Towards a List of Available Names in Zoology, partim Phylum Rotifera

Abstract

Many, mostly older, names of animal species are nomenclaturally problematic, either because their orthography is unstable, orthey cannot be linked reliably to a taxonomic identity, due to the lack of recognisable descriptions and/or types. Yet, they repre-sent available (sensu International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) names and must be taken into account in zoologicalworks. This situation, with available senior, yet dubious names confounding nomenclature, is undesirable. It creates uncertain-ties at a time when molecular approaches are revolutionizing our concepts of species diversity, and fails us when the currentextinction crisis calls for efficient, accurate, and constructive approaches to document, monitor, and conserve biodiversity.The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (The Code) provides a means to address this issue by restricting avail-ability, application and orthography of names to those included in the List of Available Names in Zoology (LAN). The Code(Art. 79) allows an international body of zoologists in consultation with the Commission to propose a candidate part of theLAN for a major taxonomic field. We explore this possibility for 3570 species-group names of Phylum Rotifera (of which 665are problematic), by presenting such a candidate Rotifera part of the LAN. The web site of the International Commission onZoological Nomenclature (http://www.iczn.org) will hold both the candidate list and a forum to facilitate consultation on thecandidate list, while the list itself also can already be freely downloaded from three other Internet sites: http://fada.biodiver-sity.be, http://rotifer.ansp.org/LAN, and www.hausdernatur.at/rotifera. We give here an overview of the general approach andprocedures applied in preparation of the candidate list, and anticipate that our effort will promote the process as well as result in a standard list of names for use in taxonomy, the Global Names Architecture and other biodiversity information initiatives.

Global Coordination and Standardisation in Marine Biodiversity through the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and Related Databases

“…The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which is responsible for the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, has established ‘ZooBank’, as an online registration system for animal names [27], [28], [29]. A further opportunity is for zoologists to standardise the nomenclature of particular taxa by restricting availability of names to a ‘List of Available Names’, as proposed for the 3,570 names in the Phylum Rotifera [30]. This could help taxonomy by making names applied to uncertain species (e.g., species poorly described and/or without type specimens) unavailable and thus no longer usable.…”

A commentary on the XIIIth International Rotifer Symposium (Shillong, 2012)

“…The presenters showed that these waters comprise a remarkably high diversity of rotifers. The second invited lecture complemented the first in that it presented an update on the status of an international effort began at the Berlin symposium (XII th IRS) to develop a comprehensive list of available names in Rotifera according to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature [6]. Other invited talks included three that dealt with basic ecological aspects (rotifer body size, aging process, and life histories) and one dealing with applied rotifer research in its application to aquaculture.…”

“…Unfortunately, the editors of journals with high impact factors are not favourably disposed to publish manuscripts based on purely taxonomic questions; one reason for that is the number of citations per article on these topics is low. Yet, science is on the horns of a dilemma here – without reliable classical α-taxonomy, results from any line of research are suspect [6,13,14]. …”

On Pulchritia new genus, with a reappraisal of the genera of Trichotriidae (Rotifera, Monogononta)

“…This description lacks detail and was considered to be based on some unrecognisable, poorly contracted rotifer by the authors of the candidate Rotifera part of the List of Available Names in Zoology (Jersabek et al 2012, Segers et al 2012). When compared to the present material, it indeed probably concerns a poorly contracted specimen.…”