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