---

General Articles and Nomenclatural Notes with the following titles were published on 30 June 2009 in Volume 66, Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Copies of these General Articles and Nomenclatural Notes can be obtained free of charge from the Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

 

Registration of scientific names of plants, fungi, bacteria, cultivated plants, and animals: Approaches and experiences across disciplines

David L. Hawksworth
Chair, IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature, Departamento de Biologia Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid 28040, Spain; Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk)

Introduction
On 29 November 2007, the Linnean Society of London hosted its third systematics debate on the topic ‘Should the registration of new names of organisms be compulsory?’. Immediately prior to the debate itself, five presentations were made on the approaches to, and experiences in, the registration of scientific names in different groups of organisms whose nomenclature is governed by four separate internationally mandated Codes of nomenclature. Summaries of these presentations are provided here, along with a synopsis of the debate itself.
 The concept of some formal registration process for names of organisms is not new. It was proposed for botanical groups as far back as 1954, but rejected. After an independent Code for bacteria had been developed, from 1980 publication of bacterial names was effected only by publication in, or listing in, a single journal. In 1987, a special committee was established by the International Botanical Congress in Berlin to examine how registration might be implemented; the proposals made were adopted at the subsequent congress in Tokyo in 1993 and a trial system established with a view to implementation at the St. Louis congress in 1999 – but, that congress rejected the proposals. However, in the interim, registration had been included as mandatory in the ‘Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms’ prepared by representatives of all five Codes under the auspices of the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB) in 1996. In 2004, MycoBank, a voluntary web-based system for new fungal names (and additional information) went live; proposals to make that mandatory for fungi are now in preparation for discussion at the International Mycological Congress in Edinburgh in 2010. For names of animals, the development of ZooBank was first proposed in 2005.
 In considering the registration issue today for particular groups of organisms, it is prudent to be cognizant of the experiences and plans of those working with others. The reports presented here aim to provide a background to the current discussions as to the desirability of the compulsory registration of newly proposed scientific names for animals and fungi in particular.

Registration of names: the botanical experience
Werner Greuter
Chair, Editorial Committee, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1987–2006, Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Zentraleinrichtung der Freien Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Strasse 6–8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: w.greuter@bgbm.org)

Definition
 ‘Registration of names is the process of entering names into a register whereby they acquire a special quality (whereas indexing: the listing of names with a defined set of qualities but without adding to their status)’ (Greuter, 1986). From the beginning, registration has been envisioned as being: (a) non-censorial; (b) generally available and free of cost, at the very least for the authors of names; (c) based on a reliably functioning, preferably decentralised system tested beforehand; and (d), if at all possible, financially self-supporting in the long run.

Rationale
• Any author who publishes a new name wants to make it available and generally known. The onus of doing the needful has always been placed on the author. In this process, registering a name is a small and easy supplementary step, very much in the authors’ own interest.
• It is in the publishers’ interest to ‘pamper’ their authors. Publishers may be expected to be cooperative, especially when their authorship includes significant taxonomic content.
• It is in the users’ interest to be informed quickly, completely and reliably on any and all nomenclatural novelties that are published. Users are unwilling, however, to pay for that service, so it must be free of charge.
• Indexers, where they exist, will see their task alleviated by registration (the active hunt for items to be indexed being replaced by proffered data), and will see the value of their product increased (being now exhaustively complete by definition).

Concise history
1985: At the request of IUBS (International Union of Biological Sciences) and ICSEB (International Congress on Systematic and Evolutionary Biology), the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature appointed a Committee on Registration of Plant Names, with five members, to report to the Berlin Congress.
1986: The Committee’s report and proposals appeared in Taxon. Mandatory registration was recommended from an unspecified date later than the next subsequent Congress in Tokyo in 1993 (Greuter, 1986).
1987: At the Berlin Congress there was a long and lively debate on the independently proposed issues of registration of names and journals. A Special Committee to look into both issues was approved (Greuter et al., 1989).
1991: The Special Committee on Registration, with two subcommittees, met at Kew in February. The idea of journal registration was abandoned, and concrete steps toward the mandatory registration of new names were supported and a set of proposals was published in Taxon (Faegri, 1991).
1993: Together with the NCU (Names in Current Use) proposals, registration became the principal issue at the Tokyo Congress. By a sweeping majority, the principle of mandatory registration of new names was written into the Code, to become effective in 2000 after a trial run and subject to approval by the subsequent congress in 1999. The IAPT (International Association for Plant Taxonomy) accepted responsibility for setting up the required structures and procedures (Greuter et al., 1994).
1998: After thorough preparations, the IAPT Registration trial started officially (Borgen et al., 1997) and went online immediately on 5 January with the first 91 entries. At a workshop on ‘Removing the Taxonomic Impediment’, in February, the ‘Darwin Declaration’ (Environment Australia, 1998) was formulated. The declaration was later approved by the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Among other things, it recommended that ‘Institutions/ Individuals should support and encourage a system for the registering of newly proposed names of organisms . . .’. Proposals to implement the mandatory registration of new plant names were published in Taxon (Borgen et al., 1998).
1999: By mid-April, 207 journals had signed a covenant with the IAPT, by which they became accredited with the registration system (meaning that they agreed to care for the registration of new plant names published in them, on behalf of their authors). National registration centres in 38 countries had been set up (Raab- Straube, 1999). By mid-August, 10,047 (non-fungal) names had been registered (counting some duplications). In August, even though the trial run had functioned without hiccups for 19 months, the St. Louis Congress decided against registration, and exorcised all reference to it from the Code (Greuter et al., 2000). Registration offices (whose maintenance for two years had cost the IAPT ca. V60,000) were wound up by the end of the year.
2000 on: Registration had virtually become a non-word in botanical nomenclature. The main trace it left was maintenance of separate indexes of nomenclatural novelties in most of the accredited journals, to which they had agreed for becoming accredited. The registration database with its (eventually) 10,173 entries is still available for online searching (Greuter et al., 1999).

Registration at work
 Registration was a low-cost operation. Design and implementation of the database, including screen frames for both data input and online query, cost IAPT a V2500 contract. The office was run by a half-time secretary for data input and a half-time taxonomic botanist screening the incoming literature, preparing data, and handling the correspondence with authors, publishers and registration centres. Input time for one name averaged six minutes, including optical scanning of the protologues for the purpose of archival documentation.
 Input started by assigning each new name to its relevant category: new taxon or new combination or nom. nov.; fossil, algal, or other. Depending on the category, conditions for valid publication were queried and, unless confirmed, a ‘caveat’ or flag was generated (e.g. for a new fossil taxon: ‘no Latin or English description or diagnosis’). For new combinations, the presence of a full and direct basionym reference was checked, but not the basionym itself. Entered data included the name with standardised author citation, literature source (with stated date of publication), types (including specimen location) of names of new taxa, or basionym or replaced synonym of new names or combinations. The spelling was checked for correctable errors (this was my job), such as wrong terminations or connecting vowels.
 An estimated 75% of the data came from accredited journals, the rest mostly from books and non-accredited journals. Only a tiny fraction were submitted by the authors themselves on the apposite (downloadable) forms, either directly or through a national registration centre. This proportion is bound to change if and when registration becomes mandatory.

Implementation in the Code
 Fitting mandatory registration into the existing botanical Code (McNeill et al., 2006) requires remarkably little change. The proposals made to the Tokyo congress in 1993 were only four, and just two of them were essential:

• Addition of registration as a new, supplementary condition for valid publication of a name.
• Definition of the registration procedure as submission of the relevant printed matter to an accredited registration office. (Proposals to the St. Louis congress in 1999 would have modified this, permitting the submission of photocopies, under certain conditions.)
• Defining the date of a name as the date of reception at a Registration Office. This is an important point that has proved to be controversial, but is not central to the concept of Registration. Other solutions are possible.
• A clarification of what happens when someone wants to cheat by submitting not yet published names for Registration (they have to be registered anew once published) is of debatable usefulness and necessity.

 Several important issues, as follows, were not explicitly mentioned, as it was felt that such details could be left for later clarification:

• Who is entitled to register a name? The implicit answer is anyone, if the author (or the publisher acting on his behalf), who are the first who can play the ball, fail to do so. Authorship is unaffected by this issue. It is assumed that, at least initially, the staff of the relevant registration centres will scan the literature for new, unregistered names and will register them on their own initiative.
• What status do registered names have? Initially it was thought by some that they would, by definition, be made valid and even perhaps legitimate by registration. This is not so. Whereas valid publication of the registered names of new taxa could, as a rule, be taken for granted, their legitimacy can not. It may, in particular, be affected by validly published, perhaps unindexed, earlier homonyms. As to new combinations, they may not even necessarily be new. Especially in groups or at ranks in which infraspecific names were not so far indexed, earlier validations of the same combination may exist.
  
