Hubbry Logo
Nomen dubiumNomen dubiumMain
Open search
Nomen dubium
Community hub
Nomen dubium
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nomen dubium
Nomen dubium
Nomen dubium
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Gadus callarias, an example of nomen dubium, now considered a potential synonym or a subspecies of G. morhua.

In binomial nomenclature, a nomen dubium (Latin for "doubtful name", plural nomina dubia) is a scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful application.

Zoology

[edit]

In case of 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.

preserved specimen of Tritonellium barthi Valenciennes, 1858 (nomen dubium)

A name may also be considered a nomen dubium if its name-bearing type 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 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.[1]

For example, the crocodile-like archosaurian reptile Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885 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.[2] The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature considered the case and agreed in 2003 to replace the original type specimen with the proposed neotype.[3]

Bacteriology

[edit]

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:[4]

  • ambiguous names, nomina ambigua, have been used with more than one meaning
  • names causing confusion, nomina confusa, are based on a mixed culture
  • perplexing names, nomina perplexa, confusingly similar names
  • perilous names, nomina periculosa, names that may lead to accidents endangering life or health or with potential serious economic consequences

Botany

[edit]

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 is of more frequent use.[5] Such names may be proposed for rejection.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nomen dubium

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A nomen dubium (plural nomina dubia) is a Latin term meaning "a name of unknown or doubtful application," employed in to designate a scientific name for a whose precise identity cannot be reliably determined due to insufficient, ambiguous, or lost original descriptive material, such as type specimens. Despite this uncertainty, a nomen dubium remains an available name under the (ICZN), meaning it retains nomenclatural validity and can participate in issues of synonymy or homonymy, potentially complicating taxonomic stability if not addressed. In practice, nomina dubia often arise in historical , particularly with early descriptions of fossils or obscure where illustrations or specimens are vague or nonexistent, rendering re-identification impossible without additional evidence. The ICZN does not render such names unavailable or invalid; instead, they serve as cautionary flags for taxonomists, who may propose alternatives like a nomen novum (new name) or seek to stabilize through prevailing usage under Articles 23.9 or 80 of the Code. This concept underscores the balance between preserving historical names and ensuring scientific precision, especially in fields like where many extinct taxa, such as certain genera, are classified as nomina dubia due to fragmentary remains. While primarily a zoological term codified in the ICZN's Fourth Edition (1999), the notion of doubtful names influences broader biological classification, though botanical nomenclature under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) handles similar uncertainties through concepts like insufficiently diagnosed types without adopting the exact phrase nomen dubium. The term's application promotes ongoing scholarly debate and revision, as new discoveries or rediscovered materials can sometimes resolve a nomen dubium's ambiguity, reintegrating it into valid taxonomy.

Definition and Etymology

Definition

A nomen dubium (plural nomina dubia) is a scientific name in biological that is of unknown or doubtful application, primarily due to an inadequate original lacking sufficient diagnostic features or the loss, destruction, or inaccessibility of the type specimen. This status highlights names that cannot be reliably correlated with a specific , rendering them unusable for precise identification in systematic classification. In the framework of , established by in the and refined through international codes such as the (ICZN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), a nomen dubium plays a critical role in maintaining nomenclatural stability. It alerts researchers to potential ambiguities, preventing erroneous synonymy or misapplication of names across diverse biological disciplines, including , , and , where accurate naming is essential for scientific communication and documentation. The concept underlying nomen dubium addresses longstanding challenges in , with roots in the when rapid descriptions of new —often based on fragmentary material, especially fossils—led to numerous ambiguous names. Taxonomists like , in works such as his Nomenclator Zoologicus (1842–1847), systematically cataloged thousands of zoological names and grappled with their validity amid incomplete evidence, laying groundwork for formal recognition of such issues. The term itself, meaning "doubtful name" in Latin, gained standardized usage in the early to codify these problems.

