It is good to have some lively list discussion on several themes this week.
Fred Pleijel wrote:
> We maintain that if we want to adhere to
> the Code then it's either Pherusidae or an application to preserve
> Flabelligeridae. This is not a question of "code wrangling".
Existing usage would be maintained anyway (Article 23), and the
outcome is inevitable. A non-event apart from an entry in a list of rejected
In an earlier message he explained his reasons thusly:
> Flabelligeridae was established as a new family group name by Saint-
> Joseph, 1894 3. Based on this Chloraemidae then became an objective
> junior synonym of Flabelligeridae (Article 40(b)) 4. In the group today
> referred to as "Flabelligeridae" we include Flabelligera and Pherusa 5.
> For that group there is an older family group name available Pherusidae
> (based on Grube's "Pherusea")
Flabelligeridae when it replaced Chloraemidae takes the original date of
Chloraemidae. This is laid down in Article 40b(i) which states
"[Flabelligeridae] takes the precedence of the replaced name of which it
is deemed to be the senior synonym." Chloraemidae is 1849, Pherusidae
is 1850. Pherusidae is not older and does not have priority. The previous
1964 code actually had these words - "[Flabelligeridae] takes the date of
the rejected name ..."
Please, where is the flaw in that?
Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html