  Options for the future
   Can (and should) anything be changed in a future registration system for botany with respect to what has been envisioned in the past? I can see at least one basic possible improvement, allowing for greater flexibility (and, hopefully, acceptability) of registration. So far, registration has been seen as the last, supplementary step to be taken to achieve valid publication of a name fulfilling all other requirements. However, that chronology of events need not be mandatory. It is nowadays easily conceivable to have a name registered prior to its publication, in such a way that only the publication date must eventually be added. Authors would thus have a choice in structuring their taxonomic workflow.
   It would be a minor step to turn registration into a cheap, quick, and easy alternative vector of validation. Authors could feed the data required for validation directly into an apposite online form, and these data would be promptly released in print (perhaps with a monthly of even weekly frequency) by the registration centre. This might even provide a source of income to the registration centre. Presumably, the original, rather cumbersome scheme of national Registration Centres can nowadays be dispensed with. Electronic communication has become safe, cheap and universally accessible, and while ordinary mail can and must not be ruled out as an available option, it will in practice all but disappear from the scene.
   Registration will depend on the good will and full co-operation of existing indexing centres, as it did before. This can now be done without losing the unity of doctrine of the process as a whole. IPNI (International Plant Names Index) has demonstrated how well a multi-platform, shared-responsibility approach can function without the user even noticing it.
   Should lists of registered names be published as hard copy? This has not so far been specified, although many may have assumed it tacitly. The option should be explored. Clearly, free online access to the information is paramount for today’s user. Still, hard copy is unrivalled as a mean of safely archiving the data. Hard copy (which might include the new validations referred to above) could be generated quickly and cheaply directly from the computer, by means of an apposite formatting programme. Institutions not directly involved in the registration process may wish to support it financially by subscribing to the printed documents (or so I hope).
   It would be a real boon if at least the elements required for valid publication, if not the whole protologues, could be made available on line. This will obviously depend on the agreement of copyright holders. In addition, automatic translation services (from English and perhaps other languages to Latin for authors, and conversely for users) should have become easily feasible by the time registration becomes functional.
   In the medium term, once registration of names has proved its usefulness and has fully established itself in the mind of the biological community, the need will be felt to widen its scope to cover all nomenclaturally relevant acts, type designations in particular.
  
  The way ahead
   Registration is overdue. I could easily imagine that, once the present reluctance toward the registration concept is overcome by botanists, there will be a hue and cry for it to happen immediately, today better than tomorrow.
   Undue haste can be detrimental, as can excessive restiveness. Should this meeting come to a positive conclusion on the desirability of registration, both in the botanical and zoological domain, then the upcoming IUBS General Assembly in Cape Town this year (2009) would, I believe, provide an ideal forum for deliberating and moving ahead. If this happens I might, hopefully, live to see registration become a reality.
  
  References
  Borgen, L., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., Nicolson, D.H. & Zimmer, B. 1997. Announcing a test and trial phase for the registration of new plant names (1998–1999). Taxon, 46: 811–814.
  Borgen, L., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., Nicolson, D.H. & Zimmer, B. 1998. (88–95) Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names. Taxon, 47: 899–901.
  Environment Australia. 1998. The Darwin Declaration. Canberra.
  Faegri, K. 1991. (50–53) Proposals on registration of new names and combinations, and report of Special Committee 4. Taxon, 40: 681–683.
  Greuter, W. 1986. (214)-(219) Proposals on registration of plant names, a new concept for the nomenclature of the future. Taxon, 35: 816–819
  Greuter, W., McNeill, J. & Barrie, F.R. 1994. Report on botanical nomenclature – Yokohama 1993. XV International Botanical Congress, Tokyo: Nomenclature Section, 23 to 27 August 1993. Englera, 14: 1–265.
  Greuter, W., McNeill, J., Hawksworth, D.L. & Barrie, F.R. 2000. Report on botanical nomenclature – Saint Louis 1999. XVI International Botanical Congress, Saint Louis: Nomenclature Section, 26 to 30 July 1999. Englera, 20: 1–253.
  Greuter, W., McNeill, J. & Nicolson, D. H. 1989. Report on botanical nomenclature – Berlin 1987. XIV International Botanical Congress, Berlin: Nomenclature Section, 20 to 24 July 1987. Englera, 9: 1–228.
  Greuter, W., Raab Straube, E. & Berendsohn, W. (Eds.). 1999. IAPT Registration of Plant Names Database [online]. – http://www.bgbm.org/registration/QueryForm.htm.
  McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D.H., Prado, J., Silva, P. C., Skog, J.E., Wiersema, J.H. & Turland, N.J. 2006. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Regnum Vegetabile, 146: i–xviii, 1–568.
  Raab-Straube, E. von. 1999. Registration progress report 2, with a comment on censorship. Taxon, 48: 407–412.

 

MycoBank, the virtual fungal laboratory of tomorrow

Joost A. Stalpers, Vincent Robert, Gerrit Stegehuis and Pedro W. Crous* *President, International Mycological Association, CBS Fungal Biodiversity Centre, P.O. Box 85167, 3508 AD Utrecht, The Netherlands
(e-mail: p.crous@cbs.knaw.nl)

 MycoBank was officially launched by the CBS Fungal Biodiversity Centre towards the end of 2004, and announced in two papers published simultaneously in Mycological Research and Studies in Mycology (Crous et al., 2004a, b). It was envisaged as a freely available electronic depository system for taxonomic novelties in fungi (including lichens, oomycetes, other straminipiles, slime moulds, and yeasts). Since 2007, MycoBank has operated under the auspices of the International Mycological Association (IMA; www.IMA-mycology.org), and is directed by an international Scientific Advisory Board in regard to its terms of actions and policy. MycoBank presently contains three main elements:

A depository for nomenclatural novelties
 This system allows mycologists to deposit new names, be it names of new taxa or new combinations. It also requires some basic information, both nomenclatural (for example the basionym or type information) and taxonomical (e.g. a description). As soon as a name is deposited, the MycoBank system automatically e-mails a unique registration number to the depositor.
 Before the deposit is accepted, the MycoBank software checks the uniqueness of the name: there is an automatic search for existing homonyms, and the depositor will immediately be warned if an earlier homonym exists. After the deposit, MycoBank administrators check the correctness of the name (for example for the correct termination, or typing errors) and will make suggestions when appropriate. MycoBank never applies any censorship, and a depositor may deposit anything he or she wants. The final judgement lies with the journal editors and reviewers, where it belongs. The correspondence between MycoBank and the depositor remains strictly confidential.
 The deposited name is restricted until the name has actually been published; only in searches for homonyms may users be alerted to the existence of a name ‘in press’, but without any additional data, so neither the identity of the depositor nor the intended source of publication will be revealed. In some instances though (especially new combinations), potential authors have queried such names with MycoBank staff, who again contacted the primary depositor, leading to either cross references between two papers, or in some cases joint publications co-authored by all scientists involved.
 The search for homonyms is based on the Index Fungorum. CBS is (with CAB International and Landcare New Zealand) one of the three custodians of Index Fungorum, and has contributed more than 100,000 new records, additions and corrections, including all new registrations (when published). At the moment the versions of the CAB International site and MycoBank are not completely identical, but we hope to have a working web-based system that automatically updates the respective hubs shortly.
 The advantages of MycoBank over printed sources are obvious: (a) between 2004 and 2007, new names of fungi have been published in more than one hundred periodicals (excl. numerous books), and no indexing publication covers them all; (b) a time gap of up to 18 months between the publication of a new name and the listing in an index is not unusual; and (c) MycoBank allows the publication of additional data including descriptions, illustrations, DNA sequences, etc. Finally, MycoBank is a free service, and accessible from anywhere with internet access.
 The acceptance of MycoBank by the mycological community is best illustrated by the following data: in 2006, 870 out of 1710 novelties were registered through MycoBank (approx. 50%). In 2007, 1445 novelties were registered, which is approx. 85% of the total for that year. Further, during 2007, 95 mycologists completed questionnaires at major mycological meetings in Baton Rouge (U.S.A.), St. Petersburg (Russia), and Léon (Spain) in August–September 2007 where 73 (85% of those voting) were in favour of registration of names in MycoBank being made compulsory for valid publication (Hawksworth, 2007).
 In addition, the number of periodicals requiring MycoBank numbers as a prerequisite to acceptance for publication is increasing steadily. Judging from the sources of the total amount of newly published names in 2004, these periodicals already account for over 50% of the expected novelties, and these numbers are rapidly increasing. In fact, all leading mycological journals covering systematics in the ISI system (International Statistical Institute, Web of Knowledge) now require authors to deposit novelties in MycoBank, as does Taxon.

Additional taxonomic information
 Depositors of nomenclatural novelties are asked to deposit, in addition to a description and type information, as much other data as they feel appropriate or have available. This includes illustrations, molecular sequences, physiological data, links to web-based data, etc. Also, data on existing taxa can be deposited, provided full information is given as to the source of the data, and a number of scientists are constantly updating MycoBank to complete the information for certain groups of fungi, or geographical regions. MycoBank at the moment contains over 25,000 descriptions and 8,000 illustrations, all with full references to either the original publication or, in case of unpublished material, to its owner. MycoBank now actively seeeks collaboration with the managers of websites that contain authoritative information on fungi by providing cross-links directly to the information. These can be descriptions, illustrations, or literature.