Etymology

The term nomen dubium originates from , combining nomen, meaning "name," with dubium, signifying "doubtful" or "ambiguous." This linguistic construction reflects a direct of "doubtful name," emphasizing in identification or application. In , nomen referred broadly to a designation or , often used in legal, literary, and everyday contexts to denote identity, while dubium derived from the dubitare (to hesitate or doubt) and conveyed ambiguity or questionable status in philosophical and rhetorical texts. The phrase nomen dubium itself, however, did not appear as a fixed expression in but was later formed as a descriptive compound in modern scientific contexts. Its adoption into biological taxonomy occurred in the early , with the first known usage recorded in to address taxonomic names lacking sufficient diagnostic clarity. This term parallels other Latin phrases in , such as nomen nudum ("naked name"), which denotes a name published without an adequate or and entered taxonomic usage earlier, around 1881. Unlike nomen nudum, which highlights the absence of supporting material, nomen dubium specifically underscores ongoing doubt about a name's proper application despite some foundational elements.

Designation Criteria

A taxonomic name is classified as a nomen dubium when its application cannot be determined with reasonable certainty due to an inadequate original or that fails to provide sufficient diagnostic characters for identification. This criterion is central to the (ICZN), where the description must enable recognition of the to which the name is applied; insufficient detail renders the name of doubtful application while remaining available. In contrast, names completely lacking a description—such as post-1930 zoological names without any description, definition, or figure—are unavailable as nomina nuda under ICZN Article 13. Other codes, like the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN), address similar issues through invalidation for insufficient descriptions (Articles 38–39) or ambiguous typification, without adopting the term nomen dubium. The loss, destruction, or indeterminacy of the name-bearing type material, such as the or lectotype, constitutes another primary criterion for designation as a nomen dubium, as type specimens serve as the objective standard fixing the name's application under general nomenclatural principles. Without accessible type material, the name's linkage to a specific becomes uncertain, particularly if no suitable surrogate like a neotype can be immediately established. Fragmentary evidence, such as incomplete fossils lacking distinguishing features, exacerbates this issue by preventing reliable identification, thereby qualifying the name as dubious. In such cases, the type's role in validation is paramount, as it provides the verifiable anchor for taxonomic stability across codes. Interpretations of these criteria vary slightly across nomenclatural codes, with stricter requirements often applied to fossils to ensure precision given their fragmentary nature. The (ICZN) explicitly links dubious status to unidentifiable types lacking diagnostic features, allowing neotype designation under exceptional circumstances to resolve uncertainty, while emphasizing type horizon and locality for fossils. In contrast, the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) infers dubiousness from ambiguous typification rules, mandating specimen-based types for fossils and requiring explicit type indication since 1958, with validating illustrations essential since 1912 to mitigate interpretive doubts. These differences reflect code-specific emphases on stability, but both prioritize adequate type material and descriptions to avoid nomenclatural ambiguity.

Distinctions from Similar Terms

A nomen dubium is distinguished from a nomen nudum primarily by the presence of some descriptive material, albeit insufficient for precise identification. Whereas a nomen nudum (Latin for "naked name") refers to a name published without any adequate , diagnosis, or indication that meets the criteria for availability under Article 12 of the (ICZN), a nomen dubium has an accompanying or evidence that exists but is too vague or incomplete to confidently assign the name to a specific . This distinction ensures that nomina nuda are objectively unavailable and can be reused, while nomina dubia remain available but are treated as unusable until clarified. In contrast to a nomen oblitum ("forgotten name"), a nomen dubium is not invalidated due to disuse but rather due to inherent uncertainty in its application. Under ICZN Article 23.9, a nomen oblitum is a senior that has not been used as valid after and is suppressed to promote nomenclatural stability in favor of a junior continuously used since 1950; this mechanism prioritizes practical usage over strict priority, without regard to the quality of the original description. Thus, a nomen dubium may be actively used or suppressed based on its diagnostic inadequacy, whereas a nomen oblitum addresses historical regardless of evidential sufficiency. The term nomen ambiguum ("ambiguous name") overlaps with nomen dubium in denoting uncertainty but emphasizes conflicting interpretations from usage rather than insufficient original evidence. In the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and plants (ICN), a nomen ambiguum applies to a name employed in multiple senses by different authors, potentially leading to rejection under Appendix B if it causes confusion, whereas a nomen dubium focuses on the inadequacy of the type material or description itself. This usage-based ambiguity in nomen ambiguum contrasts with the evidential doubt central to nomen dubium, though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in broader taxonomic discussions. In , under the International Code of of (ICNP), variants such as nomen confusum and nomen perplexum address specific types of problematic names akin to nomen dubium but tailored to prokaryotic contexts. A nomen confusum ("confusing name") denotes a name based on a mixed or impure culture, leading to inherent uncertainty in application and potential rejection under Rule 56a(3). Similarly, a nomen perplexum ("perplexing name") refers to a name causing ongoing uncertainty due to its publication or interpretation, often placed on the list of nomina rejicienda under Rule 56a(4) to resolve confusion, though it is not a formal ground for automatic invalidation. These terms highlight culture-based or interpretive issues in prokaryote , differing from the more general descriptive inadequacy of nomen dubium.

