I.  International rules of botanical nomenclature.

By A. B. Rendle.

––––––

Chapter  I.   General Considerations and Guiding Principles (Art. 1—9).

                 Art. 1Botany cannot make satisfactory progress without a precise system of nomen-
clature, which is used by the great majority of botanists in all countries.

                 Art. 2 The precepts on which this precise system of botanical nomenclature is based
are divided into principles, rules and recommendations.  The principles (Art. 1—9, 1014, 1519¹)
form the basis of the rules and recommendations.  The object of the rules (Art. 1974) is to
put the nomenclature of the past into order and to provide for that of the future.  They are
always retroactive:  names or forms of nomenclature contrary to a rule ( illegitimate names or
forms) cannot be maintained.  The recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object
being to bring about greater uniformity and clearness in future nomenclature names or forms
contrary to a recommendation cannot on that account be rejected, but they are not examples
to be followed.

                 Art. 3 The rules of nomenclature should be simple and founded on considerations
sufficiently clear and forcible for everyone to comprehend and be disposed to accept.

                 Art. 4 The essential points in nomenclature are: (1) to aim at fixity of names; (2) to
avoid or to reject the use of forms and names which may cause error or ambiguity or throw
science into confusion.

                 Next in importance is the avoidance of all useless creation of names.

                 Other considerations, such as absolute grammatical correctness, regularity or euphony
of names, more or less prevailing custom, regard for persons, etc., notwithstanding their un-
deniable importance are relatively accessory.

                 Art. 5In the absence of a relevant rule, or where the consequences of rules are doubtful,
established custom must be followed.

                 Art. 6Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature in the sense
that the name of a plant is not to be rejected simply because it is identical with the name of an
animal.  If, however, an organism is transferred from the animal to the plant kingdom, its validly
published names are to be accepted as botanical nomenclature in the form prescribed by the
rules of botanical nomenclature, and if an organism is transferred from the plant to the animal
kingdom, its names retain their status in botanical nomenclature.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) Art. 19 is both a principle and a rule.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 01 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

2  

                 Art. 7 Scientific names of all groups are usually taken from Latin or Greek.  When
taken from any language other than Latin, or formed in an arbitrary manner, they are treated
as if they were Latin.  Latin terminations should be used so far as possible for new names.

                 Art. 8 Nomenclature deals with (1) the terms which denote the rank of taxonomic
groups (Art. 1014);  (2) the names which are applied to the individual groups (Art. 1572).

                 Art. 9 The rules and recommendations of botanical nomenclature apply to all classes
of the plant kingdom, recent and fossil, with certain distinctly specified exceptions.

 
 

Chapter  II.    Categories of taxonomic groups, and the terms denoting them

(Art. 10—14, Rec. I, II).

                 Art. 10 Every individual plant, interspecific hybrids and chimaeras excepted, belongs
to a species (species), every species to a genus (genus), every genus to a family (familia), every
family to an order (ordo), every order to a class (classis), every class to a division (divisio).

                 Art. 11 In many species, varieties (varietas), forms (forma), and races or biological
forms (forma biologica) are distinguished; in parasitic species special forms (forma specialis),
and in certain cultivated species modifications still more numerous; in many genera sections
(sectio) are distinguished, in many families tribes (tribus).

                 Recommendation  I.  In parasites, especially parasitic fungi, authors who do not give specific value
to forms characterized from a biological standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint, should
distinguish within the species special forms (forma specialis) characterized by their adaptation to different hosts.

                 Art. 12 Finally, if a greater number of intermediate categories are required, the terms
for these subdivisions are made
by adding the prefix sub (sub) to the terms denoting the
categories.  Thus subfamily (subfamilia) denotes a category between a family and a tribe,
subtribe (subtribus) a category between a tribe and a genus, etc.  The classification of
subordinated categories may thus be carried, for wild plants, to twenty-three degrees in
the following order:  Regnum vegetabile.  Divisio.  Subdivisio.  Classis.  Subclassis.  Ordo. 
Subordo.  Familia.  Subfamilia.  Tribus.  Subtribus.  Genus.  Subgenus.  Sectio.  Subsectio. 
Species.  Subspecies.  Varietas.  Subvarietas.  Forma.  Forma biologica.  Forma specialis. 
Individuum. 

                 If this list of categories is insufficient it may be augmented by the intercalation of
supplementary categories, provided that this does not introduce confusion or error.

                 Examples:  Series and subseries are categories which may be intercalated between subsection and species.

                 Recommendation  II.  The arrangement of species in a genus or in a subdivision of a genus is made
by means of typographic signs, letters or numerals.

                 The arrangement of subspecies under a species is made by letters or numerals; that of varieties by the
series of Greek letters α, β, γ, etc.  Groups below varieties and also half-breeds are indicated by letters, numerals
or typographic signs at the author’s will.

                 Art. 13 The definition of each of these categories varies, up to a certain point, accord-
ing to individual opinion and the state of the science; but their relative order, sanctioned by
custom, must not be altered.  No classification is admissible which contains such alterations.

                 Examples of inadmissible alteration:  a form divided into varieties, a species containing genera, a genus containing
families or tribes:  e. g. Huth (in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. XX, 337: 1895) divided the subgenera of Delphinium into “tribes”.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 02 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  3

                 Art. 14 The fertilization of one species by another may give rise to a hybrid (hybrida);
that of a modification or subdivision of a species by another modification of the same species
may give rise to a half-breed (mistus).

 

Chapter  III.   Names of taxonomic groups (Art. 15—72, Rec. III–L).

Section 1General principles; priority (Art. 15—17, Rec. III).

                 Art. 15.  The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is not to indicate the
characters or the history of the group, but to supply a means of referring to it.

                 Art. 16.  Each group with a given circumscription, position and rank can bear only
one valid name¹), the earliest that is in accordance with the Rules of Nomenclature.

                 Art. 17 No one may change a name (or combination of names) without serious motives,
based either on more profound knowledge of facts or on the necessity of giving up a nomenclature
that is contrary to the Rules.

                 Recommendation III.  Changes in nomenclature should be made only after adequate taxonomic study.

 

Section 2.   The type method (Art. 18, Rec. IV—VII).

                 Art. 18 The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.  A nomenclatural type is that constituent element of a group to which the
name of the group is permanently attached, whether as an accepted name or as a synonym.  The
name of a group must be changed if the type of that name is excluded (see Art. 66).

                 The type of the name of an order or suborder is a family, that of the name of a family,
subfamily, tribe or subtribe is a genus, that of a generic name is a species, that of the name of
a species or group of lower rank is usually a specimen or preparation.  In some species, however,
the type is a description or figure given by a previous author.  Where permanent preservation
of a specimen or preparation is impossible, the application of the name of a species or subdivision
of a species is determined by means of the original description or figure.

                 Note The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a group; it
is merely that element with which the name of the group is permanently associated.

                 Examples: the type of the name Malvales is the family Malvaceae; the type of the name Malvaceae is the genus
Malva; the type of the name Malva is the species Malva sylvestris L.; the type of the name Polyporus amboinensis Fries is
the figure and description in Rumph. Herb. Amboin. VI, p. 129, t. 57, fig. 1.

                 Recommendations :

                 IV.  When publishing names of new groups, authors should indicate carefully the subdivision which is
the type of the new name; the type-genus in a family, the type-species in a genus, the type-variety or specimen in
a species.  This type determines the application of the name in the event of the group being subsequently divided.  When
describing new species, varieties or forms of parasitic plants, especially Fungi, the host plant of the type should be indicated

                 V.  When revising a genus, an author should state which species he accepts as the nomenclatural type.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) In genera and groups of higher rank, the valid name is the earliest name published with the same rank,
provided that this is in conformity with the Rules of Nomenclature and the provisions of Arts. 20 and 21.

                 In subdivisions of genera the valid name is the earliest name published with the same rank provided that this
name and its combination with the generic name are in conformity with the Rules of Nomenclature.

                 In species and groups of lower rank, the valid name is the binary or ternary combination containing the earliest
epithet published with the same rank, provided that this combination is in conformity with the Rules of Nomenclature.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 03 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

4  

                 VI.  In selecting a nomenclatural type for a genus of non-vascular Cryptogams, botanists should, where
possible, choose a species that will fix the generic name as it is now commonly applied.

                 Examples:  Hypoxylon Fr. (Summa Veg. Scand. 383—4). Fries first used the name for a genus to include
25 species now distributed in Ustulina, Anthostoma, Nummularia, Daldinia, Sordaria, etc.  To take the first species,
H. ustulatum as the type would displace the name Ustulina, and most of the other species which are now known as
Hypoxylon would require another generic name.  If, however, H. coccineum, species No. 11 in Fries’s list, a well-known
and widely-distributed species, be taken as the type, the name Hypoxylon would be retained in its present general
application and the nomenclature would be stabilized.  —  The genus Valsa Fr. (Summa Veg. Scand. 410) contained 44
species now placed in several different genera.  The first species V. Sorbi is now known as a species of Eutypella.  By
selecting V. ceratophora Tul. (V. decorticans Fr.) the name Valsa is retained in its present general application and
many nomenclatural changes are avoided ¹).

                 VII.  The utmost importance should be given to the preservation of the original (“type”) material on which
the description of a new group is based.  In microscopic Cryptogams the preparations and original drawings, in fleshy
Fungi water-colour drawings and specimens suitably prepared or dried, should be preserved.  The original account should
state where this material is to be found.

 

Section 3.   Limitation of the principle of priority:  publication, starting-points,

conservation of names (Art. 19—22).

                 Art. 19 A name of a taxonomic group has no status under the Rules, and no claim to
recognition by botanists, unless it is validly published (see Section 6, Art. 37).

                 Art. 20Legitimate botanical nomenclature begins for the different groups of plants
at the following dates:  — 

                 (aPhanerogamae and Pteridophyta, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).

                 (bMuscineae, 1801 (Hedwig, Species Muscorum).

                 (cSphagnaceae and Hepaticae, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).

                 (dLichenes, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).

                 (eFungi: Uredinales, Ustilaginales and Gasteromycetes, 1801 (Persoon, Synopsis
methodica Fungorum
).

                 (fFungi caeteri, 1821—32 (Fries, Systema mycologicum).

                 (gAlgae, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).

                 Exceptions.  —  Nostocaceae homocysteae, 1892—93 (Gomont, Monographie des Oscillariées, in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.
sér. 7. VI, 91, VII, 263
).  —  Nostocaceae heterocysteae, 1886—93 (Bornet et Flahault, Revision des Nostocacées hétérocystées 
in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. sér. 7. III, 323, IV, 344, V, 51, VII, 177).  —  Desmidiaceae, 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).  — 
Oedogoniaceae, 1900 (Hirn, Monographie und Iconographie der Oedogoniaceen in Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. XXVII, No. 1).

                 (hMyxomycetes, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).

                 The nomenclature of Fossil Plants of all groups begins with the year 1820.

                 It is agreed to associate generic names which appear in Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum,
ed.  1  (1753)  and  ed.  2  (1762—63)  with  the  first  subsequent  descriptions  given  under  those
names in Linnaeus’s Genera Plantarum, ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6 (1764).

                 Art. 21 However, to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of genera
by the strict application of the Rules of Nomenclature, and especially of the principle of priority
in starting from the dates given in Art. 20 the Rules provide a list of names which must be
retained as exceptions.  These names are by preference those which have come into general
use in the fifty years following their publication, or which have been used in monographs and
important floristic works up to the year 1890.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) Numerous cases of this kind might be cited among the Fungi.  Following the above recommendation would
largely obviate the need of a lengthy list of nomina conservanda.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 04 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  5

                 Note 1 These lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for additions.  Any proposal of an
additional name must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases for and against its conservation.  Such proposals
must be submitted to the Executive Committee, who will refer them for examination to the Special Committees for the
various taxonomic groups ¹).

                 Note 2 The application of conserved names is determined by nomenclatural types, or by substitute-types where
necessary or desirable.

                 Note 3 A conserved name is conserved against all other names for the group, whether these are cited in the
corresponding list of rejected names or not, so long as the group concerned is not united or reunited with another group
bearing a legitimate name.  In the event of union or reunion with another group, the earlier of the two competing names
is adopted in accordance with Art. 56.

                 Note 4 A conserved name is conserved against all earlier homonyms.

