Article title: Recent proposals on nomenclature of dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae) Authors: Fernando Gomez[1] Affiliations: Carmen Campos Panisse 3, E-11500 Puerto de Santa Maria, Spain[1] Orcid ids: 0000-0002-5886-3488[1] Contact e-mail:
[email protected] License information: This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at https://www.scienceopen.com/. Preprint statement: This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, under consideration and submitted to ScienceOpen Preprints for open peer review. DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPBI9QN.v1 Preprint first posted online: 10 March 2021 Keywords: Alexandrium, dinoflagellates, Dinophyta, Heterocapsa, Kryptoperidinium, nomenclature, Scrippsiella, systematics, taxonomy 1 2 3 4 5 Recent proposals on nomenclature of dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae) 6 7 Fernando Gómez 8 Carmen Campos Panisse 3, E-11500 Puerto de Santa María, Spain. 9 Email:
[email protected] 10 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-3488 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Abstract 29 The recent proposals to conserve or reject dinoflagellate names are commented. The 30 Nomenclatural Committee for Algae (NCA) recommended to conserve Scrippsiella 31 against Heteraulacus and Goniodoma (proposal #2382). The synonymy of Peridinium 32 acuminatum and Glenodinium trochoideum is highly questionable, and one Stein’s 33 illustration of Goniodoma acuminatum as type will solve the doubts.