The valid nomen for the tree frog (genus Hyla) of Tunisia and Eastern Algeria Author Dufresnes, Christophe LASER team, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China Author Crochet, Pierre-André CEFE, CNRS, Montpellier, France text Zootaxa 2020 2020-04-06 4759 4 597 599 journal article 21325 10.11646/zootaxa.4759.4.12 146289cf-b286-4e54-9430-0418d9039312 1175-5326 3974746 5CA13B47-12DB-46DF-BB1F-34AAC5538D97 The first condition to be met for a nomen to be valid according to the Code is availability. Any species-group nomen proposed after 1999 is only available when included in a published work (as defined by Art. 8) that explicitly designates a name-bearing type (Art. 16.4). Regrettably , the description of Hyla numidica fails to specify any type specimen. In the corresponding paragraph (“Type specimen”, p. 190 in Escoriza & Ben Hassine 2019 ), the authors only mention the name of a collection and a type locality: “ Hyla numidica sp. nov. : MCNB (Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona). Type locality: Nefza ( Tunisia )”. No indication about the specimens that should be considered as the types of Hyla numidica can be found elsewhere in their work. Therefore , the conditions of Art. 16.4 (“ Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, …, must be accompanied in the original publication by the explicit fixation of a holotype , or syntypes , …”) are not met, as the mere designation of a collection is clearly insufficient to be considered as an explicit fixation of name-bearing types. A registration in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature ( ZooBank ) made a posteriori (on September 9 th 2019 ) and mentioning the specimen MZB 2019-0924 as holotype , does not fulfil the requirements for availability either, since the designation needs to be done in the work itself—a ZooBank registration is not a published work in the sense of the Code. As a consequence, Hyla numidica Escoriza, Ben Hassine, 2019 is an unavailable nomen that cannot be used in taxonomic nomenclature. In contrast, the description of Hyla carthaginiensis provided by Dufresnes et al. (2019 , p. 296-298) specifically states the type specimen ( holotype ZISP 13722, portrayed in their Fig. 6) and the type locality ( Qusur Liberia , Tunisia ), whose identity was confirmed by genome-wide data. Featured in the May 2019 issue of Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution , Dufresnes et al. (2019) was published online by February 15 th (time-stamped p. 291). And because the publication was registered in ZooBank beforehand (p. 296), the nomenclatural act it contains became active at this date already—see Article 8.5 of the Code regarding online publication. The nomen Hyla carthaginiensis is thus available, and as detailed in Dufresnes et al. (2019) , all other nomina proposed for Mediterranean tree frogs correspond to the North- African / European species ( H. meridionalis ). Figure 1 provides a visual summary. Therefore, the only name available for the Tunisian/Numidian species is Hyla carthaginiensis . Note that even with a valid description, Hyla numidica would have been a junior synonym: according to the publisher’s website (https:// www.elsevier.com/books/amphibians-of-north-africa/escoriza/978-0-12-815476-2), Escoriza & Ben Hassine (2019) was released on March 19th 2019 , hence a few weeks later than the online publication of Hyla carthaginiensis ( February 15 th 2019 ). In conclusion, the two tree frog species that inhabit North Africa are Hyla meridionalis , which is widespread in Morocco , Algeria , as well as in introduced European and insular ranges; and Hyla carthaginiensis , which is restricted to Tunisia and eastern Algeria ( Dufresnes et al. 2019 ). Hyla numidica is an unavailable name (and is also younger) and thus cannot be used.