Article 23.9 of theCodecannot be used to reject the nomenHyla quoyiBory de Saint-Vincent, 1828 as anomen oblitum

Abstract

Article 23.9 of the Code, introduced in its last 1999 version, allows the validation, in some cases, of a well known junior synonym or homonym as opposed to a senior synonym or homonym that had been ignored in the literature after 1899. In such cases, the junior nomen qualifies as a nomen protectum and the senior one as a nomen oblitum, a formula redefined in a new sense in this edition. The implementation of this Article requires one to follow strictly several conditions: the invalidation can concern only senior synonyms or homonyms (a junior one cannot be a nomen oblitum); it must have been published in the sense given to this term in the Code (i.e., it cannot have been proposed online in an unpublished electronic document); and evidence must be published that the junior synonym or homonym has been used as valid for the same taxon in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years. A nomen oblitum remains an available nomen and can be revalidated subsequently, for example in the case of re-evaluation of a subjective synonymy. Since the implementation of this new Article, some authors have used it without respecting these conditions or some of them: in such cases, the nomenclatural act supposed to have been effected under Article 23.9 is null and void, and the regular Rules of the Code must be applied (e.g., through validation of the senior synonym or homonym). A few examples concerning amphibian nomina of the family Hylidae illustrate these statements. The statuses of the nomina, spellings, emendations and combinations Hyla fulva, Hyla gaimardi, Hyla lesueurii, Hyla lesueuri, Hyla prasina, Hyla quoyi, Hyla septentrionalis, Hyla suerii, Hyla sueurii, Rana gaimardii, Istriurus lesueurii, Istriurus sueurii and Trachycephalus marmoratus are discussed. A lectophoront (lectotype) is designated for Hyla septentrionalis and Trachycephalus marmoratus and neophoronts (neotypes) are designated for Hyla fulva, Hyla gaimardi and Hyla sueurii.

Hyla prasina Burmeister, 1856 meets the requirements of Article 23.9.1 of the Code for a reversal of precedence over Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828 (Anura, Hylidae)

“…Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) then considered Hyla quoyi an unavailable name (erroneously, and based on Frost's (2010) assertion), and stated that "Hypsiboas prasinus (Burmeister, 1856) is a nomen protectum (ICZN 1999) relative to Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828, a nomen oblitum.". We agree with Ohler and Dubois (2018) that this nomenclatural act made by Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) is not valid because Hyla quoyi was then (as it is now) an available name, and, mainly, because it was not justified with evidence that the conditions stated in Article 23.9.1 were met (Article 23.9.2). But, the fact is that Caramaschi and Niemeyer's (2010) conclusion is inherently right, since Hyla prasina (=Hypsiboas prasinus) actually met at that time the conditions to be considered a nomen protectum under Article 23.9.1, that is, a reversal of precedence over Hyla quoyi (see below).…”

“…It is clear from the previous paragraph that Ohler and Dubois' (2018) intention was to determine if Hyla prasina met the conditions of Article 23.9 for a reversal of precedence and they concluded that it did not. But, contrary to Ohler and Dubois (2018), we are aware of a well-established and widespread use of the name Hyla prasina (=Hypsiboas prasinus) in the zoological literature, so we performed a manual search among many published papers, and we found evidence that Hyla prasina Burmeister, 1856 actually complies with the requirements of Article 23.9.1 of the Code for a reversal of precedence over Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828. Since Ohler and Dubois' (2018) nomenclatural act is based on a false premise ("that the conditions of implementation of Article 23.9 are not complied with"), and their conclusion is wrong (that then "the regular Rules of the Code must be applied"), we do not accept as valid the usage of Boana quoyi (=Hyla quoyi) in Ohler and Dubois' (2018) work for the purpose of application of Article 23.9.1.1, and consequently, any eventual posterior usage of this name following Ohler and Dubois (2018).…”

“…In a recent work, Ohler and Dubois (2018) discussed the correct application of Article 23.9 of the Code (Anonymous, 1999;2012) and illustrated it with some concrete cases in which the authors considered that the Article was misinterpreted. Article 23.9 of the Code allows the "reversal of precedence", that is, that when a senior homonym or synonym has not been used as a valid nomen after 1899 (Article 23.9.1.1) and its junior synonym or homonym has been used as valid for the same taxon in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years (Article 23.9.1.2), the junior homonym or synonym must be maintained as valid (Article 23.9.1).…”

“…Article 23.9 of the Code allows the "reversal of precedence", that is, that when a senior homonym or synonym has not been used as a valid nomen after 1899 (Article 23.9.1.1) and its junior synonym or homonym has been used as valid for the same taxon in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years (Article 23.9.1.2), the junior homonym or synonym must be maintained as valid (Article 23.9.1). One of the cases considered by Ohler and Dubois (2018) is the treatment given by Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) to the names Hyla prasina Burmeister, 1856 (under the combination Hypsiboas prasinus), and Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828. Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) demonstrated that both names refer to the same species and are then subjective synonyms.…”

Tracking down the lizards from Gravenhorst's collection at the University of Wrocław: type specimens ofCallopistes maculatusGravenhorst, 1838 and threeLiolaemusspecies rediscovered

“…To the best of our knowledge, none (except L. lemniscatus ) of the Liolaemus nomina coined by Gravenhorst (1838) were used as valid names after 1899; however, this does not make them ‘forgotten names’, because only senior, and not junior, synonyms can be nomina oblita (Ohler & Dubois, 2018).…”