Dubois & Fretey 2023 ZooBank Registrations in Herpetology

Bionomina, 34: 009–034 (2023) ISSN 1179-7649 (print edition)
https://www.mapress.com/bn
Copyright © 2023 • Magnolia Press
Article BIONOMINA
ISSN 1179-7657 (online edition)
https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.34.1.2
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:63E41F57-8997-49A2-810E-02FB1733D8DC
Problems with the availability of zoological nomenclatural acts published online:

the case of the Journal of Herpetology
Alain ✁✂✄☎✆* & Thierry ✝✞✟✠✡☛**

*Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité, ISYEB – UMR 7205 – CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE, UA, Muséum
national d’Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Université, 57 rue Cuvier, CP 30, F-75005, Paris, France
☞ alain.dubois@mnhn.fr; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6463-3435
**Association RACINE, 5 allée des cygnes, 35750 Saint-Maugan, France
☞ fretey.thierry@wanadoo.fr; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5421-4563
Table of contents
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Key words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Terminology and conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Problems of nomenclatural availability in the Journal of Herpetology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1. Versions of journal and ISSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2. Categories of epidosy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1. Ergostasy (promulgation of work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2. Onymostasy (promulgation of new nomen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3. Cainosy (supply of information resolving nomenclatural uncertainty or error) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.4. Diorthosy (nomenclatural correction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3. Modes of registration in Zoobank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1. Complete Zoobank registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.2. Zoobank registration without evidence of this registration in the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2.1. Zoobank postregistration without preregistration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2.2. Zoobank preregistration without mention of the LSID (or of a proxy of it) in the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.3. Zoobank preregistration without postregistration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.4. Complete absence of Zoobank registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Discussion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1. The Journal of Herpetology’s model for registration of works and onomatergies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2. Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Choice of the publishers for taxonomic publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
✌✍✍✎✏✑✒✓ 1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Abstract
In September 2012, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was amended in order to
allow the online publication of new nomina and nomenclatural acts, provided some conditions are
respected. One of them is that such electronic publications be pre- and postregistered in the database
9
10 • Bionomina 34 © 2023 Magnolia Press ✁✂✄☎✆ ✝ ✞✟✠✡☛☞
Zoobank, and that this registration be mentioned in their PDFs. Unfortunately, these requirements
were ignored by part of the international community of zootaxonomists and of publishers. Here we
draw the attention to the fact that the famous Journal of Herpetology, which has been published only
online since 2021, has since then not respected them in most (10 out of 13) of its taxonomic papers
including nomenclatural novelties, thus failing to provide nomenclatural availability to them.
Key words
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 2012 Amendment, electronic publication,

Zoobank, preregistration, postregistration, LSID, promulgation, availability, Journal of
Herpetology.
Terminology and conventions
Appendix 1 below provides information on the unusual technical terms mentioned in this paper.
Citations are presented between “double curved quotes”, highlighted terms between ‘single curved
quotes’ and gymnonyms (nomina nuda) between "double straight quotes".
To save space in text, references of works with more than two authors are presented under the form
‘First Author+’ instead of ‘First Author et al.’ (see Dubois 2015a).
1. Introduction
In 2012, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (‘the Commission’ below)

published an Amendment (Anonymous 2012; ‘A-2012’ below) to the International Code on
Zoological Nomenclature (Anonymous 1999; ‘the Code’ below) allowing the electronic publication
of nomenclatural novelties (new nomina and nomenclatural acts) online, without paper versions
of the same works. This new possibility was associated with a series of very precise conditions that
have to be strictly respected in order for such publications to be nomenclaturally available, i.e. Code-
compliant, including fixed content and layout of the work, its registration on Zoobank, its obtainability
and its mention of several pieces of information. This points to a difference between the concept of
publication in the traditional sense (public distribution of a document) and the nomenclatural concept
of promulgation (Dubois+ 2022c), i.e. publication providing nomenclatural availability to the work
and the nomenclatural novelties it contains.
Shortly after the publication of A-2012, a detailed paper (Dubois+ 2013) pointed to a number
of weaknesses of this Amendment to the Code and suggested important modifications to it in
order to avoid the growth of online publication of works failing to comply with these conditions
and generating nomenclatural confusion, likely to introduce nomenclatural chaos in zootaxonomic
works and more widely over the whole field of biology. The Commission (Anonymous 2014) bluntly
rejected all these suggestions without discussing them in detail, and one of its influential members
(Krell 2015) suggested “liberality” in the application of this Amendment, arguing that authors and
publishers “will need some time to learn and adapt to the new and still rapidly evolving situation” but
will finally do it. However, during the ten years that followed, the pessimistic prediction dismissed
PROBLEMS WITH ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURAL ACTS PUBLISHED ONLINE Bionomina 34 © 2023 Magnolia Press • 11
by the Commission was confirmed by the spreading of hundreds of works, presenting hundreds of
nomenclatural novelties, published online in a non-Code-compliant manner and therefore unavailable.
The Linz Zoocode Committee (‘LZC’ below) therefore published a new analysis of this situation and
new proposals aiming at solving some at least of the problems generated in zoological nomenclature
and taxonomy by A-2012 (Dubois+ 2022c).
We wish here to present new evidence in support of our repeated warning. This concerns the
periodicals whose editorial policy consists in entrusting the Zoobank registration of works published
only online to their authors, without control of this work by the editorial office of the periodical,
instead of the latter taking charge of this work or at least ensuring that it has been done properly
before publication.
The present analysis focuses on a well-known periodical, taken here as an example of situations
that are to be found in various journals nowadays. The periodical chosen, the Journal of Herpetology,
has been published in the USA by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) since
its foundation in 1968. Since then, this journal has promulgated hundreds of new scientific names
(nomina) and nomenclatural acts (onomatergies) concerning amphibians and reptiles.
2. Problems of nomenclatural availability in the Journal of Herpetology
2.1. Versions of journal and ISSN
From 1968 to 2020 included, the Journal of Herpetology has been printed on paper. According to
the ISSN website1, starting in 2001 an online version was published along with the paper version, and
at the beginning of 2021 the journal moved to an ‘online-only’ format. According to both the ISSN
website and its own website2, this journal has been afforded two ISSN numbers, pISSN 0022-1511
for the print version and eISSN 1937-2418 for the electronic version, but these websites do not state
whether these two versions are still published in 2023.
The current (June 2023) ‘Instructions to Authors’ of this journal3, updated in February 2021,
contain the following statement: “Authors of new taxonomic names will be required to register their
new names with ZooBank prior to publication (Add your new names at: http://zoobank.org/; then
notify the editor with your ZooBank ID by email). The manuscript will then be published online
and is the final official version of the manuscript (i.e., it is not a pre-print). The article will appear in
print in the next quarterly issue.” The last statement of this quote, which refers to a quarterly print
version of the journal, is not supported by any other mention in this text. The section ‘Membership
Information’ of the SSAR website4 states: “Society members receive both Journal of Herpetology and
Herpetological Review as part of membership benefits.” However, as witnessed by one of the authors
of the present work (TF), who has long been a SSAR member, while since the beginning of 2021
members still receive a print version of Herpetological Review, they now only receive an electronic
version of the Journal of Herpetology, and no quarterly printed version. The Paris Museum central
library, which has been a subscriber to the latter journal since its foundation, has regularly received
quarterly printed versions of it until the issue 54 (4) of 2020, registered on 24 October 2022 (Victoire
Koyamba, librarian at the Paris Museum, email to AD of 21 February 2023), but since then it has only
received electronic versions, just like individual subscribers. On Zoobank5, the mode of publication
1 <https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1937-2418>.
2 <https://meridian.allenpress.com/journal-of-herpetology>.
3 <https://ssarherps.org/publications/journal-of-herpetology/instructions-to-authors/>;
<https://ssarherps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Instructions-to-Authors.pdf>.
4 <https://ssarherps.org/about-ssar/membership/>.
5 <urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:511CB9A0-C32B-45EA-A14E-E4B1EB8ACC99>.
(printed or online) of the Journal of Herpetology is not given, but this journal appears under a single
ISSN (0022-1511), without mention of the existence of two versions. The same ISSN, which is that of
the print version, is given for all the papers from this journal, published until 2023 included, present
on Zoobank, and the eISSN appears nowhere on this website, the information of which is therefore
incomplete or wrong.
It would seem however (Aaron Bauer, personal email communication to AD, 25 January 2023)
that since January 2021 the Journal of Herpetology, while having stopped publishing four quarterly
issues (contrary to what is stated on its website), does indeed produce at the end of the year a single
combined volume including all the papers published online during the year, requesting members to
indicate if they want to receive this volume, and then setting the print run separately from the regular
(electronic) subscription. But there is no trace of this information on the journal’s website, so that
non-members cannot be aware of it—and even not all members have received it (see above). The
distribution of such volumes, if they indeed exist, is therefore restricted to a few SSAR members. It
thus cannot be qualified as ‘public’ (a basic qualification of a ‘publication’; see Dubois+ 2022b) but
as ‘private’, and corresponds to the situation described in Article 9.12 of A-2012 as “facsimiles or
reproductions obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited in a
library or other archive”, which “do not constitute published work”. The journal thus does not produce
regular printed versions “obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase” (Article 8.1.2;
for a discussion of the meaning of the term ‘obtainable’ in this Article, see Dubois & Aescht 2017 and
Dubois+ 2022b).
Our conclusion is therefore that, since the beginning of publication of its volume 55 on 11 January
2021, the Journal of Herpetology has been released publicly only online. This has major consequences
regarding the nomenclatural availability of the new nomina and onomatergies published in this journal
since the beginning of 2021.
As long as the journal was published both on paper and online, the nomenclatural availability
of all its works was provided by their printed versions. Their publication dates were those of the
issues where they appeared, irrespective of the possible different date of distribution of the PDFs
of this issue, if they had been distributed earlier (even before the publication of A-2012). However,
starting at the beginning of 2021, as the journal has been published only online, in order for its papers
including nomenclatural novelties to be nomenclaturally available, they must have complied with
the conditions of A-2012. version6. Below, we examine in more details the problems concerning the
promulgation of taxonomic papers having nomenclatural implications in the Journal of Herpetology
since 2021. In its volumes 55 (2021) and 56 (2022), as well as in the first two issues of its volume 57
(2023) at the date of 13 August 2023, this journal has published 136 papers, 13 of which only (9.6 %)
present nomenclatural novelties. Despite their low number, these papers present a variety of problems
affecting their nomenclatural availability, which provides an opportunity to discuss these questions in
a wider perspective, not limited to this periodical.
2.2. Categories of epidosy
Dubois (2022b) proposed the term epidosy to designate any published action that contributes to
the establishment of the nomenclatural status of a nomen. Two main categories of epidosies may
be distinguished: taxergies (taxonomic acts) and onomatergies (nomenclatural acts). Taxergies,
6 Note that, if our interpretation above of the combined annual volumes (as facsimiles printed on demand), was shown to be wrong,
this printed volume would make these works available upon its publication, i.e., later and often much later than their online
PDFs.
such as the erection of new taxa or the modification of the status of previously recognised taxa,
entail indirectly the nomenclature of these taxa. As stated in its Preamble, the object of the Code is
not to interfere with taxonomic thought or actions, so it does not regulate taxergies. In contrast, it
regulates published acts that have direct nomenclatural consequences, such as promulgation of new
works or nomina, or ‘first reviser actions’ aiming at resolving uncertainties, ambiguities and errors
remaining after these promulgations. To be duly promulgated, such acts must comply with the Code’s
criteria of availability, and therefore be published in works that are themselves available. However,
as shown in detail by Dubois (2022b), the Code does not provide a clear, unambiguous definition of
the concept of ‘nomenclatural act’ or a list of published acts that it recognises as such. In some of its
Articles, it distinguishes them from “information likely to affect nomenclature”, such as statements
about synonymy and homonymy, or mandatory changes of spellings or endings of nomina. These
unclarities result in uncertainties regarding the nomenclatural status of some onomatergies that may
be considered to fall outside the field covered by the expression “nomenclatural act” in the Code,
as well as in Zoobank. We here follow Dubois (2022b) in considering that, to be nomenclaturally
available, all acts affecting directly the nomenclatural status of nomina, even if not listed expressly as
such in the Code, qualify as onomatergies and must be promulgated in a Code-compliant manner, i.e.
in works being themselves available. This means that for such acts published electronically but not
on paper, they must have been published respecting the new criteria of A-2012.
Dubois (2022b) distinguished a rather high number of categories of onomatergies, but only a
few of them are represented in the 13 taxonomic works published electronically in the Journal of
Herpetology in 2021, 2022 and 2023. We review them briefly below.
2.2.1. Ergostasy (promulgation of work)
Ergostasies are nomenclatural acts that result in the Code-compliant promulgation of works. For
works published only online after 2011, this requires to follow strictly the conditions of publication
described in A-2012 for works published electronically. As will be shown in more details below, only
three of the 13 works presenting nomenclatural novelties published so far (as of 13 August 2023)
online in the Journal of Herpetology ✁ ✂✄✂☎✆✂✄✂✝ ✞✟✠✡☛☞ ✌ ✍✎ ✍✎✏✑✏ ✞✟✁✒ ✍ ✟✁✑ ✓✁✒ ✓✔✏ ✓✕✓ ☛✓✖☛✏
(Table 1). The other ten are lacking at least some of these requirements and are nomenclaturally
unavailable, which entails by way of consequence the unavailability of all the nomenclatural acts
they contain.
2.2.2. Onymostasy (promulgation of new nomen)
On the whole, 17 new nomina were published in 10 of the 13 papers here considered: two genus-
series and 15 species-series nomina (Table 2). However, among them, only three, in three different
papers, were indeed promulgated and qualify as effective onymostasies. The other 14 are unavailable
for having been published in unregistered or incompletely registered works that are therefore
unavailable.
2.2.3. Cainosy (supply of information resolving nomenclatural uncertainty or error)
A single paper among the 13 studied included a cainosy, in this case a neotype designation, but the
latter is unavailable for having been published in an online work unregistered on Zoobank (Table 3).
14 •
✌
✁
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✝
✟
✠
✝
✞
✝
✝
✡
✆
☛
☞
✡
✍
✎
✏
✑
✒
✓
✆
✔
✝
✞
✝
✕
✖
✡
✗
✘
✙
✟
✕
✚
✓
✛
✓
✗
✜
1. References of papers including taxonomic and nomenclatural acts published online in the Journal of Herpetology
2023).
BI. • Basic information about paper: volume, issue, pages.
Date. • Publication date according to the website of the Journal of Herpetology and the PDF of the paper.
Reference. • Reference of paper (authorship and title are provided in the section References below).
TX. • Taxergy (taxonomic act): NGA, new generic allocation of a species-series nomen; NDX, new doxisonymy; NTG, new taxonomic genus; NTS, new taxonomic species; RRS, raising of rank from subspecies to species;
RSR, revalidation of species rank after lowering to subspecies rank.
ON. • Onymostasy (nomenclatural act of promulgation of new nomen): NNG, new nominal genus; NNS, new nominal species.
Bionomina 34 © 2023 Magnolia Press
CA. • Cainosy (supply of information resolving nomenclatural uncertainty or error): NDE, neotype designation.
DO. • Diorthosy (nomenclatural correction): NDX, new doxisonymy; RCO, revalidated combination; RRS, raising of rank from subspecies to species; RSR, revalidation of species rank after lowering to subspecies rank.
LSID in PDF. • LSID of paper as mentioned in the PDF of the paper.
LSID in Zoobank. • LSID of paper as mentioned on Zoobank.
Date Zoobank. • Date of registration on Zoobank.
Av. • Nomenclatural availability of paper and its nomenclatural acts according to A-2012.
BI Date Reference TX ON CA or DO LSID in PDF LSID in Zoobank Date Zoobank Av.

