志留纪晚期拟莱尼蕨植物Junggaria（准噶尔蕨属）的命名问题

基于《国际植物命名法规（维也纳法规）》,文中简要讨论了志留纪晚Pridoli世拟莱尼蕨植物Junggaria （准噶尔蕨属）命名中存在的突出问题,指出过去使用的JunggariaDou,1983以及J·spinosa Dou,1983和J.sphaerica (Senkevitsch) Cai,1995均未合格发表。因...     

关于晚古生代楔叶属(楔叶纲)的名实问题

简要回顾Sphenophyllum Koenig和Sphenophyllum Brongniart的研究历史,详细讨论该属命名中存在的问题。这两者是基于相同的模式（即Sphenophyllites emarginatus Brongniart,1822）建立的。根据2006年《国际植物命名法规》（维也纳法规）规则32．1,14．4和附录Ⅲ,Sphenophyllum Koenig因没有明确的发表日期（出版年）,故为非法名称,应予废弃;而Sphenophyllum Brongniart因广为使用已被提议为保留名,其命名异名Sphenophyllites Brongniart,1822应被废弃。因此,正确名称应是Sphenophyllum Brongniart,1828。     

ICNP与SeqCode：组学时代原核生物命名面临的机遇与挑战

自1936年细菌学家Buchanan负责起草专门的细菌命名法规以来,国际原核生物命名法规(International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, ICNP)在不断发展和完善过程中,积极促进了原核生物分类学及相关学科的发展。随着组学技术在原核生物多样性研究中的应用,越来越多未培养的细菌和古菌新类群被发现,却因为ICNP要求活的生物材料作为命名模式(nomenclatural type),而无法获得生效名称(validly published name)。2022年,原核生物命名法规从序列数据描述原核生物命名法(Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from Sequence Data, SeqCode)正式发布,以补充ICNP在未培养微生物类群命名方面的不足。SeqCode不希望和ICNP产生较大分歧,并尽可能保留在将来和ICNP合并的可能性。然而,作为两种独立运行的命名法规,尚不明确SeqCode和ICNP并存会对学术界产生怎样的影响。本文系统介绍了ICNP和SeqCode各自的发展历程和主要内容,分析了二者的优势和局限性,并呼吁微生物学相关领域的学者共同关注原核生物命名法规并应用于实践,以期构建更加合理、有效的原核生物名称系统。     

Zoological nomenclature in the century of extinctions: priority vs. ‘usage’

Our epoch is a crucial one for scientific knowledge of the organisms that live on our planet. The combination of the biodiversity crisis and the taxonomic gap results in taxonomic urgency. In this context, great attention should be paid to the nomenclatural rules helping taxonomists in their urgent task, rather than diverting their time and energy to secondary questions or debates. In zoology, the new criterion of ‘prevailing usage’, introduced in the 1999 edition of the Code of nomenclature to ‘protect’ some nomina, raises four kinds of problems: (1) it weakens the binding value and strength of the Code, thus indirectly bringing support to the development of alternative nomenclatural systems; (2) it encourages personal debates among taxonomists, giving undue importance to the ‘argument of authority’ in nomenclatural decisions; (3) it sends a wrong message to non-taxonomists as regards completion of the taxonomic work; (4) it acts as a threat against natural history museums, in devaluing onomatophores (type specimens), the conservation of which is one of their major ‘visible’ functions. In conclusion, it is suggested that ‘protection’ of some nomina ‘threatened’ by rules of the Code should be limited strictly to nomina well-known outside the small world of systematics. This would require new rules for the Code to clearly define categories of usage on the basis of objective criteria.     

新版国际植物命名法规(维也纳法规)中的主要变化

出版于2006年9月的最新版的《国际植物命名法规》,即维也纳法规（Vienna Code）,取代了圣路易斯法规（Saint Louis Code）而成为管理植物学（包括藻类学和真菌学）科学命名的唯一有效法规。本文报道了维也纳法规和圣路易斯法规之间的主要区别。这些区别包括两版法规在起始日期、有效发表、合格发表、化石植物、多型真菌、拼写和附录诸方面的不同。     

A logic approach to modelling nomenclatural change

We utilize an Answer Set Programming (ASP) approach to show that the principles of nomenclature are tractable in computational logic. To this end we design a hypothetical, 20 nomenclatural taxon use case, with starting conditions that embody several overarching principles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, including Binomial Nomenclature, Priority, Coordination, Homonymy, Typification and the structural requirement of Gender Agreement. The use case ending conditions are triggered by the reinterpretation of the diagnostic features of one of 12 type specimens anchoring the corresponding species‐level epithets. Permutations of this child‐to‐parent reassignment action lead to 36 alternative scenarios, where each scenario requires a set of 1–14 logically contingent nomenclatural emendations. We show that an ASP transition system approach can correctly infer the Code‐mandated changes for each scenario, and visually output the ending conditions. The results provide a foundation for further developing logic‐based nomenclatural change optimization and validation services, which could be applied in global nomenclatural registries. More generally, logic explorations of nomenclatural and taxonomic change scenarios provide a novel means of assessing design biases inherent in the principles of nomenclature, and can therefore inform the design of future, big data‐compatible identifier systems that recognize and mitigate these constraints.     

