In response to Greg's message:
My view remains that on present evidence and current code
Flabelligeridae is not threatened by Pherusidae. Article 40 takes care of
the situation. I'm open to be convinced it does not, but see no flaw yet.
> The Principle of Priority (Article 23) is exactly what we are talking
> about, so we can't see how invocation of this Article means the
> Flabelligeridae can be maintained (except by an application).
A minor quibble from me. If some maverick starts using Pherusidae now
as a result of our little discussion it's a moot point as to whether they
could be truly invoking Article 23, since they would be going against its
instructions.
> Article 40(b) is only relevant to the synonymy of Chloraemidae and
> Flabelligeridae. For resolution of the issue of Flabelligeridae vs.
> Pherusidae we must look elsewhere.
I don't think so. The phrase 'takes the precedence of the replaced name'
means Flabelligeridae takes the date priority of the Chloraemidae. It
takes the same precedence relative to all other available family names
that the Chloraemidae had. There is no point in mentioning it otherwise.
The word 'precedence' for what is effectively priority is also used
elsewhere in the code when it is considering ranking of taxa of the same
level. I do think the code-makers should be credited with the foresight to
have provided the solution to our problem, which is the undesirable
destabilising loss of family-level priority due to a genus-level synonymy
> of course the 1964 Code is irrelevant at various levels.
But historically interesting. :-)
--
Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
-- ANNELIDA
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
--
