Comment (Case 3847) – Authors' reply to opposition to proposed conservation of Simopithecus oswaldi Andrews, 1916 by reversal of precedence with Cynocephalus atlanticus Thomas, 1884.(see BZN 78: 99–106 [Case]; BZN 79: 53–54 [Comment])

Abstract

Delson et al. (2021) proposed to conserve Simopithecus oswaldi Andrews, 1916 (currently Theropithecus oswaldi) by reversal of precedence with Cynocephalus atlanticus Thomas, 1884 (currently Theropithecus atlanticus), on the basis that the latter name has been used only about 12 times since Alemseged & Geraads (1998) suggested that it be employed as a distinct species for North African fossils, while the former name is in widespread usage. Theropithecus oswaldi has been discussed in over 75 publications since 1998 and is the name assigned to most Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil samples, often with subdivision into chrono-geographic subspecies across Africa and into Eurasia. If these two species were considered synonymous, leading to Theropithecus atlanticus becoming the senior synonym for these many fossil samples and subspecies, prevailing usage would be upset. Moreover, there is no consensus about this synonymy, so that authors might Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 (15 October 2022) ISSN 2057-0570 (online)