55 (2): 12 May 2021 Ceríaco+ (2021) 1 NTS 1 NNS None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FB58019C- urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FB58019C- 20 April 2021 Yes
✢
✣
✤
✥
✢
✢
✢
29D4-43CB-9512-A504129C8370 29D4-43CB-9512-A504129C8370
55 (2): 11 June 2021 Tepos-Ramírez+ (2021) 1 NTS 1 NNS None None None None No
✢
✢
✥
✢
✢
✦
✧
55 (4): 27 September Hutchinson+ (2021) 2 NTG 2 NNG None None None None No
★
✩
✢
✥
★
✪
✦
2021 2 NTS 2 NNS
55 (4): 27 September Torres-Carvajal+ 1 NTS 1 NNS None None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CDD86EFC- 30 September No
★
✤
✥
★
✤
✦
✧
2021 (2021) 13E5-493A-9341-3FC5B21129B8 2021
55 (4): 28 October 2021 Jurestovsky (2021) 1 NTS 1 NNS None None None None No
✪
✫
✫
✥
✪
★
✢
...Continued on the next page
✁✂✄☎✆ ✝ ✞✟✠✡☛☞
✌
✁
✂
✄
1. (Continued)
BI Date Reference TX ON CA or DO LSID in PDF LSID in Zoobank Date Zoobank Av.
56 (1): 11 March 2022 Mângia+ (2022) 1 NTS 1 NNS None None None None No
✢
✫
✣
✥
✢
★
✩
56 (1): 11 March 2022 Kraus+ (2022) None None 1 NDX None None None No
✢
★
✥
✢
✪
✤
☎
56 (2): 9 August 2022 Ribeiro-Júnior+ None None 1 NDX None None None No
✫
★
✪
✥
✫
✪
✣
(2022a)
56 (2): 9 August 2022 Fukuyama+ (2022) None None 1 RCO None None None No
✫
✪
✢
✥
✫
✪
✦
56 (3): 1 September Marinho+ (2022) 1 NTS 1 NNS None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0F393E7E- urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0F393E7E- 5 April 2022 Yes
✫
✥
✫
★
☎
✦
✧
2022 1EE9-44A2-BBD4-044704E920F3 1EE9-44A2-BBD4-044704E920F3
56 (4): 30 November Ribeiro-Júnior+ 2 NTS 2 NNS 1 NDE None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:013DFE88- 3 September No
★
✩
✥
✪
✫
✢
✧
2022 (2022b) 21D3-406A-9EE1-806870AED1DB 2022
PROBLEMS WITH ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURAL ACTS PUBLISHED ONLINE
57 (1): 28 March 2023 Agarwal+ (2023) 1 NTS 1 NNS None None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D371AA05- 19 August Yes
✤
✥
✩
☎
✦
D658-4576-902C-53D928D4D683 2022
57 (2): 14 June 2023 Edwards & Hutchinson 4 NTS 4 NNS 3 RRS None None None No
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
(2023) 4 RRS 1 RSR
Bionomina 34 © 2023 Magnolia Press •
15
16 •
✌
✁
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✝
✟
✠
✝
✞
✝
✝
✡
✆
☛
☞
✡
✍
✎
✏
✑
✒
✓
✆
✔
✝
✞
✝
✕
✖
✡
✗
✘
✙
✟
✕
✚
✓
✛
✓
✗
✜
✝
✞
✝
✕
2. New nomina published online in the Journal of Herpetology
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
☎
✝
✠
✝
✌
✝
New nomina. • New nomina proposed in paper. Nomina "between straight quotes" are nomenclaturally unavailable. • Orders: [A], ; [S] .
Av. • Nomenclatural availability of new nomina according to A-2012 (see Table 1 for details).
BI Date Reference New nomina LSID in PDF LSID in Zoobank Date Av.
Zoobank
55 (2): 12 May 2021 Ceríaco+ (2021) Hemidactylus gramineus Ceríaco, urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:8C27856D- urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:8C27856D- 20 April Yes
✢
✣
✤
✥
✢
✢
✢
Bauer, Kusamba, Agarwal & 9BAD-4880-930F-2503794734C3 9BAD-4880-930F-2503794734C3 2021
Greenbaum, 2021. [S].
55 (2): 11 June 2021 Tepos-Ramírez+ "Metlapilcoatlus borealis Tepos- None None None No
✢
✢
✥
✢
✢
✦
✧
(2021) Ramírez, Flores-Villela, Velasco, Lara,
García & Jadin, 2021". [S].
55 (4): 27 September Hutchinson+ "Sepsiscus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:A21D2628- None None No
★
✩
✢
✥
★
✪
✦
2021 (2021) & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. C658-4522-A90C-869F7CAD3652
55 (4): 27 September Hutchinson+ "Praeteropus Hutchinson, Couper, urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C36AD6FF- None None No
★
✩
✢
✥
★
✪
✦
2021 (2021) Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. 52E4-44DF-8E92-F866C944EBFE
55 (4): 27 September Hutchinson+ "Praeteropus auxilliger Hutchinson, urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:F97B1A58- None None No
★
✩
✢
✥
★
✪
✦
2021 (2021) Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. F738-40FB-B809-A22A11D0CF8A
55 (4): 27 September Hutchinson+ "Praeteropus monachus Hutchinson, urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C2B058A0- None None No
★
✩
✢
✥
★
✪
✦
2021 (2021) Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. 0BD5-47E2-BF20-6CEF0FD70AE2
55 (4): 27 September Torres-Carvajal+ "Selvasaura almendarizae Torres- None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B6D1DDC5- 30 No
★
✤
✥
★
✤
✦
✧
2021 (2021) Carvajal, Parra, Sales Nunes & Koch, 2CDF-49A2-9EAA-EA0601FCCD95 September
2021". [S]. 2021
55 (4): 28 October Jurestovsky "Heterodon meadi Jurestovsky, 2021". None None None No
✪
✫
✫
✥
✪
★
✢
2021 (2021) [S].
✁✂✄☎✆ ✝ ✞✟✠✡☛☞
✌
✁
✂
✄
2. (Continued)
BI Date Reference New nomina LSID in PDF LSID in Zoobank Date Av.
Zoobank
56 (1): 11 March 2022 Mângia+ (2022) "Proceratophrys velhochico Mângia, None None None No
✢
✫
✣
✥
✢
★
✩
Medeiros Magalhães, Fortes Leite,
Cavalheri & Garda, 2022". [A].
56 (3): 1 September Marinho+ (2022) Boana guarinimirim Marinho, Bang, urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:88D5C0CD- urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:88D5C0CD- 20 April Yes
✫
✥
✫
★
☎
✦
✧
2022 Vidigal & Giaretta, 2022. [A]. E4D5-4ECB-8921-1FAE432E99D5 E4D5-4ECB-8921-1FAE432E99D5 2022
56 (4): 30 November Ribeiro-Júnior+ "Tropiocolotes chirioi Ribeiro-Júnior, None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:AB0DDF22- 3 No
★
✩
✥
✪
✫
✢
✧
2022 (2022b) Koch, Flecks, Calvo & Meiri, 2022". 4170-4336-A99B-32CE00CEE6CA September
[S]. 2021
56 (4): 30 November Ribeiro-Júnior+ "Tropiocolotes tassiliensis Ribeiro- None urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:8700D64C- 3 No
★
✩
✥
✪
✫
✢
✧
2022 (2022b) Júnior, Koch, Flecks, Calvo & Meiri, B407-42E5-A1CC-E83CD06A2EF7 September
2022". [S]. 2021
57 (1): 28 March 2023 Agarwal+ (2023) Cyrtodactylus chengodumalaensis urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C50510D1- urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C50510D1- 19 August Yes
✤
✥
✩
☎
✦
Agarwal, Umesh, Das, Bauer & 5291-4C19-9758-183F3C9B094E 5291-4C19-9758-183F3C9B094E 2022
Khandekar, 2023. [S].
57 (2): 14 June 2023 Edwards & "Ctenophorus ibiri Edwards & None None None No
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
Hutchinson Hutchinson, 2023". [S].
(2023)
57 (2): 14 June 2023 Edwards & "Ctenophorus kartiwarru Edwards & None None None No
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
(2023)
57 (2): 14 June 2023 Edwards & "Ctenophorus tjakalpa Edwards & None None None No
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
(2023)
57 (2): 14 June 2023 Edwards & "Ctenophorus tuniluki Edwards & None None None No
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
(2023)
17
18 •
✌
✁
✂
✄
3. New cainosies (supply of information resolving nomenclatural uncertainty or error) and diorthosies (nomenclatural corrections) published online in the Journal of Herpetology
☎
✆
✝
✞
✝
✟
✠
✝
✞
✝
✝
✡
✆
☛
☞
✡
✍
✎
✏
✑
✒
✓
✆
✔
✝
✞
✝
✕
✖
✡
✗
✘
✙
✟
✕
✚
✓
✛
✓
✗
✜
✝
✞
✝
✕
✁
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✞
✠
✡
✆
✞
✠
☛
☞
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✌
✍
✁
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✎
✟
✏
✑
✑
✒
✓
✞
✔
✆
✝
✔
✞
✠
✕
☎
☛
✆
✞
✝
✠
✁
✟
✞
✒
✖
✆
✝
✗
✝
✞
✕
✁
✝
✄
✒
☎
☛
✏
✠
☎
✒
✏
✝
✄
✁
✠
☛
☎
✆
✝
☛
✓
✞
✠
✁
✠
✠
✞
✠
✘
✙
✚
✛
✜
✝
✁
✞
☛
✓
✑
✁
✡
✁
✟
✆
✗
✝
☎
☛
✆
✞
✝
✌
✁
✂
✡
✆
✞
✠
☛
☞
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✎
✝
✞
✕
✁
✝
✄
✒
☎
☛
✏
✠
☎
✒
✄
✞
✠
✠
✁
✄
☛
✆
✞
✝
✟
✘
✙
✚
✢
✜
✝
✁
✂
✡
✞
✣
✆
✟
✞
✝
✓
✕
✓
✎
✤
✘
✥
✦
✧
★
✜
✞
✟
☎
✝
✠
✝
✌
✝
revalidated combination (<); RRS, raising of rank from subspecies to species (>); DSR, deletion of nominotypical subspecies rank (>). • Order: [S] .
Av. • Nomenclatural availability of new nomina according to A-2012 (see Table 1 for details).
BI Date Reference New cainosies or diorthosies LSID in PDF LSID in Zoobank Date Zoobank Av.
+
✩
✢
✪
✫
✢
★
✥
✢
✪
✤
✬
✭
✮
✯
✭
✰
✰
✱
✲
✳
✴
✱
✵
✶
✷
✢
★
✸
☎
✧
✦
56 11 March 2022 Kraus (2022) NDX • Lepidodactylus browni None None None No
Lepidodactylus orientalis Brown & Parker, 1977. [S].
✩
✫
✪
✫
✫
✪
✢
✥
✫
✪
✦
56 9 August 2022 Fukuyama+ (2022) RCO • Gekko (Rhacogekko) sorok (Das, Lakim & Kandaung, 2008) < None None None No
Luperosaurus sorok Das, Lakim & Kandaung, 2008. [S].
✩
✫
✪
✫
✫
★
✪
✥
✫
✪
✣
✹
✺
✻
✮
✼
✽
✾
✭
✿
✷
❀
✯
✻
✮
✱
✻
✭
✲
❁
✼
❂
✱
✷
✫
✣
✣
★
✸
56 9 August 2022 Ribeiro-Júnior+ NDX • Amphisbaena ibijara None None None No
(2022a) Amphisbaena frontalis Vanzolini, 1991. [S].
✩
✪
✪
✫
★
✩
✥
✪
✫
✢
✧
56 30 November Ribeiro-Júnior+ NDE • Neotype for Gymnodactylus steudneri Peters, 1869 [as None None None No
2022 (2022b) Tropiocolotes steudneri (Peters, 1869)]. [S].
✩
✫
✪
✫
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
57 14 June 2023 Edwards & DSR • Ctenophorus maculatus maculatus (Gray, 1831) > None None None No
Hutchinson (2023) Ctenophorus maculatus (Gray, 1831). [S].
✩
✫
✪
✫
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
57 14 June 2023 Edwards & RRS • Amphibolurus maculatus badius Storr, 1965 > Ctenophorus None None None No
Hutchinson (2023) badius (Storr, 1965). [S].
✩
✫
✪
✫
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
57 14 June 2023 Edwards & RRS • Amphibolurus maculatus dualis Storr, 1965 > Ctenophorus None None None No
Hutchinson (2023) dualis (Storr, 1965). [S].
✩
✫
✪
✫
✢
✩
✥
✢
✩
☎
✧
57 14 June 2023 Edwards & RRS • Amphibolurus maculatus griseus Storr, 1965 > Ctenophorus None None None No
Hutchinson (2023) griseus (Storr, 1965). [S].
✁✂✄☎✆ ✝ ✞✟✠✡☛☞
2.2.4. Diorthosy (nomenclatural correction)
Four different kinds of diorthosies were represented in the 13 papers here considered (Table 3):
two new doxisonymies (subjective synonymies), in two different papers; one case of revalidation
of an original combination previously abandoned; four raisings of rank from subspecies to species,
including one by deletion for a nomen of the nominotypical subspecies rank but maintenance of the
species rank, in a single paper. None of these seven acts were published in registered works, so we
consider these acts as unavailable, although through a strict interpretation of the Code such acts would
apparently not qualify as nomenclatural acts but as “information likely to affect nomenclature”, and
as such would not be concerned by the concept of availability.
2.3. Modes of registration in Zoobank
Five different modes of registration in Zoobank are represented among the 13 papers studied. Only
one of them provided promulgation and availability to three of these works, the other 10 ones being
unpromulgated and unavailable.
2.3.1. Complete Zoobank registration
The valid promulgation of an electronic publication presenting nomenclatural novelties requires:

