Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article25
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:11:46+00:00

Document:
Article 25. Formation and treatment of names. A scientific name must be formed and treated in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 11 and Articles 26 to 34 (also see Appendix B, General Recommendations).
Recommendation 25A. Abbreviations. On first mention of a scientific name in a published work all components should be printed in full. Subsequently, if an abbreviation is used for any part of a binomen or a trinomen, the abbreviation should be unambiguous and it should always be followed by a full stop (period) to avoid it being thought to be a complete word.
Example. The mosquito name Aedes aegypti should be so printed on first mention, but subsequently may be given as A. aegypti (and A. a. aegypti for Aedes aegypti aegypti) but in a case where confusion is likely (e.g. with Anopheles), Aedes aegypti might be abbreviated to Ae. aegypti (and An. maculipennis used without ambiguity for a species of Anopheles).
Recommendation 25B. Derivation. In publishing a new scientific name an author should state its derivation.
Recommendation 25C. Responsibility of authors forming new names. Authors should exercise reasonable care and consideration in forming new names to ensure that they are chosen with their subsequent users in mind and that, as far as possible, they are appropriate, compact, euphonious, memorable, and do not cause offence.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Recommendation 25A is redundant, Appendix B 11 has the same content.
My proposal is to add an Article here to regulate better the treatment of binominal names.
Art. 25.1. Citation of species-group names with genus. A name of a species or subspecies shall be cited with its genus, the genus at least in an abbreviated form. However, citing a specific name without genus is not discouraged in those cases where an author discusses the taxonomic status of a species-group taxon and combining it with a genus would disturb the arguments in the text.
This Article would be helpful for authors who are in a weak position if editors of journals intend to force them to omit the genus in names of species at various occasions.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 24.3.2 could be modified.
This would make life easier. Problem of Orestias agassizii Valenciennes 1846, established in 3 variant spellings, First Reviser Garman 1895 cited only 2 and selected one. This should be acceptable, no need to be forced for more research.
FranciscoWelterSchultes CouldNotLock error also in Art. 24, so I try to deposit my comment here.
"A synonym which was not treated as a name for a taxon in the author's own classification when proposed, and which was later made available under Art. 11.6, has automatically the lowest rank of all involved names."
This question came up in Gittenberger et al. 2006 (J. of Conchology 39: 146), and is another outlet of the almost complete lack of standards for Art. 11.6. Gray 1824 established Balea fragilis and mentioned Balea lucifuga as a synonym. Bourguignat 1857 described a new species Balea lucifuga without reference to any previously published work. Gittenberger et al. argued that Bourguignat "adopted" Gray's synonym - and then it was unclear which name (fragilis or lucifuga) should have priority under Art. 24.
Fixing "bibliographical reference" as a requirement for Art. 11.6 as I proposed under 11.6 will solve this case, but not those cases where a bibliographical reference was provided. So it makes sense to amend Art. 24.1.

References: Art. 25
 Art. 24
 Art. 24
 Art. 11
 Art. 11
 Art. 24
 Art. 11
 Art. 24