[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 168, Issue 18

Fri Apr 24 15:48:02 CDT 2020

Well it wasn't wasted for me. And the original question was clear enough.
But yes I did muddle some of the later explanation. Sorry!

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:04 PM Jon Todd via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Extraordinary. Not only has John written a question so poorly that it has
> been completely misunderstood by all but he also doesn’t have the data in
> hand to attempt to use the Code to answer it himself. How much time
> supplying well-intentioned feedback has been wasted.
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:54:35 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] oldest species name priority
> Message-ID:
>         <CADN0ud2R3MF5_putiAHD5tdn4k_qkEws671VDOODceBhrnH=
> RQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C1%7C637233466119164274&sdata=71xOyTpFWpP6IimT1PQV%2FZTLnMrCQoFwUDMQxqiNt14%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fvalidity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts%2Farticle-23-principle-of-priority%2F%23art-23-2&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=wO16yGSOxHEvUezfpgofjfUxr%2BgIZ7VINZHUlv91DBU%3D&reserved=0
> >],
> >> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C1%7C637233466119164274&sdata=71xOyTpFWpP6IimT1PQV%2FZTLnMrCQoFwUDMQxqiNt14%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> 23.9. *Reversal of precedence*
> >>>
> >>> In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2
> >>> <
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fvalidity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts%2Farticle-23-principle-of-priority%2F%23art-23-2&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=wO16yGSOxHEvUezfpgofjfUxr%2BgIZ7VINZHUlv91DBU%3D&reserved=0
> >],
> >>> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fvalidity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts%2Farticle-23-principle-of-priority%2F%23art-23-9&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=o0%2BEpZuOqaQxLYsV3elfGOaCbNqHv0yjR%2BTONd0jaoE%3D&reserved=0>
> are
> >>> met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in
> Article
> >>> 23.9.1.1
> >>> <
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fvalidity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts%2Farticle-23-principle-of-priority%2F%23art-23-9&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=o0%2BEpZuOqaQxLYsV3elfGOaCbNqHv0yjR%2BTONd0jaoE%3D&reserved=0>
> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fglossary%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=I8cDnJ2e%2FkCXFQ%2Bujr4PUg8WKmwWeuVr0JK4G1Q6qL8%3D&reserved=0>).
> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fvalidity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts%2Farticle-23-principle-of-priority%2F%23art-23-9&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=o0%2BEpZuOqaQxLYsV3elfGOaCbNqHv0yjR%2BTONd0jaoE%3D&reserved=0
> >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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fthe-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature%2Farticle-81-use-of-the-plenary-power%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=lBBXy4MAIg9sXweIQtwaQWihe0iAt3zR0LzU%2BeJvr4g%3D&reserved=0
> >].
> >>> While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be
> >>> maintained [Art. 82
> >>> <
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fthe-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature%2Farticle-82-status-of-case-under-consideration%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119164274&sdata=TXOv6vQXNzhrP2yo4NhPr3AhU9pkE%2BPt%2FfgICF%2FgtAM%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >>> ].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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:
> >>>>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119174270&sdata=%2FwpbXCcadzdLcgcJXTnLwSdwudSwgYW%2FyuZc5sQ8w0c%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> 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:
> >>>>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119174270&sdata=O8GfcjVvNu%2FKbYWVI6h6xz2CcFlnHbVcJig2UzMG0YE%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> >>>> 1987-2020.
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119174270&sdata=%2FwpbXCcadzdLcgcJXTnLwSdwudSwgYW%2FyuZc5sQ8w0c%3D&reserved=0
> 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:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cj.todd%40nhm.ac.uk%7C727a414fe89840ca235a08d7e8760f62%7C73a29c014e78437fa0d4c8553e1960c1%7C1%7C0%7C637233466119174270&sdata=O8GfcjVvNu%2FKbYWVI6h6xz2CcFlnHbVcJig2UzMG0YE%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 168, Issue 18
> ****************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>