                 Examples.  —  The generic name Spergularia J. et C. Presl (1819) is conserved against Alsine L. (1753), emend.
Reichb. (1832) (= Delia Dum. + Spergularia), although Alsine L. (1753), partim, is not included in the list of rejected names:
Spergularia was conserved as including Delia (Alsine L., partim).  —  If the genus Weihea Spreng. (1825) is united with
Cassipourea Aubl. (1775), the combined genus will bear the prior name Cassipourea although Weihea is conserved, and
Cassipourea is not.  —  If Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is reunited with Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the prior
name Berberis, although Mahonia is conserved.  —  Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only in the restricted sense, for
a monotypic genus based on N. officinale R. Br.: hence, if it is reunited with Rorippa Scop. (1760), it must bear the name
Rorippa.  —  The generic name Swartzia Schreb. (1791), conserved in 1905 against Tounatea Aubl., Possira Aubl. and Hoel-
zelia
Neck., is thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Swartzia Ehrh. (1787).

                 Art. 22 When a name proposed for conservation ²) has been provisionally approved
by the Executive Committee, botanists are authorised to retain it pending the decision of the
next International Botanical Congress.

 

Section 4.   Nomenclature of the taxonomic groups according to their categories

(Art. 23—35, Rec. VIII—XX).

§ 1.   Names of groups above the rank of  family.

                 Recommendations :

                 VIII.  Names of divisions and subdivisions, of classes and subclasses, are taken from their chief characters.
They are expressed by words of Greek or Latin origin in the plural number, some similarity of form and termination
being given to those which designate groups of the same nature.

                 Examples:  Angiospermae, Gymnospermae, Monocotyledoneae, Dicotyledoneae, Pteridophyta, Coniferae.  Among
Cryptogams old family names such as Fungi, Lichenes, Algae, may be used for names of groups above the rank of family.

                 IX.  Orders are designated preferably by the name of one of their principal families, with the ending -ales.
Suborders are designated in a similar manner, with the ending -ineae.  But other terminations may be used for these names,
provided that they do not lead to confusion or error.

                 Examples of names of orders Polygonales (from Polygonaceae), Urticales (from Urticaceae), Glumiflorae, Centro-
spermae
, Parietales, Tubiflorae, Microspermae, Contortae.  Examples of names of suborders: Bromeliineae (from Bromeliaceae),
Malvineae (from Malvaceae), Tricoccae, Enantioblastae.
 

§ 2.   Names of families and subfamilies, tribes and subtribes.

                 Art. 23Names of families are taken from the name of one of their present or former
genera and end in -aceae.

                 Examples:  Rosaceae (from Rosa), Salicaceae (from Salix), Caryophyllaceae (from Caryophyllus, a pre-Linnean
genus)
.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1 See list of Nomina conservanda proposita.

                 2 There is also to be provided a list of Nomina conservanda familiarum (Art. 23; Appendix II).

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 05 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

6  

                 Exceptions:  (1) The following names, sanctioned by long usage, are treated as excep-
tions to the rule: Palmae, Gramineae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Guttiferae, Umbelliferae, Labiatae,
CompositaeBotanists are authorised, however, to use as alternatives the appropriate names
ending in -aceae.  (2) Those who regard the Papilionaceae as constituting an independent family
may use that name, although it is not formed in the prescribed manner.

                 To avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of families by the strict appli-
cation of the Rules and especially of the principle of priority, a list of names which must be
retained as exceptions will be provided (Appendix II).

                 Art. 24 Names of subfamilies (subfamiliae) are taken from the name of one of the
genera in the group, with the ending -oideae, similarly for tribes (tribus) with the ending -eae,
and for subtribes (subtribus) with the ending -inae.

                 Examples of subfamilies Asphodeloideae (from Asphodelus), Rumicoideae (from Rumex); tribes: Asclepiadeae
(from Asclepias), Phyllantheae (from Phyllanthus); subtribes: Metastelmatinae (from Metastelma), Madiinae (from Madia).

 

§ 3.   Names of genera and subdivisions of genera.

                 Art. 25Names of genera are substantives (or adjectives used as substantives), in the
singular number and written with an initial capital, which may be compared with our family
names. These names may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in
an absolutely arbitrary manner.

                 Examples:  Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia, Liquidambar, Gloriosa, Impatiens, Manihot, Ifloga (an
anagram of Filago).

                 Recommendation X.  Botanists who are forming generic names show judgment and taste by attending
to the following recommendations:  —

                 (a) Not to make names very long or difficult to pronounce.

                 (b) Not to dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected with botany or at least with natural science nor to
persons quite unknown.

                 (c) Not to take names from barbarous languages, unless those names are frequently cited in books
of travel, and have an agreeable form that is readily adaptable to the Latin tongue and to the tongues of
civilised countries.

                 (d) To indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or analogies of the genus.

                 (e) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.

                 (f) Not to give to a genus a name whose form is rather that of a subgenus or section (e. g. Eusideroxylon, a name
given to a genus of Lauraceae.  This, however, being legitimate, cannot be altered).

                 (g) Not to make names by combining words from different languages (nomina hybrida).

                 Art. 26Names of subgenera and sections are usually substantives resembling the
names of genera. Names of subsections and other lower subdivisions of genera are preferably
adjectives in the plural number agreeing in gender with the generic name and written with an
initial capital, or their place may be taken by an ordinal number or a letter.

                 Examples.  —  Substantives:  Fraxinaster, Trifoliastrum, Adenoscilla, Euhermannia, Archieracium, Micromeli-
lotus
, Pseudinga, Heterodraba, Gymnocimum, Neoplantago, Stachyotypus.  —  Adjectives:  Pleiostylae, Fimbriati, Bibracteolata.

                 Recommendations :

                 XI.  Botanists constructing names for subgenera or sections will do well to attend to the preceding recom-
mendations and also to the following: 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 06 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  7

                 (a) To give, where possible, to the principal subdivision of a genus a name which recalls that of the genus
with some modification or addition.  Thus Eu may be placed at the beginning of the generic name when it is of Greek
origin, -astrum, -ella at the end of the name when Latin, or any other modification consistent with the grammar and
usages of the Latin language.

                 Examples:  Eucardamine (from Cardamine), Trifoliastrum (from Trifolium), Drabella (from Draba).

                 (b) To avoid giving to a subgenus or a section the name of the genus to which it belongs, with the ending -oides
or -opsis: but on the contrary to reserve this ending for a section which resembles another genus and by then adding
-oides or -opsis to the name of that other genus, if it is of Greek origin, to form the name of the section.

                 (c) To avoid taking as the name of a subgenus or section a name which is already in use as such in another
genus, or which is the name of a genus.

                 (d) To avoid in co-ordinated subdivisions of a genus the use of names in the form of a noun together with
those in the form of a plural adjective; the former should be used chiefly for subgenera and sections, the latter for sub-
sections, series and subseries.

                 XII.  When it is desired to indicate the name of a subgenus or section (or other subdivision to which a parti-
cular species belongs) in connexion
with the generic name and specific epithet, the name of the subdivision is placed in
parenthesis
between the two (where necessary, the rank of the subdivision is also indicated).

                 Examples:  Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus; Loranthus (Sect. Ischnanthus) gabonensis.

 
 

§ 4.   Names of species (binary names).

                 Art. 27Names of species are binary combinations consisting of the name of the genus
followed by a single specific epithet.  If an epithet consists of two or more words, these must
either be united or joined by hyphens.  Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by
Linnaeus must be transcribed.

                 The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a substantive, agrees
in gender with the generic name.

                 Examples.  —  Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Papaver Rhoeas, Uromyces Fabae, Fumaria Gussonei,
Geranium Robertianum, Embelia Sarasinorum, Atropa Belladonna, Impatiens noli-tangere, Adiantum Capillus-Veneris.  — 
Scandix Pecten L. must be transcribed as Scandix Pecten-Veneris; Veronica Anagallis L. must be transcribed as Veronica
Anagallis
-aquatica.  —  Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra, Verbascum nigrum.

                 Recommendations :

                 XIII.  The specific epithet should, in general, give some indication of the appearance, the characters, the
origin, the history or the properties of the species.  If taken from the name of a person, it usually recalls the name of the
one who discovered or described it, or was in some way concerned with it.

                 XIV.  Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epithets, may be substan-
tives in the genitive (Clusii, saharae) or adjectives (Clusianus, dahuricus).  It will be well, in the future, to avoid the use of
the genitive and the adjectival form of the same epithet to designate two different species of the same genus:  for example
Lysimachia Hemsleyana Maxim. (1891) and L. Hemsleyi Franch. (1895).

                 XV.  In forming specific epithets botanists will do well to have regard also to the following re-
commendations:  — 

                 (a) To avoid those which are very long and difficult to pronounce.

                 (b) To avoid those which express a character common to all or nearly all the species of a genus.

                 (c) To avoid using the names of little-known or very restricted localities, unless the species is quite local.

                 (d) To avoid, in the same genus, epithets which are very much alike, especially those which differ only in their
last letters.

                 (e) Not to adopt unpublished names found in travellers’ notes or in herbaria, attributing them to their authors,
unless these have approved publication.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 07 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

8  

                 (f) Not to name a species after a person who has neither discovered, nor described, nor figured, nor in any
way studied it.

                 (g) To avoid epithets which have been used before in any closely allied genus.

                 (h) To avoid specific epithets formed of two or more (hyphened) words.

                 (iTo avoid epithets which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).
 

§ 5.   Names of groups below the rank of species (ternary names).

                 Art. 28Epithets of subspecies and varieties are formed like those of species and follow
them in order, beginning with those of the highest rank.  When adjectival in form and not used
as substantives they agree in gender with the generic name.

                 Similarly for subvarieties, forms and slight or transient modifications of wild plants,
which receive either epithets or numbers or letters to facilitate their arrangement.  The use of
a binary nomenclature for subdivisions of species is not admissible.  It is permissible to reduce
more complicated names to ternary combinations.

                 Examples:  Andropogon ternatus subsp. macrothrix (not Andropogon macrothrix or Andropogon ternatus subsp.
A. macrothrix); Herniaria hirsuta var. diandra (not Herniaria diandra or Herniaria hirsuta var. H. diandra); Trifolium stellatum
forma nanum (not nana) Saxifraga Aïzoon subforma surculosa Engl. et Irmsch. is permissible for Saxifraga Aïzoon var.
typica subvar. brevifolia forma multicaulis subforma surculosa Engl. et Irmsch.

                 Art. 29The same epithet may be used for subdivisions of different species, and the
subdivisions of one species may bear the same epithet as other species.

                 Examples:  Rosa Jundzillii var. leioclada and Rosa glutinosa var. leioclada; Viola tricolor var. hirta in spite of
the existence already of a different species named Viola hirta.

                 Art. 30Two subdivisions of the same species, even if they are of different rank,
cannot bear the same subdivisional epithet, unless they are based on the same type.  If the earlier
subdivisional name (ternary combination) was validly published, the later one is illegitimate
and must be rejected.

                 Examples:  The ternary combinations Biscutella didyma subsp. apula Briq. and Biscutella didyma var. apula
Halácsy (see Briquet, Prodr. Pl. Corse. II. 107. 108: 1913) may both be used because they are based on the same type, and
the one includes the other.

                 The following is incorrect:  Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp. strictum var. longisiliquum and E. hieraciifolium
subsp. pannonicum var. longisiliquum  —  a form of nomenclature which allows two varieties bearing the same name in the
same species.

                 Andropogon Sorghum subsp. halepensis var. halepensis Hack. is permissible: the two subdivisions bearing the
same epithet but representing subordinate grades based on the same type, A. halepensis Brot., and thus being synonymous
except that the epithet of the lower subdivision is used in a restricted sense.

                 Recommendations :

                 XVI.  Recommendations made for specific epithets apply equally to epithets of subdivisions of species.

                 XVII.  Special forms (forma specialis) are preferably named after the host species; if desired, double names
may be used.

                 Examples: Puccinia Hieracii f. sp. villosi; Pucciniastrum Epilobii f. sp. Abieti-Chamaenerii.

                 XVIII.  Botanists should avoid giving a new epithet to any subdivision of a species which includes the
type either of a higher subdivisional name or of the specific name.  They should either repeat that epithet, with or
without a prefix, or use one of the customary epithets, typicus, genuinus, originarius, etc.

                 Examples: Andropogon caricosus subsp. mollissimus var. mollissimus Hackel; Arthraxon ciliaris subsp. Langs-
dorfii
var. genuinus Hackel.

                 XIX.  Botanists proposing new epithets for subdivisions of species should avoid such as have been used previ-
ously in the same genus, whether for species or for subdivisions of other species.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 08 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  9

§ 6.   Names of hybrids and half-breeds.

                 Art. 31 Hybrids or putative hybrids between species of the same genus are designated
by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name.

