OK, having now seen a copy (thanks to Daniel): I'm afraid that what they do, in all three cases and as far as nomenclature goes, is simply invalid.
All three names have apparently been used as valid after 1899.
Yet the authors declare that they "suppress" the senior names (as authors, they are under no circumstances allowed to suppress any name), declaring them
nomina oblita and the junior names
nomina protecta (which they are not allowed to do either as the conditions are not fulfilled; they do not appear to be aware that there are conditions to be fulfilled), and citing Recommendation 23A in support of their action. Recommendation 23A, as all Recommendations, is not part of the legal text of the Code. It reads:
Recommendation 23A. If suppression desired. If in the opinion of an author suppression of the older name, rather than a change in the relative precedence of the two names involved, is desirable, in addition to taking action under Article 23.9.2 to maintain prevailing usage, the author should refer the case to the Commission with an appropriate recommendation for a ruling.
This concerns only cases where the conditions of Article 23.9.1
are fulfilled (they are not: the names have been used after 1899), allowing action under 23.9.2 (this is not so), but where the author would regard a reversal of precedence (the
nomen oblitum /
nomen protectum thing, which is all what he can do himself in this case) as insufficient, and would want the senior name to be gone for good (*); in this case, the Recommendation suggests asking the Commission to suppress the name,
in addition to acting under 23.9.2 (refer to that article explicitly; state that the senior name has not been used after 1899; provide evidence that the junior name has been used in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of at least 10 years; state that the junior name is valid). Recommendation 23A does not apply to the present case at all. What might apply is the following Article:
23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81]. While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be maintained [Art. 82].
The only choice an author faces, in this type of situation, is between accepting the senior name, or turning to the Commission and request its suppression. He cannot himself suppress anything, or make any name a
nomen oblitum or a
nomen protectum -- no name was validly suppressed, made a
nomen oblitum, or made a
nomen protectum in the present work. In the event that the author would want to maintain the junior name,
it is the very fact that a case is being examined by the Commission that provides a temporary protection for this name. (And nothing else, except perhaps the goodwill of other users; in particular, no formal act published by the author independently of a submission of the case to the Commission can be construed as protecting the junior name.)
The above is a bit of a pity, because the literature review and discussions offered in the paper, on the other hand, look quite good.
(*) A
nomen oblitum can perfectly come back into use; it just cannot displace its
nomen protectum. For instance, if, after a reversal of precedence, a species denoted by a
nomen protectum is split (or subdivided into subspecies), resulting in the types of the two names falling in different taxa, the
nomen oblitum can perfectly be used for the newly split taxon (or newly recognized ssp). Or, if a species denoted by a
nomen protectum is transferred to a genus within which this name is preoccupied, hence cannot remain valid, the
nomen oblitum can be used instead of it.
Suppression in the case envisioned by Rec.23A would be "partial suppression", or suppression for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: a name partially suppressed can never become valid again, but it remains available for homonymy and continues to preoccupy its own spelling, meaning that no younger identical name can become valid either.
)
