Taxacom: prevailing usage - was Re: What to with "Thalpochares gisella Schaus, 1904" vs. "Hayesia grisella (Schaus, 1904)"

[Douglas Yanega]

On 7/12/24 6:40 AM, Markku Savela via Taxacom wrote:
> But, everyone thereafter seems to be assuming "Thalpochares grisella 
> Schaus, 1904". Did I miss a justified emendation somewhere? Or is 
> there some other "grisella" and my literature reference is wrong?
>
> Should we use "Hayesia gisella (Schaus, 1904)" or "Hayesia grisella 
> (Schaus, 1904)"
>
It depends on whether the uses of "grisella" fulfill the following 
criterion for prevailing usage:

"adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors 
concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their 
work was published."

If that statement is true, then the spelling "grisella" must be accepted 
as the correct spelling under ICZN Article 33.3.1:

"33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage 
and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the 
subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling 
is deemed to be a correct original spelling."

Is that criterion subjective? Yes, it is. But that's the criterion, as 
things stand presently in the Code. That may change dramatically in the 
next Code edition, because people find the rule hard to apply 
objectively, and some argue that all names should keep their original 
spelling regardless of subsequent usage.

Since the topic has come up, let me pose the question for people 
following this thread:

Which do you think is more likely to cause instability in the 
determination of the correct spelling of a name:

(A) subjectivity in the application of 33.3.1, where some people may 
argue that the non-original spelling has not been used often enough to 
replace the original spelling (resulting in different people using 
different spellings), or

(B) the automatic reversion of all names in zoology to their original 
spellings, *even when those original spellings are no longer in use* 
(resulting in all published and digital catalogues and nomenclators 
suddenly containing many names whose spellings are no longer 
ICZN-compliant), and requiring taxonomists to submit a petition to the 
Commission if they wish to retain a non-original spelling that is 
presently widely accepted?

Examples relevant to A would include the present case, if Markku decides 
NOT to accept grisella, while other lepidopterists continue to use it.

Examples relevant to B would include names like Paramecium, Phlebotomus, 
or Polybothris, all of which are non-original spellings in prevailing 
use, but would revert to Paramaecium, Flebotomus, and Polybotris if the 
"prevailing usage" clauses in Article 33 are removed from the Code (and 
unless the Commission is petitioned to retain them).

Those are the two alternatives facing the Commission presently. When the 
draft of Code 5 is released, you WILL have an opportunity to weigh in on 
the issue. Option A is the status quo, option B is the one proposed for 
Code 5.

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8c836a45b8804972b6fd08dca2b694ee%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638564152260627299%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v56dcgYq%2Bzn9BfZORWma6bswmqSp%2B6mQpz5CRyaqDqQ%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82