Principles 1~5

 
 
 
 
 

Chapter  I.   General  Considerations,  Guiding  Principles,

and  Definitions

Article  1

         Botany cannot make satisfactory progress without a precise system of
nomenclature which is used by the great majority of botanists in all countries.

Article  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 and 11~22) *) form the basis of the rules and
recommendations.

         The object of the rules (Art. 22~83) is to put the nomenclature of
the past into order and to provide for that of the future. They are always
retroactive except when expressly limited: names or forms of nomenclature
contrary to a rule cannot be maintained.

         The recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to
bring about greater uniformity and clearness especially in future nomen~
clature; names or forms contrary to a recommendation cannot on that account
be rejected, but they are not examples to be followed.

Article  3

         The Code of nomenclature should be simple and founded on conside~
rations sufficiently clear and forcible for everyone to comprehend and be
disposed to accept.

Article  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 undeniable importance are relatively accessory.

Article  5

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

————————–

         * Art. 22 is both a principle and a rule.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 01 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

6~11 Definitions

Article  6

         Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature in the
sense  that  the  name  of  a  plant  mustnot  be  rejected  merely  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.

Article  7

         Scientific names of all taxonomic 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 as far as possible for new names.

Article  8

         Botanical nomenclature deals with:

         (1) the terms which denote the categories of taxonomic groups or units,
and the relative
ranks of these categories (Art. 12~15);

         (2)  the names which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups
(Art. 16~83).

         Taxonomic groups of any category will, in this Code, be referred to as
taxa (singular: taxon).

Article  9

         The purpose of giving a name to a taxon is not to indicate its characters
or history, but to supply a means of referring to it.

Article  10

         A legitimate name or epithet is one that is in accordance with the rules.

         An illegitimate name or epithet is one that is contrary to the rules.

         The correct name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position
and rank is the name which must be adopted for it under the rules.

         Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 39.

         Valid publication is publication in accordance with Art. 42~54.

         Note In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “name” means a name which
has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate.

Article  11

         The  rules  and  recommendations  of  botanical  nomenclature   apply
throughout  the  plant  kingdom,  recent  and  fossil,  with  certain  distinctly 
specified  exceptions.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 02 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Categories 12~14

 
 
 
 
 

Chapter  II.   Categories  of  Taxa,   and  the

terms  denoting  them

Article  12

         Every plant is treated as belonging to a number of categories of conse~
cutive rank and consecutively subordinate of which the species (species) is
the basic one.

         The principal categories above species in ascending sequence are: genus
(genus), family (familia), order (ordo), class (classis), division (divisio),

which means that every species belongs (is to be assigned) to a genus, every
genus to a family (certain artificial groups of fossil plants excepted), etc.
In many genera sections (sectiones), and in many families tribes (tribus) are
recognized.

Article  13

         Finally, if a greater number of intermediate categories is 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. A plant may therefore be classified in subordinated categories
in the following order: Regnum vegetabile, Divisio, Subdivisio, Classis, Sub~
classis, Ordo, Subordo, Familia, Subfamilia, Tribus, Subtribus, Genus, Sub~
genus, Sectio, Subsectio, Species.

         If this list of categories is insufficient it may be augmented by the inter~
calation 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.

         For special categories resulting from genetic analysis of taxa see
Appendix II.

Article  14

         Similarly species may be subdivided on the same principles, the most
generally used categories being, in descending sequence: subspecies (sub~
species), variety (varietas) and form (forma).

Recommendation  14A

         In classifying parasites, especially parasitic fungi, authors who do not give specific
value to taxa characterized from a biological standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a
morphological standpoint should distinguish within the species special forms (formae speciales)
characterized by their adaption to different hosts.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 03 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

15 misplaced terms

Article  15

         The relative order of the categories specified above in Art. 12~14 must
not be altered.

         Names given to taxa which are at the same time denoted by misplaced
terms are treated as not validly published, examples of such misplacement
being a form divided into varieties, a species containing genera, a genus
containing families or tribes.

         An exception is made for names of subdivisions of genera in Fries’
Systema Mycologicum, which are treated as validly published although he
termed them “tribes” (tribus).

         ExampleThe names Delphinium tribus Involuta Huth (Bot. Jahrb. 20: 365. 1895),
tribus Brevipedunculata
Huth (Bot. Jahrb. 20: 368. 1895), etc. are treated as not validly
published, since
Huth misapplied the term “tribus” to a category of lower rank than a
section
.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 04 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority,  Type method 16~18

 
 
 
 
 

Chapter  III.    Names  of  Taxa

Section 1 Priority

Article  16

         Each order or taxon of lower rank with a given circumscription, position,
and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being made for
9 families in which alternative names are permitted (see Art.
28).

         For any taxon from order to genus inclusive, the correct name is the earliest
legitimate one validly published with the same rank.

         For any taxon below the rank of genus the correct name is the combination
of the generic name with the earliest available legitimate epithet or epithets
validly
published with the same rank.

Article  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 of this Code.

Recommendation  17A

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

Section 2The type method

Article  18

         The application of names of taxa is determined by means of nomenclatural
types
. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that constituent element of a taxon
to which the name of the taxon is permanently attached, whether as an
accepted name or as a synonym. It follows that the name of a taxon must
be changed if the type of the name is excluded.

         Note 1.  The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative
element of a taxon; it is merely that element with which the name is permanently associated.

         Note 2.  A holotype (“type”) is the one specimen or other element used by the author
or designated by him as the nomenclatural type. For so long as a holotype is extant it
automatically fixes the application of the name concerned.

         Note 3.  If no holotype has been indicated by the author who described a taxon, or
when the holotype is lost or destroyed, a substitute for it must be chosen. The author who
makes this choice must be followed unless his choice is cancelled under the provisions of
Art. 19.

         The substitute may be either a lectotype or a neotype. A lectotype always takes
precedence over a neotype.

         A lectotype is a specimen or other element selected from the original material to serve
as nomenclatural type when the holotype was not designated at the time of publication or
for so long as it is missing.

 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 05 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

19~22 Type method

         When two or more specimens have been designated as types by the author of a
name (e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.) one of them must be chosen as
lectotype.

         A neotype is a specimen selected to serve as nomenclatural type for so long as all
of the material on which the name of the taxon was based is missing.

Article  19

         The choice of a lectotype or neotype is cancelled if the original material
is rediscovered, or if it can be shown that the choice was based on a mis~
interpretation of the original description.

Recommendation  19A

         For other specimens of special interest the following terms are recommended:

         A paratype is a specimen other than the holotype cited with the original description.

         An isotype is a duplicate of the holotype.

         A syntype is one of two or more specimens or elements used by the author when no
holotype was designated, or one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated as type.

Recommendation  19B

         It cannot be too strongly recommended that the original material, especially the holo~
type, of a taxon be deposited in a permanent responsible institution and that it be scru~
pulously conserved. When living material has been designated as a type, appropriate parts
of it should be immediately preserved.

Article  20

         The nomenclatural type of an order or of any taxon of a rank between
order and family is the family whose name is based on the same generic
name, that of a family or of any taxon between family and genus is the genus
on whose present or former name that of the taxon concerned is based (see
also Art. 28), and that of a genus or of any taxon between genus and species
is a species.

         Note It is felt that the type method cannot at present be applied profitably to the
nomenclature of taxa above the rank of order.

Article  21

         The nomenclatural type (holotype, lectotype or neotype) of a species
or taxon below the rank of species is a single specimen or other element except
in the following case: for small herbaceous plants and for most non~vascular
plants the type may consist of more than one individual, which ought to be
conserved permanently and assembled on one herbarium sheet or preparation.

         If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet or preparation
contains parts belonging to more than one taxon, the name must remain
attached to that part (lectotype) which corresponds most nearly with the
original description.

         Note 1 For plants of which it is impossible to preserve a type specimen, the type
may be a figure and/or a description.

         Note 2 For a species without a type specimen, the type may be a description or figure.

Section 3.  Limitation of the principle of priority; publication, starting

points, conservation of names.

Article  22

         A  name  of  a  taxon  has  no  status  under  this  Code,  and  no  claim  to
recognition by botanists, unless it is validly published (see Section 6, Art. 42).

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 06 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Starting points 23~24

Article  23

         Valid  publication  is  treated  as  beginning  for  the  different  groups
of plants at the following dates (for each group a work is mentioned which is
treated as having been published on the date given for that group)
:

         a.  SPERMATOPHYTA and PTERIDOPHYTA, 1 May 1753  (Linnaeus, Species
Plantarum
ed. 1).

         b.  MUSCI(the SPHAGNACEAE excepted), 31 Dec. 1801  (Hedwig, Species
Muscorum
).

         c.  SPHAGNACEAE  and  HEPATICAE,   1   May  1753    (Linnaeus,  Species
Plantarum
ed. 1).

         d.  LICHENES, 1 May 1753  (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).

         e.  FUNGI: UREDINALES, USTILANALES and GASTROMYCETES, 31 Dec. 1801
(Persoon, Synopsis Methodica Fungorum).

         f.  FUNGI CAETERI, 1 Jan. 1821  (Fries, Systema Mycologicum Vol.1). Vol.
1 of the Systema is treated as having appeared on 1 Jan. 1821, and the Elenchus
Fungorum (1828) is treated as a part of the Systema. Names of FUNGI CAETERI,
published  in  other  works  between  the  dates  of  the  first  (Vol. 1)  and  last
(Vol. 3 part 2 and index) parts of the Systema which are synonyms or homo~
nyms of names of any of the FUNGI CAETERI, included in the Systema do not
affect the nomenclatural status of names used by Fries in this work.

         g.  ALGAE, 1 May 1753  (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
Exceptions: NOSTOCACEAE HOMOCYSTEAE, 1892~93 (Gomont, Monographie des
Oscillariée
s, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII. 6: 91; 7: 263).
NOSTOCACEAE HETEROCYSTEAE, 1886~88  (Bornet & Flah., Revision des Nosto~
cacées heterocystée
s, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII. 3: 323; 4: 344; 5: 51; 7: 177).
DESMIDIACEAE, 1848  (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).
OEDOGONIACEAE, 1900  (Hirn, Monographie und Iconographie der Oedogonia~
cee
n, Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27 (1).

         h.  MYXOMYCETES, 1 May 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’
Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762~63) with the first subsequent
description given under those names in Linnaeus’ Genera Plantarum ed. 5
(1754) and ed. 6 (1764).

         The two volumes of Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753), which
appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively, are treated as if they had
been published simultaneously on the former date (1 May 1753).

         ExampleThe generic names Thea L. Sp. Pl. 515 (May 1753) and Camellia L. Sp.
Pl. 698 (Aug. 1753), Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 311 (1754), are treated as if they had been
published simultaneously in May 1753. Under Art. 67 the combined genus bears the name
Camellia, since Sweet (Hort. Suburb. Lond. 157. 1818), who was the first to unite the two
genera, chose that name, citing Thea as a synonym.

Article  24

         However, in order to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature
of  genera,  families orders,  and  intermediate  taxa  entailed  by  the  strict
application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority in starting

————————–

         * )  The Special Committee for Paleobotany has decided, by postal vote, to postpone
the decision on the starting point of paleobotanical nomenclature until the 8th International
Botanical Congress.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 07 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

25~26 Conserved names

from the dates given in Art. 23, this Code provides lists of names which must
be retained as exceptions. These names are preferably such as 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.

         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
both for and against its conservation. Such proposals must be submitted to the General Com~
mittee, who will refer them for examination to the Special Committees for the various
taxonomic groups. *)

         Note 2 The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types.

         Note 3 A conserved name is conserved against all other names for the taxon whether
these are cited in the corresponding list of rejected names or not, so long as the taxon
concerned is not united with another one bearing a legitimate name. In the event of union with
another taxon, the earlier of the two competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 67.

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

         Examples:  Listera R. Br. (1813) is conserved against Diphryllum Raf. (1808); it is
also conserved against Bifolium Petiver, Opera ed. Millan pl. 70, t. 10, 11, 12 (1764), as
adduced by Nieuwland, in Am. Midl. Nat. 3: 128 (1913) (if Petiver’s name be regarded as
validly published), though Bifolium is not mentioned among names to be rejected.

         The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802) is conserved against the earlier
names Enargea Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and Callixene Juss. (1789). If, however, Enargea
Banks ex Gaertn. is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea is retained for
this. In the same way, the genus Dichromena Michx. (1803) retains its name if treated as
a separate unit, not included in Rhynchospora Vahl corr. Willd., although the name Dichro~
mena
is rejected in favour of Rhynchospora as the designation for the combined genus.

         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 united with Berberis L. (1753) the com~
bined 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 against Tounatea Aubl., Pos~
sira
Aubl., and Hoelzelia Neck., is thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homo~
nym Swartzia Ehrh. (1787).

Article  25

         When a name proposed for conservation has been provisionally approved
by  the  Advisory  Board  and  General  Committee,  botanists  are  authorized  to
retain it pending the decision of a later International Botanical Congress.

Section 4Nomenclature of taxa according to their categories

Subsection 1 NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF ORDER

Article  26

         The  Rules  of  priority  and  typification  do  not  apply  to  names  of  taxa
above the rank of order.

Recommendation26A

         (a)   Names of divisions are preferably taken from characters indicating the nature of
the division as closely as possible; they should end in ~phyta, except those of FUNGI, which
should end in ~mycota. Words of Greek origin are generally preferable.

————————–

         *) See Appendix V.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 08 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Names of higher taxa 27~29

         Names of subdivisions are formed in a similar manner; they are distinguished from
divisional names by an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the ending ~phytina, except those
of FUNGI, which should end in ~mycotina.

         (b)   Names of classes and subclasses are formed in a similar manner. Their endings
should be:

1.   In the ALGAE~phyceae (classes) and ~phycidae (subclasses);

2.   In the FUNGI: ~mycetes (classes) and ~mycetidae (subclasses);

3.   In the CORMOPHYTA~opsida (classes) and ~idae (subclasses).

Subsection 2.  NAMES OF ORDERS AND SUBORDERS

Article  27

         The name of an order is taken from that of its type family, with the
ending ~ales.

         Suborders are designated in a similar manner, with the ending ~ineae.

         Examples of ordersFucales, Polygonales, Urticales; suborders: Bromeliineae, Malvineae.

Subsection 3. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES

Article  28

         The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive taken
from the name of its type genus or from a synonym, and ending in ~aceae.

         Examples: Rosaceae (from Rosa), Salicaceae (from Salix), Caryophyllaceae (from
Caryophyllus, a pre~Linnean generic name).

Exceptions:

         1.   The following names, sanctioned by long usage, are treated as
exceptions to the rule: Palmae, Gramineae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Gutti~
ferae,
Umbelliferae, Labiatae, Compositae.

         Botanists are authorized, 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.

Article  29

         The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive taken
from the name of its type genus or from a synonym, with the ending ~oideae.
Tribes are designated in a similar manner, with the ending ~eae, and subtribes
with the ending ~inae.

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

         Note When a name of a taxon belonging to one of the above categories has been
published with an improper termination, such as ~eae for a subfamily, ~oideae for a tribe,
the ending must be changed to accord with the rule, without change of authority; if, how~
ever, the rank of the group is changed by a later author, he is then cited as authority for
the name, with the appropriate ending, in the usual way.

         Example The subfamily name Climacieae Grout, Moss Fl. N. Am. 3: 4 (1928) must
be changed to Climacioideae, with rank and authority unchanged. If it is held necessary to
change the rank of this taxon to a tribe, then the name Climacieae must be used, with the
name of the author making the change added as authority.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 09 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

30~32 Generic names

Subsection 4 NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA *

Article  30

         The name of a genus is a substantive, or an adjective used as a substantive,
in the singular number.

         It may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed
in an absolutely arbitrary manner.

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

Recommendation  30A

         Botanists who are forming generic names should comply with the following suggestions:

(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 tongue of civilized countries.

(d)     To indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or ana~
logies 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 section (e.g. Eusidero~
xylon
, 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.

(h)     To give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemorate a
man or a woman.

Article  31

         The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name
and a subdivisional epithet **) connected by a term (subgenus, section, series,
etc.) denoting the rank of the subdivision.

         For subgenera and sections such epithets are usually substantives
resembling the names of genera.

         For subsections and lower subdivisions the epithets are preferably plural
adjectives agreeing in gender with the generic name and written with a
capital initial letter, or their place may be taken by an ordinal number or a letter.

         Epithets of subgenera and sections must not repeat the name of the genus
to which they belong with the ending ~oides or ~opsis.

         Examples of substantives:  Adenoscilla, Micromelilotus, Pseudinga, Heterodraba, Gymno~
cimum, Neoplantago
. Adjectives: Fimbriati, Pleiostylae, Bibracteolata.

