Rules of Biological Taxonomy

 I found this article very interesting. Apparently, taxonomic names can be used more than once. So, a few of the names I had to change before, I changed back. For example, Dolichotragus is back to being called Juncus. It's the name of a reed, but I am also using it for a slender therapedid on my list. It's actually a name I gave the animal back when I first created it in the 1980s. So, I think I should continue using it. Now that I have read this article, I know that it is OK. I'm posting the article here, as I thought this might help anyone creating their own futuristic project. If you want to read the full article, you can also view these rules at this link.

Rules for assigning scientific names have become well codified in order to keep the names internationally unambiguous and understandable. The full set of rules is rather involved, but the most important parts are fairly simple:
Rules for ZoologyBinomens - A genus name is one word. A species name is binomial -- the genus plus a second word. Subspecies have a trinomial name (a "trinomen"). A subgenus is occasionally given in parentheses after the genus, thus:
Bison (Bison) bison bison (Linne 1758) Skinner & Kaisen, 1947 (American bison)Authorship - The author's name and date of publication are typically given after the scientific name. If a name is later changed (e.g., moved to a new genus), The original author is given in parentheses. The names are often abbreviated; in particular, "L." is Linnaeus. Anonymous publication is invalid as of 1950, but was accepted before then.

Buettikoferella Stresemann 1928 (buff-banded grassbird) This name was originally published in an obituary. Stresemann mentioned, in an obituary for Buettikofer, that a bird genus was named after him, but Stresemann realized that Buettikoferia was preoccupied, so he proposed this as a replacement. [Orn. Monatsb. 36: 40,note4]

Description - After 1930, new names must come with a description (or reference to one) telling what the name means.
Megalochelys atlas (Rhodin et al. 2015) (giant Miocene-Pleistocene turtle) The fossil was first named Megalochelys sivalensis by Falconer & Cautley (1837), but that publication was a brief announcement with no description. They gave a complete description in 1844, but changed the name to Colossochelys atlas (because they felt that "Megalochelys" was not sufficiently expressive of the fossil's large size). A nomen nudum, or "naked name", i.e. a name without description, invalidates the species name but not, it turns out, names of genus or higher rank, so Megalochelys stayed, but sivalensis was replaced by atlas. (And Rhodin et al. get credit for first treating it under that combination [Turtles and Tortoises of the World during the Rise and Global Spread of Humanity].)Type specimen - Descriptions should refer to an actual specimen, available for examination in a museum or other collection. There are complicated rules for determining the type if the original is lost or if there was no type specimen with the original description. The taxonomy of types is rather complicated in itself; see A Compendium of Zoological Type Nomenclature: a Reference Source by Neal L. Evenhuis, Bishop Museum Technical Report 41 (2008).

