Hubbry Logo
Synonym (taxonomy)Synonym (taxonomy)Main
Open search
Synonym (taxonomy)
Community hub
Synonym (taxonomy)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Synonym (taxonomy)
Synonym (taxonomy)
Synonym (taxonomy)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Nerita bernhardi (left), described by Lovell Augustus Reeve in 1855, was later determined to be a junior subjective synonym to Nerita funiculata (right), which had already been described five years earlier by Karl Theodor Menke.

In taxonomy, a synonym is one of two or more scientific names that apply to the same taxon.[1] The botanical and zoological codes of nomenclature treat the concept of synonymy differently.

  • In botanical nomenclature, a synonym is a scientific name that applies to a taxon that now goes by a different scientific name.[2] For example, Linnaeus was the first to give a scientific name (under the currently used system of scientific nomenclature) to the Norway spruce, which he called Pinus abies. This name is no longer in use, so it is now a synonym of the current scientific name, Picea abies.
  • In zoology, moving a species from one genus to another results in a different binomen, but the name is considered an alternative combination rather than a synonym. The concept of synonymy in zoology is reserved for two names at the same rank that refers to a taxon at that rank – for example, the name Papilio prorsa Linnaeus, 1758 is a junior synonym of Papilio levana Linnaeus, 1758, being names for different seasonal forms of the species now referred to as Araschnia levana (Linnaeus, 1758), the map butterfly. However, Araschnia levana is not a synonym of Papilio levana in the taxonomic sense employed by the Zoological code.[3]

Unlike synonyms in other contexts, in taxonomy a synonym is not interchangeable with the name of which it is a synonym. In taxonomy, synonyms are not equals, but have a different status. For any taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank, only one scientific name is considered to be the correct one at any given time (this correct name is to be determined by applying the relevant code of nomenclature). A synonym cannot exist in isolation: it is always an alternative to a different scientific name. Given that the correct name of a taxon depends on the taxonomic viewpoint used (resulting in a particular circumscription, position and rank) a name that is one taxonomist's synonym may be another taxonomist's correct name (and vice versa).

Synonyms may arise whenever the same taxon is described and named more than once independently. They may also arise when existing taxa are changed, as when two taxa are joined to become one, a species is moved to a different genus, a variety is moved to a different species, etc. Synonyms also come about when the codes of nomenclature change, so that older names are no longer acceptable; for example, Erica herbacea L. has been rejected in favour of the conserved name of Erica carnea L. and is thus its synonym.[4]

General usage

[edit]

To the general user of scientific names, in fields such as agriculture, horticulture, ecology, general science, etc., a synonym is a name that was previously used as the correct scientific name (in handbooks and similar sources) but which has been displaced by another scientific name, which is now regarded as correct. Thus Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the term as "a taxonomic name which has the same application as another, especially one which has been superseded and is no longer valid".[5] In handbooks and general texts, it is useful to have synonyms mentioned as such after the current scientific name, so as to avoid confusion. For example, if the much-advertised name change should go through and the scientific name of the fruit fly were changed to Sophophora melanogaster, it would be very helpful if any mention of this name was accompanied by "(syn. Drosophila melanogaster)". Synonyms used in this way may not always meet the strict definitions of the term "synonym" in the formal rules of nomenclature which govern scientific names (see below).

Changes of scientific name have two causes: they may be taxonomic or nomenclatural.[1] A name change may be caused by changes in the circumscription, position or rank of a taxon, representing a change in taxonomic, scientific insight (as would be the case for the fruit fly, mentioned above). A name change may be due to purely nomenclatural reasons, that is, based on the rules of nomenclature[1]; as for example when an older name is (re)discovered which has priority over the current name. Speaking in general, name changes for nomenclatural reasons have become less frequent over time as the rules of nomenclature allow for names to be conserved, so as to promote stability of scientific names.


Zoology

[edit]
Further information: Valid name (zoology)

In zoological nomenclature, codified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, synonyms are different scientific names of the same taxonomic rank that pertain to that same taxon. For example, a particular species could, over time, have had two or more species-rank names published for it, while the same is applicable at higher ranks such as genera, families, orders, etc. In each case, the earliest published name is called the senior synonym, while the later name is the junior synonym. In the case where two names for the same taxon have been published simultaneously, the valid name is selected according to the principle of the first reviser such that, for example, of the names Strix scandiaca and Strix noctua (Aves), both published by Linnaeus in the same work at the same date for the taxon now determined to be the snowy owl, the epithet scandiaca has been selected as the valid name, with noctua becoming the junior synonym. (Incidentally, this species has since been reclassified and currently resides in the genus Bubo, as Bubo scandiacus[6]).

One basic principle of zoological nomenclature is that the earliest correctly published (and thus available) name, the senior synonym, by default takes precedence in naming rights and therefore, unless other restrictions interfere, must be used for the taxon. However, junior synonyms are still important to document, because if the earliest name cannot be used (for example, because the same spelling had previously been used for a name established for another taxon), then the next available junior synonym must be used for the taxon. For other purposes, if a researcher is interested in consulting or compiling all currently known information regarding a taxon, some of this (including species descriptions, distribution, ecology and more) may well have been published under names now regarded as outdated (i.e., synonyms) and so it is again useful to know a list of historic synonyms which may have been used for a given current (valid) taxon name.

Objective synonyms refer to taxa with the same type and same rank (more or less the same taxon, although circumscription may vary, even widely). This may be species-group taxa of the same rank with the same type specimen, genus-group taxa of the same rank with the same type species or if their type species are themselves objective synonyms, of family-group taxa with the same type genus, etc.[7]

In the case of subjective synonyms, there is no such shared type, so the synonymy is open to taxonomic judgement,[8] meaning that there is room for debate: one researcher might consider the two (or more) types to refer to one and the same taxon, another might consider them to belong to different taxa. For example, John Edward Gray published the name Antilocapra anteflexa in 1855 for a species of pronghorn, based on a pair of horns. However, it is now commonly accepted that his specimen was an unusual individual of the species Antilocapra americana published by George Ord in 1815. Ord's name thus takes precedence, with Antilocapra anteflexa being a junior subjective synonym.

