[Taxacom] ICZN art. 40.2

[Stephen Thorpe]

 Correction: Disregard my first sentence. I just meant to say: 
The type genus of the trilobite family is Atops, so Art. 55.3 applies.

Stephen
    On Monday, 29 June 2020, 04:11:35 pm NZST, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:  
 
  
The trilobite family is straightforwardly an invalid homonym. The type genus of the trilobite family is Atops, so Art. 55.3 applies.
Stephen    On Monday, 29 June 2020, 02:21:01 pm NZST, Tony Rees via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 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Laporte, 1834 (Coleoptera), which has historically been replaced by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
_______________________________________________
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.