In a 1959 article on Linnaeus, William Stearn wrote, "Linnaeus himself, must stand as the type of his Homo sapiens." Though it was an off-hand comment, it suffices as nomenclatural act, and so Linnaeus, buried beneath Uppsala Cathedral, is the lectotype (a later-selected type specimen) for Homo sapiens. A 1994 publication reported that Robert Bakker proposed to designate Edward Cope as the type, but Bakker never actually published this. Besides, Stearn's designation has priority.
Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Loch Ness monster) This proposed name is not a valid scientific name because there is no type specimen to go with it.
Tanysiptera nympha G.R. Gray, 1840 (red-breasted paradise kingfisher) This name is accepted as valid even though underparts, wings, and rump of the mounted specimen Gray worked from came from at least three other species of birds, "artificially intermingled, to give the appearance of a perfect specimen." There was enough of the head and body to indicate a new species. [Dance, 1975, p. 77]Priority - The oldest valid published name is the one that gets used. Today one need not look back further than the works of Linnaeus, but Linnaeus and his students searched older works for the oldest published names, going back even to Thucydides and Pliny the Elder. Early publication is not invalidated even if there is some error in the original name:
Cryptoclidus (plesiosaur from Oxford Clay) The spelling was intended to be Cryptocleidus (from the Greek for 'hidden clavicle'), but probably from a printing error, it appeared, and now remains, without the 'e'.
Eschscholzia Chamisso, 1820 (California poppy) Named for zoologist Johann Eschscholtz, but the 't' was omitted from the publication.
Haliaeetus Savigny 1809 (bald eagle) This name is a misspelling; the original description had an extra 'e', which must now stay there.
Huernia (African Asclepiadaceae) Named after Justus Heurnius, the first European to collect plants in South Africa, but the "eu" was transposed in publication.
Penstemon (flowering plant) The name derives from "five stamens", so some have called it Pentstemon or Pentastemon, but the shorter name has priority.
Wisteria Nuttall (woody vine) Named for Caspar Wistar, author of America's first anatomy textbook and successor of Thomas Jefferson as head of the American Philosophical Society. But Nuttall misspelled it with an "e", and the name is stuck.
Ambystoma or Amblystoma Tschudi 1838 (mole salamanders) Both names appeared in the original description. Amblystoma ("blunt mouth") was probably intended, but Ambystoma (and the family Ambystomatidae) is the accepted name now. Amblystoma is on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid names, but it still gets quite a bit of use.There are means of overruling priority, if the newer name has come into common use before the priority of the original name is recognized.
Scrotum humanum Brookes 1763 (Megalosaurus) Among the oldest dinosaur bones discovered. So named because the condyles had a testicular shape. Fortunately, the genus will continue to be known as Megalosaurus because that name came into common use before it was discovered that Scrotum was an earlier synonym. [Halstead & Sargent, 1993, Modern Geol. 18:221-4]Sometimes the same name gets reused by people not aware of the original use:
Argus Bohadsch 1761 (gastropod)
Argus Scopoli 1763 (lycaenid)
Argus Scopoli 1777 (satyrid)
Argus Poli 1791 (mollusk)
Argus Temminck 1807 (bird)
Argus Lamarck 1817 (hesperiid)
Argus Boisduval 1832 (lycaenid)
Argus Walckenaer 1836 (arachnid)
Argus Gray 1847 (mollusk)
Argus Gerhard 1850 (lycaenid) Only the original name is valid. Since that name has priority, all the rest are junior homonyms and needed to be renamed.


However, the same name can be used for a plant and an animal. There are hundreds of instances. See hemihomonyms for the long list (though it includes invalid names). The samples given below are those I found before discovering that website.
Adonis L. 1753 (bird's-eye ranuncula) or Adonis Gronow 1854 (fish)
Ammophila (grass or sphecid wasp)
Andromeda L. 1753 (wild rosemary) or Andromeda Gistel 1834 (bupestrid beetle)
Appendicularia DC. (plant) or Appendicularia Fol, 1874 (free-swimming tunicate). It is also the name of the class which the latter is within.
Arenaria L. 1753 (Caryophyllaceae plant) or Arenaria Brisson 1760 (bird)
Aotus (pea or monkey)
Arctophila (grass or syrphid fly)
Aristotelia (tree or moth)
Bartramia (moss or sandpiper)
Bullockia (Rubiaceae or catfish)
Canarium (tropical tree or sea snail)
Cannabis L. (hemp) or Cannabis Blyth 1850 (bird)
Cecropia (tree or moth)
Cereus (cactus or sea anemone)
Chloris (grass or green finch)
Colocasia (taro or tussock moth)
Culcita (tree fern or echinoderm)
Cyanea (Hawaiian bellflower or jellyfish)
Dahlia Cav. (flower) or Dahlia Pagenstecher, 1900 (moth)
Darwinia Rudge 1815 (shrub) or Darwinia Pereyaslawzewa 1892 (flatworm)
Darwiniella Speg. 1888 (fungus) or Darwiniella Anderson 1992 (barnacle). There is also an illigimate name Darwiniella Braas & Luckel, 1982 (orchid)
Dionaea (venus flytrap) or Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (fly)
Diphylleia Michx. 1803 (herbaceous plant) or Diphylleia Massart 1920 (protist)
Donax Lour. (arrowroot relative) or Donax L. (clam)
Dracunculus (herb or roundworm)
Drosophila (fungus, synonym of Typhrasa) or Drosophila (fruit fly)
Dryas (shrub or butterfly) The shrub gave its name to the Older and Younger Dryas geological periods.
Dugesia (composite or flatworm)
Eisenia (brown alga or earthworm)
Erica L. (heath) or Erica Peckham and Peckham 1892 (jumping spider)
Ficus (fig or gastropod)
Girardia S.F.Gray (red alga) or Girardia Ball, 1974 (flatworm)
Hamadryas (buttercup or butterfly)
Hymenolepis (yarrow relative or tapeworm)
Huberia DC. (Melatomataceae) or Huberia Forel, 1890 (ant)
Hystrix (grass or porcupine)
Iris (flower or mantis)
Knightia (Proteaceae plant or fossil fish)
Lactarius (fungus or fish)
Leptonia (toadstool (now usu. a subgenus of Entoloma) or rove beetle)
Lessonia (kelp or tyrant flycatcher)
Linaria Mill. (toadflax) or Linaria Bechstein 1802 (bird)
Liparis Rich. 1818 (orchid) or Liparis Scopoli 1777 (fish)
Lophophora J.M.Coult. (cactus) or Lophophora Möschler, 1890 (moth)
Lucilia Cass. (flower) or Lucilia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (moth)
Mallotus Lour. (spurge) or Mallotus Cuvier, 1829 (fish)
Mauritia (palm or gastropod)
Megaceros (hornwort or Pleistocene deer)
Melanogaster Corda (false truffle) or Melanogaster Rondani, 1857 (hover fly)
Morus (mulberry or gannet)
Myrmecia (alga or ant)
Oenanthe (water celery or bird)
Perilla L. (mint) or Perilla Thorell, 1895 (spider)
Pieris (Japanese andromeda or butterfly)
Ponera Lindl. (orchid) or Ponera Latreille 1804 (ant)
Prosopis (mesquite or solitary bee)
Prunella Linnaeus 1753 (Lamiaceae plant) or Prunella Vieillot 1816 (bird)
Rhamphorhynchus (orchid or pterosaur)
Ricinus (castor bean or bird louse)
Sirindhornia (orchid or moth)
Sphaerostoma (fossil gymnosperm or trematode)
Stenella Syd. (1930) (fungus) or Stenella Gray 1866 (dolphin)
Trichia von Haller 1768 (slime mold) or Trichia Hartmann 1840 (snail)
Verticordia DC. (myrtle) or Verticordia Sowerby 1844) (clam)
Zenkerella (African legume or African rodent)
Zeus Minter & Diam. (1987) (fungus) or Zeus L. (dory)



