[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[John Grehan]

Looks like all is well with the names after all. Seems that they were
published on two different dates, but earlier is older than the nearest
synonym. At least that's the current understanding. But thanks gain for the
constructive feedback which has been helpful.

John Grehan

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:54 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you to all of you who provided constructive feedback. It is evident
> that I need to be more specific. In this case for a group of moths a
> colleague of mine has found evidence that two generic names that have been
> in wide use for a long time each have an older name and so perhaps each
> should be replaced. One is Abantiades the other is Aenetus. Abantiades has
> been in predominant use perhaps before the date in the code and perhaps is
> least problematic to make a case for recognition if it turns out that there
> is an older name (Pielus). Aenetus on the other hand appears to be much
> more recently accepted over a possibly older name (Charagia) only since the
> 1980's approximately. In both cases the genera are known and applied widely
> to specialists and the general public. We will be looking into this further
> first to substantiate the true publication dates and then, in discussion
> with other colleagues, make a determination of what action to take.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:35 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You could apply to the Commission for a reversal of priority, or for the
>> older name to be suppressed; other than that the rules seem to be clear
>> (others may have more to say, I am definitely not the most qualified to
>> comment here).
>>
>> Regards - Tony
>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>> https://about.me/TonyRees
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 06:13, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>