DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ZOOLOGICAL & BOTANICAL CODES ZOOLOGICAL & BOTANICAL CODES

•Suprageneric name endingsSuprageneric name endings•ItalicizationItalicization•Ranks coveredRanks covered•Infraspecific connecting termsInfraspecific connecting terms•Principle of Coordination & autonymsPrinciple of Coordination & autonyms•Different terminologiesDifferent terminologies•Different kinds of type specimensDifferent kinds of type specimens•Recombining authorRecombining author•Square bracketsSquare brackets•TautonymsTautonyms•IllegitimacyIllegitimacy•Recent vs date for priorityRecent vs date for priority•Hyphens allowed in genus & species namesHyphens allowed in genus & species names

IN COMMON: stability, priority, hierarchy, types, Latin namesIN COMMON: stability, priority, hierarchy, types, Latin names

DIFFERENCES:DIFFERENCES:

SUPRAGENERIC NAME ENDINGSSUPRAGENERIC NAME ENDINGS

ZOOLOGICAL CODEZOOLOGICAL CODE BOTANICAL CODEBOTANICAL CODE-idae-idae FamilyFamily SubclassSubclass-inae-inae SubfamilySubfamily SubtribeSubtribe

These are very different for equivalent ranks in the two These are very different for equivalent ranks in the two codes.codes.

Examples of “homonyms”:Examples of “homonyms”:

ITALICIZATIONITALICIZATION

ZOOLOGICAL CODE: Genus & species ranks onlyZOOLOGICAL CODE: Genus & species ranks only

BOTANICAL CODE: All ranks; however, this is not yet BOTANICAL CODE: All ranks; however, this is not yet mandatory, only encouraged.mandatory, only encouraged.

RANKS COVEREDRANKS COVEREDZOOLOGICAL CODEZOOLOGICAL CODE BOTANICAL CODEBOTANICAL CODE(Kingdom)(Kingdom) KingdomKingdom(Phylum)(Phylum) Division or PhylumDivision or Phylum(Class)(Class) ClassClass(Order)(Order) OrderOrderFamilyFamily FamilyFamilyTribeTribe TribeTribeGenusGenus GenusGenus-- SectionSection-- SeriesSeriesSpeciesSpecies SpeciesSpecies-- VarietyVariety-- FormForm[plus sub-categories of all[plus sub-categories of all [plus subcategories of all][plus subcategories of all]& super-categories above Genus]& super-categories above Genus][“( )“ indicates: not regulated by the code except for certain basic [“( )“ indicates: not regulated by the code except for certain basic principles]principles]

INFRAGENERIC & INFRASPECIFIC INFRAGENERIC & INFRASPECIFIC CONNECTING TERMSCONNECTING TERMS

Because there are multiple infrageneric & infraspecific ranks in Because there are multiple infrageneric & infraspecific ranks in Botanical nomenclature, these are specified in the name.Botanical nomenclature, these are specified in the name.E.g.: E.g.: Saxifraga aizoonSaxifraga aizoon subf. subf. surculosasurculosa Engl. & Irmsch. Engl. & Irmsch.Because there are intermediate ranks between subform and Because there are intermediate ranks between subform and species, the taxon can be referred to in full in a combination of species, the taxon can be referred to in full in a combination of ‘name plus classification’ as:‘name plus classification’ as:Saxifraga aizoon Saxifraga aizoon var.var. aizoon aizoon subvar.subvar. brevifolia brevifolia f.f. multicaulis multicaulis subf. subf. surculosasurculosa Engl. & Irmsch. Engl. & Irmsch.

In Zoological nomenclature, they are unnecessary. Subgenera In Zoological nomenclature, they are unnecessary. Subgenera are placed in round brackets. Infrasubspecific names are not are placed in round brackets. Infrasubspecific names are not available, unless before 1961 they were termed variety or form, available, unless before 1961 they were termed variety or form, in which case they are deemed subspecific, or unless before in which case they are deemed subspecific, or unless before 1985 they were adopted as subspecific names.1985 they were adopted as subspecific names.

