Taxacom: Correct spelling / history of a fossil fish name: Astrolepis/Asterolepis Eichwald, 1840

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Thank you Doug for pointing this out.

This case illustrates the problems with prevailing usage, which we are 
currently discussing in the Commission in the context of our prepapation 
of the Code-5 draft.

Astrolepis would be correct for the fish genus. However as long as the 
incorrect subsequent spelling Asterolepis is in prevailing usage (used 
by "at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors") the 
lepidopteran name Asterolepis cannot be used. So for the Australian moth 
genus a substitute name needs to be found. If there is no junior 
synonym, a new name must be established.

Once the fossil fish researchers happen to shift again slightly towards 
the original spelling and the majority of most recent authors using 
Asterolepis is not "substantial" any more, the Australian lepidopterists 
themselves will have to shift again back and return to use Asterolepis 
for their moths. So all the time the lepidopterists need to monitor the 
situation in ichthyology, when they like to know which one is the 
correct name of their moth genus.

My current recommendation for now: Shift back to use the original 
spelling for such names. We are dealing with fossil fishes here, not 
with Trypanosoma brucei.

If it is really necessary to retain using the misspelling (if it is a 
very important and very widely used name, also outside an inner circle 
of experts): apply to the Commission and ask for fixing the misspelling 
as correct. This will have the effect that the usage cannot shift back 
to the original spelling.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 03.05.2024 um 01:07 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> There is a genus name Asterolepis Razowski, 1964, presently used as 
> valid in Lepidoptera.
> 
> Only if the fish name is actually Astrolepis, and the variant 
> "Asterolepis" is treated as incorrect, will this moth name NOT be a 
> junior homonym.
> 
> Peace,
>