The Code in this form is how we understood it. You can also read the complete Code - it is at least three times as much text and the English is ugly official. We commented some problematic articles.

1.1. System od scientific names to extant or extinct animals. Animals consist of Metazoa and some protistan taxa ("when workers treat them as animals").

1.2. The Code regulates names of animals on family, genus and species level.

1.3. No names for hypothetical concepts, abnormal specimens and hybrids as such, for infrasubspecific entities and some other special ideas.

1.4. Scientific animal names can be identical with plant and bacterial names.
Example: Phaseolus (animals, Gastropoda) is different from Phaseolus (plants, Fabaceae).

Our comment: This rule might probably be changed some day. In publications we can often read "at station X we found Phaseolus" - and sometimes it is not clear which organisms are meant, plants or animals. The internet does not distinguish between plant and animal names. Our proposal: try to move towards a unified biological nomenclature of organisms, replace generic homonyms, in a first step not to allow new generic names that are preoccupied in botany or bacteria.

2.1. Non-animal organism taxa are recognized as animal taxa once they were assumed to be animals.

2.2. Even though they were later not considered to be animals any more.

Our comment: there is no regulation as to who decides that. How many publications are needed to fit the term "has been classified as animals"?

3.1. 01-01-1758 is the starting point of zoological nomenclature (publication date of Linnæus "Systema Naturæ 10th Edition" and Clerck "Aranei Svecici"). Clerck's "Aranei Svecici" is given precedence to Linnæus 1758, Systema Naturæ 10.

3.2. No name published before 1758 enters zoological nomenclature.

Our comment: The article sounds strange to our ears. Clerck (1757: Svenska spindlar) is the first nomenclaturally valid work, so we set the publication date of Clerck's spider book to 31-12-1757, and Linnæus (1758) to 01-01-1758. Clerck's spider taxa are commonly cited with Clerck, 1757. In our database the starting point of modern scientific zoological nomenclature is in 1757, modern zoology starts with Clerck (1757). Linnæus (1758) is the second valid work.
From Clerck's book it is clear that the leading language of his work is Swedish, so the title is "Svenska spindlar". "Aranei Svecici" is a subtitle. Modern zoology started simultaneously in Swedish and Latin, with Swedish being the leading language.

4.1. Names of taxa above species level consist only of one word, with upper-case letter.

4.2. Not allowed to quote subgenus in a species name without genus first.

5.1. Species name consists of 2 words: Genus and species.

Example: Homo sapiens. Homo is genus, sapiens species.

5.2. Subspecies can be added as a third word: Genus species subspecies.

5.3. No typographical signs ("?") or expressions like aff., cf. shall form part of a name.

6.1. Subgenera are put between genus and species, in parentheses.

6.2. Species aggregates can be put in parentheses between genus and species.

(Does not really affect our database because we ignore these cases.)

Articles 8-9 are for new scientific names and nomenclatural acts.

8.1. Must be published for permanent scientific record, must be obtainable to the public, it must be possible to reproduce numerous identical copies.

8.2. A work containing a statement that it should not be considered as a valid publication, is not considered as a valid publication.

8.3. Same applies to taxonomic statements or names if there is a statement that the names should not be considered valid.

8.4. Before 1986 must have been produced on paper.

8.5. 1985-2000: paper not needed.

Our comment: how shall we get this information if not in a public library?

8.6. After 1999: copies of non-paper publications must be deposited in at least 5 public libraries identified in the work itself.

8.7. Works suppressed by the Commission remain valid publications unless otherwise ruled, only the taxonomically relevant names and acts are considered as not having been published.

Handwriting facsimiles after 1930, photographs as such, proof sheets, microfilms, acoustic records, specimen labels, copies of unpublished works, www publications, abstracts for participants of meetings are considered as unpublished.

10.1. Names are available only if published according to the criteria of the Code.

10.2. Infrasubspecific names are only available if published before 1961.

10.3. Collective group names are treated as genus taxa, a name proposed for a taxon based in the fossilized work of animals is generally treated like those of recent animals.

10.4. Genus taxa introduced for "sections" or "divisions" are treated like subgeneric names.

10.5. Taxa originally not but somewhen later classified as animals are available.

10.6. A name once introduced remains available, although it might be a synonym.

10.7. Names not listed in an adopted part of the List of Available Names will not be available.

11.1. Must be published.

11.2. In Latin alphabet.

11.3. No arbitrary combination of letters that cannot be used as a word.

11.4. Author must apply binominal nomenclature. Subspecies are allowed.

11.5. Must be a currently used name ("must be valid") when proposed. Merely citing unavailable names without adopting it to taxa does not make the names available.

11.6. Must not be published merely as a synonym in a list of synonyms. Gets tricky with names published as synonyms before 1961. No names published before 1758 are made available by merely citing the names as synonyms. No names published as synonyms after 1960 are available.

11.7. Family names must be based on the stem of genus names then used as "valid" in this family. No family names must be based on genera suppressed by ICZN.

11.8. Genus names: at least 2 letters, used as a noun in the nominative singular, original publication in any other grammatic case is to be corrected.

11.9. Species names: at least 2 letters. To be corrected if published otherwise than in nominative singular.
11.9.3. Must be published with a genus name (explicit or implicit by context, genus name can be abbreviated and tentative (indicated with "?")). Species names are deemed to have been published with the correct original spelling of the genus name, even if they were actually published with an incorrect spelling of the genus name.
11.9.3.6. Problem of Cubiceps: Lowe (1843) described Seriola gracilis (Vertebrata, Seriola was already established) and then proposed a new genus Cubiceps to contain this species. Taxon name Serola gracilis Lowe, 1843, genus name Cubiceps Lowe, 1843, species name Cubiceps gracilis (Lowe, 1843).
11.9.4. No expressions like ?-album allowed.
11.9.5. If published as separate words forming an entity, the space will be deleted.

Example: Coluber novæ hispaniæ will be Coluber novaehispaniae.

11.10. A new species taxon (with new authorship and year) can be based on a previously misidentified record of this species taxon name if adopted as the type species of a new genus.

Example: A misidentified animal once recorded (by Geoffroy in Fourcroy 1785 and others) as Notonecta minutissima Linnæus, 1758 was taken as the type species for Plea Leach (1817). The name of this species is Plea minutissima Leach, 1817.

12.1. Requirements. Introduction of name only valid if containing description, definition or indication.

12.2. Indication means bibliographic reference to a published description, definition or illustration, proposal of a new replacement name (nomen novum), formation of a family name from a genus name, use of at least one species name in combination with a new genus name. A description of the work of the animal is also sufficient. Mentioning vernacular names, locations, labels or specimens is not enough.

12.3. Mentioning a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label or a specimen is not enough to constitute a description, definition or indication.

13.1. Requirements. Introduction of names only valid if containing description or definition allowing to differentiate the taxon, or bibliographic reference with such a description, or if proposed expressedly as a replacement name (nomen novum).

13.2. Family names must be formed from available genus names "then used as valid by the author" in this family. Families introduced 1931-1960 are only valid if they were used as current ("valid") family names before 2000.

13.3. Genus names after 1930 only valid if type species was designated in original description, except taxa based on fossilized works of animals. Collective groups have no type species.

13.4. Combined new genus and single new species description meets the requirements of 13.1. for both taxa.

13.5. Combined new family and new genus description meets the requirements of 13.1. for both taxa, after 1930 only if type species was fixed in genus taxon. But the code recommends not to publish combined descriptions.

