1,890 research outputs found

    Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the \u3ci\u3eInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature\u3c/i\u3e to Expand and Refine Methods of Publication

    Get PDF
    The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has voted in favor of a revised version of the amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature that was proposed in 2008. The purpose of the amendment is to expand and refine the methods of publication allowed by the Code, particularly in relation to electronic publication. The amendment establishes an Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (with ZooBank as its online version), allows electronic publication after 2011 under certain conditions, and disallows publication on optical discs after 2012. The requirements for electronic publications are that the work be registered in ZooBank before it is published, that the work itself state the date of publication and contain evidence that registration has occurred, and that the ZooBank registration state both the name of an electronic archive intended to preserve the work and the ISSN or ISBN associated with the work. Registration of new scientific names and nomenclatural acts is not required. The Commission has confirmed that ZooBank is ready to handle the requirements of the amendment

    Biological nomenclature terms for facilitating communication in the naming of organisms

    Get PDF
    A set of terms recommended for use in facilitating communication in biological nomenclature is presented as a table showing broadly equivalent terms used in the traditional Codes of nomenclature. These terms are intended to help those engaged in naming across organism groups, and are the result of the work of the International Committee on Bionomenclature, whose aim is to promote harmonisation and communication amongst those naming life on Earth

    Validation and justification of the phylum name Cryptomycota phyl. nov.

    Get PDF
    The recently proposed new phylum name Cryptomycota phyl. nov. is validly published in order to facilitate its use in future discussions of the ecology, biology, and phylogenetic relationships of the constituent organisms. This name is preferred over the previously tentatively proposed “Rozellida” as new data suggest that the life-style and morphology of Rozella is not representative of the large radiation to which it and other Cryptomycota belong. Furthermore, taxa at higher ranks such as phylum are considered better not based on individual names of included genera, but rather on some special characteristics – in this case the cryptic nature of this group and that they were initially revealed by molecular methods rather than morphological discovery. If the group were later viewed as a member of a different kingdom, the name should be retained to indicate its fungal affinities, as is the practice for other fungal-like protist groups

    Morphology and Molecular Phylogeny of a New Hypotrich Ciliate,Pseudourostyla guizhouensissp. nov. from Southern China, with Notes on a Chinese Population ofHemicycliostyla franzi(Foissner, 1987) Paiva et al., 2012 (Ciliophora, Hypotricha)

    Get PDF
    The morphology and molecular phylogeny of a soil hypotrich ciliate, Pseudourostyla guizhouensis sp. nov., collected from southern China, were investigated. Pseudourostyla guizhouensis sp. nov. has an elongate elliptical body measuring 180–310 × 65–85 ÎŒm in vivo; invariably two right and three or four left marginal rows; six or seven dorsal kineties; adoral zone consisting of 57–70 membranelles; 12–16 frontal cirri, one buccal cirrus, 13–20 midventral pairs, two frontoterminal cirri, two pretransverse cirri, and five to seven transverse cirri. Morphogenesis during physiological regeneration indicates that the marginal rows of each side originate from a common anlage that differentiates into several rows. Molecular phylogenetic analysis based on SSU rDNA sequence data reveals that P . guizhouensis sp. nov. clusters with the type species P. cristata (Jerka‐Dziadosz, 1964) Borror, 1972 and that the genus Pseudourostyla is monophyletic. The morphological characters of another soil hypotrich ciliate, Hemicycliostyla franzi (Foissner, 1987) Paiva et al., 2012, are also described based on a Chinese (Guizhou) population.This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Li, Y., Lyu, Z., Warren, A., Zhou, K., Li, F. and Chen, X. (2018), Morphology and Molecular Phylogeny of a New Hypotrich Ciliate, Pseudourostyla guizhouensis sp. nov. from Southern China, with Notes on a Chinese Population of Hemicycliostyla franzi (Foissner, 1987) Paiva et al., 2012 (Ciliophora, Hypotricha). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 65: 132-142., which has been published in final form at doi:10.1111/jeu.12428. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. The attached document is the author(’s’) final accepted version of the journal article. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it

    Is The Amphibian Tree of Life really fatally flawed?

    Full text link
    Wiens (2007 , Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55–56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.'s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1–370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is “a disaster” and recommending that readers “simply ignore this study”. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as “fatal flaws”: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony “assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates”; and (4) the results were at times “clearly erroneous”, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23–90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed “strong support” for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719–748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579–596) also found them to be non-monophyletic. Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not with the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus , Ranidae, Rana , Bufo ; and the placement of Brachycephalus within “ Eleutherodactylus ”, and Lineatriton within “ Pseudoeurycea ”), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74688/1/j.1096-0031.2007.00181.x.pd

    Beyond the “Code”: A Guide to the Description and Documentation of Biodiversity in Ciliated Protists (Alveolata, Ciliophora)

    Get PDF
    Recent advances in molecular technology have revolutionized research on allaspects of the biology of organisms, including ciliates, and created unprece-dented opportunities for pursuing a more integrative approach to investigationsof biodiversity. However, this goal is complicated by large gaps and inconsis-tencies that still exist in the foundation of basic information about biodiversityof ciliates. The present paper reviews issues relating to the taxonomy of cili-ates and presents speciïŹc recommendations for best practice in the observa-tion and documentation of their biodiversity. This effort stems from aworkshop that explored ways to implement six Grand Challenges proposed bythe International Research Coordination Network for Biodiversity of Ciliates(IRCN-BC). As part of its commitment to strengthening the knowledge basethat supports research on biodiversity of ciliates, the IRCN-BC proposes topopulate The Ciliate Guide, an online database, with biodiversity-related dataand metadata to create a resource that will facilitate accurate taxonomic identi-ïŹcations and promote sharing of data