The species bank concept
 MycoBank contains additional taxonomic information, for example heterotypic synonymy, and an opinion as to the correct name. However, this can not be done by the present curatorial staff alone. The mycological literature is simply too vast to monitor and judge all developments, and this task can only adequately be accomplished by (groups of) dedicated specialists. At the moment, MycoBank contains eight species banks, which each contains a number of species, usually belonging to a taxonomic unit such as a family or several families (Mycosphaerellaceae, resupinate Russulales), but sometimes one or several genera (Aspergillus-Penicillium), an ecological group (medical fungi), or morphological unit (yeasts).
 A species bank contains, besides rather complete sets of descriptions and illustrations and heterotypic synonymy, structured morphological and molecular data, allowing, for example, polyphasic identification. In the near future it will be possible to curate species banks on-line, and the IMA will actively stimulate individual researchers or research groups to adopt a larger fungal taxon in MycoBank. These specialists or groups of specialists will have full rights and control, and will have the final responsibility for taxonomic decisions. Simultaneously, a Wiki-type system is also to be provided, so that different taxonomic opinions can also be viewed.

Prospects
 The increasing acceptance of MycoBank by mycologists is a reason for confidence that the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature will make the deposit of new names of fungi in MycoBank a condition for valid publication at the next International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in 2011, subject to approval at the International Mycological Congress which will debate the issue in Edinburgh in 2010. As a consequence the mycological community has the prospect of names plus a minimum set of data available freely via the internet immediately once they are published.
 It is also feasible that, when the Index Fungorum has reached a very good coverage of the available names, the nomenclatural past will become a closed system by giving only those names the status of availability. That would end the current situation where the literature is a black box containing numerous previously unnoticed names or ones of uncertain application that are a threat to well-established names and a constant source of instability. This would allow a situation that the bacteriologists faced in 1980, but without the drawback of facing numerous taxa without an available name. Finally it is hoped that the possibility to adopt groups of fungi will be attractive to scientists, and that this will enhance MycoBank as a much-used reference source. New developments under consideration, such as linking species banks to strains, and DNA Barcodes, will undoubtedly add further to the usability of the system.

 References
Crous, P.W., Gams, W., Stalpers, J.A., Cannon, P.F., Kirk, P.M., David, J.C. & Triebel, D. 2004a. An online database of names and descriptions as an alternative to registration. Mycological Research, 108: 1236–1238.
Crous, P.W., Gams, W., Stalpers, J.A., Robert, V. & Stegehuis, G. 2004b. MycoBank: an online initiative to launch mycology into the 21st century. Studies in Mycology, 50: 19–22.
Hawksworth, D.L. 2007. Mycologists speak on nomenclatural issues. Mycological Research, 111: 1363–1364.

 

Registration of names: the bacteriological experience

Brian J. Tindall
Chairman, Judicial Commission of the International Committee on the Systematics of Prokaryotes, DSMZ, Inhoffenstrasse 7B, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany (e-mail: bti@dsmz.de)

 Prokaryote nomenclature is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Lapage et al., 1992), which like all Codes of nomenclature regulates nomenclature, requires the formal description of named taxa, and uses the principle of types. There are a number of similarities with the botanical Code (from which it was derived), but there are a number of significant and revolutionary differences that make the bacteriological Code one of the pioneering works that other Codes of nomenclature have yet to emulate or even appreciate in full.
 Like all nomenclatural systems dealing with the names of organisms, the bacteriological Code has had to deal with an increasing number of names of dubious value and a constant source of confusion (Skerman et al., 1980; Lapage et al., 1992; Sneath, 2005). However, during the 1960s a small group of bacteriologists laid the cornerstone of a system that has revolutionised prokaryote nomenclature and put it in the enviable position of being able to trace all names in use under the Code, as well as indicating which names are considered to be synonyms (Lapage et al., 1992; Sneath, 2005). The present system relies on two key features that were introduced during the 1970s.
 Firstly, it was decided to collect all known names of prokaryotes, and to evaluate them according to the existence of appropriate descriptions and adequate typification (Skerman et al., 1980; Lapage et al., 1992; Sneath, 2005). The goal was to draw up an accurate list of names that were to become the basis of a list of protected names (Approved Lists of Bacterial Names; Skerman et al., 1980), and to discard all names that did not fit the essential criteria of a modern code of nomenclature, i.e. an adequate description and typification. All names that did not conform to these criteria lost standing in nomenclature and, unlike the names on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, were not considered to be ‘validly published’. These names served as the starting point for the new nomenclature (1 January 1980), although it is important to emphasise that all names on that list make reference to the original authors and the dates of publication of those names. During the course of the compilation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, some 30,000 names were examined, and less than 2,500 names at the rank of class to subspecies were retained.
 Secondly, there seemed little point in creating the list of protected names if the Code were not to provide a mechanism by which the problems of the past were not to repeat themselves. The solution that was formulated consisted of checking that names conformed with the requirements of the bacteriological Code, i.e. are accompanied by a description and a type designation. Although the bacteriological Code refers to this process as ‘valid publication of a name’ it is significantly different from the equivalent term in the botanical Code. In order for a name to be validly published under the bacteriological Code it must conform to the rules of the Code, a formal act of registering Code compliant names. Contrary, to popular misinterpretations this does not include any form of censorship (Tindall et al., 2006).
 Thus, modern prokaryote nomenclature is based on a list of protected names (that cannot be replaced by earlier names), serving to secure a link with the past, and a continually growing list of new names that are officially registered, i.e. confirmed as being compliant with the Code. This system is unique, has operated since 1 January 1980, and has created a comprehensive, valuable system that serves as a goal that botany and zoology have yet to reach.
 The bacteriological Code has also adopted a traditional approach to the way names are registered (i.e. validly published), in the form of peer reviewed journal or monograph publication, with notification of registration being made via a single organ, the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology (now the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology), itself being in the hands of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology (now the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes). However, that traditional approach does not meet the requirements of a modern global community of bacteriologists. Relying on the printed word is no longer adequate, and increasing use is being made of the advantages that internet communication has to offer. In particular, the existence of expertly curated lists of names, with accurate reference to the date and authors of valid publication of the name, indication of the location of the description (and the appropriate experimental work), the location of the material that typifies species and subspecies, as well as indicating synonymies, provides a widely distributed global network of end users with rapid access to the critical elements of the taxonomic literature. Having such information available is equally valuable to those describing new taxa, those identifying existing taxa, and those who may only be interested in the nomenclature for other reasons, such as regulatory authorities. The most comprehensive list is that available at the ‘Lists of Prokaryote Names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN)’ (www.bacterio.cict.fr), and others that can be recommended are the ‘Taxonomic Outline of the Bacteria and Archaea (TOBA)’ (www. taxonomicoutline.org), and ‘Bacterial Nomenclature up-to-date’ www.dsmz.de/ microorganisms/bacterial_nomenclature.php.
 The International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM), published by the Society for General Microbiology, also provides an open access service to the original literature published in the pages of the journal (ijs.sgmjournals.org). This policy makes all publications available free of charge two years after the date of publication. The journal also participates in the WHO HINARI and UN (FAO) AGORA (access to scientific literature) programmes, allowing access without charge, to eligible institutions in World Bank List 1 countries, immediately on posting on the internet. All back issues of the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology and the International Bulletin of Bacteriological Nomenclature and Taxonomy (predecessors of the IJSEM) are now available online without charge. This gives access to all institutions now interested in these publications that have never subscribed to the original printed versions.
 The advantages of the current system should be obvious, providing access to even the casual users who would otherwise not have access. The availability of complete and accurate lists of names is of immeasurable importance, although probably not fully appreciated. To date, only virologists have come anywhere near to achieving a similar goal. The value of both the registration of names and the availability of those names in a modern form of communication puts the bacteriological Code at the forefront among the traditional Codes of nomenclature.

References
Lapage, S.P., Sneath, P.H.A., Lessel, E.F., Skerman, V.B.D., Seeliger, H.P.R. & Clark, W.A. (Eds.). 1992. International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 Revision). American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Skerman, V.B.D., McGowan, V. & Sneath P.H.A. (Eds.). 1980. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 30: 225–420.
Sneath, P.H.A. 2005. The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 55: 2047–2048.
Tindall, B.J., Kämpfer, P., Euzéby, J.P. & Oren, A. 2006. Valid publication of names of prokaryotes according to the rules of nomenclature: past history and current practice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 56: 2715–2720.