         The same subdivisional epithet may be used in different genera but in
the same genus two subdivisions, even if they are of different rank, cannot
bear the same epithet unless they are based on the same type.

         Example Under Verbascum the sectional epithets Aulacosperma and Bothrosperma are
allowed although there are also in the genus Celsia two sections named Aulacospermae
and Bothrospermae. These however, are not examples to be followed, since they are con~
trary to Rec. 32A.

Article  32

         The subgenus containing the type species of a generic name must bear
that name unaltered.

————————–

        *) Here and elsewhere in the Code the phrase “subdivision of a genus” refers only
to taxa between genus and species in rank.

        **) The editorial committee decided unanimously that for subdivisions of genera, the
second part of the name should be termed the subdivisional epithet in accordance with recent
practice.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 10 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Specific names 32~33

         Example The subgenus of Croton L. containing the lectotype of the genus (C. tiglium
L.) must be called Croton subg. Croton and not Croton subg. Eluteria Griseb.

Recommendation32A

         Botanists constructing epithets for subgenera and sections should avoid adopting an
epithet
already used for a taxon of the same rank in another genus, or which is identical
with
the name of another genus. They should also avoid, wherever possible, in co~ordinated
subdivisions of a genus, the use of epithets in the form of a substantive together with others
in the form of a plural adjective. If it is desired to indicate the resemblance of a subgenus
(other than the type~subgenus) or section of one genus to another genus, the endings
~oides or ~opsis
may be added to the name of that other genus to form the epithet of
the subgenus or
section concerned.

Recommendation  32B

         When it is desired to indicate the name of a subgenus or section (or other subdivision)
to  which  a  particular  species  belongs  in  connection  with  the  generic  name  and  specific
epithet,  the  epithet  of  the  subdivision  is  placed  in  parentheses  between   the   two;   when
necessary, the rank of the subdivision is also indicated.

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

Subsection 5NAMES OF SPECIES (BINARY NAMES)

Article  33

         The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name
of the genus followed by a single specific epithet. If an epithet consists of
two words, these must either be united or hyphened. Epithets not so joined
when originally published are not to be rejected but when used must be
hyphened [ see also Art. 79 (4) ].

         Examples:  Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces
fabae
, Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasinorum, Atropa bella~donna,
Impatiens noli~tangere, Adiantum capillus~veneris.

         Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus must be
transcribed.

         Examples:  Scandix pecten ♀ L. must be transcribed as Scandix pecten~veneris; Vero~
nica anagallis
∇ L. must be transcribed as Veronica anagallis~aquatica.

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

         Examples:  Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra, Verbascum nigrum.

         Binary combinations of a specific epithet with the word Anonymos (and
similar token words) are illegitimate, since the word Anonymos is not a generic
name [ Art. 78 (1) ]. Such combinations are not taken into consideration for
purposes of priority of the epithet concerned.

         Examples:  The binary combination Anonymos aquatica Walt. (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788)
is illegitimate. The valid name for the species concerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel.
(1791), and the date of the epithet aquatica for purposes of priority, is 1791. The species
must not be cited as Planera aquatica (Walt.) J. F. Gmel. If, however, it is desired to in~
dicate that the epithet originated with Walter, the name may be cited as Planera aquatica
[Walt.]  J.  F.  Gmel.

Recommendation33A

         The specific epithet should preferably 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 one who discovered or described it, or was in some way
connected with it.


 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 11 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

33~34 Ternary names

Recommendation  33B

         Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epi~
thets may be substantives 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 word to designate two different species of the same genus; for example
Lysimachia hemsleyana Maxim. (1891) and L. hemsleyi Franch. (1895).

Recommendation  33C

         In forming specific epithets, botanists should comply also with the following suggestions:

(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 or in the arrangement of two letters.

         Example Carex albata and Carex ablata.

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

(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.

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

Subsection 6 NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES

(TERNARY NAMES)

Article  34

         For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon below the rank of a
species is regarded as the sum of its lower taxa, if any.

         The description of a subordinated taxon which does not include the
nomenclatural type of the higher taxon automatically creates a second sub~
ordinated taxon of the same rank which has as its nomenclatural type the type
of the higher taxon (see Art. 35).

         Example The publication in 1843 of Lycopodium inundatum L. var. bigelovii Tuckerm.
automatically creates another variety the type of which is the type of Lycopodium inundatum L.

         Epithets of subspecies and varieties are formed as 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 aizoon subforma surculosa Engler & Irmsch. is the correct ternary com~
bination for Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia forma multicaulis subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmsch.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 12 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Ternary names 35~38

Article  35

         If any infraspecific taxon which includes the nomenclatural type of the
epithet of the next higher taxon is to be mentioned by a subdivisional name,
that name must repeat the epithet of the higher taxon unaltered but, contrary
to Art. 55, without citation of an author’s name. This epithet can no longer
be used when that of the next higher taxon is changed.

         Examples:  The binary combination Lobelia spicata Lam. var. originalis McVaugh,
which includes the type of Lobelia spicata Lam., must be altered to Lobelia spicata Lam.
var. spicata.

         Since under Lobelia siphilitica L. there is also described var. ludoviciana A. DC one
must write Lobelia siphilitica L. var. siphilitica if only that part of L. siphilitica L. which
includes the type is meant.

         Since under Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp. sericea (Pohl) Stafl. there is also described
a var. fulva Stafl. one must write Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp. sericea (Pohl) Stafl. var.
sericea if only that part of the subsp. sericea (Pohl) Stafl. which includes the type is meant.

Article  36

         The same epithet may be used for subdivisions of different species, and
the subdivisions of one species may bear the same epithets 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.

Article  37

         Two subdivisions of the same species, even if they are of different rank,
cannot bear the same subdivisional epithet, unless their names 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 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.

         The name Andropogon sorghum subsp. halepensis Hack. var. halepensis is legitimate,
since the subspecies and the variety have
the same type and the epithet must be repeated
under Art. 35.

Recommendation37A

         Recommendations made for specific epithets (see Rec. 33A. B, C) apply equally to
epithets of subdivisions of species.

Recommendation  37B

         Special forms (formae speciales) are preferably named after the host species; if desired,
epithets formed of two words joined by a hyphen may be used.

         Examples:  Puccinia hieracii f. sp. villosi; Pucciniastrum epilobii f. sp. abieti~chamaenerii.

Recommendation  37C

         Botanists proposing new epithets for subdivisions of species should avoid such as have
been used previously for species in the same genus.

Subsection 7 NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION

Article  38

         Plants  brought  into  cultivation  from  the  wild  and  which  differ  in  no
fundamental way from the parent stocks bear the same names as are applied
to the same species and subdivisions of species in nature.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 13 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

39~40 Effective publication

         Plantsarising  in  cultivation  through  hybridization,  mutation  or  other
processes  which  tend  to  establish  recognizable  differences  from the parent
stocks receive epithets, preferably in common language (i.e. fancy epithets),
markedly different from the Latin epithets of species or varieties.

         Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants in cultivation appear
in Appendix III.

Section 5. Conditions and dates of effective publication

Article 39

         Publication  is  effected,  under  this  Code,  only by  distribution(sale,
exchange, or gift) of printed matter. It is not effected by communication of
new  names  at  a  public  meeting,  by  the  placing  of  names  in  collections  or
gardens open to the public, or by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts.

         Up to and including 31 Dec. 1952 publication by indelible autograph is
accepted. Offer for sale of material that does not exist does not constitute
effective publication.

         On and from 1 Jan. 1953 the publication of a new name in tradesmen’s
catalogues or in newspapers, even if accompanied by a Latin diagnosis, does
not constitute effective publication.

         Note For purposes of this Article holographic material, even though reproduced by
some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography, offset, metallic etching or micro~
film) is still considered as autographic.

         Examples:  Effective publication without printed matter: Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr.
was published in July 1850 in an autograph catalogue placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich,
Catalogus Plantarum Hispanicarum .. ab. A. Blanco lectarum. Paris, July 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
5(1): 279.

         Effective publication in separates issued in advance: the Selaginella species published
by Hieronymus in Hedwigia 51: 241~272 (1912), were effectively published on 15 Oct. 1911
since the volume in which the paper appeared states (p. II) that the separate appeared on
that date.

         Effective publication in reproduced holographic material: H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy
Tchéou (1914~15), a work lithographed from the hand~written manuscript.

Recommendation  39A

         Botanists and others are urged scrupulously to avoid the publication of new species
names or combinations in ephemeral publications such as popular periodicals, in any
publication unlikely to reach the general botanical public, or in those produced by such
methods that their permanence is unlikely.

Article  40

         The date of effective publication is the time that the printed matter
became available as defined in Art. 39. In the absence of proof establishing
some other date the one appearing in the printed matter must be accepted
as correct.

         When separates from periodicals or other works placed on sale are issued
in advance, the date on the separate is accepted as the date of effective
publication unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 14 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 41~42

Article  41

         On and after 1 Jan. 1953, the distribution of an exsiccatum relative to
any new taxon, accompanied by an original diagnosis, even if this is printed,
does not constitute effective publication.

         Note The printing and distribution of the schedae of a set of dried plants in form
of a special publication (e.g., Schedae operis ... Plantae Finlandiae Exsiccatae etc., Hel~
singfors 1. 1906, 2. 1916, 3. 1933, 1944 or Lundell [1 Nannfeldt, Fungi Exsiccati Suecici
etc., Uppsala 1~ ...... 1934~ ......) will even after that date constitute effective publication.

Section 6Conditions and dates of valid publication

Article  42

         A name of a taxon of recent plants is not validly published unless it is
both (1) effectively published (see Art. 39) and (2) accompanied by a
description of the taxon or by a reference (direct or indirect) to a previously
and effectively published description of it.

         On and after 1 Jan. 1953, new transfers or new combinations, however,
will be considered validly published only when the basonym (name~bringing
or epithet~bringing synonym) is clearly indicated with its author and the
place and date of publication.

         No combination is validly published unless the author definitely indicates
that the epithet or epithets concerned are to be combined with the generic
name in a particular way.

         Note 1 In certain circumstances a plate or figure with analyses is accepted as equi~
valent to a description (see Art. 50, 52).

         Note 2 Bibliographic errors of citation do not invalidate the publication of a new
combination.

         Examples of names not validly published:  Egeria Néraud (Bot. Voy. Freycinet 28.
1826) published without a description or a reference to a former description.

         The name Loranthus macrosolen Steud. originally appeared without a description on
the printed tickets issued about the year 1843, with Sect. II. nos. 529, 1288 of Schimper’s
herbarium specimens of Abyssinian plants; it was not validly published, however, until A.
Richard (Tent. Fl. Abys. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.

         Examples of combinations definitely indicated In Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum the
placing of the epithet in the margins opposite the name of the genus clearly indicates the
combination intended. The same result is attained in Miller’s Gardeners Dictionary, ed. 8,
by the inclusion of the epithet in parentheses immediately after the name of the genus, in
Steudel’s Nomenclator Botanicus by the arrangement of the epithets in a list headed by
the name of the genus, and in general by any typographical device which indicates that an
epithet is associated with a particular generic or other name.

         Examples of combinations not definitely indicated Rafinesque’s statement that “Monar~
da ciliata
must form a new genus, which we will call Blephilia” does not constitute publi~
cation of the combination Blephilia ciliata, since he did not indicate that that combination
was to be used. Similarly the combination Eulophus peucedanoides must not be ascribed
to Bentham and Hooker f. on the basis of the listing of Cnidium peucedanoides H. B. K.
under Eulophus in the Genera Plantarum.

         Example of validation of a combination by indirect reference:  The publication of the
new combination Cymbopogon martini by W. Watson, Atk. Gaz. NW. Provo India 10: 392
(1882) is validated by the addition of the number “309” which, as explained at the top of
the same page, is the running~number of the species (Andropogon martini Roxb.) in Steud.
Syn. Pl. Glum. 1: 388 (1854). Although the reference to the synonym, Andropogon mar~
tini
, is indirect, it is perfectly unambiguous.

Recommendation  42A

         From 1 Jan. 1953 onward, botanists are recommended to discontinue the practice of
validating new binomials solely by reference to descriptions or plates published before 1753.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 15 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

43~46 Latin description

Article 43

         A name (1) which is not accepted by the author who published it, or (2)
which is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the
group concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position or rank of the
group (so~called provisional name), or (3) a name merely mentioned inci~
dentally, is not validly published.

         On and from 1 Jan. 1953 when two or more different names (so~called
alternative names) are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the
same author none of them is validly published.

         Provision no. 1 does not apply to names or epithets published with a
question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet published and

accepted by the author. By “incidental mention” of a new name or combination
is meant mention by an author who does not intend to introduce the new
name or combination concerned.

         Examples:  The generic name Conophyton Haw. suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.
82. 1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ. 81. 1821) in the
following words: “If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be
apt”  ~  was not validly published since Haworth did not adopt that generic name nor
accept that genus: the correct name for the genus is Conophytum N. E. Brown (Gard.
Chron. III. 71: 198. 1922).

         In 1891, Baillon (Hist. Pl. 10: 49) suggested that Tecoma spiralis Wright might per~
haps represent a new genus intermediate between Radermachera and Tecoma, or a new
section. Three years later K. Schumann suggested independently (Engler & Prantl, Nat.
Pfl. fam. 4 (3b): 238) that Tecoma spiralis Wright might be treated as the type of an
independent genus Neurotecoma, but stated that the material available was insufficient for
a thorough investigation of the question. Neither Spirotecoma Baill. nor Neurotecoma K.
Schum. was validly published by its author. The name Spirotecoma Baill. was, however,
validly published by Dalla Torre & Harms (Gen. Siphonog. 467. 1904) as a generic name,
with a reference to the previously published diagnosis in Engler & Prantl (Nat. Pfl. fam.
4 (3b): 238)
.

         Cotema Britt. & Wils. (Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 16: 107. 1920) being also based on
Tecoma spiralis, is a nomenclatural synonym of Spirotecoma.

         The species of Brosimum described by Ducke (Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio 3: 23~29. 1922)
were published together with the alternative names under Piratinera added in a footnote
(p. 23~24). The publication of these names, being effected before 1 Jan. 1953, is valid.

Article  44

         On and from 1 Jan. 1935, names of new taxa of recent plants, the bacteria
excepted, are considered as validly published only when they are accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis.

         Note This article validates the publication of names of new taxa effectively published
from 1908 to 1934 inclusive with diagnoses in modern languages.

Article  45

         On and from 1 Jan. 1912, names of new taxa of fossil plants are not
considered as validly published unless they are 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.

Article  46

         A name of a taxon is not validly published when it is merely cited as
a synonym.

         Examples:  Acosmus Desv., cited as a synonym of the generic name Aspicarpa L. C.
Rich., was not validly published thereby.  ~  Ornithogalum undulatum Hort. Bouch. ex

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 16 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Genus, valid publication 47~50

 
Kunth (Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) cited as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth,
was not validly published thereby; when transferred to Ornithogalum this species must be
called Ornithogalum boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (Oest. Bot. Zeitschr. 16: 192. 1866).

         Similarly Erythrina micropteryx Poepp. was not validly published by being cited as a
synonym of Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (Linnaea 23: 740. 1850); the species concerned,
when placed under Erythrina, must be called Erythrina poeppigiana (Walp.) O.F. Cook
(U.S. Dep. Agr. Bull. 25: 57. 1901).

Article  47

         The name of a taxon is not validly published by the mere mention of the
subordinated taxa included in it.

         Examples:  The family name Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre (Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296.
May
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 Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pfl. fam.
Nachtr. 1: 242. 1897, serius), which was accompanied by a description.  ~  The generic name
Ibidium Salisb. (Trans. Hort. Soc. 1: 291. 1812) was published merely with the mention of
four included species. As Salisbury supplied no generic description, his publication of lbi~
diun
is invalid.

Article  48

         A name of a genus of recent plants is not validly published unless it is
accompanied (1) by a description of the genus, (2) by citation of a
previously and effectively published description of the genus, or (3) by
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 Plantarum ed. 1
(1753), and ed. 2 (1762~63), which are treated as having been validly published
on those dates (see Art. 23).

         Note In certain circumstances, a plate with analyses is accepted as equivalent to a
generic description (see Art. 50).

         Examples of validly published generic names Carphalea Juss. (Gen. Plant. 198. 1789),
accompanied by a generic description; Thuspeinanta Th. Dur. (Ind. Gen. Phan. 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. The publication of the generic name
Epipogium R. Br. (Prodr. 330. 331. 1810) is validated by Robert Brown’s implicit reference
to the excellent description of Epipogum in T. G, Gmelin, Fl. Sibir. 1: 11 (1747): he at~
ributed the name Epipogium to Gmelin.

Article  49

         For purposes of valid publication names in Latin form given to hybrids,
including nothomorphs, are subject to the same rules as are those of non~hybrid
taxa of corresponding ranks.

