The nomenclatural status of Rana gaimardii Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828, and Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828 (Anura, Hylidae)

Abstract

The nomenclatural status of Rana gaimardii Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828, and Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828 (Anura, Hylidae) are discussed. Rana gaimardii and its combination Hyla gaimardi, a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, may be removed from the synonymy of Hypsiboas boans (Linnaeus, 1758) and included in the synonymy of Hypsiboas faber (Wied-Neuwied, 1821) to improve the geographic distribution of both species. Hyla quoyi Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828, considered by Frost (2010) as incertae sedis in the Hylinae and as a nomen oblitum under the Article 23.9.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, if available would replace the well established name Hypsiboas prasinus (Burmeister, 1856); therefore, to improve the nomenclatural status of both species, Hyla quoyi must be included in the synonymy of H. prasinus as a nomen oblitum. Hypsiboas prasinus is a nomen protectum relative to Hyla quoyi, a nomen oblitum.

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)

“…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.…”

“…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. Hyla prasina (=Hypsiboas prasinus) was then a well-established name in the herpetological literature (see below), while Hyla quoyi was considered "insertae sedis" and (without justification) "nomen oblitum" by Frost's (2010) website "Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference" (this website was accessed by Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) on 17 June 2010, and this version is no longer available online).…”

“…Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) demonstrated that both names refer to the same species and are then subjective synonyms. Hyla prasina (=Hypsiboas prasinus) was then a well-established name in the herpetological literature (see below), while Hyla quoyi was considered "insertae sedis" and (without justification) "nomen oblitum" by Frost's (2010) website "Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference" (this website was accessed by Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) on 17 June 2010, and this version is no longer available online). 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.".…”

“…Hyla prasina (=Hypsiboas prasinus) was then a well-established name in the herpetological literature (see below), while Hyla quoyi was considered "insertae sedis" and (without justification) "nomen oblitum" by Frost's (2010) website "Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference" (this website was accessed by Caramaschi and Niemeyer (2010) on 17 June 2010, and this version is no longer available online). 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).…”

“…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).…”