                 (1) Sexual hybrids.  The formula consists of the names or specific epithets of the two
parents in alphabetical order and connected by the sign ×.  When the hybrid is of known experi-
mental origin, the formula may be made more precise by the addition of the signs ♀, ♂, the name
of the female (seed-bearing) parent being placed first.

                 The name, which is subject to the same rules as names of species, is distinguished
from the latter by the sign × before the name.

                 (2) Asexual hybrids (graft hybrids, chimaeras, etc.).  The formula consists of the names of
the two parents in alphabetical order and connected by the sign +.  The name has a “specific”
epithet different from that of the corresponding sexual hybrid (if any), and is preceded by
the sign +.

                 Examples of sexual hybrids: × Salix capreola (Salix aurita × caprea), Digitalis lutea ♀ × purpurea ♂; Digi-
talis purpurea
♀ × lutea.

                 Example of asexual hybrids + Solanum tubingense (Solanum nigrum + S. Lycopersicum).

                 Art. 32Bigeneric hybrids (i. e. hybrids between species of two genera) are also
designated by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name.

                 The formula consists of the names of the two parents connected by a sign, as in Art. 31.

                 The name consists of a new “generic” name usually formed by a combination of the
names of the parent genera, and a “specific” epithet.  All hybrids (whether sexual or asexual)
between the same two genera bear the same “generic” name.

                 (1) Sexual hybrids.  In the formula the connecting sign × is used.  The name is pre-
ceded by the sign ×.

                 (2) Asexual hybrids.  In the formula the connecting sign + is used.  The name is pre-
ceded by the sign
+.  The “specific” epithet is different from that of the corresponding sexual
hybrid (if any) between the same species.

                 Examples of sexual hybrids × Odontioda Boltonii (Cochlioda Noezliana × Odontoglossum Vuylstekeae);
× Pyronia Veitchii (Cydonia oblonga × Pyrus communis).

                 Examples of asexual hybrids + Laburnocytisus Adami (Laburnum + Cytisus purpureus); + Pyronia
Daniellii (Cydonia oblonga
+ Pyrus communis).

                 Art. 33 Ternary hybrids, or those of a higher order, are designated like ordinary
hybrids by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a binary name.  Such as
are trigeneric or polygeneric are given new “generic” names usually formed by a combination
of the names of the parent genera.

                 Examples: × Salix Straehleri = Salix aurita × cinerea × repens or S. (aurita × repens) × cinerea.

                 Examples of new generic names: × Brassolaeliocattleya (composed of the three names Brassavola, Laelia and
Cattleya); × Potinara; × Vuylstekeara.

                 Recommendation XX.  Half-breeds or putative half-breeds may be designated by a name and a
formula.  Names of half-breeds are intercalated among the subdivisions of a species, and are preceded by the
sign ×.  In the formula the names of the parents are in alphabetical order.  When the half-breed is of known ex-
perimental origin, the formula may be made more precise by the addition of the signs ♀,  ♂, 
the name of the female
(seed-bearing) parent being placed first.

 
 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 09 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

10  

                 Art. 34 When different hybrid forms of the same parentage (pleomorphic hybrids;
combinations between different forms of a collective species, etc.) are united in a collective group,
the subdivisions are classed under the binary name of the hybrid like the subdivisions of a species
under that of a species.

                 Examples: × Mentha niliaca β Lamarckii (= M. longifolia × rotundifolia).  The preponderance of the characters
of one or other parent may be indicated in the formulae in the following manner:  Mentha longifolia > × rotundifolia,
M. longifolia × < rotundifolia.  The participation of a particular variety may also be indicated, e. g. Salix caprea × daph-
noides
var. pulchra.
 

§ 7.   Names of plants of horticultural origin.

                 Art. 35.  Forms and half-breeds among cultivated plants receive fancy epithets prefer-
ably in common language, as different as possible from the Latin epithets of species or varieties.
When they can be attached to a species, a subspecies, or a botanical variety, this is indicated by
a succession of names.

                 Examples:  Pelargonium zonale Mrs. Pollock.
 

Section 5.  Conditions of effective publication (Art. 36).

                 Art. 36 Publication is effected, under these Rules, by sale to the general public
or to botanical institutions, of printed matter or indelible autographs, or by distribution of these
to specified representative botanical institutions ¹).

                 No other kind of publication is accepted as effective: communication of new names
at a public meeting, or the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the public, does
not constitute effective publication.

                 Examples.  —  Effective publication without printed matter: Salvia oxyodon Webb et Heldr. was published in
July 1850 in an autograph catalogue placed on sale (Webb et Heldreich, Catalogus Plantarum hispanicarum . . . ab A. Blanco
lectarum
, Paris, Jul. 1850, folio).  —  Non-effective publication at a public meeting:  Cusson announced his establishment of
the genus Physospermum in a memoir read at the Société des Sciences de Montpellier in 1770, and later in 1782 or 1783 at
the Société de Médecine de Paris, but its effective publication dates from 1787 in the Mémoires de la Société Royale de
Médecine de Paris
, V, 1re partie, p. 279.

 

Section 6Conditions and dates of valid publication of names

(Art. 37—45, Rec. XXI—XXIX).

                 Art. 37A name of a taxonomic group is not validly published unless it is both (1)
effectively published (see Art. 36), and (2) accompanied by a description of the group or by a
reference to a previously and effectively published description of it.

                 Mention of a name on a ticket issued with a dried plant without a printed or auto-
graphed description does not constitute valid publication of that name.

                 Note. In certain circumstances a plate or figure with analyses is accepted as equivalent to a description (see
Art. 43, 44).

                 Examples of names not validly published.  —  Egeria Néraud (Bot. Voy. Freycinet. 28: 1826) published without
description or reference to a former description.  —  Sciadophyllum heterotrichum Decaisne et Planch. in Rev. Hortic. sér.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) The preparation of a list of representative botanical institutions is referred to the Executive Committee
(see App. VI).

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 10 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  11

4, III, 107 (1854), published without description or reference to a previous description under another name.  —  The name
Loranthus macrosolen Steud. originally appeared without a description on the printed tickets issued about the year 1843,
with Sect. II. nn. 529, 1288 of Schimper’s herbarium specimens of Abyssinian plants; it was not validly published, however,
until A. Richard (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1, 340: 1847) supplied a description.  —  Nepeta Sieheana Hausskn. was not validly published
by its appearance without a description in a set of dried plants (W. Siehe, Bot. Reise nach Cilicien, No. 521: 1896).

                 Art. 38From January 1, 1935 ¹), names of new groups of recent plants, the Bacteria
excepted, are considered as
validly published only when they are accompanied by a Latin
diagnosis.

                 Note This article legitimizes names of new groups effectively published from 1908 to 1934 with diagnoses
in modern languages.

                 Art. 39From January  1, 1912, the name of a new taxonomic group of fossil plants
is not considered as validly published unless it is accompanied by illustrations or figures showing
the essential characters, in addition to the description, or by a reference to a previously and
effectively published illustration or figure.

                 Art. 40 A name of a taxonomic group is not validly published when it is merely cited
as a synonym.

                 Examples.  —  Acosmus Desv., cited as a synonym of the generic name Aspicarpa Rich., was not validly published
thereby.  —  Ornithogalum undulatum Hort. Berol. ex Kunth (Enum. Pl. IV, 348: 1843), cited as a synonym under Myogalum
Boucheanum
Kunth, was not validly published thereby; when transferred to Ornithogalum this species must be called Ornitho-
galum Boucheanum
(Kunth) Aschers. (in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. XVI, 192: 1866).  —  Similarly Erythrina micropteryx Poepp.
was not validly published by being cited as a synonym of Micropteryx Poeppigiana Walp. (in Linnaea, XXIII, 740: 1850);
the species in question, when placed under Erythrina, must be called Erythrina Poeppigiana (Walp.) O. F. Cook (in U. S.
Dept. Agric. Bull.
no. 25, p. 57: 1901).

                 Art. 41A group is not characterized, and the publication of its name is not validated,
merely by mention of the subordinate groups included in it: thus the publication of the name of
an order is not validated by mention of the included families; that of a family is not validated
by mention of the included genera; that of a genus is not validated by mention of the in-
cluded species.

                 Examples.  —  The family name Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre (in Bull. Soc. Linn. Par. II, 1296: maio 1897), which was
accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera, Brazzeia, Scytopetalum and Rhaptopetalum, was not validly published,
as Pierre gave no description; the family bears the later name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (in Engl. und Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam.
I, 242: 1897, serius), which was accompanied by a description.  —  The generic name Ibidium Salisbury (in Trans.
Hort. Soc.
I, 291: 1812) was published merely with the mention of four included species: as Salisbury supplied no generic
description, the publication of Ibidium was invalid.

                 Art. 42A name of a genus is not validly published unless it is accompanied (1) by
a description of the genus, or (2) by the citation of a previously and effectively published descrip-
tion
of the genus under another name; or (3) by a reference to a previously and effectively
published description of the genus as a subgenus, section or other subdivision of a genus.

                 An exception is made for the generic names published by Linnaeus in Species Plan-
tarum
, ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762—63), which are treated as having been validly published
on those dates (see Art. 20).

                 Note In certain circumstances, a plate with analyses is accepted as equivalent to a generic description
(see Art. 43).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) Owing to the delay in publication of the Rules the Editors have put forward the date from 1932
(see statement by the Rapporteur Général; Fifth International Botanical Congress Report, p. 591: 1931).

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 11 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

12  

                 Examples of validly published generic names: Carphalea Juss. (Gen. Pl. 198: 1789), accompanied by a generic
description; Thuspeinanta Th. Dur. (Ind. Gen. Phanerog. p. X: 1888), accompanied by a reference to the previously described
genus Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non Herb.); Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (Hort. Dendrol. 242: 1853), based on a previously
described section, Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC.

                 Art. 43 The name of a monotypic new genus based on a new species is validated:
(1) by the provision of a combined generic and specific description (descriptio generico-specifica),
or (2) by the provision of a plate with analyses showing essential characters; but this applies
only to plates and generic names published before January 1, 1908.

                 Examples.  —  The generic name Sakersia Hook. f. (Hook. Ic. Pl. Ser. III. i. 69, t. 1086: 1871) was validly publi-
shed, being accompanied by a combined generic and specific description of S. africana Hook. f. (nov. gen. et sp.) the only
known species.  —  The generic name Philgamia Baill.(in Grandidier. Hist. Madag., Pl., Atlas III. t. 265: 1894) was validly
published, as it appeared on a plate with analyses of P. hibbertioides Baill. (nov. gen. et sp.), published before January 1, 1908.

                 Art. 44.  The name of a species or of a subdivision of a species is not validly published
unless it is accompanied (1) by a description of the group; or (2) by the citation of a previously
and effectively published description of the group under another name; or (3) by a plate or figure
with analyses showing essential characters; but this applies only to plates or figures published
before January 1, 1908.

                 Examples of validly published names of species. Onobrychis eubrychidea Boiss. (Fl. or. II. 546: 1872),
published with a description.  —  Hieracium Flahaultianum Arv.-Touv. et Gaut., published on a label with a printed
diagnosis in a set of dried plants (Hieraciotheca gallica, nos. 935—942: 1903).  —  Cynanchum nivale Nyman (Syll. Fl.
Eur
. 108: 185455), published with a reference to Vincetoxicum nivale Boiss. et Heldr. previously described.  — 
Panax nossibiensis Drake (in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Bot., Atlas III. t. 406: 1896), published on a plate with analyses.

                 Examples of names of species not validly published are given under Art. 36 and 40.

                 Art. 45 The date of a name or of an epithet is that of its valid publication (see Art. 19,
37).  For purposes of priority, however, only legitimate names and epithets published in legi-
timate combinations are taken into consideration ¹) (see Art.
60).  In the absence of proof to the
contrary, the date given in the work containing the name or epithet must be regarded as correct.

                 On and after January 1, 1935 ²), only the date of publication of the Latin diagnosis
can be taken into account for new groups of recent plants.

                 For new groups of fossil plants, on and after January 1, 1912, the date is that of
the simultaneous publication of the description and figure (or if these are published at different
dates, the later of the two dates).

