Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article16
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:17:18+00:00

Document:
Article 16. Names published after 1999.
16.1. All names: intention of authors to establish new nominal taxa to be explicit. Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new.
Recommendation 16A. Means of explicitly indicating names as intentionally new. To avoid uncertainty about their intentions, authors proposing new names (nomina nova), including new replacement names, are advised to make their intentions explicit by using in headings, or at first use of new names in proposals, appropriate abbreviations of Latin terms such as "fam. nov.", "g. nov.", "sp. nov.", "ssp. nov.", or some strictly equivalent expression such as "new family", "new genus", "new species", "new subspecies", "n. fam.", "n. g.", "n. sp.", "n. ssp.", "nomen novum". The abbreviation "nom. nov." should only be used to indicate a new replacement name.
The term "stat. nov." should not be used. But when it has been used to indicate that the former name of an infrasubspecific entity is being applied to a species or subspecies an author should accept that this explicitly indicated its user's intention to establish the former name of the infrasubspecific entity as a new name (see Article 45.5.1).
16.2. Family-group names: type genus to be cited. In addition to satisfying the provisions of Articles 13-15, a new family-group name published after 1999 must be accompanied by citation of the name of the type genus (i.e. the name from which the family-group name is formed).
Recommendation 16B. To avoid ambiguity with possible homonyms and similar names, authors are advised, when citing the name of the type genus, to cite its authorship and date of publication and also a bibliographic reference to the work in which it was established.
16.3. Genus-group names: ichnotaxa and collective groups. For names proposed for ichnotaxa see Article 13.3.3; for names proposed for collective groups see Article 13.3.2.
16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see Recommendation 16C).
Recommendation 16C. Preservation and deposition of type specimens. Recognizing that name-bearing types are international standards of reference (see Article 72.10) authors should deposit type specimens in an institution that maintains a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and making them accessible for study (i.e. one which meets the criteria in Recommendation 72F).
Recommendation 16D. Publication of information distinguishing type specimens. When providing information to distinguish the type specimen(s) from other specimens (Article 16.4.1) authors should include information such as specimen numbers and descriptions of labels (see Recommendations 73C and 73D for data recommended).
Recommendation 16E. Preference for holotype over syntypes. Whenever possible, authors should select a holotype rather than syntypes.
Recommendation 16F. Illustrations of type specimens. Whenever possible a holotype or syntypes should be illustrated, showing characteristic features of the taxon, in the work in which the new nominal taxon is established.
(a) The reference to Art. 72.2 should be deleted. Art. 16 is on names established after 1999, Art. 72.2 on names established before 2000.
Some addional points concernig this one and related Articles were raised in a discussion in Oct 2015 in the [Taxacom] thread "manuscript name question". See for example Gary Rodenberg's summary from 11 Oct 2015.
The provision that "the location" of the collection should be stated, should be modified and adapted to usual practice.
Well-known insitutions are usually given in the form of their near-standard acronyms, which are widely understood. Locations should be made obligatory only if specimens were deposited in scientists' private collections.
The regulation should be retrospective for all new names published after 1999.
This point was raised in Aug 2011 by Frank Krell in the [iczn-list] mailing list.
Art. 16.1.1. If an expressly new name was proposed after 1999 without meeting the requirements of the Code (for example, if no name-bearing types were fixed), and if this was subsequently corrected in a second publication within the following 5 years, and without repeated explicit indication as intentionally new but with a bibliographical reference to the previous source, the name shall be available, with authorship and date taken from the second publication.
short note in 2011 stating the depositories of the respective types with full reference to the original paper, without indicating the names as intentionally new in 2011. Both names were made available in 2011, authorship must be attributed to Zerova alone.
Such a solution was suggested in Aug 2011 in the [iczn-list] mailing list, brought forward by John Noyes who extrapolated that this was likely to apply to about 2000 names established in zoology since 2000 (alone 55 such cases were documented in Hymenoptera: Chalcidioidea, 1.3 % of the new names proposed since 2000). The example is the one brought forward by John Noyes.
"16.2. Family-group names: type genus to be cited. In addition to satisfying the provisions of Articles 13-15, a new family-group name published after 1999 must be accompanied by citation of the name of the type genus (i.e. the name from which the family-group name is formed). The use of the expression "type genus" is not mandatory if the situation is unambiguous, but the name of the genus must be mentioned. If several genera were mentioned that could have formed the stem of the family name it must be stated which genus served as type."
This change would be useful because it is unclear what to do if the expression "type genus" was not used. This happens sometimes. It would not be a good idea to declare such family names as nomina nuda. An example is Mahajangasuchidae Sereno & Larsson, 2009 (Sauropsida), where the name Mahajangasuchus was mentioned but without authorship, and without the term "type genus". Some argued that the family name was a nomen nudum and forced the authors to publish a corrigendum shortly after in ZooKeys, others argued that the name was available from its first publication. No common aggreement about the Code's interpretation was achieved.
"The purpose of the Article seems to be to remove any doubt about the generic name that the family-group name is based on, and thus avoid situations like the one we have in what used to be the family Silphidae s.l. That family once included the valid genera Necrophilus and Necrophila (the former since removed to a separate family Agyrtidae). Gistel (1848) used a family name Necrophilidae while mentioning some other silphid (s.l.) genera but not mentioning either of these names, so the type genus he intended is unknown.
I treated this as an unavailable name (type genus ambiguous) when I proposed a new name based on Necrophilus."
"A name which was intentionally established as a new replacement name and later shown not to be justified, is regarded as a new name."
Such a clear statement would be very helpful here. The conflict of superiority between new replacement name and new name is a frequent problem. See also Art. 67.8 for genus-group names, Art. 72.4.4 for species-group names.
"This is not required in cases of specimens for which a preservation is technically impossible, and for presumably endangered animals which were released to the wild after having been photographed and/or examined."
The term extant means "still in existence". At which time? Should perhaps be modified to "extant (at the time of establishment of the name)".
The first part of this amendment is needed because at least in certain basal groups of Plathelminthes it is technically impossible to conserve the specimens.

References: Art. 72
 Art. 16
 Art. 72

Art. 16
 Art. 67
 Art. 72