[tcs-lc] Next 4 days...

[Richard Pyle]

> One thing I guess I forgot is how is two authors recombine names
> with homonymic
> epithets into a third genus, priority is established in botany
> and zoology.

Good case-study!!!

> 1900: Aus xus published
> 1901: Bus xus published
>
> 2000: Bus xus recombined to Cus xus (1901) 2000
> 2001: Aus xus recombined to Cus xus (1900) 2001
>
> Which homony of Cus xus has priority - based on publication or
> protonym or on
> date of recomination?

ICZN Chapter 12: Homonymy
Article 52. Principle of homonymy
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=52

Article 53. Definitions of homonymy in the family group, genus group and
species group.
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=53

Article 57. Species-group names.
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=57

Article 59. Validity of secondary homonyms.
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=59

I couldn't find the specific article that said so, but I believe that the
1900 "xus" will always have priority over the 1901 "xus", regardless of
which epithet was first placed in the genus "Cus".

See example under 57.3.

> ICBN 58.2 suggests to me it is the first
> combination,
> because Cus xus (1900) 2001 would be a later homonym combination
> that cannot be
> validly published? Is that true (Paul?)

I believe that is different for Zoology.

> By the way, something I believe not in the model at all: Names
> may have equal
> priority. In ICBN a "selection priority" may resolve this, see
> ICBN 11.5. Good
> short example: "When Dentaria L. (1753) and Cardamine L. (1753)
> are united, the
> resulting genus is called Cardamine because that name was chosen
> by Crantz, who
> first united them. This is similar to lecotypification, but needs
> to be modeled
> differently. It is a nomenenclatural act to be recorded. Not sure
> it has to be
> in the model as structure, but I believe the model needs to give
> advice how to
> handle it if it should just go into commentary.

In zoology, this is handled by the "First Reviser":

Article 24. Precedence between simultaneously published names, spellings or
acts.
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=24

> "Nasty" aside: who is putting all this on the wiki by the way?
> And I don't mean
> Rich should do it, is doing more than enough. But I can't either.
> Wikis really
> are about collaborating and sharing the workload...

I'm keeping all of the exchanges, with the idea of eventually moving them to
a Wiki.  However -- still not clear to me *which* wiki they will go to.

Rich