13.6. Most aspects of the "indication" method of description are not recognized after 1930. Description of the work of an extant animal is not sufficient.

Valid only until 1950, except the publications of the Commission.

15.1. No conditionally proposed names are available.

15.2. No names with terms "variety" or "form" will be recognized.

16.1. Explicit statement of new taxon to be new is obligate.

Recommendation to use expressions like sp. nov., n.sp., new species or so, at first use of the new name, nom. nov. only for replacement names, stat. nov. should not be used.

16.2. New family needs type genus to be cited.

Recommendation to cite genus, author, year and bibliographic reference of original description.

16.3. Taxa based on fossilized works of animals need type species, collective groups not.

16.4. Species taxa need holotype or syntypes to be mentioned in the original publication, except replacement names.

Recommendation to deposit types in an institution with research collection that preserves them and makes them accessible for study. Recommendation to select holotype rather than syntypes, to add information about the type specimens and illustrate holotype or syntypes.

17.1. Name remains available also if based on types belonging to several taxa.

17.2. Or to hybrids.

17.3. Or to only a part of an animal, unusual specimens, only one sex, one stage, one parthenogenetic form, one generation, one morph or caste.

Are allowed.

Example: species name brasiliensis also available for non-Brazilian species, same with Bison bison.

19.1. An unjustified emendation is an available name, an incorrect subsequent spelling is not.

19.2. Justified emendation replaces incorrect original spelling and takes author and date of the original name.

19.3. Alternative original spellings not adopted by the First Reviser are incorrect and not separately available.

19.4. Mandatory changes do not affect availability.

Those fossil genus taxa that were formed by ending a suffix -ites, -ytes or -ithes to the stem of an extant genus taxon are not recognized. Except if they can be used to avoid homonymy.

Example: The name Pectinites introduced to denote fossil Pecten species (Bivalvia) is not available. Pentacrinites Blumenbach, 1804 is available, it was not introduced to generally denote fossil members of an extant genus.

21.2. The date cited in the publication is to be adopted as correct in absence of evidence of the contrary.

21.3. If day is not specified, the earliest day (or last day of earliest month) when the work is demonstrated to be in existence will be recognized, or last day of month or year mentioned in the original publication.

21.4. If the day is found to be incorrect, the earliest date when the publication was documented to be published, is adopted.

21.5. If works were published in parts, the publication day of each part has to be determined separately.

21.6. If only a range of dates is available as information, the last date of this range is taken.

21.7. If the date was not specified in a work, the earliest date where the work was documented to be published is taken.

21.8. Separates and preprints distributed in advance before 2000 advanced the date of publication. Separates not after 1999, preprints only with clear indication of date.

Recommendation not to publish and distribute other than on the specified date, authors should not distribute reprints before the date of publication. New name, type fixation etc. should be printed at the same day. Date should be specified. Librarians and binders should not remove sheets containing publication or receipt dates. Separates should contains complete bibliographic citation including publication date. Preprints should be clearly identified as such. Correction of date should be published.

Our comment: if a correction of the date is not published, how can we know that the date is different from the date specified on the publication itself?

Year follows author name.

Recommendation to cite author and year at least once in a publication. Not more than a comma between author and year. Actual date of publication shall be cited if different from the date specified in the original publication. If both dates shall be cited, then first the actual date followed by the imprint date in brackets or so: Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ("1969"). If species is placed in another genus than in the original publication, author and year should be in brackets: Limax ater Linnæus, 1758, but Arion ater (Linnæus, 1758).

Our comments: the last recommendation should be a must. The first recommendation is not adopted by most zoological publications. Comma between author and year does not add any information, a space should be sufficient.

23.1. Oldest available name is "valid".

Our comment: the expression "valid" leads to misunderstandings and should not be used without quotation marks. In our database we work with expressions like "valid spelling of..." which has nothing to do with the expression used here. We replaced the expression "valid" in the sense of this article by "in accordance with current classification".

23.2. Priority rules are established because they are thought to promote nomenclatural stability.

23.3. If 2 taxa are brought together, the oldest available name is taken, regardless of its rank within the family, genus or species level/sublevel. Also if at first description only a part of the animal was described, if 2 sexes were described as different animals etc. For names originally based on infrasubspecific entities and later established on higher level, priority refers to the date were the higher level was established. If a name is found to be unavailable or invalid it must be replaced by the next oldest available name among its synonyms. If there is none, a new name must be established. All names of synonyms are kept available, no correctly introduced name can be rejected.

23.4. For homonyms see 52, 55 and 39.

23.5. Oldest available spelling is recognized as "valid".

23.6. First nomenclatural act is given precedence, in cases like First Reviser, fixation of type species, first inclusion of species into a genus, lectotype and neotype designation.

23.7. Names of collective groups do not compete with genus taxa. A genus taxon name that is used for a collective group no longer competes in priority with other genera while so used. Taxa based on the fossilized works of animals do not compete with the name of the animal as such.

Example: Ticinosuchus Krebs, 1965 does not compete in priority with the name of the footprints Chinotherium Kaup, 1835, although Ticinosuchus is thought have caused these footprints (Krebs 1966). "Ticinosuchus may no be rejected as a junior synonym of Chirotherium on that account".

Our comment: it is unclear from this example whether the currently applied ("valid") name of the animal is Ticinosuchus or Chirotherium, but we think it is Chirotherium. In any case, fossil bones did not belong to the animal either, they are fully silicified and can be taken as boneprints. The name should apply to the animal behind these remains.

23.8. Species names introduced for specimens later found to be hybrids cannot be used for any of the two parental species, such names may only enter into homonyny.

23.9. Precedence to older names is not given if the older name has not been used "as a valid name" after 1899 and if the younger name has been published by at least 10 authors in at least 25 works within at least 10 years somewhen in the immediately preceding 50 years (see also French text of the Code). An author who discovers this should cite both names together and state explicitely that the younger name is valid. Younger name will be cited as nomen protectum, the older one as nomen oblitum (forgotten name). Authors can also bring forward motions to the Commission.

Our comments: very problematic. These rules containing the expression "prevailing usage" were made in times where most scientists did not have access to the old books. This is going be different if we digitise all old zoological publications. Sooner or later young scientists will look up the old books to check which spellings are correct - and they will have difficulties to check whether somewhen in the century 1900 an old taxon was discovered not to have been used for a few years or not. The expression nomen oblitum contradicts itself: no name published in a book that is still available will be forgotten - the books don't forget. Names should explicitely be rejected by the Commission and published in the list of rejected names. In our modern times most zoological names are not any longer looked up in printed matter, but rather in the internet. We would like to recommend to delete this article from the Code and hand over its content to the Commission.

23.10. If an author discovers that the complicate conditions of 23.9. were not met, the case goes before the Commission.

23.11. If an author wishes to retain the older synonym, the Commission has to decide.

23.12. Names that were rejected 1961-1973 (rejected name was cited and junior synonym was used as "valid" name) have no precedence over junior synonyms in prevailing usage. Rejected names can become valid again if considered to be synonym of another name.

Our comments: when developing our database we will insert the oldest names first. We don't think that these rules make the code more stable, but rather that they increase uncertainty. We need to be in the possession to relay on the original publications and the official list of rejected names as the two tools to select the correct name of a species according to clearly defined priority rules.
We could open up a file in the database where forgotten names can be placed in the coming 10 years - together with the criteria needed for an official rejection - and then offer these taxa to be rejected at once by the Commission. Taxa not rejected by the Commission should be considered as available. The official list of rejected names should also be available in the internet (with free access to everyone).

