obscure publication

[Robin Leech]

Perhaps you are thinking of Article 23(b) of the 2nd edition of the ICZN,
which was deleted
as of 3 Dec 1970.  Article 23(b) Limitation, reads as follows [I give the
full text as I
know many botanists will not have copies of the 2nd and 3rd editions of the
ICZN.]:

"A name that has remained unused as a senior synonym in the primary
zoological literature
for more than fifty years is to be considered a forgotten name (nomen
oblitum).
    (i) After 1960, a zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer it to
the commission,
         to be placed on either the appropriate Official Index of Rejected
Names, or, if such
         action betters serves the stability and universality of
nomenclature, on the appropriate
         Official List.
    (ii) A nomen oblitum is not to be used unless the Commission so directs.
    (iii)This provision does not preclude application to the Commission for
the preservation
          of names, important in applied zoology, of which the period of
general usage has
          been less than fifty years."

Again, note that Article 23(b) was deleted (declared invalid) as of 3 Dec
70.

There are many reasons for deleting Article 23(b), among them that, just
because a name
has been carried and NOT used in the literature other than in zoological
nomenclators such
as Zoological Record, is not a valid reason to declare it a nomen oblitum.
There were
several cases where zoologists, who worked on obscure groups, prepared
revisions to
groups, and then waited for the 50 year deadline in order to publish  "new
species"
names of their own.  Many groups of beetles, for example, are obscure and of
no medical,
economic or other significance to humans.

On the other hand, if a junior synonym is in wide use in both scientific,
technical and popular
press, then stability is maintained by suppression of the senior synonym.

Chris Thompson's reference to the 3rd (and presently valid) edition of the
ICZN and Article
79(c) is correct.  Article 79(c) Suppression of unused senior synonyms,
reads as
follows:
" When the Commission is asked to suppress a name on the grounds that it has
not been
used as a senior synonym of a name in general current use, a prima facie
case that
stability is threatened will be made
    (1)  If an assertion that the senior name has not been used as a valid
name during the
           immediately preceding fifty years is not contradicted, and
    (2)  the junior name has been applied to a particular taxon, as its
presumably valid
           name, by at least 5 different authors and in at least 10
publications during the
          same period."
    There are 4 considerations and conditions listed under #2.

Robin Leech

-----Original Message-----
From: christian thompson <cthompson at SEL.BARC.USDA.GOV>
To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: obscure publication


Reagrding Joe's comment

With respect to older publications, I think that the
ICZN handles this better than the ICBN. Please correct me if
I am wrong, but to my understanding under the ICZN a name
is automatically dead if it has not been used in 50 years.

NOT QUITE SO.

In the current ICZN, the pertinent article is 79c, Supression of UNUSED
senior synonyms.
The name is not "dead" (not available), merely it can not be used as a VALID
name IF the junior name has been used by 5 different authors in at least 10
publications in the past 50 years. And one must request the Commission to do
this for you.

Hence, there is nothing AUTOMATIC about it and it only deals with relative
priority. However, this rule does make it possible to play some great games,
Such as you find what you think is a new species, you describe it, but
someone point out that there is an old name for it. No problem, get a few of
your friends to use your new name in their publications and you can invoke
art 79c to save your junior name. I won't name names but a perusal of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will reveal cases like this.

The new ICZN will improve on this by elimination the need to apply for a
Commission ruling. It will also push back the time to the last century (that
is, names published before 1900). But essentially this will mean that
zoologists will not have to deal with old literature. Yes, questions about
typification, spelling, etc., may require the checking of old literature for
names that are currently being used as valid. However, in doing taxonomy it
is only those taxa that have been dealt with in modern (this century) works
that count.

F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov