answers

ANSWERS ON SOME QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT PRINCIPLES OF NOMENCLATURE

(see also other ones in Russian)

1. question: I am confused by the use of parentheses around some of the non-formal names. For example, Neochoroterpes/g(1) vs. Euthraulus/g1. Is there a reason for the parens? In your Terpides paper (Kluge 2009:243-256), you don't use parens around Calliarcys/fg1, but you do in this paper (Kluge 2011).

answer: Usage of these parenthesis is explained in my papers about hierarchical nomenclature. "/g(1)" means that no any other number besides "1" can be used in this place, so this number may be omitted. In the case of Euthraulus, there are two different taxa - Euthraulus/g1 and Euthraulus/g2, so the number can't be omitted. Commas are not obligatory, so both "Calliarcys/fg1" and "Calliarcys/fg(1)" are correct; but in the text where such commas are given, it should be "Calliarcys/fg(1)". In the paper about Terpides, names of such kind (i.e., "Calliarcys/fg1" and "Castanophlebia/fg1") are written without commas.

* * *

2. question: 5-100 million species on earth, how many unique names are going to be required to name every node?

answer: As many as necessary, as well as for each of these 100 million species; in other case scientific research would be useless.

* * *

3. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

"the use of taxa not validate by the ICZN (ex: Atalophlebolinguata or Isca/fg). So, this could invalidate the propositon of the tribe."

answer: Taxa never can be "validate" by the ICZN: independently of the meaning of the word "validate", ICZN does nothing with taxa and states that "All its provisions and recommendations are subservient to those ends and none restricts the freedom of taxonomic thought or actions."

* * *

4. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

".. use of terms apomorphy, synapomorphy and plesiomorphy without perform a formal phylogenetic analysis to assess the characters and to discuss about evolutionary origins"

answer: A unique character, which is not found in any other taxon, is assumed to be an apomorphy; no other ideas about character polarity, which would be based on existent evolutionary theories, have been published. In the diagnosis of Iscini, the characters (1), (2), (5), (7) and (10) have not been found in other taxa; this means that arguments against their apomorphic status are unknown. No one formal analysis can add something to this, until new characters will be discovered. Taking in accout the reviewer's criticism, I am adding some comments to characters in the diagnosis of Iscini.

* * *

5. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

I think that if you should do a matrix with more character, and then perform a phylogenetic analysis to assess what would be autapomorphy, synapomorphy or plesiomorphy to confirm this relationship.

answer: The reviewer suggests to add a matrix, in order to confirm that synapomorphies of Notoiphlebia and Nathanella are unknown. If put nothing into matrix, it will be remain to be nothing.

* * *

6. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

"Transitional names or based on zoological formulas must be avoid."

answer: I also think that names transitional between different nomenclatures must be avoid (Kluge 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2012) and never use them. Possibly, "Isca/fg" can be called "zoological formula". In this case: are such names as "Isca s.str.", or "Isca sensu Peters" also "zoological formulas"? The name "Isca/fg" is typified one, and it is completely regulated by the rules of the Code.

* * *

7. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

The taxon Atalophlebolinguata is not formal valid taxon by ICZN, because is non-typified circumscriptional name. Thus, its tribe couldn’t be validated. Please, use the formal taxon Atalophlebiinae to include the tribe and cite all characters.

answer: According to the Code, validity of tribe does not depend on presence of subfamily; it depends only on priority of family-group names inside the tribe. In description of most leptophlebiid genera subfamily is not mentioned at all, but this does not make them not "validated" (I do not know what does it mean, because such term is absent in the Code).

* * *

8. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

Please, change "in the narrowest sense" for stricto sensu (s.s.)

answer: "narrowest sense" can't be substituted to "s.str.", because here are more than two senses. If the reviewer agrees that the suibfamily name can have 2 different senses (that is not evident from the Code), he must agree that it can have more than two senses.

* * *

9. Anonymous reviewer of the manuscript [see Kluge 2014, Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538]:

I think you should separate the description from discussion in remarks.

answer: Description without comparison is useless.

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *

answer:

* * *