         Note 1 The parentage, so far as it is known, should be indicated.

         Note 2 A nothomorph is any hybrid form, whether F ı, segregate or backcross.

Article  50

         The publication of the name of a monotypic new genus based on a new
species is validated: either (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 the latter alternative

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 17 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

51~52 Species, valid publ.

applies only to plates and generic names published before 1 Jan. 1908.

         Note. A description of a new species assigned to a monotypic new genus is treated
also as a generic description if the genus is not described.

         Similarly, a description of a monotypic new genus based on a new species is treated
also as a specific description if the generic name and specific epithet are published together
and the species is not described.

         Examples:  The generic name Philgamia Baill. (in Grandidier. Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas
3: pl. 265. 1894) was validly published, as it appeared on a plate with analyses of P. hib~
bertioides
Baill. published before 1 Jan. 1908.   ~   Strophioblachia fimbricalyx Boerl. (Handl.
Fl. Ned. Ind. 3 (1): 235. 1900) is a new species assigned to the monotypic new genus
Strophioblachia published with a combined generic and specific description.

Recommendation  50A

         A combined generic and specific description should mention the points in which the
new genus differs from its allies.

Article  51

         Epithets of subdivisions of genera and of species are not validly published
unless the generic and specific names to which they are attached are validly
published at the same time or were published previously.

         Examples:  The specific names Eragrostis minor and E. major were published in 1809
by Host (Gram. Austr. 4: 15, 14) as substitutes for Poa eragrostis L. and Briza eragrostis
L. respectively; these two names were cited as synonyms. As, however, the generic name
Eragrostis was not validly published until 1812 (Beauv. Agrost. 70), the names given by
Host cannot be considered validly published.

         In 1880, Müller Argoviensis (Flora 63: 286) published the new genus Phlyctidia with
the species Ph. hampeana n. sp., Ph. boliviensis (= Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.), Ph. soredii~
formis
(= Phlyctis sorediiformis Krempelh.), Ph. brasiliensis (= Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.)
and Ph. andensis (= Phlyctis andensis Nyl.). These specific names are, however, not
validly published in this place, because the generic name Phlyctida is here a nomen
nudum: Müller gave no generic diagnosis but only a description of the new species, Ph.
hampeana.
This description cannot validate the generic name as a descriptio generico~
specifica in accordance with Art. 50, since the new genus was not monotypic. The first
valid publication of the name Phlyctidia was made by Müller in 1895 (Hedwigia 34: 141),
where a short generic diagnosis was given. The only species mentioned here were Ph. ludo~
viciensis
n. sp. and Ph. boliviensis (Nyl.) The latter combination was validly published in
1895 by the reference to the basonym.

Article  52

         The name of a species or of a subdivision of a species of recent plants
is not validly published unless it is accompanied: either by (1) a description
of the taxon or a citation of a previously and effectively published description
of it; or by (2) a plate or figure with analyses showing essential characters;
but the latter alternative applies only to plates or figures and specific or
subdivisional names published before 1 Jan. 1908.

         Examples of validly published names of species.  Onobrychis eubrichidea Boiss. (Fl.
Or. 2: 546. 1872), published with a description.   ~   Hieracium flahaultianum Arv.~Touv. &
Gaut., published on a label with a printed diagnosis in a set of dried plants (Hieraciotheca
gallica 935~942. 1903). [N.B. This method of publication is not effective after 31 Dec. 1952.
See Art.
41].   ~   Cynanchum nivale Nyman (Syll. Fl. Eur. 108. 1854~55), published with
a reference to Vincetoxicum nivale Boiss. & Heldr. previously described.   ~   Panax nossibiensis
Drake (in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas 3: pl. 406. 1894), published on a plate with analyses.

         Examples of names of species not validly published are given under Art. 42 and 46.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 18 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Date of a name 53~54

Article  53

         The date of a name or of an epithet is that of its valid publication.

         For purposes of priority, however, only legitimate names and epithets
published in legitimate combinations are taken into consideration (see Art. 10,
73 and the exception to this rule mentioned in Art. 74). In the absence of proof
to the contrary, the date given in the work containing the name or epithet
must be treated as correct.

         On and after 1 Jan. 1935 *) only the date of publication of the Latin
diagnosis can be taken into account for new taxa of recent plants. For new
taxa of fossil plants, on and after 1 Jan. 1912 the date is that of 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 (Bull. Soc. Etud.
Sci. Angers 1881~82: 210).   ~   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.   ~   Individual parts of Willdenow’s
Species Plantarum were published as follows: 1 (1), 1797; (2), 1798; 2 (1), 1799; 2 (2),
1800; 3 (1) (to page 850), 1800; 3 (2) (to page 1470), 1802; 3 (3) (to page 2409), 1803
(and later than Michaux’ Flora Boreali~Americana); 4 (2), 1806; these dates, which are
partly in disagreement with those
on the title~pages of the volumes, are the dates of
publication (see: Rhodora 44: 147~150. 1942).

Article  54

         A new name published on or after 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear indication
of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.

Recommendation  54A

         The name of a new taxon should not be published without indication of its type and,
if possible, the place where the type is preserved (see Recommendation 19B).

Recommendation  54B

         Authors should 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 Recommendation 33C, e).

Recommendation  54C

         Authors should avoid adoption of an epithet which has been previously published in
an illegitimate combination (see Art. 81).

Recommendation  54D

         Authors should avoid adoption of a name or an epithet which has been previously
published as a nomen nudum.

Recommendation  54E

         Authors publishing names of new taxa of recent plants (bacteria excepted) in works
written in a modern language (floras, catalogues, etc.) should publish simultaneously the
Latin diagnoses required to validate the publication of these names.

         Those publishing names and descriptions of new taxa of fossil plants should publish
simultaneously the figures required to complete the validation of the names concerned.

Recommendation  54F

         In describing new taxa authors should, when possible, supply figures with details of
structure as an aid to identification.

         In the explanation of the figures, it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s) on which
they are based. The scale of the figures should be indicated in accordance with Rec. 83F.

————————–

         * See note to Art. 44.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 19 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

54~57 Citation author

Recommendation  54G

         The description of parasitic plants should always be followed by the indication of the
hosts, especially those 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.

Recommendation  54H

         The etymology of new generic names should be given and also that of new epithets
when the meaning of these is not obvious.

Recommendation  54I

         Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In 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.

Recommendation  54K

         On separately printed and issued copies of works published in a periodical the date
(so far as possible year, month and day) and the name of the periodical (and its volume
part) should be
indicated.

Recommendation  54L

         Separate copies extracted from a periodical should bear the pagination of the periodical
of which they form a part; if it is desired they may also bear a special pagination.

Section 7. Citation of authors’ names and of literature for

purposes of precision.
 

Article  55

         For the indication of the name (unitary, binary, or ternary) of a taxon
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 concerned.

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

Article  56

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

         Examples: see under Art. 61.

Recommendation  56A

         When the alteration mentioned in Art. 56 has been considerable, the nature of the
change and the author responsible should be indicated by adding suitably abbreviated words
such as mutatis charact., pro parte, excl. gen., excl. spec., excl. var., etc.

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

Article  57

         Retention of a name in a sense which excludes the type can be effected
only by conservation. When a name is conserved so as to exclude its type,
it must not be ascribed to the original author with such expressions as emend.,

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 20 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation author 58~60

mutatis charact., etc.; but the name of the author whose concept is conserved
must be cited as authority.

         Examples:  Protea R. Br.: Protea R. Br., nom. conserv. (non Protea L. 1753). This
must not be cited as Protea L. emend. R. Br., since Brown’s concept excluded the Linnaean
type.

Article  58

         When a name has been proposed but not validly 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.   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. & Triana.  ~  Capparis lasiantha R. Br.
ex DC.  ~  Gesneria donklarii Hort. ex Hook., or Gesneria donklarii Hook.

Recommendation  58A

         When a name with a description or reference to a description by one author is
published in a work by another author, the word in should be used to connect the names
of the two authors.

         Examples: Viburnum ternatum Rehder in Sargent (Trees & Shrubs 2: 37. 1907); Teu~
crium charidemi
Sandwith in Lacaita (Cavanillesia 3: 38. 1930).

Article  59

         When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank but retains its
name or epithet, the author who first published this as a legitimate name or
epithet must be cited in parentheses, followed by the name of the author who
effected the alteration. The same holds when a subdivision of a genus, a
species, or a taxon 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
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.

         The correct name for Jambosa lineata DC., on transference to Syzygium, is Syzygium
lineatum
(DC.) Merr. & Perry; the earlier Myrtus lineata Blume, non Swartz, is illegitimate.

Lithocarpus polystachya (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehd. or L. polystachya (A. DC.) Rehd.

Article  60

         When the status of a taxon bearing a binary name is altered from species
to hybrid or vice versa, the original author must be cited, followed by an
indication of the original status in parentheses.

         Examples:  Stachys ambigua J. E. Smith. (Engl. Bot. 30: pl. 2089. 1810) was published
as a species. If regarded as a hybrid, it must be cited as Stachys × ambigua J. E. Smith
(pro sp.).  ~ The binary name Salix × glaucops Anderss. in DC. (Prodr. 16  (2): 281.
1868) was published as the name of a hybrid. Later, Rydberg (Bull. N.Y. Bot. Gard. 1:
270. 1899) altered the status of the group to that of a species. If this view is accepted, the
name must be cited as Salix glaucops Anderss. (pro hybr.).

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 21 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

58~60 Abbreviation

Recommendation60A

         Authors’ names put after names of plants should be abbreviated, unless they are very
short. For this purpose preliminary particles or letters that, strictly speaking, do not form
part of the name, are suppressed, and the first letters are given without any omission.
(F. Muell. for Baron Ferdinand von Mueller, not F. v. M. or F. v. Muell.).

         If a name of one syllable is long enough to make it worth while to abridge it, the
first consonants only are given (Fr. for Elias Magnus Fries); 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 begin~
ning with the same syllable 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 it from
Bertero; Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish it 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. f. for
Gaertner filius, R. Br. for Robert Brown, A. Br. for Alexander Braun).

         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).

Recommendation  60B

         In the citation of a name published as a synonym, the words “as synonym” or pro
syn.
should be added.

         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 Steudel, Nomencl. 321 (1821) pro syn., a
manuscript name of Koenig’s published by Steudel as a synonym of Eugenia laurina Willd.

Recommendation  60C

         In the citation of a nomen nudum, its status should be indicated by adding nomen
nudum (nom. nud.).

Recommendation  60D

         The citation of an author who published the name before the starting point of the
group concerned is indicated, when considered useful or desirable, preferably between square
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 [Tourn. Inst. 392. pl. 213. 1719] L. Sp. Pl. 721. 1753; Gen. Pl.
ed. 5. 322, or Lupinus Tourn. ex. L.  ~  Boletus piperatus [Bull. Hist. Champ. Fr. 318.
pl. 451, f. 2. 1791~1812] Fr. Syst. Myc. 1: 388. 1821, or Boletus piperatus Bull. ex Fr.

Recommendation  60E

         When a name invalidated by an earlier homonym is cited in synonymy, the citation
should be followed by the name of the author of the earlier homonym preceded by the word
“non”, preferably with the date of publication added. In some instances it will be advisable
to cite also any later homonym or homonyms.

         Examples:  Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Am. Jour. Sci. 19: 170 (1831) non Bork. 1800.  ~ 
Lindera Thunb. Nov. Gen. 3: 44 (1773) non Adans. 1763.  ~  Bartlingia Brongn. Ann. Sci.
Nat. I. 10: 373 (1827) non Reichb. 1824, nec F. Muell. 1877.

Recommendation  60F

         Misidentifications should not be included in the synonymy but added after it. A mis~
applied name should be indicated by the words “auct. non” followed by the name of the
original author and the bibliographical references.

         Examples:   F i c u s   s t o r t o p h y l l a  Warb. in Warb. & De Wild. Ann. Mus. Congo
Belge Bot. VI. 1: 32 (1904). F. irumuensis De Wild. Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341 (1922). F. exas~
perata
auct. non Vahl, De Wild. & Th. Dur. Ann. Mus. Congo Belge Bot. II. 1: 54. 1899;
De Wild. Plant Laur. 27 (1903); Th. & H. Dur. Syll. Fl. Congol. 505 (1909).

Recommendation  60G

         If a generic name antedated by one of its synonyms or by a homonym is valid on
account of being a nomen conservandum, the words “nom. conserv.” should be added to the
citation.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 22 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Remodelling of taxa 60~62

         Examples:  Protea R. Br. Trans. Linn. Soc. 10: 74 (1810), nom. conserv., non L. 1753.
Combretum L. nom. conserv. (syn. prius Grislea L.).  ~  Schouwia DC. nom. conserv.
(homonym. prius Schouwia Schrad.).

Recommendation  60H

         Names cited in synonymy should be spelt exactly as published by their author. If
any explanatory words are required, these should be inserted in brackets. If a name is
adopted as valid with alterations from the form as originally published, it is desirable that
in full citations the exact original form should be appended.

         Examples:   P y r u s   c a l l e r y a n a  Decne. (Pirus mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov.
12: 189. 1913) or (P. mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov. 12: 189. 1913, Pirus). Not Pyrus
mairei
.

         E v o n y m u s   a l a t a  Regel, Fl. Ussur. 40. 1861, alatus” (Euonymus loesensri Ma~
kino in Bot. Mag. Tokyo 25: 229. 1911). Not Evonymus loesneri.

         Z a n t h o x y l u m    c r i b r o s u m   Spreng. Syst. 1: 946. 1825, Xanthoxylon (Xan~
thoxylon caribaeum
var. floridanum A. Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. II. 23: 225. 1888). Not Z.
caribaeum
var. floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray.

         Q u e r c u s   b i c o l o r   Willd. (Q. prinus discolor Michx. Hist. Arb. For. 2: 46. 1812).
Not Q. prinus var. discolor Michx.

         S p i r a e a    l a t i f o l i a   (Ait.) Borkh. (Spiraea salicifolia γ latifolia Ait. Hort. Kew.
2: 198. 1789). Not S. salicifolia latifolia Ait. or S. salicifolia var. latifolia Ait.

         J u n i p e r u s   c o m m u n i s   var.  m o n t a n a   Ait. (J. communis [var.] 3 nana Lou~
don, Arb. Brit. 4: 2489. 1838). In this case var. may be added in brackets, since Loudon
classes this combination under varieties.

         R i b e s   t r i c u s p i s   Nakai, Bot. Mag. Tokyo 30: 142. 1916, tricuspe.
 

Section 8Retention of names or epithets of taxa

which are remodelled or divided.
 

Article  61

         An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of
a taxon does not warrant a change in its name, except as this may be
necessitated (1) by transference of the taxon (Art. 64~66), or (2) by its
union with another taxon of the same rank (Art. 67~69), or (3) by a change
of its rank (Art. 70).

         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, since
the type of Myosotis L. remains in the genus.  ~  Various authors have united with Centaurea
jacea L. one or two species which Linnaeus had kept distinct; the taxon so constituted must
be called Centaurea jacea L. sensu amplo or Centaurea jacea L. emend. Cosson & Ger~
main, emend. Visiani. or emend. Godr., etc.: the creation of a new name such as Centaurea
vulgaris
Godr. is superfluous.

Article  62

         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 reinstated.
When a particular 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 (see Appendix I).

         Examples:  The genus Glycine L. (Sp. Pl. 753. 1753) was divided by Adanson (Fam.
2: 324. 327. 562. 1763) into the two genera Bradlea and Abrus; this procedure is inadmis~

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 23 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

63~64 Transference

sible: 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 Euaesculus, Pavia
(Poir.), Macrothyrsus (Spach) and Calothyrsus (Spach), the last three of which were
regarded as distinct genera by the authors cited in parentheses; 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. 344. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 1754); Tournefort’s name
Hippocastanum must not be used as was done by Gaertner (Fruct. 2: 135. 1791).

Article  63

         When a species is divided into two or more species, the specific epithet
must be retained for one or them, or (if it has not been retained) must be
reinstated. 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 (see Appendix I).

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

         Examples: Lychnis dioica L. (Sp. Pl. 437. 1753) was divided by Miller (Gard. Dict.
ed. 8. nos. 3, 4. 1768) into two species, L. dioica L. emend. Mill. and L. alba Mill.  ~  Hoff~
mann (Deutschl. Fl. 1: 166. 1800) divided Juncus articulatus L. (1753) into two species,
J. lamprocarpus 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 reinstated in the sense
of J. lamprocarpus Ehrh. (see Briq. Prodr. Fl. Corse 1: 264. 1910).  ~  Genista horrida DC.
(Fl. franç. 4: 500. 1805) was divided by Spach (Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. III. 2: 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. 1: 51. 1790) as Spartium horridum.  ~  Two species
(Primula cashmiriana Munro, P. erosa Wall.) have been separated from Primula denticulata
J. E. Smith (Exot. Bot. 109, pl. 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 epithets of taxa below the rank of genus on trans~

ference to another genus or species.

