Preamble | Pre |
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
PREAMBLE
Botany
requires a precise
and
simple system of nomenclature used by
botanists in all countries,
dealing, on the one hand,
with
the
terms which
denote the
ranks of taxonomic groups or units,
and on the other hand
with
the
names
which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups.
The purpose
of giving a name to a
taxonomic group is not to indicate
its characters or
history,
but to supply a means of referring to it
and to indicate its taxonomic
rank.
This Code
aims at
the provision of a stable method
of naming taxonomic
groups,
avoiding
and rejecting the use of names which may cause error
or
ambiguity or throw science into confusion.
Next in
importance is the avoidance
of
the useless creation of names.
Other considerations,
such as absolute
grammatical correctness,
regularity or euphony of names, more or less pre~
vailing custom, regard for persons, etc., notwithstanding
their undeniable
importance, are relatively accessory.
The Principles form the basis of the system of botanical nomenclature.
The
detailed provisions are divided into
Rules, set out in the Articles, and
Recommendations; the notes and examples attached to these
are integral
parts of them.
The object of the
Rules is to put
the nomenclature of the past into order
and to provide for that of the future; names 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 contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be
rejected,
but they are not examples to be followed.
The provisions regulating the method of
amending this Code form its
last division.
The
Rules and
Recommendations apply
throughout the plant kingdom,
recent and fossil. However, special provisions
are needed for certain
groups.
The International
Microbiological Congress
has therefore issued an
Inter~
national Bacteriological
Code of Nomenclature
(Journ. Gen. Microbiology
3 (3): 444~462. 1949).
Similarly
the International Horticultural
Congress has
published an
International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants
(London, 1953).
Provisions for the names of hybrids
and some special
categories appear in
Appendix I, and special provisions
concerning fossil
plants in Appendix II.
The
only proper reasons
for changing a name
are either
a
more profound
knowledge of the facts
resulting from
adequate taxonomic study or the
necessity
of giving up a nomenclature that is contrary to the rules.
In the absence of a relevant
Rule or where the consequences
of rules are
doubtful, established custom
is followed.
11 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 01 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
I~VI | Principles |
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological
nomenclature, in
the sense that
the name of a plant must not be rejected
merely because it is
identical with the name of an animal. *
The
application of names of taxonomic groups
is determined by means
of nomenclatural types.
The naming of taxonomic groups is based on priority
of publication.
Each
taxonomic group
can bear only one correct name, the earliest
that
is in accordance
with the Rules,
except in specified cases.
Scientific names of
plants are Latin or are treated as Latin.
The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive except when expressly limited.
12 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 02 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Ranks | 1~5 |
Division
II.
Rules and Recommendations
Chapter I. RANKS OF TAXA, AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM
Taxonomic groups of any rank
will, in this Code, be referred to as
taxa
(singular:
taxon).
Every plant is treated as belonging to a number of
taxa of consecutively
subordinate
ranks, among which the
rank
of species
(species) is basic.
The principal
ranks of taxa
in ascending sequence are:
species
(species),
genus
(genus), family
(familia), order
(ordo), class
(classis), and division
(divisio). Thus each species belongs
(is to be assigned) to a genus,
each
genus to a family
(certain artificial groups of fossil plants excepted), etc.
If a greater number of
ranks
of taxa is required,
the terms for these are
made
either by adding
the prefix sub
(sub) to the terms denoting the
ranks
or by the introduction
of supplementary
terms.
A plant may be
assigned
to
taxa of the following
subordinate
ranks:
Regnum Vegetabile,
Divisio,
Sub~
divisio,
Classis,
Subclassis,
Ordo,
Subordo,
Familia,
Subfamilia,
Tribus,
Sub~
tribus,
Genus,
Subgenus,
Sectio,
Subsectio,
Series,
Subseries, Species,
Sub~
species,
Varietas, Subvarietas,
Forma, Subforma.
Further supplementary
ranks
may be
intercalated or added, provided
that confusion or error
is
not
thereby
introduced.
For special categories resulting
from genetic analysis of taxa, see
Appendix
I.