[2.3.1.1.1] preregistration of the work on Zoobank, which provides an LSID for the latter; [2.3.1.1.2]
explicit mention of this LSID (or of a ‘proxy’ of it, see below) in the work itself; and [2.3.1.1.3]
postregistration of the work on Zoobank, mentioning its actual reference (authorship, title, volume,
issue and pages), its actual publication date and its ISSN or ISBN. The absence of any of these items
results in the work nomenclatural unavailability.
While Article 8.5.3 of A-2012 requires that the work be registered in Zoobank and contains
evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred, this Article shows a high tolerance in
this respect. Although the mention of the LSID of the work itself is the most simple, straightforward
and unambiguous way to provide this evidence, Article 8.5.3 does not make it compulsory, but allows
to replace it by a ‘proxy’. It provides the following examples: “Evidence of registration is given by
stating information that would be known only if the registration has occurred, such as the exact date of
registration or the number assigned to the work or to a new name or nomenclatural act introduced in
the work. […].” The problems posed by this formulation are multiform: [2.3.1.2.1] it is questionable
whether the simple mention of a date plays indeed the same role as that of an LSID, as several works
can be registered on the same day; [2.3.1.2.2] Zoobank does not allow the registration of onomatergies
other than onymostasies (see Dubois+ 2022c), so this statement is purposeless; [2.3.1.2.3] the mention
of the LSID of a new nomen may be confused with that of the work. It is certainly preferable, and
sufficient, to publish only the LSID of the work. Although it is accepted by A-2012 as a proxy of the
work’s LSID, mentioning the LSIDs of the new nomina in this work is redundant and useless, as they
can be found easily on Zoobank starting from the work’s LSID.
Only three of the 13 papers of the Journal of Herpetology here surveyed comply with one of the
✍✎✔✏✏ ✔✏ ✁ ✔✏✠✏✁✍✑ ✂✂✄✝✄☎✄☎✄☎✆✝☎ ✓✖✟✕✏ ✆✝✓✖☛✏ ☎✞✄ ✟☛✍✎✟✁✠✎ ✡✁✖☛ ✑✎✏✒ ✁ ✍✎✏ ✑✓✠✏ ✡✟✁✔✁✓☛ ✓✁✒ ✟✕✏✔ ✓
brief period of three years, they show heterogeneity, illustrating three different possible manners to
register a work.
The paper by Ceríaco+ (2021) provides both the LSID of this work (at the end of the paper, on
page 111) and the LSID of the new nomen Hemidactylus gramineus established in this paper, at the
beginning of the account devoted to this species (page 106).
The paper by Marinho+ (2022) provides both the LSID of the work and that of the new nomen
Boana guarinimirim at the end of their paper (page 291), but without specifying which is which, and
starting with the latter which in fact depends on the former (compare Tables 1 and 2).
The paper by Agarwal+ (2023) does not mention its own LSID, but mentions that of the new
species nomen Cyrtodactylus chengodumalaensis it promulgates. However, it does not do this at the
beginning of the account devoted to this species (page 78) but at the end of the paper (page 86), which
is confusing. However and fortunately, in the light of the examples of Article 8.5.3 of A-2012 cited
above, this is enough to provide availability to both the paper and the nomen, as on Zoobank starting
from the nomen finding the publication is straightforward.
2.3.2. Zoobank registration without evidence of this registration in the work
Two of the 13 papers studied are unpromulgated for an unexpected reason: they miss any mention
of LSID, as well as of the words Zoobank, Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature, registration,
register or registered, but they are mentioned on Zoobank where they bear LSIDs. The situation is
✎✟✌✏✕✏✔ ✑☛ ✠✎✍☛☞ ✒ ✏✔✏✁✍ ✁ ✍✎✏ ✍✌✟ ✞✓✑✏✑ ✆✑✏✏ ✝✓✖☛✏✑ ☎✆✂✞✄
2.3.2.1. Zoobank postregistration without preregistration
The work of Torres-Carvajal+ (2021) was not preregistered, and no LSID could therefore be
mentioned in the paper on its publication on 27 September 2021. It was however postregistered on
Zoobank on 30 September 2021 and therefore appears on this database with an LSID (Table 1), as
well as an LSID for its new nomen "Selvasaura almendarizae Torres-Carvajal, Parra, Sales Nunes &
Koch, 2021" (Table 2). However, as no evidence of preregistration appeared in the paper itself, this
work and its new nomen are and will remain unavailable.
2.3.2.2. Zoobank preregistration without mention of the LSID (or of a proxy of it) in the work
The work of Ribeiro-Júnior+ (2022b), which was published on 30 November 2022, had indeed
been preregistered on Zoobank on 3 September 2021, so that it appears on this database with an LSID
(Table 1), as well as LSIDs for its two new nomina "Tropiocolotes chirioi Ribeiro-Júnior, Koch,
Flecks, Calvo & Meiri, 2022" and "Tropiocolotes tassiliensis Ribeiro-Júnior, Koch, Flecks, Calvo &
Meiri, 2022" (Table 2). This work was apparently also postregistered, as its Zoobank entry mentions
its volume, issue and pagination, as well as an imprecise and wrong publication date (“December
2022”). However, probably as a result of an oversight, none of these three LSIDs was mentioned in
the paper, so that here also this work and its new nomina are and will remain unavailable.
2.3.3. Zoobank preregistration without postregistration
The work of Hutchinson+ (2021) illustrates a fourth, different situation. It does not mention any
LSID for the work itself (Table 1), but it mentions four LSIDs, at the beginning of the accounts
devoted to its four new taxa (Table 2): those of the genera "Sepsiscus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey
& Wilmer, 2021" (page 371) and "Praeteropus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021" (page
374), and of the species "Praeteropus auxilliger Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021" (page
376) and "Praeteropus monachus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021" (page 378). However,
this work, its four new nomina, not to mention its four new diorthosies (Table 3), which anyway
could not be registered there as Zoobank does not permit this, are missing on this database. There is
a single possible explanation for this discrepancy: the work and its new nomina were preregistered
on Zoobank but not postregistered after publication of the paper. The entries for this work and these
nomina remain therefore inaccessible to ‘visitors’ of Zoobank, and are accessible only to the creator(s)
of the preregistration and to the administrators of Zoobank until the postregistration is done. This is
explained as follows in the ‘Help’ section of Zoobank7:
It’s also important to know that prospectively registered content (i.e., content that is registered prior to
publication) will not be visible publicly. Such content will only be visible to logged-in users who created the content,
or to sponsored users who are co-authors on the prospectively registered unpublished work, or to Editors.
Whenever one searchs on Zoobank the LSID of such a preregistered but not postregistered work,
the following reply is usually (but not always, e.g. not in the present case) obtained:
NOTE: The ZooBank Identifier '***' exists in ZooBank, but refers to a record that is indicated in ZooBank as
not yet published, and therefore not visible to the public on this website.
If this record refers to a name or work that has already been published, then the ZooBank record needs to
be updated to indicate the publication date and other publication details by someone with editing access to the
record.
If you created this record, or you are an author of the publication associated with this record and are a verified
ZooBank user, or if you are an editor of the journal in which this record appears and your ZooBank user account
has been associated with the journal as an Editor, you must first log in to ZooBank with your username and
password before you can view this record.
If you would like your ZooBank user account to be verified, or if you are an editor of a journal and would like
your ZooBank user account to be associated with the journal as such, or if you have any questions or concerns,
please contact admin [at] zoobank.org.
Not being postregistered in Zoobank, the work of Hutchinson+ (2021) and its nomenclatural
novelties are nomenclaturally unavailable and will remain so as long as their postregistration is not
made, but they could potentially become available if the preregistered LSIDs of the four new nomina
(which could then act as published ‘proxies’ for the LSID of the work) are still present, but hidden,
in Zoobank, and if their creator(s) finally postregister them. This will be possible however only if
an entry and LSID had also been preregistered for the work itself before its publication, but was not
mentioned in the paper due to oversight. If no such entry had been created before the publication of
the work, it will be too late to do it, as it could then only be postregistered, so that neither the work
nor its onomatergies could be afforded nomenclatural availability.
2.3.4. Complete absence of Zoobank registration
The seven remaining works (Tepos-Ramírez+ 2021; Jurestovsky 2021; Mângia+ 2022; Kraus+
2022; Ribeiro-Júnior+ 2022a; Fukuyama+ 2022; Edwards & Hutchinson 2023) do not mention any
LSID, or the words Zoobank, Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature, registration, register or
registered. They are therefore unavailable, and this is also the case of the seven new species nomina
✆✝✓✖☛✏✑ ☎✆✂✞ ✓✁✒ ✍✎✏ ✑✏✕✏✁ ✁✏✌ ✒ ✟✔✍✎✟✑ ✏✑ ✍✎✏☞ ✞✟✁✍✓ ✁ ✆✝✓✖☛✏✑ ☎ ✝✞✄
7 <https://zoobank.org/Help>.
22 •
✌
✁
✂
✄
4. Information provided in the databases Amphibian Species of the World and The Reptile Database on the nomenclatural novelties published online in the Journal of
☎
✆
✝
✞
✝
✟
✠
✝
✞
✝
✝
✡
✆
☛
☞
✡
✍
✎
✏
✑
✒
✓
✆
✔
✝
✞
✝
✕
✖
✡
✗
✘
✙
✟
✕
✚
✓
✛
✓
✗
✜
✝
✞
✝
✕
Herpetology
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
☎
✝
✠
✝
✌
✝
Id. • Identifier of nomenclatural novelty. Order: A, ; S, .
New nomen or onomatergy. • Given by chronological order of publication. Nomina "between straight quotes" are nomenclaturally unavailable.
New onymostasy. • NGN, new genus-series nomen; NSN, new species-series nomen.
✁
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✞
✠
✡
✆
✞
✠
☛
☞
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✌
✍
✁
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✎
✟
✏
✑
✑
✒
✓
✞
✔
✆
✝
✔
✞
✠
✕
☎
☛
✆
✞
✝
✠
✁
✟
✞
✒
✖
✆
✝
✗
✝
✞
✕
✁
✝
✄
✒
☎
☛
✏
✠
☎
✒
✏
✝
✄
✁
✠
☛
☎
✆
✝
☛
✓
✞
✠
✁
✠
✠
✞
✠
✘
✙
✚
✛
✜
✝
✁
✞
☛
✓
✑
✁
✡
✁
✟
✆
✗
✝
☎
☛
✆
✞
✝
✌
✁
✂
✡
✆
✞
✠
☛
☞
✞
✟
✆
✁
✟
✎
✝
✞
✕
✁
✝
✄
✒
☎
☛
✏
✠
☎
✒
✄
✞
✠
✠
✁
✄
☛
✆
✞
✝
✟
✘
✙
✚
✢
✜
✝
✁
✂
✡
✞
✣
✆
✟
✞
✝
✓
✕
✓
✎
✤
✘
✥
✦
✧
★
✜
✂
✄
☎
✆
✝
✞
✟
☎
✝
✠
✝
✌
✝
revalidated combination (<); RRS, raising of rank from subspecies to species (>); DSR, deletion of nominotypical subspecies rank (>). • Orders: [A], ; [S] .
✁
✂
✄
☎
✙
✟
✁
✁
☎
✒
✁
✟
✌
Nomenclatural status according to the Code. • Nomenclatural status of new nomen or onomatergy according to the Code
DB. • Database: Amphibian Species of the World (ASW; <https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php>); The Reptile Database (RDB; <http://www.reptile-database.org>).
Nomenclatural status in the database. • Nomenclatural status of new nomen or onomatergy as given in the database on 13 August 2023.
Id. New nomen or onomatergy Nomenclatural status DB Nomenclatural status