                 Examples.  —  Specimens of Mentha foliicoma Opiz were distributed by Opiz in 1832, but the name dates from
1882, when it was validly published by Déséglise (Menth.Op. in Bull. Soc. Études Scient. Angers. 1881—82, 210); Mentha
bracteolata
Opiz (Seznam, 65: 1852, without description), takes effect only from 1882, when it was published with a descrip-
tion (Déséglise loc. cit. 211).  —  There is some reason for supposing that the first volume of Adanson’s Familles des Plantes
was published in 1762, but in the absence of certainty the date 1763 on the title-page is assumed to be correct.  —  Indi-
vidual parts of Willdenow’s Species Plantarum were published as follows: vol. I, 1798; vol. II. 2, 1800; vol. III. 1. 1801;
vol. III. 2, 1803; vol. III. 3, 1804; vol. IV, 2, 1806; and not in the years 1797, 1799, 1800, 1800, 1800 and 1805 respectively,
which appear on the title-pages of the volumes: it is the former series of dates which takes effect.

                 Botanists will do well in publishing to conform to the following  Recommendations :  —

                 XXI.  Not to publish a new name without clearly indicating whether it is the name of a family or a tribe,
a genus or a section, a species or a variety; briefly, without expressing an opinion as to the rank of the group to which
the name is given.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) A legitimate name or epithet is one that is strictly in accordance with the Rules.

                 2) See note to Art. 38.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 12 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  13

                 Not to publish the name of a new group without indicating its type (see Recommendation IV).

                 XXII.  To avoid publishing or mentioning in their publications unpublished names which they do not
accept, especially if the persons responsible for these names have not formally authorized their publication (see Recommen-
dation XV, e).

                 XXIII.  When publishing names of new groups of plants, in works written in a modern language (floras,
catalogues, etc.) to publish simultaneously the Latin diagnoses of recent plants (Bacteria excepted) and the figures of
fossil plants, which will validate the publication of these names.

                 XXIV.  In describing new groups of lower Cryptogams, especially among the Fungi or among microscopic
plants, to add to the description a figure or figures of the plants, with details of microscopic structure, as an aid to
identification.

                 XXV.  The description of parasitic plants should always be followed by the indication of the hosts, especially
in the case of parasitic fungi.  The hosts should be designated by their Latin scientific names and not by popular names in
modern languages, the significance of which is often doubtful.

                 XXVI.  To give the etymology of new generic names, and also of new epithets when the meaning of these
is not obvious.

                 XXVII.  To indicate precisely the date of publication of their works and that of the placing on sale or the
distribution of named and numbered plants when these are accompanied by printed diagnoses.  In the case of a work
appearing in parts, the last published sheet of the volume should indicate the precise dates at which the different fascicles
or parts of the volume were published as well as the number of pages in each.

                 XXVIII.  When works are published in periodicals, to require the publisher to indicate on the separate
copies the date (year and month, if possible the day) of publication and also the title of the periodical from which the
work is extracted.

                 XXIX.  Separate copies should always bear the pagination of the periodical of which they form a part;
if desired they may also bear a special pagination.

 
 

Section 7Citation of authors’ names for purposes of precision

(Art. 46—49, Rec. XXX—XXXII).

                 Art. 46 For the indication of the name (unitary, binary, or ternary) of a group to be
accurate and complete, and in order that the date may be readily verified, it is necessary to cite
the author who first published the name in question.

                 Examples: Rosaceae Juss., Rosa L., Rosa gallica L., Rosa gallica L. var. eriostyla R. Keller.

                 Art. 47 An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of
a group does not warrant the citation of an author other than the one who first published
its name.

                 When the changes have been considerable, an indication of their nature, and of the
author responsible for the change is added, the words: mutatis charact., or pro parte, or excl.
gen.,
excl. sp., excl. var., or some other abridged indication being employed.

                 Examples: Phyllanthus L. em. (emendavit) Müll. Arg.; Myosotis L. pro parte, R. Br.; Globularia cordifolia
L. excl. var. β (em. Lam.).

                 Art. 48 When a name of a taxonomic group has been proposed but not published
by one author, and is subsequently validly published and ascribed to him (or her) by another
author who supplied the description, the name of the latter author must be appended to the
citation with the connecting word ex.  The same holds for names of garden origin cited
as Hort..

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 13 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

14  

                 If it is desirable or necessary to abbreviate such a citation, the name of the publishing
author, being the more important, must be retained.

                 Examples:  Havetia flexilis Spruce ex Planch. et Triana; Capparis lasiantha R. Br. ex DC.; Gesneria Donklarii
Hort. ex Hook., or Gesneria Donklarii Hook.

                 Where a name and description by one author are published by another author, the
word apud is used to connect the names of the two authors, except where the name of the second
author forms part of the title of a book or periodical, in which case the connecting word in is
used instead.

                 Examples:  Teucrium charidemi Sandwith apud Lacaita (in Cavanillesia, III, 38: 1930), the description
of the species being contributed by Sandwith and published in a paper by Lacaita.  Viburnum ternatum Rehder (in
Sargent, Trees and Shrubs, II, 37: 1907)  —  in this latter example the second author’s name, Sargent, forms part of the
title of a book.

                 Art. 49When a genus or a group of lower rank is altered in rank but retains its name
or epithet, the original author must be cited in parenthesis, followed by the name of the author
who effected the alteration.  The same holds when a subdivision of a genus, a species, or a group
of lower rank, is transferred to another genus or species with or without alteration of rank.

                 Examples: Medicago polymorpha L. var. orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of a species becomes Medicago
orbicularis
(L.) All.  Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. raised to generic rank, retaining the name Aspalathoides, is cited as
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch.
  Sorbus sect. Aria Pers., on transference to Pyrus, is cited as Pyrus sect. Aria (Pers.) DC.
Cheiranthus tristis L. transferred to the genus Matthiola becomes Matthiola tristis (L.) R. Br.

                 Recommendations :

                 XXX.  Authors’ names put after names of plants are abbreviated, unless they are very short.

                 For this purpose preliminary particles or letters that, strictly speaking, do not form part of the name, are sup-
pressed, and the first letters are given without any omission.  If a name of one syllable is long enough to make it worth while
to abridge it, the first consonants only are given (Br. for Brown); if the name has two or more syllables, the first syllable
and the first letter of the following one are taken, or the two first when both are consonants (Juss. for Jussieu, Rich. for
Richard).  When it is necessary to give more of a name to avoid confusion between names beginning with the same syllables
the same system is to be followed.  For instance two syllables are given together with the one or two first consonants of the
third; or one of the last characteristic consonants of the name is added (Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish from Bertero;
Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish from Micheli).

                 Christian names or accessory designations, serving to distinguish two botanists of the same name, are abridged
in the same way (Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu, Gaertn. fil. or Gaertn. f. for Gaertner filius).

                 When it is a well established custom to abridge a name in another manner, it is best to conform to it (L. for
Linnaeus, DC. for De Candolle, St.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire).

                 In publications destined for the general public and in titles it is preferable not to abridge.

                 XXXI.  When citing a name published as a synonym, the words “as synonym” or pro synon. should be added
to the citation.

                 When an author published as a synonym a manuscript name of another author, the word ex should be used
to connect the names of the two authors.

                 Example Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steud. Nomencl. 321 (1821), pro synon., a manuscript name of Koenig’s
published by Steudel as a synonym of Eugenia laurina Willd.

                 XXXII.  The citation of authors, earlier than the starting point of the nomenclature of a group, is indicated
when considered useful or desirable, preferably between brackets or by the use of the word ex.  This method is especially
applicable in mycology when reference is made to authors earlier than Fries or Persoon.

                 Examples:  Lupinus [Tournef. Inst. 392, t. 213: 1719] L. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 721 (1753) and Gen. Pl. ed. 5, 332, or
Lupinus Tourn. ex L.; Boletus piperatus [Bull. Hist. Champ. Fr. 318, t. 451, f. 2: 1791—1812] Fries, Syst. Myc. I, 388
(1821), or Boletus piperatus Bull. ex Fries.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 14 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  15

Section 8 Retention of names or epithets of groups which are remodelled or divided

(Art. 50—52).

                 Art. 50 An alteration of the diagnostic characters, or of the circumscription of a group,
does not warrant a change in its name, except in so far as this may be necessitated (1) by trans-
ference of the group (Art. 5355), or (2) by its union with another group of the same rank
(Art. 5657), or (3) by a change of its rank (Art. 58).

                 Examples:  The genus Myosotis as revised by R. Brown differs from the original genus of Linnaeus, but the
generic name has not been changed, nor is a change allowable.  —  Various authors have united with Centaurea Jacea L.
one or two species which Linnaeus had kept distinct; the group thus constituted must be called Centaurea Jacea L. sensu
ampl. or Centaurea Jacea L. em. Cosson et Germain, em. Visiani, or em. Godron, etc.:  the creation of a new name such as
Centaurea vulgaris Godr. is superfluous.

                 Art. 51 When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name must be
retained for one of them, or (if it has not been retained), must be re-established.  When a parti-
cular species was originally designated as the type, the generic name must be retained for the
genus including that species.  When no type was designated, a type must be chosen according
to the regulations given (Appendix I).

                 Examples:  The genus Glycine L. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 753 (1753) was divided by Adanson Fam. Pl. II, 324, 327, 562:
1763) into the two genera Bradlea and Abrus; this procedure is contrary to Art. 51: the name Glycine must be kept for one
of the genera, and it is now retained for part of Glycine L. (1753).  —  The genus Aesculus L. contains the sections Eu-Aes-
culus
, Pavia (Poir.), Macrothyrsus (Spach) and Calothyrsus (Spach), the last three of which were regarded as distinct genera
by the authors cited in parenthesis: in the event of these four sections being treated as genera, the name Aesculus must be
kept for the first of these, which includes the species Aesculus Hippocastanum L., as this species is the type of the
genus founded by Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 344: 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5, 1754); Tournefort’s name Hippocastanum
must not be used as was done by Gaertner (Fruct. II, 135: 1791).

                 Art. 52 When a species is divided into two or more species, the specific epithet must
be retained for one of them, or (if it has not been retained) must be re-established. When a
particular specimen was originally designated as the type, the specific epithet must be retained
for the species including that specimen. When no type was designated, a type must be chosen
according to the regulations given (Appendix I).

                 The same rule applies to subdivisions of species, for example, to a subspecies divided
into two or more subspecies, or to a variety divided into two or more varieties.

                 ExampleLychnis dioica L. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 437, was divided by Philip Miller (Gard. Dict. ed. 8, nn. 3, 4: 1768)
into two species, L. dioica L. em. Mill. and L. alba Mill.  —  G. F. Hoffmann (Deutschlands Flora, 1800, I, 166) divided
Juncus articulatus L. (1753) into two species, J. lampocarpus Ehrh., and J. acutiflorus Ehrh.  The name J. articulatus L. ought,
however, to have been retained for one of the segregate species, and has been re-established in the sense of J. lampocarpus
Ehrh. (see Briq. Prodr. Fl. Corse, I. 264: 1910).  —  Genista horrida DC. (Fl. franç. IV, 500: 1805) was divided by Spach
(in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. sér. 3, II, 253: 1844) into three species, G. horrida (Vahl) DC., G. Boissieri Spach, and G. Webbii
Spach; the name G. horrida was rightly kept for the species including the plant from Jaca in Aragon originally described
by Vahl
(Symb. I, 51: 1790) as Spartium horridum.  —  Several species (Primula cashmiriana Munro, P. erosa Wall.) have
been separated from Primula denticulata Sm. (Exot. Bot. 109, tab. 114: 1805), but the name P. denticulata has been
rightly kept for the form which Smith described and figured under this name.

 

Section 9Retention of names or epithets of groups below the rank of genus on

transference to another genus or species (Art. 53–55).

                 Art. 53When a subdivision of a genus is transferred to another genus (or placed under
another generic name for the same genus) without change of rank, its subdivisional name must
be retained, or (if it has not been retained) must be re-established unless one of the following

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 15 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

16  

obstacles exists:  (1) that the resulting association of names has been previously published
validly for a different subdivision, or (2) that there is available an earlier and validly published
subdivisional name of the same rank.

                 ExampleSaponaria sect. Vaccaria DC., transferred to Gypsophila, becomes Gypsophila sect. Vaccaria
(DC.) Godr.

                 Art. 54When a species is transferred to another genus (or placed under
another generic name for the same genus), without change of rank, the specific epithet
must be retained or (if it has not been retained) must be re-established, unless one of
the following obstacles exists:  (1) that the resulting binary name is a later homonym
(Art. 61) or a tautonym (Art. 68, 3), (2) that there is available an earlier validly published
specific epithet.

                 When the specific epithet, on transference to another generic name, has been applied
erroneously in its new position to a different plant, the combination must be retained for the
plant on which the epithet was originally based.

