"prevailing usage" etc.

[Ron at]

Christian Thompson wrote:
SORRY, Martin...
> Also, consider Art. 23.9 Reversal of precedence
> While the new Code does not declare the "Principle of Usage," the intent
> of the new Code is that there is such a "guiding" principle and that it
> must be considered before the principle of priority.  That is, one must
> first determined the nature of the usage of competing names, before one
> can invoke the principle of priority. Only where there isn't "prevailing
> usage" [as defined in 23.9.1] can the principle of priority be invoked!
>_____________________

SORRY, Thompson, neither you nor any one else is free to "read into" the
Code that which is not stated. The Code has a long history of legally
based, detailed, language. If the writers of edition 4 had a "Principle of
Usage" that was to now rule over _all_ it would have been explicitly stated
not left up to psychic insights into its authors "intents".

The Code is best understood by lawyers - not naturalists. It is a purely
legal document.  23.9 begins by saying "In accordance with..."  In legal
terms, that means  usage is still _subject_ to priority.   Next. "...its
[Principle of Priority] application is _moderated_ as follows:"  That means
the Principle of Priority is altered (an "exception to the rule") for the
common sense purpose of keeping nomenclature stabble (prevailing usage).
But even here 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 give conditions under which Priority
still reigns over usage. Which is why we end up in 23.9.6 with the
statment that just any old listing in a index or nomenclator doesn't count
towards the 25 works in 50 years by 10 authors.  BUT, where the 25 works,
10 autors and 50 years exist the other 1,000 uses bow to the Principle of
Priority. That is the explicit Law.

Ron Gatrelle
International Lepidoptera Survey
Taxonomic Report
http://tils-ttr.org