according to the Code in the database
S01 NSN • Hemidactylus gramineus Ceríaco, Bauer, Kusamba, Agarwal & Greenbaum, 2021. [S]. Available RDB Available and valid
S02 NSN • "Metlapilcoatlus borealis Tepos-Ramírez, Flores-Villela, Velasco, Lara, García & Jadin, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S03 NGN • "Sepsiscus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S04 NGN • "Praeteropus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S05 NSN • "Praeteropus auxilliger Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S06 NSN • "Praeteropus monachus Hutchinson, Couper, Amey & Wilmer, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S07 NSN • "Selvasaura almendarizae Torres-Carvajal, Parra, Sales Nunes & Koch, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S08 NSN • "Heterodon meadi Jurestovsky, 2021". [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
A09 NSN • "Proceratophrys velhochico Mângia, Medeiros Magalhães, Fortes Leite, Cavalheri & Garda, 2022". [A]. Unavailable ASW Available and valid
✬
✭
✮
✯
✭
✰
✰
✱
✲
✳
✴
✱
✵
✶
✷
✢
★
✸
✧
✦
S10 NDX • Lepidodactylus browni Lepidodactylus orientalis Brown & Parker, 1977. [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
✹
✺
✻
✮
✼
✽
✾
✭
✿
✷
❀
✯
✻
✮
✱
✻
✭
✲
❁
✼
❂
✱
✷
✫
✣
✣
★
✸
S11 NDX • Amphisbaena ibijara Amphisbaena frontalis Vanzolini, 1991. [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S12 RCO • Gekko (Rhacogekko) sorok (Das, Lakim & Kandaung, 2008) < Luperosaurus sorok Das, Lakim & Kandaung, 2008. [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and invalid
✁✂✄☎✆ ✝ ✞✟✠✡☛☞
✌
✁
✂
✄
4. (Continued)
Id. New nomen or onomatergy Nomenclatural status DB Nomenclatural status
according to the Code in the database
A13 NSN • Boana guarinimirim Marinho, Bang, Vidigal & Giaretta, 2022. [A]. Available ASW Available and valid
S14 NSN • "Tropiocolotes chirioi Ribeiro-Júnior, Koch, Flecks, Calvo & Meiri, 2022". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S15 NSN • "Tropiocolotes tassiliensis Ribeiro-Júnior, Koch, Flecks, Calvo & Meiri, 2022". [S]. Unavailable RDB Available and valid
S16 NDE • Neotype for Gymnodactylus steudneri Peters, 1869 [as Tropiocolotes steudneri (Peters, 1869)]. [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S17 NSN • Cyrtodactylus chengodumalaensis Agarwal, Umesh, Das, Bauer & Khandekar, 2023. [S]. Available RDB Available and valid
S18 NSN • "Ctenophorus ibiri Edwards & Hutchinson, 2023". [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S19 NSN • "Ctenophorus kartiwarru Edwards & Hutchinson, 2023". [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S20 NSN • "Ctenophorus tjakalpa Edwards & Hutchinson, 2023". [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S21 NSN • "Ctenophorus tuniluki Edwards & Hutchinson, 2023". [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S22 DSR • Ctenophorus maculatus maculatus (Gray, 1831) > Ctenophorus maculatus (Gray, 1831). [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S23 RRS • Amphibolurus maculatus badius Storr, 1965 > Ctenophorus badius (Storr, 1965). [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S24 RRS • Amphibolurus maculatus dualis Storr, 1965 > Ctenophorus dualis (Storr, 1965). [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
S25 RRS • Amphibolurus maculatus griseus Storr, 1965 > Ctenophorus griseus (Storr, 1965). [S]. Unavailable RDB Not mentioned
23
3. Databases
Taxonomic and nomenclatural databases are more and more used by biologists of all disciplines
(including phylogeny and taxonomy) to seek information on the classification and nomenclature of
organisms, and on the valid nomina of taxa. The problem is that most of these databases are, at least
partly, inaccurate, being incomplete or erroneous (Dubois 2017 ✁✂, 2022a; Dubois & Ohler 2018).
The need of checking the nomenclatural availability of online publications including nomenclatural
novelties is stressed, in herpetology, by the fact the two most used databases concerning amphibians
and reptiles, Amphibian Species of the World (ASW)8 and The Reptile Database (RDB)9 failed to
do so for the nomenclatural novelties published online only in the Journal of Herpetology since
2021 (see Table 4). The database RDB does not provide any information on the LSIDs of the papers
published only online and therefore on their potential availability. Concerning ASW, as of 13 August
2023 it provided this information and had indeed noted that the Marinho+ (2022) paper has an LSID.
However, no LSID was mentioned, of course, for the Mângia+ (2022) paper, but the website did not
draw the conclusion of this fact, which is that the latter paper is nomenclaturally unpublished. These
databases are therefore currently unreliable sources of information concerning the nomenclatural
availability of online-only works.
4. Discussion and recommendations
4.1. The Journal of Herpetology’s model for registration of works and onomatergies
Since it has started being published only online, the Journal of Herpetology has adopted a model
in which the Zoobank registration of the papers published online in this periodical is entrusted to the
authors of these papers and is clearly not checked before publication by the editorial office (editor
or/and publisher). The analysis above shows that this model is not appropriate. Among 13 papers
✡✁✖☛ ✑✎✏✒ ✟✁☛☞ ✟✁☛ ✁✏ ✁ ✍✎✏ ✂✄✂☎✆✂✄✂✝ ✡✏✔ ✟✒ ✟✁☛☞ ✍✎✔✏✏ ✓✔✏ ✓✕✓ ☛✓✖☛✏ ✌✎ ✞✎ ✡✔✟✕ ✒✏✑ ✓✕✓ ☛✓✖ ☛ ✍☞
to only three new species-series nomina, while the other 10 papers, as well as their 12 new species-
series nomina, 2 new genus-series nomina and 7 other onomatergies (1 cainosy and 7 diorthosies)
are unavailable. These 13 papers were signed by 46 authors. Among them, 12 (26.1 %) signed papers
that turned out to be available, and 34 (73.9 %) signed papers that turned out to be unavailable. This
‘personal factor’ in the tendency to respect, or not, A-2012, seems to be relevant, as among the 12
authors of the first category, two (Agarwal and Bauer) were authors of two different available papers,
while among the 34 authors of the second category, three (Hutchinson, Koch and Ribeiro-Júnior) were
authors of two different unavailable papers. It is thus clear that, even ten years after the publication
of A-2012, some authors seem not to be aware of the existence of this Amendment of the Code, or
decided not to care for it. This contradicts bluntly the following statement of Krell (2015: 30), who
argued that we are currently in a transitional period and that, as long as it is the case, ‘liberality’
regarding the respect of A-2012 should be in order:
Electronic publications as an available medium for zoological nomenclature are new and fast developing.
Authors, publishers and the zoological Code will need some time to learn and adapt to the new and still rapidly
evolving situation. We are currently in a transitional period, moving towards better adapted and functioning rules in
the next edition of the Code. In this transitional period, we should interpret the existing rules rather pragmatically
8 <https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php>.
9 <http://www.reptile-database.org>.
and liberally. While we should not allow deliberate neglect of sensible mandatory regulations, we should not
interpret the Code and the Amendment in such a way that minor honest mistakes become blown up to major
problems or that cannot be corrected in a sensible way.
Dubois+ (2015a: 263) replied to this declaration:
Contrary to Krell, we think that as long as we are in the ‘grey zone’, which may last for years or decades,
taxonomists should be particularly attentive to a strict application of the Rules currently in force, including those of
the 2012 Amendment, rather than interpreting them or indulging in wishful thinking. It is legitimate and useful for
individual zoologists or groups of zoologists to express their opinions about these matters and to provide proposals
of new Rules or modifications of the Rules, as we have done ourselves, but none of them should decide personally
to implement these proposals in their works. If such practices were encouraged in this particularly difficult period
for zoological nomenclature, it would be increasingly difficult or impossible to come back to a respect of the Rules
in the taxonomic literature, and nomenclatural chaos and miscommunication would spread even more.
The data presented above strongly support the idea that a ‘liberal’ approach of the respect of the
Code in zootaxonomic publications is unlikely to lead to a progressive improvement of the situation,
as today three quarters of the members of our community still seem to ignore or voluntarily decide
not to follow an Amendment which 11 years ago had been in the spotlight and could hardly have
been overlooked. We think that, in the contrary, a strict application of the Rules to all taxonomic
publications will be the most efficient way to draw the proper attention to this Amendment—until
hopefully it is replaced by a better text (see Dubois+ 2022c).
In the past, zoological nomenclature has already gone through sensible or difficult transitional
periods when it has replaced the ‘liberal’ original approaches of its early years (which was a potential
source of nomenclatural chaos) by progressively more constraining Rules (concerning nominal-
series, binominality, nomenclatural availability, the need of description of characters, nomen-bearers,
homonymy, synonymy, validity, etc.). The transition to electronic publication is such a transition,
but it opens a very critical period for zoological nomenclature. If the current disrespect for the Rules
governing the electronic publication of works, nomina and onomatergies continues for many years
or decades, we will find ourselves confronted to a backlog of thousands of unavailable works and
nomina that will become unmanageable, and many biologists, including taxonomists, may view the
Code as a mere obstacle to their work and decide to ignore it altogether. This would be a terrible step
backward and a blow to the communication and to the unity of biological sciences that would be most
unwelcome at the time of the biodiversity crisis.
We therefore propose that the Rules of A-2012 be fully and strictly applied to the 10 unregistered
works in the Journal of Herpetology studied above, and that, if some authors wish to use the
nomenclatural novelties presented in these works, they first go through the step of publishing them
again, in a Code-compliant manner, either online or on paper (but in a version accessible to all, not
restricted to a few customers).
4.2. Databases
The comments above on the current unreliability of herpetological databases regarding the
nomenclatural availability of online-only publications lead us to provide the following recommendations
for the authors and curators of taxonomic and nomenclatural databases regarding each paper cited in
these databases: [4.2.1] state if the work exists under a single or two versions (print and online) and
provide their respective ISSNs; [4.2.2] state whether the online version was pre- and postregistered
in Zoobank and if its LSID (or a proxy of it, and if so which one) was mentioned in its PDF; [4.2.3]
state the actual (genuine) date of publication of its unique or final version (see Dubois+ 2022c);
[4.2.4] state whether, according to A-2012, the work is available or not, and if not the reason of its
unavailability; [4.2.5] for all new nomina and onomatergies first published in the paper, state whether
they are available or not, and if not the reason(s) of their unavailability.
4.3. Choice of the publishers for taxonomic publications
The vast majority of zootaxonomists who work on zoological groups show no interest in zoological
nomenclature and its Rules. However, whenever they erect new taxa or revise taxonomic groups,
they simply wish that the new nomina they establish or the nomenclatural changes they introduce
be recognised as valid and remain in use, at least as long as the taxonomic interpretations on which
they are based are accepted by the community or part of it. This wish can be betrayed for purely
formal nomenclatural reasons, if the medium used to introduce these novelties is inappropriate and
is not recognised as a valid source for new nomenclatural information or proposals. This is the case
whenever this medium is an electronic publication that fails to respect the 2012 Amendment to the
Code.
In order to avoid such disappointment, all authors who intend to publish nomenclatural novelties
should first accept to devote some time to a survey of the characteristics of the periodicals or books
where they will publish them. They should avoid to choose for this purpose periodicals or publishers
who have unclear or inconsistent policies regarding the publication of online-only works or of works
published both on paper and online, their ISSNs, their Zoobank registration, and also the publication of
preliminary versions of their papers ahead of their final publication, or the incorporation of corrections
or other changes in the latter, transforming it in a postfinal version which cancels their nomenclatural
availability (see Dubois+ 2022c). Not doing this will make them run the risk of having spent time and
work to produce a serious scientific work but spoiled it by publishing it in an unappropriate medium
and having to ‘correct’ it, i.e. making it nomenclaturally available, in another publication, or seeing
it corrected by someone else.
In a forthcoming paper (Dubois & Frétey in preparation), we will extend this enquiry to other
journals that publish nomenclatural novelties in herpetology.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Aaron M. Bauer, Olivier Pauwels and an anonymous referee for their comments
on our original manuscript.
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. [For the
use of the authorship ‘Anonymous’ for this and the next two references, see Dubois 2015b].
Anonymous [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature] (2012) Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78
of the International Code of Zoological nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. Zootaxa, 3450:
1–7. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3450.1.1>.
Anonymous [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature] (2014) Zoological nomenclature and electronic
publication—a reply to Dubois et al. (2013). Zootaxa, 3779 (1): 3–5. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3779.1.2>.
Agarwal, I., Umesh, P. K., Das, S., Bauer, A. M. & Khandekar, A. (2023) [28 March] A new spotted species of the
Cyrtodactylus (Geckoella) collegalensis (Beddome, 1870) (Reptilia: Squamata) complex from coastal Kerala,
southwestern India. Journal of Herpetology, 57 (1): 75–86. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/21-075>. • Preregistered on
Zoobank on 19 August 2022: <urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D371AA05-D658-4576-902C-53D928D4D683 >. LSID not
mentioned in publication, but LSID of new species Cyrtodactylus chengodumalaensis mentioned there: <urn:lsid:
zoobank.org:act:C50510D1-5291-4C19-9758-183F3C9B094E>.
Brown, W. C. & Parker, F. (1977) Lizards of the genus Lepidodactylus (Gekkonidae) from the Indo-Australian Archipelago
and the islands of the Pacific, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences,
41: 253–265.
Ceríaco, L. M. P., Bauer, A. M., Kusamba, C., Agarwal, I. & Greenbaum, E. (2021) [12 May] A new species of ground-
dwelling Hemidactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from southwestern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Journal of
Herpetology, 55 (2): 105–111. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/20-094>. • Preregistered on Zoobank on 20 April 2021:
<urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FB58019C-29D4-43CB-9512-A504129C8370>. LSID mentioned in publication.
Das, I., Lakim, M. & Kandaung, P. (2008) New species of Luperosaurus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the Crocker
Range Park, Sabah, Malaysia (Borneo). Zootaxa, 1719: 53–60.
Dubois, A. (2000) Synonymies and related lists in zoology: general proposals, with examples in herpetology. Dumerilia,
4 (2): 33–98.
Dubois, A. (2005a) Propositions pour l’incorporation des nomina de taxons de rang supérieur dans le Code international
de nomenclature zoologique. In: A. Dubois, O. Poncy, V. Malécot & N. Léger (ed.), Comment nommer les taxons de
rang supérieur en zoologie et en botanique?, Biosystema, 23: 73–96.
Dubois, A. (2005b) Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1. Some general questions, concepts and terms of biological nomenclature.
Zoosystema, 27 (2): 365–426. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1337.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2006a) Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. The proposed Rules and their rationale. Zoosystema, 28 (1): 165–258.
Dubois, A. (2006b) Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature:
some basic questions. Zootaxa, 1337 (1): 1–37. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1337.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2008) Authors of zoological publications and nomina are signatures, not persons. Zootaxa, 1771: 63–68.
<https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1771.1.6>.
Dubois, A. (2010) Retroactive changes should be introduced in the Code only with great care: problems related to the
spellings of nomina. Zootaxa, 2426: 1–42. <https://doi.org/10.11 646/zootaxa.2426.1.1>
Dubois, A. (2011) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature must be drastically improved before it is too late.
Bionomina, 2: 1–104. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.2.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2013) Zygoidy, a new nomenclatural concept. Bionomina, 6: 1–25. <https://doi.org/10.11646/
bionomina.6.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2015a) Zoological nomina in the century of extinctions: new proposals. Bionomina, 8: 11–53. <https://doi.
org/10.11646/bionomina.8.1.2>.
Dubois, A. (2015b) What is an anonymous publication? Is the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature anonymous?
Bionomina, 9: 27–34. <https://doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.9.1.2>.
Dubois, A. (2017a) A few problems in the generic nomenclature of insects and amphibians, with recommendations for
the publication of new generic nomina in zootaxonomy and comments on taxonomic and nomenclatural databases and
websites. Zootaxa, 4237 (1): 1–16. <https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4237.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2017b) The nomenclatural status of Hysaplesia, Hylaplesia, Dendrobates and related nomina (Amphibia,
Anura), with general comments on zoological nomenclature and its governance, as well as on taxonomic databases
and websites. Bionomina, 11: 1–48. <http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/bionomina.11.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2020) The status regarding publication date and availability of taxonomic works published online without
proper Zoobank registration. Bionomina, 18 ✁✁✂✄✄☎ ✆✝✞✞✟✠ ✡✡☛☞✌☎☞✍✎✡✏✑☎✏✏✒✁✒✡✓✌☞✔☞✕✌✔✖☎✏✗☎✏☎✘✙☎
Dubois, A. (2022a) Kalyptoidy: the nomenclatural status of new zoological nomina originally published as synonyms, with
examples in herpetology and comments on taxonominal databases. Bionomina, 30 ✏✂✗✘☎ ✆https://doi.org/10.11646/
bionomina.30.1.1>.
Dubois, A. (2022b) Nomenclatural acts in zoological nomenclature. Bionomina, 31 ✏✂✘✚☎ ✆https://doi.org/10.11646/
bionomina.31.1.1>.
Dubois, A. & Aescht, E. (ed.) (2016) LZC Session 2. Discussion INF-01. Nomenclatural problems with electronic
publications. Dumerilia, 6: 45–46.
Dubois, A. & Aescht, E. (ed.) (2017) LZC Session 13. Proposal AVA-04. Problems with the 2012 Amendment of the
Code. Dumerilia, 7: 35–47.
Dubois, A. & Aescht, E. (ed.) (2019a) LZC Session 24. Subtelties of homonymy in zoological nomenclature. Dumerilia,
8 ✒✒✂✗✁☎
Dubois, A. & Aescht, E. (ed.) (2019b) LZC Session 32. The Principles of the Zoocode. 14. The Principle of Nomography.
Dumerilia, 8: 119–132.
Dubois, A. & Aescht, E. (ed.) (2019c) LZC Session 34. The Principles of the Zoocode. 16. The Principle of Archoidy.
Dumerilia, 8: 143–146.
Dubois, A. & Aescht, E. (ed.) (2019d) LZC Session 37. Diagrams of the Nomenclatural Process. Dumerilia, 8 ✏✄ ✂✏✒✗☎
Dubois, A, Aneesh, P. T., Bauer, A. M., Ceríaco, L. M. P., Daniel, G. M., Frétey, T., Löbl, I., Lorvelec, O., Marinov, M.,
Ohler, A., Schmitt, M., Whittington, A. & Aescht, E. (2022a) The Linz Zoocode project. Second report of activities
(2020). Nomenclatural availability. 1. What is nomenclatural availability? Bionomina, 28: 1–17. <https://doi.
org/10.11646/bionomina.28.1.1>.
Dubois, A., Aneesh, P. T., Bauer, A. M., Ceríaco, L. M. P., Daniel, G. M., Frétey, T., Löbl, I., Lorvelec, O., Marinov,
M., Ohler, A., Schmitt, M., Whittington, A. & Aescht, E. (2022b) The Linz Zoocode project. Third report of
activities (2020). Nomenclatural availability. 2. Work availability. Bionomina, 28: 18–49. <https://doi.org/10.11646/
bionomina.28.1.2>.
Dubois, A., Aneesh, P. T., Bauer, A. M., Ceríaco, L. M. P., De Prins, J., Frétey, T., Löbl, I., Lorvelec, O., Marinov, M.,
Ohler, A., Schmitt, M., Whittington, A., Young, M. & Aescht, E. (2022c) The Linz Zoocode project. Fifth report
of activities (2022). Nomenclatural availability. 4. Electronic publication. Bionomina, 28: 71–119. <https://doi.
org/10.11646/bionomina.28.1.4>.
Dubois, A., Bour, R. & Ohler, A. (2015) Nomenclatural availability of preliminary electronic versions of taxonomic
papers: in need of a clear definition. Bulletin of zoological Nomenclature, 72 (3): 252–265. <https://doi.org/10.21805/
bzn.v72i3.a1>.
Dubois, A., Crochet, P.-A., Dickinson, E. C., Nemésio, A., Aescht, E., Bauer, A. M., Blagoderov, V., Bour, R., de Carvalho,
M. R., Desutter-Grandcolas, L., Frétey, T., Jäger, P., Koyamba, V., Lavilla, E. O., Löbl, I., Louchart, A., Malécot, V.,
Schatz, H. & Ohler, A. (2013) Nomenclatural and taxonomic problems related to the electronic publication of new
nomina and nomenclatural acts in zoology, with brief comments on optical discs and on the situation in botany.
Zootaxa, 3735 (1): 1–94. <https://doi.org/10.11 646/zootaxa.3735.1.1>.
Dubois, A. & Ohler, A. (2018) The Hyla quoyi-Hyla prasina case (Amphibia, Anura), with comments on bibliographic
and taxonomic databases and on Article 23.9 of the Code. Zoosystema, 40 ✁✘✚✂ ✄✑✏✂✄✑✒☎ ✆https://doi.org/10.5252/
zoosystema2018v40a23>.
Edwards, D. L. & Hutchinson, M. N. (2023) [14 June] Sand dragons: species of the Ctenophorus maculatus complex
(Squamata: Agamidae) of Australia’s southern and western interior. • Journal of Herpetology, 57 (2): 176–196. •
<https://doi.org/10.1670/22-021>. • Not registered on Zoobank.
Fukuyama, I., Hossman, M. Y. & Nishikawa, K. (2022) [9 August] Rediscovery of Luperosaurus sorok Das, Lakim, and
Kandaung, 2008 (Squamata, Gekkonidae) with notes on its taxonomy and natural history. Journal of Herpetology, 56
(2): 241–248. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/21-043>. • Not registered on Zoobank.
Gray, J. E. (1831) A synopsis of the species of the class Reptilia. In: E. Griffith & E. Pidgeon (ed.), The class Reptilia
arranged by the Baron Cuvier, with specific descriptions; in: E. Griffith & E. Pidgeon (ed.), The animal kingdom
arranged in conformity with its organization, by the Baron Cuvier, member of the Institute of France, &c. &c. &c., with
additional descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed, vol. 9, London (Whittaker,
Treacher & Co.): 1–110, pl. 1–55.
Hutchinson, M. N., Couper, P., Amey, A. & Wilmer, J. W. (2021) [27 September] Diversity and systematics of limbless
skinks (Anomalopus) from eastern Australia and the skeletal changes that accompany the substrate swimming body.
Journal of Herpetology, 55 (4): 361–384. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/20-137>. • Not registered on Zoobank.
Jurestovsky, D. J. (2021) [28 October] Small colubroids from the Late Hemphillian Gray fossil site of northeastern
Tennessee. Journal of Herpetology, 55 (4): 422–431. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/21-008>. • Not registered on
Zoobank.
Keller, R. A., Boyd, R. N. & Wheeler, Q. D. (2003) The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. The botanical
Review, 69: 93–110. <https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0093:TIBOPN]2.0.CO;2>.
Kraus, F., Vahtera, V. & Weijola, V. (2022) [11 March] Lepidodactylus browni (Squamata, Gekkonidae) placed in the
synonymy of L. orientalis. Journal of Herpetology, 56 (1): 137–145. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/21-010>. • Not
registered on Zoobank.
Krell, F.-T. (2015) A mixed bag: when are early online publications available for nomenclatural purposes? Bulletin of
zoological Nomenclature, 72 (1): 19–32. <https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v72i1.a14>.
Mângia, S., Medeiros Magalhães, F. de, Fortes Leite, F. S., Cavalheri, D. G. & Garda, A. A. (2022) [11 March] A new
species of Proceratophrys (Anura: Odontophrynidae) from Boqueirão da Onça, Northern Bahia State, Brazil. Journal
of Herpetology, 56 (1): 120–136. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/20-070>. • Not registered on Zoobank.
Marinho, P., Bang, D. L., Vidigal, I. & Giaretta, A. A. (2022) [1 September] A new cryptic species of Boana (Hylinae:
Cophomantini) of the B. polytaenia clade from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Journal of Herpetology, 56 (3): 278–
293. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/21-045>. • Preregistered on Zoobank on 20 April 2022: <urn:lsid:zoobank.org:
pub:0F393E7E-1EE9-44A2-BBD4-044704E920F3>. LSID mentioned in publication.