There are even a few cases of duplicated binomials, where both genus and species get reused in different kingdoms:
Adesmia muricata (Linnaeus, 1758) (beetle) or Adesmia muricata (Jacq.) DC. (legume)
Agathis montana Shestakov, 1932 (wasp) or Agathis montana de Laub. (kauri, a conifer)
Asterina gibbosa (Pennant, 1777) (starfish) or Asterina gibbosa Gaillard (fungus)
Baileya australis (Grote, 1881) (moth) or Baileya australis Rydb. (desert marigold, synonym of B. multiradiata)
Centropogon australis (White, 1790) (waspfish) or Centropogon australis Gleason (bellflower)
Cuspidaria cuspidata (Olivi, 1792) (bivalve) or Cuspidaria cuspidata (M. Bieb.) Takht. (wallflower, a synonym of Erysimum cuspidatum)
Ficus variegata Röding, 1798 (sea snail) or Ficus variegata Blume (fig)
Gaussia princeps (T. Scott, 1894) (copepod) or Gaussia princeps H.Wendl. (palm)
Myrmecia pyriformis Smith, 1858 (ant) or Myrmecia pyriformis J.B.Petersen (green algae)
Orestias elegans Garman, 1895 (pupfish) or Orestias elegans Ridl. (orchid)
Thysanotus gracilis Jeannel, 1949 (ground beetle) or Thysanotus gracilis R.Br. (herb)
Tritonia pallida Stimpson, 1855 (nudibranch) or Tritonia pallida Ker Gawl. (iris)
Words and Letters - The names must be pronouncible words (preferably Latinized), using Latin letters, with no diacritics or punctuation (except hyphens can be used in some circumstances).

Some names stretch the pronouncibility.
Ekgmowechashala (early Miocene North American primate) The name means "small fox-man" in Lakota
Lainodon orueetxebarriai Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1994 (Upper Cretaceous mammal) The 'tx' is pronounced like English 'ch'.
Nqwebasaurus thwazi de Klerk et al. 2000 (Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous South African coelurosaur) It is pronounced: N-(click with tongue)-KWE-bah-SAWR-us. If you are a real stickler for pronunciation, the "nq" is a nasal postalveolar click. Nqweba is the native Bantu name of the place where the dino was found.
Tahuantinsuyoa macantzatza Kullander 1986 (Peruvian cichlid) The genus is a Quechuan name of the Incan empire; this page has a pronunciation.


