For the code warrior (ICZN)

[Ron at]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ingo SCHINDLER" <Intyo at AOL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: For the code warrior (ICZN)


> 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).

Since I have seen only one responce to this, here is my 2 cents.  Perhaps
you got more off group.

1) I assume this is a zoological name.
2)  The problem with the word variation is that in 1926 it was often used
to mean subspecies and not in the infrasubspecific sense. 45.6.4 states
that if used before 1961 as equivalent to subspecies that it is
subspecific.  Also, even if it was proposed as infrasubspecific before
1961, if before 1985 it was adopted as a specific or subspecific name it is
valid from its original author and date. See example "Polinski, 1926".
3) Dr. Thompson was correct about this whole thing being moot, until you
stated that this was an archived publication.  Which may well give it
"scientific" status. In which case the other points here do need to be
weighed against the situation.


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.

4) Assuming that the original 1926 A-us x-us var. b-us was 1) presented as
subspecific even though the word variation was used and 2) the publication
can be considered an archived scientific paper, then according to what you
have stated it would look to escape 23.9.1 as it was used as a valid name
after 1899 - because it was published in 1926.

5)  What then of A-us c-us?  We go back to 23.2 where stability is The
emphasis. If A-us c-us has been "used" often since 1927 and  b-us  only
once in 1926, then A-us c-us  clearly has prevailing usage (It is important
that these are the same subspecific organisms with different names - if
that were not the case this would be even more sticky) and a reversion to
A-us b-us would violate 23.2. But if A-us c-us is itself an seldom used
obscure name then things like 23.9.6 come into play.

Lastly, 23.12.1 does not _support_ the use of A-us b-us, rather it merely
states that A-us b-us is not a  "rejected" name within the strict meaning
of 23b (50 years of no use).   23.12.2 is irrelevant to the situation as
other names (synonyms) are available.

I would say the key rule is 23.2 and that A-us b-us, though senior, must
submit to A-us c-us due to prevailing usage.  I also think those who
"recently published" that A-us b-us is valid have misapplied 23.12.1 in a
way not intended.  They should have directed the matter to the Commission,
in which case (82.1) the prevailing usage of A-us c-us is to be maintained
till the Commission rules otherwise.

Ron Gatrelle
>
> Ingo
>