Pernetta, J. C. & Black, D. (1983) Species of gecko (Lepidodactylus) in the Port Moresby area, with the description of a
new species. Journal of Herpetology, 17:121–128. <https://doi.org/10.2307/1563452>.
Peters, W. C. H. (1869) Über neue Saurier (Chaunolæmus multicarinatus, Tropidolepisma Richardi und Gymnodactylus
Steudneri) und Batrachier (Cyclorhamphus fasciatus und Hyla gracilenta). Monatsberichte der königlich Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1869: 786–790.
Ribeiro-Júnior, M. A., Koch, C., Flecks, M., Calvo, M. & Meiri, S. (2022b) [30 November 2022] Dwarves in a big
world: two new species of Tropiocolotes (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the Sahara desert, with the first detailed skull
description of the genus. Journal of Herpetology, 56 (4): 396–421. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/20-103>. • Preregistered
on Zoobank on 3 September 2022: <urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:013DFE88-21D3-406A-9EE1-806870AED1DB>.
LSID not mentioned in publication.
Ribeiro-Júnior, M. A., Ribeiro, S., Cintra, C. E. D. & Gomes, J. O. (2022a) [9 August 2022] Amphisbaena ibijara Rodrigues,
Andrade and Lima, 2003 is a junior synonym of Amphisbaena frontalis Vanzolini, 1991 (Squamata, Amphisbaenia).
Journal of Herpetology, 56 (2): 234–240. • <https://doi.org/10.1670/21-039>. • Not preregistered on Zoobank.
Rodrigues, M. T., Andrade, G. V. & Dias Lima, J. (2003) A new species of Amphisbaena (Squamata, Amphisbaenidae)
from state of Maranhãao, Brazil. Phyllomedusa, 2: 21–26. <https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v2i1p21-26>.
Simpson, G. G. (1940) Types in modern taxonomy. American Journal of Science, 238: 413–431. <https://doi.org/10.2475/
ajs.238.6.413>.
Smith, H. M. & Pérez-Higareda, G. (1986) Nomenclatural name-forms. Systematic Zoology, 35 (3): 421–422. <https://
doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/35.3.421>.
Storr, G. M. (1965) The Amphibolurus maculatus species-group (Lacertilia, Agamidae) in Western Australia. Journal of
the royal Society of Western Australia, 48: 45–54.
Tepos-Ramírez, M., Flores-Villela, O., Velasco, J. A., Lara, C. P., García Rubio, O. R. & Jadin, P. C. (2021) [11
June] Molecular phylogenetics and morphometrics reveal a new endemic jumping pitviper (Serpentes: Viperidae:
Metlapilcoatlus) from the Sierra Madre oriental of Mexico. Journal of Herpetology, 55 (2): 181–191. • <https://doi.
org/10.1670/20-028>. • Not preregistered on Zoobank.
Torres-Carvajal, O., Parra, V., Sales Nunes, P. M. & Koch, C. (2021) [27 September] A new species of microtegu lizard
(Gymnophthalmidae: Cercosaurinae) from Amazonian Ecuador. Journal of Herpetology, 55 (4): 385–395. • <https://
doi.org/10.1670/20-142>. • Not preregistered but postregistered on Zoobank on 30 September 2021: <urn:lsid:
zoobank.org:pub:CDD86EFC-13E5-493A-9341-3FC5B21129B8>. LSID not mentioned in publication.
Vanzolini, P. E. (1991) Two further new species of Amphisbaena from the semi-arid northeast of Brazil (Reptilia,
Amphisbaenia). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, 37: 347–361.
Submitted: 13 August 2023. Accepted: 12 September 2023. Published: 17 November 2023.

