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

Fri Jul 18 08:18:29 CDT 2025

Dear all,

Douglas and Francisco, thank you very much for the clarification and
comments on my issue.

Francisco, yes, the Brazilian name is also currently used. Both names are.

Under a strict reading, the requirement "not considered congeneric after
1899" is not met, since both names remained in *Laemophloeus* until 1908,
when Sharp transferred the junior homonym to *Parandrita*. I fully agree
with you.

However, I wish to highlight a potential ambiguity (in my view) in the
Article?s phrasing, because ?*not considered congeneric after 1899' *could
be ambiguously interpreted: while "after 1899" could be interpreted as
requiring that the names were *NEVER* congeneric post-1899 (the strict
view; our interpretation), one might alternatively argue that it refers to
any time after (for exemple, 1908 is after 1899) or only to their
*current* status
(i.e., now being in separate genera). So the supposed problem would be in
the temporality of the requirement, which is unclear. But I now understand
that the second interpretation has internal logic but would lead to
anomalous results and would annul the purpose of the temporal cutoff.

Another question:
Historically, Sharp recognized the homonymy in 1908 (when he transferred
the junior homonym to *Parandrita*) but did not propose a new name, clearly
believing the generic transfer resolved the issue. While this approach does
not align with modern rules, it led to 116 years of stable usage of *Parandrita
aenea* without nomenclatural confusion. My question is whether this
historical context?coupled with the name?s stable usage, without
confusion?could justify an application to conserve *Parandrita aenea* under
the plenary power, despite the technical homonymy. I fully understand that
Sharp?s action did not actually resolve the problem under the Code, but the
unique circumstances may merit consideration.

I would appreciate any insights you might have on whether such a case could
be viable. If a proposal of conservation is not viable, then I will proceed
with a replacement name.

Once again, I thank you very much for your time and attention.

All the best.

Em qui., 17 de jul. de 2025 ?s 15:32, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
<taxacom at lists.ku.edu> escreveu:

> 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,
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>
>
>

-- 
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%7C9d85c03a515245df336408ddc5fda030%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638884415284643422%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vmX6hsSRUae9WXbBhxtdqnBGhbVPVMReotrP%2BmoHUlQ%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%7C9d85c03a515245df336408ddc5fda030%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638884415284662675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BsfR5is%2FOukIgUZ3BBWyHN%2BWJ7fI%2FFzcczDkN1J%2FgDw%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%7C9d85c03a515245df336408ddc5fda030%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638884415284676540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V42BiihqzLmhHGtL7PGrChAx22SImlv9d%2BSB5sutc2c%3D&reserved=0