---

Is the valid name of Lyciella Collin, 1948 Meiosimyza Hendel, 1925, as according to Shatalkin, A.I. 1995, or is Lyciella still the valid name? I am confused.

:o

---

AFAIK the consensus is Meiosimyza but not everybody seems to agree. Perhaps Katka can elaborate on this...

---

Hi
Katka still uses the name Lyciella...http://diptera.in...d_id=25834.
I recently had my Checklist updated by Phil Withers and my L.rorida was altered to M.rorida.

Roger

---

I know Katka uses Lyciella, that's why I suggested that she might elaborate. :D

---

I see you are wearing your "clever" head today Paul :D

It's dim up north....

Roger

---

I lost the other ones... :( (or should that be :), :D or :P?)

---

Here are the relevant taxa:
Meiosimyza Hendel 1925
Lyciella Collin 1948
Lycia Robineau-Desvoidy 1830

Lycia R-D was preoccupied, so Lyciella was erected by Collin as a replacement name. Lyciella then is the valid name for the taxon, with its own author and date (independent of the author and date of the junior homonym Lycia). As such, for purposes of synonymy or determination of rank (genus/subgenus), Meiosimyza has priority. So Meiosimyza is the valid genus, and Lyciella is one of its subgenera.

ICZN article 60.3 is clearest on this matter, stating that if a rejected junior homonym needs a new replacement name (i.e., if there is no available and valid synonym to use instead), this new name has its own author and date, which will then compete for priority with any other recognized synonym.

This isn't something that is subject to "consensus" - calling Lyciella the senior name is simply incorrect. Of course one could refer to Lyciella and Meiosimyza as separate genera, but if they are subgenera of the same genus, Meiosimyza is the genus.

---

And since interpreting them as subgenera or separate genera depends on the worker it still comes to... "consensus". :P

---

Right you are! But I don't think anyone is claiming they are different genera.

---

oh! I am surprised, Steve. (Almost) nobody in Europe use Meiosimyza (except of Shatalkin), so I use Lyciella too (I am not a taxonomist of course). I will contact you by email for more detailed information.
Katka

---

Please share this information with us all! I am sure more people than me are very interested!

Viktor

---

My previous post covers most of the issue. But I guess to simplify - the name Lycia R-D (1830) is a junior primary homonym of Lycia Hubner (1823). That makes Lycia an invalid name. Collin gave the new name Lyciella to this genus-group taxon in 1948. This was after Hendel (1925) had erected the genus Meiosimyza. The name of Hendel (1925) has priority over that of Collin (1948), because it was described first. For nomenclature, the priority is established by date of publication, not date of the taxon concept (i.e., of Lycia R-D). So, when Meiosimyza and Lyciella are considered to represent the same genus, Meiosimyza is the senior name for purposes of priority. So in the absence of dividing Meiosimyza into subgenera, Lyciella would be a simple junior synonym. But since Meiosimyza is divided into subgenera, Lyciella is a subgenus of Meiosimyza. The various databases (e.g., Fauna Europaea) have this particular item wrong, listing the species as Lyciella. The only way that Lyciella would be a valid genus name is if it did not contain Sapromyza platycephala (the type species of Meiosimyza) - in other words, if Lyciella and Meiosimyza were separate genera.

---

Thanks Steve,
actually everything was of course very clear from your initial post (and I follow Shatalkin blindly myself). I just thought that it would be better to keep such an discussion "in the open" so that dedicated followers of Collin at last can let their darling Lyciella rest in peace! :)

---

So the short answer is...I was right for once...hoorah !

---

:@
http://diptera.in...ost_116906
:D See you managed to escape from the Taxi :@ (dropped you off safely)?...:D