Article  64

         When 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 epithet must be retained, or (if it has not been
retained) must be reinstated unless one of the following obstacles exists:

         (1)   that the resulting combination has been previously and validly published
for a different subdivision;

         (2)   that there is available an earlier and validly published subdivisional
epithet of the same rank;

         (3)   that the resulting combination falls under the provisions of Art. 32.

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

————————

         * Here and elsewhere in this Code the phrase “subdivision of a genus” refers only
to taxa between genus and species in rank.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 24 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Transference 65~66

Article  65

         When 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 reinstated, unless
one of the following obstacles exists:

         (1)  that the resulting binary name is a later homonym (Art. 74) or a
tautonym [ Art. 79 (3) ];

         (2)  that there is available an earlier validly published specific epithet.

         When, on transference to another genus, the specific epithet has been
applied erroneously in its new position to a different plant, the new combination
must be retained for the plant on which the epithet was originally based, and
must be attributed to the author who first published it.

         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. no. 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. 5: 140. 1874).  Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798~1800) when trans~
ferred 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 different species by l’Héritier in
1789; the name Cytisus fontanesii given by Spach is therefore legitimate.  Santolina sua~
veolens Pursh (1814) when transferred to the genus Matricaria must be called Matricaria
matricarioides (Less.) Porter (1894); the epithet suaveolens cannot be used for this species
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 merten~
siana
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.) Sargent, as is evident from his description: the combination Tsuga mertensiana
(Bong.) Carr. must be retained for Pinus mertensiana Bong. when that species is placed in
Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art. 59) of the name of the original author,
Bongard, indicates the type of the epithet.

Article  66

         When an infraspecific taxon is transferred, without change of rank, to
another genus or species (or placed under another name), the original sub~
divisional epithet must be retained or (if it has not been retained) must be
reinstated, 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 different rank;

(2)    that there is an earlier validly published subdivisional epithet available.

         When, on transference to another genus or species, the epithet of a
subdivision of a species has been applied erroneously in its new position to
a different subdivision of the same rank, the new combination must be retained
for the plant on which the former combination was based, and must be
attributed to the author who first published it.

         Examples:  The variety micranthum Gren. & Godr. (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847) of Helian~
themum italicum
Pers., when transferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thib., retains its
varietal epithet, becoming H. penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser (Pflan~
zenreich 14: 115. 1903).   ~  The variety subcarnosa Hook. f. (Bot. Antarct. Voy. 1: 5. 1847)
of Cardamine hirsuta L., when transferred as a variety to C. glacialis DC., becomes C.
glacialis
var. subcarnosa (Hook. f.) O. E. Schulz (Bot. Jahrb. 32: 542. 1903); the existance
of an earlier synonym of different rank (C. propinqua Carm. Trans. Linn. Soc. 12: 507.
1818) does not affect the nomenclature of the variety (see Art. 70). In each of these cases
it is the earliest varietal epithet which is retained.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 25 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

67~68 Union of taxa

Section 10. Choice of names when taxa of the same rank are united.

Article  67

         When two or more taxa of the same rank are united the oldest legitimate
name or (for subdivisions of genera, and for species and their subdivisions)
the oldest legitimate epithet is retained, unless a later name or epithet must be
accepted under the provisions of Art.
68. The author who first unites taxa
bearing names or epithets of the same date has the right to choose one of them,
and his choice must be followed.

         Examples:  K. Schumann (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pfl. fam. 3 (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. 653. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295.
1754) and Cardamine L. (Sp. Pl. 654. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295. 1754) are united, the

resulting genus must be called Cardamine because the name was chosen by Crantz (Class.
Crucif. 126. 1769), who was the first to unite the two genera.  ~  When H. Hallier (Bot.
Jahrb. 18: 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. Exp. Congo  App. 5. 484. 1818) ap~
pears to have been the first to unite Waltheria americana L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753) and
W. indica L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753). He adopted the name Waltheria indica for the combined
species
, and this name must accordingly be retained.

Article  68

         When a taxon of recent plants, algae excepted, and a taxon, of the same
rank, of fossil or subfossil plants are united, the correct name or epithet of
the former taxon must be accepted, even if it is antedated by that of the
latter.

         Example: If Sequoia Endl. (1847), a genus of recent plants, and Steinhauera Presl
(1838), a genus of fossil plants, are united, the name Sequoia must be accepted for the
combined genus, although it is antedated by Steinhauera.

Recommendation68A

         Authors who have to choose between two generic names should note the following
suggestions:

(1)     Of two names of the same date to prefer that 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
that which, when the author makes his choice, includes the larger number of species.

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

Recommendation  68B

         When several genera are united under one generic name, under which they are treated
as
sections, the section including the type of the generic name adopted should bear that
name unaltered if no earlier one is available.

         Examples:  Anarrhinum sect. Anarrhinum; Hemigenia sect. Hemigenia.

Section 11 Choice of names of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle.

Article  69

         In Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes with two or more states in the life
cycle
(except those which are lichen~fungi), but not in Phycomycetes, the

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 26 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Change of rank 70~72

first valid name or epithet applied to the perfect state takes precedence. The
perfect state is that which
bears asci in the Ascomycetes, which consists of
the spores giving rise to basidia in the Uredinales and of the chlamydospores
in the Ustilaginales, or which bears basidia in the remaining Basidiomycetes.
The type specimen of a state must bear that state. However, the provisions
of this article shall not be construed as preventing the use of names of im~
perfect states in works referring to such states. The author who first describes
a perfect state may adopt the specific epithet of the corresponding imperfect
state, but his binomial for the perfect state is to be attributed to him alone,
and is not to be regarded as a transfer.

         When not already available, binomials for imperfect states may be
proposed at the time of publication of a perfect state or later, and may contain
either the specific epithet of the perfect state or any other epithet available.

Section 12. Choice of names when the rank of a taxon is changed.

Article  70

         When the rank of a genus or infrageneric taxon is changed, the correct
name or epithet is the earliest legitimate one available in the new rank. In
no case does a name or an epithet have priority outside its own rank.

         Examples:  The section Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) of the genus Camp~
anula
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. Ktze (Rev.
2: 378. 1891).  ~  The var. foetida L. (Sp. Pl. 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. (Gard. & For. 2: 615. 1889).  ~  Lythrum inter~
medium
Ledeb. (Ind. Hort. Dorpat 1822) when treated as a variety of Lythrum salicaria
L. must be called L. salicaria var. glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. 2: 127. 1844), not L. salicaria
var. intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne (Bot. Jahrb. 1: 327. 1881). In all these cases the name
or epithet given to the taxon in its original rank is replaced by the first correct name or
epithet given to it in its new rank.

Article  71

         When a taxon of a rank higher than a genus and not higher than an
order is changed in rank, the stem of the name must be retained and only
the termination altered (~inae, ~eae, ~oideae, ~aceae, ~ineae, ~ale
s), unless
the resulting name is rejected under Section 1
3.

Recommendation  71A

         1.   When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus, or the inverse change occurs,
the original name or epithet should be retained unless it is rejected under the rules.

         2.   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
the rules.

Section 13Rejection of names and epithets.
 

Article  72

         A legitimate name or epithet must not be rejected merely because it is
inappropriate, or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better
known, or because it has lost its original meaning.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 27 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

73~74 Rejection

         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. colum~
bariae
to O. columbarihaerens, O. artemisiae to O. artemisiepiphyta. All these modifications
must be rejected.  ~  Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) must not be changed to A. penta~
gona
A. DC. (1834) although the specific epithet quinquegona is a hybrid word (Latin and
Greek).

Article  73

         A name must be rejected if it is illegitimate (see Art. 2, 10).

         The publication of an epithet in an illegitimate combination must not be
taken into consideration for purposes of priority (see Art. 53) except in the
rejection of a later homonym (
Art. 74).

         A specific epithet is not illegitimate merely because it was originally
published under an illegitimate generic name, but must be taken into consider~
ation for purposes of priority if the epithet and the corresponding combination
are in other respects in accordance with the rules. In the same way an infra~
specific epithet may be legitimate even if originally published under an
illegitimate name of an infrageneric taxon.

         A name is illegitimate in the following cases:

(1)   If it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon
to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, included the type
of a name or epithet which ought to have been adopted under one or more
of the rules.

         Examples:  The generic name Cainito Adans. (Fam. 2: 166. 1763) is illegitimate be~
cause it was a superfluous name for Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl. 192. 1753); the two genera
had precisely the same circumscription.  ~  The genus Unisema Raf. (Med. Repos. 5: 192.
1819) was so circumscribed as to include Pontederia cordata L., the type of Pontederia L.
(1753). Under Art. 61 the name Pontederia L. ought to have been adopted for the genus
concerned. Unisema was therefore nomenclaturally superfluous.  ~  Chrysophyllum sericeum
Salisb. (Prodr. 138. 1796) is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for C. cainito L. (1753)
which Salisbury cited as a synonym.  ~  On the other hand, Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill. (Gard. Dict. ed. 8. nos. 3, 4. 1768) are not illegitimate names, al~
though these species are now reunited with C. behen L. (1753), from which Miller separated
them: C. latifolius Mill. and C. angustifolius Mill. as circumscribed by Miller did not in~
clude the type of C. behen L.

(2)   If it is a binary or ternary name published in contravention of Art. 16,
61, 63, 65 or 70, i.e. if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet
available for the taxon with its particular circumscription, position and rank.

(3)   If it is a later homonym (see Art. 74).

(4)   If it is a generic name which must be rejected under Art. 78.

(5)   If it is a name of a type subgenus with a subgeneric epithet which is
not the same as the generic name (see Art. 32).

(6)   If it is a specific name whose epithet must be rejected under Art. 79.

(7)   If it is an infraspecific name contravening Art. 79 or 80.

Article  74

         A name of a taxon 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 taxon of the same rank based on a different type. Even if the earlier
homonym is illegitimate, or is generally treated as a synonym on taxonomic
grounds, the later homonym must be rejected.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 28 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Rejection 75~77

         When the same new name is simultaneously published for more than one
taxon, the first author who adopts one of them, rejecting the other, or sub~
stitutes another name for one of them, must be followed.

         For purposes of homonymy, validly published names in all taxa must
be considered.

         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 there~
fore be rejected as was done by Th. Durand (Ind. Gen. Phan. 703. 1888) who renamed 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).  ~  Astra~
galus rhizanthus
Boiss. (Diagn. Pl. Orient. 2: 83. 1843) is a later homonym of the validly
published name Astragalus rhizanthus Royle (Ill. Bot. Himal. 200. 1835) and it must there~
fore be rejected, as was done by Boissier who renamed it A. cariensis (Diagn. Pl. Orient.
II. 10: 57. 1849).

         Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. 1753) published Aira 1 spicata on p. 63 and Aira 7 spicata on p. 64,
but in errata (vol. 2, after Nomina trivialia and Addenda line 9 from base) sub~
stituted indica for spicata of species 1 on p. 63; the name Aira spicata L. is therefore legi~
timate
for species 7 on p. 64.

         Note Mere orthographic variants of the same name are treated as homonyms when
they are based on different types (see Art. 82).

Article  75

         A name of a taxon must be rejected if it is used with different meanings,
and so becomes a long~persistent source of error.

         Examples:  The name Rosa villosa L. (Sp. Pl. 491. 1753) is rejected, because it has
been applied to several different species, and has become a source of confusion.  Lavandula
spica
L. (Sp. Pl. 572. 1753) included the two species subsequently known as L. officinalis
Chaix and L. latifolia Vill. The name Lavandula spica has been applied almost equally
to these two species, and, being now completely ambiguous, must be rejected (see Kew
Bull. 1932: 295).

Article  76

         A name of a taxon must be rejected if its characters were derived from
two or more entirely discordant elements, unless it is possible to select one
of these elements as a satisfactory type.

         For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens shall be considered
as applying to their fungal components, but shall be subject to the provisions
of Art. 23 (d).

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

         The name of the genus Pouteria Aubl. (Pl. Gui. 85. 1775) is based on a mixture of
a species of Sloanea (Elaeocarpaceae) and a sapotaceous species (flowers and leaves);
both elements ean be easily separated, as has been done by Martius, and Radlkofer was
right in proposing (Sitzber. Math.~Phys. Cl. Bayer. Akad. München 12: 299. 1882) to
retain the name Pouteria as correct for the part of the type belonging to the Sapotaceae.

Article  77

         A  name  or  epithet  of  a  taxon  must  be  rejected  when  it  is  based  on  a
monstrosity.

         Examples:  The generic name Uropedium Lindl. (Orch. Linden 28. 1846) was based

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 29 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

78~79 Illegitimate generic names

on a monstrosity which is now referred to Phragmopedilum caudatum Rolfe (Orchid Rev.
4: 330. 1896); it must therefore be rejected.
 ~  The name Ornithogalum fragiferum Vill.
(Hist. Pl. Dauph. 2: 269. 1787) was based on a monstrosity, 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. (1805),
the species must be called Gagea fistulosa (Ram. ex DC.) Ker~Gawl.

Article  78

         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 technical terms currently used in morphology,
unless they were accompanied, when originally published, by specific names
in accordance with the binary method of Linnaeus. On and after 1 Jan. 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 Fr. (Syst. Myc. 2:
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)   F. Ehrhart (Phytophylacium 1780, and Beitr. 4: 145~150. 1789) proposed unitary
names for various species known at that time under binary names, e.g. Phaecocephalum
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. 2: 89. 1833).

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

Article  79

         Specific and infraspecific 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 transcribed symbol (tautonym).

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

         Examples:  (1)  Viola “qualis” Krocker (Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790); Atriplex “nova”
Winterl. (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.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 30 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 80~82

(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 be
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 fol. androsaemi L. (Sp. Pl. 213.
1753) (see Art. 33).

Article  80

         Infraspecific epithets such as typicus, originalis, originarius, genuinus,
verus,
and veridicus, purporting to indicate the subdivision containing the
nomenclatural type of the next higher taxon, are illegitimate.

Article  81

         In cases foreseen in Art. 73~80 the name or epithet to be rejected is
replaced by the oldest legitimate name, or (in a combination) by the oldest
available legitimate epithet. If none exists, a new name or epithet must be

chosen. When a new epithet is required, an author may, if he wishes, adopt
an epithet previously given to the taxon in an illegitimate combination, if
there is no obstacle to its employment in the new position or sense; the
epithet in the resultant combination is treated as new.

         Examples:  Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Radiola, must not
be called Radiola radiola (L.) Karst., as that combination is to be rejected under Art. 79
(3); the next oldest specific epithet is multiflorum, but the name Linum 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 oldest legitimate
epithet available.

         The name Talinum polyandrum Hook. (Bot. Mag. pl. 4833. 1855) is illegitimate, being
a later homonym of T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (Syst. Fl. Per. 1: 115. 1798): when Bentham
transferred T. polyandrum Hook. to Calandrinia, he called it Calandrinia polyandra (Fl.
Austr. 1: 172. 1863). The epithet polyandra in this combination is treated as new, dating
from 1863.

         Sturtia gossypioides R. Br. (1853) when transferred to the genus Gossypium cannot
be called Gossypium gossypioides (R. Br.) as Gardner called it (1931) because of an earlier
Gossypium gossypioides Standley (1923) based on another type. Both names Gossypium
sturtii
F. Muell. (1862) and G. australiense Tod. (1863) based on Sturtia gossypioides R.
Br. are illegitimate, since at that time the combination Gossypium gossypioides ought to have
been adopted for the taxon concerned. Now, unless we can decide whether J. H. Willis
published Gossypium sturtianum (Vict. Nat. 64: 9. 1947) before Hutchinson, Silow & Stephens
published Gossypium sturtii (Evol. Gossyp. 1947) or vice versa, the next author who
adopts one of them shall be followed; Hutchinson, Silow & Stephens had the right to revive
the epithet sturtii, considered as a new epithet and dating from 1947.

Section 14. Orthography of names and epithets.

Article  82 *)

         The original spelling of a name or epithet must be retained, except typo~
graphic or orthographic errors.
When two or more generic names are so

————————–

         * The action taken at Stockholm in adopting and referring to the Editorial Com~
mittee the conflicting proposals 6 and 8 (Synopsis Stockholm 198~200. 1950) was of an
inconsistent nature. The Editorial Committee decided to present the following reading (see
also Rec. 82I which embodies part of prop. 6); the responsibility for this solution lies wholly
with this Committee.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 31 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

82 Orthography

similar, and the plants so closely related, as to cause confusion *), they are
to be treated as variants of the same name.

         Note 1 The words “original spelling” in this article mean the spelling employed
when the name was validly published. They do not refer to the use of an initial capital or
small letter, this being a matter of typography, dealt with by Art. 30 and 31 for names of
genera and epithets of subgenera, etc., and by Rec. 82G for specific and infraspecific
epithets.

