[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[John Grehan]

Tony,

Thanks for that information. If I read correctly from below I am faced with
a situation where two generic names have been extremely widely used over
the last several decades, but the older name has had been used since 1899.
If I understand correctly there is no choice but to re-establish the old
name which to me is a rather senseless act to be imposed upon the natural
history community simply because of this assertion. Thoughts?

John


In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2
<https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-2>],
its application is moderated as follows:

23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions
are both met:

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name
after 1899, and

23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular
taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at
least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a
span of not less than 10 years.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:30 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I think you will find your question answered in the following extract from
> "the Code online". Basically my understanding (hopefully correct) is that
> unless the senior name qualifies as a nomen oblitum, priority is only
> reversible by a ruling of the Commisison following an application setting
> out sufficiently convincing grounds for doing so.... I append the relevant
> wording from the Code below.
>
> Regards - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
> 23.9. *Reversal of precedence*
>
> In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2
> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-2>],
> its application is moderated as follows:
>
> 23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions
> are both met:
>
> 23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name
> after 1899, and
>
> 23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular
> taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at
> least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a
> span of not less than 10 years.
>
> 23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met
> should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger
> name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this
> Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions
> of Article 23.9.1.2
> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-9> are
> met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article
> 23.9.1.1
> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-9> applies.
> From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence
> over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be
> qualified by the term *nomen protectum* and the invalid, but older, name
> by the term *nomen oblitum* (see Glossary
> <https://code.iczn.org/glossary/>). In the case of subjective synonymy,
> whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used
> as valid.
>
> *Example.* The valid name of a species formed by including the nominal
> taxa *Aus xus* Schmidt, 1940 and *Aus wus* Jones, 1800 in a single
> taxonomic species is *Aus wus* Jones, 1800. But if the conditions in
> Article 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 are met, then *Aus xus* Schmidt, 1940
> becomes (unless the Commission rules otherwise) the valid name of that
> species. However, if the nominal taxa do refer to separate taxonomic
> species the names of these are *Aus xus* Schmidt, 1940 and *Aus wus *Jones,
> 1800. If, on the other hand, the two taxa are treated as subspecies of a
> single species then the names of these are *Aus xus xus* Schmidt, 1940
> and *Aus xus wus* Jones, 1800 - not *Aus wus xus* Schmidt, 1940 and *Aus
> wus wus* Jones, 1800.
>
> *Recommendation 23A.* *If suppression desired. *If in the opinion of an
> author suppression of the older name, rather than a change in the relative
> precedence of the two names involved, is desirable, in addition to taking
> action under Article 23.9.2
> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-9>to
> maintain prevailing usage, the author should refer the case to the
> Commission with an appropriate recommendation for a ruling.
>
> 23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author
> considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten
> stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use
> of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the matter to the
> Commission for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81
> <https://code.iczn.org/the-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature/article-81-use-of-the-plenary-power/>].
> While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be
> maintained [Art. 82
> <https://code.iczn.org/the-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature/article-82-status-of-case-under-consideration/>
> ].
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 05:15, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I would be grateful for comment regarding use of names where normally the
>> oldest validly published name takes priority. But do the rules of
>> nomenclature allow for acceptance of a later name where it has been widely
>> used over a long period of time if an application is made to that effect?
>> I
>> recall that this can be done, but would be grateful for clarification.
>>
>> john Grehan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>>
>