[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[John Grehan]

Yes, that seems to reflect what I now understand with respect to the
following. This publication in parts drives me nuts sometimes, not to
mention different publication dates to that on the document by various
authors. I am sure that is how others feel sometimes too.

John Grehan

Herrich-Schäffer, G. A. W. ([1843]-1856*a*): Systematische Bearbeitung der
Schmetterlinge von Europa, zugleich als Text, Revision und Supplement zu
Jakob Hübner's Sammlung europäischer Schmetterlinge, 6, "Nachtrag zum
ersten Bande". — Regensburg (G. J. Manz), [1851]: 1-24, [1852]: 25-80,
[1855]: 81-152, [1856]: 153-178.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:05 PM Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Abantiades. There are probably two competing works by Herrich-Schäffer
> involved.
>
> This site:
>
> https://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/exoporia/hepialoidea/hepialidae/abantiades/
>
> links to Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, p. 85
>
> https://archive.org/stream/CUbiodiversity1126759-9842#page/85/mode/1up
>
> with a date "[1855]" for the name. The work quoted "1843-1856" on the
> title page. The preface had a signature date 31 Mar 1856.
> However there in the text p. 81 we read that the author referred to an
> obviously previously published work on exotic butterflies, which was
> reported to be rare, so the author published the same content again.
>
> That was this work:
>
> Herrich-Schäffer, G. A. W. 1850-1858. Sammlung neuer oder wenig
> bekannter aussereuropäischer Schmetterlinge. - pp. [1], 1-84, Taf.
> [1-119] Figs. 1-551. Regensburg. (Manz).
>
> http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33669209#page/7/mode/1up
>
> which had the same content, just on p. 1 without the first two
> paragraphs from p. 81 above. There the first mention of Abantiades was
> on p. 5. This was the page cited by http://ubio.org/NZ (taken from
> Neave, I suppose). So I guess this was the original source, not p. 85 of
> the other work.
> The name was made available not because three genus-group names were
> mentioned below, if I get this right, but because of the references to
> the illustrations on the plate figures 47-50.
>
> I did not finish this reseach, this should be done by people with better
> knowledge on Lepidoptera literature. It is necessary to know the exact
> dates, for the text p. 5 and the plate [34].
> https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33669209#page/159/mode/1up
>
> Cheers
> Francisco
>
> -----
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
>
> Am 24.04.2020 um 21:21 schrieb Tony Rees via Taxacom:
> > Interestingly, Simonsen, 2018, in "Splendid Ghost Moths and Their
> Allies: A
> > Revision of Australian Abantiades", gives 1855 (not 1856) as the year of
> > publication for Herrich-Schäffer's work, and has both Pielus and Charagia
> > Walker as synonyms, of  Aenetus and Abantiades, respectively. (But you
> may
> > well already know that...) However, ideally one would need to know if
> > Simonsen's cited date is correct.
> >
> > Best - Tony
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 05:08, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, John, for the clarification, now it makes a lot more sense.
> >> According to Neave (information also reproduced in IRMNG), Abantiades
> and
> >> Aenetus date from Herrich-Schäffer, 1856 (both Samml. aussereurop.
> >> Schmett., Heteroc., 5), while Pielus and Charagia date from Walker, 1856
> >> (both List Specimens Lep. Ins. Brit. Mus., 7) so establishing the actual
> >> dates of publication of the relevant parts of these two works in the
> same
> >> year is the key, in addition to the subsequent usage question. If, as
> you
> >> say the Walker work appeared after that by Herrich-Schäffer, your
> >> colleague's problem is solved. I am sure there are others on this list
> who
> >> can comment further as needed.
> >>
> >> Regards - Tony
> >>
> >> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >> https://about.me/TonyRees
> >> www.irmng.org
> >>
> >> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 04:43, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>