Recent advances in molecular technology have revolutionized research on all aspects of the biology of organisms, including ciliates, and created unprecedented opportunities for pursuing a more integrative approach to investigations of biodiversity. However, this goal is complicated by large gaps and inconsistencies that still exist in the foundation of basic information about biodiversity of ciliates. The present paper reviews issues relating to the taxonomy of ciliates and presents specific recommendations for best practice in the observation and documentation of their biodiversity. This effort stems from a workshop that explored ways to implement six Grand Challenges proposed by the International Research Coordination Network for Biodiversity of Ciliates (IRCN‐BC). As part of its commitment to strengthening the knowledge base that supports research on biodiversity of ciliates, the IRCN‐BC proposes to populate The Ciliate Guide, an online database, with biodiversity‐related data and metadata to create a resource that will facilitate accurate taxonomic identifications and promote sharing of data.

In zoological nomenclature, to be potentially valid, nomenclatural novelties (i.e., new nomina and nomenclatural acts) need first to be made available, that is, published in works qualifying as publications as defined by the International Code of zoological Nomenclature ("the Code"). In September 2012, the Code was amended in order to allow the recognition of works electronically published online after 2011 as publications available for the purpose of zoological nomenclature, provided they meet several conditions, notably a preregistration of the work in ZooBank. Despite these new Rules, several of the long-discussed problems concerning the electronic publication of new nomina and nomenclatural acts have not been resolved. The publication of this amendment provides an opportunity to discuss some of these in detail. It is important to note that: (1) all works published only online before 2012 are nomenclaturally unavailable; (2) printed copies of the PDFs of works which do not have their own ISSN or ISBN, and which are not obtainable free of charge or by purchase, do not qualify as publications but must be seen as facsimiles of unavailable works and are unable to provide nomenclatural availability to any nomenclatural novelties they may contain; (3) prepublications online of later released online publications are unavailable, i.e., they do not advance the date of publication; (4) the publication dates of works for which online prepublications had been released are not those of these prepublications and it is critical that the real release date of such works appear on the actual final electronic publication, but this is not currently the case in electronic periodicals that distribute such online prepublications and which still indicate on their websites and PDFs the date of release of prepublication as that of publication of the work; (5) supplementary online materials and subsequent formal corrections of either paper or electronic publications distributed only online are nomenclaturally unavailable; (6) nomenclatural information provided on online websites that do not have a fixed content and format, with ISSN or ISBN, is unavailable. We give precise examples of many of these nomenclatural problems. Several of them, when they arise, are due to the fact that the availability of nomenclatural novelties now depends on information that will have to be sought not from the work itself but from extrinsic evidence. As shown by several examples discussed here, an electronic document can be modified while keeping the same DOI and publication date, which is not compatible with the requirements of zoological nomenclature. Therefore, another system of registration of electronic documents as permanent and inalterable will have to be devised. ZooBank also clearly needs to be improved in several respects. Mention in a work of its registration number (LSID) in ZooBank would seem to be possible only if this registration has occurred previously, but some works that have purportedly been registered in ZooBank are in fact missing on t...

No abstract

No abstract

Since ciliates rarely possess structures that easily fossilize, we are limited in our ability to use paleontological studies to reconstruct the early evolution of this large and ecologically important clade of protists. Tintinnids, a group of loricate (house-forming) planktonic ciliates, are the only group that has a significant fossil record. Putative tintinnid fossils from rocks older than Jurassic, however, possess few to no characters that can be found in extant ciliates; these fossils are best described as 'incertae sedis eukaryotes'. Here, we review the Devonian fossil Nassacysta reticulata and propose that it is likewise another incertae sedis eukaryote due to the lack of any unambiguous ciliate characters. Future tintinnid fossil descriptions would be most helpful if: (i) neutral terminology is used in the descriptions but ciliate-specific terminology in the interpretations; (ii) the current ciliate classification is used, although fossil data may expand or modify classifications based on modern forms; (iii) close collaboration with specialists studying extant ciliates is done; and (iv) editors include an expert of extant ciliates in the review process.