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

[Douglas Yanega]

On 7/18/25 6:18 AM, Matheus Bento via Taxacom wrote:
> 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.

The short answer is that this would be a viable Application to the 
Commission.

The longer answer is that (1) there are criteria we take into account 
when voting on such a case, the most significant being how commonly-used 
the name is that we are being asked to conserve. In this particular 
case, I can only see one recent publication that is not a catalog or 
checklist (or website) in which this name (Parandrita aenea) appears. It 
may be impolitic of me to say this in public, but this does not seem 
like a case I would be inclined to vote for, as it apparently fails to 
meet this criterion. (2) It is not an entirely trivial amount of effort 
to prepare and submit an Application, and it can take several years 
between the submission and the final results of a vote. However, you 
could potentially have a replacement name published in less than two or 
three months, and for much less effort.

In other words, even though an Application would be viable, it has a 
much higher cost/benefit ratio than replacing the name, and no 
*guarantee* of success.

This is, of course, just my own personal opinion; both options *are* 
open to you, and the decision is yours.

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314  voicemail:951-827-8704
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc27a700bc53240b45d9c08ddc60d3b8b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638884482315647342%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2B8%2FKhaEGlB1ewwwoP15UOm9t0mAUk9%2Bkslh%2FLW1k88o%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82