Taxacom: Article 23.9 - Reversal of precedence

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Brilliant. Thank you Michael for this precious question. Such requests 
are very useful because we can provide such cases as Examples for the 
next Code edition.

Stephen was apparently on the right path. If I have not overlooked 
something important.

Decisive should be Art. 23.3.1:

"23.3.1. Priority of the name of a nominal taxon is not affected by 
elevation or reduction in rank of the taxon within the family group, 
genus group or species group [Arts. 36, 43, 46], nor by any mandatory 
change in suffix of a family-group name consequent upon change in rank 
[Art. 34]."

If the action was taken under Art. 23.9.2 then the senior name as such 
was fixed as not having precedence over the junior name. The term 
"synonym" refers to a name, which can be extracted from the Glossary.

GLOSSARY
"synonym, n. Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote 
the same taxonomic taxon."

So under Art. 23.9.2 was determined that the senior tribe name should 
not have precedence over the junior tribe name.
Art. 23.3.1 determines that priority is not affected by reduction of 
this tribe name in rank to denote a subtribe name.
So the synonymy will also apply to the subtribe situations.

Michael, could you provide your publication for being used as an Example 
to illustrate this case? Is it open access?

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 09.06.2024 um 03:42 schrieb Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom:
>   My understanding is that the rank is irrelevant if family group taxon A is given precedence over family group taxon B, then it has precedence whatever the rank.
> Cheers, Stephen
>      On Sunday, 9 June 2024 at 12:07:56 pm NZST, Michael Oliver via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>   
>   Fowler (1934) proposed the new subfamily name Pseudocrenilabrinae for his
> new cichlid fish species *Pseudocrenilabrus natalensis* (which he thought
> was a wrasse). This subfamily name is currently used for the cichlid clade
> including all African and Middle Eastern cichlids. Within this subfamily,
> the largest tribe is known as Haplochromini Hoedeman 1947. However, this
> tribe contains the genus *Pseudocrenilabrus*, and Pseudocrenilabrini (a
> name never used) predates Haplochromini. I intend under Article 23.9 to
> protect the younger name Haplochromini (nomen protectum) and invalidate
> Pseudocrenilabrini (nomen oblitum). All requirements of Article 23.9.1.1
> and 23.9.1.2 are met; thus, the prevailing use of Haplochromini must be
> maintained.
> 
> Here's my question: I also intend to coin several subtribes within
> Haplochromini, including one for the group including *Pseudocrenilabrus*.
> Invalidating an older name at one family-group rank doesn't invalidate
> names based on the same stem at other ranks, does it? Specifically, the
> subfamily name Pseudocrenilabrinae and a new subtribe named
> Pseudocrenilabrina would not be affected by invalidation of the tribe name
> Pseudocrenilabrini, would they?
> 
> Cheers
> Michael