[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[JF Mate]

Don´t worry John, the Code can be legalistic soporiferous read. In
regards to your issue, if both names have been used continuously for
many decades I don´t think you have a strong case against priority.
However you write ¨there is no choice but to re-establish the old
name¨. Doesn´t this contradict the wide and continuous use argument?

J

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 22:30, John Grehan via Taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.