For the code warrior (ICZN)

[Ingo SCHINDLER]

In 1926 a description of a new species A-us b-us was published in a
hobby-journal (as an infrasubspecies name A-us x-us var. b-us). In the  next
issue of the hobby-journal the author of A-us b-us published a statement that
he become aware of a description by a professional and cancel the description
of A-us x-us var. b-us. View month later, in 1927, the description - in a
museum-journal - of A-us c-us was published. All later authors use only A-us
c-us as the valid taxon. In 1982 and 1994 a different author still use A-us
c-us as valid, but mentioned A-us b-us as a nomen oblitum (this was the first
time that the infrasubspecies name A-us x-us var. b-us was mentioned as a
bi-nomen A-us b-us). However, recently, a paper was published where others
use A-us b-us as valid and use A-us c-us as synonym. They use article 23.12.,
but in my point of view the articles  23.2. and 23.9. are valid in this case.
Insofar it seems to me, that A-us c-us is the only valid name, because nobody
 use A-us b-us as a valid name (even not the creator of the 1926 description).
Any help is welcome.

Ingo