Found 189 results
ICZN,
“Opinion 2456: Family-group names based on Ortalis Merrem, 1786 (Aves, Cracidae): usage conserved by
suppression of the family-group names based on Ortalis Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera)”,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
vol. 77,
pp. ,
2020.
Under the plenary power, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has conserved the family-group name Ortalidini Donegan, 2012 (Aves, Cracidae) with this spelling and authorship by suppressing all family-group names based on Ortalis Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera). As a result, Ortalidaini Donegan, 2012 is an incorrect original spelling, and....
Thomas M. Donegan, “Case 3669: Family-group names based on Ortalis Merrem, 1786 (Aves, Cracidae): proposed conservation of Ortalida-, Ortalis- or Ortalid- as the stem and suppression of family-group names based on Ortalis Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera) in the latter two instances, and acceptance of the English text of part of Article 29.3.3 of the Code as definitive in the second instance.”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. , 2015.
The Case is brought under Articles 78.1, 81.1 and 89 of the Code to resolve a controversy surrounding the stem of family-group names based on Ortalis Merrem, 1786, a genus of large, pheasant-like birds (chachalacas) of the New World. This genus has a junior homonym in Diptera, Ortalis Fallén,....
Spencer K. Monckton, “Case 3670: Chilicola vicugna Toro & Moldenke, 1979 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Colletidae): proposed replacement of the holotype by a neotype”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. , 2014.
ICZN, “Opinion 2449: Anolis chlorocyanus Duméril & Bibron, 1837 and Anolis coelestinus Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Squamata): conservation of usage of specific names by designation of a neotype for the former species not approved”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 77, pp. , 2020.
he International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has declined to use its plenary power to designate a neotype for Anolis chlorocyanus Duméril & Bibron, 1837. As a result, the specific name Anolis chlorocyanus Duméril & Bibron, 1837, will have priority over A. coelestinus Cope, 1862 as the valid name for the....
Gunther Köhler, S. Blair Hedges, “Case 3672: Anolis chlorocyanus Duméril & Bibron, 1837 and Anolis coelestinus Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific names and designation of a neotype for A. chlorocyanus”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. , 2015.
The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names of Anolis chlorocyanus Duméril & Bibron, 1837 and Anolis coelestinus Cope, 1862 in their accustomed usages. The syntypes of the former species are conspecific with the only available syntype of the latter; however, for....
Lucio Bonato, Alessandro Minelli, “Case 3673: Geophilus alpinus Meinert, 1870 (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. , 2015.
The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Geophilus alpinus Meinert, 1870 for a widespread European species of geophilomorph centipedes. This name, currently in use, is threatened by the subjective synonyms Geophilus impressus C.L. Koch, 1847 and Geophilus palustris C.L. Koch, 1863, which have....
ICZN, “Opinion 2450: Geophilus alpinus Meinert, 1870 (Chilopoda): specific name not conserved”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 77, pp. , 2020.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has declined to use its plenary power to conserve the specific name of Geophilus alpinus Meinert, 1870 for a European species of geophilomorph centipede. As a result, the name impressus C.L. Koch, 1847 as published in the binomen Geophilus impressus has priority over....
Roy A. Norton, Ekaterina A. Sidorchuk, “Case 3674: Collohmannia Sellnick, 1922 (Arachnida, Acari, Oribatida): proposed conservation by giving it precedence over the senior subjective synonym Embolacarus Sellnick, 1919”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. , 2015.
Valter Weijola, “Case 3676: Tupinambis indicus Daudin, 1802 (currently Varanus indicus; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by replacement of the neotype”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. , 2015.
The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to designate a new neotype for the mangrove monitor Varanus indicus (Daudin, 1802), which is endemic to the Moluccan islands of Indonesia. The recent choice of an unrepresentative specimen to serve as neotype for this nominal species....
ICZN, “Opinion 2451: Tupinambis indicus Daudin, 1802 (currently Varanus indicus; Reptilia, Squamata): specific name conserved”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 77, pp. , 2020.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has used its plenary power to conserve the accustomed usage of the specific names of Varanus indicus (Daudin, 1802) and Varanus chlorostigma Gray, 1831 by replacing the neotype specimen of Tupinambis indices Daudin, 1802 with a new neotype that belongs to the original taxonomic....
ICZN is supported by the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, National University of Singapore (Company Registration No. 200604346E).
ICZN is an Associate Participant to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) & a Scientific Member of the International Union of Biological Science (IUBS).
Correspondence to the ICZN should be directed to the Secretary (iczn@nus.edu.sg / +65 6518 8364).