Maurizo
 
art. 59c say:
 
Homonyms not replaced and no longer considered congeneric. - If , in a case of
secondary homonymy, the junior species-group name has not been replaced
(Art. 60), and the taxa in question are no longer considered considered
congeneric,
the junior name is not be rejected, even if one name was originally proposed
in the current genus of th other.
 
If Oliva jaspidea Duclos was not replaced by a nomen novum when became homonym
of Oliva jaspidea (Gmelin) the name is a valid one.
Ciao
Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
>
>
>Dear friends,
>
>if I read the following:
>
>"Voluta jaspidea (Gmelin,1791) (later transferred to the genus Oliva by
>Fischer, 1807)
>now stands in another genus (Jaspidella, in the subfamily Olivellinae, see
>Abbott 1974:233).
>So, in application of Article 59c of the Code, Oliva jaspidea Duclos, 1835
>is not be rejected
>as a secondary junior homonym of Oliva jaspidea (Gmelin, 1791), as
>erroneously stated
>by Tursch & Greifeneder (1989a)."
>
>Am I wrong if I now consider Oliva jaspidea  Duclos, 1835 as a valid name ?
>
>What does exactly Article 59c of the Code say?
>
>Thanks in advance,  Ciao!
>
>Maurizio
>from Italy.
>Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
>
>Attachment converted: HD 800:Article 59c of the Code (????/----) (000263D0)