24.1. If taxa are published simultaneously, those at higher rank have precedence. Taxa introduced as species have precedence over taxa simultaneously introduced as subspecies. Same with genera/subgenera etc.

24.2. If priority of simultaneously published taxa can be determined objectively, the First Reviser citing the different names and selecting one as "valid" decides.

Example: Strix scandiaca Linnæus, 1758 and Strix nyctea Linnæus, 1758 are synonyms (Sauropsida) - the First Reviser Lönnberg (1931) selected Strix scandiaca as the "valid" name. The First Reviser also decides which one of several original spellings of the original name will be recognized. If an author who introduced a name with several alternative spellings and in a later cited one spelling, this spelling shall be used.
Recommendation for First Revisers to contact the authors before revising such names.

Recommendation not to abbreviate scientific names at first mention and to avoid misunderstandings in abbreviations (Ae. aegypti and An. maculipennis, not only A. for Aedes and Anopheles), and to explain the derivation of a new scientific name. Authors should care that new names are appropriate, compact, sound well, are memorable, and do not cause offence.

29.1. Family taxa end with special suffixes.

29.2. Family ends with -idae, superfamily with -oidea, subfamily with -inae, tribe with -ini, subtribe with -ina. Species or genus taxa can also have these endings.

Example: the genus Ranoidea (Amphibia) is available.

29.3. The stem of the type genus is taken and the case ending of the genitive singular in Latin laguage is deleted. If the stem ends in -id, the ending -id may be deleted. Some linking letters can be added if the family name sounds better.

Examples: Coccinella gives Coccinellidae, Culex (genitive Culicis) gives Culicidae, Strix (genitive Strigis) gives Strigidae, Haliotis (genitive Haliotidis) gives Haliotidae, Leptocerus gives Leptoceridae (disregarding that in Greek the genitive ending would be Leptocerat-).

29.4. After 1999 it does not matter if authors do not know Latin genitives.

Example: Prorex can give Prorexidae although genitive stem would be Proregis.

29.5. Family names that were not correctly introduced but "are in prevailing usage" can be used regardless of which spelling is correct or not.

29.6. Although different type genera may have identic stems, the respective family names must not be identical.

Example: Picus (Saurosida) produced Picidae, but later Pica (Sauropsida) must not give Picidae, but Picaidae.

30.1. If names or final components of compound names are based on Latin or Greek words, then consult a standard dictionary because they are treated as such words unless otherwise stated. Latinized Greek words are treated as Latin unless otherwise stated. Names with common or variable gender and names with the suffixes -i(s)tes and -(o)(i)des are masculine unless otherwise applied by the author. Endings in -ops are definitely masculine.

Example: Petricola is feminine because it was introduced with species name costata.

30.2. If names are exactly identic with Latin-written names of modern European languages, they take the gender of that noun. In the other cases it takes the gender specified or applied by the author. If no such information is available, then endings -a produce feminine genera, -um, -on, -u neuter and the rest masculine genera.

Recommendation to specify gender and derivation when establishing a new genus. Recommendation to choose gender according to the word's ending.

Example: Pfrille from German is feminine.

Our comment: A good example to show the confusion produced by such rules. This word Pfrille is not in standard dictionaries, and although being native German zoologists ourselves, we do not know this word. The gender of such names should be specified by the author or determined by the First Reviser.

31.1. There are rules for species names formed from personal names, but if applied incorrectly the original spelling of the name is to be preserved anyway.

Recommendation not to indroduce species names based on personal names as nouns in apposition, to avoid misunderstandings with authorship citations.

31.2. Species names that are or end in Latin or latinized adjectives or participles in the nominative singular must agree in gender with the corresponding genus name (so, they are changeable), noun phrases and nouns in apposition need not (unchangeable). Non-Latin words and Latin words in unclear cases are unchangeable.

Examples: The species name costata (adjective) is changeable and gives eventually costatus or costatum, diana is unchangeable (noun in apposition), femurrubrum unchangeable (noun phrase, rubrum referring to femur, neuter), m-nigrum is unchangeable (nigrum referring to m, neuter). Oestrus phobifer may be either a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition, so it is unchangeable.

32.1. Original spelling is the spelling used in the original work.

32.2. If not demonstrably incorrect, it is also the correct original spelling. At different alternative spelling in the original work, the First Reviser decides. Justified emendation is treated like correct original spelling, with author and date of the original publication.

32.3. Correct original spelling must be preserved except suffixes of gender changeable species taxa.

32.4. Incorrect original spellings are not available and cannot be used for anything.

32.5. Original spellings must be corrrected in cases of clear inadvertent errors due to printing/typing techniques. Incorrect latinizations, transliterations or "wrong" connecting vowels must not be corrected. Corrections in corrigenda issued simultaneously is accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error. Special characters must be reduced to their basic letters (æ to ae, ñ to n, é to e) except in German ä, ö and ü published before 1985, which have to be corrected to ae, oe and ue (after 1985: a, o and u). Punctuation marks and ligatures between words including spaces (terra novae) must be deleted, except in cases like Polygonia c-album, abbreviations and numbers are spelled out in Latin, abbreviated titles of persons are deleted, upper- and lower-case letters are formed according to the ICZN rules, genitive is corrected to nominative. Family names are corrected if they have incorrect suffixes or were formed from an incorrectly spelled genus name.
See 34.2 for "wrong" genders of species taxa (problem of Papilio cyanea).

33.1. Can be either emendation, or incorrect subsequent spelling, or mandatory change of species names with changeable gender.

33.2. Emendations are intentional changes in the original spellings. Needs explicite statement of intention. Correction of incorrect original spelling according to the rules is justified, anything else not. Names produced by unjustified emendations are available with new author and date. Exceptions are possible in cases of prevailing usage, were unjustified emendations are attributed to the original author and date.

Example: Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 was changed by Illiger (1801) to Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera). Because it has been in prevailing usage, Helophorus is considered to be a justified emendation.

Our comment: We cannot consider such exceptions of the rule because our program cannot decide whether an incorrect spelling of a word is, has been or was in "prevailing usage". The name Elophorus continues to be in use (Google 2-3-2004: Elophorus 13, Helophorus 1620 hits, if combined with Fabricius the result was 7 : 176). However, this special case was solved by an ICZN decision, so the new spelling is clear.

33.3. Any other subsequent spellings are incorrect subsequent spellings, are not available and cannot be used for anything. Exceptions are possible in cases of prevailing usage, where incorrect subsequent spellings will become correct original spellings.

Example: Trypanosoma brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 has frequently been incorrectly spelled brucei, so brucei is deemed to be correct.

Our comment: We cannot consider such exceptions of the rule because our program cannot decide whether an incorrect spelling of a word is, has been or was in "prevailing usage" (Google hits for T. brucii : T. brucei 3 : 33800, with Trypanosoma-brucii and Trypanosoma-brucei 4 : 13900, but no page was found where the authors Plummer & Bradford were cited (2004)).

33.4. Species names ending in -i or -ii are correct the way they were originally published.

33.5. In doubtful cases subsequent spellings are treated as incorrect.

34.1. Family-like names must change the suffix (-idae to -inae or so) when placed into another category.

34.2. Species with changeable gender treatments must change the ending according to the gender of the corresponding genus.