Objective synonyms are common at the rank of genera, because for various reasons two genera may contain the same type species; these are objective synonyms.[9] In many cases researchers established new generic names because they thought this was necessary or did not know that others had previously established another genus for the same group of species. An example is the genus Pomatia Beck, 1837,[10] which was established for a group of terrestrial snails containing as its type species the Burgundy or Roman snail Helix pomatia—since Helix pomatia was already the type species for the genus Helix Linnaeus, 1758, the genus Pomatia was an objective synonym (and useless). On the same occasion, Helix is also a synonym of Pomatia, but it is older and so it has precedence.

At the species level, subjective synonyms are common because of an unexpectedly large range of variation in a species, or simple ignorance about an earlier description, may lead a biologist to describe a newly discovered specimen as a new species. A common reason for objective synonyms at this level is the creation of a replacement name.

A junior synonym can be given precedence over a senior synonym,[11] primarily when the senior name has not been used since 1899, and the junior name is in common use. The older name may be declared to be a nomen oblitum, and the junior name declared a nomen protectum. This rule exists primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name. An example is the European land snail Petasina edentula (Draparnaud, 1805). In 2002, researchers found that an older name Helix depilata Draparnaud, 1801 referred to the same species, but this name had never been used after 1899 and was fixed as a nomen oblitum under this rule by Falkner et al. 2002.[12]

Such a reversal of precedence is also possible if the senior synonym was established after 1900, but only if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) approves an application. (Here the C in ICZN stands for Commission, not Code as it does at the beginning of § Zoology. The two are related, with only one word difference between their names.) For example, the scientific name of the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta was published by Buren in 1972, who did not know that this species was first named Solenopsis saevissima wagneri by Santschi in 1916; as there were thousands of publications using the name invicta before anyone discovered the synonymy, the ICZN, in 2001, ruled that invicta would be given precedence over wagneri.

To qualify as a synonym in zoology, a name must be properly published in accordance with the rules. Manuscript names and names that were mentioned without any description (nomina nuda) are not considered as synonyms in zoological nomenclature.

Botany

[edit]

In botanical nomenclature, a synonym is a name that is not correct for the circumscription, position, and rank of the taxon as considered in the particular botanical publication. It is always "a synonym of the correct scientific name", but which name is correct depends on the taxonomic opinion of the author. In botany the various kinds of synonyms are:

  • Homotypic, or nomenclatural, synonyms (sometimes indicated by ≡) have the same type (specimen) and the same taxonomic rank. The Linnaean name Pinus abies L. has the same type as Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. When Picea is taken to be the correct genus for this species (there is almost complete consensus on that), Pinus abies is a homotypic synonym of Picea abies. However, if the species were considered to belong to Pinus (now unlikely) the relationship would be reversed and Picea abies would become a homotypic synonym of Pinus abies. A homotypic synonym need not share an epithet or name with the correct name; what matters is that it shares the type. For example, the name Taraxacum officinale for a species of dandelion has the same type as Leontodon taraxacum L. The latter is a homotypic synonym of Taraxacum officinale F.H.Wigg.
  • Heterotypic, or taxonomic, synonyms (sometimes indicated by =) have different types. Some botanists split the common dandelion into many, quite restricted species. The name of each such species has its own type. When the common dandelion is regarded as including all those small species, the names of all those species are heterotypic synonyms of Taraxacum officinale F.H.Wigg. Reducing a taxon to a heterotypic synonym is termed "to sink in synonymy" or "as synonym".

In botany, although a synonym must be a formally accepted scientific name (a validly published name): a listing of "synonyms", a "synonymy", often contains designations that for some reason did not make it as a formal name, such as manuscript names, or even misidentifications (although it is now the usual practice to list misidentifications separately[13]).

Comparison between zoology and botany

[edit]

Although the basic principles are fairly similar, the treatment of synonyms in botanical nomenclature differs in detail and terminology from zoological nomenclature, where the correct name is included among synonyms, although as first among equals it is the "senior synonym":

  • Synonyms in botany are equivalent to "junior synonyms" in zoology.
  • The homotypic or nomenclatural synonyms in botany are equivalent to "objective synonyms" in zoology.
  • The heterotypic or taxonomic synonyms in botany are equivalent to "subjective synonyms" in zoology.
  • If the name of a species changes solely on account of its allocation to a new genus ("new combinations"), in botany this is regarded as creating a synonym in the case of the original or previous combination but not in zoology (where the fundamental nomenclatural unit is regarded as the species epithet, not the binomen, and this has generally not changed). Nevertheless, in popular usage, previous or alternative/non current combinations are frequently listed as synonyms in zoology as well as in botany.

Practical applications

[edit]

Scientific papers may include lists of taxa, synonymizing existing taxa and (in some cases) listing references to them.

