[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[John Grehan]

I had one response off list that was a bit abusive -  "There is never a
situation of no choice. You have been doing taxonomy
for decades, can you really have never read the Code? You are embarrassing
yourself."

Actually I have not been doing taxonomy for decades and I do find the code
difficult to comprehend at times and I know that there are people on
TAXACOM who are well versed in all the complexities and issues and so I
wish to take advantage of that expertise. I don't give a damn if I
'embarrass' myself.

John Grehgan

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:12 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>