Our comment: If a new "changeable" species name (Latin adjective) did not correspond to the gender of the genus in which it was placed, then we consider the species name to be treated as unchangeable. The Code does not say directly what to do in such cases, and in the Official Lists and Indexes (ICZN 1987 and ICZN 2001) these cases were not treated consistently.

Examples: Conops buccata (cited by ICZN 2001: 54 as Conops buccatus Linn�us, 1758 - we will not follow this way), Tenthredo fasciata, Papilio cyanea are unchangeable (all these genera are masculine).

Our comment: the expression family-group is misleading (we misunderstood it when we first read the Code), so where necessary we replaced it by "family-like taxa". Same with genus-group, species-group.

35.1. Any rank below superfamily and above genus: superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe or others.

35.2. For all these ranks the same rules apply.

35.3. Application of family-like taxon depends on its type genus.

35.4. A family name is formed according to the rules. If based on incorrectly spelled type genera, the spelling is corrected. If the questionable type genus spelling is taken as a substitute name, the family spelling is formed according to the substitute name.

Our comment: What is a substitute name? Reference to corresponding article wanting.

35.5. No strict priority rules in family-like taxa. If after 1999 a subfamily name is found to be older than the name "in prevailing usage" of the family to which the subfamily belongs to, the older name does not replace the youger higher-rank family name.

Example: Rophitinae Schenck, 1866 is included in the Halicitidae Thomson, 1869 (Hymenoptera).

Our comment: "in prevailing usage" is difficult and should be replaced by something more technical. However, our database has no priority rules applied at the family level. Animals are believed to have evolved, and higher-rank taxa above the genus level will get different (less) significance that in the past.

36.1. A family-like taxon introduced for one rank is deemed to have been introduced for all possible family-like ranks simultaneously. All these taxa have same author and date, same type genus.

Example: Hesperides Latreille, 1809 (Lepidoptera) with type genus Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 simultaneously produced Heperiidae Latreille, 1809; Heperiinae Latreille, 1809 and Hesperioidea Latreille, 1809, all with the same type genus, although these names may have been used only many decades later.

36.2. The type genus of a family-like taxon will always remain the same, regardless of possible changes in rank of the family-like taxon.

37.1. When a family-like taxon is sibdivided, the one containing the type genus retains the name for the lower-rank family-group taxon, which is the nominotypical taxon.

Example: If Tipulidae Latreille, 1802 is subdivided, the subfamily with the type genus Tipula becomes Tipulinae.

37.2. Unavailable or invalid family-like names in use must be replaced by the next younger name, producing new nominotypical taxa.

Family-like taxa are invalid if based on homonymous or ICZN suppressed type genera. Such family names must be replaced.

Example: Degeeriidae Lubbock, 1873 was based on Degeeria Nicolet, 1842 (Collembola), a junior homonym of Degeeria Meigen, 1838 (Diptera). The family name had to be replaced. The synonym Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 produced Entomobryidae Tömösváry, 1882.

40.1. A type genus being a synonym of another genus does not affect its stage as type genus for the family.

Example: Agriolimacidae based on Agriolimax Mörch, 1865 (Gastropoda) remains in accordance with current classification although its type genus is a junior synonym of Deroceras Rafinesque, 1820.

40.2. If a family-like name was replaced before 1961 because of priority rules, the substitute remains if in prevailing usage. Gets very sophisticated with authorships.

Example: Orphnephilidae Rondani, 1847 (Diptera) was based on Orphnephila Haliday, 1832. Bezzi (1913) synonymized Orphnephila with Thaumalea Ruthe, 1831 and established Thaumaleidae Bezzi, 1913. Thaumaleidae would be rejected today, but it came into prevailing usage. Now Thaumaleidae is cited as Thaumaleidae Bezzi, 1913 (1847).

Our comment: we are lucky in that we don't cite author names of families. Too complicate and unnecessary to cite two different years in a taxon. The more so, since scientists in 500 years hardly will be able to control whether taxa came in prevailing or only into some usage in a certain period of time.

42.1. Taxa below family-like and above species-like taxa: genus, subgenus.

42.2. For the two ranks the same rules apply, unless otherwise stated. Collective groups and names for trace fossils are also treated like genera.

42.3. Application of genus-like name is determined by its type species. Collective groups have no type species. Genera established before 1931 and taxa based on the fossilized work of animals established before 2000 may have no type species fixed, for these see 69.

42.4. Must be formed and treated according to the rules.

43.1. Establishing a subgenus name means simultaneaously establishing a genus name, with same author, date and type species. Same with other ranks of genus-like taxa.

43.2. Type species remains the same if genus taxon is changed in rank.

44.1. If there are subgenera of a genus, the subgenus containing the genus type species is the nominotypical subgenus and the subgenus has the same name as the genus.

44.2. If the genus name becomes unavailable and must be replaced, the next younger available genus name within the group of species grouped together at genus level takes over with its type species. The nominotypical species may change then.

45.1. Taxa at species and subspecies level.

45.2. For both, the same rules apply unless otherwise stated.

45.3. Application of species or subspecies name is determined by the type.

45.4. Must be formed and treated according to the rules.

45.5. Names for infrasubspecific entities are not available and not regulated by the Code. A 4th name in the line is automatically infrasubspecific. If such names are cited for higher ranks in a manner that make the names available, they take the authorship of the citing author, also if this author attributes the taxon to a previous author.

Example: Vulpes vulpes karagan natio ferganensis (published by Ognev 1927) is infrasubspecific. Flerov (1935) first used it for a subspecies and made the name available as Vulpes vulpes ferganensis Flerov, 1935.

45.6. A name following a binomen is subspecific unless evidently infrasubspecific or otherwise expressed by the author, for example by useing the terms aberration, ab. or morph, after 1960 also with terms v(ar(iety))., f(orm(a)) (which before 1961 produced available subspecies).

Examples: Arvicola amphibius ab. pallasi published by Ognev 1913 is infrasubspecific, Arvicola amphibius pallasi Ognev, 1950 is subspecific and available. Pyrrhocoris apterus var. pennata Westhoff (1884) was given to a macropterous form of a hymenopteran insect - it was never adopted and is not available, as are neither names for freshly emerged adults as such. Fruticicola unidentata variété (natio) n. subtecta described by Polinski 1929 (Gastropoda) would not have been available, but it was used later as a name of a subspecies in some published classification by an author before 1985 (Klemm 1954), so the name became available as Fruticicola unidentata subtecta Polinski, 1929.

46.1. Establishing a subspecies name means simultaneaously establishing a species name, with same author, date and types.

46.2. If species are treated as subspecies or vice-versa, the types remain unchanged.

47.1. If there are subspecies of a species, the subspecies containing the type of the species is the nominotypical subspecies and the subspecies has the same name as the species.

47.2. If the species name becomes unavailable and must be replaced, the next younger available species name within the group of subspecies grouped together at species level takes over with its type.

Example: Papilio coenobita Fabricius, 1793 was discovered to be junior primary homonym of Papilio coenobita Cramer, 1780. A replacement name for the younger taxon was established as Pseudoneptis ianthe Hemming, 1964. But the subspecies Pseudoneptis coenobita bugandensis Stoneham, 1938 has priority, the species name must be Pseudoneptis bugandensis Stoneham, 1938, with the two subspecies being Ps. bugandensis bugandensis Stoneham, 1938 and Ps. bugandensis ianthe Hemming, 1964.

Species taxa may change their ending according to the genus gender.

If a species was misidentified, the wrong name cannot be taken as an available name for the species unless deliberately taken as a new name for a type species of a newly established genus.

