Taxacom: question on taxonomic authority

[Adam Cotton]

On 15/01/2024 00:01, Gianluca Polgar via Taxacom wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm not an expert of the ICZN: I tried to look for an answer to my question
> in the Code, to no avail.
> The following taxa belong now to the genus Taenioides (new combinations or
> original descriptions):
>
>     - Amblyopus gracilis Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837
>     - Amblyopus cirratus Blyth, 1860
>     - Leme mordax De Vis, 1883
>     - Taenioides snyderi Jordan & Hubbs, 1925
>
> Tomiyama (1936) considered Taenioides cirratus (Blyth, 1860) as a
> subspecies of Taenioides gracilis (Valenciennes, 1837), and synonymized
> this subspecies with Taenioides mordax (De Vis, 1883) and Taenioides
> snyderi Jordan & Hubbs, 1925.
>
> Tomiyama (1936) named this subspecies *Taenioides gracilis cirratus (Blyth*
> ).
>
> The taxonomic authority reported by Tomiyama (1936) (Blyth) looks very
> weird to me.
> His subspecies is a new taxon, but he used a name of a valid taxon
> (cirratus) to form the subspecies. In my opinion, he should have named the
> subspecies *Ta. gracilis xxx Tomiyama, 1936*, synonymizing it with Ta.
> cirratus and the other taxa.
>
> Any suggestions? What do you think the taxonomic authority of  Taenioides
> gracilis cirratus should be? What does the Code prescribe in such cases?
>
> Sincerely,
> Gianluca

It seems perfectly Code compliant to me.

Tomiyama (1936) treated cirratus Blyth, 1860 as a subspecies of 
Taenioides gracilis (Valenciennes, 1837) - the oldest available name for 
the species - and as such the name cirratus retains the authorship 
Blyth, 1860 when treated as a subspecies rather than a species. As far 
as I can understand from the above Tomiyama (1936) did not describe a 
new taxon.

The correct name for the taxon is Taenioides
gracilis cirratus (Blyth, 1860) as stated by Tomiyama (1936).

Adam.