PRINCIPLE OF COORDINATIONPRINCIPLE OF COORDINATION

In Zoological nomenclature: each subordinate rank within a In Zoological nomenclature: each subordinate rank within a given rank group (family, genus, species) takes the same given rank group (family, genus, species) takes the same author & date (the prior one).author & date (the prior one).E.g.: Subfamily Microchoerinae was originally erected as family E.g.: Subfamily Microchoerinae was originally erected as family Microchoeridae Lydekker,1887. The subfamily keeps the same Microchoeridae Lydekker,1887. The subfamily keeps the same author and date despite its rank being changed by another author and date despite its rank being changed by another author. Likewise, if a superfamily Microchoerioidea were to be author. Likewise, if a superfamily Microchoerioidea were to be erected it would also be attributed to Lydekker, 1887 and erected it would also be attributed to Lydekker, 1887 and without brackets.without brackets.

In Botanical nomenclature: priority is established within each In Botanical nomenclature: priority is established within each rank, with individual authors & dates for each. The Principle of rank, with individual authors & dates for each. The Principle of Coordination is not a part of the Botanical Code.Coordination is not a part of the Botanical Code.

AUTONYMSAUTONYMS

If a new subsidiary rank of a particular taxon is named where no If a new subsidiary rank of a particular taxon is named where no nominate equivalent previously existed, that nominate nominate equivalent previously existed, that nominate equivalent is deemed to have been thereupon named equivalent is deemed to have been thereupon named automatically with the same author and date as the non-automatically with the same author and date as the non-nominate one.nominate one.

Hypothetical scenario:Hypothetical scenario:•Family Planteaceae Smith (1754) has never been divided into Family Planteaceae Smith (1754) has never been divided into subfamilies.subfamilies.•Bloggs (2006) names a subfamily Botanioideae.Bloggs (2006) names a subfamily Botanioideae.•In naming this new subfamily, he is considered to have In naming this new subfamily, he is considered to have automatically named a nominate subfamily too, which is the automatically named a nominate subfamily too, which is the autonym Planteoideae Bloggs (2006).autonym Planteoideae Bloggs (2006).

DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGIESDIFFERENT TERMINOLOGIES

ZOOLOGICAL CODEZOOLOGICAL CODE BOTANICAL CODEBOTANICAL CODEJunior homonymJunior homonym Later homonymLater homonymObjective synonymObjective synonym Nomenclatural synonymNomenclatural synonymSubjective synonymSubjective synonym Taxonomic synonymTaxonomic synonymAvailableAvailable Validly publishedValidly publishedValid nameValid name Correct nameCorrect name

Specific nameSpecific name Specific epithetSpecific epithetBinomen, name of a speciesBinomen, name of a species Specific nameSpecific name

DIFFERENT KINDS OF TYPESDIFFERENT KINDS OF TYPES•HOLOTYPEHOLOTYPE, , SYNTYPESYNTYPE & & NEOTYPENEOTYPE are essentially the are essentially the same as in the Zoological code, but the first 2 must be from same as in the Zoological code, but the first 2 must be from a single gathering.a single gathering.•ISOTYPEISOTYPE is a duplicate of the HOLOTYPE from one and is a duplicate of the HOLOTYPE from one and the same gathering. (A specimen cited in the original work the same gathering. (A specimen cited in the original work but from e.g. a different horizon and/or locality is a but from e.g. a different horizon and/or locality is a PARATYPE, not an ISOTYPE).PARATYPE, not an ISOTYPE).

•PARATYPEPARATYPE is an originally cited additional specimen that is is an originally cited additional specimen that is neither ISOTYPE nor SYNTYPE nor ISOSYNTYPE. It can neither ISOTYPE nor SYNTYPE nor ISOSYNTYPE. It can exist alongside these unlike in Zoology.exist alongside these unlike in Zoology.

•ISOSYNTYPEISOSYNTYPE is likewise a duplicate of SYNTYPES. is likewise a duplicate of SYNTYPES.

•LECTOTYPELECTOTYPE can be selected from ISOTYPES, SYNTYPES can be selected from ISOTYPES, SYNTYPES or, if these are lost, from ISOSYNTYPES or PARATYPES.or, if these are lost, from ISOSYNTYPES or PARATYPES.

•EPITYPEEPITYPE is selected when original types are ambiguous (= is selected when original types are ambiguous (= NEOTYPE designation for Nomen Dubium in Zoology Code).NEOTYPE designation for Nomen Dubium in Zoology Code).