Example: Koch (1847) misidentified a myriapod species as Polydesmus scaber Perty, 1833 and placed this species into a new genus Platyrhacus Koch, 1847, but not fixing it as the type species. The name scaber cannot be used for the true species Koch was dealing with. Leach (1817) took a misidentified animal once recorded (by Geoffroy in Fourcroy 1785 and others) as Notonecta minutissima Linnæus, 1758 as the type species for Plea Leach (1817). The name of this species is Plea minutissima Leach, 1817 (see also 11.10).

50.1. The author(s) is (are) the person(s) who first publish(es) a name or act and fits the criteria of availability, usually the author(s) of the whole work, if not otherwise stated. If no author can be determined form the content, the author is anonymous. In doubtful cases, the author(s) of the whole work take(s) authorship for the taxa.

Example: in a work published by Westerlund & Blanc (1879), the species taxon Helix olympica var. sciara was established (Gastropoda), with a mark "Westerl." next to the name and below the description. The name of the taxon is Helix olympica sciara Westerlund, 1879. In the same publication, the description of Helix bathytera did not have such a mark - the name of this taxon is Helix bathytera Westerlund & Blanc, 1879.

Recommendation to exclude co-workers of the whole work from taxa authorships if they did not participate in the description itself. Recommendation to use expressions like Helix olympica sciara Westerlund in Westerlund & Blanc, 1879.

50.2. Taxa introduced in meeting reports take the authorship of the person responsible for the name, not of a reporter.

Recommendation for reporters not to include new scientific names into their reports.

50.3. Changing the rank from family to subfamily, subspecies to species or so does not affect authorship. This is different in cases of infrasubspecific names becoming available by elevating their rank. A species placed into another genus is indicated by brackets covering author and year.

50.4. Justified emendations take the original authorship, not that of the person making the emendation.

50.5. Unjustified emendations are attributed to the author who first published them.

50.6. For priority of simultaneously published taxa see 24. This applies also to cases where different authors described the same name simultaneously - then the authorship will be decided by First Reviser or so.

50.7. Names originally published as synonyms and which became available by 11.6 take the authorship of the person who first published it as a synonym.

51.1. Author name does not form part of the name of a taxon, its citation is optional bur recommended, for names in non-Latin alphabets preferrably in Latin alphabet letters.

51.2. Author name follows taxon directly. 3 or more authors can be abbreviated using et al., but should be completely cited somewhere in the work. No other names behind in parentheses, subsequent users should be denoted by expressions like sensu, as interpreted by. Anonymously published taxa have author name Anon. Recommentations to avoid misunderstandings, invalid status of unavailable names should be expressed evidently.

51.3. Species classified in another genus than the one they were originally described in, obtain author and year in parentheses. Introduction of a species with an incorrect spelling of the genus is not enough to justiofy the use of parentheses. The subgenus is not of interest. Special case see 11.9.3.6, problem of Cubiceps.

Example: The currently applied name of the gastropod species is Pseudoxerophila bathytera (Westerlund & Blanc, 1879).

Recommendation to cite persons responsible for first having transferred a species into another genus directly behind the author and date of the species name. Methioplopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) Rehn, 1957.

Our comment: This is what we call unnecessary nonsense in the Code. It is absolutely unusual in modern zoology, we do strictly not apply this recommendation in our database and would strongly like to discourage collaborators from proceeding so. Classification of species is subjected to ongoing research, and the reasons why one author places a species into a certain genus may be totally different from those of another author - it does not necessarily mean that the second author adopted the system established by the first.

52.1. Same name must not be given to different taxa.

52.2. Only the oldest homonym may be used, with a few exceptions (23.2., 23.9., 59).

52.3. Articles 23 and 24 must be followed concerning priority rules.

52.4. For junior homonyms see 23.3.5, 23.9.5, 39, 55, 60.

52.5. For suppressed senior homonyms see 54.4, 81.2.1.

52.6. Corrected spelling of an incorrect original spelling can enter homonymy, incorrect spellings cannot.

52.7. Homonymy with clear non-animal taxa is allowed (see 1.4, 2.2, see also our comments there).

53.1. At family-like level, several names with the same spalling differing, if at all, only in the suffix, are homonyms.

Example: Metopiinae Foerster, 1869 (Hymenoptera), Metopiini Raffray, 1804 (Coleoptera) and Metopiini Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) are homonyms, the corresponding type genera are not.

53.2. At genus-like level, names with same spelling are homonyms.

Example: Noctua Linnæus, 1758 (Lepidoptera) and Noctua Gmelin (Sauropsida) are homonyms.

53.3. At species-like level to be homonyms, several names have to have same spelling and same genus, regardless if the genus is original (Primary homonym) or follows a later classification (secondary homonym).

Example: Cancer strigosus Linnaeus, 1761 and Cancer strigosus Herbst, 1799 are primary homonyms, although C. strigosus Linnaeus, 1761 might have been classified in another genus in 1799 and later.

54.1. Names excluded from the Code provisions.

54.2. Unavailable names.

54.3. Incorrect spellings.

54.4. Names suppressed by ICZN.

55.1. Applies to all family names, including taxa based on the fossilized work of animals.

55.2. If type genus names are identical, see 39.

55.3. If type genus names are similar, the Commission must remove one family. For nomen oblitums new family-like names sounding slightly different than the forgotten name may be proposed.

55.4. One letter is enough to mark the difference between families.

Example: Laridae (Sauropsida) and Larridae (Hymenoptera) are not homonyms.

55.5. Of several simultaneously published family-like homonyms, the one of higher rank gets priority.

56.1. Applies to all genus names, including collective groups and taxa based on the fossilized work of animals.

56.2. One-letter difference is enough.

56.3. Of simultaneously published genus and subgenus homonyms, genus has priority.

57.1.Applies to all species-level names.

57.2. Primary homonyms for different taxa are those with same species and original genus name, the junior homonym being permanently invalid. Except some special cases (23.9, 81, 79.4.3).

Example: Aporia hippia transiens Alpheraky, 1897 and Aporia crataegi transiens Lempke, 1953 are primary homonyms, the latter cannot be used any more.

57.3. Secondary homonyms result from bringing species with same species and different original genus name into the same genus. The junior homonym becomes usually invalid. Replacement genus names are treated like the original genus names.

Example: Albinaria scopulosa faueri Hausdorf, 1987 will by a secondary junior homonym of Isabellaria venusta faueri Nordsieck, 1974 (Gastropoda) in those publications where Isabellaria is considered as being congeneric with Albinaria.

57.4. Subgenus is not of interest.

57.5. Incorrectly spelling the genus does not change the situation.

57.6. One-letter difference in species names is enough, exceptions see 58.

57.7. Of simultaneously published species and subspecies, the species has priority.

57.8. Double homonymy (genus and species) is no homonymy.

Example: Noctua variegata Jung, 1792 (Insecta) is no homonym of Noctua variegata Quoy & Gaimard, 1830 (Sauropsida). The genera are homonyms and the species too. The species name variegata Quoy & Gaimard, 1830 can be used because the genus name has to be replaced anyway.

