[Taxacom] "Bos domesticus" issue

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Hi Mike,
I agree. Uses in Bibos would count.
Art. 23.9.1 can only be applied if Erxleben's and other names have not 
been used after 1899.

The Commission can suppress all previous uses of domesticus prior to 
that of 1905.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 15.10.2021 um 00:43 schrieb Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> We used this in my Biosystematics Class today, and we conclude a 
> replacement name for this is contrary to the goal of Stability. Two 
> better options than a replacement name name are available: First, search 
> for prevailing usage under 23.9.1. There should be 25 uses of a bovid 
> name in the last 50 years if you search everywhere.  The Code does not 
> say the species epithet has to be used in this combination in all those 
> uses, right?  So, uses in Bibos would count.
> 
> If not, there is 81.2.1. If two names are homonyms the older homonym may 
> be "totally suppressed", i.e. suppressed for the purposes of both the 
> Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy so that the later 
> homonym may continue in use as a valid name.
> 
> Thanks for the exercise.
> 
> Mike and the class
> 
> On 10/14/2021 12:50 PM, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom wrote:
>> Hi, all. It came to my attention today that there is a dispute over 
>> the taxonomy of the "Bali cattle" (a type of banteng), as to whether 
>> it should be "Bos domesticus" or "Bos javanicus domesticus". My 
>> initial thought was "Wait - could *either* of these really be correct? 
>> Surely that name must have been used for regular cattle and not the 
>> banteng."
>>
>> In trying to sort this out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's 
>> definitive work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and 
>> Geographic Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several 
>> authorities that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet 
>> domesticus and it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or 
>> moved there later. The oldest such citation I can find listed is 
>> Erxleben, 1777 (there is also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The 
>> point is this: Bos domesticus Wilckens, 1905 (used for the banteng) 
>> surely cannot be a valid name under the ICZN because the name would be 
>> a junior homonym of Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely 
>> different question from whether or not it is a species or a 
>> subspecies. Regardless of its taxonomic status, it cannot be named 
>> "domesticus", unless the genus it was placed in formerly, Bibos, is 
>> restored as a valid genus. Evidently, that is why no one had 
>> recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't become a problem until 
>> Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which means that Wilckens' name 
>> requires a replacement.
>>
>> But, I don't dabble in mammal taxonomy, so even though what I find 
>> Googling doesn't suggest anyone knows about the problem, I'm curious 
>> as to whether this IS known, and someone is doing (or has done) 
>> something about it.
>>
>> Peace,
>>