In classifying parasites, especially parasitic fungi,
authors who do not give specific
value to taxa characterized from a
physiological standpoint but scarcely or not at all
from a morphological standpoint should distinguish
within the species special forms
(formae
speciales) characterized by their adaptation
to different hosts.
The relative order of the ranks specified above
in Arts.
3
and
4 must
not be altered.
A
name given to
a taxon which
is at the same time denoted by
a mis~
placed term
is treated
as not validly published, examples of such misplacement
being a form divided into varieties, a species containing genera,
or a genus
containing families
or tribes.
An exception is made for names of
the infrageneric taxa
termed tribes
(tribus) in Fries’
Systema Mycologicum,
which are treated as validly published.
Example:
The names
Delphinium tribus
Involuta Huth (Bot. Jahrb.
20: 365. 1895),
tribus
Brevipedunculata Huth (l.c.
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.
13 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 03 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
6~7 | Definitions, typification |
Chapter II. NAMES OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 29 and 31.
Valid publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 32~45.
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 legitimate name
which must be adopted for it under the rules
(see Art.
11).
Note.
In this Code, unless otherwise indicated,
the word “name” means
a name
that has been validly published,
whether it is legitimate or illegitimate.
Example:
The generic name
Leptostachya Nees
(in Wallich. Pl. As. Rar. 3: 105.
1832), based on
L. virgata Nees,
is legitimate because it is in accordance with the rules.
The same is true of the generic name
Dianthera L. (Sp. Pl. 27. 1753),
based on what
was then the only species,
D. americana L.
Both generic names are correct when the
genera are
thought to be separate. Bentham, however, reduced
Leptostachya Nees to
Dianthera L.; when this concept is accepted
the latter name is the only correct one for
the genus
with this particular circumscription. The legitimate name
Leptostachya may
therefore be correct or incorrect
according to different concepts of taxa.
The application of names of taxa
of
the rank of order
or below 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.
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
may
be chosen, unless
its name must already be
rejected under this Code.
The
author who makes this choice
must be followed unless his choice is
superseded
under the provisions of Art.
8.
The substitute may be either a
lectotype or a
neotype.
A lectotype always
takes precedence over a neotype.
14 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 04 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification | 8~9 |
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.
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.
Note 4.
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
old name
is automatically that of the
new one.
Note 5.
The
typification of organ genera, form genera,
genera based
on plant microfossils (pollen, spores, etc.),
genera of imperfect fungi,
and
any other analogous genera
or lower taxa does not differ from that indicated
above.
The choice of a lectotype or neotype
is superseded
if the original material
is rediscovered,
or if it can be shown that the choice
was based upon a
misinterpretation of the original description.
For other specimens of special interest the following terms are recommended:
An isotype is a duplicate of the holotype.
A
paratype is a specimen cited
with the original description
other than the holotype
or isotype(s).
A
syntype is one of two or more specimens
used by the author when no holotype was
designated,
or one of two or more specimens simultaneously
designated as type.
It cannot be too strongly recommended
that the original material, especially the
holotype,
of a taxon be deposited in a permanent responsible
institution and that it be
scrupulously conserved.
When living material
is designated as a type,
appropriate parts
of it should be immediately preserved.
Whenever
the type material of a taxon is heterogeneous,
the lectotype should be
so
selected as to preserve current usage
unless another element agrees better with the
original description and (or) figure.
For
the name of a fossil species, the lectotype, when one is needed,
should, if possible,
be a specimen illustrated
at the time of the first valid publication.
The listed type species of a conserved generic name
(see Art.
14)
should not be
changed without irrefutable evidence
in support of such action.
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
15 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 05 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
10~11 | Priority |
on whose present or former name that of the taxon concerned
is based (see also
Art.
18),
and that of
a genus or of any taxon between genus and species
is a species.
The types of the names of families
not founded on generic names
are the types of their alternative names
(see Art.
18).
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.
For plants of which it is impossible
to preserve a type specimen,
or
for a species without a
type specimen, the type may be
a description or
figure.
Examples:
The holotype of the polygamous species
Rheedia kappleri Eyma is a male
specimen
collected by Kappler (593a in Herb. Utrecht).
