more ismeria

[Ron Gatrelle]

Sorry but the cross post is necessary here as the topic was re-introduced
on both list serves.  Which in a since was a bad move as it had not been
discussed in depth on Leps-l  at all,  while those on leps-talk had already
gotten the full debate.
******************

Pelham:  It is imperative that I respond to the various arguments
supporting the
employment of the name "ismeria" for any taxon that supplants an older,
established, name.

Ron:  I forgot to mention that he has this backwards. ismeria is the older
name (1833) not nycteis (1847). He is suggesting that nycteis "supplant"
ismeria in violation of the Principle of Priority as spelled out in Article
23.9  Note that as recent as the 1964 dosPassos Lep Soc check list that
ismeria is a fully recognized valid nominate species #571.  This name is no
ghost - though it has been often confused with the wrong taxonomic
associations. Aren't we glad it is now fixed by rediscovery of the
biological entity and neotype to the true historic insect found by Abbot.

PS  Note also that dosPassos had #558 gorgone and phaon mixed up too.  Are
we to just throw out anything and everything that at some point before our
prime was not aligned taxonomically as we think it should be today?  This
is why the Principle of Priority is the first and foundational principle in
the Code to insure stability.  Usage is secondary.  Old names that have not
been used at all as "a valid name since 1899" - can't be used to replace a
more recent name in prevailing usage.for the exact _same_ organism -
synonymy.  But ismeria has been used many times since 1899 and further
ismeria and nycteis are not synonyms vying to be attached to the same
subspecies.

Ron Gatrelle





 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl