Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?

[Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>]

K and T Dykes <ktdykes@arcor.de> wrote:


> Hang on.  If the preoccupation is a junior synonym,
> then isn't that usage rendered irrelevant and, therefore,
> the name would be available for valid use?  


Once a genus is named, it's named for good.  A genus name is still regarded as 
a preoccupied name (homonym) even when the genus is later deemed to be a junior 
synonym (either objective or subjective) of another genus.  


For example, the beetle genus _Syntarsus_ Fairmaire 1869 is now regarded as a 
junior objective synonym of another beetle genus (_Cerchanotus_).  As such, it 
is high unlikely that the name _Syntarsus_ will ever be used as a valid genus 
of beetle.  _Syntarsus_ Fairmaire will probably be forever sunk into 
_Cerchanotus_ Erichson.


However, _Syntarsus_ is still unavailable as a name for the dinosaur that was 
named later: _Syntarsus_ Raath 1969.  _Syntarsus_ Fairmaire is a senior homonym 
of _Syntarsus_ Raath, irrespective of the former's taxonomic status.  So the 
latter had to be re-named (_Megapnosaurus_, as it turned out).


Cheers

Tim