Chapter 17: The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Article 79. List of Available Names in Zoology. An international body of zoologists (such as an International Congress, an international society, or a consortium of national or regional societies, or a Scientific Member of the International Union of Biological Sciences) in consultation with the Commission may propose that the Commission adopt for a major taxonomic field (or related fields) a Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology. The Commission will consider the proposal and may adopt the Part subject to the proposing body and the Commission meeting the requirements of this Article.

79.1. Form of the proposal. The proposal to the Commission shall be made in the form of the Part proposed for adoption and shall

79.2. Requirements concerning notification, consultation and voting by the Commission.

79.3. Effective date of Parts and their accessibility. The Commission shall publish a notice in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of a decision to adopt any Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology as soon as possible after the decision is taken.

79.4. Status of names, spellings, dates of availability, and types specified in the List of Available Names in Zoology.

Recommendation 79A. Citation of previously available names. If for taxonomic and historical purposes an author desires to cite a name that is no longer available because it is not included in the relevant Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology adopted by the Commission, it should be made clear that it no longer has a status in zoological nomenclature.

79.5. Power of the Commission to amend the status of a name occurring in the List of Available Names in Zoology. If there are exceptional circumstances and only when an entry in the List of Available Names in Zoology is a cause of confusion, the Commission may amend the entry by use of its plenary power [Art. 81] and publish its ruling in an Opinion [Art. 80.2].

Recommendation 79B. Request to authors designating lectotypes or neotypes for names in the List of Available Names in Zoology. Authors are requested to inform the Commission of lectotype or neotype designations made by them for the nominal taxa of names in the List of Available Names in Zoology as soon as possible after publication.

79.6. Power of the Commission to add omitted names to the List of Available Names in Zoology. If the Commission determines that there is a previously available name within the scope of an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology that has been omitted from the List, in exceptional circumstances the Commission may by use of the plenary power add an appropriate entry to that Part of the List and record this in an Opinion. The availability of the name thereby becomes restored.

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

FrankKrell   Art. 79.4.1.: I would suggest, to exhaust the full potential of LANs, to add after "spelling": gender (for genus-group names) and part of speech/declinability (for species-group names)
This would allow settle differences about gender agreement, disputed mandatory changes, etc. For groups, e.g. the lepidopterists, who have by a large majority abandoned gender agreement, it would open the opportunity to declare all specific names nouns in apposition and so maintain their prevailing usage. Currently it is not clear if ALL details given in a LAN are deemed to be correct, or only the ones listed in Art. 79.4. I would say, the complete LAN is deemed to be correct, but this is not explicitly stated in the Code.
We might want to make Art. 79.1. equally explicit, requiring gender (for genus-group names) and part of speech/declinability (for species-group names)
to be stated in the proposal.
2013-03-17 11:38:11
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 79.1.2. should be slightly more precise, to ensure that the full citation of the bibliographic reference is meant.

"79.1.2. for each name to be listed, give the bibliographic reference to the work in which it is established, its authorship, its date of publication and its status (including its precedence if this is different from its priority); the bibliographic reference must be given in full at least once in the list, with author(s), year, title of the monograph or article, series, volume and heft/fascicle number of a journal, and full page ranges (first page, last page, first and last plates) of monographs and articles. Articles published in monographic works must contain author, title and page ranges of the article, as well as author, title and full page ranges of the entire monographic work. Journals with ambiguous titles must be disambiguated by citing the locality of publication."

Example for an ambiguous journal name: Biologia (ToruĊ„).

The issue was discussed in the [iczn-list] listserver around 28 Feb 2012.
2012-02-28 15:29:39
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 79.4.1.

The original genus-species combination of a specific name could also be fixed in the LAN list.
2012-02-28 15:19:12
FranciscoWelterSchultes   I withdraw my proposal to remove this Article. In some groups lists can be established, and this seems to make sense. The Rotifera community has proposed such a list in 2012. In big animal groups I still do not believe that complete LAN lists can be compiled, but in small groups this seems to be an option.
2012-02-28 15:16:43
nestor   I don't agree that this article should be removed. It presents the most powerful tool to stabilize whole sections of nomenclature. The argument that "not a single researcher..."etc can be used for almost all aspects of taxonomic research.
2009-01-30 05:28:02 X
FranciscoWelterSchultes   This whole article should be removed from the Code.
The List of Available Names in Zoology concept has failed. The members of the Committee had not taken into account that not a single researcher would be paid for doing the job, and they did not consider the huge amount of time and energy such a project would have required.
2008-10-07 11:10:31

Article79 (last edited 2009-04-27 12:42:12 by localhost)