[Taxacom] oldest species name priority

[Michael A. Ivie]

John,

Is this not you:

First instar description of Korscheltellus gracilis (Grote) and 
Sthenopis auratus (Grote) (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) with a consideration 
of cladistic relationships between setae. 
<http://apps.webofknowledge.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/full_record.do?product=ZOOREC&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=8DPpu3EFPd8GTNRMsnk&page=4&doc=36&cacheurlFromRightClick=no> 

By: Leonard, Jonathan G. 
<http://apps.webofknowledge.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/OneClickSearch.do?product=ZOOREC&search_mode=OneClickSearch&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage&colName=ZOOREC&SID=8DPpu3EFPd8GTNRMsnk&field=AU&value=Leonard, 
Jonathan G.>; Grehan, John R. 
<http://apps.webofknowledge.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/OneClickSearch.do?product=ZOOREC&search_mode=OneClickSearch&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage&colName=ZOOREC&SID=8DPpu3EFPd8GTNRMsnk&field=AU&value=Grehan, 
John R.>; Parker, Bruce L. 
<http://apps.webofknowledge.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/OneClickSearch.do?product=ZOOREC&search_mode=OneClickSearch&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage&colName=ZOOREC&SID=8DPpu3EFPd8GTNRMsnk&field=AU&value=Parker, 
Bruce L.>
Journal of the New York Entomological Society Volume: 100 Issue: 4 
Pages: 594-614 Published: October 1992

Decade: def. 10 years.  Plural, more than 10 years.  2020-1992=28 years, 
more than a decade = decades
Mike

On 4/23/2020 2:29 PM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> I had one response off list that was a bit abusive -  "There is never a
> situation of no choice. You have been doing taxonomy
> for decades, can you really have never read the Code? You are embarrassing
> yourself."
>
> Actually I have not been doing taxonomy for decades and I do find the code
> difficult to comprehend at times and I know that there are people on
> TAXACOM who are well versed in all the complexities and issues and so I
> wish to take advantage of that expertise. I don't give a damn if I
> 'embarrass' myself.
>
> John Grehgan
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:12 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony,
>>
>> Thanks for that information. If I read correctly from below I am faced
>> with a situation where two generic names have been extremely widely used
>> over the last several decades, but the older name has had been used since
>> 1899. If I understand correctly there is no choice but to re-establish the
>> old name which to me is a rather senseless act to be imposed upon the
>> natural history community simply because of this assertion. Thoughts?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2
>> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-2>],
>> its application is moderated as follows:
>>
>> 23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions
>> are both met:
>>
>> 23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name
>> after 1899, and
>>
>> 23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular
>> taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at
>> least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a
>> span of not less than 10 years.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:30 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> I think you will find your question answered in the following
>>> extract from "the Code online". Basically my understanding (hopefully
>>> correct) is that unless the senior name qualifies as a nomen oblitum,
>>> priority is only reversible by a ruling of the Commisison following an
>>> application setting out sufficiently convincing grounds for doing so.... I
>>> append the relevant wording from the Code below.
>>>
>>> Regards - Tony
>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>>> https://about.me/TonyRees
>>>
>>> 23.9. *Reversal of precedence*
>>>
>>> In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-2>],
>>> its application is moderated as follows:
>>>
>>> 23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions
>>> are both met:
>>>
>>> 23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name
>>> after 1899, and
>>>
>>> 23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular
>>> taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at
>>> least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a
>>> span of not less than 10 years.
>>>
>>> 23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are
>>> met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the
>>> younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this
>>> Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions
>>> of Article 23.9.1.2
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-9> are
>>> met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article
>>> 23.9.1.1
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-9> applies.
>>>  From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence
>>> over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be
>>> qualified by the term *nomen protectum* and the invalid, but older, name
>>> by the term *nomen oblitum* (see Glossary
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/glossary/>). In the case of subjective synonymy,
>>> whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used
>>> as valid.
>>>
>>> *Example.* The valid name of a species formed by including the nominal
>>> taxa *Aus xus* Schmidt, 1940 and *Aus wus* Jones, 1800 in a single
>>> taxonomic species is *Aus wus* Jones, 1800. But if the conditions in
>>> Article 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 are met, then *Aus xus* Schmidt, 1940
>>> becomes (unless the Commission rules otherwise) the valid name of that
>>> species. However, if the nominal taxa do refer to separate taxonomic
>>> species the names of these are *Aus xus* Schmidt, 1940 and *Aus wus *Jones,
>>> 1800. If, on the other hand, the two taxa are treated as subspecies of a
>>> single species then the names of these are *Aus xus xus* Schmidt, 1940
>>> and *Aus xus wus* Jones, 1800 - not *Aus wus xus* Schmidt, 1940 and *Aus
>>> wus wus* Jones, 1800.
>>>
>>> *Recommendation 23A.* *If suppression desired. *If in the opinion of an
>>> author suppression of the older name, rather than a change in the relative
>>> precedence of the two names involved, is desirable, in addition to taking
>>> action under Article 23.9.2
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/#art-23-9>to
>>> maintain prevailing usage, the author should refer the case to the
>>> Commission with an appropriate recommendation for a ruling.
>>>
>>> 23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an
>>> author considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would
>>> threaten stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to
>>> maintain use of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the
>>> matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/the-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature/article-81-use-of-the-plenary-power/>].
>>> While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be
>>> maintained [Art. 82
>>> <https://code.iczn.org/the-international-commission-on-zoological-nomenclature/article-82-status-of-case-under-consideration/>
>>> ].
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 05:15, John Grehan via Taxacom <
>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful for comment regarding use of names where normally the
>>>> oldest validly published name takes priority. But do the rules of
>>>> nomenclature allow for acceptance of a later name where it has been
>>>> widely
>>>> used over a long period of time if an application is made to that
>>>> effect? I
>>>> recall that this can be done, but would be grateful for clarification.
>>>>
>>>> john Grehan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>
>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>>>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>
>>>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
>>>> 1987-2020.
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu