Taxacom: interpretation of Article 23.9.5 - applicability to a case of junior primary homonymy

[Matheus Bento]

Dear Taxacom members,

My Name is Matheus Bento, from the National Institute of Amazonian
Research, Manaus, Brazil.

I am writing to seek guidance on the interpretation of *Article 23.9.5* of
the Code, particularly regarding its applicability to a case of junior
primary homonymy involving the following taxa:

1.      *Laemophloeus aeneus** Grouvelle, 1876* (senior homonym)
(type-locality: Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).

2.      *Laemophloeus aeneus** Sharp, 1885* (junior homonym; now *Parandrita
aenea** (Sharp, 1885)*, transferred by Sharp in 1908) (type-locality:
Hawaii).

I initially understood *Article 23.9.5* as *inapplicable* to this case
because: the junior homonym was transferred to *Parandrita* in *1908*,
meaning both names *remained congeneric until that year* (i.e., *after* 1899);
and the article states that names must apply to taxa "*not considered
congeneric after 1899*," which I interpreted as requiring *no post-1899
overlap in the same genus*.

However, a reviewer suggested an alternative interpretation: that the
article could be applied even if the taxa were *later separated* (regardless
of the 1899?1908 overlap), thereby creating ambiguity. This discrepancy
prompted me to seek clarification. A preliminary discussion with Dr. M?rio
Cupello further motivated this inquiry.

So regarding the* "after 1899" *in this article:

Should it be read as *"taxa no longer congeneric in works published after
1899"* (i.e., separation must be *published* post-1899)? Or does it require
that the taxa *were never congeneric at any point after 1899* (strict
temporal cutoff, rendering my case ineligible)?

Additionally, the junior homonym does not comply with Article 23.9.1.2. It *was
not *cited in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the
immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing not less than 10 years.

I would greatly appreciate a clarification on the *correct interpretation
of Article 23.9.5* for my case and advice on whether to proceed with a
formal replacement name (if the article is inapplicable) or to s*ubmit a
case to the Commission* to preserve the current name under its plenary
power.

Thank you for your time and expertise. I am happy to provide additional
details if needed.

Sincerely,

-- 
Matheus Bento
Entomologist - Systematics of beetles
National Institute of Amazonian Research - INPA
Av. Andr? Ara?jo, 2936, Petr?polis, CEP 69067-375 - Manaus, AM, Brasil

ORCID
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0001-9846-9728&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0f9ecfb211984e5b951a08ddc5403d23%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638883601879943394%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6kpz7W0wThK3Y4XBUKSTv2iz%2BjqGwXH2jtKD%2FASe1eg%3D&reserved=0

Lattes CV
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flattes.cnpq.br%2F2625838545232863&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0f9ecfb211984e5b951a08ddc5403d23%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638883601879959437%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FU%2BJd5L1eT1KbDCvlOWUoqcEJt%2FAzGh7MnYqLvi0qq0%3D&reserved=0

Google Scholar CV
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3DRqkyoqcAAAAJ%26hl%3Den%26oi%3Dao&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0f9ecfb211984e5b951a08ddc5403d23%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638883601879969074%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PCD7aSCmn1kwWMajUEObzQlkcbEf35H7dtPIrI%2FX%2B2Y%3D&reserved=0