conceptually confusing, as it has never been associated with a clear, formal definition stating in particular when does this developmental stage start and end. The use of the term <strong><em>imago</em></strong> for an individual resulting from the last metamorphosis following a larval stage, which exists for insects since 1767 and for amphibians since 1808, is much preferable. For amphibians, the formal definition of this term was given in 1978 as an animal having completed its metamorphosis, before having substantially grown and until the first major ecological event in its life cycle (such as migration, hibernation or aestivation). In amphibians, this stage is followed by a stage <strong><em>juvenile</em></strong> and a stage <strong><em>subadult</em></strong> until the stage <strong><em>adult</em></strong> is reached, which is defined by sexual maturity and ability to reproduce. Given the diversity of developmental modes in the animal kingdom, it would be vain to try to homogenise the terminology of all detailed developmental stages across all groups. However, the possibility to homogenise the use of the term <strong><em>imago</em></strong> throughout zoology for specimens resulting from the ‘last metamorphosis’ (i.e., drastic change not only of form but also in some anatomical structures), whether followed by growth and minor transformations or not, and whether associated with sexual maturity or not, would certainly be worth considering. This would allow to have a few general descriptive terms to designate the main similar, but not homologous, ‘landmarks’ observed in the development of many animals (<strong><em>egg</em></strong>, <strong><em>larva</em></strong>, <strong><em>imago</em></strong> and <strong><em>adult</em></strong>), just like we have a general term (<strong><em>metamorphosis</em></strong>) for ‘similar’ phenomena which are not homologous. This would not prevent specialists of the various zoological groups to have specific terms for more precisely defined ‘stages’ which are proper to these groups.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>Whence <em>Orycteropus</em>? The correct authorship and date for the generic name of the aardvark (Mammalia, Tubulidentata, Orycteropodidae)</strong></p> 2021-12-13T14:03:28+13:00 NEAL WOODMAN <p>All else being equal, the principle of priority in zoological taxonomic nomenclature gives precedence to the earliest name for a particular taxon. Determining the origin of some late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century taxonomic names, however, can be vexing, particularly when the history of a name was never completely documented in contemporary synonymies. The authorship and date for <em>Orycteropus</em> Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: 102, the genus-group name for the African aardvark, <em>Orycteropus afer</em> (Pallas, 1766), has been variously ascribed to at least four authors other than É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Using digitally imaged publications now available in a variety of internet-accessible libraries, I traced the comprehensive history of the name and show how and, to some extent, why its origin became obscured. É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s original description was re-published twice, most likely to make the description more widely available. Rather than reinforce his authorship for the name, however, the surprising consequence of the multiple publications was to cast doubt on it.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>Barton and the forgotten description of <em>Salamandra horrida</em> (Amphibia, Urodela): story of a rediscovery</strong></p> 2021-12-14T12:47:23+13:00 THIERRY FRÉTEY JEAN RAFFAËLLI <p><em>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</em> (Sonnini &amp; Latreille, 1801<em>b</em>) was long considered the only species of the genus <em>Cryptobranchus</em> Leuckart, 1821. In this genus, Sabatino &amp; Routman (2009) found eight genetic independent unities isolated from each other, which they treated as Management Units. Later, Hime (2017) recovered five strongly supported species-level lineages within this genus, corresponding more or less to the lineages of Sabatino &amp; Routman (2009). We herein resurrect a valid nomen for one of the lineages of Hime (2017) (Ohio/Allegheny/Susquehanna lineage), the most broadly distributed of the five, which should be named <em>Cryptobranchus horridus</em> (Barton, 1807<em>a</em>). We relate the story of the rediscovery of two forgotten publications of Barton (1807<em>a‒b</em>) preceding that of 1808 so far recognized as the original description of this taxon. We discuss the problem of the onymotope of <em>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</em> and present logonomic lists for the genus <em>Cryptobranchus</em> and all the taxa described. The nucleospecies of the genus <em>Cryptobranchus</em> is <em>Salamandra</em> <em>horrida</em> Barton, 1807<em>a</em> which is no longer a synonym of <em>Salamandra alleganiensis</em> Sonnini &amp; Latreille, 1801<em>b</em>. The updating of the logonymic lists revealed the forgotten designation of Barnes (1828) for the genus <em>Protonopsis</em> Le Conte, 1824, a synonym of <em>Cryptobranchus</em>. The following nomina can be allocated to three of the five lineages identified by Hime (2017): <em>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</em>, <em>Cryptobranchus horridus</em> and <em>Cryptobranchus bishopi</em>. Two other lineages require further studies.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>Recommendations concerning the presentation of synonymic and related lists in zootaxonomy: the example of the family Cryptobranchidae Fitzinger, 1826 (Amphibia, Urodela)</strong></p> 2021-12-14T12:54:15+13:00 ALAIN DUBOIS <p>Synonymic and related (logonymic) lists play important roles in taxonomy: they give the valid and correct nomina of the taxa of a zoological group, they allow to know whether nomina are available for naming newly recognised taxa, and they provide a condensed history of the taxonomy of the group. To be really useful, such lists should be complete and accurate. This is not always the case, in particular in many taxonomic and nomenclatural online databases, which should be used with great caution. Recommendations are offered concerning the presentation of such lists in order to make them more useful and reliable. They are illustrated by the family-series and genus-series logonymic lists of the amphibian family <em>Cryptobranchidae</em>.