>The case seems a bit complicated:
>The name was "validly" introduced, i.e. according to the ICZN regulations.
>Moreover, the specific epiteth "lucifer" seems to have page priority over
>"gigas". That would mean strictly applying the ICZN code, would make gigas
>a junior synonym of lucifer.
>However, as gigas is an extremely well established name, the name lucifer
>ought to be suppressed by the ICZN. I reckon that if someone would petition
>the ICZN, that they would rule is such a way.
 
There is a principle of first reviewer in the case of the same species
described more than once in the same publication that allows a choice of
names.  For example, if one name was based on an atypical specimen
(juvenile, damaged, mutant, etc.), then the reviewer might select a name
that is behind as far as page priority.  I do not know whether this has
been clearly applied to S. gigas, though.
 
David Campbell
 
"Old Seashells"
 
Department of Geological Sciences
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
USA
 
919-962-0685
FAX 919-966-4519
 
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The
Gold Bug