 

The Cultivated Plant experience

John C. David
Member of the IUBS Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants; Royal Horticultural Society, RHS Garden Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23 6QB, U.K. (e-mail: johndavid (at) rhs (dot) org (dot) uk)

 Uniquely among organisms, cultivated plants are covered by two Codes of nomenclature: the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) which deals with the genus, species, infraspecific ranks, and hybrids; and the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) which is applied to plants selected or used by people, and uses the categories of grex, group, and cultivar. The concept of registration for cultivated plants actually predates the first ICNCP, which was drawn up in 1952, and grew out of the need to record the names of new cultivars which are often only to be found in ephemeral literature such as nursery catalogues, seed lists and gardening magazines. Frequently these publications are imprecise in date or even undated, so there was a need to establish a system for determining priority. This was realised in a system of registration which was first proposed for cultivated plants during the International Horticultural Congress in 1930 which recommended the drawing up of lists of names for particular groups of plants. The first such lists included those for irises, tulips, delphinium, orchids, and daffodils. Many of the bodies that produced these lists are today still the official registration authorities. The first classified list of daffodil names was published by the RHS in 1908 and was 31 pages long, while in 1998 the Register was 1166 pages long and contained the names of over 26,000 cultivars.
 The present system of horticultural registration operates under the International Commission for Nomenclature and Cultivar Registration, which is a body constituted by the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS). The Commission is responsible for appointing and monitoring the International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs) of which there are currently over 70 worldwide and which are listed on the ISHS website (www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm). Registration is carried out by individuals (Registrars) on behalf of the ICRA, who receive applications to register new names from growers, hybridizers and nurserymen all over the world. They also scan literature (both recent and old) to build up a comprehensive listing of names in the group for which they are responsible. Such a group may be a single genus, species, or similar, but not closely related plants (such as bulbs) or a geographically defined group.
 Under the ICNCP, registration is defined as ‘The act of recording a new name or epithet with a registration authority.’ It is not a requirement for valid publication and is not mandatory for establishment of a new name. This has to be the case as the combined coverage by ICRAs is not universal and there are many plant groups for which there is no registrar. While the concept of priority is fundamental, a registrar has the authority to set this aside in certain circumstances and can even allow the re-use of a cultivar epithet for a different plant. The registrar is required to publish a full register from time to time and this can itself be a means of validating a name. In registering a new name, the registrar must check whether a proposed name has been used before and whether it meets the requirements of the current ICNCP. If the application fails, then the registrant is invited to re-submit the registration once the reasons for its failure have been addressed. Successful applications are generally recognised by a certificate as proof of registration.
 Although the system has been in place for over 50 years, the process does not enjoy the status and rigour of the scientific Codes of nomenclature. As pointed out earlier, it is entirely voluntary and there are no nomenclatural consequences for not registering a name; the system is not universal as there are horticulturally important groups that lack an ICRA and it is dependent upon the support of organisations to be willing to undertake registration activities. That said, some invaluable work has been carried out to document and make available comprehensive lists by some ICRAs – most notably but not exclusively for camellias, heathers, irises, syringas, and geraniums, as well as those produced by the RHS. It has been encouraging to see ICRAs starting up around the world, such as the Chinese Flower Association (Sweet Osmanthus Branch) and the American Brugmansia and Datura Society.
 The cultivated plant Code is much more affected by commercial concerns than other Codes, which means both statutory and legal issues can prevail over purely nomenclatural considerations. Its user group is diverse and not generally attuned to the niceties of rules for the correct naming of plants, especially when they get in the way of making a living. A registrar therefore has to be flexible and as helpful as possible when dealing with plant naming problems.
 In registration, the commercial requirements can conflict with nomenclatural rules in relation to Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBRs) and selling names, or ‘Trade Designations’ to give them their more formal term. PBRs provide a system for protecting new cultivated varieties of plants by an intellectual property right which is established by an International Convention and operates through an international body (UPOV). There are national statutory plant registration authorities that register PBRs, and once granted a PBR is legally enforceable. As a consequence the cultivated plant Code has ruled that a PBR name takes priority over any existing name. Since a statutory plant registration authority is not required to check whether a proposed name has already been registered with an ICRA, registrars must make themselves aware of any proposed PBRs. However, a PBR is geographically limited and is not permanent so can lapse if the registrant decides not to renew the application, although it will still retain its priority under the ICNCP.
 ‘Selling names’ arise when names are needed to sell the plants and the cultivar name is not thought appropriate. These can vary from country to country, and a ‘selling name’ may be a translation or transliteration of the correct cultivar name into the language of the country where it is being sold. ‘Selling names’ are not governed by the ICNCP, although a registrar does need to be aware of the application of selling names when considering the registration of cultivars. The use of trademarks to protect plant names is another complication as the rules for these vary according to national legislation and are not always well understood by nurserymen.
 For horticulture, while registration by ICRAs has provided the basis for stabilisation of nomenclature for the reasons explored above, it still has some way to go before it can be said to fully address the needs of all its users. Looking ahead, future developments should include greater harmonisation between ICRA registration and UPOV (PBRs); encouragement of registration by making it easier to effect (such as registration online) and to devise a system for logging cultivar names for groups not covered by an ICRA. All these opportunities are being explored and, building on the solid work of the registrars to date, it will be possible to bring about a more comprehensive and widely supported system of registration for cultivated plants.

 

The vision for zoology: ZooBank

Andrew Polaszek
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 2004–2007; Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: a.polaszek@nhm.ac.uk)

 ZooBank was originally conceived as an open-access register for all scientific names of animals, new and retrospective, back to 1758, and formally proposed by 29 internationally acclaimed zoologists in 2005 (Polaszek et al., 2005). The first version of ZooBank, with 1.6 million animal names, was provided by Zoological Record  (Thomson Zoological Ltd) in August 2006, and provided a popular online service until late 2007. At that point in its development, discussions between ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the initiators of ZooBank), Thomson Zoological, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG; currently Biodiversity Information Standards) resulted in the transfer of responsibility for the development of ZooBank to Commissioner Richard Pyle at the Bishop Museum, Hawaii, where it is currently based.
 Registration of animal names and nomenclatural acts with ZooBank will undoubtedly increase the rate and ease of description of the planet’s animal biodiversity, by facilitating access to novel and retrospective zootaxonomic data. Adopting the Gen- Bank model, where publishers of scientific papers require authors to provide universally accessible data (molecular in the case of GenBank, nomenclatural and taxonomic in the case of ZooBank), will eventually result in a mandatory registration system for the scientific names of animals, ensuring the universal visibility of the scientific names of animals and all nomenclatural acts in zoology. The two crucial differences between GenBank and ZooBank are: (a) the eventual mandatory requirement for registration with ZooBank under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; and (b) that the primary stakeholders in ZooBank are expert zootaxonomists.
 Why is ZooBank vital for the future of animal taxonomy, and hence all animal biodiversity studies? A primary requirement for facilitating biodiversity studies is to increase the visibility of taxonomic and nomenclatural acts. Many of these are effectively ‘hidden’ in thousands of journals and other publications, many extremely difficult to obtain. With ZooBank, taxonomic data will not only be freely available, but an alerting service using RSS feeds will also be provided for those taxa of interest to the user.
 The idea of a mandatory registration system implemented via ICZN may, for some, have authoritarian overtones. However, the opposite is actually true. The universal visibility of and access to all animal names and nomenclatural acts will effectively open up, democratise and make available the fundamental and inclusive support system for biodiversity studies – animal taxonomy. In order to achieve completeness of the ZooBank resource, integrating registration of new names with retrospective registration of all animal names back to 1758, the mandatory aspect is crucial. In this way, ZooBank will become a primary source of authoritative animal names and data. To give a medically important example, the primary causative organism of the disease giardiasis is the protozoan Giardia lamblia. The primary database of organism names, Zoological Record, contains seven variant spellings of the species name: lablia, lambia, lambila, lambla, lamblia, lambllia, and lamlia, without any indication of which is correct. This example makes very obvious the need for a central, authoritative source of taxonomic information.
 The establishment of ZooBank provides an opportunity to introduce unprecedented stability into zoological nomenclature by, among other things: automatic checking for code-compliance; prevention of homonymy; stabilisation of spelling; fixing of genders and stems; stability in gender agreement; and quality control.
 The current Code permits certain descriptions or other taxonomic acts that actually run against its main principles, for example the description of new taxa in the absence of type specimens runs directly counter to the Principle of Typification. This provision is of course essential for endangered or otherwise illegal, unethical, or impossible to collect species, but in its present hazy form requires some simple additional legislation by the community acting through the Commission to prevent future problems and possible abuses. There is a growing concern – to some extent connected to the previous provision – about the auctioning or otherwise selling of ‘naming rights’, for which some intervention by the Code is also required. However, the most important change needed to the present zoological Code concerns publication criteria. Currently, the Code does not permit electronic-only publication, and this is, and will increasingly become, a problem, as journals quite understandably reduce their hard-copy output and move towards online-only publication. While online only taxonomy may be highly desirable, and the logical next step, without a mandatory registration system that both facilitates and regulates the process chaos will result.
 Registration in ZooBank is envisaged as a relatively straightforward task, with an online proforma requiring all the data available for code-compliance and prevention of a large proportion of future nomenclatural problems requiring Commission intervention. Both primary and third party registration will have to be permitted, and there will be important differences between pre- and post-publication registration, with a holding period in the pre-publication scenario where the as-yet unpublished names are protected. Built-in spell-checks will detect homonyms and enable the correction of gender agreement, while drop-downs will greatly facilitate the process, for example with very frequently-cited historical literature. Links to exact copies of original descriptions and figures, and no limit to the amount of data (e.g. figures, gene sequences) associated with new descriptions will be made via Morphbank, GenBank and other universally accessible free resources. This will lead in many cases to inevitable problems over authors’ and publishers’ copyright, heralding a radical but essential change in attitude towards copyright in animal systematics and eventually further afield. Above all, in order to succeed, registration with ZooBank must be straightforward, it must be free, and the resulting data must be freely, universally accessible.
 There are still many unknown factors in the development of ZooBank. The last experience in botany was ultimately unsuccessful, but perhaps because it was premature. To date (2007) we have had 2½ years of public discussion and debate, especially facilitated by e-mail discussion lists, wikis, and emerging projects such as CATE, and EDIT. GBIF and TDWG are currently taking an active role in these activities. Through animal taxonomists working together openly we can show that mandatory name registration is neither authoritarian nor imperialistic, but is actually both authoritative and democratic. Clearly additional resources will be required, and some high-profile groups need to be showcased successfully in the very near future, but the spirit of cooperation that has led to ICZN Code adherence being one of the best examples of international scientific cooperation will ensure the success of ZooBank.