Corresponding editor: Aaron M. Bauer.
✁✁✂✄☎✆✝ 1. Glossary
Structure of entries
Term: pl., plural.
Grammatical category of term: a, adjective; e, expression composed of several terms; n, noun.
Etymology of term (only for technical terms coined especially for nomenclature and taxonomy): G, Greek; L, Latin.
Abbreviation and definition of term, with comments and/or mention of related terms if relevant: Ant, antonym (term of opposite meaning); End,
endonym (term designating a subordinate class); Syn, synonym (term of same meaning).
Reference to first publication of the term.
Equivalent term or expression used in the Code for the same concept, if available.
Use of italics and bold: bold characters are used only for the titles of entries; in definitions, terms in bold italics are defined elsewhere in this Glossary,
but terms between ‘simple quotation marks’ are not; terms in italics are involved in the etymology of a term used here.
Airesy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✠✡☛☞✌✍✎✁airesis), ‘choice, election’. • A category of auxesy: any action of resolution of ambiguities which
may have remained after a catastasy through a choice explicitly made between several possibilities. • Dubois 2013: 3,
6; 2022b: 18. • Code: first reviser action.
Alloneonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✏✑✑✒✎
✁allos✂ ☞✞✝ ✍ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖✗ ✘✙✒✎
✁neos✂ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✕✚✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠
✁onoma), ‘name’. • Neonym having an etymology
partially or totally different from that of its archaeonym, i.e., not directly derived from it through unjustified
emendation. • Ant: autoneonym. • Dubois 2000: 52, 89. • Code: new replacement name, nomen novum.
Anagcaiosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢✘✠✣✤✠✥✒✎✁anagcaios), ‘necessary, indispensable’. • A category of plerosy: any ancillary information
that is required by the Code for the valid promulgation of a catastasy. • Dubois 2022b: 18. • Code: one of the meanings
of the expression “information likely to affect nomenclature”.
Angiotaxon, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢✣✣☞✥✒✘ ✁aggeion✂ ✝ ✓ ✔ ✦✧✧✓ ★ ✦✧✕✖✗ ✩✪✫✍✎
✖✟✠ ✁taxis), ‘order, arrangement’. • Any taxon which is
superordinate to another taxon (its endotaxon) in a given ergotaxonomy. • Dubois 2005b ✁✑✒☎ Code: no term. ✬
Antonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢✘✩✭ ✓✔
✁anti✂ ✖✎✖✌✔✠✞ ✌✔ ✍☞✔✞ ☞✓ ✮ ✮✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠
✁onoma), ‘name’. • Any of two words having opposite meanings.
• Term in traditional use in general language, grammar and linguistics; Dubois & Aescht 2019a: 75. • Code: no term.
Apograph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢✯✰
✁apo✂ ✖ ✖ ✓ ✔ ✚ ✱ ✮ ✓ ✮ ✮ ✖✗ ✣☛✪✲✳
✍☞✕ ✖✍ ✍☞✕ ✁grapho), ‘I write’. • Any subsequent parograph of a nomen.
• Ant: protograph. • Dubois 2010: 6, 39. • Code: subsequent spelling.