The status of a synonym may be indicated by symbols, as for instance in a system proposed for use in paleontology by Rudolf Richter. In that system a v before the year would indicate that the authors have inspected the original material; a . that they take on the responsibility for the act of synonymizing the taxa.[14]

The accurate use of scientific names, including synonyms, is crucial in biomedical and pharmacological research involving plants. Failure to use correct botanical nomenclature can lead to ambiguity, hinder reproducibility of results, and potentially cause errors in medicine. Best practices for publication suggest that researchers should provide the currently accepted binomial with author citation, relevant synonyms, and the accepted family name according to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III classification. This practice ensures clear communication, allows proper linking of research to existing literature, and provides insight into phylogenetic relationships that may be relevant to shared chemical constituents or physiological effects. Online databases now make it easy for researchers to access correct nomenclature and synonymy information for plant species.[15]

Other usage

[edit]

The traditional concept of synonymy is often expanded in taxonomic literature to include pro parte (or "for part") synonyms. These are caused by splits and circumscriptional changes. They are usually indicated by the abbreviation "p.p."[16] For example:

  • When Dandy described Galium tricornutum, he cited G. tricorne Stokes (1787) pro parte as a synonym, but explicitly excluded the type (specimen) of G. tricorne from the new species G. tricornutum. Thus G. tricorne was subdivided.
  • The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's summary of plant classification states that family Verbenaceae "are much reduced compared to a decade or so ago, and many genera have been placed in Lamiaceae", but Avicennia, which was once included in Verbenaceae has been moved to Acanthaceae. Thus, it could be said that Verbenaceae pro parte is a synonym of Acanthaceae, and Verbenaceae pro parte is also a synonym of Lamiaceae. However, this terminology is rarely used because it is clearer to reserve the term "pro parte" for situations that divide a taxon that includes the type from one that does not.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Synonym (taxonomy)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In biological taxonomy, a synonym is one of two or more scientific names of the same rank that have been applied to the same taxon, with only one designated as the valid (accepted) name under the relevant nomenclatural code. Synonyms typically emerge from taxonomic revisions, such as reclassifications into different genera, mergers or splits of taxa, or the discovery of overlooked earlier names adhering to priority rules. They are categorized into two primary types: nomenclatural synonyms (also called objective or homotypic synonyms), which share the same name-bearing type (e.g., holotype specimen) and are objectively equivalent regardless of taxonomic judgment; and taxonomic synonyms (also called subjective or heterotypic synonyms), which are based on different types but deemed to represent the same taxon through subjective interpretation of evidence like morphology or genetics. Within these, synonyms are further distinguished by establishment date as senior synonyms (the earliest validly published name, which takes precedence) and junior synonyms (later names suppressed in favor of the senior). This framework, governed by codes such as the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) for animals and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) for plants, ensures stability and universality in scientific naming while accommodating evolving understandings of biodiversity.

Definition and General Principles

Core Definition

In , a refers to two or more scientific names that apply to the same , encompassing alternative designations for the same biological entity beyond the currently accepted name. These names arise from the application of scientific to organisms, where multiple labels may be proposed for what is later determined to be a single . Synonyms are broadly categorized into nomenclatural (or objective) synonyms, which are based on the same type specimen or type species and thus have an objective identity, and taxonomic (or subjective) synonyms, which involve different type specimens but refer to the same biological entity based on taxonomic judgment. Nomenclatural synonyms reflect direct nomenclatural redundancy, while taxonomic synonyms emerge from interpretive assessments of equivalence. Synonyms typically originate from historical naming practices, such as independent descriptions of the same by different researchers unaware of prior work, new discoveries prompting reclassification, or ongoing taxonomic revisions that consolidate names. For instance, limited communication among early naturalists often led to redundant naming, and advances in , like genetic analysis, frequently reveal previously overlooked equivalences. A simple example is the mammalian species now known as Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771), originally described as Felis concolor (Linnaeus, 1771); the later generic reassignment to Puma renders the original combination Felis concolor an objective synonym, suppressed in favor of the accepted name under current taxonomic classification, while the specific epithet concolor retains priority from 1771. These categories of synonyms are applied with some differences across disciplines like zoology and botany.

Types of Synonyms

In taxonomy, synonyms are classified into primary types based on whether their equivalence is determined by nomenclatural rules or taxonomic judgment. Objective synonyms, also known as nomenclatural or homotypic synonyms, arise when two or more names are based on the identical name-bearing type, such as the same specimen or , making their synonymy empirically verifiable and obligatory to recognize under codes of . For instance, if a is transferred to a new but retains the same type, the original and new combinations become objective synonyms. In contrast, subjective synonyms, also termed taxonomic or heterotypic synonyms, occur when different names are applied to the same taxon based on interpretations of morphological, genetic, or ecological evidence, rather than shared types; their recognition is thus facultative and depends on the taxonomer's assessment of whether the taxa are conspecific. These synonyms reflect evolving understandings of and are not automatically binding, allowing for debate in revisions. Within these categories, synonyms are further subdivided by publication date under the principle of priority, which establishes validity. A senior synonym is the earliest validly published name for a , taking precedence unless overturned by specific code provisions, while a junior synonym is any later name deemed equivalent, which is typically suppressed in favor of the senior one. This hierarchy prevents nomenclatural instability but can lead to reversals if a long-unused senior synonym is revived, as seen in cases where prevailing usage protects junior names. The distinction between obligatory (objective/nomenclatural) and facultative (subjective/taxonomic) synonyms underscores when synonymy must be enforced versus when it is interpretive; obligatory cases require suppression of junior names regardless of taxonomic opinion, whereas facultative ones allow flexibility based on evidence, promoting stability while accommodating new data. Historically, the adoption of Linnaean in the accelerated synonym accumulation, as rapid descriptions often relied on incomplete or shared descriptions without fixed types, leading to multiple names for the same entities and necessitating later synonymization efforts. For example, Linnaeus's (1758) consolidated pre-existing polynomial names but inadvertently created synonyms when subsequent examinations revealed overlaps, such as in genera like Rosa where early variants were later unified. These types of synonyms are applied across zoological and botanical contexts, though specific rules vary by disciplinary code.