58.1. use of ae, oe or e (caerulea, coerulea and cerulea are homonyms if adopted for different taxa)

58.2. use of ei, i or y (cheiropus, chiropus, chyropus)

58.3. use of i or j (maior, major)

58.4. use of u or v (neura, nevra)

58.5. use of c or k (mikrodon, microdon)

58.6. (non)aspiration of a consonant (oxyrnchus, oxyrhynchus)

58.7. use of single or double consonant (litoralis, littoralis)

58.8. use of ct or t (autumnalis, auctumalis)

58.9. use of f or ph (sulfureus, sulphureus)

58.10. use of ch or c (chloropus, cloropus)

58.11. use of th or t (thiara, tiara)

58.12. use of different connecting vowels (nigricinctus, nigrocinctus)

58.13. use of y, ei, ej or ij instead of i (guianensis, guyanensis)

58.14. use of ending i or ii, ae or iae, orum or iorum, arum or iarum (smithi, smithii; fasciventris, fasciiventris)

58.15. presence of i before termination (timorensis, timoriensis; comstockana, comstockiana)
This does not apply to calidus, callidus because the meanings of the two Latin words are different, so these cannot be homonyms.

59.1. Junior secondary homonyms must be treated as invalid by anyone who considers the species taxa to be congeneric.

59.2. Secondary homonymy ends when the species taxa are placed into different genera again.

59.3. If a junior secondary homonym was replaced before 1961 it is permanently invalid. But only unless the substitute name is "not in use". In case of trouble go to the Commission.

59.4. Junior homonyms rejected after 1960 remain available waiting for a time when the genus classification will change again. Replacement names will then eventually be junior synonyms.

60.1. Junior homonyms must be replaced by either available synonyms or new substitute names. See also 23.9, 39, 55.3, 59.

60.2. Of the available synonyms, the oldest becomes the correct name of the taxon, with author and types. Of course, only as long as the taxa are considered to be synonyms.

60.3. If there is no synonym available, the homonym must be replaced by a new substitute name, with own author and date. This taxon will compete in priority with any synonym recognized later.

Recommendation to replace objectively if possible, using the same types.

61.1. Each taxon has a type determining the taxon's identity. Species-like taxa have specimens as types, genus-like taxa have type species, family-like taxa have type genera. Types usually will not be changed.

61.2. Types of taxa are also the types of their nominotypical other taxa. The rank within the family-, genus- or species-like taxa has no influence on types.

61.3. Taxa with different types being united at their rank result in subjective synonyms at their rank, but not necessarily at a subordinate rank. Taxa with same types are objective synonyms. If several genera with same type species were used to produce families, the families are objective synonyms. Genera with different type species but which have the same types are objective synonyms.

Example: Psittacus elegans Gmelin, 1788 and Platycercus flaveolus Gould, 1837 are united at species level, the species name is Platycercus elegans (Gmelin, 1788) (Sauropsida). But they belong to different subspecies Platycercus elegans elegans (Gmelin, 1788) and Platycercus elegans flaveolus Gould, 1837.

61.4. Also subgenera and subspecies can be type genera and type species.

The following applies to family-like taxa.

63.1 Coordinate family-like taxa have the same type genus.

To create a family name, any genus personally regarded to be in accordance with current classification can be taken as type genus, not necessarily the oldest one.

Recommendation to select a well-known and representative genus.

65.1. The author is assumed to have correctly identified the type genus unless the there is clear evidence of the contrary.

65.2. In cases of trouble due to possible misidentification go to the Commission.

The following applies to genera and subgenera, but not to collective groups at genus level, which have no type species.

66.1. Taxa on genus level based on the fossilized work of animals need type species only after 1999.

67.1. Type species for genera and subgenera are species taxa in the form they were originally described, even if suppressed.

Recommendation not to use the expression genotype for type species and to cite them in the original form they were described.

Example: Homarus Weber, 1795 has the type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, today classified as Homarus gammarus (Linnæus, 1758) (Crustacea).

67.2. Type species fixation only possible with species that were originally included without expressed doubts at the genus establishment. If no species were included, only those species can be taken which were first expressly included in the genus. Citation of species accounts of another publication or citation of another genus synonym is not enough.

67.3. Decisions concerning type species fixation only possible with the relevant published record.

67.4. Original fixation only in the original publication of the genus establishment, subsequently if later. Original fixation obligate after 1930, for genus taxa based on the fossilized work of animals after 1999.

67.5. Type species designation only valid if clearly and definitely expressed. Mentioning a species as an example for a genus or defining a special feature as typical is not enough.

67.6. If spelled incorretly at the designation, the type species spelling will be cited correctly.

67.7. If authors and years of type species were cited incorrectly at the designation, they will be cited correctly.

67.8. Replacement names have the same type species as the original genus taxa. If the original taxon had no type species, the type species fixed for the replacement name is the same as for the original taxon.

67.9. For misidentified type species see 70.3.

67.10. Ranking of genus taxa does not affect their type species.

67.11. Species taxa can be type species of more than one genus.

67.12. Genus-like taxa first published as synonyms and later made available (11.6) have one of the type species that were first directly assiciated with them.

Example: Meigen (1818) cited the manuscript name Forcipomyia as a synonym of Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) and associated it for 2 species. These 2 species are eligible as type species of Forcipomyia Meigen, 1818, which is available because it came into use before 1961. The type species of Ceratopogon can be another species taxon.

67.13. If a type species was fixed deliberately using a name under which the species was erroneously previously recorded, the author automatically creates a new species name in the new genus (see 11.10, 70.4). For subsequent designation see 69.2.

67.14. Collective groups have no type species, type species fixation is useless.

Example: Ceracaria Müller, 1773 is currently classified as a collective group for not closer identifiable trematode larvae, but was originally established as a genus. Many authors cited C. lemna Müller, 1773 as its type species. Currently this is disregarded.

68.1. Valid type fixation is determined by original designation, monotypy, absolute tautonymy or Linnaean tautonymy - in case of several possible alternatives the first fixation in this order of precedence is valid.

Recommendation to cite only the valid type fixation method.

68.2. Original designation: expressedly designated in the genus description. Using "n. gen, n. spec." for one species and for the others only "n. spec." or using a new species taxon name typicum or typus is regarded as original designation.

68.3. Monotypy: if only one species was included in the new genus taxon or nominotypical subgenus. Synonyms, subspecies, species not cited by an available name or with doubts are disregarded.

68.4. Absolute tautonymy: if an available species taxon name originally included is identical with the new genus taxon name.

Example: Among several species originally contained in Planorbis Müller, 1774 (Gastropoda) was Helix planorbis Linnæus, 1758, type species by absolute tautonymy, then classified as Planorbis planorbis (Linnæus, 1758).

Our comment: identical should mean identical in all characters. Scomber and scombrus are not identic.

68.5. Linnaean tautonymy: if in a genus establishment before 1931 a name of a pre-Linnaean synonymy for a species is cited as identical with the new genus taxon name.

Example: Castor Linnæus, 1758 was established containing 2 species. In the synonymy of C. fiber Linnæus, 1758 the author cited "Castor Gesner pisc. 185", a reference to a pre-Linnaean work (Gesner 1598). C. fiber is fixed as type species by Linnaean tautonymy.

68.6. For fixations of deliberately cited misidentified species see 11.10 and 67.13.

69.1. Subsquent designation: by the first author who designates subsequently one of the originally included species. The author does not need to be aware of designating it, clear mentioning as the type species for a genus is enough. Designations in literature-recording publications are also accepted. Later designations are not valid.

69.2. All species originally included in the genus can be chosen. Incorrect spellings of the type species, either in the original or in the subsequent publication, will be corrected. The type species is to be cited under its correct name. Citing a subjective synonym of (only) one of the originally included species is valid, but the name of the originally included species will be cited as type species. Same with replacement names for originally included species. In case of a species produced by deliberately cited misidentified species in the original genus description (11.10, 67.13), the then produced new species name is to be cited if fixed as type species.