RECOMBINING AUTHORRECOMBINING AUTHOR

ZOOLOGICAL CODEZOOLOGICAL CODE BOTANICAL CODEBOTANICAL CODEE.g.:E.g.: E.g.:E.g.:Motacilla troglodytesMotacilla troglodytes L., 1758 L., 1758 Petrophiloides Petrophiloides richardsonii richardsonii

Bowerbank (1840) Bowerbank (1840)

Viellot (1806) makes recombination:Viellot (1806) makes recombination: Chandler (1964) makes recombination:Chandler (1964) makes recombination:

Troglodytes troglodytes Troglodytes troglodytes (L., 1758)(L., 1758) Platycarya richardsoniiPlatycarya richardsonii (Bowerbank) (Bowerbank) Chandler (1964)Chandler (1964)

Original author in ( ) with date, no Original author in ( ) with date, no Original author in ( ) without date,Original author in ( ) without date,recombining author.recombining author. recombining author added. recombining author added.

[N.B. in botany, brackets round date [N.B. in botany, brackets round date not mandatory. Abbreviated author not mandatory. Abbreviated author not followed by comma.] not followed by comma.]

SQUARE BRACKETSSQUARE BRACKETS

ZOOLOGY CODE: Used to enclose author if cited when ZOOLOGY CODE: Used to enclose author if cited when external evidence indicates original anonymity.external evidence indicates original anonymity.

BOTANY CODE: Used to denote pre-starting point authority BOTANY CODE: Used to denote pre-starting point authority citation; the starting point for palaeobotany is Sternberg 1820, citation; the starting point for palaeobotany is Sternberg 1820, substantially after the 1753 starting point for modern botany.substantially after the 1753 starting point for modern botany.

TAUTONYMYTAUTONYMY

Troglodytes troglodytesTroglodytes troglodytes, i.e. genus and species with same , i.e. genus and species with same name not allowed in Botanical Code. If e.g. it resulted from name not allowed in Botanical Code. If e.g. it resulted from recombination, the species would have to be changed to recombination, the species would have to be changed to the next oldest legitimate name.the next oldest legitimate name.

ILLEGITIMACYILLEGITIMACY

““A name of a family, genus or species, unless conserved, or A name of a family, genus or species, unless conserved, or sanctioned, is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it sanctioned, is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously and validly published for a taxon of the same was previously and validly published for a taxon of the same rank” (ICBN Article 53.1).rank” (ICBN Article 53.1).

Thus a name can be rejected on the grounds of junior Thus a name can be rejected on the grounds of junior homonymy (and for other reasons), unlike in the Zoological homonymy (and for other reasons), unlike in the Zoological Code.Code.

PRIORITY RECENT VS. FOSSILPRIORITY RECENT VS. FOSSIL

PetrophiloidesPetrophiloides Bowerbank, 1840 Bowerbank, 1840

PlatycaryaPlatycarya Siebold & Zucc., 1843 Siebold & Zucc., 1843Priority to Recent & datePriority to Recent & date

Hexaprotodon Hexaprotodon Falconer & Falconer & Cautley, 1836 Cautley, 1836 Priority to datePriority to date

ChoeropsisChoeropsis Leidy, 1853 Leidy, 1853

FFOOSSSSIILL

RREECCEENNTT

•This priority rule only applies, This priority rule only applies, however, if a plant fossil name is being however, if a plant fossil name is being used as a used as a biologicalbiological genus or species genus or species (now regarded as exceptional).(now regarded as exceptional).

•Fossil diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) Fossil diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) areare treated as biological taxa. treated as biological taxa.

•But plant fossil names (excluding But plant fossil names (excluding diatoms, but including other fossil diatoms, but including other fossil algae, even Cyanobacteria) are algae, even Cyanobacteria) are normally treated as MORPHOTAXA.normally treated as MORPHOTAXA.

MORPHOTAXAMORPHOTAXA““Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa. A Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa. A morphotaxon is defined as a fossil taxon which, for morphotaxon is defined as a fossil taxon which, for nomenclatural purposes, comprises only the parts, life-nomenclatural purposes, comprises only the parts, life-history stages, or preservational states represented by the history stages, or preservational states represented by the corresponding nomenclatural type.”corresponding nomenclatural type.”

SpinizonocolpitesSpinizonocolpites: : pollen of the palm genus pollen of the palm genus Nypa.Nypa.

AraucarioxylonAraucarioxylon: wood of the : wood of the family Araucariaceaefamily Araucariaceae

PRIORITY IN MORPHOTAXAPRIORITY IN MORPHOTAXAPlant fossil taxa do not compete with modern plant taxa when they Plant fossil taxa do not compete with modern plant taxa when they are treated as morphotaxa. E.g., if are treated as morphotaxa. E.g., if PetrophiloidesPetrophiloides is treated as a is treated as a catkin morphogenus of family Juglandaceae (walnuts), it is not catkin morphogenus of family Juglandaceae (walnuts), it is not synonymised with recent synonymised with recent PlatycaryaPlatycarya..

