- Review: found
Review of 'Recent proposals on nomenclature of dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae)'
Average rating: | Rated 4.5 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 5 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 5 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 3 of 5. |
Competing interests: | The author has been co-author of M.D. Guiry. |
Reviewed article
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Recent proposals on nomenclature of dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae)
Review information
Review text
79. Published illustrations can be accepted as types of new taxa published on or after 1 January 2007, but only in extreme circumstances when a specimen cannot be conserved, or its conservation would not show the diagnostic features of the taxon.
122. “… the requirements for valid publication (ICN, art. 38.4).”
164. Better “superfluum” than “vanum”.
423. Which authors?
427. You are probably doing this anyway, but do not forget to remove “inedit.” from the final version.
430. Include the basionym of Gonyaulax digitalis in the synonymy. Also, consider lectotypifying the species treated which have no type currently.
435. Include the basionym of Gonyaulax spinifera in the synonymy.
542. Heteroaulax and Goniodoma are illegitimate on the grounds of superfluity and cannot be used. If recognised as distinct, the genus containing Peridinium acuminatum Ehrenberg must be called Heteraulacus because of priority. Therefore, this last paragraph must be rewritten.
557. Either “status quo” in English, no italics, or “statu quo” in Latin, with italics.
572. Since Goniodoma is illegitimate, any familial name based on it is also illegitimate and should have been rejected even without the necessity of a decision of the Nomenclatural Committee. The correct name for a family based on a genus typified by Peridinium acuminatum is Heteraulacaceae because of priority, unless it competes with an earlier name based on other genus of the same family.
583. Please, be aware that the conservation only conserves Scrippsiella against Heteraulacus if they are considered synonyms. If not, Heteraulacus (but not Goniodoma!) can be used for a genus containing Peridinium acuminatum.
587. Please, designate any type or provide the source of the typification of the treated species.
598. “The species epithet nucula (small nut) is a noun in apposition and cannot be declined, but…”
655. It has been demonstrated that Stein had typified the genus with Amphiodoma nucula. Therefore, the proposal was redundant, and the decision does not affect this typification. The NCA (Andersen 2020) does not conserve A. acuminata as type, but leave everything the same as before, and only assume A. acuminata is the type because the authors of the proposal said so. The following paragraph should be devoted to explaining this and not the consequences of a “typification” which never took place.
742. If the genus was provisional, the genus Heterocapsa, the combination of Glenodinium triquetrum under Heterocapsa and the other two species (H. umbilicata and H. quadridentata) proposed by Stein are invalid and have no nomenclatural standing. Therefore, validly published names should be used for these taxa.
818. It should be “dedicated”, not “dedicates”.
872. It should be “homonym”, not “isonym”.
913. It should be “ill defined”, not “ill define”.
954. It should be “homonym”, not “isonym”.
954. It should be “synonyms”, not “synonym”.
1135. It should be “is”, not “are”.
1163. It should be “mangroves”, not “mangle”.
1177. The ICN has no authority whatsoever to recommend conservation methods.
1184. It should be “lectotype”, not “leptotype”.
1199. It should “has”, not “have”.
1205. However, since Blepharocysta splendor-maris is a combination over Ehrenberg’s name, its application is doubtful, and a conserved type would fix it. It appears that your position is in concordance with that of Carbonell-Moore, if not, please, clarify.
1243. While the declaration of the NCA could be interpreted as overreaching, it certainly is one more taxonomical opinion which does not prevent nor enforces the use of any name for the involved taxa if they are considered distinct.
1277. The issue was settled by LaJeunesse in LaJeunesse et al. (Current Biology 28: 1-11, Supplementary material 1, 2018).
The reviewer would suggest to give an English language review to the article, so certain expressions could be improved. He would encourage the author to present the final publication of this work to the members of the ICN, too. Finally, he would suggest to reduce the confrontational tone of certain parts. The reviewer remains at the author disposition, directly via mail or through this channel, to resolve further nomenclatural issues, should they arise, either in English or Spanish.