[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[Adam Cotton]

On 24-04-2020 07:21, Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom wrote:
> Adam,
>
> But there must be some good reason to overturn the priority, or the 
> original question would not be asked?  If there is no good reason to 
> argue the case, why would this come up?  And,  it was a question about 
> " 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" so it is not about species names, 
> but generic names.  There is something (I hope) missing that would 
> favor the younger name (or this is pointless)?
>
> Mike
 >
 >
 >


Mike,

I thought it would be obvious from my text that I was talking about two 
generic names. What was not obvious from John's question was whether he 
was asking about a case where two different nominal taxa were being 
combined in a single genus or the same species had been discussed in 
various publications using two different genus names. I tried to help 
explain the resultant alternatives, and include the possibility that 
both generic names were based on the same type species.

I agree with your first two sentences, there must be a reason for John's 
question.

Adam.