There are no official rules about how names should be pronounced. Still, many names have right and wrong pronunciations according to conventional usage.
Buddleja L. (shrub) Named after botanist and rector Adam Buddle in an era when 'j' sometimes signified a long 'i' between two vowels. It is pronounced BUD-ul-EYE-uh.
Exceptions - When an otherwise valid name would "disturb stability or universality or cause confusion," the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature may choose another name instead.

There are plenty of other rules; see the ICZN and specifically the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for the complete set.
Rules for BotanyThe rules above are for zoological nomenclature. The rules for botanical nomenclature are similar. Some exceptions are:For valid publication, after Jan. 1, 1935 (1958 for algae, 1996 for fossils), the plant name must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis, or by a reference to one.
Publication of species or lower ranks must, after 1912 (1958 for algae), be accompanied by an illustration showing essential characters, or by a reference to one. After 2001, one such illustration must represent the type specimen.
The authors are given in taxonomic monographs, and if a name is changed, both the original author (in parentheses) and the revising author are named. For example:
Taphrina cerasi (Fuck.) Sad. The fungus Taphrina cerasi was originally described by Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel and later redescribed by Richard Emil Benjamin Sadebeck, so this listing now appears in some catalogs. The prefered citation, though, is Taphrina cerasi (Fuckel) Sadeb.Zoology allows tautonyms (genus and species repeating the same word, e.g. Bufo bufo), and botany does not. Some names come close, though.
Ziziphus zizyphus (L.) H.Karst. (jujube)Zoologists do not like hyphens in names, although a very few have snuck in:
Zygiella x-notata (Clerck 1757) (silver-sided sector spider)
Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus 1758) (comma butterfly)
Xestia c-nigrum (Linnaeus 1758) (the Setaceous Hebrew character (a moth))
Astroscopus y-graecum (Cuvier 1829) (southern stargazer fish)
Somateria mollissima v-nigrum Bonaparte, 1855 (Pacific eider)
Phelsuma v-nigra (Boettger 1913) (gecko)Botany does not encourage hyphens, but allows them more freely:
Johnson-sea-linkia profunda N.J. Eiseman & S.A. Earle, 1983 (seaweed)Rules for botany (at least since 1912) forbid generic names which refer to morphological characters.
The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants goes into great length concerning the messy subject of hybrids. Orchids present enough additional difficulties in this area that they have their own Handbook on Orchid Nomenclature and Registration.
Botany allows names for ranks below subspecies: variety (var.), subvariety (subvar.), form (f.), and subform (subf.). These need not be nested within a subspecies or each other.
Rules for Fungi

Traditionally, fungi have been grouped with plants (even though, as later discovered, they are more closely related to animals). In 2011, this grouping was formalized, with the botanical code (ICBN) renamed the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).

Because fungi often have very different sexual and asexual forms, the same species of fungus could have two different scientific names, one for the sexual form and one for the asexual. This rule, however, has changed (with much gnashing of teeth) as of 2011, because DNA analysis makes it easier to recognize two forms as the same species.
Rules for Bacteria

There is also a separate International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes governed by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP). It has published the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, listing all names valid as of 1 January 1980; it serves as a starting point for adding new names. "(Approved Lists 1980)" may be used in place of an author citation for names on the lists. Other rules particular to prokaryotes are:Names must be published in International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology or International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology to be valid.
Subgenus and subspecies names, when present, are labelled "subgen." and "subsp."
Prokaryote names must avoid existing names of plants and animals. However, there are several exceptions where a bacterial genus shares it name with a plant (or fungus), animal, or both. Here are cases where the name covers three phyla (listing bacterium, animal, plant/fungus in that order).
Gordonia Stackebrandt et al. 1989 or Gordonia Newton, 1893 (Permian synapsid) or Gordonia J.Ellis (Theaceae)
Lawsonia McOrist et al. 1995 or Lawsonia Sharp, 1873 (beetle) or Lawsonia L. (Lythraceae)
Leptonema Hovind-Hougen 1983 or Leptonema Guérin, 1843 (caddisfly) or Leptonema A.Juss (Phyllanthaceae)
Moorella Collins et al. 1994 or Moorella Cameron, 1913 (parasitoid wasp) or Moorella P.Rag.Rao & D.Rao (saprophytic fungus)
Morganella Fulton, 1943 or Morganella Cockerell, 1897 (scale insect) or Morganella Zeller (1948) (puffball)
Rothia Georg and Brown 1967 or Rothia Westwood, 1877 (moth) or Rothia Pers. (legume)
The Code recommends that if a species is named after a person, the person should in some way be connected with it.
A name should be rejected "whose application is likely to lead to accidents endangering health or life or both or of serious economic consequences."

