[Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name

[Adam Cotton]

On 15-06-2020 18:55, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
>> My question is: Would you agree with calling *Cus* "unnecessary new
>> replacement name" for precision?
>
> This is a special situation because the authors were not aware of what 
> they were doing when they were expressly proposing a new replacement 
> name. They simply did not understand what a new replacment name was in 
> zoological nomenclature. The intention of the authors was to propose 
> Cus to be used as the generic name for Bus cus which was not 
> congeneric with Aus aus. So the expressed and very well visible 
> intention was to establish a regular new name with its own type. The 
> term "new replacement name" was employed in error.
> So I would not agree it was an "unnecessary new replacment name", 
> because it was not a new replacement name at all.
>
> If you can give me the example then we can eventually incorporate this 
> in the 5th edition of the Code,, to illustrate the limit between a 
> regular new name and a new replacement name.
 >
 >
 >

If I understand the situation correctly the best term for the genus name 
'Cus Author, year' is 'nomen nudum', since it was not introduced in a 
Code compliant manner.

Adam.