Although ICNZ suggestions are increasingly being ignored, strictly a new scientific name should not be used before the formal description. In other words, if the use of the name "sp. nov" for the first time (usually) in results, it should not be used in the title, abstract, introduction, or M&M. Because it is in results the first formal nomenclatural act of the new species.

Hola Santiago Ron :

I am not aware (and I might be wrong) of any article of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) that forbids the use of the new name before the description. It is common to see the names of new taxa to be described in the title, abstract and other sections of the article before the section where the taxa is described; however, it is also common to see the annoying use of aliases (e.g.: Genus sp. nov., Genus sp. 1) to avoid using the new name before its description, particularly in the Results section (and in phylogenies) when the description is placed after this section. My impression is that using or not the name before the description is arbitrary.

Dear Santiago,

I believe some might consider it to be a "nomen nudum", although I really don't see any sort of harm done if this is followed by a formal description.

Regards.

Thank you for a good question! If I remember well, I think there is no article in the ICZN which prohibits this, however from the nomenclature point of view it is not advisable, cause it creates an uncertainty where exactly in your publication the new taxa are described. In difficult cases it is important on what page and even on what line the new name appears in the publication, this information is important for the correct evaluation of the priority issues (imagine someone describes the same biological species twice in the same publication under different names, like Linnaeus often did for example, - which name should be preferred?), or in cases of incorrect original spelling (when by typo or other mistake the new taxon name appears in different variants in the original description, which spelling is correct and should be used?). And yes, technically - all cases when you use the new taxon name above the magic line Genus species gen. nov. sp. nov. - are nomina nuda, and this is not very good. So, to sum it up - if you use the name above the taxon description, this would not make your description invalid. But it is better not to do this for the above-mentioned reasons to keep the clarity of your description! Good luck!

The recommendations of the Code may not be laws but as Nikolay explains they make your work much better. Often they are like a test to what should be a rule.

It avoids also to have to cite the first occurence of a name and its description, when these two are not on the same page (but in the same publication).

Nonetheless multiple original spellings can not be avoided this way, because you can make the error also after the description in the original paper. So be careful.

As said above, there is nothing in the Code that stops you using the name before its "official" introduction (some journals, like Zootaxa, ask you to use the name in the abstract, for instance), but there are reasons not to, as mentioned by Nikolay and Annemarie.

In terms of the structure of your paper, it may also work better if you don't. If you follow a workflow along the lines of

Intro: species hypothesised ==> Methods: data, hypothesis testing ==> Results: species confirmed ==> Taxonomy: species named

then that actually works better if you don't use the new name before the Taxonomy part.

Many thanks Wolfgang Wüster Annemarie Ohler Nikolay Poyarkov Omar M. Entiauspe-Neto C. Miguel Pinto Mauricio Rivera-Correa for your answers, they are quite useful. It is interesting that many (most?) species descriptions, do not follow this recommendation. However, it makes sense to avoid mentioning the species name before the formal description.

I think the problem is rather artificial: as long as "page-priority" is not decisive in selection between two (or more) [versions of] names used inthe same publication (first reviser decides, who - unless there are serious reasons against - will select the version used in the description proper), there is no possible confusion caused by mentioning the name before the formal description. On the other hand, except in case of some papers consisting of but "pure" formal description[-s] of one or few new taxa, it would be very difficult or impossible to formulate a meaningful abstract and/or introduction without reference to the names.

También he recibido esa recomendación/observación, ya que al nombrar antes de la misma descripción en el paper en sí, puede prestarse a confusión, mejor mencionarla desde los resultados en adelante, para sea el momento que recién se utiliza el nombre asignado.

Many thanks Roman Bohdan Hołyński Victor Romero

You can use nob. as (new but to be described) Like Genus species nob.

Carlos: "Nob." [=nobis (our); or sometimes "m." =mihi (mine)] does not mean "new but to be described" - it is (or rather was) the abbreviation used frequently (as well with the taxa just being described as with those described earlier!) by earlier authors as equivalent of their own family names [so, in e.g. Obenberger (1923), "Montrouzieria caledonica m. n.sp." means simply M. caledonica Obenberger)! This has nothing to do with nomenclatural availability!

Thank you Roman Bohdan Hołyński ! But saw it being used efectively in Botany in the description of a species in the results, that was mentioned earlier with that prefix!

Hola Santiago. I believe that it is not correct to nominate something that does not have a formal name before it is made. But I think the request they made to you is more of an editorial issue. Nothing is listed in the ICZN.

I think it will depend on the journal rules or on the author' style, otherwise you wouldn't see the new species name on the title of some manuscripts.

Hello Santiago Ron,

Here is an example of a just-published description of a newly recognized species of deep-sea dumbo octopus (genus Grimpoteuthis) collected in the NW Pacific Ocean. You'll see that in the introductory portion of the paper that initial mention of the taxon follows the "genus xxx, sp. nov." formula that has already been suggested. See: Article Holistic description of new deep sea megafauna (Cephalopoda:...

Carry on, and congratulations on having the opportunity to describe a new species!

Many thanks David Emmanuel M. General

It is really hard to say without knowing or seeing the context in which you may have used the new name. In general, a new name should NOT be used in publication (or public presentation) until after publication of the formal species description. Such use of the name results in that name as 'nomen nudum, essentially a name without a description which places the identity of the species/taxon in question. However, there may be some leeway if the name is used in the manuscript ahead of the formal description (i.e., the abstract).

The demand is correct in the academic. It should name and describe the new finding based on the diagnosis chacrateristics of the morphology, meanwhile, it should be distinguished among the similar species by the key features which you described.

The taxanomic work need very hard and more carefully, you need check mor speciemens in the same genus, and compared them one by one.

You also should read the “International code of zoological nomenclature (Fourth Edition)”, and to know how named a new species.

The first use should be signposted with a remark indicating that the new term will be explained later in the article.