Reference
Polaszek, A. et al. 2005. A universal register for animal names. Nature, 437: 477.

 

The debate

 The Chairman for the evening session, Richard Fortey (Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, London), reminded all of the content of the earlier presentations and explained that he would begin by asking for a preliminary vote on the motion ‘The registration of new names of organisms should be compulsory’, and that there would be a final vote after the debate.
 The Proposer, John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh), reviewed the afternoon’s presentations and the different ways in which registration of new names was being dealt with by the different Codes. He stressed that the present proposal dealt only with new names, and would not replace existing systems but support them and the accompanying indexing systems. He considered the financial implications of possible cuts to funding for maintaining indexes if registration of names is not seen as mandatory, and went on to discuss some of the obstacles met by earlier schemes before the current global network was in place providing new solutions to these. He concluded by stressing that any registration system should be: (a) easy; (b) accessible; and (c) community based.
 The Opposer, Alain Dubois (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris), considered the taxonomic impediment of naming all new organisms, the geographical distribution of papers on new taxa and their authors, stressing the differences between the contributions from the countries of the ‘North’ and those of the ‘South’, together with their differing levels of information technology (IT) access, the threats to IT, and available access to the older literature supporting taxonomy. All these create major problems for those working in such regions. He also drew attention to the present unbalance in ZooBank geographical representation. He considered that the key solutions to stabilising names were the monographic publications featuring major revisions, but these would often be traditional paper publications with low impact factors. The support provided for them by subscriptions, and exchanges within the academic community, was essential if they were to survive in the face of growing competition from consortium or package sales for access to commercial online journals. He feared that mandatory registration, assuming it could be implemented and regulated, could lead to the loss and abandoning of paper copies, divisions among the biological community, and waste of energy and time in activities such as those proposed by supporters of the PhyloCode. The 250th anniversary of the 10th edition of Systema Naturae should not be used as an excuse to impose new systems, but instead ICZN should just add ZooBank as an additional tier to the existing nomenclature procedures and see what happens over time.
 Contributions from the floor were made by speakers from the afternoon session, together with George Garrity, Sandra Knapp, Rafael Govaerts, Suzanne Walker and others. Votes cast before and after the debate were as follows:

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total voting
Before	42	19	2	63
After	38	24	1	63

 The motion was therefore passed, but not by an overwhelming majority of those present.

Acknowledgements
The systematics debates of the Linnean Society of London are supported by the North of England Zoological Society, Chester. The summary of the debate is based on that placed on the web page of the Linnean Society of London, whose content is used with permission.

 

 

Proposed corrections to the entries on the Official Lists and Indexes for five family-group names, five genus-group names and one speciesgroup name (Mollusca)

Dietrich Kadolsky
66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 0BA, U.K. (e-mail: kadolsky@btsgeo.com)

Abstract. The purpose of this proposal is to correct entries to authorship, date of publication and, in some cases, status of family, genus and species-group names already placed on their respective Official Lists or Indexes.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Bivalvia; ACERIDAE; AKERIDAE; BITHYNIIDAE; HYDROBIIDAE; MARGARITIFERIDAE; Acera; Akera; Balcis; Eucampe; Margaritifera; Ocenebra; Eucampe donovani; Akera bullata; gastropods; bivalves.

 

 Several entries of Molluscan names made on the Official Lists and Indexes were found to contain errors, which are here proposed to be corrected. None of the proposed corrections results in the change of the valid name for a taxon, but will honour the published data and the Code. The intended effects of the relevant Opinions are not negated.
 A discussion of nomenclatural aspects of three works precedes the listing of proposed corrections, in order to avoid identical comments under several of the names here treated.

(1) Leach, W.E. (with contributions by Gray, J.E.). Oct. 1847. The classification of the British Mollusca. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1) 20 (133): 267–273. [published posthumously by Gray, J.E.]
 Four Opinions treated names proposed in this work, but attributed authorship inconsistently, viz. to ‘Gray, 1847’ in Opinions 539 and 886; to ‘Leach in Gray, 1847’ in Opinion 1739; to ‘Leach, 1847’ in Opinion 1942. It is here proposed to attribute all names made available in the work in question to Leach, 1847. The divergence of opinion came about by the fact that this work was published posthumously by Gray, who edited it and for which he wrote a preface. The history of Leach’s posthumous works is described by Gray (in Leach, 1847 and 1852), and Gianuzzi-Savelli & Gentry, 1990.
 The posthumous works of Leach were: (1) ‘The classification of the British Mollusca’, a checklist of names without any descriptions, which was completed in 1818; Gray in Leach (1847) mentions also an 1816 version; (2) The ‘Synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain’, containing descriptions and figures of many species, was partly printed in 1819 or 1820 and proofsheets distributed to several interested naturalists. This act does not constitute publication for nomenclatural purposes (Article 9.3 of the Code), but resulted in Leach’s unpublished names becoming widely known. Likewise, copies of the ‘Classification’ were available to several naturalists. Furthermore, Leach’s collection was available to Gray (Gray in Turton, 1840, p. 1) and others. Gray (in Leach, 1847, p. 268) believed that Leach’s names were already available from 1818 due to Leach distributing his ‘Classification’ to others. Nonetheless Gray undertook to publish Leach’s checklist, probably out of the realisation that it had not yet been properly published. Gray added an available species-group name to some of Leach’s names and thereby involuntarily helped these become available, insofar as they had not been made available earlier by other authors. Although it may seem that Gray was responsible for the availability of some of Leach’s names, and is therefore their author, he actually acted only as an editor: the information required to identify Leach’s names originated necessarily from Leach’s manuscripts and collection. Gray refrained from statements on the validity of Leach’s names, but Gray’s own near-simultaneously published paper (Gray, 1847) shows that he considered some of them as junior synonyms. Amongst the four genus-group names discussed here, three are so treated: Haminaea, Eucampe and Ocenebra (Gray, 1847, nos. 307, 303, 10), as is the species-group name Eucampe donovani. It is thus evident that he treated the Leach’s 1847 paper as a representation of Leach’s work alone, without any intention to express his own views on the validity of Leach’s names.

(2) Schumacher, C.F. 1815 (‘1816’). Afhandling over conchyliologiske Systemer, og om nogle toskallende Conchylier. Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og dets Medlemmers Arbeider i de sidst to Aar, [1813–1815]: 7.
 The publication date of Schumacher’s work is usually given as 1816, but according to Gosch (1878, p. 217) it was already published in 1815. Gosch did not cite specific evidence for the 1815 publication date, but his ‘Overview of Danish zoological literature’ is a credibly detailed and comprehensive account. Inspection of the periodical resulted in several observations consistent with an early publication date. It is proposed to accept the 1815 date on the basis of Gosch’s statement and the following indications:
 (1) Schumacher’s brief article was published on p. 7 in an ‘Overview of the transactions of the Royal Danish Science Society, and of the works of its members in the last two years, by Prof. Örsted, Knight of the Dannebrog, Secretary of the Society’. The volume does not bear a number, and a publication date of 1816 is only given on its last page (p. 42). The next issue of the same periodical reports on the works of the members of the Society from 1 November 1815 to 31 May 1816, and bears also a publication date of 1816 on the last page (p. 30). This confirms Gosch’s statement that the ‘last two years’ in the title of the first issue refer to 1813–1815, or more precisely to a 2 year period ending before 1 November 1815. The reporting periods in subsequent issues of this periodical usually ended on 31 May, so this may hold true also for the 1813–1815 issue. Publication within the remainder of 1815 would then be well within the reach of contemporaneous printing capabilities.
 (2) The latest date mentioned in the texts is 1814 (pp. 5, 6, 9, 30).
 (3) The 1815–1816 issue contains 30 pages, while the 1813–1815 issue contains 42 pages, of which the content of the first 30 pages only corresponds to the title, the remainder being an announcement of prizes for the solution of certain scientific questions, for which submissions had to be made by December 1816. Such announcements should have been published well in advance of the deadline, thus publication in 1815 seems to be a reasonable assumption. It is also conceivable that pp. 31–42 (which alone bear the printed date 1816) were published later than pp. 1–30 (i.e. the latter in 1815, and the former in early 1816), or that the date of 1816 was printed as the anticipated publication date, be it for the entire volume or only for pp. 31–42, whereas publication was already achieved in 1815.
 To avoid confusion it may be mentioned that Schumacher’s article was reprinted almost literally on p. vi of an overview of the works of the Society’s members from ‘1814 to 1822’ (but the volume actually refers to the period ending 31 May 1824 (p. xxxvi)).