                 Examples:  Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl. 613: 1753) when transferred to the genus Linaria, must be called
Linaria spuria (L.) Mill. (Gard. Dict. ed. 8, n. 15: 1768).  —  Chailletia hispida Oliv. (Fl. Trop. Afr. 1, 343: 1868) when
placed under the generic name Dichapetalum (an older name for the same genus), must be called Dichapetalum hispidum
(Oliv.) Baill. (Hist. Pl. V, 140: 1874).  —  Lotus siliquosus L. (Syst. ed. 10, 1178: 1759) when transferred to the genus Tetra-
gonolobus
, must be called Tetragonolobus siliquosus (L.) Roth (Tent. Fl. Germ. I. 323: 1788) and not Tetragonolobus Scandalida
Scop. (Fl. Carn. ed. 2, II, 87: 1772).  —  Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798–1800), when transferred to the genus Cytisus by
Spach in 1849
, could not be called Cytisus biflorus, because this name had been previously and validly published for a diffe-
rent
species by L’Héritier in 1789; the name Cytisus Fontanesii given by Spach is therefore legitimate.  —  Santolina suave-
olens
Pursh (1814) when transferred to the genus Matricaria must be called Matricaria matricarioides (Less.) Porter (1894);
the epithet suaveolens cannot be used in the genus Matricaria owing to the existence of Matricaria suaveolens L. (Fl. Suec.
ed. 2, 297: 1755), an earlier validly published name.  —  The specific epithet of Pinus Mertensiana Bong. was transferred to
Tsuga by Carrière, who, however, erroneously applied the new combination Tsuga Mertensiana to another species of Tsuga,
namely T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg., as is evident from his description: the combination Tsuga Mertensiana (Bong.) must be
retained for Pinus Mertensiana Bong. when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation in parenthesis (under Art. 49) of
the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the type of the epithet.

                 Art. 55When a variety or other subdivision of a species is transferred, without change
of rank, to another genus or species (or placed under another generic or specific name for the
same genus or species), the original subdivisional epithet must be retained or (if it has not been
retained) must be re-established, unless one of the following obstacles exists: (1) that the resulting
ternary combination has been previously and validly published for a subdivision based on a
different type, even if that subdivision is of a different rank; (2) that there is an earlier validly
published subdivisional epithet available.

                 When the epithet of a subdivision of a species, on transference to another species, has
been applied erroneously in its new position to a different plant, the new combination must
be retained for the plant on which the group was originally based.

                 Examples:  The variety micranthum Gren. et Godr. (Fl. France, I, 171: 1847) of Helianthemum italicum Pers.,
when transferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thib., retains its varietal epithet, becoming H. penicillatum var. micranthum
(Gren. et Godr.) Grosser (in Engl. Pflanzenreich, Heft 14, 115: 1903).  —  The variety subcarnosa Hook. fil. (Bot. Antarct.
Voy.
I, 5: 1847) of Cardamine hirsuta L., when transferred as a variety to C. glacialis DC., becomes C. glacialis var. sub-
carnosa
(Hook. f.) O. E. Schulz (in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. XXXII, 542: 1903); the existence of an earlier synonym of different
rank
(C. propinqua Carmichael in Trans. Linn. Soc. XII, 507: 1818) does not affect the nomenclature of the variety
(see Art. 58).  In each of these cases it is the earliest varietal epithet which is retained.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 16 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  17

Section 10Choice of names when two groups of the same rank are united,

or in Fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle (Art. 56—57, Rec. XXXIII—XXXV).

                 Art. 56 When two or more groups of the same rank are united the oldest legitimate
name or (in species and their subdivisions) the oldest legitimate epithet is retained.  If the names
or epithets are of the same date, the author who unites the groups has the right of choosing one
of them.  The author who first adopts one of them, definitely treating another as a synonym or
referring it to a subordinate group, must be followed.

                 Examples:  K. Schumann (in Engl. und Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III, Abt. 6, 5: 1890), uniting the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753), Echinocarpus Blume (1825) and Phoenicosperma Miq. (1865—1866) rightly adopted the oldest of these
three generic names, Sloanea L., for the resulting genus.  —  If the two genera Dentaria L. (Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 653: 1753, et Gen.
Pl.
ed. 5, 295, no. 726: 1754) and Cardamine L. (l. c. 654, et l. c. 295, no. 727) are united, the resulting genus must be called
Cardamine because this name was chosen by Crantz (Class. Crucif. 126: 1769), who was the first to unite them.  —  When
H. Hallier (in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. XVIII, 123: 1893) united three species of Ipomoea, namely, I. verticillata Forsk. (1775),
I. rumicifolia Choisy (1834) and I. Perrottetii Choisy (1845), he rightly retained the name I. verticillata Forsk. for the
resulting species because verticillata is the oldest of the three specific epithets.  —  Robert Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exped.
Congo, App. V, 484: 1818) appears to have been the first to unite Waltheria americana L. (Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 673: 1753)
and W. indica L. (l. c.). Since he adopted the name Waltheria indica and stated that he considered W. americana
to be a variety of it, the name W. indica must be retained for the combined species.

                 Recommendations :

                 XXXIII.  Authors who have to choose between two generic names should note the following re-
commendations.

                 (1) Of two names of the same date to prefer the one which was first accompanied by the description of a species.

                 (2) Of two names of the same date, both accompanied by descriptions of species, to prefer the one, which,
when the author made his choice, included the larger number of species.

                 (3) In cases of equality from these various points of view to prefer the more correct and appropriate name.

                 XXXIV.  When several genera are united as subgenera or sections under one generic name, the sub-
division including the type of the generic name used, may bear that name unaltered (e. g.Anarrhinum sect. Anarrhinum;
Hemigenia sect. Hemigenia) or with a prefix (Anthriscus sect. Eu-Anthriscus) or a suffix (Stachys sect. Stachyotypus).  These
prefixes or suffixes lapse when the subdivisions are raised to generic rank.

                 XXXV. When several species are united as subspecies or varieties under one specific name, the subdivision
which included the type of the specific epithet used may be designated either by the same epithet unaltered (e. g. Stachys
recta
subsp. recta) or with a prefix (e. g. Alchemilla alpina subsp. eu-alpina), or by one of the customary epithets
typicus, originarius, genuinus, verus, veridicus, etc.) indicating that it is the type subdivision.

                 Art. 57 Among Fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle the different successive
states of the same species (anamorphoses, status) can bear only one generic and specific
name (binary), that is the earliest which has been given, starting from Fries, Systema,
or Persoon, Synopsis, to the state containing the form which it has been agreed to call the
perfect form, provided that the name is otherwise in conformity with the Rules.  The
perfect state is that which ends in the ascus stage in the Ascomycetes, in the basidium in the
Basidiomycetes, in the teleutospore or its equivalent in the Uredinales, and in the spore in the
Ustilaginales.

                 Generic and specific names given to other states have only a temporary value.  They
cannot replace a generic name already existing and applying to one or more species, any one of
which contains the “perfect form.

                 The nomenclature of Fungi which have not a pleomorphic life-cycle follows the
ordinary rules.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 17 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

18  

                 Examples:  The names Aecidium Pers., Caeoma Link, and Uredo Pers. designate different states (aecidiosporic
with or without pseudoperidium, uredosporic) in the group Uredinales: the generic name Melampsora Cast. (Obs. II, 18:
1843)
, applied to a genus which is defined by means of the teleutospores, cannot therefore be replaced by the name Uredo
Pers. (in Roemer, Neu. Mag. 1, 93: 1794) since the name Uredo is already used to designate a state.  —  Among the Dothideaceae
(Ascomycetes)
a species of the genus Phyllachora Nitschke, P. Trifolii (Pers.) Fuck. (Symb. 218: 1869—70), has an older
synonym, Polythrincium Trifolii G. Kunze (Myk. Heft i, 13, t. I. f. 8: 1817), based on the conidial state of this species: the
name Polythrincium cannot displace that of Phyllachora because it represents an inferior state.  —  The name Phoma Fries
emend. Desm. has been given to a group of Fungi Imperfecti (Deuteromycetes), several members of which have been reco-
gnised as the spermogonial state of species of the genus Diaporthe (Valsaceae, Ascomycetes): thus Phoma Ailanthi Sacc.
belongs to Diaporthe Ailanthi Sacc., Phoma alnea (Nitschke) Sacc. to Diaporthe alnea Fuck., Phoma detrusa (Fries) Fuck.
to Diaporthe detrusa Sacc. etc.  But the perfect state of many species of the genus Phoma is not known and in some cases
probably does not exist: hence the practical necessity for retaining the name Phoma to designate the group of Fungi Im-
perfecti
in question.

 

Section 11Choice of names when the rank of a group is changed (Art. 58, Rec. XXXVI).

                 Art. 58 When a tribe becomes a family, when a subgenus or section becomes a genus,
when a subdivision of a species becomes a species, or when the reverse of these changes takes
place, and in general when a group changes its rank, the earliest legitimate name or epithet
given to the group in its new rank is valid, unless that name or the resulting association or
combination is a later homonym (see Art. 60, 61).

                 Examples:  The section Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holl. 561: 1810) of the genus Campanula was first
raised to generic rank by Schrader, and as a genus must be called Wahlenbergia Schrad. (Cat. Hort. Goett.: 1814), not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) O. Kuntze (Rev. Gen. II, 378: 1891).  —  The var. foetida L. (Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 536: 1753) of Magnolia
virginiana
, when raised to specific rank, must be called Magnolia grandiflora L. (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1082: 1759), not Magnolia
foetida
(L.) Sarg. (in Gard. and For. II, 615: 1889).  —  Lythrum intermedium Ledeb. (Ind. Hort. Dorp.: 1822), when treated
as
a variety of Lythrum Salicaria L., must be called L. Salicaria var. glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. II, 127: 1844), not
L. Salicaria var. intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne (in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. I, 327: 1881).  In all these cases the name or epithet
given to the group in its original rank is replaced by the first legitimate name or epithet given to it in its new rank.

                 Recommendation XXXVI.  (1) When a subtribe becomes a tribe, when a tribe becomes a sub-
family, when a subfamily becomes a family, etc., or when the inverse changes occur, the root of the name should not
be
altered but only the termination (-inae, -eae, -oideae, -aceae, -ineae, -ales, etc.) unless the resulting name is rejected
under Section 12 or the new name becomes a source of error or there is some other serious reason against it.

                 (2) When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus, or the inverse changes occur, the original name should be
retained unless it is rejected under Section 12.

                 (3) When a subdivision of a species becomes a species, or the inverse change occurs, the original epithet should
be retained unless the resulting combination is rejected under Section 12.

 
 

Section 12 Rejection of names (Art. 59—69, Rec. XXXVII).

                 Art. 59A name or epithet must not be rejected, changed or modified, merely because
it is badly chosen, or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known.

                 Examples:  This rule was broken by the change of Staphylea to Staphylis, Tamus to Thamnos, Thamnus or
Tamnus
, Mentha to Minthe, Tillaea to Tillia, Vincetoxicum to Alexitoxicum; and by the change of Orobanche rapum to
O. sarothamnophyta, O. Columbariae to O. columbarihaerens, O. Artemisiae to O. artemisiepiphyta.  All these modifications
must be rejected.  —  Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) must not be changed to A. pentagona A. DC. (1834) although the
specific epithet quinquegona is a hybrid word (Latin and Greek).

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 18 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  19

                 Art. 60 A name must be rejected if it is illegitimate (see Art. 2).  The publication
of an epithet in an illegitimate combination must not be taken into consideration for purposes
of priority (see Art. 45).

                 A name is illegitimate in the following cases:

                 (1 If it was superfluous when published, i. e. if there was a valid name (see
Art. 16) for the group to which it was applied, with its particular circumscription, position
and rank.

                 Examples:  The generic name Cainito Adans. (Fam. II. 166: 1763) is illegitimate because it was a superfluous
name for Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl. ed. 1. 192: 1753); the two genera had precisely the same circumscription.  —  The generic
name Unisema Raf. (Med. Repos. N. York. V. 192: 1819) is illegitimate because Rafinesque so circumscribed his genus as
to include Pontederia cordata L. the type species of Pontederia L. (1753): Unisema Raf. was therefore a superfluous name
for Pontederia L.  —  Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb. (Prodr. 138: 1796) is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for C. Cai-
nito
L. (1753), which Salisbury cited as a synonym.  —  On the other hand, Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and C. angustifolius Mill.
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8. nn. 3, 4: 1768) are not illegitimate names, although these species are now re-united with C. Behen L.
(1753), from which Miller separated them: C. latifolius Mill. and C. angustifolius Mill. as circumscribed by Miller did not
include the type of C. Behen L.

