#Tabulo miris how to#
#Tabulo miris code#

#Tabulo miris code#

Similar lists, based on rules from two different editions of the Code ( ICZN 1985g, 1999a), have now been published in Dytiscidae ( Nilsson et al. The nomenclature of family-group names in Coleoptera did not receive much attention until the treatment of Geadephaga names by Madge (1989). More recent evidence suggests that available family-group names in some groups of animals other than Coleoptera (e.g., Chordata: Sauropsida) appeared in the late 18th Century (see Dubois and Bour 2010), even earlier than in Latreille (1802). Latreille (1797) was apparently the first to introduce the concept of family-level taxa (see Bock 1994: 244) but it is only a few years later ( Latreille 1802) that he proposed available names for these groupings, including several in the order Coleoptera. The great morphological diversity of beetles has led to the proliferation of suprageneric taxa at various ranks. 36.1) is still overlooked by some authors.Д¬oleoptera are currently the most species-rich group of organisms on this planet with approximately 360 000 described species ( Bouchard et al. Adding to further confusion and errors in the literature is the fact that the Principle of Coordination (Art. According to Recommendation 51A of the Code ( ICZN 1999a) вЂњThe original author and date of a name should be cited at least once in each work dealing with the taxon denoted by that name.вЂќ In addition to satisfying Recommendation 51A of the Code, citation of authorities of scientific names can also have a positive impact on modern world taxonomists ( Werner 2006 Agnarson and Kuntner 2007). Given the importance of family-group names in the scientific literature, it is rather surprising that still many authors do not cite the author or year of publication of those names correctly, or at all. We believe that such catalogues are especially important as the number of studies dealing with the higher relationships of major clades will continue to increase as new algorithms and data sets (e.g., molecular data) become available. Some of the reasons given by authors of these works for providing comprehensive lists of family-group names include avoiding the unnecessary proposal of new names, facilitating decisions on priority and promoting long-term stability of the classification. The most extensive treatments of animal family-group names to date are those of Diptera ( Sabrosky 1999) and Gastropoda ( Bouchet and Rocroi 2005) which covered names based on approximately 20 distinct type genera respectively. The contents (i.e., whether they include fossils or not) and presentation of the data (i.e., in a classification scheme, in chronological order or in alphabetic order) in those works vary greatly.

The last twenty five years has seen an increase in the number of studies on family-group names of entire groups in zoology (e.g., Е tys and Jansson 1988 for Hemiptera: Nepomorpha Bock 1994 for Aves McKenna and Bell 1997 for Mammalia Ferraris and de Pinna 1999 for Pisces: Siluriformes Sabrosky 1999 for Diptera Engel and Krishna 2004 for Isoptera Speidel and Naumann 2004 for Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea Bouchet and Rocroi 2005 for Gastropoda Engel 2005 for Hymenoptera: Apoidea Engel and Haas 2007 for Dermaptera Bouchet and Rocroi 2010 for Bivalvia).

Although many ranks have been used in the past for suprageneric names, only the following suffixes are currently regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ( ICZN 1999a): superfamily (вЂ“oidea), family (вЂ“idae), subfamily (вЂ“inae), tribe (вЂ“ini) and subtribe (вЂ“ina). The ending вЂ“idae was apparently first suggested by Kirby (1813) as a characteristic ending for names at the rank of family. The first authors inconsistently used a variety of endings (вЂ“ides, вЂ“ites, вЂ“ida, вЂ“i, вЂ“ide, etc.) for suprageneric divisions at various levels. The first family-group names based on the stem of their type genus appeared in zoological literature in the early 19th Century (see Sabrosky 1999).

#Tabulo miris how to#

Rules about how to treat family-group names, as determined by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have been an integral part of zoological nomenclature since the early 1900s (for a historical review of family-group names refer to Bock 1994). Akin to other scientific names such as species- and genus-group names, family-group names are extremely important in the exchange of information about the world we live in. The accurate use of scientific names in zoology is necessary to minimize nomenclatural instability and allow the maximal retrieval of scientific information from the ever increasing body of literature. Zoological nomenclature affects the work of all zoologists, yet only a minuscule fraction of one percent of zoologists deal directly with problems associated with scientific names of animals ( Bock 1994).