(3) Troschel, F.H. 1856–1863. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begründung einer natürlichen Classification untersucht, 1. Livr. 1: 1–72, pls. 1–4 (1856); livr. 2: 73–112, pls. 5–8 (1857); livr. 3: 113–152, pls. 9–12 (1858); livr. 4: 153–196, pls. 13–16 (1861); livr. 5: i–viii, 197–252, pls. 17–20 (1863). Nicolai, Berlin.
 Troschel, throughout his work (1856–1863), used the endings –IDAE or –ACEA for family group names, the rank of which he stated as such. The rank of the name ‘HYDROBIAE’ and of several other suprageneric units with similarly formed names on pp. 95–129 is not given. The reason for this different treatment is explained on pp. 94–95 (see Bouchet et al. 2005 (p. 6) for a translation from German and further discussion): Troschel was unsure about the familial classification of certain genera, and therefore decided to ‘discuss the genera in small groups, without wishing to assign to them the value [= status] of families.’ Therefore, the names so formed are treated as temporary references (Article 1.3.5 of the Code) which are unavailable for nomenclatural purposes. Alternatively, these group names could perhaps be interpreted as of subfamily or tribe rank, which would then have been proposed without a family assignment. This interpretation is not followed here, as Troschel did not recognise tribes or subfamilies; he merely grouped genera with similar radula characters, without coming to a conclusion on the taxonomic significance of these characters.

Family-group names

 The following five family-group names are cited in the Official Index of the Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:

ACERIDAE Odhner, 1907 (p. 350)
 The name was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959).
 In Opinion 539, the name was rejected as an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of AKERIDAE Pilsbry, 1893.
 Proposed correction of authorship: de Kay, 1843, p. 14.
 Proposed correction of the statement: The statement should be changed from ‘Erroneous Subsequent Spelling’ to an ‘Unjustified Emendation’ of AKERIDAE Sander- Rang, 1829 by de Kay, 1843, p. 14. Prior to Odhner, 1907, the spelling ACERIDAE had also been used by Mazzarelli, 1891 (p. 243).

AKERIDAE Pilsbry, 1893 (p. 350)
 The name was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959).
 Proposed correction of authorship: AKERIDAE Sander-Rang, 1829 (p. 146).
 The actual publication date of Pilsbry’s work is 1895. Bouchet & Rocroi, 2001 (pp. 171–172) proposed to change the authorship in the Official List entry to Mazzarelli, 1891 (p. 243, as family ACERIDAE). However, in the period 1822 to 1847 numerous uses of a family name based on Akera Müller, 1776 or its unjustified emendation Acera Cuvier, 1810 exist. Bouchet & Rocroi (2001, 2005) regard these as descriptive terms not based on an available generic name, but the relevant publications show clearly that it is derived from the generic name Akera Müller, 1776. Analysis of the nomenclatural status is made difficult by incorrect statements and, in terms of the current Code, illegal actions of several authors, as will be discussed below.
 Sander-Rang (1829) proposed the family name as ‘2e. famille. Les Acères, Cuv. Bulléens, Lam. [Lamarck]. Acérés, Lat. [Latreille].’ Included genera are ‘Acère, akera Cuv.’, ‘Bulle, bulla Lin.’, Gasteropteron Meckel, 1809 and ‘Sormetus Adanson’ [= Somertus Férussac, 1822]. The genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 is divided into the subgenera ‘Bulles proprement dites’ and ‘Bullées’ [Bullaea Lamarck, 1801]. Sander- Rang apparently did not accept the family name Les Bulléens Lamarck (1819) (actually attributable to Rafinesque, 1815, see discussion by Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005 (p. 40)) because he subordinated the type genus Bullaea Lamarck, 1801 as a subgenus of Bulla Linnaeus, 1758. Bullaea is a junior subjective synonym of Philine Ascanius, 1772. It is not confamilial with Akera Müller, 1776, but belongs to the family PHILINIDAE Gray, 1850 (1815). Sander-Rang (1829) and most contemporaneous authors attributed the family-group name incorrectly to Cuvier, but Cuvier (1810, 1817) treated ‘les Acères’ as a genus and, moreover, attributed the authorship of this genus to Müller, 1776. For further details see the discussion below under the genusgroup name Acera. The first author to give family rank to ‘les Acères’ is Férussac, 1822 (p. 30), who introduced the name as ‘2e Famille. Les Acères, Cuv. Akera, Muller.’ The quotation of a genus-group name as synonym of a family group name is incorrect, but it demonstrates that Férussac’s family name is indeed based on Akera Müller and is not an invented descriptive term. The family name is not available from this publication, because Férussac did not treat Akera Müller, 1776 as a valid genus group name: he listed its type species, A. bullata Müller, 1776, in this family in the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (incorrectly cited as ‘Bulla Lamarck’) under the name of its objective synonym Bulla akera Gmelin, 1791; Akera s. str. sensu Cuvier is cited as a synonym of Doridium Meckel, 1809. Subsequent authors before Sander-Rang, 1829, did not make the family-group name available for the same reason: Latreille, 1824 (table, as Acères); Latreille, 1825 (p. 177, as Acérés); Blainville, 1825 (p. 476, as Acères, Akera); Risso, 1826 (p. 48, as ‘les Acères Cuv.’); Menke, 1828 (p. 6, as Acerae). Sander-Rang, 1829, attributed the genus name Akera incorrectly to Cuvier, despite the latter’s (1810 (as acera), 1817 (as Akera)) unequivocal reference to Müller, 1776. Sander-Rang’s statement: ‘Une seule espèce, l’A. carnosa, de la Méditerranée a servi à l’établissement de ce genre dont M. Cuvier a fait connaître l’organisation . . .’ is incorrect, as Cuvier’s reference (1810, 1817) to Müller shows he did not ‘establish’ the genus. Instead, he defined a subgenus ‘Acères proprement dites’ (1810) with ‘Bulla’ carnosa Cuvier, 1810 as only included species; in the genus ‘Acera’, Cuvier (1810, 1817) included as other subgenera Bulla Linnaeus (sensu Lamarck) and Bullaea Lamarck with several named species. Cuvier’s restriction of Akera s. str. to the group exemplified by ‘Bulla’ carnosa Cuvier 1810 [= Aglaja depicta Renier, [1807]] pays no regard to the type species of Akera Müller, which falls into the genus or subgenus Bulla as understood at the time. The valid name for the taxon named Akera s. str. by Cuvier, Sander-Rang and their contemporaries is Aglaja Renier, 1807, of which Doridium Meckel, 1809 is a subjective synonym. This was already recognised by Cuvier, 1817 who cited Doridium Meckel, 1809 in synonymy of Akera s. str. Opinion 1079 (BZN 34: 16–20, July 1977) confirmed the valid name for this taxon as Aglaja Renier, [1807].
 The fact that the family-group name AKERIDAE Sander-Rang, 1829 is based on a misidentified type genus is no obstacle to using it in the taxonomic sense determined by the correctly interpreted type genus. Article 65.2.1 stipulates that such cases should be referred to the Commission if stability or universality is threatened, or confusion is likely to be caused. This is not the case here; consequently the Commission is merely asked to correct the authorship and date of the family group name AKERIDAE.
 Sander-Rang, 1829 used only a vernacular term, but Article 11.7.2 concerning family-group names originally introduced as vernacular names is considered as satisfied, as the name became accepted by most authors of the time who discussed the taxa in question, and was latinised several times (see below). It should be noted that Article 11.7.2 requires such names, inter alia, to be generally accepted as dating from their first publication in vernacular form. The latter condition is here regarded as implicitly fulfilled, because Sander-Rang (1829) as well as subsequent authors attributed the name to Cuvier. Although this is incorrect, it shows that all authors referred to the same taxon, viz. Akera sensu Cuvier. Note that the word ‘Acera’ or ‘Akera’ is a word in a Greek plural form (Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code), if this spelling was used as a family-group name, but as a genus-group name it is a word in the singular, treated as a Latin feminine noun despite its derivation from the Greek.
 Between 1829 and 1847, the family name AKERIDAE was used, for example, by Deshayes, 1830 (p. 553, as ACERA); Menke, 1830 (p. 12, as ACERA (Acères, Cuv.)); Potiez & Michaud, 1838 (p. 57, as les Acères Müll. Cuv.); de Kay, 1843 (p. 14, as ACERIDAE), Nyst, 1845 (p. 450, as ‘les Acères Cuv.’), Herrmannsen, 1846 (pp. 8–9, as ACERA Férussac and ACERAE Menke), and Gray et al. 1846 (p. i, as ACERA). Thereafter, the name AKERIDAE and its spelling variants fell into disuse, possibly because of Gray’s (1847) actions: he placed Akera Müller into BULLIDAE: BULLINAE, and reinstated Doridium Meckel, 1809 with the synonym ‘Acera Cuvier 1817, Lamarck 1822’ [meaning Akera Müller sensu Cuvier 1817 and sensu Lamarck 1822] in BULLIDAE: DORIDIINAE. Not before the anatomical studies of Mazzarelli (1891) was the genus Akera separated from the family BULLIDAE. The nomenclatural status of Doridium Meckel, 1809 and DORIDIINAE Gray 1847 was settled in Opinion 1079 (1977), whereby these two names were suppressed in favour of Aglaja Renier, [1807] and AGLAJIDAE Pilsbry, 1895.

BITHYNIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (p. 101)
 The name was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Opinion 1664, BZN 49: 78–80, March, 1992):
 Proposed correction of authorship: Gray in Turton, 1857 (p. 24).
 The authorship of the name BITHYNIIDAE was originally recorded (Opinion 475, Opinions and Declarations 16: 307–330, July 1957 (p. 312)) as of Gray, 1857, but then changed to Troschel, 1857, for priority reasons. Troschel’s name ‘Bythiniae’ was intended as a temporary reference which is not available for nomenclatural purposes (Article 1.3.5 of the Code); see discussion by Bouchet et al. 2005 (pp. 6, 37), and above. BITHINIADAE Gray in Turton, 1857 is an incorrect original spelling which was placed on the Index in Opinion 475.

HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (p. 106)
 The name was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Opinion 2034, BZN 60: 152–154, July 2003).
 Proposed correction of authorship: Stimpson, 1865 [a] (p. 52).
 See discussion of Troschel’s names by Bouchet et al. 2005 (pp. 6, 37), and above. The name HYDROBIINAE was made available by Stimpson, 25 Feb 1865 [a] (p. 52) under Article 12.2.4 of the Code, although it appears only in the title of his paper, in which the HYDROBIINAE are classified as a subfamily of the RISSOIDAE. The type genus is only referenced in the stem of the name HYDROBIINAE, but this procedure satisfies the criteria of availability (Article 11.7.1.1 (examples)). Stimpson (August 1865 [b] (pp. 4, 5)) provided a more extensive treatment, including a diagnosis, of the nominal subfamily HYDROBIINAE.

MARGARITIFERIDAE Haas, 1940
 The name was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Opinion 495, Opinions and Declarations 17: 287–322, December 1957).
 Proposed correction of authorship: Henderson, 1929 (1910) (p. 53).
 Henderson (1929) replaced MARGARITANIDAE Ortmann, 1910 with MARGARITIFERIDAE due to the replacement of the name of the type genus Margaritana Schumacher, 1817 with its objective synonym Margaritifera Schumacher, [1815] (‘1816’). According to Article 40.2.1 of the Code, the replacing family-group name takes the date of the replaced name as its date of availability, which should be cited in brackets together with the replacement date (Recommendation 40A).

Genus-group names

 The following five generic names are cited in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

 Acera Agassiz, 1846 (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959); Acera Agassiz, 1848 (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959); Acera Cuvier, 1810 (Opinion 1079, BZN 34: 16–20, February 1977); Acera Lamarck, 1812 (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959); Acera Rafinesque, 1815 (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959).
 Proposed corrections: Acera Cuvier, 1810 (corrected page reference: pp. 11, 16), with an added comment that the name is suppressed as an unjustified emendation of Akera Müller, 1776. All other entries of ‘Acera’ should be deleted.
 In Opinion 539, the genus-group name Acera has been placed on the Official Index four times as an ‘Invalid Emendation’ of Akera O.F. Müller, 1776. This was based on the suggestion made in the original application (Lemche, 1957) that the unjustified emendation ‘Acera’ has been introduced independently in the four works quoted. However, Lamarck, 1812 (p. 114) referred implicitly to Acera [sensu] Cuvier, and he used only the vernacular term ‘Acère’ which is not subject to the provisions of the Code. Rafinesque (1815, p. 142) also referred to ‘Acera Cuvier’ which he cited as a synonym of his new genus Agenor Rafinesque, 1815. In the case of Agassiz’s works (1846, 1848), Lemche’s conclusion was only based on the absence of express references to earlier publications of the spelling Acera, and in any case the 1848 usage is not proposed independently of the 1846 usage by the same author.
 The earliest use of the spelling Acera instead of Akera was by Cuvier, 1810. The name Acera Cuvier, 1810 was suppressed in Opinion 1079 as a junior subjective synonym of Aglaja Renier, [1807], as if Cuvier had introduced a new genus independent of Müller’s Akera. It is argued here that Cuvier merely misapplied the name Akera Müller, 1776. Cuvier, 1810, treated ‘les Acères’ as the genus originally proposed by Müller (Akera, 1776): ‘Je réunis sous le nom générique d’acères, imaginé par Müller, des animaux assez disparates au premier coup d’oeil, quoiqu’ils se ressemblent par tous les caractères essentiels. . .’. Analysis of the text shows that he included three subgenera, viz. ‘bulle Lamarck’ [= Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 as restricted by Lamarck], ‘bullée’ [= Bullaea Lamarck, 1801] and ‘les acères proprement dites’. A single species is included in the last group, Bulla carnosa Cuvier 1810 (p. 10, pl. 1 figs. 15–20); this species is also referred to as acera carnosa on p. 11, and as acera without a species epithet on p. 16. The type species (by monotypy) of Akera Müller, A. bullata Müller, 1776, is referenced on p. 3 without quoting the species epithet. It would belong to Bulla as understood by Cuvier. Cuvier’s attribution of the only nominal species of his ‘acères proprement dites’ to Bulla defies explanation and can only be regarded as an error. As Cuvier, 1810, used the spelling Acera intentionally rather than erroneously, the name Acera Cuvier, 1810 is an unjustified emendation of Akera Müller, 1776. This conclusion is based on the fact that Cuvier quoted Müller’s name correctly with a ‘k’, (p. 3), and the spelling with ‘c’ is consistent with the vernacular ‘acère’.
 This interpretation of Cuvier’s 1810 text is consistent with Cuvier’s 1817 (pp. 398–401) presentation. Here he quoted the genus name ‘Les Acères (Akera Müller)’ and mentioned again the three species groups ‘bulle’, ‘bullée’ and ‘acères proprement dites’. Doridium Meckel, 1809 was quoted as a new synonym of the latter group. Akera bullata Müller was explicitly included in Bulla.

Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847
 The name was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 1739, BZN 50(3): 242–243, September 1993).
 Proposed correction of authorship: Leach, 1847 (see above).
 The name of the type species of Balcis was recorded as Balcis montagui Leach in Gray, 1847. The authorship of this name should also be changed to Leach, 1847. The name Balcis montagui was not placed on any Official List because it is regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778.

Eucampe Gray, 1847
 The name was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 539, Opinions and Declarations 20: 65–76, February 1959).
 Proposed correction of authorship: Leach, 1847 (see above).

Margaritifera Schumacher, 1816
 The name was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 495, Opinions and Declarations 17: 287–322, December 1957).
 Proposed correction of date to: Schumacher, [1815] (‘1816’) (p. 7).
 See discussion of the publication date above.
 Schumacher’s article was reprinted almost literally in 1824 (p. xxxvi). The name Margaritifera [which was originally misspelt Margartifera] was now misspelt Margatifera. Neither has a nomenclatural standing, and the spelling was fixed in Opinion 495 as Margaritifera.

Ocenebra Gray, 1847
 The name was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 886, BZN 26(3): 128–132, October 1969).
 Proposed correction of authorship: Leach, 1847 (see above).

Species-group names

 The following species-group name is cited in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology:

Eucampe donovani Gray, 1847
 The name was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 539, BZN 20: 65–76, February 1959).
 Proposed correction of authorship: Leach, 1847 (see above).

