[Taxacom] ICZN art. 40.2

[Tony Rees]

So would others agree, the use of "Atopidae" for the trilobite family is
invalid? In which case I or someone should mention it to the trilobite
workers concerned...

Regards - Tony


On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 14:13, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> 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 Laporte, 1834 (Coleoptera), which has historically been replaced by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.
>