more on - Ochlodes venata or sylvanus or faunus?

[Ron Gatrelle]

In an earlier post I said:

> Conclusions.  If the only consideration is one of homonymy of the two
> sylvanus -  rule for sylvanus Esper as an available and valid name.  This
> makes O. sylvanus a name workers can then utilize by the Principle of
> Priority.  If there are no other issues, all is well.  _But_  this
epithet
> does not appear to me to have historical usage in Europe, while faunus
> does.  If stability is a consideration (and it is) then Article 23.9.1 is
> very relative here for "prevailing usage _must_ be maintained when the
> following conditions are _both_ met...."   Faunus has surely met the
> conditions of 23.9.1.2.  Thus, the only question is if sylvanus has met
the
> 1899 condition of 23.9.1.1.   If not, faunus stands as the species name
not
> sylvanus.  IF both these conditions are _not_ met then, by rule,
sylvanus
> prevails as the valid species name.
>
> Ron Gatrelle

Now that I have found out that the ICZN ruling was in regard to Papilio
sylvanus Esper,1777 versus P.
sylvanus Drury, 1773, the latter part of my above post is now the relevant
area of the Code we need to go by.

Faunus is the name that should be used as for the skipper in question as it
looks to me that sylvanus has no post 1899 usage.  (One must also remember
that the Code discounts check lists as a "usage" relative to this section
of the Code.)

The original note in the Russian book Guy quoted is misleading.  It leads
one to think that Ochlodes sylvanus is the name which should be used for
this taxon.  But that is not so.   The Commission only ruled on the two
Papilio sylvanus homonyms - which has absolutely nothing to do with if
faunus or sylvanus is the _valid_ name of that single taxon.  The
Commission ruling simply makes sylvanus Esper and _available_ name not a
_valid_ name.  The valid name of any given taxon is the one (among all
available epithets) that meets the Code requirements.  This is frequently
totally ignored, esp. the writers of popular literature.   When two or more
names are _available_ to be applied to any given taxon the Code sets out
the rules by which we can determine which of these available names is the
one and only _valid_ name of any taxon in question.

Thus, the Russian book appears to be in violation of the ICZN rules by
using sylvanus for this species rather than faunus.  This all depends on
how these two names fall out within Article 23.

Ron Gatrelle

Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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