                 (2 If it is a binary or ternary name published in contravention of Art. 16, 50, 52 or
54, i. e. if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet available for the group with its
particular circumscription, position and rank.

                 ExampleTetragonolobus Scandalida Scop. (1772) is an illegitimate name because Scopoli did not adopt the
earliest specific epithet available, namely siliquosus, when he transferred Lotus siliquosus L. (1759) to Tetragonolobus
(see Art. 54). On the other hand, Seseli selinoides Jacq. (Enum. Stirp. Vindob. 51. 227: 1762) is not an illegitimate
name, although it is now treated as conspecific with Peucedanum Silaus L. (1753), Jacquin (loc. cit. 46).  Jacquin did
not transfer Peucedanum Silaus to Seseli as Seseli selinoides: he described the latter as a new species, based on a cultivated
specimen of a plant found wild near Lanzendorff.  As circumscribed by Jacquin, Seseli selinoides and Peucedanum Silaus
were mutually exclusive.

                 (3 If it is a later homonym (see Art. 61).

                 (4 If it is a generic name which must be rejected under Art. 67.

                 (5 If its specific epithet must be rejected under Art. 68.

                 Art. 61 A name of a taxonomic group is illegitimate and must be rejected if it
is a later homonym, that is if it duplicates a name previously and validly published for a
group of the same rank based on a different type.  Even if the earlier homonym is illegi-
timate, or is generally treated as a synonym on taxonomic grounds, the later homonym must
be rejected.

                 Examples:  The generic name Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848) given to a genus of Labiatae, is a later
homonym of Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837), a name previously and validly published for a genus of Amaryllidaceae;
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. must therefore be rejected as was done by Th. Durand (Ind. Gen. Phan. 703: 1888) who re-
named it Thuspeinanta.  —  The generic name Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym of the validly
published generic name Amblyanthera Blume (1849), and must therefore be rejected although Amblyanthera Blume is now
reduced to Osbeckia L. (1753).
 —  Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (Diagn. Fl. Or., Ser. I. II. 83: 1843) is a later homonym
of the validly published name Astragalus rhizanthus Royle (Illustr. Bot. Himal. 200: 1835), and it must therefore be
rejected, as was done by Boissier who renamed it A. cariensis (Diagn. ser. I. IX. 57: 1849).

                 Note Mere orthographic variants of the same name are treated as homonyms, when they are based on
different types  —  see Art. 70.

                 Art. 62 A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected if owing to its use with diffe-
rent meanings, it becomes a permanent source of confusion or error.  A list of names to be aban-
doned for this reason (Nomina ambigua) will form Appendix IV.

 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 19 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

20  

                 Examples:  The generic name Alsine L., being used by various authors for three genera of Caryophyllaceae
(Stellaria L., Spergularia J. et C. Presl, Minuartia L.), has been a permanent source of confusion and error (see Sprague
in Kew Bull. (1920) 308).  —  The name Rosa villosa L. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 491 (1753) is rejected, because it has been applied
to several different species, and has become a source of confusion.

                 Art. 63 A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected when its application is un-
certain (nomen dubium).

                 Example Ervum soloniense L. (Cent. II. Pl. 28, 1756) is a name the application of which is uncertain; it must
herefore be rejected (see Schinz und Thell. in Vierteljahrsschr. Nat. Ges. Zürich, LVIII, 71: 1913).

                 Recommendation XXXVII.  When the correct application of a nomen dubium has been established by
subsequent investigation (of types etc.), authors adopting it should for purposes of precision cite the name of the author
who published the additional certifying evidence as well as that of the original author.  It is also desirable to add the date
of certification.

                 Example The generic name Bembix Lour. (Fl. Cochinch. 282: 1790) was a nomen dubium from the time of its
publication until 1927, when Spencer Moore (in Journ. of Bot. LXV, 279) identified it with Ancistrocladus: the latter
name has been proposed for conservation, but should the name Bembix be adopted it should be cited as Bembix Lour.
sec. (i. e. secundum) Spencer Moore, 1927.

                 Art. 64.   A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected if the characters of that group
were derived from two or more entirely discordant elements, especially if those elements were
erroneously supposed to form part of the same individual.  A list of names to be abandoned for
this reason (Nomina confusa) will form Appendix V.

                 Examples:  The characters of the genus Schrebera L. (Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 1662: 1763, Gen. Pl. ed. 6, 124: 1764),
were derived from the two genera Cuscuta and Myrica parasite and host) (see Retz. Obs. VI, 15: 1791).  The characters
of the genus Actinotinus Oliv. (in Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 1740: 1888) were derived from the two genera Viburnum and Aesculus,
owing to the inflorescence of a Viburnum having been inserted into the terminal bud of an Aesculus by a native Chinese
collector.  The names Schrebera and Actinotinus must therefore be abandoned.

                 Art. 65 A name or epithet of a taxonomic group must be rejected when it is based
on a monstrosity.

                 Examples:  The generic name Uropedium Lindl. was based on a monstrosity which is now referred to Phragmi-
pedium cordatum
Rolfe.  —  The name Ornithogalum fragiferum Vill. (Hist. Pl. Dauph. II. 269: 1787) was based on a mon-
strosity, and must therefore be rejected: on transference to the genus Gagea the specific epithet fragiferum must also be
rejected: the oldest name for the normal plant being Ornithogalum fistulosum Ram. ex DC. (1895), the species must be called
Gagea fistulosa (Ram. ex DC.) Ker-Gawl.

                 Art. 66 The name of an order, suborder, family or subfamily, tribe or subtribe, must
be changed when it is taken from the name of a genus which is known not to belong to the group
in question.

                 Examples:  If the genus Portulaca were excluded from the family now known as Portulacaceae, the residual
group could no longer bear
the name Portulacaceae and would have to be renamed.  —  Link (Hort. Berol. I. 230: 1827) gave
the name Tristeginae to a “suborder” of Gramineae, from Tristegis Nees (now treated as a synonym of Melinis Beauv.).
Nees (in Hooker and Arnott, Bot. Beecheys Voy. 237: 1836) treated the group as a tribe, under the name Tristegineae.
When
Stapf (in Fl. Cap. VII, 313: 1898) excluded Tristegis from the tribe Tristegeae he legitimately renamed the tribe
Arundinelleae.

                 Art. 67 Names of genera are illegitimate in the following special cases and must
be rejected.

                 (1 When they are merely words not intended as names.

                 (2 When they coincide with a technical term currently used in morphology unless
they were accompanied, when originally published, by specific names in accordance with the

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 20 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  21

binary method of Linnaeus.  On and after Jan. 1, 1912, all new generic names coinciding with
such technical terms are unconditionally rejected.

                 (3)  When they are unitary designations of species.

                 (4)  When they consist of two words, unless these words were from the first combined
into one, or joined by a hyphen.

                 Examples: (1)  Anonymos Walt. (Fl. Carol. 2, 4, 9, etc.: 1788) must be rejected as being a word applied to 28
different genera by Walter to indicate that they were without names.

                 (2)  The generic name Radicula Hill (Brit. Herb. 264: 1756) coincides with the technical term radicula (radicle),
and when originally published, was not accompanied by specific names in accordance with the Linnean method.  These
were not added until 1794 (by Moench), after the publication of the generic name Rorippa Scop. (1760).  Radicula Hill
must therefore be rejected in favour of Rorippa.  —  Tuber Micheli ex Fries (Syst. Myc. II, 289: 1823) was accompanied by
binary specific names, e. g. Tuber cibarium, and is therefore admissible.  —  Names such as Radix, Caulis, Folium, Spina,
etc., cannot now be validly published as new generic names.

                 (3)  Ehrhart (Phytophylacium: 1780, and Beitr. IV, 145—150: 1789) proposed unitary names for various species
known at that time under binary names, e. g. Phaeocephalum for Schoenus fuscus, and Leptostachys for Carex leptostachys.
These names, which resemble generic names, should not be confused with them, and must be rejected, unless they have
been published as generic names by a subsequent author: for example, the name Baeothryon employed as a unitary name
of a species by Ehrhart, was subsequently published as a generic name by A. Dietrich (Sp. Pl. II, 89: 1833).

                 (4)  The generic name Uva ursi Miller (Abridg. Gard. Dict. ed. 4, 1754) as originally published, consisted of
two separate words unconnected by a hyphen, and must therefore he rejected.  On the other hand, names such as Quisqualis
(composed of two words combined into one when originally published), Sebastiano-Schaueria and Neves-Armondia (both
hyphened when originally published) are admissible.

                 Art. 68 Specific epithets are illegitimate in the following special cases and must
be rejected.

                 (1 When they are merely words not intended as names.

                 (2)  When they are merely ordinal adjectives being used for enumeration.

                 (3)  When they exactly repeat the generic name with or without the addition of a trans-
cribed symbol (tautonym)
.

                 (4 When they were published in works in which the Linnean system of binary nomen-
clature for species was not consistently employed.

                 Examples:  (1)  Viola qualis” Krocker (Fl.Siles. II, 512 and 517: 1790); Atriplexnova” Winterl (in Ind. Hort.
Bot. Univ. Pest. fol. A 8, recto et verso: 1788), the word “nova” being here used in connection with four different species
of Atriplex.

                 (2)  Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.

                 (3)  Linaria Linaria, Nasturtium Nasturtium-aquaticum.

                 (4 The name Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herb. 49: 1756) is a descriptive phrase reduced to two words, not a
binary name in accordance with the Linnean method, and must he rejected: Hill’s other species was Abutilon flore flavo.
Linnaeus is regarded as having used binary nomenclature for species consistently from 1753 onwards, although there are
exceptions. e. g. Apocynum foliis Androsaemi, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 213.

                 Art. 69In cases foreseen in Art. 6068 the name or epithet to be rejected is replaced
by the oldest legitimate name, or (in a combination) by the oldest legitimate epithet which will
be, in the new position, in accordance with the Rules.  If none exists, a new name or epithet must
be chosen.  Where a new epithet is required, an author may, if he wishes, adopt an epithet previ-
ously given to the group in an illegitimate combination, if there is no obstacle to its employment
in the new position or sense.

                 Examples: Linum Radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Radiola must not be called Radiola Radiola
(L.) Karst., as that combination is contrary to Art. 68 (3): the next oldest specific epithet is multiflorum, but the name Linum

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 21 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

22  

multiflorum Lam. (1778) is illegitimate, since it was a superfluous name for Linum Radiola L.: under Radiola the
species
must be called R. linoides Roth (1788), since linoides is the earliest legitimate epithet available.  —  The
combination Talinum polyandrum Hook. (in Bot. Mag. t. 4833: 1855) is illegitimate, being a later homonym of
T. polyandrum Ruiz et Pav. (Syst. Fl. Per. I, 115: 1798):  when Bentham transferred T. polyandrum Hook. to
Calandrinia, he called it Calandrinia polyandra Fl. Austral. I, 172: 1863).  This is treated, not as a new combination,
but as a new name, C. polyandra Benth. (1863).

 

Section 13Orthography of names (Art. 70, 71, Rec. XXXVIII—XLIV).

                 Art. 70 The original spelling of a name or epithet must be retained, except in the case
of a typographic error, or of a clearly unintentional orthographic error.  When the difference
between two generic names lies in the termination, these names must be regarded as distinct,
even though differing by one letter only.  This does not apply to mere orthographic variants of
the same name.

                 Note 1 The words “original spelling” in this Article mean the spelling employed when the name was
validly published.

                 Note 2 The use of a wrong connecting vowel or vowels (or the omission of a connecting vowel in a specific
epithet, or in that of a subdivision of a species) is treated as an unintentional orthographic error which may be corrected ¹)
(see Rec. XLIV).

                 Note 3 In deciding whether two or more slightly different names should be treated as distinct or as ortho-
graphic variants, the essential consideration is whether they may be confused with one another or not: if there is serious
risk of confusion, they should be treated as orthographic variants.  Doubtful cases should be referred to the Executive
Committee.

                 Note 4 Specific and other epithets of Greek origin differing merely by having Greek and Latin terminations
respectively are orthographic variants.  Epithets bearing the same meaning and differing only slightly in form are considered
as orthographic variants.  The genitive and adjectival forms of a personal name are, however, treated as different epithets
(e. g. Lysimachia Hemsleyana and L. Hemsleyi).