The author designated a
hermaphroditic specimen
collected by the Forestry Service of Suriname
as a paratype
(B.W. 1618 in Herb. Utrecht).
The type sheet of
Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (Journ. of Bot. 16: 236. 1878)
is Lorentz no. 128 in Herb. Mus. Brit.;
this sheet, however, proves to be a mixture.
L. B.
Smith (Proc. Amer. Acad. 70: 192. 1935)
acted in accordance with Art. 10 in designating
one element
of Lorentz’ specimen as the lectotype.
Each order or
taxon of lower rank with a
particular
circumscription,
position, and rank
can bear only one correct name,
special exceptions being
made for 9 families
for which
alternative names are permitted (see Art.
18)
and for certain fungi
(see Art. 59).
For any taxon from order to genus inclusive,
the correct name is the
earliest legitimate one
validly published with the same rank, except in cases
of limitation
of priority by conservation
(see Arts.
14
and
15).
For any taxon below the rank of genus,
the correct name is the combination
of
the earliest available legitimate epithet validly published
in the same rank
with the correct name of the genus,
species, or taxon of lower rank
to which
it is assigned.
The principle of priority does not apply
to names of taxa above the rank
of order (see Art.
16).
Note.
The name of a taxon below the rank of genus,
consisting of the
name of a genus combined with one
or more epithets, is termed a combination.
Examples of combinations:
Gentiana lutea, Gentiana nivalis var.
occidentalis, Equisetum
palustre var.
americanum f.
fluitans.
16 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 06 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Starting points | 12~13 |
Section 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY:
PUBLICATION, STARTING POINTS, CONSERVATION OF NAMES
A name of a taxon has no status under this Code
unless it is validly
published (see
Chapter IV, section
2, Arts. 32~45).
Valid publication
of names
for
plants of the different groups
is treated
as beginning
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):
Recent plants
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,
USTILAGANALES and
GASTEROMYCETES, 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
Oscillariées,
Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII.
15: 263~368;
16: 91~264).
NOSTOCACEAE HETEROCYSTEAE, 1886~88
(Bornet & Flahault,
Revision des Nos~
tocacées heterocystées,
Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII.
3: 323~381;
4: 343~373;
5:
51~129;
7: 177~262).
DESMIDIACEAE, 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).
OEDOGONIACEAE, 1900
(Hirn,
Monographie und Iconographie der Oedogo~
niaceen,
Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn.
27(1)).
h. MYXOMYCETES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
i. BACTERIA, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
Fossil plants
j.
ALL GROUPS,
31 Dec.
1820
(Sternberg,
Flora der Vorwelt,
Versuch
1: 1~24.
t. 1~13).
17 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 07 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
14 | Nomina conservanda |
Note 1.
Schlotheim,
Petrefactenkunde, 1820,
is regarded as published
before 31 Dec. 1820.
Note 2.
It is agreed to associate generic names which
first
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 Plan~
tarum ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6 (1764)
(see Art.
39).
Note 3.
The two volumes of Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753),
which appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively,
are treated as having
been published simultaneously
on the former date (1 May 1753).
Example:
The 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.
57
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.
Note 4.
For
nomenclatural
purposes names
given to lichens shall be
considered as applying
to their fungal
components.
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 from the dates
given in Art.
13,
this Code provides, in Appendix III, lists of names that
are
conserved
(nomina conservanda) and
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 Committee
(see Division III),
which will refer them
for examination to the
committees
for the various
taxonomic groups.
Note 2.
The application of both conserved and rejected
names is de~
termined 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.
57.
Examples:
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 combined genus will bear the prior name
Berberis, although
Mahonia is conserved.
~
Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only in
the restricted sense, for a monotypic genus
based on
N. officinale R. Br., hence, if it is reunited with
Rorippa Scop. (1760), it
must bear the name
Rorippa.
18 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 08 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Nomina conservanda | 15 |
Note 4.
When a name has been conserved against an earlier synonym,
the latter is to be restored, subject to Art.
11,
if it is considered the name
of a genus
distinct from that of the
nomen conservandum.
Example:
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.
Note
5.
A conserved name is conserved against all
its earlier
validly
published homonyms.
