Correction to "Nomenclature of African species of the genus Stenodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae)" by Metallinou and Crochet (2013).

In our recent paper on the nomenclature of the African species of the genus Stenodactylus (Metallinou & Crochet 2013) we argued that the lectotype designation made for Stenodactylus stenurus Werner, 1899 by Kratochvil et al. (2001) was invalid because the authors did not provide an express statement of the taxonomic purpose of the designation. This argument was based on Article 74.7.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999, the Code hereafter) which states: “To be valid, a lectotype designation made after 1999 must contain an express statement of the taxonomic purpose of the designation.” However, the Code was amended in 2003 by Declaration 44 (published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60: 263 and available at http://iczn.org/content/declaration-44-amendment-article-7473) which changes the wording of Article 74.7.3 to “[...] contain an express statement of deliberate designation (merely citing a specimen as "lectotype" is insufficient)”. This amendment is backdated and applies to all works published after 31 December 1999. Thus, although our conclusions regarding the invalidity of the lectotype designation of Kratochvil et al. (2001) remain unchanged, the correct basis for this interpretation, following Article 74.7.3 as modified by Declaration 44, is the absence of an express statement of deliberate designation. Kratochvil et al. (2001: 105) state only “Lectotype: NHMW 17281/2, female”, which is inconsistent with the explicit examples given in the new article 74.7.3: ‘A statement such as “lectotype hereby designated”, “lectotype by present designation”, “I choose specimen X as lectotype” would fulfil this requirement, but “lectotype: specimen X” would not.’ We apologize for having overlooked the Declaration 44 of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. We note that the original version of Article 74.7.3 was still to be found on the online version of the Code when we prepared our paper earlier in 2013, and can only regret that, at a time when the internet revolution should have allowed for immediate promulgation of changes, it took nearly ten years for the amendment of this article to appear in the online version of the Code.