Dear Andrew,
 
There is such a thinbg as page priority in the code. Not literally
mentioned by  the ICZN but implied. Therefore, I shall quote literally:
 
Recommendation 24A. Action of first reviewer. - In acting as first reviewer
in the meaning of this Article, an author should choose the name, homonym,
spelling or nomenclatural act that will best serve stability and
universality of nomenclature. If none of these have any special advantage
of this sort, or any other special appropriateness, and they occur in the
same work, the author should select that which appears first.
 
(3rd edition, the one currently in use, p. 53)
 
For Strombus gigas there are very good reasons to use gigas instead of
lucifer, as clearly indicated in this recommendation (Not regulation!). But
what about possible synonymy of some obscure (please forgive me)
Rissooidean or Pyramidelloidean?
 
Gijs C. Kronenberg
 
----------
> Van: Andrew K. Rindsberg <[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Juvenile Strombus gigas
> Datum: donderdag 15 april 1999 0:52
>
> Gijs Kronenberg wrote,
> 'Moreover, the specific epithet "lucifer" seems to have page priority
over
> "gigas". That would mean strictly applying the ICZN code, would make
gigas
> a junior synonym of lucifer.'
>
> This is a common misconception, Gijs. In fact, the ICZN does not
recognize
> page priority! All the pages of a publication are considered to have been
> published simultaneously, unless the publication appeared as a series of
> parts published over a period of time. The "first reviewer" [a technical
> term] is therefore free to choose among any of the species that were
> published at the same time. But subsequent reviewers must follow the lead
> of the first reviewer; they are not free to choose once the decision has
> been made in print. No, email on Conch-L does not count! ;-)
>
> This is not to say that the concept of page priority is not used in
> taxonomy. Some first reviewers do choose among synonyms on the basis of
> page priority. But it is sounder to choose the synonym that is based on
the
> most representative and most complete type specimen, the one that is
better
> described, better known in the literature, sounds better, and so on.
> Relying on the order that the names occurred in within the original
article
> strikes me as a way for the taxonomist to avoid making a decision based
on
> any reason that really matters.
>
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
> Geological Survey of Alabama