         Note 2 The use of a wrong connecting vowel or vowels (or the omission of a con~
necting vowel) in a name or an epithet is treated as an orthographic error (see Rec. 82H).

         Note 3 The liberty of correcting a name must be used with reserve, especially if the
change affects the first syllable, and above all the first letter of the name.

         Note 4 When changes made in orthography by earlier authors who adopt personal
names in nomenclature are intentional latinizations they must be preserved.

         Examples of retention of original spelling The generic names Mesembryanthemum L.
(1753) and Amarantus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelt by Linnaeus and the spelling
must not be altered to Mesembrianthemum and Amaranthus respectively, although these
latter forms are philologically preferable.  ~  Valantia L. (1753) and Clutia L. (1753), com~
memorating Vaillant and Cluyt respectively, must not be altered to Vaillantia and Cluytia**):
Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists deliberately as “Valantius” and “Clutius”.
 ~  Phoradendron Nutt. must not be altered to Phoradendrum.  ~  Triaspis mozambica Adr.
Juss. must not be altered to T. mossambica, as in Engler, Pflanzenw. Ostafrika C: 232 (1895)
 ~  Alyxia ceylanica Wight must not be altered to A. zeylanica, as in Trimen, Handb. Fl.
Ceyl. 3: 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.
82F), but the mediaeval spelling sylvatica deliberately adopted by Linnaeus must not be
altered.  ~  The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza must not be altered, although it
commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see Rhodora 36: 130~132, 390~392. 1934).

         Examples of typographic errors:   Globba brachycarpa Baker (in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind.
6: 205. 1890) and Hetaeria alba Ridley (Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot. 32: 404. 1896), being typo~
graphic errors for G. trachycarpa and H. alta respectively, should be cited as Globba trachy~
carpa
Baker and Hetaeria alba Ridley (see Jour. of Bot. 59: 349. 1921).  ~  Thevetia nerei~
folia
Adr. Juss. ex Steud. is an obvious typographic error for T. neriifolia.  ~  Rosa pissarti
Carr. (Rev. Hort. 1880: 314) is a typographic error for R. pissardi (see Rev. Hort. 1881:
190).

         Examples of orthographic errors Hexagona Fr. (Epicr. 496. 1836~38) was an ortho~
graphic error for Hexagonia: Fries had previously (Syst. Myc. 1: 344. 1821) cited Hexa~
gonia
Poll. erroneously as “Hexagona Poll.”  ~  Gluta benghas L. (Mant. 293. 1771)
being an orthographic error for G. renghas, should be cited as G. renghas L., as has been
done by Engler (in C. & A. DC. Monogr. 4: 224. 1883): the vernacular name used as a specific
epithet by Linnaeus is “Renghas”, not “Benghas”.  ~  Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC. (Mém.
Mus. Paris 17: 76. 1828) should be cited as P. opuntiiflora DC. (cf. Rec. 82H).
Cacalia napeaefolia DC. (in DC. Prodr. 6: 328. 1837) and Senecio napeaefolius
(DC.) Schultz~Bip. (Flora 28: 498. 1845) should be cited as Cacalia napaeifolia DC. and
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz~Bip, respectively: the specific epithet refers to the resem~
blance of the leaves to those of the genus Napaea (not Napea), and the reduced stem~ending
“i” should have been used istead of “ae”.  ~  Dioscorea lecardi De Wild. may be corrected to D.
lecardii, and Berberis wilsonae Hemsl. & Wils. may be corrected to B. wilsoniae: the genitive
forms derived from Lecard (m) and Wilson (f) prescribed by Rec. 82C (b) and 82D are
lecardii and wilsoniae respectively.

         Examples of different names Rubia and Rubus, Monochaete and Monochaetum, Pe~
ponia
and Peponium, Iria and Iris, Desmostachys and Desmastachya, Symphyastemon and
Symphostemon, Gerrardina and Gerardiina, Durvillea and Urvillea, Elodes and Elodea, Pel~
tophorus (Poaceae)
and Peltophorum (Fabaceae).

         Examples of different specific epithets Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz~Bip. (vide
supra) and S. napifolius Macowan are different names; the epithets napaeifolius and napi~
folius
being derived respectively from Napaea and Napus.  ~  Lysimachia hemsleyana and
Lysimachia hemsleyi.

————————–

         *) When it is doubtful whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused, they
should be referred to the General Committee of Botanical Nomenclature.

         **) In some cases an altered spelling of a generic name is conserved; e.g. Bougainvillea
see list of nomina conservanda no. 2350).

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 32 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 82

         Examples of orthographic variants.  ~  Generic names: Astrostemma and Asterostem~
ma, Pleuripetalum
and Pleuropetalum, Columella and Columellia, both commemorating Colu~
mella, 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 one only can be used without serious risk of confusion.

         Specific epithets: chinensis and sinensis; ceylanica and zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis,
and nipalensis; polyanthemos and polyanthemus; macrostachys and macrostachyus; heteropus and
heteropodus; poikilantha and poikilanthes; pteroides and pteroideus; trinervis and trinervius.

Recommendation82A

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

Recommendation  82B

         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
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,
except when the name ends in er, when a is added (e.g. Kernera after Kerner). In latinized
names ending in ~us, this termination is dropped before adding the suffix (Dillenia).

         (c)        The syllables which are not modified by these endings retain their original spel~

ling, even with the consonants 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 German ä, ö, ü become ae, oe, ue; the French é, è and ê become
generally e, or sometimes ae when necessary in order to retain the accent in its original
position. In 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.

Recommendation  82C

         When a new specific or subspecific epithet is taken from the name of a man it should
be formed in the following 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 (ramondii from
Ramond), except when the name ends in ~er, when i is added (thus kerneri from Kerner).

Those who follow this Recommendation may treat the termination ~i as an orthographic er~
ror and correct it.

         (c)        The syllables which are not modified by these endings retain their original spel~
ling, even with the consonants 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 German ä, ö, ü become ae, oe, ue, the French é, è, ê become generally e. The
diaeresis sign should be used where required.

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

         If the personal name is already Latin or Greek, the appropriate Latin genitive should
be used, e.g. alexandri from Alexander, francisci from Franciscus, augusti from Augustus,
linnaei from Linnaeus.

Recommendation  82D

         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 hoo~
kerae, Rosa beatricis, Scabiosa olgae, Omphalodes luciliae)
.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 33 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

82 Orthographic variants

Recommendation  82E

         Epithets taken from geographical names are preferably adjectives and usually take the
terminations ~ensis, ~(a)nus, or ~icus.

         Examples:  Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec), Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia),
Polygonum pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania.).

Recommendation  82F

         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 accepted
usage of Latin and latinization.

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

Recommendation  82G

         All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written with a small initial letter,
though authors desiring to use capital initial letters may do so when the epithets are directly
derived from the names of persons (whether actual or mythical), or are vernacular (or
barbaric) names, or are former generic names.

Recommendation  82H *)

         Compound names or epithets combining elements derived from two or more Greek or
Latin
words should be formed as far as practicable in accordance with classical usage. This
may be roughly stated as follows:

         (a)     In a true compound (as distinct from pseudocompounds such as Myos~otis, nidus~
avis)
a noun or adjective in a non~final position appears as a bare stem without case~ending.

         (b)     Before a vowel the final vowel of this stem, if any, is normally elided (Chrys~
anthemum, mult~angelus
), with the exception of Greek  y and  i (Poly~anthus, Meli~osma).

         (c)     Before a consonant the final vowel is normally preserved in Greek (mono~carpus,
Poly~gonum, Coryne~phorus, Meli~lotus)
, except that  a  is commonly replaced by  o  (Hemero~
callis
from hemera); in Latin the final vowel is reduced to  i  (multi~color, menthi~folius,
salvii
~folius)
.

         (d)     If the stem ends in a consonant, a connecting vowel, Greek  o, Latin  i, is inserted
before a following consonant (Odont~o~glossum, cruc~i~formis).

         Some irregular forms, however, have been extensively used through false analogy
(multi~angulus; atro~purpureus, on the analogy of pseudo~compounds such as fusco~venatus
in which o is the ablative case~ending). Others are used as revealing etymological distinctions
(caricae~formis from Carica, as distinct from carici~formis from Carex). Where such irre~
gularities occur in the original spelling of existing compounds, this spelling should normally
be retained.

         Note The hyphens in the above examples are given solely for explanatory reasons.
They should all be eliminated in botanical names and epithets except in nidus~avis, terrae~
novae
and similar Latin pseudo~compounds.

Recommendation  82I

         Names or epithets differing only in the following respects can often be treated as
orthographic variants:

         1)    ae, oe and e;  ei, i, j and y;  c and k;  c and z;  oe, ö and o;  ae, ä and a;  ue,
ü and u.

         2)    Presence or absence of an  h  before a vowel or after a consonant (aspiration).

         3)    Presence or absence of a  c  before a  t.

         4)    Single or double writing of a consonant.

         5)    Different transcription of a non~Latin or non~Greek word, especially of the same
personal name. This does not apply to prefixes or suffixes or to translations into other
languages.

         Epithets may also be orthographic variants if they have the same meaning and differ
but slightly in form, especially if they differ in the ending only. This does not apply to
the genitive and adjectival forms of a personal name or to a difference in the second part
of a compound word.

————————–

         *) The Editorial Committee invited Mr. R. E. Latham to suggest a suitable text which
would be in conformity with classical usage. The present text is the one presented by him
with only one or two minor verbal modifications.

         The Editorial Committee is greatly indebted to Mr. Latham for his new text and
wishes to express its sincere appreciation for his extremely valuable suggestions.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 34 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

Gender 83

Article 83

         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 preponderance of usage in favour of one of them, that one is accepted,
e.g. Rhododendron (not Rhododendrum).

(4)     If the two spellings are equally correct philologically, and there is not
a great preponderance 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 15Gender of generic names.

Recommendation  83A

         The gender of generic names should be determined as follows:

         (1)      A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name should retain its classical
gender. When the classical gender varies the author should choose one of the alternative
genders. In doubtful cases general usage should be followed. The following names, how~
ever, whose classical gender is masculine, should be treated as feminine in accordance with
historic usage: Adonis, Orchis, Stachys, Diospyros, Strychnos; Hemerocallis (m. in Sp. Pl.;
Lat. and Gr. hemerocalles, n.) should also be treated as feminine in order to bring it into
conformity with all other generic names ending in ~is.

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

         Examples of names formed from Greek *) words:  The generic name Andropogon L.
was treated by Linnaeus as neuter, but it, like other modern compounds in which the Greek
masculine word pogon is the final element (e.g. Centropogon, Cymbopogon, Bystropogon)
should be treated as masculine. Similarly all modern compounds ending in ~codon, ~myces,
~odon, ~panax, ~stemon
and other masculine words should be masculine. The generic names
Dendromecon Benth., Eomecon Hance and Hesperomecon E. L. Greene should be treated
as feminine, because they end in the Greek feminine word mecon, poppy: the fact that
Bentham and E. L. Greene respectively ascribed the neuter gender to the names Dendro~
mecon
and Hesperomecon is immaterial.

         Similarly all modern compounds ending in ~achne, ~carpha, ~cephala, ~chlamys,
~daphne,
and other femine words should be feminine. The generic names Aceras R. Br.,
Aegiceras Gaertn. and Xanthoceras Bunge should be treated as 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 should be 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 masculine, hence it is recommended to assign that gender to them. Similarly
those ending in ~gaster, which should strictly speaking be feminine, are recommended to be
treated as masculine in accordance with botanical custom.

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

————————–

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

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 35 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

83 Gender

         (3)      Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names used as generic names
should take the gender assigned to them by their authors. Where the original author has
failed to indicate the gender, the next subsequent author may choose a gender, and his
choice should be accepted.

         Examples:  Taonabo Aubl. (Pl. Gui. 569. 1775) should be feminine: Aublet’s two
species were T. dentata and T. punctata.   ~   Agati Adans. (Fam. 2: 326. 1763) was
published without indication of gender: the feminine gender was assigned to it by Desvaux
(Jour. de Bot. 1: 120. 1813), who was the first subsequent author to adopt the name,
and his choise should be accepted. Boehmer (in Ludwig, Gen. ed. 3. 436. 1760), and Adan~
son (Fam. 2: 356. 1763), failed to indicate the gender of Manihot: the first author to supply
specific epithets was Crantz (Inst. Rei Herb. 1: 167. 1766) who proposed the names
Manihot gossypiifolia, etc., and Manihot should therefore be treated as feminine.

Section 16. Various recommendations.
 

Recommendation  83B

         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.

Recommendation  83C

         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.

Recommendation  83D

         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.

Recommendation  83E

         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.

Recommendation  83F

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

Recommendation  83G

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 36 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 
 

Appendix I

                                        Determination of types

         The following is intended as a guide to the determination or selection of
the nomenclatural types of previously published taxa.

         Where the application of a rule is concerned, reference is made to the
appropriate Article.

1.   The choice of the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of
the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final. If he included
only one element, that one must always be accepted as the holotype (See
Art. 18, 20). If a new name is based on a previously published description
of the taxon, the same considerations apply to material cited by the earlier
author.

2.   When a new name or epithet was published as an avowed substitute
(nomen novum) for an older one which is not available, the type of the new
name is automatically that of the old one.

3.   A lectotype may be chosen only when an author failed to designate a
holotype, or when, for species or taxa of lower rank, the type has been lost
or destroyed (Art. 18 note 3).

4.   Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an
understanding of the group concerned. Mechanical systems such as the auto~
matic selection of the first species or specimen cited or of a specimen collected
by the person after whom a species is named should be avoided as unscientific
and productive of possible future confusion and further change. The original
description of the taxon concerned should be the basic guide (Art. 19).

a.   In choosing a lectotype any indication of intent by the author of a name
should be given preference unless it is contrary to his description and remarks.
Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets,
recognizable figures and epithets such as typicus, genuinus, vulgaris, communis,
etc.

b.   A lectotype must be chosen from among elements that were definitely
studied by the author up to the time the taxon was published and included in
it when it was published (Art. 18 note 3).

c.   Other things being equal, a specimen should be given preference over
pre~Linnean or other cited descriptions or illustrations when lectotypes of
species are designated.

d.   In cases when two or more elements were included in or cited with the
original description the reviewer should use his own judgment in selection
of a lectotype, but if another author has already segregated one or two ele~
ments as other taxa, the residue or part of it should be designated as the type
if its essential characters correspond with the original description. If it can
be shown that the element best fitting the whole published original account
has been removed, it must be restored and treated as lectotype (Art. 19).
Whenever the type material of a taxon is heterogeneous the lectotype should
be selected so as to preserve current usage unless another element agrees
better with the original description and (or) figure.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 37 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

e.   The first choice of a lectotype should be followed by subsequent workers
unless it can be shown that the choice does not fit the original description as
well as another of the original elements (specimens, species, higher taxa, etc.)
(Art. 19).

5.   In selecting a neotype even more care and critical knowledge are essential,
as the reviewer has usually no guide except his own judgment to what best
fits the original description. If his selection proves to be faulty it will inevitably
result in further change. The neotype may be selected only when all original
material is believed lost or destroyed (Art. 18 note 3).

6.   For the name of a fossil species the lectotype, where one is needed, should,
if possible, be a specimen illustrated at the time of the first valid publication.

7.   The nomenclatural typification of organ genera, form genera, of genera
based on plant microfossils (pollen, spores, etc.), genera of imperfect fungi,
or any other analogous genera, or lower taxa, does not differ from that
indicated above.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 38 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 
 
 

Appendix II

Names of Hybrids and some special Categories

Article  H. 1

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

         The formula consists of the specific epithets of the two parents in alpha~
betical order connected by the multiplication sign.  When the hybrid is of
known experimental origin, the formula may be made more precise by the
addition of the signto the epithet of the parent producing the female
gamete and to the epithet of the parent producing the male gamete.

         The name, which is subject to the same rules as names of species, is
distinguished from the latter by the multiplication~sign × before the (“specific”)
epithet.

         Where binary “specific” names of Latin form are used for hybrids, all
offspring of crosses between individuals of the same parent species receive the
same binary name.

         Examples:  Salix × capreola (= Salix aurita × S. caprea); Digitalis lutea ♀ × D.
purpurea
.

         Note 1 When polymorphic parental species are involved and if infraspecific taxa are
recognized in them, greater precision may be achieved by the use of formulae than by
giving the hybrids “specific” names.

         Note 2 Designations consisting of the specific epithets of the parents combined in
unaltered form by a hyphen or with the ending of only one epithet changed or consisting
of the specific epithet of one parent combined with the generic name of the other with or
without change of ending are considered as formulae and not as true epithets.

