Neotropical bird scientists call for an end to bias.

Two manifestos offer recommendations for shifting field's flawed "northern lens".

Review of morphometric measurements used in anuran species descriptions and recommendations for a standardized approach.

Standardization and repeatability is at the heart of all scientific research, yet very little literature exists to standardize morphometric measurements within vertebrate groups. This is particularly true for amphibians. Our study attempts to rectify this lack of methodological standardization for the measurement of morphological characters in anurans through an extensive literature survey of 136 species descriptions representing 45 currently recognized families of frogs. The survey revealed 42 morphological measurements represented in five percent or more of the literature reviewed. All measurements are listed by most commonly used name, acronym, and most precise definition, and we provide statistics summarizing the variation in measurement use and description from the surveyed literature. Of these 42 measurements, a subset of 16 were found in the top 75% of all surveyed descriptions and identified as a focal set of recommended measurements in an effort to standardize the morphometric measurements that describe anuran species diversity. Illustrations of these 16 measurements are provided as a visual reference for standardizing their measurement.

Warning: potential problems for taxonomy on the horizon?

Whether or not a species might reasonably be described without the preservation of a type specimen is a matter of ongoing discussion among taxonomists (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Minteer et al. 2014; Krell & Wheeler 2014; Löbl et al. 2016; Marshall & Evenhuis 2016; Santos et al. 2016). Here, we attempt to make our own contribution to the topic.

Conflict resolution of grammar and gender for avian species-group names under Article 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code: is gender agreement worth it?

We analyze recent nomenclatural treatment of selected avian species-group names that may be either adjective and variable or noun and invariable. In 27 such names, we found that 14 previously identified as adjectives are nouns under Article 31.2.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Five of them may require correction in current checklists; they are bresilius in Ramphocelus bresilius (Linnaeus, 1766) to bresilia, germana in Amblyornis macgregoriae germana Rothschild, 1910 to germanus, argentinus in Muscisaxicola cinereus argentinus Hellmayr, 1932 to argentina, martinicus in Porphyrio martinicus (Linnaeus, 1766) to martinica, and moluccus in Threskiornis moluccus (Cuvier, 1829) to molucca. Mindful of the compounding effect of species-genus recombination from taxonomic revision, we reach the conclusion, not new, that the requirement for gender agreement in species-group names is the single biggest cause of nomenclatural instability in zoology. To resolve it, we support replacing gender agreement by original spellings for species-group names.

Elucidating Article 45.6 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: a dichotomous key for the determination of subspecific or infrasubspecific rank.

We present an overview of the difficulties sometimes encountered when determining whether a published name following a binomen is available or infrasubspecific and unavailable, following Article 45.6 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). We propose a dichotomous key that facilitates this determination and as a preferable method, given the convoluted and subordinate discussion, exceptions, and qualifications laid out in ICZN (1999: 49-50). Examples and citations are provided for each case one can encounter while making this assessment of availability status of names following the binomen.

Nomenclatural and taxonomic problems related to the electronic publication of new nomina and nomenclatural acts in zoology, with brief comments on optical discs and on the situation in botany.

In zoological nomenclature, to be potentially valid, nomenclatural novelties (i.e., new nomina and nomenclatural acts) need first to be made available, that is, published in works qualifying as publications as defined by the International Code of zoological Nomenclature ("the Code"). In September 2012, the Code was amended in order to allow the recognition of works electronically published online after 2011 as publications available for the purpose of zoological nomenclature, provided they meet several conditions, notably a preregistration of the work in ZooBank. Despite these new Rules, several of the long-discussed problems concerning the electronic publication of new nomina and nomenclatural acts have not been resolved. The publication of this amendment provides an opportunity to discuss some of these in detail. It is important to note that: (1) all works published only online before 2012 are nomenclaturally unavailable; (2) printed copies of the PDFs of works which do not have their own ISSN or ISBN, and which are not obtainable free of charge or by purchase, do not qualify as publications but must be seen as facsimiles of unavailable works and are unable to provide nomenclatural availability to any nomenclatural novelties they may contain; (3) prepublications online of later released online publications are unavailable, i.e., they do not advance the date of publication; (4) the publication dates of works for which online prepublications had been released are not those of these prepublications and it is critical that the real release date of such works appear on the actual final electronic publication, but this is not currently the case in electronic periodicals that distribute such online prepublications and which still indicate on their websites and PDFs the date of release of prepublication as that of publication of the work; (5) supplementary online materials and subsequent formal corrections of either paper or electronic publications distributed only online are nomenclaturally unavailable; (6) nomenclatural information provided on online websites that do not have a fixed content and format, with ISSN or ISBN, is unavailable. We give precise examples of many of these nomenclatural problems. Several of them, when they arise, are due to the fact that the availability of nomenclatural novelties now depends on information that will have to be sought not from the work itself but from extrinsic evidence. As shown by several examples discussed here, an electronic document can be modified while keeping the same DOI and publication date, which is not compatible with the requirements of zoological nomenclature. Therefore, another system of registration of electronic documents as permanent and inalterable will have to be devised. ZooBank also clearly needs to be improved in several respects. Mention in a work of its registration number (LSID) in ZooBank would seem to be possible only if this registration has occurred previously, but some works that have purportedly been registered in ZooBank are in fact missing on this web application. In conclusion, we offer recommendations to authors, referees, editors, publishers, libraries and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in the hope that such problems can be limited along with the potential chaos in zoological nomenclature that could result, if careful attention is not paid to the problems we highlight here, from a somewhat misplaced, and perhaps now widespread, understanding that electronic publication of nomenclatural novelties is now allowed and straightforward. We suggest that, as long as the problematic points linked to the new amendment and to electronic publication as a whole are not resolved, nomenclatural novelties continue to be published in paper-printed journals that have so far shown editorial competence regarding taxonomy and nomenclature, which is not the case of several recent electronic-only published journals.