                 Examples of retention of original spelling The generic names Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and Amaranthus
(1753) were deliberately so spelt by Linnaeus and the spelling must not be altered to Mesembrianthemum and Amarantus
respectively, although these latter forms are philologically preferable. — Valantia L. (1753) and Clutia L. (1753), comme-
morating Vaillant and Cluyt respectively, must not be altered to Vaillantia and Cluytia²):  Linnaeus latinized the names of
these botanists deliberately as “Valantius” and “Clutius”.  —  Phoradendron Nutt. must not be altered to Phoradendrum.
 —  Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. must not be altered to T. mossambica, as in Engl. Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas, C. 232 (1895).  — 
Alyxia ceylanica Wight must not be altered to A. zeylanica, as in Trimen, Handb. Fl. Ceylon, iii, 127 (1895).  —  Fagus
sylvatica
L. must not be altered to F. silvatica.  The correct classical spelling silvatica is recommended for adoption
in the case of a new name (Rec. XLII), but the mediaeval spelling sylvatica deliberately adopted by Linnaeus must
not be altered.

                 Examples of typographic errors Saurauja Willd. (1801) was a typographic error for Saurauia; Willdenow in
his herbarium always wrote the name correctly, as Saurauia.  —  Globba brachycarpa Baker (in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. VI,
205: 1890), and Hetaeria alba Ridley (in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. XXXII, 404: 1896), being typographic errors for
G. trachycarpa and H. alta respectively, should be cited as Globba trachycarpa Baker and Hetaeria alta Ridley (see Journ.  of
Bot.
LIX, 349: 1921).  —  Thevetia nereifolia A. Juss. ex Steud. is an obvious typographic error for T. neriifolia.  — 
Rosa Pissarti Carr. (in Rev. Hort. 1880, 314) is a typographic error for R. Pissardi (see Rev. Hort. 1881, 190).

                 Examples of unintentional orthographic errors: Hexagona Fries (Epicr. 496: 1836—38) was an unintentional
orthographic error for Hexagonia: Fries had previously (Syst. Myc. I, 344: 1821) cited Hexagonia Poll. erroneously as
Hexagona Poll.”  —  Libertia Laurencei Hook. f. (Fl. Tasman. II, 34: 1860) being an orthographic error for L. Lawrencei

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) The reading passed by the Congress is “peut subir une correction” : (see also “British Proposals” Art. 74).

                 2) In some cases an altered spelling of a generic name is conserved; e. g. Bougainvillea (see list of nomina
conservanda proposita
).

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 22 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  23

Hook. f. (l. c. 373, t. 129), the latter spelling should be adopted: the collector’s name was Lawrence, not Laurence.  —  Gluta
Benghas
L. (Mant. II, 293: 1771), being an orthographic error for G. renghas, should be cited as Gluta renghas L., as has
been done by Engler (in DC. Monogr. IV, 224: 1883): the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is “Reng-
has” not “Benghas”.  —  Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC. (in Mém. Mus. Par. XVII, 76: 1828) should be cited as P. opuntiiflora DC.
(cf. also Rec. XLIV. and Art. 70, Note 2).  —  Cacalia napeaefolia DC. (in DC. Prodr. VI, 328: 1837) and Senecio
napeaefolius
(DC.) Sch. Bip. (in Flora, XXVIII, 498: 1845) should be cited as Cacalia napaeifolia DC. and Senecio napaei-
folius
(DC.) Sch. Bip. respectively:  the specific epithet refers to the resemblance of the leaves to those of the genus
Napaea (not Napea), and the connecting vowel “i” should have been used instead of “ae”.

                 Examples of different names Rubia and Rubus, Monochaete and Monochaetum, Peponia and Peponium, Iria
and Iris, Desmostachys and Desmostachya, Symphyostemon and Symphostemon, Gerrardina and Gerardiina, Durvillea and
Urvillea, Elodes and Elodea, Peltophorus (Gramineae) and Peltophorum (Leguminosae).

                 Examples of different specific epithets Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip. (vide supra) and S. napifolius
MacOwan are different names, the epithets napaeifolius and napifolius being derived respectively from Napaea and Napus.

                 Examples of orthographic variants:  —  Generic names: Astrostemma and Asterostemma, Pleuripetalum and
Pleuropetalum
, Columella and Columelia, both commemorating Columella, the Roman writer on agriculture, Eschweilera
and Eschweileria, Skytanthus and Scytanthus.  The four generic names Bradlea Adans., Bradlaeia Neck., Bradleja Banks ex
Gaertn., Braddleya Vell., all commemorating Richard Bradley (1675—1732), must be treated as orthographic variants
because each of them has been spelt by subsequent authors both as “Bradleia” and as “Bradleya” and one only can be used
without serious risk of confusion.  —  Specific epithets:  chinensis and sinensis; ceylanica and zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis,
nipalensis; polyanthemos and polyanthemus; macrostachys and macrostachyus; heteropus and heteropodus, -a, -um; poikilantha
and poikilanthes; pteroides and pteroideus; trinervis, -e and trinervius, -a, -um.

                 Recommendations :

                 XXXVIII.  When a new name is derived from a Greek word containing the spiritus asper (rough
breathing), this should be transcribed as the letter h.

                 XXXIX.  When a new name for a genus, subgenus or section is taken from the name of a person, it should
be formed in the following manner.

                 (a) When the name of the person ends in a vowel the letter a is added (thus Bouteloua after Boutelou; Ottoa
after Otto; Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name already ends in a, when ea is added (e. g. Collaea after Colla),

                 (b) When the name of the person ends in a consonant, the letters ia are added (e. g. Magnusia after Magnus,
Ramondia after Ramond), except when the name ends in er, when a is added (e. g. Kernera after Kerner).

                 (c) The syllables which are not modified by these endings retain their original spelling, even with the conso-
nants k and w or with groupings of vowels which were not used in classical Latin.  Letters foreign to botanical Latin should
be transcribed, and diacritic signs suppressed.  The Germanic ä, ö, ü become ae, oe, ue; the French é, è and ê become
generally eIn works in which diphthongs are not represented by special type, the diaeresis sign should be used
where required, e. g. Cephaëlis, not Cephaelis.

                 (d) Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix, or modified by anagram or abbreviation.  In these
cases they count as different words from the original name.

                 Examples: Durvillea and Urvillea; Lapeyrousea and Peyrousea; Englera, Englerastrum and Englerella; Bouchea
and Ubochea; Gerardia and Graderia; Martia and Martiusia.

                 XL.  When a new specific or other epithet is taken from the name of a man, it should be formed in the follow-
ing manner.

                 (a) When the name of the person ends in a vowel, the letter i is added (thus Glazioui from Glaziou, Bureaui
from Bureau), except when the name ends in a, when e is added (thus Balansae from Balansa).

                 (b) When the name ends in a consonant, the letters ii are added (thus Magnusii from Magnus, Ramondii
from Ramond), except when the name ends in -er, when i is added (thus Kerneri from Kerner).

                 (c) The syllables which are not modified by these endings retain their original spelling, even with the con-
sonants k or w or with groupings of vowels which were not used in classical Latin.  Letters foreign to botanical Latin
should be transcribed and diacritic signs suppressed.  The Germanic ä, ö, ü, become ae, oe, ue, the French é, è, ê, become
generally eThe diaeresis sign should be used where required.

                 (d) When epithets taken from the name of a person have an adjectival form they are formed in a similar way
(e. g. Geranium Robertianum, Verbena Hasslerana).

 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 23 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

24  

                 XLI.  The same provisions apply to epithets formed from the names of women.  When these have
a substantival form they are given a feminine termination (e. g. Cypripedium Hookerae, Rosa Beatricis, Scabiosa Olgae,
Omphalodes Luciliae
).

                 XLII.  New specific (or other) epithets should be written in conformity with the original spelling of the
words from which they are derived and in accordance with the rules of Latin and latinization.

                 Examples: silvestris (not sylvestris), sinensis (not chinensis).

                 XLIII.  Specific (or other) epithets should be written with a small initial letter, except those which are derived
from names of persons (substantives or adjectives) or are taken from generic names (substantives or adjectives).

                 Examples: Ficus indica, Circaea lutetiana, Aster novi-belgii; Malva Tournefortiana, Phyteuma Halleri, Lythrum
Hyssopifolia
, Brassica Napus,
Rosa stylosa var. Desvauxiana.

                 XLIV.  In the formation of specific (or other) epithets composed of two or several roots taken from Latin
or Greek, the vowel placed between the two roots becomes a connecting vowel, in Latin i, in Greek o; thus menthifolia,
salviifolia, not menthaefolia, salviaefolia.  When the second root begins with a vowel and euphony requires, the connecting
vowel should be eliminated (e. g. lepidantha).  The connecting vowels ae should be retained only where this is required
for
etymological reasons (e. g. caricaeformis from Carica, in order to avoid confusion with cariciformis from Carex).
In certain compounds of Greek words, no connecting vowel is required, e. g. brachycarpus and glycyphyllus.

                 Art. 71 When the spelling of a generic name differs in Linnaeus Species Plantarum
ed. 1, and Genera Plantarum, ed. 5, the correct spelling is determined by the following regulations.

                 (1) If Linnaeus subsequently to 1753–54 consistently adopted one of the spellings,
that spelling is accepted, e. g. Thuja (not Thuya).

                 (2) If Linnaeus did not do so, then the spelling which is more correct philologically
is accepted, e. g. Agrostemma (not Agrostema).

                 (3) If the two spellings are equally correct philologically, and there is a great prepon-
derance of usage in favour of one of them, that one is accepted, e. g. Rhododendron (not Rhodo-
dendrum
).

                 (4) If the two spellings are equally correct philologically and there is not a great pre-
ponderance of usage in favour of one of them, then the spelling that is in accordance or more
nearly in accordance with the Recommendations is accepted, e. g. Ludwigia (not Ludvigia),
Ortegia (not Ortega).

 

Section 14 Gender of generic names (Art. 72).

                 Art. 72 The gender of generic names is governed by the following regulations.

                 (1) A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name retains the gender assigned
to it by its author.

                 Examples: Orchis (f.); Stachys (f.); Erigeron (n.).

                 (2) Generic names which are modern compounds formed from two or more Greek
or Latin words take the gender of the last.  If the ending is altered, however, the gender will
follow it.

                 Examples of names formed from Greek ¹) words:  The generic name Andropogon L. was treated by Linnaeus as
neuter, but it, like all other modern compounds in which the Greek masculine word pogon is the final element (e. g. Centro-
pogon
, Cymbopogon, Bystropogon), is now treated as masculine.  Similarly all modern compounds ending in -codon, -myces,
-odon, -panax, -stemon and other masculine words are masculine.  The generic names Dendromecon Benth., Eomecon Hance
and Hesperomecon E. L. Greene are treated as feminine, because they end in the Greek feminine word mecon, poppy:  the

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) Examples of names formed from Latin words are not given as these offer few difficulties.

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 24 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  25

fact that Bentham and E. L. Greene respectively ascribed the neuter gender to the names Dendromecon and Hesperomecon
is immaterial.  Similarly all modern compounds ending in -achne, -carpha, -cephala, -chlamys, -daphne and other feminine
words are treated as feminine.

                 The generic names Aceras R. Br., Aegiceras Gaertn. and Xanthoceras Bunge are neuter because they end in the
Greek neuter word ceras: the fact that Robert Brown and Bunge respectively made Aceras and Xanthoceras feminine is
immaterial.  Similarly all modern compounds ending in -dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma, and other neuter words are neuter.
Names ending in -anthos (or -anthus), and those in -chilos (or -chilus) ought strictly speaking to be neuter, since that is the
gender of the Greek words anthos and cheilos.  These names, however, have been with very few exceptions treated as mascu-
line, hence it is agreed to assign that gender to them.  Similarly those ending in -gaster which should strictly speaking be
feminine are treated as masculine in accordance with botanical custom.

                 Examples of compound generic names where the termination of the last word is altered: Hymenocarpus, Diptero-
carpus
and all other modern compounds ending in the Greek masculine carpos (or carpus) are masculine.  Those in -carpa
or -carpaea, however, are feminine, e. g. Callicarpa and Polycarpaea; and those in -carpon, -carpum or -carpium are neuter,
e. g. Polycarpon, Ormocarpum and Pisocarpium.

                 (3) Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names used as generic names take
the gender assigned to them by their authors.  Where the original author has failed to indicate
the gender, the next subsequent author has the right of choice.

                 Examples:  Taonabo Aubl. (Hist. Pl. Guiane, I, 569: 1775) is feminine; Aublet’s two species were T. dentata
and T. punctata.  —  Agati Adans. (Fam. II, 326: 1763) was published without indication of gender: the feminine gender was
assigned to it by Desvaux (Journ. de Bot. I, 120: 1813), who was the first subsequent author to adopt the name, and his
choice is decisive.  —  Boehmer (in Ludwig, Gen. ed. 3, 436: 1760), and Adanson (Fam. II, 356: 1763), failed to indicate
the gender of Manihot: the first author to supply specific epithets was Crantz (Inst. Rei Herb. I. 167: 1766), who proposed
the name Manihot gossypifolia etc., and Manihot is therefore feminine.

