DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-11-18 08:43:49 Art. 53.2 It seems increasingly necessary to give a clear statement to reject the concept of a name classified as a "homonym and junior objective synonym" in afvour to a subsequent use. This is because recently an increasing trend can be observed to regard subsequent uses of previously established names as new names. This has not been done in this extent before, and if the practice continues, a crucial portion of zoological nomenclature gets a very different direction (because Art. 49 would sooner or later be chased out of force, if one simply defines a sensu name or misidentification as a new name). Such a rule should include two provisions. 1 - It is (expressly) not necessarily demanded that the second author know the first source. 2 - The second author must have used the name in subjectively the same sense. There must be no evidence in the second source that if the second author had known that the first author had established the name, the second author would not have used it and instead would have selected a different name for his or her concept. The problem is most evident in genus-group names, when a first author classified a few species in a genus without fixing a type, and a second author classified a few other very similar species in a genus for which the same name was selected.