International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
The rules and recommendations have one fundamental aim: to provide the maximum universality and continuity in the naming of all animals, except where taxonomic judgment dictates otherwise.
The code is meant to guide only the nomenclature of animals, while leaving zoologists freedom in classifying new taxa.
[4] It is the most important principle—the fundamental guiding precept that preserves zoological nomenclature stability.
It was first formulated in 1842 by a committee appointed by the British Association to consider the rules of zoological nomenclature.
Examples: There are over 2 million junior synonyms recorded in zoology, primarily at the species level.
This is the principle that in cases of conflicts between simultaneously published divergent acts, the first subsequent author can decide which has precedence.
In such cases, the first subsequent author who deals with the matter and chooses and publishes the decision in the required manner is the first reviser, and is to be followed.
[7] Example: Linnaeus 1758 established Strix scandiaca and Strix noctua (Aves), for which he gave different descriptions and referred to different types, but both taxa later turned out to refer to the same species, the snowy owl.
Lönnberg 1931 acted as first reviser, cited both names and selected Strix scandiaca to have precedence.
Examples: Secondary homonyms occur when taxa with the same specific name but different original genera are later classified in the same genus (Art.
A secondary homonym may only be a temporary state, as it only applies so long as two species are congeneric.
Under a different classification, the two species may no longer be in the same genus, and the junior name can potentially be used again (Art.
This is one of the rare cases where a single zoological species can have two entirely different names at the same time, depending upon whose classification is followed.
Example: For disambiguating one genus-group name from its homonym, it is important to cite author and year.
The most evident shortcoming of this situation (for their use in biodiversity informatics) is that the same generic name can be used simultaneously for animals and plants.
Example: The type species for a genus-group name is more complicated and follows exactly defined provisions in articles 67–69.
Except in fishes and some minor groups, type species are rarely reliably recorded in online animal databases.
This is their order of legal importance, with approximate proportions of occurrence[note 2] and examples: A species-group name can have a name-bearing type specimen, but this is not a requirement.
If there is no common acceptance, there are provisions in the Code to fix a name-bearing type specimen that is binding for users of that name.
The names in the family, genus, and species groups are fully regulated by the provisions in the code.
Confusion over Latin grammar has led to many incorrectly formed names appearing in print.
[11][12] At the first and second International Zoological Congresses (Paris 1889, Moscow 1892) zoologists saw the need to establish commonly accepted international rules for all disciplines and countries to replace conventions and unwritten rules that varied across disciplines, countries, and languages.
[13] From then on, amendments and modifications were subsequently passed by various zoological congresses (Boston 1907, Graz 1910, Monaco 1913, Budapest 1927, Padua 1930, Paris 1948, Copenhagen 1953, and London 1958).
They soon sold out, and it became increasingly difficult to obtain to a complete set of the Rules with all amendments.
In 1958, an Editorial Committee in London elaborated a completely new version of the nomenclatural rules, which were finally published as the first edition of the ICZN Code on 9 November 1961.
These code editions were elaborated on by editorial committees[16] appointed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
However, its provisions can be interpreted, waived, or modified in their application to a particular case when strict adherence would cause confusion.
Such exceptions are not made by an individual scientist, no matter how well-respected within the field, but only by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of all zoologists.
