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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Matheus,
I generally agree with Doug, but deviate a little in some details.
Art. 23.9.5 would apply. This Article directs authors explicitly to ask 
the Commission for a ruling, without any statement concerning how 
frequently used these names are. The Commission usually considers the 
usage frequency in its decisions, but decisions under Art. 23.9.5 have 
always been clearcut and since the Article says "should" without 
restrictions, it would seem unfair to direct authors to spend their 
precious time in submitting a case, and then declining it.

In 12 cases based on Art. 23.9.5 between 2000 and 2006 (which I happened 
to analyse some time ago) all 12 cases were approved.

There is no guarantee that an application would be approved in this 
case, but I consider the likelihood as very high.

I would personally not recommend to ignore Art. 23.9.5 and just propose 
a new replacement name. Such an action would be in conflict with the Code.

If you write and submit an application to the Commission: If there is a 
junior synonym that could be used for the Brazilian species, the 
Commissioners would need to know that. If there is no synonym, you would 
write in the penultimate paragraph that a new name would have to be 
proposed (either a new replacement name, or a "normal" new taxon name 
with its own name-bearing type, depending on what seems better).

In the next edition of the Code we are planning to propose a different 
solution for such cases: authors would obtain the option to validate the 
junior homonym themselves by a new standard procedure, like in Art. 
23.9.2 but without the need to research 25 publications. This will be 
proposed because the Commission made the experience that Art. 23.9.5 
were always clearcut, and we consider submitting a case in such 
situations as unnecessary workload (for the authors and for the 
Commissioners).

So you have a third alternative: Just continue using the Brazilian name, 
wait for the 5th edition of the Code being in force (maybe in 4 or 5 
years), and if it will contain such a provision as explained above, take 
the corresponding action and save the usage of the Brazilian name by 
this method.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 18.07.2025 um 17:10 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> 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,
>