Cap 3
14 pág.

Cap 3


DisciplinaZoologia3.086 materiais20.044 seguidores
Pré-visualização7 páginas
completely, and provided with 
minimal difficulty and cost to any competent 
researcher who wishes to study them. After 1999, 
there must be an explicit fixation of a holotype or 
 syntypes and indication of where these specimens 
are depositied. 
 The type for the genus is a species, which is 
often established by original designation, by some 
indication, or by subsequent designation. Since 
many ciliate genera were monotypic when first 
established, there is no ambiguity regarding the 
type-species. At the family level, the type-genus 
is usually easily recognized as the family name is 
typically based on it, although there are exceptions 
(Corliss, 1962a, 1962b, 1977). 
 3.3.2 Important Dates 
 As noted above, \u201cyear zero\u201d for the Code is 1st 
January 1758, dating from the year in which 
 Linnaeus (1758) first published his Systema 
Naturae (Art. 3.2; Code). Prior to 1900, names 
published as vernacular names and generally 
accepted by the specialist community are avail-
able (e.g., Bursariens of Dujardin as Bursariidae 
Dujardin, 1841; see Corliss, 1962a). Beginning 
1st January 1931, it was necessary to designate 
a type species to establish a valid genus name 
(Art. 13, 68; Code). If this was not done, the 
name technically becomes a nomen nudum or 
\u201cnaked name.\u201d Prior to 1931, the name may be 
acceptable provided it was at least accompanied 
by a description, definition or other indication. 
After 1999, there must be an explicit fixation of 
a holotype and indication of where this specimen 
is deposited, and the taxon must be explicitly 
indicated as new by using \u201cn. sp.\u201d, \u201cn. gen.\u201d, and 
\u201cn. fam.\u201d or equivalent designation. Foissner and 
Berger (1999) provide an excellent treatment 
of the problems arising from nomina nuda that 
arose during molecular biological investigations 
of the oxytrichid stichotrichs . 
 If a name has not been in practical use for at least 
50 years \u2013 the \u201c50-year\u201d rule, it can be considered a 
nomen oblitum or forgotten name. Thus, an unused 
senior synonym (i.e., older name) cannot replace a 
junior synonym (i.e., younger name) that has been 
in general use. 
 3.3.3 About Names 
 Once fixed by a nomenclatural author, a name-
bearing type cannot be changed. Names are con-
sidered available when they are published in a 
work that is in hard copy, publicly available, and 
produced in sufficient copies. Names published in 
theses and abstracts are generally considered not to 
be available. 
 The principle of homonymy states that no two 
scientific zoological names can be spelled iden-
tically. Thus, all other things being equal, the 
 principle of priority will dictate which name shall 
remain valid and which name must be replaced. 
It is recommended that differences in one letter 
should be avoided. Whether names have been used 
before can be discovered by consulting indexes 
in the Zoological Record and of S. A. Neave. 
Aescht (2001), noting that these are not perfect 
records, emphasized that there is no substitute for 
a thorough personal knowledge of the relevant 
literature.
 If two different names refer to the same name-
bearing type, they are called objective synonyms 
or nomenclatural synonyms . The nomenclatural 
decision here is therefore unambiguous based on the 
rule of priority: the junior objective synonym , that 
is the more recent name, must be taken out of use. 
Sometimes, however, there is ambiguity in regard 
to the name-bearing type, especially in the proto-
zoological literature in which written descriptions 
and/or figures may be the only means of understand-
ing the features of the name-bearing type. In this 
case, a later worker may decide from the evidence 
that two different names, in their opinion, refer to 
the same species. These names would be considered 
 subjective synonyms because they are based on the 
subjective judgement of that particular taxonomist. 
Subjective decisions are never definitive since they 
are a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, the reviser 
may invoke the rules of priority and recommend that 
the junior subjective synonym be taken out of use. 
 There are numerous rules and recommendations 
with regard to the technical formation of names. 
Simply, scientific names of organisms should be 
Latin or latinized, regardless of their etymologi-
cal origin. The genus name begins with a capital 
letter and is a substantive or noun or adjective of 
a substantive or noun. When publishing the name, 
it is advisable to state its derivation or etymology. 
In addition, the gender of the genus name should 
be indicated. The gender can be determined by 
referring to standard Greek and Latin dictionaries. 
If the genus name is a compound word, it should 
take its gender from the last component (Art. 30; 
Code). Refer to Corliss (1962a, 1962b), Aescht 
(2001), and the Code for more detailed information 
and advice. 
 3.3.4 Summary 
 The above discussion is meant to provide a brief 
introduction to the rules of nomenclature. Nothing 
substitutes for a reading of the most recent edition 
3.3 Taxonomy and Nomenclature 87
88 3. Characters and the Rationale Behind the New Classification
of the Code. While the Code was established to 
promote stability, circumstances arise from time-to-
time when the preservation of names that contra-
vene the Code is seen to be in the best interests of 
the scientific community: stability is preserved in 
these cases even though the rules of the Code would 
be violated. In this event, a petition may be submit-
ted to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature , arguing the case for the conservation 
of a name. For example, an appeal for conservation 
of the genus Tetrahymena Furgason, 1940 was made 
by Corliss and Dougherty (1967) while a more 
recent case, for example, was made by Corliss and 
Foissner (1997) for conservation of authorship for 
Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840. Supportive rulings 
in relation to these petitions were respectively made 
by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature (1970, 1999b).