questions [about "prevailing usage"]

[Peter Rauch]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Spies, Martin wrote:
> Dear Janice, dear listmembers,
...
> The relevant ICZN 4 (1999) glossary entry reads: "usage,
> prevailing. n.[= noun] Of a name: that usage of the name
> which is 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."

Janice provided a description of "usage" of a taxon of interest
to herself in her inquiry that lead me to wonder whether the
above definition and her "usage" refer to the same thing...

She said:
> >>> Posting number 15697
> Date:         Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:53:05 -0700
> From:         Janice Koler-Matznick <jkoler at CCOUNTRY.NET>
...
> Questions:
> I understand priority, but not what would constitute
> "prevailing usage".  ... In my critter of interest, I have
> found only 11 instances where a scientific name was used for
> the species in papers: 4 used one name, 7 used others (at
> least 4 different species or subspecific designations).
>
> How do you score usage if one name is given in the title of
> the paper and another recommended at the end of the paper?
>
> How do you score if two alternative subspecific names are
> suggested in the same paper?
>
> Do publications of a scientific name in popular literature
> count as usage?
>
> Do unpublished theses (MS, DVM or PhD) that use a scientific
> name count under usage?
...
> Janice Koler-Matznick

Her "usages" seem mostly to refer not to taxonomic treatments,
but simply to the use of the name when referring to the beast in
some other kind of work, such as for example an ecological study
or newspaper article about a pest, etc.

Just to be clear about *which* authors this ICZN glossary
definition refers to, it is referring to authors of taxonomic
treatises, and not authors of ecology papers, newspaper
articles, etc., which happen to use/mention the name of a beast
being reported on in some non-taxonomic context. Right?

Peter