Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of

 

Date of this Version

1999

Comments

Published in the Journal of Parasitology (1999) 85(4): 769-770. Copyright 1999, the American Society of Parasitologists. Used by permission.

Abstract

In 1988, Bandoni and Duszynski argued that individuals involved in the taxonomy and systematics of the coccidia should become familiar with the 3rd edition of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Ride et aI., 1985) and tried to reiterate the importance and utility of designating some form of type specimens and archiving them in appropriate museums. Their intent was to create an awareness among biologists working with coccidia (or other protists) of the value of designating type specimens. In the decade since their admonition, bench scholars working with coccidia, and journal editors to whom they submit their work, have begun to endorse the "type concept" by requiring that some form of type specimen be submitted before new species names and descriptions are published. Although some authors still submit samples of oocysts preserved in standard fixatives (for reasons why this option is less than optimal, see Duszynski and Gardner [1991]), the majority submit photomicrographs of sporulated oocysts as their type species to various accredited museums. The issue that arises is what to call these kinds of type specimens.

Proposed here is to add the prefix photo- to appropriate terminology already sanctioned by the Code to help clarify existing terminology. Because increasing numbers of photomicrographs are being submitted to accredited museums to archive new species, there seems a need for precise definitions, so those who submit photomicrographs of sporulated oocysts and/or other life cycle stages of coccidia will know, unambiguously, how to define their name-bearing type specimen.