 

Section 15.  Various Recommendations (Rec. XLV—L).

                 XLV.  When writing in modern languages botanists should use Latin scientific names or those immediately
derived from them, in preference to names of another kind or origin (popular names). They should avoid the use of the
latter unless these are very clear and in common use.

                 XLVI.  Every friend of science should oppose the introduction into a modern language of names of plants
which are not already there, unless they are derived from Latin botanical names by means of some slight alteration.

                 XLVII.  Only the metric system should be used in botany for reckoning weights and measures. The foot,
inch, line, pound, ounce, etc. should be rigorously excluded from scientific language.

                 Altitude, depth, rapidity etc. should be measured in metres.  Fathoms, knots, miles etc. are terms which should
disappear from scientific language.

                 XLVIII.  Very minute dimensions should be reckoned in μ (micromillimetres, microns, or thousandths of
a millimetre) and not in fractions of millimetres or of lines etc.; fractions encumbered with ciphers and commas easily give
rise to mistakes.

                 XLIX.  Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.

                 L.  Temperatures should be expressed in degrees of the centigrade thermometer of Celsius.

 
 

Chapter IV.   Interpretation and modification of the Rules (Art. 73, 74).

                 Art. 73 A small permanent International Executive Committee is established with
functions including the following:

                 (1) Interpreting the Rules in doubtful cases, and issuing considered “Opinions”
on the basis of the evidence submitted.

 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 25 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

26  

                 (2) Considering Nomina conservanda, Nomina ambigua, Nomina dubia, and Nomina
confusa
, and making recommendations thereon to the next International Botanical Congress.

                 (3) Considering all proposals for the modification of the Rules and reporting thereon
to the next Congress.

                 (4) Reporting on the effects of modifications of the Rules accepted at the preceding
Congress.

                 Art. 74 These Rules can be modified only by competent persons at an International
Botanical Congress convened for the express purpose.  Modifications accepted at one Congress
remain  on  trial  until  the  next  Congress,  at  which  they  will  receive  sanction  unless  un-
desirable consequences, reported to the Executive Committee, show need for further amendment
or rejection.

————————

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix     I¹).
Appendix    II¹).
Appendix      III.
Appendix    IV¹).
Appendix     V ¹).
Appendix     VI¹).
Appendix   VII.
Regulations for determining types.
Nomina familiarum conservanda.
Nomina generica conservanda.
Nomina ambigua.
Nomina confusa.
Represententative Botanical Institutions recognized under Art. 36.
Nomenclature of garden plants.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

                 1) Drafts of these Appendixes will be prepared for submission to the next International Congress.
 
 
 
 

————————
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 26 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                   [ Appendix I was only included in the 1952, Stockholm Code,
                      while Appendix II was approved only at the 1935, Amsterdam Congress.
 
                      Appendix III, on conserved names of genera, is not included here.
 
                      Appendix IV to VI were never realized.
                      A draft list for Appendix VI was submitted at the 1935 Amsterdam Congress,
                      but only for discussion by the Executive Committee ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 27 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Appendix VII.

Nomenclature of Garden Plants.

By A. B. Rendle.

–—–

                 At the International Horticultural Conference of London in 1930 the nomenclature
of Garden Plants was discussed. The principles and rules governing the naming of plants
by botanists were accepted as governing the naming of plants of garden origin. Names of species
and botanical varieties are thus fully provided for. Plants raised in gardens as seedlings or sports
of these species or as hybrids between species have often to be named by non-botanical workers
and the following “rules” were framed for their guidance.
a)  The name of a horticultural “variety” should be placed after that of the species to which
      it belongs and its status should in general be indicated by the contraction “var.”
b)  The varietal name should be of Latin form only when it expresses some character of the
      plant, e. g. nanus, albus, fastigiatus, or its place of origin, e. g. kewensis.
c)  The name will thus usually be a “fancy” name beginning with a capital letter, e. g. Galega
      officinalis var. George Hartland (not Galega officinalis var. Hartlandii); Dianthus deltoides var.
      Brilliant; Pea “Masterpiece”. These names do not form combinations with the binary name
      and if the name of their raiser or author is cited it remains the same even if the preceding
      part of the name is changed; e. g. Lilac “Decaisne” Lemoine, Syringa vulgaris “Decaisne”
      Lemoine.
d)  Varietal names must not be translated when transferred from other languages, but must be
      preserved in the language in which they were originally described. Where desirable a trans-
      lation may be placed in brackets after the varietal name.
e)  So far as possible names of horticultural varieties should consist of a single word; the use
      of not more than three words is permitted as a maximum.
      1.  A varietal name in use for one variety of a kind of plant should not be used for another
           variety of that kind, even though it may be attached to a different species.
           Thus the use of the name Narcissus Pseudonarcissus “Victoria” should preclude the use
           of “Victoria” as a varietal name for any other species of Narcissus, such as Narcissus
           poeticus “Victoria”. Similarly there should be but one Iris “Bridesmaid”, one Plum
           “Superb” and so on.
      2.  Varietal names likely to be confused with one another should be avoided. For instance,
           the use of the name “Alexander” should preclude the use of “Alexandra”, “Alexandria”
           and “Alexandrina” as varietal names for the same kind of plant.
      3.  Where personal names are used to designate varieties, the prefix “Mr., Mrs., Miss”,
        and their equivalents should be avoided.

 
 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 28 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  113

      4.  Excessively long words and words difficult to pronounce should be avoided.
      5.  The articles “a” and “the” and their equivalents should be avoided in all languages when
           they do not form an integral part of the substantive. For instance “Colonel”, not “the
           Colonel” ; “Giant”, not “the Giant”; “Bride”, not “the Bride”.
      6.  Existing names in common use should not be altered to conform to these rules, but atten~
           tion should be paid to them in all new names proposed.
f)  The names of horticultural hybrids are formed as provided in the International Rules of
      Botanical Nomenclature. If a Latin name has been given to a hybrid form of uncertain origin
      which cannot be referred to a Latin binominal it must be treated like a vernacular (fancy)
      name; e. g. Rhododendron “Atrosanguineum”, Rhododendron “Purpureum grandiflorum”.
g)  All plants raised by crossing the same two species receive the same “specific” name, variations
      between the seedlings being indicated where necessary by varietal names framed as already
      described (a-e). In practice in crossbred plants the specific name is frequently omitted;
      e. g. Iris “Ambassadeur”.
h)  Publication. In order to be valid a name must be published.
      1.  The publication of a name of a horticultural variety or hybrid is effected by a recognizable
           description, with or without a figure, in any language written in Roman characters.
      2.  The description must appear in a recognized horticultural or botanical periodical, or in
           a monograph or other scientific publication, or in a dated horticultural catalogue.
      3.  The mention of a variety without description in a catalogue or in the report of an exhibition
           is not valid publication, even when a figure is given. It is desirable that descriptions of
           new varieties in horticultural catalogues should also be published in periodical horti-
           cultural papers.
                  The Committee also arranged for the preparation of a list of generic names to be
recommended for use in catalogues etc. In regard to taxonomic differences the names recommen-
ded would be selected with reference to recent monographs and prevailing usage in modern
botanical and horticultural literature but avoiding extremes in splitting and lumping.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 29 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 

       Kurze Übersicht der wichtigsten Änderungen
       in den Regeln gegenüber der zweiten Ausgabe.

––––––

                 Nach den Beschlüssen des Kongresses zu Cambridge 1930 sind die Regeln und Empfehlungen teilweise
anders angeordnet worden als vordem. Ferner ist ihre Zahl erheblich vermehrt worden; die Zahl der Regeln (Artikel)
ist von 58 auf 74, die der Empfehlungen von 38 auf 50 gestiegen.

                 Im Kapitel III ist die neue Section 2 hinzugekommen: Die Typenmethode (Art. 18; Empf. IVVII). Während
die Ausgabe 1912 in der Empf. XVIII bis nur die sorgfältige Angabe der nomenclatorischen Typen bei der Veröffentlichung
neu aufgestellter Gruppen anempfahl, wird jetzt die Anwendung der Namen mit Hilfe n o m e n c l a t o r i s c h e r  T y p e n
festgelegt. — Der Art. 21 (früher Art. 20), der die Einschränkung des Grundsatzes der Priorität für die Gattungsnamen be-
handelt, ist verändert und genauer gefaßt worden. — In den §§ 6 und 7 ist die Nomenclatur der Bastarde, Blendlinge und
Gartenpflanzen ausführlicher dargestellt worden (Art. 3135); dazu kommt noch für die Gartenpflanzen Anhang VII.
— Die frühere Section 4 (Veröffentlichung der Namen und deren Datum) ist in zwei Sectionen geteilt worden: Section 5.
Bedingungen für wirksame Veröffentlichung (Art. 36); Section 6. Bedingungen und Daten für gültige Veröffentlichung
von Namen (Art. 3745; Empf. XXIXXIX). Dabei werden die Begriffe „w i r k s a m e  u n d  g ü l t i g e  V e r ö f f e n t l i c h u n g“
genauer umschrieben. Wichtig ist besonders, daß die Frist für die Zulassung von Beschreibungen neuer Gruppen in einer
anderen als der lateinischen Sprache bis zum 1. Januar 1935 verlängert wurde (Art. 38). — In der Section 7 (Vorschriften
über das Citieren der Autoren; früher Section 5) ist Art. 49 zu beachten; bei Anderung der Rangstufe oder Versetzung einer
Gruppe wird die Anführung des ursprünglichen Autors in Klammern gefordert, während im früheren Art. 43 seine An-
führung nur zugelassen wurde, er aber auch fortbleiben durfte. — Die frühere, aus recht verschiedenen Bestandteilen zu-
sammengesetzte Section 6 ist in die Sectionen 811 zerlegt worden, wodurch eine bessere Ubersicht der einzelnen Be-
stimmungen erreicht ist: Section 8. Beibehaltung von Namen (oder Epitheta) bei Gruppen, die umgearbeitet oder zerlegt
werden (Art. 5052). Section 9. Beibehaltung von Namen oder Epitheta bei Gruppen unterhalb der Gattung, die in eine
andere Gattung oder Art gestellt werden (Art. 5355). Section 10. Wahl der Namen bei der Vereinigung zweier Gruppen
gleicher Rangstufe oder bei Pilzen mit pleomorphem Entwicklungsgange (Art. 5657; Empf. XXXIIIXXXV). Section 11.
Wahl der Namen bei Anderung der Rangstufe einer Gruppe (Art. 58; Empf. XXXVI). Gerade in diesen sehr wichtigen
Abschnitten, die jetzt eine wesentlich schärfere Regelung vorschreiben, war eine Vermehrung der Artikel nötig, um ihnen
eine klarere Fassung zu geben als vordem. — Die Section 12 enthält Vorschriften über das Verwerfen der Namen (Art. 59
bis 69; Empf. XXXVII); sie entspricht größtenteils der früheren Section 7 (Art. 5056; Art. 57 behandelte die Schreibung
der Namen). Zu beachten ist besonders Art. 61, der die grundsätzliche Verwerfung der  s p ä t e r e n  H o m o n y m e  fordert
und in die Namengebung der Gattungen und Arten tief eingreift. — Die Sectionen 13 (Rechtschreibung der Namen;
Art. 70 und 71; Empf. XXXVIIIXLIV) und 14 (Geschlecht der Gattungsnamen; Art. 72) wurden neu eingeführt, da
es sich herausgestellt hatte, daß eingehendere Vorschriften darüber nötig sind.

                 Die Bezeichnungen l e g i t i m e  und  i l l e g i t i m e  (r e g e l g e m ä ß e  und  r e g e l w i d r i g e)  Namen wurden eingeführt
und definiert (Art. 2; Art. 45 Fußnote). — Nähere Angaben über den Begriff  “g ü l t i g e  N a m e n”  enthält Art. 16 Fußnote.

                 Man vergleiche im übrigen den  I n d e x  a n a l y t i q u e,  der, ursprünglich von  B r i q u e t  verfaßt, von mir nach
den neuen Regeln umgearbeitet wurde.                                                                                                         H.  H a r m s.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935  —  Cambridge Rules

– 30 –

web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     [ Not present in this edition ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ sic ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 

   
       [ supposed to be superscript ]