Synonyms in Zoology

Objective and Subjective Synonyms

In zoological , objective synonyms refer to two or more names that denote nominal taxa sharing the same name-bearing type, such as a specimen, syntype series, or, for genus-group taxa, the same . This synonymy is indisputable and permanent because it is determined solely by the fixed nomenclatural type, independent of taxonomic interpretation or subsequent evidence. For instance, the genus Pomatia H. Beck, 1837, is an objective junior synonym of Linnaeus, 1758, as both are based on the type species Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758, the Roman snail. Objective synonyms often arise at the genus level when multiple names are proposed for groups including the same , or at the species level when names are based on the same type specimen or series, such as in cases of overlooked or divided syntypes. Under the (ICZN), the senior name (earliest validly published) prevails among objective synonyms, ensuring nomenclatural stability without regard to biological similarity. This principle reinforces the objectivity of types as anchors for , preventing disputes over the linkage between names and taxa. Subjective synonyms, in contrast, are names considered to apply to the same based on taxonomic judgment and supporting , such as morphological, genetic, behavioral, or ecological , but they are based on different name-bearing types. Their synonymy is not nomenclaturally fixed and can be revised if new suggests the taxa are distinct, reflecting the interpretive nature of . For example, in mammalian , Antilocapra anteflexa Gray, 1855, is a junior subjective synonym of Antilocapra americana Ord, 1815, the , as taxonomic revisions determined they represent the same despite different type specimens (a pair of horns for the former). Similar cases occur in insect , where revisions of or genera often merge names deemed synonymous through comparative morphology or analysis, such as in the family Carabidae where congeneric species are consolidated based on phylogenetic . The recognition of subjective synonyms prioritizes nomenclatural stability under the ICZN, particularly through Article 23.9, which allows the reversal of precedence if the junior has been in prevailing usage for over a and its suppression would conserve the established . Taxonomists apply criteria including demonstrable conspecificity (for species-group names) or congenericity (for genus-group names), often supported by integrative approaches like , to justify synonymy while minimizing disruption to existing and . This framework ensures that subjective judgments align with the Code's goal of universality and stability in zoological names.

Treatment under ICZN

The (ICZN) regulates synonyms in zoological primarily through the Principle of Priority established in Article 23, which dictates that the valid name for a is the oldest available name applied to it, rendering junior synonyms invalid unless another name is granted precedence for nomenclatural stability. Article 23.9 specifically addresses reversal of precedence, allowing a junior synonym or to supplant a senior one when the junior has achieved prevailing usage and the senior has not, thereby prioritizing stability over strict priority. This provision applies to both objective synonyms (based on type specimens) and subjective synonyms (based on taxonomic judgment), but requires demonstration that the junior name has been treated as valid in at least 25 works by at least 10 different authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years, with no evidence of confusion. Additional relevant articles include Article 24 on simultaneous proposal of names and Article 61 on homonymy, which intersect with synonymy when names are identical but refer to different taxa. Proposing a synonym entails publishing the nomenclatural act in a work compliant with Article 8, which mandates issuance after in a format for permanent scientific record, distributed in multiple identical copies, and excluding non-scientific media like telephone books or emails. For acts after , including those establishing new synonyms tied to taxa, prior electronic registration in ZooBank—the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature—is required under Article 8A to confer availability and validity. Routine proposals of synonymy are accepted via subsequent taxonomic publications citing the evidence (e.g., morphological or genetic data), but cases involving reversal of precedence or suppression demand formal application to the (ICZN), including detailed justification and supporting literature, for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to invite public comment before a ruling. The functions as the authoritative body for resolving disputes, acting under Articles 78–81 to exercise plenary powers that override Code provisions when necessary to preserve stability, such as by suppressing senior or designating names for protection. Applications are reviewed by the Commission, which issues binding Opinions published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, ensuring consistent application across global zoological research. This role prevents nomenclatural chaos, particularly in cases where strict priority would disrupt established usage in fields like conservation or . Notable ICZN interventions post-2000 illustrate these mechanisms. In Opinion 2511 (Case 3815, 2024), the Commission reversed precedence to conserve Tyrannosauridae Osborn, 1906, over the unused senior synonyms Deinodontidae Cope, 1866, and Dryptosauridae Marsh, 1890, for the tyrannosaur dinosaur family, citing widespread usage in paleontological literature since the early 20th century to avoid confusion in ongoing research. Similarly, in Opinion 2505 (Case 3792, 2024), Pachnaeus Schoenherr, 1826, was granted precedence over its senior objective synonym Docorhinus Schoenherr, 1823, for a genus of weevils, as the junior name had been stably used for over 150 years in agricultural and biodiversity studies, with the senior name dormant since 1940.

Synonyms in Botany

Homotypic and Heterotypic Synonyms

In botanical nomenclature, homotypic synonyms, also known as nomenclatural synonyms, are names that share the same nomenclatural type—such as a or lectotype—with another name, typically arising from subsequent combinations or publications based on the original type specimen. These synonyms are considered objectively equivalent due to their direct linkage to the identical type, and they are often denoted by the symbol ≡. In contrast, heterotypic synonyms, or taxonomic synonyms, refer to different names applied to the same but based on distinct types, where equivalence is determined through taxonomic evaluation rather than nomenclatural identity. This distinction underscores the role of type specimens in resolving synonymy, with heterotypic cases requiring evidence from morphology, , or to confirm conspecificity. Examples of these synonyms are prevalent in complex plant families like Orchidaceae, where historical misidentifications have led to extensive . For instance, in the genus Crepidium, the accepted name C. purpureum (Lindl.) Szlach. has heterotypic synonyms such as C. bilobum (Lindl.) Szlach. and C. hainanense (Tang & F.T. Wang) S.C. Chen & Z.H. Tsi, each based on separate type specimens but later deemed synonymous through detailed comparative studies. For example, Liparis viridicallus Holttum is a heterotypic synonym of the accepted name Liparis halconensis (Ames) Ames, based on different type specimens but deemed to represent the same following taxonomic revision. These cases highlight how in Orchidaceae often stems from morphological variability and past taxonomic revisions. Botanical synonyms extend to hybrid names, known as nothotaxa, which follow similar type-based classifications: a hybrid formula or nothoepithet can have homotypic synonyms if sharing the same parental types or specimens, while heterotypic ones arise from alternative designations for the same hybrid lineage. For cultivar registrations, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) governs synonymy separately, tracking invalid or superseded epithets to prevent duplication and ensuring they are listed alongside botanical synonyms in for comprehensive taxonomic reference. This integrated approach maintains clarity in cultivated plant diversity, where derived from hybrids may accumulate synonyms reflecting breeding history.