Often, there are several different names for different parts/organs Often, there are several different names for different parts/organs of a fossil plant, e.g. the giant lycopod ‘of a fossil plant, e.g. the giant lycopod ‘LepidodendronLepidodendron’:’:

LepidodendronLepidodendron – stem – stemKnorriaKnorria – older bark – older barkLepidophylloidesLepidophylloides – leaves – leavesLepidostrobusLepidostrobus – free-sporing mono- or bisporangiate cones – free-sporing mono- or bisporangiate conesLepidocarponLepidocarpon – megasporangiate cones – megasporangiate conesStigmariaStigmaria – rhizophores (roots) – rhizophores (roots)LycosporaLycospora – microspores. – microspores.

All these different names can be used concurrently even though All these different names can be used concurrently even though they may belong to the same organism.they may belong to the same organism.

ALTERNATIVE NOMENCLATURESALTERNATIVE NOMENCLATURES

INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR PHYTOLITHINTERNATIONAL CODE FOR PHYTOLITH NOMENCLATURE NOMENCLATURE

Madella Madella et alet al. 2005. 2005

THE PHYLOCODETHE PHYLOCODE•New system of biological nomenclature to provide rules New system of biological nomenclature to provide rules to govern the naming of to govern the naming of cladesclades across across all of biologyall of biology..

•PREMISE: There should be congruence between PREMISE: There should be congruence between phylogenetic hypotheses & nomenclature.phylogenetic hypotheses & nomenclature.

•The system is in draft form but expects to go live in June The system is in draft form but expects to go live in June 2006. Current plans cover taxa above the species level, but 2006. Current plans cover taxa above the species level, but are intended to extend to species later. It is intended to run are intended to extend to species later. It is intended to run concurrently with pre-existing codes, or to replace them once concurrently with pre-existing codes, or to replace them once it is extended to species, it is extended to species, if the scientific community decides if the scientific community decides that it shouldthat it should..

FEATURES:FEATURES:1) It ignores rank. Formal endings denoting different ranks have 1) It ignores rank. Formal endings denoting different ranks have no hierarchical significance.no hierarchical significance.2) It is aimed at reflecting phylogenetic hypotheses through 2) It is aimed at reflecting phylogenetic hypotheses through names, whose usage should be explicit, unambiguous & stable.names, whose usage should be explicit, unambiguous & stable.

PHYLOCODE PRINCIPLESPHYLOCODE PRINCIPLES1) REFERENCE1) REFERENCE. The primary purpose of taxon names is to provide a . The primary purpose of taxon names is to provide a means of referring to taxa, as opposed to indicating their characters, means of referring to taxa, as opposed to indicating their characters, relationships, or membership.relationships, or membership.

2) CLARITY.2) CLARITY. Taxon names should be unambiguous in their designation of Taxon names should be unambiguous in their designation of particular taxa. Nomenclatural clarity is achieved through explicit definitions.particular taxa. Nomenclatural clarity is achieved through explicit definitions.

3) UNIQUENESS3) UNIQUENESS. To promote clarity, each taxon should have only one . To promote clarity, each taxon should have only one accepted name, and each accepted name should refer to only one taxon.accepted name, and each accepted name should refer to only one taxon.

4) STABILITY4) STABILITY. The names of taxa should not change over time. As a . The names of taxa should not change over time. As a corollary, it must be possible to name newly discovered taxa without changing corollary, it must be possible to name newly discovered taxa without changing the names of previously discovered taxa.the names of previously discovered taxa.

5) PHYLOGENETIC CONTEXT5) PHYLOGENETIC CONTEXT. The phylocode is concerned with the . The phylocode is concerned with the naming of taxa and the application of taxon names within a phylogenetic naming of taxa and the application of taxon names within a phylogenetic context. context.

6)6) The PhyloCode permits freedom of taxonomic opinion with regard to The PhyloCode permits freedom of taxonomic opinion with regard to hypotheses about relationships; it only concerns how names are to be applied hypotheses about relationships; it only concerns how names are to be applied within the context of a given phylogenetic hypothesis.within the context of a given phylogenetic hypothesis.