         Examples:  The designation Potentilla atrosanguinea~formosa published by Maund is
considered as a formula meaning Potentilla atrosanguinea × P. formosa. The designation
Potentilla tormentillo~formosa published by Maund is considered as a formula Potentilla
formosa
× Potentilla reptans. Similarly Verbascum nigro~lychnitis Schiede, Pl. Hybr. 40.
(1825) is considered as a formula, Verbascum lychnitis × V. nigrum; the correct binary
name for this hybrid is Verbascum × schiedeanum Koch.

         Note 3 Graft chimaeras (sometimes called “graft hybrids”) being horticultural objects,
are dealt with in Appendix III (Art. C. 31).

Article  H. 2

         Hybrids or putative hybrids between intraspecific taxa of the same
species may be designated by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or
necessary, by a name of the same taxonomic rank as the parents or, if these
are of different rank, that of the higher-ranking parent. In the formula the
order of the epithets and the use of the signs ♀ and should follow the
procedure set down in Art. H. 1.

         Note In general greater precision will be achieved with less danger of confusion if
formulae rather than names are used for such hybrids.

         Example Lilium davidii var. davimottiae  (= L. davidii var. davidii × L. davidii var.
willmottiae).

Article  H. 3

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

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 39 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

         The formula consists of the names of the two parents connected by
the multiplication-sign ×, as in Art. H.l.

         The name consists of a new “generic” name usually formed by a
euphonious combination of parts of the names of the two parent genera, and
a (“specific”) epithet.

         The epithet of an intergeneric hybrid must not be placed under the
name of either of the parent genera.

         All hybrids between the same two genera bear the same “generic” name,
this to be preceded by the multiplication~sign ×.

         Examples:  × Asplenosorus (= Asplenium × Camptosorus); × Asplenosorus ebenoides
(= Asplenium platyneuron × Camptosorus rhizophyllus), not Asplenium × ebenoides;
× Heucherella (= Heuchera × Tiarella); × Heucherella tiarelloides (= Heuchera × bri~
zoides
× Tiarella cordifolia) not Heuchera × tiarelloides; × Mahoberberis (= Berberis ×
Mahonia).

         Note “Hybrid subgenera” and “hybrid sections” may be named in the same way.

         Example Iris subgen. × Regeliocyclus, comprising the hybrids between species be~
longing to subgenus Regelia and subgenus Oncocyclus.

Article  H. 4

         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 multigeneric may be given new generic names
formed by a combination of parts of the names of the parent genera; usually,
however, multigeneric hybrid groups combining three or more genera receive
a conventional name consisting of the name of a person eminent as a collector,
grower or student of the group, to which is added the termination ~ara; no
such name may exceed eight syllables.

         Examples:  Salix × straehleri ( = Salix aurita × S. cinerea × S. repens or alter~
natively, Salix ( aurita × repens ) × cinerea ).

         × Sanderara ( = Brassia × Cochlioda × Odontoglossum); × Potinara ( = Brassavola
× Cattleya × Laelia × Sophronotis). Correct validly published compounds such as ×
Dialaeliocattleya, (composed of parts of the generic names Cattleya, Diacrium and Laelia)
must, however, be retained.

Article  H. 5

         When different hybrid forms of the same parentage (pleomorphic hybrids,
combinations between different forms of a collective species, segregates, back~
crosses
) are united in a collective taxon, the subdivisions are classed under
the binary name applied to the hybrid population or group like the sub~
divisions of a species under the binary name of the species. These forms
are recognized as nothomorphs; when desirable a nothomorph may be
designated by an epithet preceded by the binary name of the hybrid group
and the term “nothomorph” (nothomorpha, abbreviated as nm.).

         Note Nothomorpha:  ~  a term derived from the Greek νοθος and μορφη, meaning
“hybrid form” and applied to any hybrid form, whether F ı, segregate or backcross.

         Examples:  Mentha × niliaca nm. lamarckii (a form of the pleomorphic hybrid Mentha
× niliaca
= M. longifolia × M. rotundifolia); Ulmus × hollandica nm. hollandica and nm.
vegeta (forms of Ulmus × hollandica = U. carpinifolia × U. glabra).

Recommendation  H. 5A

         Taxa which are apomicts may, if desired, be designated as such in the following
manner:

1.   If they are considered of specific rank, by the interpolation of the abbreviation “ap.”
between the generic name and the epithet.

2.   If they are considered as of infraspecific rank, by the interpolation of the abbreviation
“ap.” between the categoric term and the infraspecific epithet.

         Taxa which are clones may, if desired, be designated as such by the term “clone”
(abbreviated as “cl.”) or the symbol G. The placing of the categoric term will follow the
procedure suggested for the apomict.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 40 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 


 
 
 
 

Appendix III

Proposed

International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants

         The following regulations will not be official until they have been
formally accepted by the International Horticultural Congress in September
1952 after reconsideration and possibly emendation by the Committee on
Nomenclature at the Congress. The text as presented below embodies the
decisions of the joint Committee for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants
(Stockholm Committee) and the International Committee on Horticultural
Nomenclature and Registration
(London Committee) and is the joint work
of an editorial committee consisting of W. H. CAMP, J. S. L. GILMOUR and
W. T. STEARN. It has been reproduced from the Journal of the Royal Horti~
cultural Society
1952: 160~172.

Section A.   GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Article  C. 1

         Cultivated plants are basic to civilization. It is important therefore, that
a precise, stable and generally accepted system of nomenclature should be
available for their naming.

Article  C. 2

         The naming of cultivated plants which differ in no appreciable degree
from their wild parental stock is governed by the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature
.

Article  C. 3

         The naming of special forms originating or maintained in cultivation is
governed by the following regulations. A legitimate name is a name in accor~
dance with these regulations. [They are applicable to such plants used in
agriculture and forestry as well as in horticulture. ]

         Note The phrase “originating or maintained in cultivation” covers new variants
raised from seed collected in the wild and wild variants which would not normally receive
a Latin botanical name, brought into cultivation direct from the wild and considered of
interest to cultivators.

Article  C. 4

         Adequate and accurate registration of names is of first importance for
their stabilization.

         Note It is recommended that when the existing registration of a plant group is now
purely national, this should be placed on an international basis and that international
registries be set up for those groups of which there is no official registration.

Section B.   NAMES OF CATEGORIES

Article  C. 5

         Cultivated plants, like wild plants, are named at three main systematic
levels, i.e. generic, specific and varietal. Names at these three levels are:

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 41 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

(1)    Generic, i.e. ordinary generic names. e.g. Rosa, Lilium, or comparable
names applied to bigeneric or multigeneric hybrid groups (“hybrid genera”),
e.g. × Heucherella; × Potinara; such names cover all members of a particular
genus or hybrid group.

(2)    Specific, i.e. the specific name for a species. A formula, a name, or a
collective phrase is used for an interspecific hybrid, this designation covering
the offspring of the cross concerned.

(3)    Varietal, i.e. the varietal name for a wild variant, or the cultivar name
for a special form (often a clone or line) originating or maintained in culti~
vation (see Art. C.3, Note).

         Note A cultivar (abbreviated as cv.) is a variant not known to occur in the wild
or not known to have an equivalent in the wild in sufficient numbers to justify botanical
recognition, as distinct from a variety, which is a wild variant warranting botanical recog~
nition. In horticulture cultivars are often referred to as “horticultural varieties” or simply
“varieties” but it is best to reserve the term “variety” for wild variations.

         Examples:  In the name Sedum dasyphyllum var. glanduliferum, which is the name of
a variety of known wild origin, the first word (Sedum) is on the generic level, being the
name of the genus; the second word (dasyphyllum) is on the specific level and is known
technically as the specific epithet; the third word (glanduliferum) is on the varietal level
and is known technically as the varietal epithet. Similarly in the name Sedum spectabile
‘Brilliant’, which is the name of a cultivar, the word ‘Brilliant’ is on the varietal level and
is called the cultivar name in this Code.

Article  C. 6

         When it is desirable in large and complicated groups, the above three
categories of names may be supplemented by the insertion of others. Thus
the generic name may be followed by a subgeneric or sectional name; a specific
by a subspecific; a varietal by a form name. Within a variable species or
interspecific hybrid, a group of cultivars may be designated by an additional
name or collective phrase inserted between the specific name and the cultivar
name (see Art. C. 24 (g)). When greater precision is desired, special cate~
gories may be used (see Arts. C. 28~32).

Section C.   PRIORITY AND PUBLICATION OF CULTIVAR NAMES

Article  C. 7

         In principle the correct name for a cultivar is the earliest legitimate name;
other names are synonyms. However, because of linguistic and other diffi~
culties, in certain instances the use of validly published synonyms may be
permitted (see Arts. C. 12~16).

Article  C. 8

         A name has no standing unless validly published.

Article  C. 9

         Valid publication is effected by the sale or distribution of printed or
similar mechanically duplicated matter*) giving both the name and description
of the plant concerned (with or without a figure) or a reference to a previously
published description, in any language using Roman characters.

         Note Official registrars (see Art. C. 4) should set standards as to what constitutes
a proper and sufficient description for plants in a particular group.

————————–

         * Printed or similar mechanically duplicated matter is reading matter multiplied by a
mechanical process whereby a number of identical legible and indelible copies are made
from the same inked surface.  ~  W. T. S.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 42 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

Article  C. 10

         The mention of a cultivar name in a catalogue or list without description
or reference to a previously published description is not valid publication of
the name, even though a figure be given.

Article  C. 11

         The cultivar name and description should be published in a horticultural
or botanical periodical, or in a monograph, handbook or other standard work,
or a dated horticultural catalogue, if possible with an indication of the breeder,
selector or introducer. It is desirable that this work should be one of a
reasonably permanent nature.

Article  C. 12

         When the earliest validly published cultivar name is one which is no
longer in use or is in general use for another plant, so that its revival would
lead to widespread confusion and inconvenience, the more recent generally
used name is to be retained. The rejected name is to be recorded as a synonym
in some appropriate manner, preferably in the official register of the group.

Article  C. 13

         When two or more cultivars are widely grown under the same name,
the official registrar has the power to decide for which one the name shall
be retained. In groups where there is no registry, the principle of priority
should normally be applied.

Article  C. 14

         When a plant is introduced from one country into another, its original
cultivar name should normally be retained if it has been published in accor~
dance with these regulations. However, because of differences in language or
custom, it is sometimes advisable to translate or in some manner to change
the name.

(a)    Such translated or changed names are to be known as commercial
synonyms
and are to be used only after approval by the registrar of the group
concerned. The official register will list such synonyms; they should also
appear in lists and catalogues.

         Examples:  Rose ‘Peace’ (Meilland) is a commercial synonym in the U.S.A. of Rose
‘Mme. A. Meilland’. Pear ‘Bartlett’ is a commercial synonym in the U.S.A. of Pear ‘Wil~
liams Bon Chrétien’.

(b)    If no official registry of a group exists, catalogues and lists may use
commercial synonyms but these should be followed by an indication af the
original name.

Article  C. 15

         A cultivar name which appeared first in a language not printed in Roman
characters should be transliterated into Roman characters or translated into
a language using Raman characters. The first transliteration should be
adopted, provided it is published together with a description in a language
using Roman characters.

         Example The cultivar name in the full name Prunus serrulata ‘Amanogawa’ is the
accepted transliteration from Japanese script; the translation ‘Milky Way’ should not now
be introduced as a cultivar name for this plant.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 43 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

         Note In general, transliterations should not be replaced by commercial synonyms;
however, when both transliterations and translations introduce difficulties of language or
custom, commercial synonyms may be used instead as set forth in Art. C. 14 Thus the
English translation ‘Nigger Boy’ of the Russian ‘АРАПУОНОК’ would cause difficulty in
some countries; if the transliteration ‘Arapchonok’ was also not acceptable, it would be
advisable to replace both translation and transliteration by a commercial synonym such as
‘Congo’, ‘Maroon Beauty’, etc.

Article  C. 16

         To establish fixed points of departure for the determination of prionty,
an approved list or other publication, enumerating the cultivars of a group
and compiled in accordance with this International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants, should be taken. whenever possible, as a starting point
for the nomenclature of every group of cultivated plants.

(a)    If an official registry exists; such a list will be one compiled or approved
by the registrar.

(b)    If no registry exists, a list, monograph or handbook may be adopted
as the standard of nomenclature for a particular group by the International
Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature and Registration after consulting
appropriate individuals or societies concerned.

Section D.   FORMATION AND USE OF CULTIVAR NAMES

Article  C. 17

         From January 1, 1953 onwards the cultivar name of a newly described
cultivar (i.e. new or hitherto unnamed cultivar) should be a vernacular or
“fancy” name (i.e. one in common language) and markedly different from
a botanical epithet, e.g. ‘Pygmy’ not pygmaeus, or ‘Prinz Handjery’ not
Handjeryi. It can be attached to either a scientific name or a common name,
e.g. Syringa vulgaris ‘Mont Blanc’ or Lilac ‘Mont Blanc’.

Article  C. 18

         The cultivar name should begin with a capital letter and be distinguished
typographically from a botanical epithet, preferably by enclosing it in quotation
marks, e.g. Sedum spectabile ‘Brilliant’.

         Note The use of quotation marks makes it unnecessary to place the abbreviation
“cv” (see Art. C.5, note) before the cultivar name.

Article  C. 19

         When in the past a name of Latin form (technically a varietal epithet)
has been generally used for a cultivar, this is not to be rejected but should
be treated as a cultivar name. It should then be distinguished typographically
from a botanical epithet, e.g. by enclosing it in quotation marks.

         Examples: Thuja orientalis ‘Elegantissima’, Hibiscus syriacus ‘Totus albus’, Magnolia
× soulangeana ‘Lennei’.

Article  C. 20

         The cultivar name remains unchanged even when legitimate changes take
place in the generic name, e.g. through the union or division of genera or the
use of an earlier generic name, unless the same cultivar name is already in
use for another cultivar under the new generic name.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 44 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

         Note The cultivar name does not form a technical nomenclatural combination with
the generic, specific or varietal name to which it is appended. If the name of the producer
(i.e. raiser or introducer) is cited, this remains the same even when the name preceding
the cultivar name is changed.

         Example: Weigela ‘Eva Rathke’ (Rathke) becomes Diervilla ‘Eva Rathke’ (Rathke),
when Weigela and Diervilla are treated as one genus under the name Diervilla.

Article  C. 21

         Within the same genus or “hybrid genus” the same cultivar name is not
to be used for more than one cultivar without permission of the official
registrar of the group, this permission being granted only when it can be
proved that the cultivar to which this name was first given is no longer in
cultivation or already possesses a correct name and that no confusion will
result. Thus the use of the name Narcissus pseudonarcissus Victoria precludes
the use of Victoria as a cultivar name for a cultivar of any other species
of Narcissus such as Narcissus poeticus Victoria.

         Note 1 It is advisable to avoid duplication of names among cultivars of closely related
groups, such as Azaleas and Rhododendrons, which although separated generically by some
plantsmen are placed by others in one genus, Rhododendron. Thus, when Azalea ‘Harvest
Moon’ is transferred to the genus Rhododendron, the cultivar name ‘Harvest Moon’ cannot
be retained for it because this name is already in use under Rhododendron for another
cultivar.

         Note 2 When permission has been granted for the use of an obsolete name to
designate a new cultivar, this is to be recorded in the official register of the group. The
revived name should be followed by the name of the new cultivar.

Article  C. 22

         The following practices should be observed in the coining of new cultivar
names, but well~established names should not be altered to conform to them.

         (a) So far as possible a cultivar name should consist of a single word; it
should not exceed three words.

         (b) Excessively long words or words difficult to pronounce should be
avoided.

         (c) For cultivars within the same genus or hybrid genus, names which are
likely to be confused with one another should be avoided; the use of ‘Alexander’
should preclude the use of ‘Alexandra’ and ‘Alexandria’ and possibly ‘Princess
Alexandra’ within the same genus or hybrid group.

         (d) When personal names are used to designate cultivars, forms of address
liable to be confused, especially through errors in printing, e.g. ‘Mr.’, ‘Mrs.’:,
‘Sr.’ and ‘Sra.’, should be avoided; ‘Ellen Willmott’ is preferable to ‘Miss
Willmott’.

         (e) The use of abbreviations for personal and geographical names should
be avoided; thus ‘George Yeld’ is preferable to ‘G. Yeld’ or ‘Geo. Yeld’ and
‘Mount Kisco’ to ‘Mt. Kisco’.

         (f) The articles “a” and “the” and their equivalents in other languages
should be avoided except where linguistic custom dictates otherwise, e.g.
Colonel’ (notThe Colonel’), ‘Giant’ (notThe Giant’), but ‘La Rochelle’
(not ‘Rochelle’).