Treatment under ICN

Under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), synonyms are addressed through rules that prioritize legitimate names and reject superfluous or conflicting ones to ensure nomenclatural stability. Article 11 establishes that the correct name for a given at a particular rank is the earliest legitimate name validly published, with priority applying only among names deemed applicable to the same and excluding homonyms; this provision directly influences synonym treatment by requiring later synonyms to yield to earlier legitimate ones unless overridden by conservation. Complementing this, Article 52 renders a name illegitimate—and thus rejected—if it is nomenclaturally superfluous at publication, such as when proposed for a already covered by an existing valid name (a potential synonym), except where the name is subsequently conserved under Article 14, protected under Article F.2 for fungi, or sanctioned under Article F.3. These articles collectively prevent the accumulation of redundant synonyms by enforcing legitimacy based on priority and utility. Procedures for handling synonyms emphasize typification and formal proposals to resolve ambiguities or promote stability. Typification, detailed in Articles 7–9, anchors names to specific types (e.g., specimens or illustrations), allowing synonymy to be objectively determined when types of different names refer to the same ; for instance, if two names share a common type, they are homotypic synonyms, guiding rejection of the later name. Synonymy proposals, particularly for contentious cases, follow Article 14's framework for conserving or rejecting names against synonyms, where a later name may be conserved over an earlier one if it better serves taxonomic clarity or widespread usage. Such proposals must include detailed justification, are published in Taxon, reviewed by committees, and ratified by the Nomenclature Section and plenary of the (IBC), as seen in ongoing updates to Appendices III and IV listing conserved names. For fungi and algae, synonym handling incorporates ICN's general rules alongside Chapter F's fungi-specific provisions, with notable refinements in editions post the 2011 Melbourne Code. The Shenzhen Code (2018) expanded sanctioning (Art. F.5) to treat sanctioned fungal names as conserved against both homonyms and competing synonyms, facilitating retention of historically important names despite earlier alternatives. The Code (2025), approved at the XX (IBC) in , introduced voluntary registration of names and type designations (Art. 42 Note 1), provisions for rejecting derogatory epithets (Art. 51.2, effective 1 2026), and orthographic variants corrections (Art. 61), reflecting adaptations to digital tools and inclusivity in nomenclature for , fungi, and . These changes reflect ongoing adaptations to molecular data and digital databases in and . The ICN also specifies treatments for orthographic variants and tautonyms to maintain precision in plant names. Article 60 requires retention of a name's original , designating alternative forms (e.g., "sylvatica" vs. "silvatica") as orthographic variants that must be corrected to the standard unless typographical errors are involved, thereby avoiding inadvertent creation of synonyms through spelling discrepancies. Tautonyms, in which the specific identical to the generic name (e.g., a hypothetical Rosa rosa), are explicitly forbidden under Article 23.4, making such combinations invalid and requiring emendation to prevent self-synonymous confusion in .

Comparisons Across Disciplines

Key Differences Between Zoology and Botany

In zoological nomenclature, synonyms are classified as either objective or subjective under the (ICZN). Objective synonyms refer to names based on the same type specimen or type series, making their synonymy a matter of fact rather than opinion, as defined in the ICZN . In contrast, subjective synonyms involve names based on different types, where synonymy depends on taxonomic judgment about whether the types belong to the same . Botanical nomenclature, governed by the (ICN), employs homotypic and heterotypic categories. Homotypic synonyms share the same type with the accepted name and are nomenclaturally equivalent, often arising from new combinations or name changes without altering the type. Heterotypic synonyms, however, are based on different types and reflect taxonomic decisions that the types represent the same . The application of priority—the principle that the oldest valid name takes precedence—differs significantly between the codes, with zoology allowing greater flexibility for nomenclatural stability. Under the ICZN, the senior synonym (oldest available name) is generally valid, but exceptions permit the junior synonym to prevail if it has been in "prevailing usage" for at least 10 years in at least 25 works by 10 authors, provided the senior name has not been used since 1899; such reversals must be justified and may require Commission approval to avoid instability. The ICN adheres more rigidly to priority, designating the earliest legitimate name as correct unless overridden by explicit conservation through the Appendices, which reject competing synonyms only if listed; this type-centric approach minimizes subjective interventions. These variations stem from the ICZN's emphasis on practical stability in animal taxonomy, where subjective judgments are common, versus the ICN's stricter reliance on types in plant taxonomy. Treatment of hybrid taxa further highlights divergences, as the codes address interbreeding differently. In , names applied to taxa of hybrid origin remain available and subject to standard rules, but priority does not apply between a name for a hybrid and one for a non-hybrid taxon, preventing nomenclatural conflicts; hybrids lack dedicated ranks or notation like ×. , however, recognizes nothotaxa (hybrids) with specific provisions, including the multiplication sign × before the name for nothospecies (e.g., ×piperita for M. aquatica × M. spicata) and dedicated ranks like nothosubspecies; these follow priority among themselves but are distinct from non-hybrid taxa. This botanical framework accommodates frequent hybridization in , while zoological rules treat hybrids as incidental to avoid complicating animal classification.
AspectZoology (ICZN)Botany (ICN)
Synonym TypesObjective (same type, factual); Subjective (different types, judgmental)Homotypic (same type, nomenclatural); Heterotypic (different types, taxonomic)
Priority ApplicationSenior name valid, but reversible for prevailing usage/stability (Art. 23.9)Strict to earliest legitimate name, overridden only by conservation (Art. 11)
Hybrid TreatmentNames available; no priority vs. non-hybrids; no special ranks (Art. 17, 23.8)Nothotaxa with × notation and ranks (e.g., nothospecies); separate priority (Art. H.11)
Illustrative cases demonstrate these differences. For instance, in , the beetle genus has subjective synonyms like Crathis based on differing type interpretations, where priority might yield to a junior name if it stabilizes usage in entomological literature. In , the orchid exhibits heterotypic synonyms such as Cordula, where types from separate collections are deemed conspecific, rigidly prioritizing the senior name unless conserved. For hybrids, the zoological mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis × edulis lacks formal hybrid status and is synonymized subjectively under one parent if merged, whereas the botanical ×Cupressocyparis leylandii receives a dedicated nothospecific name, treated as a distinct entity under ICN rules. These examples underscore how the same biological phenomenon—a renamed or hybrid —can lead to divergent synonymy outcomes across disciplines.