3 WAYS OF NAMING A CLADE:3 WAYS OF NAMING A CLADE:Must be defined by at least 2 specifiers (like Linnaean types)Must be defined by at least 2 specifiers (like Linnaean types)

NODE-BASEDNODE-BASED2 included names2 included names

APOMORPHY-BASEDAPOMORPHY-BASED1 included name & 1 apomorphy1 included name & 1 apomorphy

STEM-BASEDSTEM-BASED1 included & 1 excluded name1 included & 1 excluded name

PHYLOGENY:PHYLOGENY:

Forey (2001)

NEW HYPOTHESIS: NAMES DON’T CHANGENEW HYPOTHESIS: NAMES DON’T CHANGE

SYNONYMYwith revision

NO SYNONYMY

Forey (2001)

NO HOMONYMY allowed between node-based, stem-based & apomorphy-based methods

PERCEIVED PROBLEMS w. LINNAEAN SYSTEMPERCEIVED PROBLEMS w. LINNAEAN SYSTEM

1) Ranks are artificial groupings, not reflecting exact position in 1) Ranks are artificial groupings, not reflecting exact position in hierarchy.hierarchy.

2) Paraphyletic groups like Reptilia are named.2) Paraphyletic groups like Reptilia are named.

3) Redundancy of ranks through extinction or asymmetry3) Redundancy of ranks through extinction or asymmetry

Forey (2001)

PERCEIVED PROBLEMS w. LINNAEAN SYSTEMPERCEIVED PROBLEMS w. LINNAEAN SYSTEM

4) Ranks cause instability when relationships change.4) Ranks cause instability when relationships change.

Forey (pers. com.)

PERCEIVED PROBLEM SOLVEDPERCEIVED PROBLEM SOLVED

Forey (pers. com.)

EXAMPLE OF LINNAEAN INSTABILITYEXAMPLE OF LINNAEAN INSTABILITY

Forey (pers. com.)

PROBLEM WITH APOMORPHY-BASED PROBLEM WITH APOMORPHY-BASED DEFINITIONS IN THE PHYLOCODEDEFINITIONS IN THE PHYLOCODE

Homoplasy by reversal vs convergence. In (a) the apomorphy Homoplasy by reversal vs convergence. In (a) the apomorphy “fingers & toes” defines a clade. In (b) it reflects polyphyly.“fingers & toes” defines a clade. In (b) it reflects polyphyly.

Forey (2001)

LINNAEAN SYSTEM: SAVING GRACESLINNAEAN SYSTEM: SAVING GRACES

1) Even though ranks are artificial, they are useful boxes and 1) Even though ranks are artificial, they are useful boxes and much used in modern biodiversity studies. much used in modern biodiversity studies.

2) Paraphyletic groups don’t have to be used under the Linnaean 2) Paraphyletic groups don’t have to be used under the Linnaean system.system.

3) There is potentially as much instability following revisions with 3) There is potentially as much instability following revisions with the 3-system naming procedure under the PhyloCode.the 3-system naming procedure under the PhyloCode.

4) In the Linnaean system you don’t have to name every rank. 4) In the Linnaean system you don’t have to name every rank. New classifications commonly list e.g. a genus undifferentiated New classifications commonly list e.g. a genus undifferentiated within an order. Thus within an order. Thus ArchaeopteryxArchaeopteryx need not have its own need not have its own monotypic infraclass, supercohort, cohort, subcohort and order.monotypic infraclass, supercohort, cohort, subcohort and order.

METHODS OF NAMING IN THE PHYLOCODEMETHODS OF NAMING IN THE PHYLOCODE

The PhyloCode proposes a registration system whereby clade The PhyloCode proposes a registration system whereby clade names are submitted electronically. The following information is names are submitted electronically. The following information is needed:needed:

1) DEFINITION TYPE: node- stem- or apomorphy-based 1) DEFINITION TYPE: node- stem- or apomorphy-based (mandatory)(mandatory)

2) PHYLOGENETIC DEFINITION: (mandatory)2) PHYLOGENETIC DEFINITION: (mandatory)

3) LIST OF SPECIFIERS: (at least 2 mandatory)3) LIST OF SPECIFIERS: (at least 2 mandatory)

4) QUALIFYING CLAUSE4) QUALIFYING CLAUSE

5) REFERENCE PHYLOGENY: bibliographic reference, URL, or 5) REFERENCE PHYLOGENY: bibliographic reference, URL, or accession no. in public repositoryaccession no. in public repository

Linnaean names already being published according to Linnaean names already being published according to PhyloCode guidelines (Wyss & Flynn 1993).PhyloCode guidelines (Wyss & Flynn 1993).

