Re: paleonet "palaeo name" to override "neontology name"

["Alvaro Mones" <amones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Andrew is right; and I strongly support his arguments. If neozoologists 
ignore paleozoology is their problem and they are doing bad science.
Alvaro

*******************************
Alvaro Mones
Franzensbadstr. 7 B
D-86199 Augsburg
Deutschland

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Rindsberg" <arindsberg@gsa.state.al.us>
To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 27 April, 2006 15:40
Subject: RE: paleonet "palaeo name" to override "neontology name"


Ken and others,

>The name attached to fossil species is Hemithyrsites Sauvage 1873 (used a
few times by a few authors even up to this year), and the generic name
attached to the only known Recent species is Promethichtys Gill 1893. This
is used often enough by enough different authors in the most recent years to
fulfil ICZN art. 23.9.1.2. However, because of the occasional usage of
Hemithyrsites, art. 23.9.1.1 is not fulfilled, and thus this senior synonym
should be applied, except if my co-author and I decide to appeal to ICZN
recommendation 23A (as suggested in this thread by Patricio). But whether we
do that or not depends on our judgement.

As the Preamble to the ICZN makes clear, the purpose of all these rules is
to promote stability in nomenclature. If I understand you, both were named
correctly and described well enough for you to be reasonably sure that the
two are synonyms, despite the fact that one is fossil and the other a living
species.

So, why not let the rule of priority apply in the ordinary manner? This is
the simpler solution. It requires the least work by specialists. It promotes
stability. And, stepping beyond the bounds of strict logic, the case is more
interesting as a fossil fish that trumps a living one.

Cheers,
Andrew

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.0/325 - Release Date: 4/26/2006