References
Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis continens nomina systematica classium, ordinum, familiarum et generum animalium omnium, tam viventium quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymis plantarum, nec non adnotationibus et emendationibus. viii, 393 pp. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri.
Agassiz, L. 1848. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, continens nomina systematica classium, ordinum, familiarum et generum animalium omnium, tam viventium quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymiis plantarum. XX, 1136 p. Soloduri.
Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1825. Manuel de malacologie et de conchyliologie. viii, 664 pp. Levrault, Paris. B
ouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. 2001. Correction of authorship and date for gastropod (Mollusca) family-group names placed on the Official List and Official Index. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58(3): 170–178.
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. (with contributions by Frýda, J. Hausdorf, B. Ponder, W. Valdès, A. & Warén, A.). 2005. Classification and nomenclator of Gastropod families. Malacologia, 47(1–2): 1–397.
Cuvier, G. 1810. Mémoire sur les Acères, ou Gastéropodes sans tentacules apparens. Annales du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle, 16(1): 1–18, pl. 1.
Cuvier, G. 1817. Le règne animal distribué d’après son organisation, pour servir de base à l’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction à l’anatomie comparée, 2. xviii, 532 pp. Deterville, Paris.
De Kay, J.E. 1843. Zoology of New-York, or the New-York fauna. Part V. Mollusca, 271 pp. 40 pls. Carroll & Cook, Albany, N.Y.
Deshayes, G.P. 1830–1831. Histoire naturelle des Vers, des Mollusques, des Coquillages et des Zoophytes. In: Encyclopédie méthodique, 2(1): 1–256, 1830; 2(2): 257–594, 1831; Paris.
Férussac, J.B.L.d. 1822. Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques [. . .]. Tableaux systématiques généraux de l’embranchement des mollusques, divisés en familles naturelles. in: Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. Livr. 14: 1–24 (16.2.1822); Livr. 15: 25–47 (13.4.1822) [Publication dates according to Kennard, 1942]. Paris.
Gianuzzi-Savelli, R. & Gentry, A. 1990 Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 57(4): 263–269.
Gosch, C.C.A. 1878. Udsigt over Danmarks zoologiske literatur med en indledende fremstilling af den videnskabelige grundsaetning for naturvidenskabens isaer zoologiens studium. 3. Literaturfortegnelse 1597–1875. VIII, 558 pp. Hoffensberg, Jespersen & Fr. Traps, Kjöbenhavn.
Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent mollusca, their synonyms and their types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15(179): 129–219 [post 9.11.1847].
Gray, J.E. Menke, C.T. & Strickland, H.E. 1846. Nomina systematica generum Molluscorum, tam viventium quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum disposita, adjectis autoribus, libris in quibus reperiuntur, anno editionis,etymologia et familiis ad quas pertinent. Auctore L. Agassiz, Hist. nat. in Acad. Neocom. professore, recognoverunt J.E. Gray, C.Th. Menke et H.E. Strickland. xiv, 98 pp. Soloduri.
Henderson, J. 1929. The non-marine Mollusca of Oregon and Washington. The University of Colorado Studies, 17(2): 47–190. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846–1847. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia, 1. 1.9.1846: I-XXVII, 1–104: 1.12.1846: 105–232; 1.3.1847: 233–360; 18.4.1847: 361–488; 25.5.1847: 489–616; 17.7.1847: 617–638. Theodor Fischer, Cassel.
Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 25(1, 3): 1: 12–17 (I.1942); 3: 105–118 (XII.1942).
Lamarck, J.B.P.A.d. 1812. Extrait du cours de zoologie du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle, sur les animaux sans vertèbres. 127 pp. d’Hautel, Gabon, Paris.
Lamarck, J.B.P.A.d. 1819–1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres . . . vol. 6(1) 343 pp. 1819; vol. 6(2) 232 pp. 1822. Lamarck, Paris.
Latreille, P.A. 1824. Esquisse d’une distribution générale des mollusques, d’après un ouvrage inédit, intitulé: Familles naturelles du règne animal, exposés succinctement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres. Annales des Sciences naturelles, 3(11): 317–335, 1 tb.
Latreille, P.A. 1825. Familles naturelles du règne animal exposés succinctement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres. 570 pp. Baillière, Paris.
Leach, W.E. (with contributions by Gray, J.E.). Oct. 1847. The classification of the British Mollusca. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1)20 (133): 267–273 [published posthumously by Gray, J.E.].
Leach W.E. (with contributions by Gray, J.E.) 1852. A synopsis of the mollusca of Great Britain, arranged according to their natural affinities and anatomical structure. xvi, 376 pp. 13 pl.; John van Voorst, London [published posthumously by Gray, J.E.].
Lemche, H. 1957. Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of securing that the name ‘bullata’ Müller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination ‘Akera bullata’, shall be the oldest available name for the species currently so known (class Gastropoda). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 13(1): 3–8.
Mazzarelli, G. 1891. Intorno all’apparato riproduttore di alcuni Tectibranchi. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 14: 233–243. Menke, C.T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium et specierum earum, quae in Museo Menkeano adservantur; cum synonymia critica et novarum specierum diagnosibus. 21, 91 pp. C.T. Menke, Pyrmont.
Menke, C.T. 1830. Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium et specierum earum, quae in Museo Menkeano adservantur; cum synonymia critica et novarum specierum diagnosibus. 16, 169 pp. Georg Uslar, Pyrmont.
Müller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indigenarum characteres, nomina, et synonyma a imprimis popularium. 32, 282 pp. Typis Hallageriis, Havniae.
Nyst, P.H. 1845 (‘1843’). Description des coquilles et des polypiers fossiles des terrains tertiaires de la Belgique. Mémoires couronnés & Mémoires des Savants étrangers de l’Académie royale de Belgique, 17: 1–697, pl. 1–15.
Opinion 475. 1957 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name ‘Bithynia’ Leach, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) and matters associated therewith. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 16(17): 307–330.
Opinion 539. 1959. Protection under the Plenary Powers of the specific name ‘bullata’ Müller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination ‘Akera bullata’ (class Gastropoda). Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 20(6): 65–75.
Opinion 886. 1969. Purpura Bruguière and Muricanthus Swainson (Gastropoda): designations of type species under the plenary powers with grant of precedence to Thaididae over Purpuridae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 26(3): 128–132.
Opinion 1079. 1977. Aglaja Renier, [1807], A. depicta Renier, [1807] and A. tricolorata Renier, [1807] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): rendered available under the Plenary Powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 34(1): 16–20 [VII. 1977].
Opinion 1664. 1992. Rissoidae Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): given precedence over Truncatellidae Gray, 1840. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 49(1): 78–80.
Opinion 1739. 1993. Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (currently Melanella (Balcis) alba; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 50(3): 242–243.
Opinion 1942. 2000 Haminoea [Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830 and Haminoeinae Pilsbry, 1895 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): placed on Official Lists as correct original spellings. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 57(1): 52–53.
Opinion 2034. 2003. Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821: conserved by replacement of the lectotype of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta; Mollusca, Gastropoda) with a neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977: Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 designated as the type species; and Hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera): spelling emended to Hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with Hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60(2): 152–154.
Ortmann, A.E. 1910. A new system of the Unionidae. Nautilus, 23 (9): 114–120.
Pilsbry, H.A. 1895. Manual of conchology; structural and systematic. With illustrations of the species. Ser. 1, 15: Polyplacophora [. . .]. Tectibranchiata. Part 60 (20.2.1895): 181–436, pl. 43–50, 59–61. Philadelphia.
Potiez, V.L.V. & Michaud. 1838. Galérie des mollusques, ou catalogue méthodique, descriptif et raisonné des mollusques et coquilles du Muséum de Douai., volume 1. 36, 564, 46 pp. 37 pl. J.-B. Baillière, Paris & Londres.
Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature, ou tableau de l’univers des corps organisés. 224 pp. Rafinesque, Palerme.
Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l’Europe méridionale et particulièrement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, volume 4. vii, 438 p. 12 pl. Levrault, Paris.
Sander-Rang, 1829. Manuel de l’histoire naturelle des mollusques et de leur coquilles, ayant pour base de classification celle de M. le baron Cuvier. iv, 390 pp. 8 pls. Roret, Paris.
Schumacher, C.F. 1815 (‘1816’). Afhandling over conchyliologiske Systemer, og om nogle toskallende Conchylier. Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og dets Medlemmers Arbeider i de sidst to Aar, [1813–1815]: 7.
Schumacher, C.F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau système des habitations des vers testacés. 287 pp., 22 pls. Schultz, Kopenhagen.
Schumacher, C.F. 1824 (‘1823’). Afhandling over conchyliologiske Systemer, og om nogle toskallende Conchylier.- Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og dets Medlemmers Arbeider fra 1814 til 1822. vi [post 31.5.1824, as it contains references to activities up to that date (p. xxxvi).].
Stimpson, W. 1865a. Diagnoses of the newly discovered genera of gasteropods, belonging to the sub-fam. Hydrobiinae, of the family Rissoidae. American Journal of Conchology, 1(1): 52–54, pl. 8.
Stimpson, W. 1865b. Researches upon the Hydrobiinae and allied form chiefly made upon materials in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 7(201): 1–57.
Troschel, F.H. 1856–1863. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begründung einer natürlichen Classification untersucht, 1. Livr. 1: 1–72, pl. 1–4 (1856); livr. 2: 73–112, pl. 5–8 (1857); livr. 3: 113–152, pl. 9–12 (1858); livr. 4: 153–196, pl. 13–16 (1861); livr. 5: i-viii, 197–252, pl. 17–20 (1863). Nicolai, Berlin.
Turton, W. (with contributions by Gray, J.E.). 1857. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, with figures of each of the kinds. New edition, with additions, by John Edward Gray. xvi, 335 pp. 12 pl. Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, London.