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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Matheus,

If the first author to have placed the species L. aeneus in the genus 
Parandrita published this in 1908, then the species was considered to 
have belonged to Laemophloeus until 1907.
This can be deduced from simple logic. Otherwise someone in 1907 could 
have argued that L. aeneus would not belong to any genus between 1899 
and 1907. And next year 01 January 2026 someone could argue that Homo 
sapiens would not belong to any genus either - until some author would 
publish a statement that provides evidence that sapiens is still 
considered to belong to Homo.

This is basically the same thought as expressed in other words by Doug.

Art. 23.9.5 is for cases where both primary homonyms are currently used.

Art. 23.9.1 is for cases where the senior homonym is not used, and only 
the junior homonym is used. Only for these cases the conditions of Arts. 
23.9.1.1. and 23.9.1.2 need to be satisfied. I am confused because you 
mentioned this Article, and you did not state directly that the Brazlian 
name is used (and in which genus it is currently placed).

I understand that the Hawaiian name is currently used. I need to know: 
Is the Brazilian name also currently used?

Best wishes

Francisco


-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 17.07.2025 um 16:42 schrieb Matheus Bento via Taxacom:
> 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,
>