Abstract
The process of describing a species has evolved considerably since the modern age of taxonomy was initiated with the publication of the 10th edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturæ in 1758. Nevertheless, the basic unit of the taxonomic framework remains the species group (species and subspecies). As a result, it is incumbent upon individuals undertaking species-group descriptions to strive for the highest standards, just as it is for reviewers and editors to hold authors to those same standards. The clear and mounting biodiversity crisis, the increasing proliferation of journals, the multiplication of journals publishing only in electronic format, the decline in the number of trained taxonomists, and the complex and at times misinterpreted wording of the rules governing taxonomy have resulted in a growing number of species names that are unavailable because one or more aspects required of a species-level taxonomic description are lacking. Here, we present best practices for the required elements of a taxonomic description and identify some of the common pitfalls leading to an inadequate description resulting in an unavailable name. We also suggest best practices that would enhance taxonomic descriptions and make them more informative.