New Changes to Old Names

 Well, I kinda got a burst of inspiration from working on the Australian bush foxes yesterday. So, I've been working on my checklist for Metazoica. I thought it was proper to add the other foxes to the canine family in the Metazoic, because to be honest with you, I don't believe foxes are going anywhere. There's a slight difference. There are 4 genera of foxes, instead of simply using the one that is classified today. I divided the genus Vulpes into 4 separate genera. I'm using not only Vulpes (northern forest foxes), but also Fennecus (for old world desert foxes), Neocyon (for American prairie foxes) and Alopex for the arctic and corsac foxes. Then, of course I added Urocyon, which is a genus currently in use today for the gray foxes.

I also added a few species of my own to these genera. For example, the silver and "cross fox" are separate species in the genus Vulpes. Today, they are simply mutations of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). But, I figure by the time the Metazoic comes around, those varieties will have had enough time to become separate, solid species of their own. So, in the Metazoic, there is not only V. vulpes (or the red fox), there is also V. cinereus (silver fox), V. variegatus (or the canadian variegated fox--known today as the "cross fox"), and V. decassatus (the scandinavian variegated fox). I've seen pictures of cross foxes before. Their markings and colorings seem to be fairly uniform among individuals. So, I think there is some potential for a distinct species in the Metazoic. But instead of calling them "cross foxes", which is basically a pub name for the animals, I call them Variegated foxes because I think it sounds more scientific.

I am also trying to fix a lot of the generic names of my animals as well. Particularly the species I thought up back when I started this project. In those days, the only guide I had to determine scientific names for the animals I came up with was my father's Spanish dictionary. Half of the species, I don't even remember what their names mean. I cannot change the species names, that gets confusing! Which kinda sucks because I have some species named after people I'm not even speaking to anymore! But I made the stupid mistake once of changing a species entire classification, that was the genus and species name. I see it in old texts of my Metazoic checklist, and now I cannot even find it in the newer texts. I don't remember what I changed it from! UGH! Or even if I changed it at all. I MUST have! Because there's a picture of a species of that genus in a book I did back in 2000. So, my frail, zombie-like state that I was in between 1998 and 2000 did not cause the loss of that species. It had to have somehow been lost after 2000.

However, I frequently change generic names. Mostly because my mind is evolving along with today's mammals. My father's little Spanish dictionary is simply not useful anymore for naming species. And then also in those days, I was just learning Latin and Greek, two of the more typical languages used to create scientific names. I wasn't as fully versed in those languages as I am now. Plus, in those days, we didn't have Google. So, coming up with generic names that has anything to do with the animals' appearance or characters was a lot more difficult back in the early days of Metazoica. I cannot discuss the exact changes in generic names I've made, there's simply too many. But you can see them in my next edition of my Metazoic checklist. You can order the next checklist for a mere $21.57 by clicking on the picture in the sidebar⟶⟶ 

Sorry, I will no longer be offering the checklist for free. Google is being a bitch about my storage space and sharing!

Another thing I finally did that I'd been meaning to do now for years! Murognathus. Originally, it was in the Deinognathidae family. But having tweaked it some, I've decided to make it into its own family. Now it is the single genus in the family Murognathidae. Still has 2 species. But being it lives in Batavia (Hawaii) and would have likely descended from a different ancestor than Deinognathus and its kin, I felt it was only proper to finally place it in a family group of it's own. I'm even thinking of completely removing the family from the order of Trelatebrates, and make them more closely related to the cats of Hawaii. Such a thing happens like once in 100 years in classification. It happened with the aye-aye from Madagascar. They were originally believed to be rodents. Then it was realized they are really and truly primates. So, I may be doing the same and completely reclassifying Murognathus. And the cats that took up being wild in Hawaii have to go somewhere. It doesn't look like they are going to become extinct.