Apohypse, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢✯✰
✁apo✂ ✖ ✖ ✓ ✔ ✚ ✱ ✮ ✓ ✮ ✮ ✖✗ ✴✵✒✎
✍☞✕ ✖✍ ✍☞✕ ✁hupsos), ‘height’. • Any subsequent parohypse of a nomen. •
Ant: protohypse. • Dubois 2010: 6, 39. • Code: no term.

Aponym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢✯✰ ✁apo✂ ✖ ✖ ✓ ✔ ✚ ✱ ✮ ✓ ✮ ✮ ✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠
✍☞✕ ✖✍ ✍☞✕ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • Any subsequent paronym of a nomen,
modified in spelling (apograph), rank (apohypse) and/or, if relevant, onymorph (aponymorph). The author who first
published an aponym is its scriptor. • Ant: protonym. • Dubois 2000: 51. • Code: no term.
Aponymorph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✪✯✰
✁apo✂ ✖ ✖ ✓ ✔ ✚ ✱ ✮ ✓ ✮ ✮ ✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠
✍☞✕ ✖✍ ✍☞✕ ✁onoma✂ ✔✖✕ ✓ ✔ ✕✖✗ ✜✒☛✲✶
✁morphe), ‘form, shape’. • Any
subsequent paronymorph of a nomen. • Ant: protonymorph. • Dubois 2010: 6, 39. • Code: no term.
Arbiter (pl. arbiters), n. • L: arbiter, ‘umpire, arbitrator’. • Name(s) of the person(s) to whom the first use of an airesy,
i.e. an onomatergy resolving a conflict of zygoidy, is credited, i.e., whose name(s) appear(s) as signatory in the work.
• Dubois 2013: 3. • Code: first reviser.
Archaeonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✢☛✷✠✸✒✎✁arkhaios✂ ✖✔ ✌ ✔✞ ✓ ✔ ★ ✕ ✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠
✁onoma), ‘name’. • Original nomen that has been replaced by
a neonym. • Dubois 2005a: 88, 2006a: 169, 182. • Code: no term.

Archoidy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✏☛✷✳
✁archo✂ ✞☞ ✍ ✓ ✔ ✦✧✕✓
✞☞ ✎☞ ✍✔ ✹✕ ✖✗ ☞✺✻✒✎ ✕
✁ ✌☛☞✠✂ ✖✠✟ ✞ ✠✝✖✟ ☎ ✓ ✔ ✕★ ✓ ✕✖ ✞ ✼ ✮ ★
☞☛✌ ✌ ✖✞✌☞✔ ☞ ✞✝ ✔☞✕ ✔ ✖✞ ✍✖ ✮ ✕ ✕ ★✧ ✦ ✧
status of a nomen resulting from a specific action of the Commission (or its potential successor body) under the
Plenary Power. • Dubois & Aescht 2019c: 145. • Code: no term.
Autoneonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✠✽✩✰✎✁autos✂ ✠✖✕ ✓ ✔ ✕✖✗ ✘✙✒✎
✁neos✂ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✕✚✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠
✁onoma), ‘name’. • Neonym having the same
etymology as its archaeonym, i.e., directly derived from it through unjustified emendation. • Ant: alloneonym. •
Dubois 2000: 52, 90. • Code: unjustified emendation.
Auxesy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✠✾✫✿✍✎✁auxesis), ‘growth, increase’. • A category of onomatergy: any action of resolution of nomenclatural
problems (ambiguities, uncertainties or errors) which may have remained after a catastasy. Acts taken in airesies are
left to the freedom of individual arbiters or scriptores, but in some cases the Code provides Recommendations in
this respect (e.g., the Recommendations of Article 74 concerning the designations of lectotypes). Once published,
an auxesy is irreversible and cannot be modified by individual authors but only through archoidy. • End: airesy and
cainosy. • Dubois 2022b: 19. • Code: first reviser action, and one of the meanings of the expression “information likely
to affect nomenclature”.
Availability, n. • Statement regulated by the Code according to which a nomen is introduced in zoological nomenclature
complying with the conditions of the Code or by which an onomatergy (nomenclatural act) is made effective. • Term
in traditional use in zoological nomenclature. • Code: availability.
Bebaiosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✂☞✂✠✭✳✌✍✎ ✁bebaiosis), ‘confirmation’. • A category of cataphasy: any published confirmation of the
nomenclatural status, under a given ergotaxonomic frame, of a work, nomen, catastasy or auxesy previously already
published and accepted in the literature. • Dubois+ 2022a: 8, 12. • Code: no term.
Boethosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✂✒✿ ✰✎ ✁boethos), ‘assistant, helper, auxiliary’. • A category of plerosy: any auxiliary information that
is not required by the Code for the valid promulgation of a catastasy but which is necessary for the completion of the
nomenclatural status of a nomen. • Dubois 2022b: 19. • Code: one of the meanings of the expression “information
likely to affect nomenclature”.
Cainosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✤✠✍✘✰✎ ✁kainos), ‘new’. • A category of auxesy: any action of resolution of uncertainties or errors which
may have remained after a catastasy through the introduction of missing information. • Dubois 2022b: 19. • Code: one
of the meanings of the expression “information likely to affect nomenclature”.
Cataphasy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✤✠✩✪✲✠✌✍✎ ✁kataphasis), ‘statement, affirmation’. • A category of onomatergy: any published statement
about the nomenclatural status, under a given ergotaxonomic frame, of a work, nomen, catastasy or auxesy. • End:
bebaiosy and diaphory. • Syn: nomenclatural ascertainment. • Dubois+ 2022a: 8, 12. • Code: no term.
Catastasy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✤✠✩✠✌✩✪✌✍✎✓ katastasis, ‘action of establishing, introducing, instituting’. • A category of onomatergy:
any published founder action of promulgation of a new nomen. • Dubois 2013: 3. • Code: no term.
Choice, n. • Explicit selection among several alternative possibilities. • Common language term. • Code: choice,
selection.
Combination, n. • A category of onymorph: any paronym of a species-series nomen involving association between a
generic substantive and a specific or subspecific final epithet, irrespective of potential other words in the binomen or
trinomen. • Term in traditional use in zoological nomenclature. • Code: combination.
Diaphory, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✻✍✠✲✒☛✪ ✁diaphora), ‘difference, disagreement’. • A category of cataphasy: any published statement
that the nomenclatural status, under a given ergotaxonomic frame, of a work, nomen, catastasy or auxesy previously
already published and accepted in the literature is wrong and requires correction. • Dubois 2022b: 19. • Code: one of
the meanings of the expression “information likely to affect nomenclature”.
Dicaiosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✻✭✤✠✍✒✎ ✁dikaios), ‘just, correct, which observes the justice’. • A category of auxesy: any published
correction of errors which may have remained after a catastasy through mandatory changes in spelling, rank or
onymorph of a nomen. • Dubois 2022b: 19. • Code: one of the meanings of the expression “information likely to affect
nomenclature”.
Diorthosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✻✍✁☛ ✳✌✍✎ ✁diorthosis), ‘correction, rectification’. • A category of cataphasy: any published correction,
other than a dicaiosy, of the nomenclatural status, under a given ergotaxonomic frame, of a work, nomen, catastasy
or auxesy previously accepted in the literature as correct, but shown to be incorrect. • Dubois+ 2022a: 8, 12; Dubois
2022b: 19. • Code: no term.
Doxisonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✻✰✫✠ ✁doxa✂✓ ✔☞✟✌✔✌☞✔✖✗ ✡✌✒✎ ✁isos✂✓ ✔✕✄✦✖✧✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • A category of synonym: any of
two or more nomina based on different onomatophores but considered, for subjective (taxonomic) reasons, to denote
the same taxon, whose inclusive extension includes both their onomatophores. • Ant: isonym. • Dubois 2000: 57. •
Code: subjective synonym.
Effective, a. • Qualification of an onomatergy that makes it actual under the Rules of the Code. • Traditional term in
common language, introduced in zoological nomenclature by Dubois & Aescht (2019d: 166). • Code: no term.
Endonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ☎✘✻✒✘ ✁endon✂✓ ✔✌✔✠✌☛✕ ☞✮✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • The nomen which applies to an endotaxon in a
given ergotaxonomy. • Dubois & Aescht 2019a: 76. • Code: no term.