New node-New node-based homonyms based homonyms of superfamilies of superfamilies Ursoidea Fischer Ursoidea Fischer de Waldheim, de Waldheim, 1817 & Phocoidea 1817 & Phocoidea Gray, 1821.Gray, 1821.

Superfamily Superfamily Arctoidea Flower, Arctoidea Flower, 1869 with node-1869 with node-based definition at based definition at different hierarchical different hierarchical position.position.

Stem-based Stem-based definition for definition for CarnivoramorphaCarnivoramorpha

IMPLICATIONS OF PARALLEL SYSTEMS IMPLICATIONS OF PARALLEL SYSTEMS OF NOMENCLATUREOF NOMENCLATURE

•Not too serious unless or until the PhyloCode Not too serious unless or until the PhyloCode extends its scope to species, which are intended to be extends its scope to species, which are intended to be uninominal.uninominal.

•However, if authors of databases (including MOA) However, if authors of databases (including MOA) wish to retain only Linnaean nomenclature, any wish to retain only Linnaean nomenclature, any PhyloCode classification would have to be PhyloCode classification would have to be interpretedinterpreted in terms of Linnaean nomenclature.in terms of Linnaean nomenclature.

•One suggestion is to add suffix ‘P’ to names that are One suggestion is to add suffix ‘P’ to names that are homonyms between Linnaean & PhyloCode systems.homonyms between Linnaean & PhyloCode systems.

PhyloCode: 2 out of 3 ways of defining a taxon excludes charactersPhyloCode: 2 out of 3 ways of defining a taxon excludes characters

PROBLEMS FOR CHARACTER DIAGNOSESPROBLEMS FOR CHARACTER DIAGNOSES

Cladistics: stresses synapomorphies. Diagnosis could differentiate Cladistics: stresses synapomorphies. Diagnosis could differentiate types of characters.types of characters.E.g.:E.g.:

DIAGNOSES:DIAGNOSES: STAND ALONE OR DIFFERENTIAL? STAND ALONE OR DIFFERENTIAL?

DIAGNOSES:DIAGNOSES: STAND ALONE STAND ALONE && DIFFERENTIAL DIFFERENTIAL

Pseudoneothorac

ophorus

Pseudoneothorac

ophorus

PseudopromerycochoerusPseudopromerycochoerus

EkgmowechashalaEkgmowechashala

Kukuse

pasutan

ka

Kukuse

pasutan

ka

Psilastephanocolporites

Psilastephanocolporites

Intratriporopollenites

Intratriporopollenites

REFERENCESBengtson, P. 1988. Open nomenclature. Palaeontology, 31: 223-227.Candolle, Alph. De. 1867. Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique adoptées par le Congrès International de Botanique tenu à Paris en août, 1867, suivies à un deuxième édition de l’introduction historique et du commentaire qui accompagnaient la rédaction préparatoire présentée au Congrès. H. Georg, Genève & Bale; J.-B. Baillière et fils, Paris, 64 pp.Forey, P.L. 2001. The PhyloCode: description and commentary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58: 81-96.Greuter, W. et al. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (St Louis Code). Regnum Vegetabile 138, Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein.Hughes, N.F. 1989. Fossils as Information; New recording and Stratal Correlation Techniques. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 136 pp.International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th ed., ITZN c/o NHM, London, 306 pp.Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. Vol. 1, Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, 560 pp.Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Vol. 1, Regnum Animale, 10th ed., revised. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, 824 pp.Madella, M., Alexandre, A. & Ball, T. 2005. International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0. Annals of Botany, 96: 253-260.Matthews, S.C. 1973. Notes on open nomenclature and on synonymy lists. Palaeontology, 16: 713-719.Opinion 1894. 1998. Regnum Animale …, Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected for nomenclatural purposes, with the conservation of the mammalian generic names Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Glis, Cuniculus and Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus (Perissodactyla), Tragulus and Giraffa (Artiodactyla). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 55: 64-71.Strickland, H.E., Darwin, C., Owen, R. & Westwood, J.O. 1843. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent, being the report of a committee for the consideration of the subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Annals & Magazine of natural History, (1)11: 259-275.Wyss, A.R. & Flynn, J.J. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. In: Szalay, F.S., Novacek, M.J. & McKenna, M.C. (eds), Mammal Phylogeny, 2: Placentals. New York, Springer: 32-52.