Synonyms in Other Taxonomic Codes

In the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), synonyms are classified as homotypic or heterotypic, similar to other codes, but with adaptations due to the absence of mandatory type specimens for bacterial taxa. Homotypic synonyms arise when multiple names are based on the same nomenclatural type, such as a type strain or original description, rendering later names illegitimate under the principle of priority (Rule 24a). Heterotypic synonyms, based on different types but deemed to represent the same , depend on taxonomic judgment rather than strict nomenclatural rules, with priority determined by the earliest valid date unless conserved by the Judicial Commission (Rule 24b). For example, revisions in bacterial nomenclature often involve merging heterotypic synonyms during reclassifications, as seen in updates to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, where objective synonyms do not disrupt established nomenclature if published post-1980. Unlike the ICNP's reliance on descriptions or strains without formal types, viral taxonomy under the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) lacks a priority-based system for , emphasizing consensus-driven reclassifications based on genomic and phylogenetic evidence. in typically emerge from merging or abolishing taxa during updates, such as when reveals that distinct represent variants of the same entity, leading to the adoption of a single current name without retaining junior . The ICTV's mandates binomial names ( + ) but does not enforce nomenclatural priority; instead, taxonomic proposals ratified by the committee supersede prior names, as in the 2021 standardization of that resolved ambiguities from pre-binomial formats. For instance, reclassifications of retroviruses have synonymized older isolate-based names under unified taxa. These approaches differ markedly from zoological and botanical codes: the ICNP permits list-based synonyms without physical types, prioritizing valid publication over typification, while ICTV's consensus model avoids nomenclatural stability in favor of evolutionary accuracy, often resulting in frequent synonymy without conserved names. In and fungal nomenclature, governed primarily by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), post-2020 updates address emerging digital challenges, such as mandatory electronic registration for valid publication of fungal names (effective since 2012 under ICN Art. F.5), while the 2024 Madrid amendments made it voluntary for plants and algae. For fungi, proposals ratified at the 2024 International Mycological Congress removed the requirement to list synonyms under protected names in the ICN's Appendix (Prop. F-003), reducing administrative burden while maintaining protections.

Historical and Modern Context

Historical Development

The concept of synonyms in taxonomy originated with Carl Linnaeus's Systema Naturae (10th edition, 1758), where he systematically listed multiple previous names and descriptions for species from earlier literature to aid identification, but without any formal rules for resolving conflicts or establishing priority among them. This approach reflected the pre-nomenclatural chaos of the time, as naturalists often proposed redundant or conflicting names for the same organisms based on varying morphological interpretations or incomplete specimens. Linnaeus's work marked the starting point for modern binomial nomenclature, yet the unregulated inclusion of synonyms highlighted the need for standardized procedures to ensure stability in scientific naming across zoology and botany. In the , efforts to regulate synonyms gained momentum, beginning with the Strickland Code of 1842, drafted by a British Association chaired by Hugh Strickland and including and , which specifically addressed the proliferation of synonyms in by proposing rules for priority and the suppression of junior names. This code laid foundational principles for zoological , emphasizing uniformity to curb "evil" synonymy caused by uncoordinated publications. These ideas influenced the development of international codes, culminating in the 1905 Règles internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature) adopted at the International Congress of Zoology in , which formalized synonym treatment through priority and type concepts for animals. Paralleling this, the botanical community adopted the Vienna Rules in 1905 (published 1906) at the International , establishing similar guidelines for plant synonyms under what became the International Code of (ICBN, now ICN). The 20th century brought significant challenges to synonym management due to intensified global explorations and biodiversity discoveries, leading to "synonym explosions" as taxonomists described thousands of new species from remote regions, often resulting in overlapping names for the same taxa before revisions could occur. Post-World War II surges in fieldwork, particularly in tropical and oceanic areas, amplified this issue, with rapid publications exacerbating nomenclatural instability until codes were iteratively refined to prioritize stability over strict priority in cases of confusion. By the late century, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and International Code of Botanical Nomenclature emphasized resolving synonyms through conserved names and type specimens to support ongoing taxonomic revisions. In 2024, Declaration 47 of the ICZN added examples to Article 13.1.1, illustrating the use of molecular data, such as DNA sequences, in establishing or confirming synonymy, allowing genetic evidence to underpin decisions on name validity while upholding nomenclatural stability.