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>Additional comments on the types and nomina of several North American ratsnakes (<em>Pantherophis obsoletus</em> complex, Colubridae, Serpentes)</strong></p> 2021-12-14T12:57:44+13:00 R. ALEXANDER PYRON STEVE GOTTE FRANK T. BURBRINK <p>Here, we provide updates to our recent paper reviewing the taxonomy and nomenclature of the Eastern ratsnakes (<em>Pantherophis obsoletus </em>complex, <em>Colubridae</em>, <strong>Serpentes</strong>). Specifically, we clarify that <em>Coluber alleghaniensis </em>Holbrook, 1836 is a subjective, rather than objective, senior synonym of <em>Elaphis holbrookii</em> Duméril, Bibron &amp; Duméril, 1854. Contrary to our statement that USNM 1733–4 were syntypes of <em>Scotophis lindheimerii</em> Baird &amp; Girard, 1853, the former is the holotype and the latter is the paratype. The holotype is lost and the paratype is in poor condition, but no neotype designation is warranted at present. We note that USNM 248870, which we designated as the lectotype of <em>Coluber obsoletus lemniscatus </em>Cope, 1888, was originally cataloged as USNM 4710. This catalog number was shared with the type of the salamander <em>Amblystoma tenebrosum</em> Baird &amp; Girard, 1852, and the snake was re-cataloged as USNM 248870 in 1985. Finally, we originally treated <em>C. reticulatus </em>La Cépède, 1789 and <em>C. reticularis </em>Daudin, 1803 as senior subjective synonyms of <em>C. corais </em>Boie, 1827, but here corroborate recent authors in designating it a senior subjective synonym of <em>C. obsoletus </em>Say <em>in </em>James, 1823. As the Commission suppressed <em>C. reticulatus </em>La Cépède, 1789 (an exoplonym), this subsequently rendered <em>C. reticularis </em>Daudin, 1803 (an exoploneonym) unavailable as well.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>The correct name for the North African rock lizard is <em>Agama bibronii</em> A. Duméril <em>in</em> Duméril &amp; Duméril, 1851, not <em>Agama impalearis</em> Boettger, 1874 (Reptilia, Squamata)</strong></p> 2021-12-14T13:03:39+13:00 WOLFGANG DENZER <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Over half a century ago, Mertens (1955) noted that the name <em>Agama bibronii</em> A. Duméril in Duméril &amp; Duméril, 1851 for a North African agamid lizard species was preoccupied by <em>Trapelus</em> (<em>Psammorrhoa</em>) <em>bibronii</em> Fitzinger, 1843, a species inhabiting South Africa. He consequently stated that the next available name for <em>Agama bibronii</em> ‘Duméril, 1851’, namely <em>Agama colonorum</em> var. <em>impalearis</em> Boettger, 1874 should be applied to this taxon. Until today, the herpetological literature contains examples where either <em>Agama bibronii</em> ‘Duméril, 1851’ or <em>Agama impalearis</em> Boettger, 1874 is used to denominate the North African rock agama. However, an apparently overlooked ruling by the Commission suppressed the name <em>Trapelus</em> (<em>Psammorrhoa</em>) <em>bibronii</em> Fitzinger, 1843, so that <em>Agama bibronii</em> A. Duméril in Duméril &amp; Duméril, 1851 is the valid name for the North African rock agama.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>Conversion of the names Pyxicephaloidea, Pyxicephalidae and Pyxicephalinae (Anura, Ranoidea) into phylogenetic nomenclature</strong></p> 2021-12-14T13:03:46+13:00 ALFRED LEMIERRE MICHEL LAURIN <p>The recent publications of the sixth edition of the <em>PhyloCode</em> and of the monograph <em>Phylonyms</em> now allow the publication of nomenclatural acts that will establish priority under that code. This includes defining existing and newly proposed taxon names in conformity with the <em>PhyloCode</em>. Among amphibian taxa, very few names have been converted so far, and we take the opportunity of our recent phylogenetic analysis of neobatrachians focusing on an extinct genus of <em>Pyxicephalidae</em>, <em>Thaumastosaurus</em>, from the Eocene of Western Europe, to convert the names <strong><em>Pyxicephaloidea</em></strong>, <strong><em>Pyxicephalidae</em> </strong>and <strong><em>Pyxicephalinae</em></strong> into phylogenetic nomenclature, following the <em>PhyloCode</em> rules.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 <p><strong>A reply to ‘Science versus vernacular’: should some taxa of animals and plants be renamed according to ‘indigenous’ practices?</strong></p> 2021-11-26T08:11:06+13:00 LEN NORMAN GILLMAN SHANE DONALD WRIGHT <p>Palma &amp; Heath (2021) have recently commented on our proposal to reinstate indigenous names within the Linnaean system of nomenclature on the basis of their chronological priority. They argue that this challenges rules that have been unquestioned for 250 years. However, we hold that the rules of the various codes of nomenclature are constantly under review. The opinion they prosecute crystallises down, in large part, to one that suggests that because there are pre-existing rules about priority, we should not change these: an argument that involves a degree of circularity. Unfortunately, Palma and Heath misinterpret our proposal throughout much of their discussion. We do not advocate replacing the binomina as is claimed nor do we advocate for name changes where there is no consensus on a given taxon among the people indigenous to the natural distribution of that taxon. Our proposal is that indigenous names can replace the species epithet where there is a consensus on a single indigenous name for a taxon throughout its distribution and where there is demonstrable temporal priority. Without such consensus, species that cover wide distributions and have multiple indigenous names will, under our proposal, remain unchanged in their nomenclature.</p> 2021-12-17T00:00:00+13:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Bionomina