Whatever you prefer, as there is no priority because the IRZN do not apply above the family level.

Regards, Günter

As far as I know there is no ICNZ code for higher taxa like Archaeognatha, and no rule of priority in that case. You can choose Archaeognatha or Microcoryphia. However, I would prefer Archaeognatha. 

Viktor

I have been facing the same question. Many thanks for thanks for the helpful answers

Malcolm

Both are OK, just for the record:

Microcoryphia Verhoeff, 1904:  (22.IV): 109 [Verhoeff K.W.  Über vergleichende Morphologie des Kopfes niederer Insecten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Dermaptera und Thysanuren nebst biologisch-physiologischen Beiträgen. - Abh.der Kaiserl. Leop.-Carol.Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher, 1904, Bd.84, Nr.1: 1-144, pls.I-VIII]

Archaeognatha Borner 1904: (3.V):  523 [Börner C. Zur Systematik der Hexapoden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 27: 511-533]

Thank you, Günther, thank you, Jürgen! I also prefer Acrhaeognatha because it stresses the monocondylous condition of the group which is unique, whereas "small heads" is not so informative.

Thank you, Jacek! It's perfect to have the names of original publications.

Dear All, I perfectly agree with G. Bechly (first answer) and his follower J. Deckert. Also the answer by Szwedo is interesting and useful. Regards,

Rinaldo Nicoli

The "animal" (in the sense of I.C.Z.N.) taxa that are included in the "supra-family" group (superfamily is part of family group) are no ruled by the Code. Do wou wont an example?: Hemiptera was established several years after that Rhingotha and Rhinchota. This is a difference (there are more) between our International Code of Zoological Nomeclature and the international Code of Nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants,

Both names can be used. I use Archaeognatha. If the ICNZ code was applied we have to find out the exact day of the publication, because both publications have the same  year and the articles are in different magazines.

I think its just a matter of choice, both names are correct and can be used at will. Microcorphia was proposed by Verhoeff on April 22, 1904 while Borner proposed the name Archaeognatha on  May 3, 1904 (11 days later). Thanks

Just a late answer on a question

I used to use Archaeognatha, but changed, since most if not all of the taxonomist (so the experts on nomenclature) use Microcoryphia.

This is generally a good way to decide naming, where the rule does not apply.

All the best

Nikola

Microcorphia is the correct name according to the Code.

After some experts the correct name is Microcoryphia, but I prefer Archaeognatha because my students can understand better the monocondylous condition of the group which is unique in comparison with the other ectognatha Hexapoda.

Four spoilers for this debate:

First, it turns out that "Archaeognatha" is a misnomer because Archaeognatha / Microcoyphia is not actually monocondylous:

Blanke A, Machida R, Szucsich NU, Wilde F, Misof B (2015) Mandibles with two joints evolved much earlier in the history of insects: dicondyly is a synapomorphy of bristletails, silverfish and winged insects. Systematic Entomology 40: 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12107

Second, although the name Microcoryphia Verhoeff is older than the name Archaeognatha Borner by eleven days, ...

Wille Trejos A (1960, 2002) The phylogeny and relationships between the insect orders. Revista de Biología Tropical on-line 50: 735–766. Available from: http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0034-77442002000200032&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en (November 7, 2023).

... the priority of ordinal names is not regulated by the ICZN. A literature search will show that Microcoryphia is preferred by the group's taxonomists (Wygodzinsky, Mendes, Bach de Roca, Matushkina, Kaplin (usually), Gaju Ricart, et al.), so it is practical to do literature searches using the name that the relevant authors use(d).

Third, the argument for particular preferences should consider the fuller synonymy of the taxon:

Microcoryphia Verhoeff, 1904 (22 April): 118

= Archaeognatha Börner, 1904 (2 May): 523

= Archeognathata Börner, 1904: 523 (emendation by Boudreaux H. B., 1979. Arthropod phylogeny with special reference to insects. John Willey & Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto. 320 pp.)

= Trinemura Crampton, 1916: 276, 282 Crampton G.C. 1916. The orders and relationships of Apterygotan insects. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 24: 267-301

= Protothysanura Crampton, 1924: @@ (non Smith 1897) Crampton G.C., 1924. The phylogeny and classification of the insects. Journal of Entomology and Zoology 16: 33-47

= Monocondylia Kukalova-Peck, 1985: 944 (non Haeckel 1866) Kukalova-Peck J., 1985. Ephemeroid wing venation based upon new gigantic Carboniferous mayflies and basic morphology, phylogeny, and metamorphosis of pterygote insects (Insecta, Ephemerida). Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(4): 933–955

One may debated whether Boudreaux (1979) emendation of "Archaeognatha" is justified.

Fourth, the two names may not actually represent the same taxon. Because of the existence of the †Dasyleptidae, some palaeosystematists regard Archaeognatha as a subordinate taxon within e.g. Monocondylia or Microcoryphia. Here is is useful to bear in mind that Monocondylia is a misnomer because their mandibles actually have two articulations (see the first point).

Wow, that is a lot of useful information. Thank you very much for the contribution, Martin!