         (g) The scientific or vernacular name of a genus or other group of plants
should not be used as a cultivar name; names such as Carnation ‘Pelargonium’,
Rosa ‘Camellia’ and Plum ‘Apricot’ are to be avoided.

         (h) The name of a living person should not be used as a cultivar name
without his or her consent.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 45 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

Section E. NAMES OF HYBRIDS ORIGINATING IN CULTIVATION

Article  C. 23

         The first word of the name of a hybrid is a generic name, when the
parents belong to the same genus, or the name of a “hybrid genus” when
the parents belong to two or more genera. It conforms to the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature as far as generic names are concerned.
Names of bigeneric or multigeneric hybrid groups are framed in accordance
with Art. C. 25 (I.C.B.N., Art. 49 and H. 1~5).

         The last part of the name of a hybrid originating or maintained in
cultiviation (see Art. C. 3) is a cultivar name (see Art. C. 5) applying to a
single hybrid form and its direct descendants forming part of the same clone
or line. The cultivar name is subject to all pertinent regulations in this Inter~
national Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.

         When the parentage is known or the cultivar belongs to a well~marked
hybrid group, a formula indicating the parentage or a collective designation
or group name for the group may be placed between the generic name and
the cultivar name, thus forming the second part of the full name.

         For the sake of brevity or when the parentage is unknown; uncertain or
of complicated origin, the cultivar name may directly follow the generic name,
e.g. Iris Ambassadeur.

Article  C. 24

         Regulations for the designation of hybrid groups of the same parentage
by means of formulae or by collective names are to be found in Article C.25
(I.C.B.N., Art. 49 and H. 1~5) if these are in Latin form only. The following
parallel regulations have been set up for use with groups to be designated
primarily in common language. Additional provisions are included for those
who wish particularly to use designations in Latin form.

(a)    The formula consists of the names of the parents in alphabetical order
separated by the multiplication sign.

         Example Camellia japonica × C. saluenensis.

         Note Although it is the custom of some hybridizers to place the name of the female
parent first in the formula, it is recommended that the method set forth in the Botanical
Code be followed (Art. C. 25, I.C.B.N. Art. H. 1). The placing of the names of the parents
of the hybrid in alphabetical order is advocated here because the formula covers all off~
spring of a cross, whichever way it is made, and because, for spontaneous hybrids and
for the many hybrids whose history is obscure, nothing can be positively stated as to which
was the female and which the male parent.

(b)    When it seems useful or desirable, a collective name, preceded by the
multiplication sign ×, may be substituted for the formula. This name may
be either a word of Latin form or a phrase in common language preferably
containing a word such as ‘hybrids’, ‘crosses’ or their equivalents in other
languages, which will make evident the collective usage of the phrase. All
plants derived from a cross between the two or more species represented by
one formula carry the same collective name, including subsequent generations
from the first cross, crosses within these generations and back~crosses with
either parent provided that they are distinguishable from the parents.

         Examples:  The collective name Camellia × williamsii covers all the hybrid forms e.g.
‘Donation’, ‘J. C. Williams’, ‘Mary Christian’ and ‘St. Ewe’, derived from C. japonica ×
C. saluenensis. When the collective name is a phrase in common language, e.g. Lilium
‘Bellingham Hybrids’, it is usually expedient to parenthesize the collective name as in
the name Lilium (Bellingham Hybrids) ‘Shuksan’; here the cultivar name ‘Shuksan’ belongs
to only one hybrid form (clone), which is thereby distinguished from other forms of the
‘Bellingham Hybrids’, the parental formula of which is L. humboldtii var. ocellatum × L.
pardalinum.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 46 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

(c)    The use of the name of only one parent species to designate a hybrid
group should be avoided. Such a phrase as “Rhododendron fortunei hybrids”
is permissible only when the other parents are unknown or uncertain or are
themselves of complex, uncertain or unknown parentage, and the hybrid group
has well-marked characters undoubtedly derived from the one species indicated.

(d)    When the collective name is of Latin form, it is subject to the same
rules of botanical nomenclature as those governing the names of species.
It must therefore be published with a description or a diagnosis in Latin of
a plant belonging to the hybrid group, or with a reference to a previously and
effectively published description or diagnosis which must be in Latin if
published after January 1, 1935; mention of the parents without such a
description or reference does not validate the name. A dried specimen of the
plant should be deposited in the herbarium of a botanical or horticultural
institution which should be mentioned when publishing such a Latin name
and description.

(e)    If the collective name is not of Latin form, no Latin description is
required. In general, cultivators are recommended not to give names of Latin
form to plants originating in cultivation. Publication of names of hybrid groups
in common language will follow the principles laid down for the publication
of names of cultivars (Sect. C., Arts. 7~16).

(f)    A word formed by combining the Latin epithets (or parts thereof) of
the parent species may be used as a collective name but not as a cultivar name.

         Example The name Lilium × sulphurgale is a collective name for hybrids of L. regale
× L. sulphureum.

(g)    When a major hybrid group becomes separable into subsidiary groups,
these groups may be given special designations in common language, preferably
including the word “group”. They are to be regarded primarily as convenient
headings for use in catalogues and handbooks. Grammatically they are formed
in accordance with the language of the literature in which they are used and
may thus be translated.

         Examples:  Tulipa × gesneriana (Darwin group) ‘Bartigon’; Dahlia × cultorum (Cac~
tus group) ‘Julia Svedelius’.

         Note on procedure. When, for a new cross between two species, the describer has
decided to publish a Latin name as a collective name, it is particularly important that either
before or at the same time he should give a cultivar name to each particular form of the
hybrid that he considers worth distinguishing, even if there exists only one such form.
If this is not done then, later there will be a danger that horticulturally inferior forms of
the same parentage will be placed under the same collective name, without any cultivar
name being available to distinguish the original and possibly superior form. If, however,
the original form of the cross is distinguished from the time of its first publication by a
cultivar name, confusion with later forms, each of which would possess its own cultivar
name, will be avoided. It is greatly to the advantage of the first producer to follow this
procedure.

         Examples:  The name Viburnum × bodnantense covers all hybrids of V. fragrans ×
V. grandiflorum, though based on a selected form raised at Bodnant, which has been given
the cultivar name ‘Dawn’ to distinguish it from other forms of the same parentage. Similarly
the name Eucryphia × intermedia covers all hybrids of E. glutinosa × E. lucida but the
name E. × intermedia ‘Rostrevor’ is to be used only for vegetative descendants of the
hybrid raised at Rostrevor.

Section F.   NAMES OF LATIN FORM APPLIED TO HYBRIDS IN GENERAL

Article  C. 25

         General Rules for the naming of Hybrids are provided in the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature
, 1952 (Appendix II), if these names are to
be in Latin form.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 47 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

Section G.   NAMES OF BUD~MUTANTS (“SPORTS”) AND

RE~SELECTED AND IMPROVED STRAINS

Article  C. 26

         In naming a bud~mutant (“sport”) of a recognized cultivar, the name
selected should so far as possible identify the mutant with the parent cultivar,
if the season of flowering or ripening of the fruit or period of use has not
been changed.

         Example Apple ‘Red Rome’ was derived from a bud~mutation of ‘Rome Beauty’ and
is identical with it in all characteristics except that the fruit is red all over instead of striped.

Article  C. 27

         When a strain becomes, through continuous selection, so distinct from
the original that it can be regarded as a new cultivar, it should be given a
concise new name. When, however, selection has not resulted in such diver~
gence, the reselected strain should keep the name of the original cultivar,
followed by the name of the selector or some other convenient designation.

         Examples:  Broccoli ‘De Cicco’, derived from Broccoli ‘Calabrese’, is available a full
week earlier and has somewhat different cultural requirements. Cabbage ‘Wisconsin All
Seasons’, highly resistant to the diseases “yellows” and cabbage mosaic, is an otherwise
similar selection from the non~resistant ‘All Seasons’. Excessively long names resulting from
repeated re~selections, such as Onion ‘Giant Yellow Zittau Nordre Munkegaard I’, should
be avoided.

Section H.    SPECIAL CATEGORIES

Article  C. 28

         Experimental horticulture and botany may need to recognize various
special categories outside the requirements of the non~specialist. These cate~
gories are considered in the following regulations. In general their nomen~
clature is governed by the regulations above, when applicable.

Article  C. 29

         In “grafted” or “budded” plants, when it is desired to indicate the
materials of which such plants are made up, the name of the upper species,
cultivar, clone, etc. (i.e. the scion), precedes the name of the next lower (i.e.
the stock), the names being separated by a slanting line or lines.

         Examples:  Viburnum carlesii/V. lantana; Syringa vulgaris cl. ‘Decaisne’/Ligustrum
ovalifolium;
Rose ‘Betty Uprichard’/Rosa multiflora; Apple ‘Grimes Golden’/‘Malling 2’. In
“double~worked” or “triple~worked” materials the same sequence would be followed.

Article  C. 30

         For greater precision in the nomenclature of cultivated plants the following
categories may be recognized:

(a)    The line (Latin linea, abbreviated as ln.): a sexually reproductive and
uniform~appearing group propagated entirely by means of seed, its stability
maintained by selection (this known as “roguing the line” by practical plants~
men). The epithet would be preceded by the term “line”. The “line” usually
is equivalent in rank to the category of “cultivar”.

         Example Petunia ln. ‘Rosy Morn’.

(b)    The clone: essentially uniform material derived from a single individual
and propagated entirely by vegetative means, as by cuttings, divisions, grafts.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 48 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

etc. The epithet would be preceded by the term “clone” (abbreviated as cl.)
or indicated by the symbol G. This category is essentially equivalent to

“cultivar” and replaces it in horticultural groups where nomenclatural precision
is essential (see also this Article, paragraph (f)).

         Example Picea pungens var. glauca clone ‘R. H. Montgomery’: as expediency dictates,
Syringa vulgaris cl. ‘Decaisne’ may also be designated as Lilac cl. ‘Decaisne’ or Lilac
G ‘Decaisne’ or ‘Decaisne’ G.

(c)    The hybrid~group (Latin grex hybrida, abbreviated as gh.): a group
of hybrids originating from the same parents or series of parents but whose
individuals vary in appearance; the group would be delimited by the potential
variations inherent in the parental stocks. This category is on the “specific”
level (see Art. C. 5 (2) and Art. C.24 (b)).

         Example The ‘Hardy Ghent hybrid azaleas’ are sometimes listed as Rh. × gandavense
(said to be derived from Rhododendron calendulaceum × Rh. flavum × Rh. nudiflorum);
where greater precision is desired and to indicate that the group is not a simple one with
few variants, this might be listed as Rhododendron gh. gandavense. A particular clone of
this group would be designated, e.g. as Rhododendron gh. gandavense cl. ‘Pallas’.

(d)    The line~hybrid (Latin linea hybrida, abbreviated as lh.): a predictably
uniform group derived by repetitive hybridization from a series of two or more
constantly maintained breeding stocks, these parental “lines” being maintained
either by continued inbreeding or as clones. The epithet, or identifying symbol
or number, could be prefixed by the hyphenated words “line~hybrid” or the
abbrevation “lh.”. This category is essentially on the cultivar level.

         Example This is the standard practice in the “hybrid seed corn” industry~e.g.
‘United States Department of Agriculture, hybrid seed corn No. 13’ (usually abbreviated
as ‘hybrid corn, US~13’) which, for greater precision in format international literature
where the word “corn” has various applications, might be listed as Zea mays lh. ‘US~13’.*)

(e)    The convariety (Latin convarietas, abbreviated as conv.); a group of
closely allied cultivars, somewhat analogous to the subspecies.

         Example Cucurbita pepo conv. citrullina, which includes the cultivars (lines) ‘Dahl~
emer Dauerkurbis’, ‘Long Cream’, ‘Mogono’, etc. †)

         Note The category of convariety has special use in the systematics of cultivated
plants where the category of “subspecies”, with its geographic connotations in modern
taxonomy, has little pertinence, and where the category of “variety” is devoid of system~
atic precision.

(f)    Appendix II. Rec. H. 5 A of the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature
also has pertinence here and should be consulted. The apomict
is a plant which reproduces by means of seed, the embryos of which are
produced in various ways, but without fertilization. Apomixy is relatively
common in such important families as the Rosaceae, Gramineae. etc.

         [Special note.  By extension, the instructions for the placing of the abbreviation ap.
as outlined in Rec. H. 5 A. might, where advisable, also be applied to cultivar names.
These would follow the system outlined for the clone given above (Art. C.30 (b)).]

Article  C. 31

         Polyploid or genetically differentiated races may be named or their
cytological condition indicated by an appropriate symbol.

         Examples:  Phlox drummondii ‘Tetra Red’; Salsify ‘Mammouth’ (4n).

————————–

         * This method also is an increasingly common practice in the production of orna~
mental plants  ~  W. H. C.

         Probably the numerous kinds of yellow~flowered, hard-shelled ornamental gourds
would also comprise a convariety of this species  ~  W. H. C.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 49 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

Article  C. 32

         Graft chimaeras (sometimes called “graft hybrids”) are designated by
a formula and, where it seems useful or necessary, by a name.

(a)    The formula consists of the names of the two taxonomic groups (taxa)
from which the tissues of the chimaera were derived, in alphabetical order
and connected by the
addition sign +.

         Example Cydonia oblonga + Pyrus communis; Cytisus purpureus + Laburnum ana~
gyroides; Syringa
× chinensis + S. vulgaris
.

(b)    When the components belong to different genera, the name consists of
a new “generic” name formed by a combination of the names of the component
genera, preceded by the sign + and followed by an epithet. This “generic”
name should not be the same as the “generic” name of hybrids between the
same genera, nor should the epithet of a chimaera be the same as that used
for a hybrid between the same species as the components of the chimaera.

         Examples:  + Crataegomespilus dardarii = Crataegus monogyna + Mespilus germanica
but × Crataemespilus gillotii = Crataegus monogyna × Mespilus germanica; Solanum +
tubingense = Solanum lycopersicum + S. nigrum
or, if the components are considered
generically distinct, + Lycosolanum tubingense = Lycopersicon esculentum + Solanum
nigrum
.

(c)    When the components belong to the same genus, the name consists of
the generic name followed by the sign + and an epithet.

         Example Syringa + correlata = Syringa × chinensis + S. vulgaris.

(d)    The same two components may build a chimaera in more than one way,
so that morphologically and histologically different forms may be distinguished.
These forms should be united under the same formula or binary (“specific”)
name; when it is desirable to give them special designations they should be
recognized as mixomorphs and designated by epithets in the same manner as
forms of species or as cultivars with names in the vernacular. This epithet
preceded by the term “mixomorph” (mixomorpha, abbreviated as mx.) may
be placed after the binary name or after a formula.

         Examples:  + Crataegomespilus dardarii mx. ‘Jules d’Asnières’; Solanum + tubingense
mx. koelreuterianum.

INDEX

(Figures refer to Articles).

         Address, forms of, 22. Apomicts, 30. Approved lists, 16. Budmutants, 26.
Categories, 5, special, 28~32. Clone, 30. Collective names for hybrids, 24b,
24d, 24f. Commercial synonym, 14, 15. Convariety, 30. Cultivar, 5 (note).
Cultivar name, 5. Duplication of names, 21. Epithets, specific and varietal, 5
(examples). Fancy names, 17. Formation of names, 17~22. Formulae for
hybrids, 24 H.1, 25 H.4, 25a. Generic name level, 5. Graft chimaeras, 32.
Graft hybrids, 32. Grafted material, 29. Grex hybrida, 30c. Group, hybrid,
24g. Guiding principles, 1~4. Hybrid genera, 25 H.3. Hybrid subgenera and
sections, 25 H.3. Hybrids, 23~25, 30c, bigeneric, 25 H.3, infraspecific, 25 H.2,
intergeneric 25 H.3, 25 H.4, interspecific, 25 H.1, multigeneric 25 H.4. Inter~
national Code of Botanical Nomenclature,
2,25. Latin description or diagnosis,
24d, 24e. Latin names, 19, 24d, 24f, 24 (notes), 25 H.6. Legitimate name, 3.
Line, 30a. Line hybrid, 30d, Long names, 22a, 25 H.4, 27. Mixomorph, 32d.
Nomina nuda, 10. Nothomorph, 25 H.5. Obsolete names, 21 (note). Personal

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 50 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

names, 22. Polyploids, 31. Principles, guiding, 1~4. Printed matter, 9. Priority,
7, 13, rejection of, 12. Publication, 8~11, 24d, e, 25 H.6. Registration, 4.
Starting points, 16. Special categories, 28~32. Specific name level, 5. Strains,
improved, 27. Taxon, 25 H.1. (special note). Translations, 15. Transliterations,
15. Typography, 18, 19. Valid publication, 8. Varietal name level, 5. Variety,
5. Vernacular names, 17.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 51 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 
 

Appendix IV

Special provisions concerning fossil plants

1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article  PB. 1

         Since the names of the species, and consequently of many of the higher
taxa of fossil plants are usually based on specimens of detached organs and
since the connection between these organs can only rarely be proved, organ~
genera (organo~genera)
and form~genera (forma~genera) are distinguished
as taxa within which species may be recognized.