69.3. Subsequent monotypy: if in a subsequent publication only one species was included in a genus that was originally established without any species.

69.4. Elimination of all but one originally included species in a later classification is not necessarily a type fixation.

Recommendation to designate type species (in order of appearence of these criteria) that are well known, frequent, or with existing type material, if possible the most common or important species (or parasiting in such an animal) or with the name communis, vulgaris, medicinalis or officinalis, or a species name having vitually the same meaning as the genus name, like Bos taurus, Equus caballus, Scomber scombrus, Isabellaria isabellina, Spinicapitichthys spiniceps. Authors should prefer species taxa that are still included in the genus, if possible in a larger group within the genus if there are several groups, to species taxa with mature and not only larval type specimens, to species which the author of the genus taxon knew well or regarded as representative for the genus, perhaps some authors listed typical species first in species lists.

70.1. If not evidently otherwise, authors are assumed to have identified their fixed type species correctly.

70.2. No overlooked type species fixation will be invalid unless otherwise ruled by the Commission.

70.3. If type species were undeliberately misidentified, a new type species may be selected. This could be the true species behind the misidentification (which would have a different species name - both names must be cited and Article 70.3 of the Code must be referred to) or the species actually carrying the selected name, disregarding that it was misidentified.

70.4. In case of a species produced by deliberately cited misidentified species in the original genus description see 11.10, 67.13, 69.2.

The following is for species and subspecific taxa.

72.1. The term "type" is used in different expressions. Type series comprises all type specimens, name-bearing types are holotype (fixed originally), syntypes (all type specimens together), lectotype (fixed subsequently) or neotype (fixed subsequently), other specimens are paratypes (syntypes minus holotype) and paralectotypes (syntypes minus lectotype). The term allotype may be used for a specimen of opposite sex to the holotype but has no name-bearing function.

72.2. Type fixation before 2000 originally or subsequently.

72.3. After 1999 holotype or syntypes fixation is obligate. Syntypes must be clearly indicated as such.

72.4. The type series consists of all specimens assumed (before 2000) to have been present to the author, mentioned directly or by bibliographic reference in the description. Except explicitely excluded or doubted specimens and those referred to as distinct forms indicated by name, letter or number. Misidentification of a species taxon can be demonstrated by misidentified type specimens (if this is what 72.4.2 means). If an available type species was introduced as a junior synonym (11.6), either (preferably) the specimens associated with the cited synonymy are the types or the specimens attributed to the name when it was made available. If a species name was made aailable by reference to an unavailable name in a bibiographic reference (12.2, 13.1), the type specimens will be those to which the name was applied to when making the name available. When the holotype is lost, paratypes cannot be selected as lectotypes, but as neotypes. If an author lists syntypes (or types, cotypes, holotype and paratypes) and other specimens separately, the other specimens are no types. The mere citation of "type" in a subsequent publication is not enough to fixe specimens as types.

72.5. Name-bearing types can be parts of animals, an example of the work of an animal (for extant species only before 1931), a colony of animals living in a single entity not derived by sexual multiplication, fossil remains in the form of natural impressions, moulds or casts, in the case of protistans preparations of individuals in different life cycle stages (a hapantotype, 73.3), microscope preparations (type slide, where the important animals should be marked), but not illustrations or descriptions as such.

72.6. Specimens can be types of different species taxa.

72.7. Types of replacement names are those that belonged the replaced available taxa.

Examples: When transferred to the genus Mus, Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 became a secondary homonym of Mus leucopus Rafinesque, 1818 (Mammalia). Mus terrareginae Alston, 1879 was introduced as a replacement name for and received the types of A. leucopus Gray, 1867.

72.8. Species and nominotypical subspecies have the same types.

72.9. Types are associated to their species taxa independent from their current classification.

72.10. Holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes and neotypes are important and valuable specimens, to be held in trust by persons responsible for safe keeping.

Recommendation to label unmistakably, to publish all information of the labels to recognize these specimens in the future, instututes should mark them clearly, preserve them safely, make them accessible for study, publish lists of their types and communicate requested information.

73.1. Holotype is a single specimen designated in the original publication, either being the single specimen at the description or clearly designated as "the type" or holotype. Except in cases of protistans and colonial species (72.5, 73.3). Before 2000, evidence from outside may help to indentify the specimen. Holotypes cannot be fixed subsequently. Disappearance of a holotype does not make the designation invalid. If a holotype consists of several parts belonging to different individuals, some components can be removed by appropriate citation.

Recommendations for holotypes. Shall be well recognizable in future, preferably a specimen the author had studied personally, publication shall contain animal or organs' size, exact locality including geographic coordinates and elevation or water depth, geological stage and stratigraphical position, date, other label data, sex, collector's name, collection name and number, for parasites name of the host species. The other types should be labelled as paratypes, the term cotype should be avoided, existence of a holotype should only be assumed at clear evidence.

73.2. Syntypes (cotypes, types) are either expressedly designated or inferred from non-existence of holotype or lectotype within a type series from before 2000, having either been seen by the author or by the authors of earlier descriptions to which was referred to in the description. At lectotype designation, the other specimens become paralectotypes and remain so when the lectotype is lost. The type locality comprises all localities the syntypes were from.

73.3. Hapantotypes consist of preparations or cultures of protistans, regarded as indivisible. If a hapantotype contains different species, these can be removed by appropriate citation.

74.1. May only be selected from syntypes, only the first designation is valid. Lectotype designation supercedes any previous restriction in species taxon classification and removes the syntype status from the other type specimens.

74.2. A lectotype later found not to have been part of the syntypes loses its status as lectotype.

74.3. Lectotype designation must be made specifically for one taxon after another, general statements like "all specimens responding to a certain condition shall be the lectotypes" are not valid.

74.4. Lectotype designation using an illustration or description is enough.

74.5. Lectotype selection and designation before 2000 must be clear and unmistakably, leaving no doubts.

74.6. If no information given in the original description implied that there was more than one type specimen, and this one specimen was understood as the holotype in a subsequent publication, this specimen is regarded as lectotype if more type specimens from the original description are discovered.

Example: In the brief description of Thylacoleo carnifex Owen, 1858 (Mammalia) a cranium was illustrated, which was understood by McCoy (1876) as "the type of the species", or holotype. Later it was shown that Owen must have had a mandible too. The cranium automatically became the lectotype fixed by McCoy (1876) and the mandible the paralectotype.

74.7. Lectotype designation after 1999 only valid if the term lectotype or an exact translation is used, if it contains sufficient information to recognize the specimen and if taxonomic purpose is expressed in a clear statement.

Recommendation to select specimens reflecting the current infraspecific classification of the taxon, select illustrated specimens, list all necessary data like as for holotypes, select from public collections, preferably containing the largest number of syntypes, or where the original author(s) worked or where most of their types are deposited. Syntypes of known locality should be preferred, the accuracy of given localities should be verified. Paralectotypes should be labelled as such.

75.1. If besides paratypes and paralectotypes no other types are considered to be in existence, a neotype may be chosen.

75.2. But only if considered really necessary.

75.3. Only valid with a clearly expressed need to clarify the taxonomic status or type locality, with statement (or bibliographic reference) of the characters differentiating the taxon from other taxa, description and enough data to recognize the specimen in future, reasons to believe that the original types do not exist any more, steps that were taken to find them, evidence that the neotype is consistent with what was known from all sources, including type locality, geological horizon or host species, and only if deposited in a recognized institution.

