[Taxacom] ICZN art. 40.2

[Tony Rees]

By the way, Atopidae Hupé, 1953 in Trilobita is based on Atops Emmons,
1844;  Atopidae Laporte, 1834 in Coleoptera is based on  Atopa Paykull,
1799, as mentioned above.

- Tony


On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 05:45, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all, I am sending this message to 2 lists since I am not sure where the
> relevant expertise or wider knowledge resides, so apologies if you receive
> it twice...
>
> My question involves ICZN art. 40.2:
>
> <quote>
> Article 40. Synonymy of the type genus
>
> 40.1. *Validity of family-group names not affected*
>
> When the name of a type genus of a nominal family-group taxon is
> considered to be a junior synonym of the name of another nominal genus, the
> family-group name is not to be replaced on that account alone.
>
> *Example.* The name NEOSITTINAE Ridgeway, 1904 (Aves) is valid rather
> than DAPHOENOSITTINAE Rand, 1936, even though the name of the type genus
> * Neositta* Hellmayr, 1901 is a junior synonym of *Daphoenositta *De Vis,
> 1897.
>
> 40.2. *Names replaced before 1961*
>
> If, however, a family-group name was replaced before 1961 because of the
> synonymy of the type genus, the substitute name is to be maintained if it
> is in prevailing usage.
>
> 40.2.1. A name maintained by virtue of this Article retains its own author
> but takes the priority of the replaced name, of which it is deemed to be
> the senior synonym.
> </quote>
>
> The particular example before me is that of the family name Atopidae
> Laporte, 1834 (Coleoptera), which has historically been replaced by
> Dascillidae Guérin-Méneville, 1843 on the basis of synonymy of the type
> genus Atopa Paykull, 1799 with Dascillus Latreille, 1796. I read this as
> effectively equivalent to the name Atopidae Laporte, 1834 being suppressed
> for priority. My question is whether this should also apply for homonymy,
> or not, on account of the fact that "Atopidae" is currently used as a valid
> family in Trilobita, with authorship Hupé, 1953, see for example Jell,
> P.A. & Adrain, J.M. 30 8 2002: Available generic names for trilobites.
> Memoirs of the. Queensland Museum 48(2): 331-553. So, is the trilobite
> family name to be considered preoccupied by the earlier instance in
> Coleoptera, or not? Any advice welcome (also additional comments if I have
> missed something...)
>
> Best regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> www.irmng.org
>