In binomial nomenclature , a nomen dubium ( Latin for "doubtful name", plural nomina dubia ) is a scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful application.
17-483: Apatodon is a dubious genus of dinosaur that may have been a theropod . The type, and only species, A. mirus , was named in 1877 by Othniel Charles Marsh . It was found in the Late Jurassic -aged Morrison Formation of Colorado . When Marsh named Apatodon in 1877, he thought it was a jaw with a tooth from a Mesozoic pig , but it was soon shown that the specimen was an eroded vertebra , from
34-540: A dinosaur possibly from the Morrison Formation of Garden Park, Colorado . Baur (1890) correctly identified that Marsh (1877) had misidentified the neural spine as the tooth of a pig -like animal. Apatodon was assigned to Iguanodontoidea by Hay in 1902, to Ornithischia by von Huene in 1909, to Stegosauridae by von Zittel in 1911, and to Titanosaurinae by Steel in 1970, and also Casanovas et al. in 1987. ( Kuhn in 1939 also listed Apatodon as
51-403: A nomen dubium, it may be impossible to determine whether a specimen belongs to that group or not. This may happen if the original type series (i. e. holotype , isotype , syntype or paratype ) is lost or destroyed. The zoological and botanical codes allow for a new type specimen, or neotype , to be chosen in this case. A name may also be considered a nomen dubium if its name-bearing type
68-534: A sauropod ). The only recovered specimen is not regarded as sufficient to identify a particular species of dinosaur . However, George Olshevsky considered Apatodon to be synonymous with the contemporaneous Allosaurus fragilis . The issue is now beyond resolution; however, as the type bone fragment has been lost. The name Apatodon is derived from Greek : απατη ("trick", "deceit") and οδους ( genitive οδοντος) (" tooth ", in reference to its original, incorrect identification). Nomen dubium In case of
85-711: A compromise with the 1930 congress. In the meantime, the second edition of the international rules followed the Vienna congress in 1905. These rules were published as the Règles internationales de la Nomenclature botanique adoptées par le Congrès International de Botanique de Vienne 1905 (or in English, International rules of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the International Botanical Conference of Vienna 1905 ). Informally they are referred to as
102-474: A nominal species-group taxon cannot be determined from its existing name-bearing type (i.e. its name is a nomen dubium ), and stability or universality are threatened thereby, the author may request the Commission to set aside under its plenary power [Art. 81] the existing name-bearing type and designate a neotype. For example, the crocodile -like archosaurian reptile Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker , 1885
119-626: Is a separate code, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants , which gives rules and recommendations that supplement the ICN . The rules governing botanical nomenclature have a long and tumultuous history, dating back to dissatisfaction with rules that were established in 1843 to govern zoological nomenclature. The first set of international rules was the Lois de la nomenclature botanique ("Laws of botanical nomenclature") that
136-415: Is fragmentary or lacking important diagnostic features (this is often the case for species known only as fossils). To preserve stability of names, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature allows a new type specimen, or neotype, to be chosen for a nomen dubium in this case. 75.5. Replacement of unidentifiable name-bearing type by a neotype. When an author considers that the taxonomic identity of
153-460: Is of more frequent use. Such names may be proposed for rejection . International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants ( ICN or ICNafp ) is the set of rules and recommendations dealing with the formal botanical names that are given to plants, fungi and a few other groups of organisms, all those "traditionally treated as algae, fungi, or plants". It
170-588: The Code is partly capitalized and partly not. The lower-case for "algae, fungi, and plants" indicates that these terms are not formal names of clades , but indicate groups of organisms that were historically known by these names and traditionally studied by phycologists , mycologists , and botanists . This includes blue-green algae ( Cyanobacteria ); fungi , including chytrids , oomycetes , and slime moulds ; photosynthetic protists and taxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups. There are special provisions in
187-497: The ICN for some of these groups, as there are for fossils . The ICN can only be changed by an International Botanical Congress (IBC), with the International Association for Plant Taxonomy providing the supporting infrastructure. Each new edition supersedes the earlier editions and is retroactive back to 1753, except where different starting dates are specified. For the naming of cultivated plants there
SECTION 10
#1732787128609204-805: The Vienna Rules (not to be confused with the Vienna Code of 2006). Some but not all subsequent meetings of the International Botanical Congress have produced revised versions of these Rules , later called the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature , and then International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants . The Nomenclature Section of the 18th International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Australia (2011) made major changes: All
221-562: The original type specimen with the proposed neotype. In bacteriological nomenclature , nomina dubia may be placed on the list of rejected names by the Judicial Commission. The meaning of these names is uncertain. Other categories of names that may be treated in this way (rule 56a) are: In botanical nomenclature the phrase nomen dubium has no status, although it is informally used for names whose application has become confusing. In this regard, its synonym nomen ambiguum
238-695: Was adopted as the "best guide to follow for botanical nomenclature" at an "International Botanical Congress" convened in Paris in 1867. Unlike modern Codes, it contained recommendations for naming to serve as the basis for discussions on the controversial points of nomenclature, rather than obligatory rules for validly published and legitimate names within the Code. It was organized as six sections with 68 articles in total. Multiple attempts to bring more "expedient" or more equitable practice to botanical nomenclature resulted in several competing codes, which finally reached
255-422: Was described based on a premaxillary rostrum (part of the snout), but this is no longer sufficient to distinguish Parasuchus from its close relatives. This made the name Parasuchus hislopi a nomen dubium . In 2001 a paleontologist proposed that a new type specimen, a complete skeleton, be designated. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature considered the case and agreed in 2003 to replace
272-823: Was formerly called the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature ( ICBN ); the name was changed at the International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in July 2011 as part of the Melbourne Code which replaced the Vienna Code of 2005. The current version of the code is the Shenzhen Code adopted by the International Botanical Congress held in Shenzhen , China, in July 2017. As with previous codes, it took effect as soon as it
289-705: Was ratified by the congress (on 29 July 2017), but the documentation of the code in its final form was not published until 26 June 2018. For fungi the Code was revised by the San Juan Chapter F in 2018. The 2025 edition of ICBN, the Madrid Code , which reflects the decisions of the Twentieth International Botanical Congress met in Madrid , Spain, in July 2024, is prepared to be published in July 2025. The name of
#608391