Taxacom: Questions of homonymy of three genus names

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Case 2:
As Doug said:
Haplota Dunning & Pickard, 1858 is an unjustified emendation of Aplota 
Stephens, 1834, und thus an available name that enters into homonymy. 
Very clear case.
Haplota Marcus, 1940 (I did not see the original publication, I assume 
the name was made available there) is a junior homonym.

Case 3:
Setia Meigen, 1830 (why 1829?, volume 2 has the date 1830 on its title 
page) is an unjustifed emendation for Sesia Fabricius, 1775, and thus an 
available name that enters into homonymy.
Meigen explained that the spelling must be Setia and not Sesia, because 
he considered Setia to be correct Latin. So the change in the spelling 
was demonstrably intentional, hence, an emendation.
Setia Adams & Adams, 1852 is a junior homonym. As David said, this is a 
relatively important name in current usage. The malacologists are 
apparently not aware of the homonymy. The Index Rocroi (master list of 
molluscan genus-group names) does not mention Meigen's name.

Oken's 1815 name was not suppressed. It was the entire work by Oken 1815 
that was placed on the Official Index of Rejected Works. For 
nomenclature this has only more or less the effect as if Oken's 1815 
work had never been published. So any subsequent author could propose 
and make available names that Oken had mentioned in his suppressed 1815 
work.

If this helps.

Best wishes
Francisco



Am 05.07.2024 um 01:35 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> On 7/4/24 12:07 PM, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
>> Hi Markku,
>>
>> continuing consideration of the other 2 cases you raise:
>>
>>> 2) ... NHM says "Haplota Dunning & Pickard, 1858" is "unjustified
>> emendation" [of Aplota Stephens, 1834]
>>
>> This appears to be correct, in which case Haplota Dunning & Pickard, 1858
>> would be unavailable, and Haplota Marcus, 1940 not a homonym
> 
> Unfortunately, under ICZN Article 33.2.3, this is not true:
> 
> "33.2.3. Any other emendation is an "unjustified emendation"; the name 
> thus emended *is available* and it has its own author and date and is a 
> junior objective synonym of the name in its original spelling; *it 
> enters into homonymy* [snip]"
> 
> This is perhaps one of the most difficult bits in the entire Code - 
> Article 33, in which emendations are available names, but incorrect 
> spellings are unavailable - and the only difference between the two is 
> whether the change in spelling was intentional (an emendation) or not (a 
> misspelling).
> 
> If it is clear from reading Dunning & Pickard that they changed the 
> spelling of Aplota on purpose, then Haplota Marcus IS a homonym.
> 
> That said, *the dates are important*. Dunning & Pickard's name was 
> published in 1858. If it was never used as a *valid* name after 1899, 
> then it can be declared a nomen oblitum, and Haplota Marcus, 1940 can be 
> declared a nomen protectum, as long as it has been used as valid 
> frequently (see Article 23.9.1).
> 
> In this and many such cases, you can't tell which names are valid, 
> available, emendations, misspellings, or homonyms, without knowing ALL 
> of the relevant literature. Nomenclators, aggregators, human or 
> automated, are going to have trouble getting these things right.
> 
>>> 3) Setia Adams & Adams, 1852 vs Setia Meigen, 1829 vs Setia Oken, 1815
>> I guess this trickier issue? "Setia Oken, 1815" is suppressed, but is
>> "Setia Meigen, 1829" true original emendation Sesia or just subsequent
>> usage of suppressed Oken name?
>>
>> My guess would be that Setia Adams & Adams, 1852 (in Mollusca) in the
>> available name in this case. Setia Meigen is simply an incorrect
>> [?=unjustified] emendation according to Pühringer, F. and Kallies, A.,
>> 2004. Provisional checklist of the Sesiidae of the world (Lepidoptera:
>> Ditrysia). *Mitteilungen der Entomologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft
>> Salzkammergut*, *4*, pp.1-85. (
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sesiidae.net%2Fliterature%2FMitteilungen_2004_001-085.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd439345ad05941d2f82008dc9c8fad4c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638557388113519889%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ci%2F4mIVxMc2%2BTuEiVKrErEUenWcsQiCXHWvtRqKLY7U%3D&reserved=0) who
>> state:
>>
>> Sesia FABRICIUS 1775:547 [[Sphinx] apiformis CLERCK 1759, subsequent
>> designation by LATREILLE 1810:440]
>>    Setia OKEN 1815:745; rejected name (Opinion Nr. 417 ICZN)
>>    Setia MEIGEN 1829:103; incorrect emendation
>>    Sometia MEIGEN 1829:115; incorrect original spelling (unavailable)
>>    (+ more...)
> 
> This case appears to be the same exact situation. Setia Meigen is an 
> emendation, and available. Setia Adams & Adams is a homonym *unless* (1) 
> Meigen's name is a nomen oblitum, and (2) Adams & Adams' name qualifies 
> as a nomen protectum.
> 
> In both of these cases, I'd be a little surprised if either of the 
> junior names qualified as a nomen protectum. The first is a monotypic 
> bryozoan genus, the latter is a subgenus name for a group of small 
> marine snails, and might only rarely appear in print (though probably 
> more likely than the bryozoan).
> 
> Peace,
>