[Taxacom] Fwd: oldest species name priority

[Tony Rees]

Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> John Grehan <
calabar.john at gmail.com>, Ivie, Michael <mivie at montana.edu>

Hi all,

John Grehan, the original poster (OP) wrote:

> 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

This seems to be somewhat self contradictory. In the case that

> with a situation where two generic names have been extremely widely used over
the last several decades

then the Code is clear, without intervention from the ICZN, strict priority
applies (if they are indeed names for the same taxon), especially if they
have both been used since 1899; and in addition, it is not clear why this
would be a de-stabilizing act: in fact the opposite should arguably occur,
namely eventual standardization of the treatment of these names between
different authorities.

I think we need John to itemise to what he is actually referring, and how
such names are currently represented in well-known / well used current
compendia. If "prevailing usage" can be clearly demonstrated to be upset by
application of the principle of priority for either a large number of, or
for some particularly prominent affected taxa, then these are the sort of
cases that can be referred to the Commission for a ruling, and, if the
supporting evidence is strong enough, an appropriate result obtained.

(Or maybe that is not what the OP meant to write - perhaps John may like to
clarify...)

Nothing here that has not been said above, but without more specifics in
this case, it is difficult to advise or speculate further.

Regards - Tony

>
>