Talk:Acis ionica

Name

There has been some considerable confusion about the correct name for this species. Based on different understandings, I have moved the article about. There were two issues, which I think are now sorted, largely because of e-mail correspondence I have had with IPNI and WCSP.

1. Was Acis orientalis Strid (2019) validly published, because Art. 41.5 of the ICNafp requires the page number of the protologue of the replaced synonym to be given, and it isn't in the text of the article? (As of 26 February 2020, the Wikispecies entry claimed it was not valid.) I e-mailed staff at IPNI and was assured that because a page range for the whole protologue of Leucojum ionicum is given in the references, Art. 41.5 Note 1 applies.
2. Was Strid right to publish a replacement name when moving Leucojum ionicum to Acis? WCSP as of late 26 February 2020 takes the view that he was not and it's a superfluous name. This is because when the transfer of the epithet of Leucojum ionicum would result in a homonym, which it would here, the next step should be to try the epithet of the next earliest legitimate name for the same taxon. This is "ionica" of "Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006)". So this is the correct name and Strid did not need to publish a replacement name. This is what WCSP says now (it didn't earlier on 26 February 2020), so it's what we can reference here.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Move made: I have now moved the article back to Acis ionica, using WCSP as the reference.

I have also added an explanation of the choice of Acis ionica over Acis orientalis as a footnote. This is sourced to the ICNafp, but although my explanation of it was endorsed in e-mail exchanges with WCSP, the interpretation in this particular case cannot be sourced, so if anyone is unhappy with the addition, they are free to remove the footnote. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)