Primatology between feelings and science: a personal experience perspective.

The aim of this article is to discuss some aspects of the relationship between feelings and primatological science, and how this relationship can influence this particular scientific practice. This point of view is based on the author's personal experience. A sentimental reason to study primatology in the first place will be discussed, and then the existence of a bond between the observer and the observed will be presented as a possible by-product of primatology. The following question is whether a sentimental attitude toward primates is detrimental for good science or is, alternatively, actually leading to better primatological science. As an example, the practice of naming individual monkeys is considered. It is argued that naming monkeys can help by characterizing individuality, and this is likely to improve planning of behavioural observations and welfare of captive individuals. The relationship between the researcher and study subject in biomedical studies is discussed in terms of hierarchy of moral status. Finally, primatology is not unique in the existence of bonds between the observer and the observed, at least from the point of view of the observer. However, primatology is unique because, more than in other cases, it gives greater opportunity for reasoning about different factors surrounding "doing science with animals." This is most probably owing to the phylogenetic closeness primatologists have with their study subjects. Among the different factors involved in making science using animals, the sentimental bond developing between the researcher and study animal can be very influential.

Ethics commentary: subjects of knowledge and control in field primatology.

Our primate kin are routinely displaced from their habitats, hunted for meat, captured for trade, housed in zoos, made to perform for our entertainment, and used as subjects in biomedical testing. They are also the subjects of research inquiries by field primatologists. In this article, we place primate field studies on a continuum of human and alloprimate relationships as a heuristic device to explore the unifying ethical implications of such inter-relationships, as well as address specific ethical challenges arising from common research protocols "in the field" (e.g. risks associated with habituation, disease transmission, invasive collection of biological samples, etc.). Additionally, we question the widespread deployment of conservation- and/or local economic development-based justifications for field-based primatological pursuits. Informed by decades of combined fieldwork experience in Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, we demonstrate the process by which the adherence to a particular ethical calculus can lead to unregulated and ethically problematic research agendas. In conclusion, we offer several suggestions to consider in the establishment of a formalized code of ethics for field primatology.

Current perspectives on curriculum needs in zoological medicine.

Advances have been made in expanding veterinary curricula to deliver basic key knowledge and skills necessary for provision of health care to captive and companion non-domestic or non-traditional species in the veterinary colleges of the United States and Canada. These advances were in large part facilitated by the deliberations and recommendations of the White Oak Accords. Though a five-year review of curricular opportunities at US and Canadian veterinary colleges shows that progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the White Oak Accords, there remains room for improvement. The broadly comparative and health-maintenance basis of zoological medicine contributes critically to the potential for veterinary medicine to make important contributions to the concept of the integrated health of the planet. Emergence of key zoonotic and production-animal diseases derived from and within wildlife populations since 2000 has increased awareness worldwide of the importance of zoological medicine in protecting both production livestock and public health. These areas are addressed in elective curricula at colleges emerging as centers of excellence in zoological medicine, but it is critical that core curricula in zoological medicine at all schools be strengthened to include these important areas to prepare our DVM/VMD graduates to protect companion-animal, production-animal, and public health.

[Discussion on the usage of terminology of some parasites and parasitic diseases].

According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Standardized Nomenclature of Animal Parasitic Diseases (SNOAPAD), and considering the new advances in parasitology, the usage of the terminology of some parasites and parasitic diseases (such as Trichinella and trichinellosis, filariae and filariasis, Echinococcus and echinococcosis, etc.) was discussed.