75.4. First neotype designation is valid, no other subsequent designation except by the Commission. Lost neotypes can be replaced by new neotypes.

Recommendation to choose neotypes from paratypes or paralectotypes, preferably from the type locality, and take care that the designation does not cause objection by other specialists.

75.5. The Commission can set aside a name-bearing type if it does not reveal the species identity and designate a neotype.

Example: The holotype of Cycloceras laevigatum M'Coy, 1844 (Ammonoidea, Cephalopoda) lacked important diagnostic features. The Commission designated a neotype (Opinion 1720, 1993).

75.6. The Commission can set aside a name-bearing type if it does not correspond to prevailing usage of the species name and designate a neotype.

Example: Kerzhner & Heiss (1993) discovered that the holotype of Aradus caucasicus (Kolenati, 1857) (Heteroptera) belonged to another species, not to which the name was attributed for many years. The Commission designated a neotype and conserved the use of both involved species names (Opinion 1783, 1994).

75.7. Neotypes designated before 1961 are only valid if they fulfilled all the conditions of this article in its present form (2000).

Recommendation to contact authors of such invalid neotype designations before designating new ones, at prefer the specimens selected before 1961.

75.8. Neotypes are set aside when the original types are surprisingly rediscovered. The Commission can retain such invalid neotypes.

76.1. Comprises the geographical or stratigraphical places of capture/collection or observation of the name-bearing types. If the individuals were artificially transported to another place, the starting point of the unnatural journal is the type locality.

Recommendation to identify type localities using criteria from original publications, labels and outside information. Erroneous statements about type localities should be corrected.

76.2. Lectotype designation restricts the type locality to the place of origin of that specimen, regardless of any previously published statements.

76.3. Same with neotypes.

77.1. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is a permanent body.

77.2. The 1972 International Congress of Zoology delegated its powers to the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS).

77.3. There are conditions for delegation.

77.4. And a constitution of the Commission.

77.5. (Passage about transitional periods.)

78.1. Plenary power follows a resolution of a 1913 congress, enables the Commission to suspend most provisions of the Code and to publish decisions as Opinions.

78.2. The Commission may publish a List of Available Names in Zoology and may adopt parts of the List. In case of need, the Commission determines the matter for requested decisions as required by the articles and publlish its ruling in an Opinion. In the same way the Commission also may interpret provisions of the Code.

78.3. The Commission can issue declarations to clarify provisions of the Code.

78.4. The Commission shall consider any application, publish Official Lists and Indexes with names and works that were rules officially, publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and report to the international body.

79.1. Commission may propose that the Commission adopts part of the List. 79.1 explains how to do so.

79.2. Commission shall appoint an ad hoc committee to consult with proposers, execute notification, consultation and voting.

79.3. Decision to adopt parts of the List shall be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

79.4. A name in the List is deemed to be an available name with spelling, date, authorship and name-bearing type like in the List regardless of evidence of the contrary. No unlisted name has any status in zoological nomenclature, regardless of previously having been available.

79.5. In case of confusions in the List the Commission can amend entries.
Recommendation for authors to inform the Commission in case of neotype and lectotype designations.

79.6. The Commission can add previously available names that were ommitted from the List.

80.1. Declarations are provisional amendments to the Code, must be ratified by the international body having authority.

80.2. Opinions is where the Commission rules, concering particular cases or general interpretations of the Code.

80.3. Opinions are valid from the date of publication.

80.4. Spelling errors can be corrected without further vote.

80.5. An Opinion is only valid for the case it was about, there is not necessarily a general meaning behind it.

80.6. Official Lists are with available names, according to the opinions, but in case of inconsistency the List of Available Names shall be correct. Names in the Official Lists can also be synonyms according to any classification.

80.7. Official Indexes are with unavailable names. The Commission can change their status again.

80.8. In case of contradiction, the List of Available Names will be correct.

80.9. Rulings given by the Commission can only be set aside by the Commission.

81.1. The Commission has the plenary power to modify the applications of the Code in particular cases, to conserve and suppress names, give precedence, make names available, fix types, establish replacements.

81.2. Guiding principles. Homonyms can be totally suppressed for both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy, so a later homonym may continue to be used in current classifications. A totally suppressed species taxon remains an available name and can be type species of a genus. Objective synonyms can be partially suppressed (for the Principle of Priority alone). Subjective synonyms may also be conditionally suppressed to provide that the older taxon can be used only when the two taxa are regarded to be distinct or if the are distinct at subspecies level (or subgenus or so).
Example: Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 was conditionally suppressed (Opinion 161, 1945) so that Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 can be used for the genus. If different from the subgenus Argynnis (Argynnis), Argyreus can be used for a subgenus.

82.1. When a case is under consideration by the Commission prevailing usage of the involved names is to be maintained.

82.2. Consideration begins with the date of first notice in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

86.1. 4th edition comes into force 1-1-2000.

86.2. English and French texts are official and equivalent in force, meaning and authority.

86.3. Previous rules not reaffirmed in this editions are not longer valid.

More official and equivalent translations are possible.

No name published before 1758 enters zoological nomenclature, those after 1757 are governed by the provisions of this Code.

Our comment: 1758 should be replaced by 1757. Clerck 1757 should be considered here. Names published before 1757 entered zoological nomenclature only if they were adopted by post-1757 authors.

89.1. For the meanings of certain words and expressions see the glossary. In doubtful cases the Commission will decide.

89.2. Recommendations and examples are not part of the legislative text of the Code.

For us the most significant and questionable expressions are the terms "valid", "prevailing usage", "nomen oblitum" and the passages dealing with the "List of Available Names".

"Valid" leads to misunderstandings because it has different meanings, one of which is in clear contrast to our language feeling and should be replaced by a term like "in accordance with current classification".

"Prevailing usage" is too difficult to define. The publications determining names and type designations for a taxon are few - but to judge whether a name is or has been for some years in prevailing usage is practically impossible. We can check the current use of different names in searching engines in the internet - but how will we consider criteria like time or the names reflecting "recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon". Finally, what is a "substantial majority"? In some groups we have only ten specialists knowing the taxon, in others we have thousands of molecular biologists using names not used by contemporary taxonomists.

The expression "nomen oblitum" contradicts itself: no name published in a book that is still available to the public will be forgotten - the books don't forget. If authors had no access to certain old books this is going be different if we digitise all old zoological publications. It will become difficult (and for a program it is practically impossible) to check whether the name had not been cited from 1899-2000. Such names should explicitely be rejected by the Commission and published in the list of rejected names. In our modern times most zoological names are not any longer looked up in printed matter, but rather in the internet. We would like to recommend to delete this article from the Code and hand over its content to the Commission.

As to the "List of Available Names", it should be stated clearly that in contrast to the Official Lists, the List of Available Names has only been sceduled and no single part of it has ever been published. There are no provisions in the Code as to what will happen if new species taxa will be described in the future after the List of Available Names will have been published - will the new names be available? As it stands, it seems as if the project was thought for the day when all species will be known and nothing will change any more in the classification.

We would like to discourage to bring forward such a project and would like the passages in the Code to be erased.

Discovering old names may indeed lead to commonly used names being replaced by unknown older names in some cases. But in our modern times even the commonly used names of organisations, enterprises and countries change much more rapidly than in the past. We learned to live in a faster world. Replacing a name by another one is not a process modern scientists could not live with.