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)

Abstract

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). 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.

The dangers of inadequate literature search to nomenclatural stability: the case of the nomina Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828 and Hyla prasina Burmeister, 1856 (Amphibia: Anura)

“…Furthermore, they argue that assumptions by Ohler & Dubois (2018) were based on a false premise with wrong conclusions and should be invalidated. According to Kolenc & Baldo (2018), the invalidation of the proposals of Ohler & Dubois (2018) finds support in Article 23.2 of the Principle of Priority, where it reads "the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and it is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning by the introduction of a name that is its senior synonym or homonym". Although we agree with Kolenc & Baldo (2018) regarding the mistakes committed by Ohler & Dubois (2018), we refrain to affirm that Article 23.2 can be called to invalidate the proposals of these latter authors without referring the issue to the Commission.…”