         An organ~genus is a genus whose diagnostic characters are derived from
single organs of the same morphological category or from restricted groups
of organs connected together.

         A form~genus is one that is maintained for classifying fossil specimens
that lack diagnostic characteristics indicative of natural affinity but which
for practical reasons need to be provided with binary names. Form~genera are
artificial in varying degree.

         Note 1 Organ~genera based on detached parts may be distinguished not only by
morphological characters, but also by reason of different modes of preservation.

         Note 2 It is necessary to distinguish both organ~genera and form~genera since the
former are held to indicate a certain degree of natural affinity, while the latter may  ~  and
in many instances do  ~  include species belonging to different families or even groups of
higher rank, e.g. ferns and pteridosperms. But form~genera have been recognized as per~
taining to a special morphological category since 1828 (Adolphe Brongniart). Since that
time they have been constantly used in taxonomic and morphological literature and they
are quite indispensable.

Article  PB. 2

         The general rules applicable to the naming of recent plants apply also to
the names of fossil plants and to those of organ~genera and form~genera (see
Chapter III and the Recommendations PB. 6 A, B, C).

2 CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

Article PB. 3

         From 1 Jan. 1953 the name of a genus or of a taxon of higher rank is
not validly published, unless it is accompanied by a description of the taxon
or by reference to a previously and effectively published description of it
(see Art. 48).

Article  PB. 4

         The type of a genus of fossil plants is the first described species which
shows such characters as are necessary for distinguishing the genus from
other taxa. The type of a species of fossil plants is the first described and
figured specimen showing such characters as are necessary for distinguishing
the species from other species.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 52 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

Article  PB. 5

         When diagnostic characters are altered or circumscription changed in
taxa of fossil plants, the type is determined by reference to the original
specimen figured in validation of the name of the taxon. If more than one
figure is supplied in validation of the name, the emending author must indicate
from the specimens originally figured the one he regards as constituting
the type.

Article  PB. 6

         The name of a monotypic genus of fossil plants published after 1 Jan. 1953
must be accompanied by a description of the genus indicating its difference
from other genera.

Recommendation  PB. 6A

         An author describing organ~genera should clearly indicate for which kind of organ
the genus is established.

         It is desirable that the name should indicate the morphological category of the organ
(For leaves a combination with phyllum, for fructifications with carpus or theca, etc.).

Recommendation  PB. 6B

         The names of form~genera should as a rule be used only in their original meaning,
and subsequent alteration of the diagnostic characters of the form~genera is not desirable.

Recommendation  PB. 6C

         Form~genera should not be used as types on which natural taxa of higher rank are
established.

         Note While organ~genera may be grouped in families bearing names taken from one
of the genera and ending in ~aceae, form~genera should not be placed in groups with names
implying the status of natural taxa.

Recommendation  PB. 6D

         In descriptions of organs of uncertain nature or affinities, a name suggesting definite
relationship with a recent plant should be avoided.

Recommendation  PB. 6E

         In descriptions of new species it is desirable to mention which specimen is regarded
as the type and to indicate in which museum or collection the type is to be found.

Recommendation  PB. 6F

         Paleobotanists should exercise great caution in applying to well preserved specimens
names which have been originally attached to poorly preserved specimens or to specimens
which have been inadequately described or figured.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 53 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       [ Appendix V, pp. 66-157, is not included here.
         It lists conserved names of families and genera. ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 54 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 55 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Appendix VI

                             Guide to the Citation of Botanical Literature

         A reference to literature in a botanical publication should consist of the
following items, in the order in which they are treated below:

         1 Name of Author(s).  In a citation appended to the name of a taxon,
the name of the author should be abbreviated as recommended in Rec. 60A.
In other citations (as in bibliographies), the name of the author should be
given in full; the last name first, followed by first name(s). The use of the
full name (rather than initials) tends to avoid errors.

         If several authors are cited, the name of the last should be preceded by
the sign “&”.

         After the name of a taxon, an unabbreviated author’s name should be separated from
what follows by a comma; an abbreviated name needs no punctuation other than the period
(full stop) indicating abbreviation.

         2 Title.  After the name of a taxon, the title of a book is commonly
abbreviated, and the title of an article in a serial is commonly omitted. Else~
where (as in bibliographies), titles should be cited exactly as they appear
on the title~page of the book or at the head of the article.

         In a citation appended to the name of a taxon, no punctuation should separate the
title from what follows other than a period (full stop) indicating abbreviation.

         Examples of Taxonomic Citation of Authors and Titles: ~ P. Br. Hist. Jam. ~ Hook.
f. Fl. Brit. Ind.  ~  Hoffm. Gen. Umbell.  ~  G. Don. Gen. Hist.  ~  H. B. K. Nova Gen. &
Sp.  ~  L. Sp. Pl.  ~  Michx. Fl. Bor~Am.  ~  DC. Prodr.  ~  T. & G. Fl. N. Am. The last
five author’s names are not abbreviated strictly in accordance with Rec. 60A but with
common usage.

         Examples of Names written in full: ~ Mueller, Ferdinand Jacob Heinrich von. ~ Müller,
Johann Friedrich Theodor (“Fritz Müller”). ~ Mueller, Ferdinand Ferdinandowitsch. ~ Mül~
ler, Franz August. ~ Müller, Franz.

         3 Name of Serial.  Principal words should be abbreviated *) to the
first syllable, with such additional letters or syllables as may be necessary
to avoid confusion; articles, prepositions and other particles (der, the, of, de,
et, and so forth) should be omitted. The order of words should be that which
appears on the title-page. Unnecessary words, subtitles, and the like, should
be omitted.

         To avoid confusion among publications having the same name or very
similar names, the place of publication or other distinguishing data should be
added in brackets.

         No punctuation other than a period (full stop) indicating abbreviation should separate
the name of the serial from what follows.

         Examples of Citation of Names of Serials:   ~  Ann. Sci. Nat.; not Ann. des Sci. Nat.,
 ~  Am. Jour. Bot; not Amer. Journ. Bot.  ~  Bot. Jahrb. (Botanische Jahrbücher für Syste~
matik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie); not Engl. Bot. Jahrb. (Engler was the
editor, not the author of the series).  ~  Mem. Soc. Cub. Hist. Nat. (Memorias de las
Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural “Felipe Poey”).  ~  Acta Soc. Faun. Fl. Fenn. (Acta
Societatis pro Fauna et Flora Fennica).  ~  Bull. Jard. Bot. Etat [Bruxelles] (Bulletin du Jardin
Botanique de l’Etat).  ~  Flora [Quito] (to distinguish it from the well~known “Flora”
published in Jena).  ~  Hedwigia; not Hedwig.  ~  Gartenflora; not Gartenfl.  ~  Missouri Bot.
Gard. Bull.; not Bull. Mo. Bot. Gard. (see title~page).

————————–

         *) Titles consisting of a single word, and personal names, are customarily not abbre~
viated; but many exceptions are sanctioned by usage.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 56 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

         4 Edition and Series.  If a book has appeared in more than one edition,
those subsequent to the first should be designated by “ed. 2”, “ed. 3”,
and so forth.

         If a serial has appeared in more than one series in which the numbers
of volumes are repeated, those subsequent to the first should be designated
by a roman capital numeral, or by “ser. 2”, “ser. 3”, and so forth.

         Examples of Editions and Series:  ~  Hoffm. Gen. Umbell. ed. 2.  ~  Compt. Rend.
Acad. URSS. II. (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS. Nouvelle Série).
 ~  Ann. Sci. Nat. IV  ~  Mem. Am. Acad. II. (or ser. 2.) (Memoirs of the American Aca~
demy of Arts and Sciences. New Series); not Mem. Am. Acad. N. S.

         5.  Volume.  The volume should be shown by an arabic numeral; for
greater clarity this should be printed in boldface type. When volumes are
not numbered, the years on the title~pages may be used as volume~numbers.

         The volume~number should always be separated trom the numbers of pages and il~
lustrations by a colon.

         6 Part or Issue.  If a volume consists of separately paged parts, the
number of the part should be inserted immediately after the volume~number
(and before the colon), either in parentheses or as a superscript. For volumes
which are continuously paged, the designation of parts serves no useful pur~
pose and leads to typographical errors.

         7 Pages.  Pages are shown by arabic numerals, except those otherwise
designated in the original. If several pages are cited, the numbers are separated
by commas; or if more than two consecutive pages are cited, the first and
last are given, separated by a dash.

         8 Illustrations.  Figures and plates, when it is desirable to refer to
them, should be indicated by arabic numerals preceded by f. and pl. respec~
tively; for greater clarity, these should be printed in italic type.

         9 Data.  The year of publication should end the citation; or, in lists
of works to which reference is made by author and date, it may be inserted
between the author’s name and the title of his work. If it is desirable to cite
the exact data, day, month and year should be given in that order. The date
(in either position) may be enclosed in parentheses.

         Note With the exceptions above noted, each item of the citation should be separated
from the following item by a period (full stop).

         Examples of Citations Appended to Names of Taxa:   ~  Anacampseros Sims, Bot.
Mag. 33: pl. 1367. 1811.  ~  Tittmannia Brongn. Ann. Sci. Nat. 8: 385. 1826.  ~  Mono~
chaetum
Naud. Ann. Sci. Nat. IV. 3: 48. pl. 2. 1845.  ~  Cudrania Tréc. Ann. Sci. Nat. ser.
3. 8: 122. f. 76~85. 1847.  ~  Symphyoglossum Turcz. Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 21¹: 255. 1848.
 ~  Hedysarum gremiale Rollins. Rhodora 43: 230 (1940).  ~  Hydrocotyle nixioides Math. &
Const. Bull. Torrey Club 78: 303. 24 July 1951.  ~  Ferula tolucensis H. B. K. Nov. Gen. &
Sp. 5: 12. 1821.  ~  Critamus dauricus Hoffm. Gen. Umbell. ed. 2. 184. 1816.  ~  Geranium
tracyi
Sandw. Kew Bull. 1941: 219. 9 March 1942.  ~  Sanicula tuberosa Torr. Pacif. Railr.
Rep. 4 (1): 91. 1857.

         Examples of Bibliographic Citations:  Norton. John Bitting Smith. Notes on some
plants, chiefly from the southern United States. Missouri Bot. Gard. Rep. 9: 151~157. pl.
46~50.
1898.

         Reichenbach, Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig. Handbuch des natürlichen Pflanzensystems. i~x,
1~346. 1837.

         Don, George. A general history of the dichlamydeous plants. 1: 1~818 (1831). 2: 1~875
(1832). 3: 1~867 (1834). 4: 1~908 (1838).

         Schmidt, Friedrich. Reisen im Amur~Lande und auf der Insel Sachalin. Botanischer
Teil. Mém. Acad. St.~Petersb. VII. 12²: 1~277. pl. 1~8. June 1868.

         Glover, George Henry & Robbins, Wilfred William. 1915. Colorado plants injurious
to livestock. Bull. Cola. Exp. Sta. 211: 3~74. f. 1~92.

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 57 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 58 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

 
 
 

        Key to the numbering of the Articles and Recommendations.
 

      Code
   Stockholm
 
     Ch. I
 
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
10
11
 
     Ch. II
 
12
13
14
14A
15
 
     Ch. III
 
   Section 1
16
17
17A
 
   Section 2
18
19
19A
19B
20
21
 
   Section 3
22
23
24
25
 
   Section 4
Subsect. 1
26
 
26A
subsect. 2
27
 
subsect. 3
28
 
Rules  ed.  3
 
 
     Ch. I
 
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
15
 ~
  9
 
     Ch. II
 
10
12
11
  I
13
 
     Ch. III
 
   Section 1
16
17
III
 
   Section 2
18pp.
18pp.
 ~
VII
18pp.
18pp.
 
   Section 3
19
20
21
22
 
   Section 4
§ 1 pp.
 ~
 
VIII
§ 1 pp.
IX
 
§ 2
23
 
    Synopsis
   Stockholm
 
     Ch. I
 
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
15
  8bis
  9
 
     Ch. II
 
10
12
11
  I
13
 
     Ch. III
 
   Section 1
16
17
III
 
   Section 2
18
18quin.
IIIbis
VII
18ter
18bis
 
   Section 3
19
20
21
22
 
   Section 4
§ 1 pp.
VIII, 4f
      (p. 47)
VIII
§ 1 pp.
VIII, 4c
      (p. 47)
§ 2
23
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
      Code
   Stockholm
 
29
subsect. 4
30
30A
31
32
32A
32B
subsect. 5
33
33A
33B
33C
subsect. 6
34
35
36
37
37A
37B
37C
subsect. 7
38
 
   Section 5
39
39A
40
41
 
   Section 6
42
42A
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
 
50
50A
51
52
53
54
54A
54B
54C
54D
54E
54F
54G
Rules  ed.  3
 
 
24
§ 3
25
X
26
 ~
XI
XII
§ 4
27
XIII
XIV
XV
§ 5
28
 ~
29
30
XVI
XVII
XIX
§ 7
35
 
   Section 5
36
 ~
 ~
 ~
 
   Section 6
37
 ~
 ~
38
39
40
41
42
 ~
 
43
 ~
 ~
44
45
XXIpp.
XXIpp.
XXII
 ~
 ~
XXIII
XXIV
XXV
    Synopsis
   Stockholm
 
24
§ 3
25
X
26
26bis
XI
XII
§ 4
27
XIII
XIV
XV
§ 5
28
28bis
29
30
XVI
XVII
XIX
§ 7
35
 
   Section 5
36
XXbis, ter
36bis
36ter
 
   Section 6
37
XXquat.
37bis
38
39
40
41
42
42bis,
      ter, quat.
43
XXsex.
43ter
44
45
XXIprop. 2
XXIpp.
XXII
XXIIbis pp.
XXbis pp.
XXIII
XXIV
XXV

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 59 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

      Code
   Stockholm
 
54H
54I
54K
54L
 
   Section 7
55
56
56A
57
58
58A
59
60
60A
60B
60C
60D
60E
60F
60G
60H
 
   Section 8
61
62
63
 
   Section 9
64
65
66
 
   Section 10
67
68
68A
68B
 
   Section 11
69
Rules  ed.  3
 
 
XXVI
XXVII
XXVIII
XXIX
 
   Section 7
46
47 (1)
47 (2)
 ~
48 (1)
48 (2)
49
 ~
XXX
XXXI
 ~
XXXII
 ~
 ~
 ~
 ~
 
   Section 8
50
51
52
 
   Section 9
53
54
55
 
Section 10 pp.
56
 ~
XXXIII
XXXIV
 
Section 10 pp.
57
    Synopsis
   Stockholm
 
XXVI
XXVII
XXVIII
XXIX
 
   Section 7
46
47 (1)
47 (2)
47bis
48 (1)
48 (2)
49
49bis
XXX
XXXI
XXXIbis
XXXII
XXXIIbis
XXXII ter
XXXIIsex.
XXXIIsep.
 
   Section 8
50
51
52
 
   Section 9
53
54
55
 
Section 10 pp.
56
18 prop. 4
XXXIII
XXXIV
 
Section 10 pp.
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
      Code
   Stockholm
 
   Section 12
70
71
71A
 
   Section 13
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
 
   Section 14
82
82A
82B
82C
82D
82E
82F
82G
82H
82I
83
 
   Section 15
83A
 
   Section 16
83B
83C
83D
83B
83F
83G
 
Rules  ed.  3
 
 
   Section 11
58
 ~
XXXVI 2, 3
 
   Section 12
59
60
61
62
64
65
67
68
 ~
69
 
   Section 13
70
XXXVIII
XXXIX
XL
XLI
 ~
XLII
XLIII
XLIV
 ~
71
 
   Section 14
72
 
   Section 15
XLV
XLVI
XLVII
XLVIII
XLIX
L
 
    Synopsis
   Stockholm
 
   Section 11
58
58bis
XXXVI 2, 3
 
   Section 12
59
60
61
62
64
65
67
68
68bis
69
 
   Section 13
70
XXXVIII
XXXIX
XL
XLI
XLIbis
XLII
XLIII
XLIV
70 prop. 6
71
 
   Section 14
XLIVbis
 
   Section 15
XLV
XLVI
XLVII
XLVIII
XLIX
L
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952  —  Stockholm Code

– 60 –

text: © 1952, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
                   [ Not present in this edition ]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ sic ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 

   
       [ supposed to be superscript ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 

   
       [ F 1, with the "1" in a smaller font ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ This symbol cannot be represented in HTML: see this .jpg-file
                                       (from the 1956, Paris Code)                                  ]