The nomenclatural status of the nomina of amphibians and reptiles created by Garsault (1764), with a parsimonious solution to an old nomenclatural problem regarding the genus Bufo (Amphibia, Anura), comments on the taxonomy of this genus, and comments on some nomina created by Laurenti (1768)

Abstract

The nomenclatural consequences of the recent rediscovery of the works of Garsault (1764, 1765, 1767) in amphibians and reptiles are examined in detail. The 13 new nomina of these two groups created by Garsault (1764) distribute in three categories: (1) three of these nomina (Lacertus, Rana viridis, Testudo marina) cause no problem, being just junior synonyms of senior nomina created by Linnaeus (1758); (2) four of them (Bufo, Salamandra, Scincus, Vipera) become the valid nomina of taxa, in replacement of identical nomina created later by Laurenti (1768), thus entailing no change in the nomina of their included species and subspecies but changes in their complete nominal-complexes (including their authors and dates); (3) six of these nomina are here rejected as invalid senior synonyms (Ranetta, Serpens, Lacertus aquatilis, Lacertus terrestris) or homonyms (Lacertus viridis, Testudo terrestris) of nomina in current use, by virtue of Article 23.9.1 of the Code. A very positive result of the rediscovery of these works is that it allows to solve for the best an old nomenclatural problem, concerning the nucleospecies (type-species) of the genus Bufo: whereas the nucleospecies (type-species) of Bufo Laurenti, 1768 is Bufo viridis Laurenti, 1768, we hereby designate Rana bufo Linnaeus, 1758 as nucleospecies of Bufo Garsault, 1764. This case shows that it is sometimes possible, even in complex nomenclatural situations, to solve them through a proper use of the Rules of the Code, without having to appeal to the ICZN for the use of its Plenary-Powers. From a taxonomic point of view, we think the data published so far do not allow currently to stabilise the generic taxonomy of the BUFONIDAE. Pending additional data, we support a conservative attitude, maintaining in the genus Bufo most species traditionally referred to this genus. In particular, we think all Eurasian species of this family, which include several pairs of species known to be able to produce viable adult hybrids, should be kept in this genus, but in three distinct subgenera: Bufo Garsault, 1764 for the group including Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758); Bufotes Rafinesque, 1815 for the group including Bufo viridis (Laurenti, 1768); and Epidalea Cope, 1864 for the group including Bufo calamita (Laurenti, 1768). This survey also allows to discuss the appropriateness of the current Article 11.9.5 dealing with specific trinomina, especially as they appear in Laurenti (1768), and to point again to the need to implement more drastic Rules regarding the conditions required for a nomen being compliant for protection through Article 23.9.1 of the Code.