Article 54. Names that do not enter into homonymy. The following do not enter into homonymy:
54.1. a name that is excluded from the provisions of the Code [Arts. 1.3, 8.3] (see also Articles 1.4 and 52.7);
54.2. a name that is unavailable [Art. 10.1], except as provided in Article 20;
54.3. an incorrect spelling, whether original [Arts. 32.4, 32.5] or subsequent, since it is not available in its uncorrected form [Arts. 32.4, 33.3]; and
54.4. a name that has been suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy by a ruling of the Commission [Art. 81.2.1].
Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution
| FranciscoWelterSchultes | A useful Article could be added Art. 54.5. a subsequent use of the same name, whether or not it was incorrectly declared as new in a subsequent source. Such an Article would be useful to get rid of innumerous so-called names defined by some authors as "junior homonym and objective synonym" (this is an increasing trend, in line with the idea that any usage of a name is potentially a new name if it was used in a slightly different sense). We have various cases: (1) an author simply did not cite the previous publication (maybe because of not knowing it), (2) a statement "new" in a publication was undeliberate and not under the responsibility of the author, (3) an author submitted the same paper to various journals and various journals published the new name, at different dates, (4) anything related to floppiness. Examples: Bloch & Schneider (1801) presented an actinopterygian fish under the name Albula and included one species Albula conorynchus Bloch & Schneider, 1801. They did not show that they knew the previously established name Albula Scopoli, 1777. Scopoli (1777) had established this name without species included, A. conorynchus was a species in line with Scopoli's description. Bloch & Schneider (1801) did not establish a junior homonym Albula Bloch & Schneider, 1801 with its type species by monotypy Albula conorynchus, because this was only a subsequent use of Albula Scopoli, 1777. The gastropod genus Alpidelima was established by Wagner (1924) in an article which was subdivided by the journal editors, the second part was published in 1925. In the second part Alpidelima was again declared or presented as new. Wagner when submitting the manuscript did not know that the editors would publish this part later. The statement "new" in the 1925 publication was incorrect and must be neglected because it was only a subsequent use of the name established in 1924. The bivalvian name Anomiostrea Habe & Kosuge, 1966 was first established in January 1966 in a monograph entitled "Shells of the world in colour". Five months later appeared a journal article authored by Habe & Kosuge in which the name was again declared as a new genus. The statement "new" at that second occasion was incorrect and must be neglected. Simroth mentioned a new gastropod genus Atoxon in 1888 in a brief note with a very short description and two species which were nomina nuda at the time. In 1889 Simroth published detailed descriptions of the genus and the two species, at this occasion the genus was declared as new. This statement "new" concerning Atoxon was incorrect, it was only a subsequent use of Atoxon Simroth, 1888. Bronn (1828) established a new gastropod genus Brocchia. In 1831 Bronn declared Brocchia again as new, obviously because the author overlooked that he had made the name available in a previous source. The 1831 statement "new" was incorrect, this was only a subsequent use of Brocchia Bronn, 1828. |
2012-11-28 07:16:50 | ||