New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The recent multiplication of cladistic hypotheses for many zoological groups poses a challenge to zoological nomenclature following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: in order to account for these hypotheses, we will need many more ranks than currently allowed in this system, especially in lower taxonomy (around the ranks genus and species). The current Code allows the use of as many ranks as necessary in the family-series of nomina (except above superfamily), but forbids the use of more than a few ranks in the genus and species-series. It is here argued that this limitation has no theoretical background, does not respect the freedom of taxonomic thoughts or actions, and is harmful to zoological taxonomy in two respects at least: (1) it does not allow to express in detail hypothesized cladistic relationships among taxa at lower taxonomic levels (genus and species); (2) it does not allow to point taxonomically to low-level differentiation between populations of the same species, although this would be useful in some cases for conservation biology purposes. It is here proposed to modify the rules of the Code in order to allow use by taxonomists of an indeterminate number of ranks in all nominal-series. Such an 'expanded nomenclatural system' would be highly flexible and likely to be easily adapted to any new finding or hypothesis regarding cladistic relationships between taxa, at genus and species level and below. This system could be useful for phylogeographic analysis and in conservation biology. In zoological nomenclature, whereas robustness of nomina is necessary, the same does not hold for nomenclatural ranks, as the latter are arbitrary and carry no special biological, evolutionary or other information, except concerning the mutual relationships between taxa in the taxonomic hierarchy. Compared to the Phylocode project, the new system is equally unambiguous within the frame of a given taxonomic frame, but it provides more explicit and informative nomina for non-specialist users, and is more economic in terms of number of nomina needed to account for a given hierarchy. These ideas are exemplified by a comparative study of three possible nomenclatures for the taxonomy recently proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) for American frogs traditionally referred to the genus Rana.     

Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale

The recent publication of a new hypothesis of cladistic relationships among American frogs referred to the genus Rana, accompanied by a new taxonomy and a new nomenclature of this group [Hillis D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34, 299-314], draws attention to the problems posed by the use of a "double nomenclature", following both the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (designated here as "onomatophore-based nomenclature") and the rules of the draft Phylocode (designated here as "definition-based nomenclature"). These two nomenclatural systems, which rely upon widely different theoretical bases, are incompatible, and the latter cannot be viewed as a "modification" of the former. Accordingly, scientific names (nomina) following both systems should be clearly distinguished in scientific publications. Onomatophore-based nomina should continue to be written as they have been for about 250 years, whereas definition-based nomina should be written in a specific way, e.g., Lithobates. The combined use of both nomenclatural systems for the same taxonomy in the same paper requires good knowledge and careful respect of the rules of the Code regarding availability, allocation and validity of nomina. As shown by this example, not doing so may result in various problems, in particular in publishing nomina nuda or in using nomenclatural ranks invalid under the current Code. Attention is drawn to the fact that new nomina published without diagnostic characters are not available under the Code, and that the latter currently forbids the use of more than two ranks (subgenus and "aggregate of species") between the ranks genus and species.     

Main changes in the new edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature——the “Vienna Code”

The rules that govern scientific naming in botany (including phycology and mycology) are revised at Nomenclature Section meetings at successive International Botanical Congresses. The most recent edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) embodies the decisions of the XVII International Botanical Congress held in Vienna in 2005 and supersedes the Saint Louis Code. This paper presents an account of the main differences between the two Codes, including those related with starting points, effective publication, valid publication, fossil plants, pleomorphic fungi, orthography, and the Appendices.     

A glossary for biometeorology

Here we present, for the first time, a glossary of biometeorological terms. The glossary aims to address the need for a reliable source of biometeorological definitions, thereby facilitating communication and mutual understanding in this rapidly expanding field. A total of 171 terms are defined, with reference to 234 citations. It is anticipated that the glossary will be revisited in coming years, updating terms and adding new terms, as appropriate. The glossary is intended to provide a useful resource to the biometeorology community, and to this end, readers are encouraged to contact the lead author to suggest additional terms for inclusion in later versions of the glossary as a result of new and emerging developments in the field.     

A glossary of scientific terms used in the Russian-language literature on parasitic and blood-sucking arthropods

The glossary includes the major terms and concepts most often used in the Russian literature on parasitology and medico-veterinary entomology. Each term is explained, and some are supplemented with more common English equivalents. The glossary covers only the common terms and does not include those referring to very specific topics and concepts; the names of arthropod taxa and morphological terms are also not included. The list of terms is by no means a comprehensive glossary and is not supposed to be a normative edition.     

Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has voted in favour of a revised version of the amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature that was proposed in 2008. The purpose of the amendment is to expand and refine the methods of publication allowed by the Code, particularly in relation to electronic publication. The amendment establishes an Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (with ZooBank as its online version), allows electronic publication after 2011 under certain conditions, and disallows publication on optical discs after 2012. The requirements for electronic publications are that the work be registered in ZooBank before it is published, that the work itself state the date of publication and contain evidence that registration has occurred, and that the ZooBank registration state both the name of an electronic archive intended to preserve the work and the ISSN or ISBN associated with the work. Registration of new scientific names and nomenclatural acts is not required. The Commission has confirmed that ZooBank is ready to handle the requirements of the amendment.     

关于晚古生代圆印木属(石松纲)的命名问题

文章讨论晚古生代木本石松植物圆印木属Cyclostigma命名中存在的突出问题．包括4个方面：1）圆印木属的合格发表和作者引证;2）圆印木属的异名、同名和替代名;3）圆印木属的保留;4）圆印木属的模式。基于相关原始文献和国际植物命名法规．文中澄清了这些命名问题。Hecr在1871年最早合格发表了,圆印木属．故该属应被引证为Cyclostigma Haughton ex Hcer．1871．（或Cyclostigma Hcer,1871）．而不是文献中通常引证的Cyclostigma Haughton．1860（或1859）。圆印木属不宜归入具叶舌的窝木属Botkrodendron Lindlcy et Hutton．1833．二者相关的生殖器官特征差别也较大。圆印木属的3个同名Cyclostigma Hochst．ex EndL．1842（夹竹桃科Apocynaccac）．Cyclostigma Klotzsch ex Sccm,.1853（大戟科Euphorbiaceae）和Cyclostigma Phil．,1870（茄科Solanaceae）住现代被子植物中已不再使用．Cyclostigma Hochst．ex Endl．被提议废弃,后两者为非法名称．这3者分别是更早合格发表的属名Voacang Thouars．1806．Croton L,.1753和Leptoglossi,Benth．,1844的分类学异名。Cyclostigma Haughton ex Heer因住化石石松植物中广为使用已被提议为保留名,它的模式种为基尔托克圆印木C kiltorkense Haughton ex Heer．为晚泥盆世法门期植物群的重要组分或标志化石．具有十分重要的生物地层学意义。比较而言,圆印木属的替代名Jurinodendron Doweld．2001日后被普遍接受的可能性极小。保留广泛使用的圆印木属Cyclostigma有利于命名的稳定性．而且避免了不必要的重新命名。由于圆印木属模式种的原始标本下落不明．一份保存在爱尔兰部柏林三一学院地质博物馆的标本TCD．6012（采自模式产地）被选为新模式。     

中国被子植物28个名称的后选模式指定

查阅保存于中国科学院植物研究所植物标本馆（PE）的模式标本,发现中国被子植物中有28个植物名称的模式均多于1份标本,根据《国际植物命名法规》（维也纳法规）规则8．1、9．9、9．10和37．2,以及辅则9A．2和9A．3的精神,对这些名称做出后选模式指定。     

Zoological nomenclature in the digital era

Creation and use of the scientific names of animals are ruled by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Until recently, publication of new names in a work produced with ink on paper was required for their availability. A long awaited amendment to the Code issued in September 2012 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature now allows publication of new names in online-only works, provided that the latter are registered with ZooBank, the Official Register of Animal Names. With this amendment, the rules of zoological nomenclature have been aligned with the opportunities (and needs) of our digital era. However, possible causes for nomenclatural instability remain. These could be completely removed if the Code-compliant publication of new names will be identified with their online registration, under suitable technological and formal (legal) conditions. Future developments of the ZooBank may provide the tool required to make this definitive leap ahead in zoological nomenclature.     

中国丝盖伞属Inocybe(Fr.)Fr.名录(英文)

我国记载的丝盖伞属Inocybe(Fr.)Fr.共有98个分类单位,包括90种5变种3变型。根据CABI数据库和《国际植物命名法规》(维也纳法规)订正了文献中的部分拉丁学名,将曾经报道的、但应作为属内异名的名称列在其正名之后,错误拼写和错误引用均在相应名称后有所说明;已组合到其他属和不合格发表的名称补充于名录之后。在以往报道的名称中有16个为属内异名,1个已被组合到其他属,5个拉丁学名存在错误拼写,1个为错误引用,4个为不合格发表名称。订正后的名录含丝盖伞属88个名称,包括78种7变种3变型,并记载了各分类群的地理分布。     

五个国产双子叶植物名称的后选模式指定

查阅保存于中国科学院植物研究所标本馆（PE）的壳斗科(Fagaceae)、罂粟科(Papaveraceae)、山柑科(Capparidaceae)和十字花科(Cruciferae)植物的模式标本时,发现有5个植物名称的模式均多于1份标本,或同时引证1号以上的标本而没指定模式,根据《国际植物命名法规》(维也纳法规)规则8.1、9.9、9.10和37.2,以及辅则9A.2和9A.3的精神,对这些名称做出后选模式指定。