Applications in Biological Nomenclature

In Zoology

In zoological nomenclature, a nomen dubium refers to a name whose application is uncertain due to inadequate or lost type material, posing challenges to taxonomic stability under the (ICZN). The ICZN addresses such cases through Article 75, which governs neotype designation to resolve ambiguities and preserve nomenclatural universality. Specifically, Article 75.5 allows the to set aside an existing name-bearing type when its taxonomic identity cannot be determined—typically for a nomen dubium—and designate a new neotype, provided this action is necessary to avoid disruption in prevailing usage. This process requires an application to the Commission under Article 81's plenary powers, ensuring the neotype aligns with the original description and enhances clarity in animal classification. A prominent example is Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885, an early phytosaur from the of , originally based on fragmentary material that rendered it a nomen dubium. The original lectotype, consisting of isolated bones, was inadequate for definitive identification, leading to taxonomic confusion with related genera like Paleorhinus. In 2001, Sankar Chatterjee proposed replacing the lectotype with a more complete (ISI R42) from the type locality, and the ICZN approved this neotype designation in Opinion 2045 (Case 3165) in 2003 to stabilize the genus and affirm its priority over synonyms. This resolution clarified Parasuchus as the valid name for basal phytosaurs, enabling consistent phylogenetic analyses across Pangean faunas. Another case involves Gadus callarias Linnaeus, 1758, a name proposed for a cod-like fish based on vague 18th-century descriptions lacking diagnostic features, making it a nomen dubium with uncertain application. Taxonomic authorities now treat it as a junior synonym or potential of the Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua Linnaeus, 1758, to maintain stability in gadid . This synonymy avoids nomenclatural upheaval in fisheries and records, where G. morhua prevails due to better-documented types. The implications of nomina dubia in zoological are significant, particularly regarding priority and synonymy, as these names remain available under ICZN rules but can hinder objective classification if unresolved. Unclear types may suppress the priority of senior synonyms or complicate synonymy lists, leading to provisional treatments or suppressed usage to prioritize stability over strict adherence to the Principle of Priority (Article 23). For instance, a nomen dubium might block the recognition of a well-established junior name unless the Commission intervenes, as in neotypification, thereby influencing evolutionary studies, conservation assessments, and inventories by ensuring reliable taxonomic frameworks.

In Botany

In botanical nomenclature, governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), the term nomen dubium lacks formal recognition and is employed informally to denote scientific names with doubtful or uncertain application, often stemming from inadequate original descriptions or missing type material. The ICN addresses names that have been applied in conflicting senses by different authors through Article 56, which allows such names to be proposed for rejection if they engender a disadvantageous nomenclatural situation that disrupts stability; rejected names are listed as nomina utique rejicienda in Appendix V. This rejection process requires submission to the General Committee on Nomenclature, followed by a vote at the Nomenclature Section of an , emphasizing the ICN's preference for resolving ambiguity through typification or suppression rather than indefinite doubt. In practice, nomen dubium is particularly prevalent in algal and fungal , where historical descriptions from the often lack sufficient diagnostic details, leading to unidentifiable types. For instance, certain algal names based on fragmentary or poorly illustrated specimens have been flagged as dubious, prompting proposals for rejection to prevent misapplication in modern phylogenies. In , ambiguous lichen types from 19th-century European floras—such as those described solely by superficial morphological traits without preserved vouchers—frequently qualify as nomina dubia, complicating synonymy and requiring epitypification with contemporary molecular data to clarify phylogenetic placement. Mycological applications of nomen dubium are especially acute when type cultures for fungal species are lost or degraded, rendering the name's application unverifiable without new typification. The Linnean Society's guidelines on type definitions underscore the need for precise designation of holotypes, lectotypes, or epitypes—particularly for fungi—to mitigate such issues, advocating for preserved, metabolically inactive cultures or DNA sequences as types to ensure nomenclatural stability in cases of historical ambiguity. This approach aligns with ICN provisions allowing cultures as types for fungi (Article 8.4), helping to resolve dubious names through modern integrative taxonomy.

