Hi Peter,

A very interesting case, but you are a little bit vague in your formulation!

Normally the code clearly defines that a predating designation of a name for a species is the valid one (principle of priority). But there are a few exceptions that have to be kept in mind. The commission (ICN) may make a decision giving priority to a junior synonym as valid (conserved), if a change to the predating name may mean or cause instability in the nomenclaturicle system.

This is clearly pointed out in the "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" (San Luis Code) Article 14:

14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art. 13, this Code provides, in App. II and III, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved (nomina conservanda). Conserved names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegitimate.

14.2. Conservation aims at retention of those names which best serve stability of nomenclature (see Rec. 50E).

For more details on this backcheck "The Code". The electronic version:

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0001ICSLContents.htm

But if the really extraordinary case should have turned up, that the conserved name should be predated by other conservation act using exactly the same name but for another plant species, the new homonyme would have to be rejected, as the principle of priority would be active in such an unusual case (article 53).

I would strongly advise your colleagues to exactly study the code, before going to publish.

Uwe Römer

Hello there Peter.

In zoology, when the ICZN goes through its process of notification and receipt of submissions and finally acts to conserve a name (to preserve stability) then I believe that's the end of the story.  The whole aim is to prevent an earlier and little-known name from being dredged up and pedantically used, since this undermines stability of the well-known name.  Not sure if things are the same in botany but one would hope so.

BRIAN

Thanks Uwe - you outline pretty much what I had been thinking. Its difficult to explain the details when one reviews in confidence. Very helpful.

Brian - I appreciate the point you make, indeed the Zoo Code actually has much in it that would make the ICN easier to work with if adopted. What you outline is what I had assumed would be the case for plants as well, but when I asked New Zealand scholar son the subject they went rather vague and gave no answers!

In addition to Uwe Römer's answer. I would like to point out. that the latest Code is:

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=title

Thanks to Nataliya for that update!

In Botany Code versions seem to change more frequent than in Zoology!

Uwe

I think Brian has it correct - the point of the ICN conserving a name is so that earlier and presumably available names that have not been used for various reasons are not raised as the valid name - to 'conserve' the current nomenclature in the interests of stability. This would normally involve placing older or prior name son a list of rejected or invalid names. This would all be outlined in the published conservation action of the ICN. The rationale is usually something like the nomen not used in the last 50 yrs or similar. If there is an hithertoo overlooked name not covered by the published ICN conservation action, I suspect it would be immediately added to the list of invalid names in a further action to conserve the name in use. The overall aim of nomenclature is after all stability.

did u try phil g-j?  jerry and mycologists are away on fungal foray..

Hi Colin - Yes I had already discussed this one with PJG-J, and PJB. I think I have enough to go on now. My view was that if a name is conserved then it is is conserved against all other names. That seems to be the consensus here as well - though it is not clear if the ICZN way of doing things is the same as ICN.  Thanks for peoples views.

Peter: According to Art. 14.4, "A conserved name of a species is conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected names." This means that if an earlier synonym is not listed in the entry, it is not involved in the conservation/rejection. Then Art. 14.5 governs that "when a conserved name competes with one or more names based on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11" - this means that any earlier synonym that is not listed in the entry takes proprity and should be accepted for the taxon, and the conserved name should be placed into synonymy. Such overlooked earlier synonyms are not uncommon; people usually write complementary proposals to add more synonyms to the list of rejected names against which the protected name is conserved.

Alexander - thank you - that answers my question beautifully - appreciate it. I will now complete my review. Cheers Peter

Peter: I agree with with Alexanders's conclusion - the conservation is only against the listed rejected names, with the two going hand-in-hand. As pointed out, this additional earlier name could probably be added to the list or rejected names if the case to conserve has already been made, but it is not mandatory for this to occur, and the earlier name can be used.

I agree especially with Uwe and Alexanderon the ditates of th ICBN, but it is also important to note the necessity to confirm that the older name was valid as duly published. If there was an error in the way and manner of its publication, the principle of priority does not favour it. Confirming with a type specimen of the older name may help because a name meant for one species could be wrongly applied to a related or another species. An example is the Nigerian Tania, which was long published as Xanthosoma mafaffa, but has in the last few decades been reported as Xanthosoma saggittifolium, which is a south American relative. In such a case, the principle of priority favours X. mafaffa whereas the principle of conservation of a name can never favour X. saggitfifolium for the Nigerian taxon.. There is need to ascertain the identity of the specimen in question by comparing it with the type specimen of the so-believed older name while effort is being made to resolve the priority and name conservation issues.

I agree also - as does, I believe, the Code. See Art. 14.5. 'When a conserved name competes with one or more names based on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11, except for the conserved family names listed in App. IIB, which are conserved against unlisted names.'

It is advised that recent valid name must be used. The conserved name may be given as synonym within the parenthesis. The ICBN, admitted the conserved name because of wide usage for many years and popularity gained and  it is decided to keep the older name as conserved name because to make the people recognize/understand easily.