Integration with Digital Tools

Databases such as the (ITIS), the (GBIF), and the (WoRMS) play a central role in aggregating taxonomic data, including synonyms, from diverse sources to provide dynamic resolution for users worldwide. ITIS partners with global specialists to compile scientific names and their hierarchical relationships, enabling real-time access to synonym lists that reflect ongoing taxonomic revisions. GBIF facilitates synonym harmonization by linking identifiers across datasets, such as matching GBIF names to NCBI Taxonomy and incorporating synonyms for unmatched entries to enhance . Similarly, WoRMS maintains a comprehensive repository of over 460,000 taxonomic names, including synonyms, nomina dubia, and nomen nuda, supporting marine biodiversity research through updated synonymy records. In biodiversity informatics, ontologies like Darwin Core enable standardized synonym mapping by providing a vocabulary for describing taxonomic entities and their relationships across platforms. Darwin Core terms, such as scientificName and taxonID, allow for the dynamic construction of archives that link accepted names to synonyms, facilitating among databases like Scratchpads and GBIF. This approach supports the exchange of data while preserving synonymy details, ensuring that mappings remain consistent during and analysis. Post-2020 advancements in algorithmic synonym detection have introduced challenges, particularly in integrating AI-driven methods with and genomic data from like NCBI. Tools such as TaxoNERD employ deep neural networks for taxonomic , aiding in the automated identification of synonyms in large-scale literature and sequence data, though accuracy varies with training datasets. In , AI-enhanced delimitation combines morphological and genetic features to resolve synonymy, as seen in NCBI's database, which has undergone curation updates to align synonyms with genomic evidence from submissions. However, discrepancies arise when phylogenetic trees reveal hidden diversity, requiring manual reconciliation of synonyms in NCBI records to maintain nomenclatural consistency. Emerging trends since 2022 emphasize open-access registries to enhance transparency and stability in . The Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) Release 10, for instance, provides a phylogenetically consistent for over 715,000 bacterial and archaeal genomes, incorporating updated synonym mappings derived from average identity analyses. Similarly, expert-curated global checklists, such as the 2022 legume , serve as open registries that standardize synonyms across vascular plants, reducing errors in platforms. These initiatives, including ZooBank's expanded digital registration of unavailable taxonomic works, promote community-driven updates to synonym lists, fostering greater accessibility for and conservation.

Practical Applications

In Nomenclatural Databases

In nomenclatural databases, synonyms are systematically curated to maintain the integrity of taxonomic nomenclature across disciplines. The (IPNI), a collaborative project by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Harvard University Herbaria, and the Australian National Herbarium, functions as a primary repository for names, listing all published scientific names along with their s and statuses such as accepted or synonym, while providing details on publication, authors, and types. Similarly, ZooBank serves as the official registry for zoological nomenclature under the (ICZN), registering new names, nomenclatural acts, and associated synonyms to ensure traceability and prevent duplication in animal . These databases emphasize nomenclatural validity over taxonomic opinion, often cross-referencing with complementary resources like (POWO) for plants or the (ITIS) for broader integration. Standardization processes in these databases involve cross-linking synonyms across different taxonomic codes to reconcile variations, such as homotypic synonyms under the International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and (ICN) with heterotypic ones under the ICZN. Tools within databases like the Global Names Indexer and Resolver (GNIR) facilitate this by names and linking equivalents, while algorithms handle orthographic errors through fuzzy matching to correct spelling variants without altering original publications. For instance, the Fungal Names database employs automated comparison against existing synonyms, homonyms, and orthographic variants to standardize entries from sources like Index Fungorum. A key example of synonym utilization is in the (GBIF), which resolves s via its taxonomic backbone—a centralized index of over 2.2 million names—to enable accurate searches and aggregate occurrence data without duplication. When users query a name, GBIF matches it against accepted taxa or s, returning unified results that link to original nomenclatural sources. As of October 2025, enhancements to the (COL), a for the GBIF backbone, have improved taxonomic and resolution across more than 3.5 billion occurrences. Despite these advancements, nomenclatural databases exhibit limitations in coverage for microbial taxa, where the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) restricts valid names to culturable organisms, leaving uncultured microbes underrepresented. Recent efforts from 2023 to 2025 have addressed this through initiatives like the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) and the proposed SeqCode, which integrate genomic data with ICNP-compliant names in resources such as the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN) and Type (Strain) Genome Server (TYGS), now encompassing over 59,000 prokaryotic names and 23,500 genomes to bridge these gaps.

In Taxonomic Research and Conservation

In taxonomic , synonyms play a crucial role in tracing historical and ensuring comprehensive data synthesis. Researchers often encounter multiple names for the same across publications, necessitating the inclusion of junior synonyms to capture all relevant studies in reviews and meta-analyses. For instance, in phylogenetic analyses, citing junior synonyms allows integration of older morphological data with modern molecular evidence, preventing gaps in evolutionary reconstructions. This practice is particularly evident in studies revising taxonomic boundaries, where synonyms facilitate the assembly of datasets for tree-building algorithms. An example is the genomic investigation of species, where former synonyms were re-evaluated using DNA sequences to refine phylogenetic relationships, highlighting how unresolved synonymy can distort branch lengths and estimates. In conservation applications, synonym resolution is essential for accurate IUCN Red List assessments, as it prevents double-counting of threatened populations under different names. The IUCN requires documentation of major synonyms, including original names, to standardize taxonomic units and ensure that extinction risk evaluations reflect true species distributions rather than nomenclatural artifacts. Tools like sRedList aid this by merging occurrence records from synonymous taxa, reducing errors in range mapping and population viability analyses. Such resolution is vital for avoiding inflated threat estimates; for example, unresolved synonyms in assessments have led to overestimations of distinct endangered lineages, misdirecting conservation funding. By aligning synonyms with authoritative taxonomies, assessors can better quantify habitat loss impacts and prioritize interventions for genuinely distinct taxa. Synonymy presents significant challenges in studying climate-impacted taxa, where rapid environmental shifts exacerbate taxonomic uncertainty and complicate monitoring. In reports, such as those modeling distributions under scenarios, synonyms contribute to mismatches that hinder predictions of range shifts, particularly in vulnerable groups like corals and terrestrial . For instance, in California's assessments, unresolved synonymy alongside geolocation errors has obscured trends in climate-driven . These issues amplify in dynamic ecosystems, where induced by warming can mimic interspecific variation, leading to erroneous synonymizations or splits that skew extinction risk models. Recent analyses indicate that taxonomic uncertainty from synonyms affects occurrence records in climate-sensitive datasets, underscoring the need for integrated molecular validation to track real . Best practices for handling synonyms in taxonomic publications emphasize comprehensive synonym lists supported by molecular evidence to justify mergers or revivals. Authors should compile chronologic lists of homotypic and heterotypic s, citing type specimens and phylogenetic analyses to demonstrate conspecificity. For example, guidelines recommend using or multi-locus to resolve synonymy, as seen in revisions where genomic data overturned prior mergers in plant genera. Publications must include persistent identifiers for synonyms to enable data , with annotations detailing the rationale for taxonomic decisions. This approach, advocated in recent standards, ensures and facilitates future updates amid ongoing discoveries.