In Bacteriology

In bacteriology, the concept of nomen dubium is addressed under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), where it refers to a doubtful name whose application remains uncertain due to an inadequate original description or the loss or destruction of the type material. According to Rule 56a(2) of the ICNP, such names may be rejected by the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP), which places them on the Official List of Rejected Names to prevent ongoing confusion in prokaryotic . This formal rejection process ensures stability in by eliminating ambiguous designations that could lead to misidentification of bacterial taxa. The ICNP extends the nomen dubium framework through related categories under Rule 56a, treating nomen ambiguum (an ambiguous name used with multiple meanings, causing errors), nomen confusum (a name based on mixed or contaminated type material), nomen perplexum (a perplexing name from insufficient descriptive details), and nomen periculosum (a dangerous name prone to serious confusion) as equivalents warranting rejection. These categories are similarly evaluated and suppressed via the Judicial Commission's Opinions, which serve as binding rulings to conserve valid names or reject problematic ones based on evidence of uncertainty or error. The Commission's role is pivotal, as only it can authorize such actions, drawing on consultations with the broader bacteriological community to maintain nomenclatural integrity. Examples of rejected nomina dubia illustrate the application of these rules, particularly from early . The generic name Aerobacter Beijerinck 1900 was rejected in Judicial Commission Opinion 46 due to its uncertain application stemming from inadequate type material. Similarly, citrovorum was designated a nomen dubium and rejected under Opinion 45 for the same reasons of descriptive insufficiency. These decisions trace back to the foundational 1990 ICNP (published 1992), with the 2022 revision upholding the same general principles without substantive changes to Rule 56a categories or rejection procedures.

Resolution and Implications

Methods of Resolution

In biological , resolving a nomen dubium—a name of doubtful application due to insufficient diagnostic material—involves standardized procedures across major codes to stabilize by clarifying or redefining the name's application. These methods prioritize the designation of surrogate types when original material is inadequate, formal suppression or rejection where typification is impossible, and oversight by authoritative bodies to ensure nomenclatural stability. Under the (ICZN; 4th Edition, 1999, with 5th Edition in preparation as of 2024), applicable to animals including taxa, the primary method is neotype designation when no , lectotype, syntype, or prior neotype exists, particularly for lost or destroyed types rendering the name unidentifiable (Article 75.1). For nomina dubia, the may use its plenary power to set aside an unidentifiable name-bearing type and designate a neotype to conserve prevailing usage (Article 75.5). The process requires publication of the proposal in a scientific journal, explicitly stating the exceptional need, providing differentiating characters, documenting efforts to locate original material, ensuring consistency with the original description, and depositing the neotype in a recognized (Articles 75.3.1–75.3.7). If lectotypification from syntypes is feasible, it takes precedence over neotypification. In the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN; Madrid Code, 2025), resolution favors lectotype selection from extant original material to fix the name's application when no holotype was designated or when the type is inadequate (Article 9.3, 9.4). If all original material is missing or insufficient for identification, a neotype may be designated, provided it aligns with the protologue and is published with full details, including depository (Article 9.8, 9.13). Lectotypes always take precedence over neotypes unless original material conflicts taxonomically with the intended taxon (Article 9.16). For persistent nomina dubia threatening stability, formal proposals for conservation (Article 14) or rejection (Article 56) are submitted to relevant nomenclature committees (e.g., for vascular plants), published in Taxon with arguments for and against, reviewed by the relevant Permanent Nomenclature Committee and the General Committee, and approved before appending to the Code. The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP; 2022 Revision, published 2023) addresses nomina dubia through outright rejection by the Judicial Commission when application is uncertain, placing the name on the list of nomina rejicienda (Rule 56a; Appendix 4). Proposals must be published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) with supporting evidence, open to public comment for one year, and decided by the Commission requiring at least seven affirmative votes (General Consideration 6). Rejected nomina dubia include those based on mixed cultures or lacking diagnostic strains, such as Leuconostoc citrovorum (Opinion 45). In , where nomina dubia often arise from fragmentary remains, resolution follows ICZN or ICN protocols but incorporates phylogenetic reassessment to evaluate the name's applicability within cladistic frameworks, potentially justifying neotype selection from comparable specimens (topotypes or surrogates) near the type locality. If reassessment confirms indeterminacy, the Commission may suppress the name under plenary powers to avoid taxonomic confusion in lineages.

