Example of Law of Priority in Taxonomy

The date of acceptance of an article for publication, if indicated in a publication, does not indicate the effective date of publication and is irrelevant to determining the priority of publication of names. 2. Where two names published after 1 January 1980 (and therefore not included in the lists approved in 1980 or in the 1984 Corrigendum) compete for priority, priority shall be determined on the basis of the date of publication or announcement of the name in the IJSB. If both names appear in the same edition of the IJSB, priority is determined by the page number; A name that appears on a smaller number of pages in the same edition is considered the previous one. If two names previously published in other journals are validated per ad on the same validation list in the IJSB, the priority is determined by the sequence number of the list. Footnote 3. It is no longer necessary to seek the publication of names and descriptions actually published before 1 January 1980. The approved lists of bacterial names form the basis of a new bacterial nomenclature and taxonomy. 1.

Where two designations are in competition for priority and both designations appear on a list approved since 1 January 1980, priority shall be determined by the date of initial publication of the designation before 1 January 1980. 23.3.7. An available name which is valid according to the principle of priority may also not be rejected by its author(s) for a reason such as its inappropriateness or pseudodionymy (see Article 18) or incorrect spelling (such a name remains valid but in its correct form: see Article 19). A Latin or Latinized sub-species designation may be elevated to subspecies or species name status by a subsequent author, provided that the resulting name conforms to the rules. If it is increased in this way, it prevails from the moment it is collected and is attributed to the author by whom it was increased, provided that the author who collects it complies with Rule 27. During the 19th century, the principle was gradually accepted by almost all botanists, but the debate about the conditions under which the principle could be ignored continued to rage. Botanists on one side of the debate argued that the priority should be universal and without exception. This would have meant a major one-off disruption, as countless names in common usage were reversed in favor of archaic first names. In 1891, Otto Kuntze, one of the most vocal proponents of this position, did just that, publishing more than 30,000 new combinations in his Revisio Generum Plantarum. [3] Other such publications followed in 1893, 1898, and 1903. [3] However, his efforts have been so disruptive that they appear to have benefited his opponents.

In the 1900s, the need for a name preservation mechanism was widely accepted, and the details of such a mechanism were discussed. The current system of «modified priority» was essentially introduced at the Cambridge Congress of 1930. [3] Sections, subsections, series and subseries of taxonomic categories are informal categories that are not governed by the rules of this Code. Their names do not compete with the names of genres and subgenres in terms of priority and disambiguation. Note that the nomenclature for botany and zoology is independent and the priority rules for homonyms apply within each discipline, but not between them. There are formal provisions providing for exceptions to the principle of priority in each of the codes. If an archaic or obscure earlier name is discovered for an established taxon, the current name can be declared nomen conservandum (botany) or preserved name (zoology) and thus retained in relation to the previous name. Preservation can be completely avoided in zoology, as these names can fall into the formal category of the name oblitum. If the current name of a taxon has an archaic or obscure earlier homonym, the current name can be explained as nomen protectum (zoology) or the old name can be deleted (nomen rejiciendum, botany).

In botany and horticulture, the principle of priority applies to names of family and lower rank. [5] [6] When changes are made to another genus or species to another, the «last epithet» of the name is combined with the new genus name, with all necessary adjustments to Latin grammar, for example: Example: Buchanan in Breed et al. (1957) followed the law of priority by grouping the families Beggiatoaceae Migula 1894 and Vitreoscillaceae Pringsheim in 1949 in the new order Beggiatoales. whose type is Beggiatoa Trevisan 1842, which takes precedence over Vitreoscilla Pringsheim 1949. In contrast, Breed et al. (1957) chose Pseudomonas Migula in 1894 rather than Spirillum Ehrenberg in 1832 and Nitrobacter Winogradsky in 1892 to form the name of a new suborder, Pseudomonadineae Breed et al in 1957. The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to that taxon, unless that name has been declared invalid or another name takes precedence by a provision of the Code or by a decision of the Board. For this reason, the validity of synonyms [art. 23.3], the relative precedence of homonyms [art. 53-60], the accuracy or inaccuracy of spellings [art. 24, 32] and the validity of nomenclatural acts (such as acts according to the principle of the first auditor [art.

24.2] and the determination of nominative types [art. 68, 69, 74.1.3, 75.4]). The principle of priority does not always apply. When Carl von Linnaeus laid the foundations of modern nomenclature, he did not recognize any earlier names. The botanists who followed him were also ready to overturn Linnaeus` name. The first sign of recognition of priority appeared in 1813, when A. P. de Candolle set out some principles of good nomenclature practice. He advocated keeping the previous names, but left plenty of room to overturn the bad previous names. [3] The date of a name or epithet is the date of its valid publication. However, for the purposes of priority, only legitimate names and epithets are taken into account (see Articles 32b and 54). A specific (or subspecific) epithet does not become illegitimate by publication in a species name (or subspecies name) when the generic name is illegitimate (see also Chapter 3, Section 8 and example for Rule 20f).

Footnote 2. These approved lists may contain more than one name assigned to the same type (objective synonyms), since the names on the list represent names that are considered reasonable in the current state of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy and represent the views of many bacteriologists who may have different taxonomic opinions. 23.7.1. A name explicitly defined for a collective group is not in competition with other generic group names; 23.7.3. An established name for a notaxon ego does not primarily compete with an established name for an animal (including the animal that formed or may have formed the trace fossil). If two or more taxa of the same rank are combined, the name of the taxon under which they are grouped (and thus the type of taxon) is chosen by the publication priority rule. Annex 1. This application is limited to a proposal to modify the specific epithet of a nominal species widely recognized as contagious, virulent or highly toxic, for example to a subspecies of a species with a different host zone or a degree of contagion or virulence. If the Judicial Commission recognises a high level of health risk or serious economic consequences, an opinion may be issued that the taxon should be maintained as a separate nomenic species, without prejudice to the recognition or recognition of its genetic relationship with another taxon. 23.7.2. A name that is defined for a nominal generic group taxon, but later used for a collective group, no longer competes primarily with other generic group names as long as it is used in this way (see also Article 67.14); If a name is reinstated in accordance with Rule 33c, it may be revived in a new combination; That is, the revived species can be transferred to another genus, or the revived subspecies can be transferred to another species at the time of the revival of the name.

There is no need to first revive the name in the original combination. Note 1. Spelling variants can be corrected by any author. Example: The species Haemophilus pertussis has this name in the genus Haemophilus. When placed in the genus Bordetella, it is called Bordetella pertussis. Note 3. Synonyms can be objective synonyms (i.e. more than one name has been associated with the same type) or subjective synonyms (i.e. different names have been associated with different types which, according to the bacteriologist concerned, belong to the same taxon). The first published synonym is known as the senior synonym, and later synonyms are called junior synonyms. If an author transfers a species to another genus (Rule 41) or a subspecies to another species, the author making the transfer must indicate the formation of the new combination by adding the abbreviation «comb, nov» to the citation. (combinatio nova).