References

  1. https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/
  2. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/icbn/frameset/0120AppendixVII.htm
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5023114/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/nomenclature
  5. https://code.iczn.org/glossary/
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/
  7. https://docs.gbif.org/course-data-use/en/synonymy.html
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=info&id=9696
  9. https://assets.ctfassets.net/uo17ejk9rkwj/2GO7nxdwNiSaO4G4s2EUcY/570aca481c603b4233fc920dbe1bd604/gbif_terms_nomenclature_guide_en_v1.pdf
  10. https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md-barc/beltsville-agricultural-research-center/mycology-and-nematology-genetic-diversity-and-biology-laboratory/docs/us-national-fungus-collections-bpi/nomenclature-database-details/
  11. https://s10.lite.msu.edu/res/msu/botonl/b_online/library/tennessee/nom-onyms.htm
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336616030_Networked_names_synonyms_in_eighteenth-century_botany
  13. https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=153970
  14. https://code.iczn.org/the-type-concept-in-nomenclature/article-61-principle-of-typification/
  15. https://www.iczn.org/about-the-iczn/why-is-the-iczn-important/
  16. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/86727/81465
  17. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/glossary.html
  18. https://www.linnean.org/learning/type-definitions
  19. https://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/saintlouis/0085AppendixIIIANGit.htm
  20. https://stories.rbge.org.uk/archives/39999
  21. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:988222-1
  22. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:640929-1
  23. https://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/saintlouis/0074AppendixINoHa006.htm
  24. https://www.ishs.org/nomenclature-and-cultivar-registration/cultivars
  25. https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/cultivar-registration
  26. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_11.html
  27. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_52.html
  28. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_7.html
  29. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/files/guidelines_proposals.pdf
  30. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_14.html
  31. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/2018.htm
  32. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajb2.70026
  33. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_60.html
  34. https://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/Art_23.htm
  35. https://code.iczn.org/chapter-4-criteria-of-availability/article-17-names-found-to-denote-more-than-one-taxon-or-taxa-of-hybrid-origin-or-based-on-parts-or-stages-of-animals-or-on-unusual-specimens/
  36. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_h11.html
  37. https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005782
  38. https://ictv.global/about/code
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227694/
  40. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msphere.00020-25
  41. https://www.iaptglobal.org/_functions/code/madrid
  42. https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43008-024-00169-2
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10662369/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1973966/
  45. https://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/mmsp_04_101_1_171.pdf
  46. https://www.iczn.org/outreach/faqs/
  47. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/38494/32917
  48. http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/ICZNCode.pdf
  49. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/history.htm
  50. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/paleosoc/paleobiol/article/34/4/516/86494/How-to-find-a-dinosaur-and-the-role-of-synonymy-in
  51. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/58/6/1122/5064904
  52. https://www.iczn.org/the-code/declaration-47-addition-of-examples-to-article-13-1-1-of-the-international-code-of-zoological-nome/
  53. https://itis.gov/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10838036/
  55. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051629
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3253084/
  57. https://bdj.pensoft.net/article/1039/
  58. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534723002963
  60. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.13778
  61. https://academic.oup.com/database/article/doi/10.1093/database/baaa062/5881509
  62. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/73/2/486/7416856
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9158481/
  64. https://academic.oup.com/nar/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nar/gkaf1040/8296754
  65. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01812-6
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391149407_Taxonomy_in_the_digital_era_ZooBank_allows_the_registration_of_unavailable_taxonomic_works
  67. https://www.ipni.org/
  68. https://zoobank.org/
  69. https://www.ipni.org/faq
  70. https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/6241/
  71. https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/object/3978/download/7880/
  72. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D708/6769758
  73. https://www.gbif.org/tools/species-lookup
  74. https://www.gbif.org/news/4NYN9w8HdlGrD2mRqdvw9o/catalogue-of-life-enhancement-supports-improved-global-taxonomic-reference-for-gbif
  75. https://academic.oup.com/nar/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nar/gkaf1110/8306133
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373175035_Genome_Taxonomy_Database_and_SeqCode_Microbial_taxonomy_and_nomenclature_in_the_age_of_big_sequence_data
  77. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.18961
  78. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/6/903
  79. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164604
  80. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12225-024-10184-6
  81. https://www.iucnredlist.org/assessment/supporting-information
  82. https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/content/attachment_files/RL_Standards_Consistency.pdf
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320724003239
  84. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.70406
  85. https://www.iis-rio.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Issues-with-species-occurrence-data-and-their-impact.pdf
  86. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54735-0
  87. https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/309889.pdf
  88. https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/202/4/zlae043/7664331
  89. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.13802
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365452207_Recommendations_for_use_of_annotations_and_persistent_identifiers_in_taxonomy_and_biodiversity_publishing
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.