I've even been thinking about it carefully, and may someday remove the entire Deinognathoidea from the order of Trelatebrates, though I might keep them closely related, I don't know. But they are very different from other families in the Trelatebrates. They are much more carnivorous and have carnivorian teeth and jaws. Part of what influenced this rethinking is this picture that I got from an AI program when I put in a description of Tamanoa...

If you notice, it looks very catlike. That was just using a few descriptive words. The last thing on my mind was cats and panthers. I remember when I used to get on the Speculative evolution forum, a lot of those people complained because I modeled the Deinognathids from elephant shrews instead of cats. But looking at this image from AI, after putting in a detailed description of what Tamanoa is supposed to look like, I don't know! I kinda like it. I can see this animal running after prey and eating other animals in the Metazoic.

Mystery "Numbats"

 I was surfing the internet yesterday. I was looking for a picture of a particular animal for a project I'd like to somehow work on that has NOTHING to do with Metazoica or speculative biology. I was looking for a picture of a numbat. A numbat, in case you didn't know, is a small marsupial, said to be related to the extinct Tasmanian tiger. It's one of Australia's most beautiful animals, IMO. Well, I've known about numbats long enough to know one when I see one. But what I found was definitely not numbats! Eventually I did find a pic of a numbat, but these pics I found caught my eye and captured my heart and imagination. Apparently, they are AI generated. The coloring was almost reminiscent of a numbat, but the structure of the body and head were very different. The appearance was more like that of a cross between a mongoose and a fox. With a little bit of a squirrel thrown in there.

Well, this gave me a new idea. I do need some more entries for my checklist to finally complete my goal that I was supposed to reach over 20 years ago! But once I get these new animals I've found, I'll finally have over 4000 new species of Metazoic mammals. It'll be beautiful. Although by this time back when I started this project, I thought I would have about 10,000 Metazoic mammal species. Modern mammals are getting way ahead of me here! But in the late 1990s, I got a bit sidetracked for a few years by the death of someone who was my everything. I even decided to commemorate him by naming some of the animals on my checklist after him.

Anyway, I took the family Cynovulpidae and changed it back to the Canidae. Why not? They are remnants of dogs. And this is the newest member of the family. Meet Sylvialopex. It is a small, furry, highly-adorned fox of the Australian woodlands and brushlands that feed on small animals, insects, and sometimes berries. The collective name for these animals is "Australian bush foxes".

S. strigulus; the stripe-mantled bush fox.
Also calling it the "banner-tailed bush fox"

S. varius; the chequered bush fox.

S. tinnicaudatus; the ring-tailed bush fox.

S. verbera; the stripe-faced bush fox.

My thanks, many times over, to whomever came up with these. Sorry but, they're not numbats. But they do make interesting foxes! Here's another one. I decided to revive the Tachyglossidae into the Metazoic. But it only has one genus; Uroechidna. It's twice as big as Zaglossus today, and has a noticeably longer tail, but still feeds on ants and other insects. This was another one I found that was mistakenly labeled a long-beaked echidna.

Uroechidna sp. I currently call it the "Giant echidna".

Both of these genera inhabit the Australian region. But while Sylvialopex is confined to the continental eastern Australian brushland, Uroechidna lives in the Metazoic northern Australia and southern Great Barrier Mountains. Here's another I created myself last night. It was unintentional. I was trying to do a picture through AI of Natopterus, just to see if it can do it. I'm still new to this AI business. I do hope to master it someday. But here is a head-portrait of the newest species of Pteropus for the Metazoic..,

Pteropus rubrifrons; the red-fronted flying fox.

That truly looks like a fox. But since it was originally meant to be a bat, I kept it that way. It's just a new species I thought up.

So, those are the newest animals in our zoo. I hope to come up with some more soon.

One In A Billion

 An amazing event happened now, in 2024, that has only happened twice before in Earth's history. Watch this video for details...

It looks like new life may be emerging. The first time this happened on Earth, it gave us mitochondria. The second time brought plants that get their nutrients from the sunlight. So, I wonder in the next billion years, what lifeforms are going to spring up from this symbiotic merging. Modern scientists already have a name for this new potential of life. They called them "Nitroplasts". Probably because they feed on nitrogen in the air. But either way, scientists are very excited about this event happening right before our eyes. It's a very rare event that truly only happens once every billion years.

To me, this is exciting. The potential for new lifeforms is amazing. And to think, it's happening right now, in my lifetime! Of course I will not be around to see what is made of this, but the thought of what it could turn into is an exciting proposition!