Broader Implications

Nomina dubia significantly impact databases and counts by contributing to overestimation of diversity. In analyses of North American mammals, approximately 24–31% of currently accepted names are likely invalid, including nomina dubia, leading to an inflation of diversity estimates by 32–44%. This overestimation persists in databases like the Database, where historical vetting delays allow unresolved dubious names to skew assessments, potentially reducing estimated living from 5–15 million to 3.5–10.5 million when adjusted for hyperdiverse groups such as and fungi. The historical evolution of nomina dubia reflects a transition from lax 19th-century taxonomic practices to modern codes prioritizing type stability. In the 19th century, following Linnaeus's binomial system established in 1753, descriptions were often vague and lacked standardized type specimens, resulting in frequent nomina dubia due to inadequate diagnostic material. Early efforts like the Stricklandian Code of 1842 and the Règles Internationales of 1905 introduced name-bearing types and priority principles to promote uniformity, while Alphonse de Candolle's 1867 botanical rules mandated Latin diagnoses. By the 20th century, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (first edition, 1961) required descriptions for post-1930 names, and the 1999 (4th) edition mandated explicit type fixation for post-1999 publications; similarly, the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (1950 onward) enforced mandatory type specimens from 1958, evolving to require Latin or English diagnoses since 2011. Despite these advancements, challenges persist in the digital era, as not all legacy nomina dubia have been fully resolved, even with tools like ZooBank for ICZN names. Looking to the future, nomina dubia pose challenges in phylogenomics and conservation by complicating evolutionary studies, particularly with dubious names. In , 24.3% of 1,401 named are nomina dubia based on undiagnostic material, contributing to 51.8% overall invalid taxa that distort phylogenetic reconstructions and patterns. For instance, in equid evolution, names like certain Equus taxa labeled as nomina dubia create taxonomic uncertainty, affecting phylogenetic gap analyses and conservation prioritization for related living . Resolving these through neotypification or digital integration will be crucial for accurate phylogenomic frameworks and informed conservation strategies amid ongoing .

References

  1. https://code.iczn.org/glossary/
  2. https://www.iczn.org/outreach/faqs/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2614166/
  4. https://code.iczn.org/
  5. https://code.iczn.org/glossary-2/
  6. https://code.iczn.org/introduction/
  7. https://www.biolib.cz/en/glossaryterm/id2173/
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4523258
  9. https://assets.ctfassets.net/uo17ejk9rkwj/2GO7nxdwNiSaO4G4s2EUcY/570aca481c603b4233fc920dbe1bd604/gbif_terms_nomenclature_guide_en_v1.pdf
  10. http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/ICZNCode.pdf
  11. https://plants.sdsu.edu/plantsystematics/pdfs/Turland2019-Nomenclature-ICN.pdf
  12. https://code.iczn.org/types-in-the-species-group/article-75-neotypes/
  13. https://code.iczn.org/the-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature/article-81-use-of-the-plenary-power/
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/spp2.1022
  15. https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/
  16. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_56.html
  17. https://www.linnean.org/learning/type-definitions
  18. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
  19. https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.5598/imafungus.2014.05.01.14
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231836184_A_Revision_of_the_Names_of_Foliicolous_Lichenized_Fungi_Published_by_Batista_and_Co-Workers_Between_1960_and_1975
  21. https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005782
  22. https://lpsn.dsmz.de/text/glossary
  23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/
  24. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_9.html
  25. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/files/guidelines_proposals.pdf
  26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tax.12871
  27. https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005585
  28. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/troodontid-specimens-from-the-cretaceous-two-medicine-formation-of-montana-usa-and-the-validity-of-troodon-formosus/3E58F1FDA3FE53DE569E0D0B20E79F22
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC122588/
  30. https://www.iaptglobal.org/_functions/code/vienna
  31. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00343/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.