Endotaxon, n☎ ✞ ✟ ☎✘✻✒✘ ✁endon✂✓ ✔✌✔✠✌☛✕ ☞✮✖✗ ✩✪✫✍✎ ✁taxis), ‘order, arrangement’. • Any taxon which is subordinate to
another taxon (its angiotaxon) in a given ergotaxonomy. • Dubois 2005b: 406. • Code: no term.
Epidosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✡✯✭✻✒✌✍✎ ✁epidosis), ‘contribution, increase, progress’. • Any published action that contributes to the
establishment of the nomenclatural status of a nomen. • End: taxergy and onomatergy. • Dubois 2022b: 20. • Code:
no term.
Ergostasy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ☎☛✣✒✘ ✁ergon✂✓ ✔✚☞✍ ✓ ✖★✞✌☞✔✖✗ ✌✩✪✌✍✎ ✁stasis), ‘standing, position, station’. • A category of catastasy:
any promulgation of a new available work (on paper, on optical disc or online). • Dubois 2022b: 20. • Code: no
term.
Ergotaxonomy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ☎☛✣✒✘ ✁ergon✂✓ ✔✚☞✍ ✓ ✖★✞✌☞✔✖✗ ✩✪✫✍✎ ✁taxis✂✓ ✔☞✍☛✕✍✓ ✖✍✍✖✔✎✕✕✕✔✞✖✗ ✘✁✜✒✎ ✁nomos), ‘law, rule’. •
Any classification considered valid in a certain work by a given author. • Dubois 2005b: 406. • Code: no term.
Exclusive extension, e. • System of extension by exclusion, i.e., listing all member(s) of a class (such as a taxon). •
Dubois 2005b: 379. • Code: no term.
Exclusive ostension, e. • System of ostension by exclusion, pointing to one or several non-member(s) of a class (such as
a taxon). • Dubois 2006b: 25. • Code: no term.
Extension, n. • In taxonomy: circumscription, or content, or extensional definition of a taxon: its content and boundaries,
i.e. the list of its included members (individuals or taxa) (inclusive extension) or of the individuals or taxa excluded
from it (exclusive extension). • Traditional term in philosophy, logics and didactics (see Dubois 2005b: 379). • Code:
no term.
Inclusive extension, e. • System of extension by inclusion, i.e., listing all member(s) of a class (such as a taxon). • Dubois
2005b: 379. • Code: no term.
Inclusive ostension, e. • System of ostension by inclusion, pointing to one or several member(s) of a class (such as a
taxon). • Dubois 2006b: 25. • Code: no term.
Isonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✁✌✒✎ ✁isos✂✓ ✔✕✄✦✖✧✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • A category of synonym: any of two or more nomina of the
same nominal-series based on the same onomatophore. • Dubois 2000: 57. • Code: objective synonym.
Neonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✘✙✒✎ ✁neos✂✓ ✔✔✕✚✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • Nomen proposed expressly to replace an available nomen
(its archaeonym), and having the same onomatophore. • End: alloneonym and autoneonym. • Dubois 2000: 52,
2005a: 88. • Code: new replacement name, nomen novum, unjustified emendation.
Nomen (plural nomina), n. • L: nomen, ‘name’. • Scientific name as defined and regulated by the Code. • Dubois 2000:
39. • Code: scientific name.
Nomenclatural act, e. • See Onomatergy.
Nomenclatural ascertainment, e. • See Cataphasy.
Nomenclatural novelty, e. • Any novelty resulting from an onomatergy. • Dubois & Aescht 2017: 35. • Code: nomenclatural
act, or one of the meanings of the expression “information likely to affect nomenclature”.
Onomatergy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma✂✓ ✔✔✖✕✕✖✗ ☞☛✣✒✘✓ ergos, ‘work’. • Any published action resulting in the establishment
of a new nomen (catastasy) or in affecting the nomenclatural status of an available nomen (auxesy). • Dubois 2013:
3. • Code: nomenclatural act.
Onomatophore, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma✂✓ ✔✔✖✕✕✖✗ ✲✙☛✳ ✁phero), ‘I bear, I carry’. • Objective standard of reference of
inclusive ostension determining the taxonomic allocation of a nomen: within a given ergotaxonomic frame, the
nomen can be potentially applied to any taxon that includes its onomatophore. In the species-series, onomatophores
are specimens, whereas in the genus- and family-series they are taxomina. • Simpson 1940: 421. • Code: type, name-
bearing type.
Onymorph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma✂✓ ✔✔✖✕✕✖✗ ✜✒☛✲✶ ✁morphe), ‘form, shape’. • Any particular association between
genus-series substantive(s) and species-series epithet(s), used to designate a species-series taxon. A combination is a
particular case of onymorph. • Smith & Pérez-Higareda 1986: 422. • Code: no term.
Onymostasy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma✂✓ ✔✔✖✕✕✖✗ ✌✩✪✌✍✎ ✁stasis), ‘standing, position, station’. • A category of catastasy:
any promulgation of a new available nomen (poieonym or neonym) with original fixation of various aspects of its
nomenclatural status (plerosy). • Dubois 2022b: 21. • Code: no term.
Ostension, n. • System of allocation of a nomen to a concept or class (such as a taxon) through pointing to an object being
an example or member of the class (inclusive ostension), or a non-example or non-member of the class (exclusive
ostension), or both (bidirectional ostension), without providing an intensional or closed extensional definition, or
information on the boundaries the class. • Traditional term in philosophy, logics and didactics (see Keller+ 2003: 99;
Dubois 2005b: 380, 2011: 89). • Code: no term.
Parograph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯✠☛✪ ✁para✂✓ ✔✔✕✖✍✓ ✓✕✠✌☛✕✓ ✖✧☞✔✎✖✗ ✣☛✪✲✳ ✁grapho), ‘I write’. • A category of paronym: any spelling,
either original (protograph) or subsequent (apograph), ever used in the literature for a nomen. • Dubois 2010: 6, 41.
• Code: no term.
Parohypse, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯✠☛✪ ✁para✂✓ ✔✔✕✖✍✓ ✓✕✠✌☛✕✓ ✖✧☞✔✎✖✗ ✴✵✒✎ ✁hupsos), ‘height’. • A category of paronym: any of the
avatars, either original (protohypse) or subsequent (apohypse), of the rank of a nomen. • Dubois 2010: 6, 41. • Code:
no term.
Paronym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯✠☛✪ ✁para✂✓ ✔✔✕✖✍✓ ✓✕✠✌☛✕✓ ✖✧☞✔✎✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • Any of the avatars of a nomen, either
original (protonym) or subsequent (aponym), and concerning its spelling (parograph), rank (parohypse) and/or, if
relevant, onymorph (paronymorph). • Dubois 2000: 53. • Code: no term.
Paronymorph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯✠☛✪ ✁para✂✓ ✔✔✕✖✍✓ ✓✕✠✌☛✕✓ ✖✧☞✔✎✖✗ ✒✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma✂✓ ✔✔✖✕✕✖✗ ✜✒☛✲✶ ✁morphe), ‘form, shape’. •
A category of paronym: any of the avatars, either original (protonymorph) or subsequent (aponymorph), of the
onymorph of a nomen. • Dubois 2010: 6, 42. • Code: no term.
Plerosy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯✑✶☛✳✌✍ ✁plerosis), ‘complement, filling up’. • Any published information affecting nomenclature, for
allowing either the valid promulgation of an onomatergy (anagcaiosy) or the completing of the nomenclatural status
of a nomen (boethosy). • Dubois 2022b: 21. • Code: one of the meanings of the expression “information likely to affect
nomenclature”.
Poieonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯✒✍✙✳ ✁poieo✂✓ ✔✞☞ ★✍✕✖✞✕✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • Brand new nomen, not proposed to replace an
existing one. • Ant: neonym. • Dubois 2017a: 12. • Code: no term.
Postregistration, n. • Registration in Zoobank implemented after publication of a work. • Dubois & Aescht 2016: 45,
2019c: 147 (as post-registration). • Code: no term.
Preregistration, n. • Registration in Zoobank implemented before publication of a work. • Anonymous 2012: 6 (as pre-
registration), Dubois+ 2013: 19; Dubois & Aescht 2019c: 147.• Code: pre-registration.
Promulgation, n. • Publication of a new work, a new nomen or a new onomatergy complying with the Rules of the
Code ✮☞✍ ✔☞✕✕✔★✧✖✞✦✍✖✧ ✖✹✖✌✧✖✓✌✧✌✞✱ ✁✌✍✞✌★✧✕✠ ✗✂ ✂☎ ✞ ✦✓☞✌✠ ✘✑✘✑ ✄✏☎ ✞ Code: one of the meanings of the term
establishment.
Protograph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯☛✳✩✒✎ ✁protos✂✓ ✔✮✌✍✠✞✓ ✕✖✍✧✌✕✠✞✖✗ ✣☛✪✲✳ ✁grapho), ‘I write’. • Original parograph of a nomen in the
publication where it was originally introduced. • Ant: apograph. • Dubois 2010: 6, 42. • Code: original spelling.
Protohypse, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯☛✳✩✒✎ ✁protos✂✓ ✔✮✌✍✠✞✓ ✕✖✍✧✌✕✠✞✖✗ ✴✵✒✎ ✁hypsos), ‘height’. • A category of protonym: original rank of
a nomen. • Ant: apohypse. • Dubois 2010: 6, 42. • Code: no term.
Protonym, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯☛✂✩✒✎ ✁protos✂✓ ✔✮✌✍✠✞✓ ✕✖✍✧✌✕✠✞✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma), ‘name’. • Original spelling (protograph), rank
(protohypse) and/or, if relevant, onymorph (protonymorph) of a nomen. • Ant: aponym. • Dubois 2000: 51. • Code:
no term.
Protonymorph, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✯☛✳✩✒✎ ✁protos✂✓ ✔✮✌✍✠✞✓ ✕✖✍✧✌✕✠✞✖✗ ✛✘✒✜✠ ✁onoma✂✓ ✔✔✖✕✕✖✗ ✜✒☛✲✶ ✁morphe), ‘form, shape’. • A
category of protonym: original onymorph of a nomen. • Ant: aponymorph. • Dubois 2010: 6, 42. • Code: no term.
Publication, n. • [1] General meanings: [1.1] the action of public distribution of a work; [1.2] the work resulting from
this action. [2] Specialised meanings in the frame of zoological nomenclature: [2.1] the action of public distribution of
a work conforming to the provisions of Articles 8–9 of the Code (see Promulgation), i.e.: either [2.1.1] distributed as
several identical copies [2.1.1.1] printed on paper or [2.1.1.2] released on optical disc after 1985 and before 2013; or
[2.1.2] released electronically after 2011 ; [2.2] the work resulting from this action. • [1] Common language term. [2]
Meanings of the term defined in the Glossary of the Code.
Registration, n. • Onomatergy by which a nomen registered in an international nomenclatural database becomes
permanently available in zoological nomenclature. • Term in traditional use in many domains. • Code: registration.
Signatory. • Name(s) of the person(s) which appear(s) as the ‘author’ on the cover or at the beginning or end of a
published work. • Dubois & Aescht 2019b: 131. • Code: author.

Scriptor (pl. scriptores) n☎ ✬ scriptor✓ ✔✚✍✌✞✕✍✓ ✖✦✞✝☞✍ ✖☎ ✬ ✁✖✕✕✁✠✂ ☞✮ ✞✝✕ ✟✕✍✠☞✔✁✠✂ ✞☞ ✚✝☞✕ ✞✝✕ ✮✌✍✠✞ ✦✠✕ ☞✮ ✖✔ aponym
is credited, i.e., whose name(s) appear(s) as signatory of the work where this aponym first appeared itself— not
✖✠★✕✍✞✖✌✔✕☛ ✞✝✍☞✦✎✝ ✠✦✓✠✕✄✦✕✔✞ ✌✔✹✕✠✞✌✎✖✞✌☞✔ ✁✠✕✕ ✦✓☞✌✠ ✘✑✑✗ ✒✁✂☎ ✬ ✦✓☞✌✠ ✘✑✑✑ ✏ ✁✖✠ first-user), 2013: 3 (as
primoscriptor), 2015a ✏✄☎ ✬ Code: no term.

Taxergy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✩✪✫✍✎ ✁taxis✂✓ ✔☞✍☛✕✍✓ ✖✍✍✖✔✎✕✕✕✔✞✖✗ ☞☛✣✒✘ ✁ergos), ‘work’). • A category of epidosy: any published action
having taxonomic consequences (erection of a new taxon, modification of the taxonomic status of an existing taxon,
change in the taxonmic hierarchy). • Syn: taxonomic act. • Dubois+ 2022a: 8, 13; Dubois 2022b: 23. • Code: no
term.
Taxonomic act, e. • See Taxergy.
Work, n. • In the context of zoological taxonomy and nomenclature, a publication. • Traditional term in zoological
nomenclature. • Code: work, published work.
Zygoidy, n☎ ✞ ✟ ✂✴✣✰✎ ✁zugos✂✓ ✔✱☞ ✕✖✗ ☞✺✻✒✎ ✁eidos), ‘aspect, shape’. • Qualification of all situations of nomenclatural
conflict between several nomina, spellings or onomatophore designations being potentially the valid one for a given
taxon or nomen. • Dubois 2013: 5. • Code: no term.

Dubois & Fretey 2023 ZooBank Registrations in Herpetology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dubois & Fretey 2023 ZooBank Registrations in Herpetology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bionomina, 34: 009–034 (2023) ISSN 1179-7649 (print edition)

Problems with the availability of zoological nomenclatural acts published online:

Alain ✁✂✄☎✆* & Thierry ✝✞✟✠✡☛**

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 2012 Amendment, electronic publication,

Terminology and conventions

In 2012, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (‘the Commission’ below)

2. Problems of nomenclatural availability in the Journal of Herpetology

2.1. Versions of journal and ISSN

2.2. Categories of epidosy

2.2.1. Ergostasy (promulgation of work)

2.2.2. Onymostasy (promulgation of new nomen)

2.2.3. Cainosy (supply of information resolving nomenclatural uncertainty or error)

BI Date Reference TX ON CA or DO LSID in PDF LSID in Zoobank Date Zoobank Av.

2.2.4. Diorthosy (nomenclatural correction)

2.3. Modes of registration in Zoobank

2.3.1. Complete Zoobank registration

The valid promulgation of an electronic publication presenting nomenclatural novelties requires:

2.3.2. Zoobank registration without evidence of this registration in the work

2.3.2.1. Zoobank postregistration without preregistration

2.3.3. Zoobank preregistration without postregistration

2.3.4. Complete absence of Zoobank registration

Id. New nomen or onomatergy Nomenclatural status DB Nomenclatural status

4. Discussion and recommendations

Dubois+ (2015a: 263) replied to this declaration:

4.3. Choice of the publishers for taxonomic publications

Anonymous [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature] (1999) International code of zoological

pub:0F393E7E-1EE9-44A2-BBD4-044704E920F3>. LSID mentioned in publication.

Submitted: 13 August 2023. Accepted: 12 September 2023. Published: 17 November 2023.

• Ant: protograph. • Dubois 2010: 6, 39. • Code: subsequent spelling.

Ant: protohypse. • Dubois 2010: 6, 39. • Code: no term.

a neonym. • Dubois 2005a: 88, 2006a: 169, 182. • Code: no term.

given ergotaxonomy. • Dubois & Aescht 2019a: 76. • Code: no term.

published work. • Dubois & Aescht 2019b: 131. • Code: author.

primoscriptor), 2015a ✏✄☎ ✬ Code: no term.

You might also like