Taxacom: Quick question RE availability of a name in zoology (was animal, now pseudofossil)

[Tony Rees]

Hi all,

The answer to this one is probably staring me in the face somewhere but I
cannot see it.

If a genus name is erected in zoology for (in this instance) a supposed
fossil mammal tooth, which subsequently is re-interpreted as a pseudofossil
i.e. non-biological, does the name stand in zoological nomenclature e.g.
for subsequent homonymy? I would have thought yes, however these authors
say no in a 1981 paper:

Hopson, J. A., & Reif, W. E. (1981). The status of Archaeodon reuningi von
Huene, a supposed late Triassic mammal from Southern Africa. *Neues
Jahrbuch f?r Geologie und Pal?ontologie-Monatshefte*, 307-310.

The authors state: [because it represents a non-biological artifact] "the
name Arachaeodon is thus excluded from zoological nomenclature".

One reason that this is potentially relevant is that there is a later
instance of the same name, i.e. Archaeodon Crickmay, 1930, a mollusc,
currently treated as a junior synonym of Cucullaea Lamarck, 1801 however it
would be good to know whether that name is technically available, or
preoccupied.

Thoughts, advice welcome!

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6ae5711d983e468ecf6208db027ff4f1%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638106520810123916%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q8%2Ffr4fF8ynb73YDfD9j19f0LPuKUmXOYPm5rUItQxA%3D&reserved=0