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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Matheus,

The third alternative would certainly be a good solution, but I am sorry 
that I overlooked that  the names were not considered congeneric between 
1899 and 1908. Also in the new edition the 1899 date would be the limit.

We discussed the issue in the Commission. Art. 23.9.5 says "not 
considered congeneric after 1899" in the English Code, which could be 
interpreted in various ways. The term "considered" would be clear, but 
"not considered" is ambiguous.

However the French Code (which is equal in force and authority) states 
"qui n'ont plus ?t? consid?r?s comme cong?n?riques apr?s 1899" which 
means "which were no longer considered congeneric after 1899".

This clarifies the issue, as it contains a time span. It means that two 
species are considered congeneric as long as evidence to the contrary is 
published. In other words a new generic placement must be published 
befopre 1900. In this case Sharp (1908) was the first to place one of 
the species in a different genus. So until 1908 the taxa were considered 
congeneric.

So Art. 23.9.5 does not apply. The species with the junior homonym needs 
a different name. If there are junior synonyms, the oldest available 
synonym is to be used, unless it is invalid for some reason, in which 
case the next younger name comes into play.

Sorry again for the confusion.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 20.07.2025 um 18:50 schrieb Matheus Bento via Taxacom:
> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you very much for the clarifying comments and for trying to interpret
> this Article.
> 
> I'm concerned about accepting Article 23.9.5 as applicable to this case.
> I'd rather to recognize that the wording "not considered congeneric after
> 1899" may be interpreted ambiguously, since "considered" is an imprecise
> term. If we agree that this Article intends to avoid the replacement of
> homonyms already separated since the 19th century (1899 as cutoff), the
> best choice would be to interpret the term "considered" objectively as
> meaning "*classified*" (first interpretation of Douglas e Francisco). The
> other possible interpretation requires *explicit mention*, which would
> admite names separated both before and long after 1899, just because they
> were not cited until the transfer. I can imagine that this flexible
> interpretation would increase the workload of the commission.
> 
> In addition, I think the flexible interpretation would invert the logic of
> the prevailing usage (23.9.1), benefiting names without usage. It is
> understandable that this Article 23.9.1 functions with published mentions
> because the only way to measure usage of a name is by citations.
> 
> This third alternative seems the best one for my case (waiting for the 5th
> edition). The Hawaiian name will hardly be cited in a published work until
> the next edition of the code, and there are three more congeneric species
> from the same location, which are probably conspecific with this one. So,
> using a synonymous name in a future revision of the genus may be an option.
> 
> Again, I thank you very much for the discussion and insights.
> 
> My best wishes,
> Bento.
> 
> 
> Em sex., 18 de jul. de 2025 ?s 15:28, Adam Cotton via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> escreveu:
> 
>> On 19/07/2025 01:33, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
>>> Dear Matheus,
>>> <snip>
>>> 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
>>
>> This is one positive point of the wording of the current Article 23.9.5
>> ... if an application to the Commission is not submitted, then the
>> junior name continues to be the valid taxon name ad infinitum and a
>> replacement name proposed after 1999 cannot be considered as the valid
>> taxon name.
>>
>> I agree with Francisco, it would be better to wait until the 5th edition
>> is published, considering the name as valid under Article 23.9.5. and
>> then act on the provisions of the 5th edition.
>>
>> Assuming you are planning to publish a work including this taxon I would
>> recommend publishing a statement about the junior name that Article
>> 23.9.5 applies to this name. My coauthors and I took this approach in a
>> 2023 publication.
>>
>> Adam.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>