Names, diagnoses and ‘Dead Names’: the case of Synedra pelagica

Abstract

The case of Synedra pelagica Hendey is discussed in terms of its nomenclature, the taxonomic implications of priority issues and its characterization. Application of replacement names for specific epithets is reasonably straightforward as it is governed by the ICN – conditions for valid publication of any taxonomic name can be satisfied even if no one can subsequently identify the taxon. The lack of clear diagnostic characters, as opposed to a description, can obscure what the name actually represents. These issues are briefly discussed with Synedra pelagica in mind.

Keywords:

• nomenclature
• description
• diagnosis
• priority
• taxonomy

Acknowledgements

Eileen Cox, Tom Francovich, Paul Hamilton, Pat Kociolek, Wolf-Henning Kusber, Mike Sullivan and Bart Van de Vijver read earlier drafts of this manuscript and, as ever, provided many useful comments. This should not be taken as their agreement with the contents of this, or any other version, nor that I have adopted all their insights into this issue. Two referees supplied many interesting comments and criticisms which I hope I have dealt with reasonably. I suspect not, so I hope they will forgive my indulgences (intransigence?). Norbert Holstein (BM) revised the German translation of Cleve-Euler’s second 1953 description.

Note added in proof

While their concerns are the definitions of “description” and “diagnosis” given in the Code to allow valid publication and may differ from (perhaps only marginally) from what these terms might mean in taxonomy, the short piece by Krieger & Govaerts (Taxon 72: 689–90, 2023) is a useful commentary.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For example, of all the species Kützing described under the genus name Synedra, at least 10 have since been recognised as species Nitzschia.

2 Date from Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, ser. 2 2: 760 (Guiry & Guiry 2019).