Nomen dubium, nomen nudum, etc. What are the rules for iNat?

See: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-curate-nomen-dubium-taxa/19118

And see: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/642741

I still haven’t received a satisfying answer for this question, but what are the rules for curating the nomen dubiums. Here’s what has changed since the first forum discussion. Orthoptera Species Files (OSF) formerly listed its taxa in the following order: invalid taxa (ex. nomen dubium, nomen nudum), species, subspecies, and synonyms. It was under my impression than any taxa listed that started out with “nomen” instead of “species”, it is not acceptable for iNat, and I was inactivating such taxa.

When OSF transitioned to its new website last August, it changed its format. Nomen dubiums are now considered “valid” names and these taxa are integrated alphabetically within well-recognized species. Nomen nudum have to be manually typed in the search bar to find since it is not listed within the family tree. In summary, the OSF doesn’t clearly separate nomen dubiums from regular species, thus implying they’re valid and acceptable for iNaturalist. In which case, I would have to go back and reactivate some taxa I’ve closed in the past.

Here’s an example of the old vs new OSF:

Nomen dubium (old): Listed separately from species, see S. calcaratus
http://orthoptera.archive.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1132145

Nomen dubium (new): List integrated with species, see S. calcaratus
https://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/841460/overview

Nomen nudum (old): Listed separately from species, see C. torulosinota
http://orthoptera.archive.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1101412

Nomen nudum (new): Not listed on genus page, but does have a taxon page
https://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/807565/overview

https://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/807576/overview

I think it would be a great idea to clarify iNat’s standings on these matters, and list these rules in the curator guide. I think nomen nudums will be easy to deal with (just don’t add them, and inactivate those that are), but we kind of hit a gray zone with nomen dubium with OSF’s new system.

3 Likes

I echo typophyllum’s comment on that flag. Unavailable names like nomina nuda should definitely not be accepted on iNat. That would be misleading and inaccurate. However, I can see the value in included a nomen nudum as an invalid synonym if it has been widely used.

In contrast, I don’t have a principled objection to including nomina dubia, because they are available names and at least potentially valid. However, in the vast majority of cases, if something is a nomen dubium, there’s no reason to identify something with that name. So, from a pragmatic standpoint I don’t think it makes sense to include them in iNat’s taxonomy either. I have myself inactivated nomina dubia (in Diptera, which have no taxon framework) to reduce clutter and confusion.

My feeling is that it’s best to exclude nomina dubia by default. If other evidence shows that a supposed nomen dubium can actually be identified, then curators can discuss whether to deviate from OSF and recognize it as a valid genus or species name.

9 Likes

I don’t know how the TFRs work with OSF (if they exist at all), but with groups sourced to WoRMS I don’t keep any nomina dubia, nomina nuda, taxa inquirenda, or unreplaced junior homonyms that don’t have IDs because they require deviations.

2 Likes

I am not sure how the rules in the Code of Zoological Nomenclature differ from those in the Code of Nomenclature for Plants, Algae and Fungi, but I think it’s important to differentiate between a name that is validly published but difficult to apply (nomen dubium) and a name that is not validly published for starters.

I would 100% never use a nomen nudum, which was never validly published in the first place. IMO there is no place in iNat taxonomies for such a name except as a synonym.

There are taxa that have been a nomen dubium until someone carried out a proper revision of the genus and have then become commonly used. While they are validly described, and available, it seems pointless to accept them for our taxonomies, however, I would caution that names have been referred to as nomina dubia by some authors, that others seem to not consider so, and are happy to apply.

6 Likes

Agreed, I can’t really see a case where a nomen dubium would be relevant on iNat, as by the action of correctly identifying something with that name would make the name no longer a nomen dubium.

I say inactive away on these names, they can always be reactivated if somebody figures out the application of the name.

And nomen nudums should be inactivated with prejudice.

4 Likes

I mostly agree with what has been said here - a nomen nudum has no formal taxonomic standpoint and should not be included on iNat (except maybe as a synonym of an already-existing taxon if that is useful). I think nomina dubia are less clear, and I would err on the side of including them unless there is a reason not to. And that reason could just be something simple like “this is a big genus and removing the multiple nomina dubia would reduce clutter”.

I think it comes down to the fact that nomina nuda are objective, and nomina dubia are subjective. A nomen nudum is objectively unavailable and always will be (it can be formally published but then it will have the new date and authorship, so it is technically not the same name). A nomen dubium, by contrast, is subjective and can depend on what the taxon is and why an author considered it a nomen dubium, and there does not have to be agreement between taxonomists as to whether a name is a nomen dubium or not. There are several taxa that were once considered nomina dubia but can now be diagnosed thanks to genetics, and there are various other reasons why a nomen dubium may actually be diagnosable. E.g., a description might be insufficient and the type specimen lost, but then if the type is relocated we might find that actually the taxon is fully diagnosable. Ideally there would also be some sort of publication to indicate this, but unfortunately that’s just not always the case.

So, in summary, my suggestion would be: exclude all nomina nuda, and treat nomina dubia on a case-by-case basis, erring on the side of including them.

4 Likes

Nomina dubia at least, are considered a matching relationship. See Stenopelmatus minor, a taxon with 180+ records on iNat, most of which are RG. This relationship was automatically added when the TF was added last October.

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/293505/taxonomy_details

But it is considered nomen dubium in Weissman et. al (2021) for the following reason:

“In any case, we declare a New status: nomen dubium, in the absence of DNA and drum… We were tempted to let this name stand since it would have page priority over other small black species S. nieti and S. histrio, if all three should be synonyms. Nevertheless, the diversity of small, black Stenopelmatus, in Mexico, while unknown, easily exceeds 6 (Table 1). This situation will be unresolvable without the behavioral information of hop vs no hop, and drumming pattern. If karyotype and DNA information can be included in future systematics, then even better.”

The same authors listed other species in the genus (also having a number of obs in iNat) as nomen dubium due to the fact the species was described off juvenile specimens, which are essentially unidentifiable. I inactivated the taxa back in 2021 that did not have obs, but if these taxa are “valid” then I need to make amends.

1 Like

Additional question: I am totally cool with not accepting the nomina nudia, but should these taxa be inactivated or swapped into the next taxon level rank (ex. nomen nudum species → genus)? I think the benefit of the letter is that the name is still searchable in the database, and may prevent someone from readding the name.

1 Like

assuming you’re talking about taxa with IDs, they need to be swapped into a higher taxon and shouldn’t be only inactivated

3 Likes

It’s worth noting that a name that is originally published as a nomen nudum can become available if it’s validly published later. For example, this is the source of some of the confusion around the correct names of the Hawaiian Pleomele species. The name P. hawaiiensis was originally published in 1932 with no description, making it a nomen nudum; then synonymized in 1962 (but again with no description, so an invalid act); and finally validly published in 1980. So the name is valid, but with the date (for the purpose of priority) of 1980, not 1932.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.