Article 1. Definition and scope.
1.1. Definition. Zoological nomenclature is the system of scientific names applied to taxonomic units (taxa; singular: taxon) of extant or extinct animals, and the provisions for their formation and use.
(Comment: There is a slight mismatch between the definition of (zoological) nomenclature in Article 1.1 and that given in the Glossary of the Code, which states that nomenclature is: "A system of names, and provisions for their formation and use." I have added the clause of ", and the provisions, etc." to Article 1.1. Thomas Pape)
1.1.1. For the purposes of this Code the term "animals" refers to the Metazoa and also to protistan taxa when workers treat them as animals for the purposes of nomenclature (see also Article 2).
1.2.1. The scientific names of extant or extinct animals include names based on domesticated animals, names based on fossils that are substitutions (replacements, impressions, moulds and casts) for the actual remains of animals, names based on the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa), and names established for collective groups (see, in particular, Articles 10.3, 13.3.2, 23.7, 42.2.1, 66.1, 67.14), as well as names proposed before 1931 based on the work of extant animals.
1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, and 28 also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group.
(Question: Couldn't Articles 11.5, 11.6, 15.1, 16.1, 21, 22, 25, 26, 50.1 and 50.2 be said to apply or extended to apply to names above the family group? Gary Rosenberg)
(Comment: They could. Still, I find it odd that the Code has this partial regulation of names above the family group, regulating when such a name is published, spelled, etc., but explicitly excluding regulating how to decide on validity (i.e., priority). I disrecommend extending the Code to fully regulate names above the family group, as I see little need for this - and as I sense a STRONG opposition in the taxonomic community. If the Code does not regulate what names above the family group to treat as valid, why regulate these names at all? Thomas Pape)
1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed
1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts as such;
(Comment: since taxa are also hypotheses, it seems that this article needs some clarification. I don't think we can prevent naming of Sasquatch and Nessie, but we could prevent naming of wyverns, tribbles and vermicious knids. Perhaps it should say
- "for hypothetical concepts as such" or
- "for hypothetical concepts for which there is no observational basis of the taxon or its works". Gary Rosenberg)
(Comment: I think adding "as such" as Gary suggests will be the simplest solution (as done for other exclusions), and I have implemented this as a working model. Thomas Pape)
1.3.2. for teratological specimens as such;
1.3.3. for hybrid specimens as such (for taxa which are of hybrid origin see Article 17.2);
1.3.4. for infrasubspecific entities unless the name was subsequently deemed to be an available name under Article 220.127.116.11;
1.3.5. as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature;
1.3.6. after 1930, for the work of extant animals;
1.3.7. as modifications of available names [Art. 10] throughout a taxonomic group by addition of a standard prefix or suffix in order to indicate that the taxa named are members of that group.
Example. Herrera (1899) proposed that all generic names be prefixed by a formula to indicate the Class to which the genus belongs, so that, e.g. all generic names in Insecta would be prefixed by Ins-. Words so formed are "zoological formulae" (Opinion 72) and do not enter into zoological nomenclature.
1.4. Independence. Zoological nomenclature is independent of other systems of nomenclature in that the name of an animal taxon is not to be rejected merely because it is identical with the name of a taxon that is not animal (see Article 1.1.1).
Recommendation 1A. Names already in use for taxa that are not animals. Authors intending to establish new genus-group names are urged to consult the Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum) and the Approved List of Bacterial Names to determine whether identical names have been established under the International Codes of Nomenclature relevant to those lists and, if so, to refrain from publishing identical zoological names.
Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||A new Article should be added, Art. 1.5:
Exclusion of non-Latin names. A scientific name in the sense of Art. 1.1 must be a Latin or Latinized name in the Linnean system. Scientific names proposed in other languages such as French, German, English or Italian are excluded.
Such a very basic statement should be given in this Article, referring to the Latin nature of the Linnean system of naming animals.
Nothing in the Code indicates currently that German, French, English or Italian names are excluded from counting as binominal names in the sense of Art. 5.1 or 11.4, given that they meet the condition to be composed of a generic and a specific name. Such often strictly binominal systems were also established in other languages, which do not fall in the Linnean system. It has always been implicitly clear that German or French scientific names are not Linnean names, but with ongoing time it seems that this knowledge gets lost and young taxonomists would not necessarily take this as self-evident any more.
French names have since long provided big problems because these names are often very closely translated to Latin and look so similar that authorships have been mixed up.
If not here, then the statement that scientific Linnean names must be Latin or Latinized names could also be given somewhere else in Art. 1-5. See also Art. 11.4.
Art. 26 relies implicitly on the same regulation. It is important to note that such French or German names are not vernacular names, which are names used by people (Glossary: used for general purposes), but "artificial" scientific names, proposed by scientists. The definition of a "scientific" name in the Glossary ("as opposed to a vernacular name") does not cover this detail either.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||First change of all: the French version should be online.
I agree with Thomas in this point. I also think it is misleading to claim here that the Code regulates names of taxa above the rank of the family-group.
The only effective regulation is the spelling of such names in Latin script with upper-case case first letter and without diacritic marks. But I am convinced that the community would follow this convention also if this was not ruled in the Code. Claiming that all these articles are needed to regulate this is certainly exaggerated.
I would replace this article:
1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. The Code does not regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group, except that they should be spelled in Latin script without diacritic marks and with upper-case initial letter [Art. 27, 28].
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||1.4 should be modified. A passage should be added:
"Genus-group names established after 20xx must not be identical to available genus-group names listed in the Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum) and the Approved List of Bacterial Names, and any such genus-group name is not available."
There is no need to continue establishing identical names in the biological nomenclatures. Research engines cannot distinguish between botanical and zoological names.