Example:
The generic name
Swartzia Schreb. (1791), conserved against
Tounatea
Aubl.,
Possira Aubl., and
Hoelzelia Neck.,
is thereby conserved automatically against the
earlier homonym
Swartzia Ehrh. (1787).
Note 6.
Provision for the retention of a name in a sense
that excludes
the type is made in Art.
48.
When a name proposed for conservation
has been provisionally approved
by the General Committee,
botanists are authorized to retain it pending the
decision of a later International Botanical Congress.
19 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 09 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
16~18 | Names of higher taxa |
Chapter III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO
THEIR RANK
Section 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF ORDER
The
principles of priority
and typification do not apply to names of
taxa
above the rank of order.
(a)
The
name of
a division is preferably taken
from characters indicating the nature of
the division
as closely as possible; they should end in
~phyta, except
when it is a division
of FUNGI,
in which
case it should end in
~mycota.
Words of Greek origin are generally
preferable.
The
name of
a subdivision is formed in a similar manner;
it is distinguished
from
divisional names by an appropriate prefix
or suffix or by the ending
~phytina, except
when
it is a subdivision of FUNGI,
in which
case it should end in
~mycotina.
(b)
The
name of
a class
or of a subclass
is formed in a similar manner
and should
end
as follows:
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).
Section 2. NAMES OF ORDERS AND SUBORDERS
The name of an order is taken from that of its type family,
and has the
ending
~ales.
A suborder is designated in a similar manner, with the ending ~ineae.
Examples of
names of
orders:
Fucales, Polygonales, Urticales; suborders:
Bromeliineae, Malvineae.
Section 3. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES,
TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
The name of a family is a plural adjective
used as a substantive; it is
formed by adding the suffix
~aceae to
the name of its type genus
or
of a synonym
of this name, even if illegitimate.
(For the treatment of
final vowels
of stems in composition,
see Rec
73G).
Examples:
Rosaceae (from
Rosa),
Salicaceae (from
Salix),
Plumbaginaceae (from
Plumbago),
Caryophyllaceae (from
Caryophyllus, a pre~linnaean generic name),
Winteraceae
(from
Wintera Murr., a synonym of
Drimys J.R. & G.Forst.).
Note 1.
When a name of a
family
has been published with an improper
termination, the ending must be changed
to accord with the rule, without
change of
the author’s name.
20 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 10 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Generic names | 19~20 |
Note 2.
The following names, sanctioned by long usage,
are treated as
exceptions to the rule:
Palmae, Gramineae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Gutti~
ferae,
Umbelliferae, Labiatae, Compositae.
Those who regard the
Papilionaceae as constituting an independent
family
may use that name,
although it is not formed in the prescribed manner.
Botanists are authorized, however,
to use as alternatives
the appropriate
names ending in
~aceae.
The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective
used as a substantive:
it is formed by adding the suffix
~oideae
to the stem of the name
of its
type genus or
of a synonym
of this name. A
tribe
is designated
in a similar
manner, with the ending
~eae, and
a subtribe with the ending
~inae.
Examples of
names of
subfamilies:
Asphodeloideae (from
Asphodelus),
Rumicoideae
(from
Rumex); tribes:
Asclepiadeae (from
Asclepias),
Phyllantheae (from
Phyllanthus);
subtribes:
Rutinae (from
Ruta),
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 sub~
family
or
~oideae for a tribe,
the ending must be changed to accord
with the
rule, without change of
the author’s name. However, when the rank of the
group is changed by a later author, his name is then cited as author 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
followed
by
the name of the author making the change.
Section 4. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA*
The name of a genus is a substantive, or an adjective
used as a sub~
stantive, 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,
Impatiens.
Manihot,
Ifloga (an anagram of
Filago).
Botanists who are forming generic names should comply with the following suggestions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin tongue.
(c) Not to make names very long or difficult to pronounce.
(d) Not to make names by combining words from different languages.
(e)
To indicate, if possible, by the formation
or ending of the name the affinities
or analogies of the genus.
(f) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(g)
Not to use a name similar to or
derived from the epithet of one of the species
of the taxon.
_________________
*)
Here and elsewhere in the Code the phrase
“subdivision of a genus” refers only
to taxa between genus and species in rank.
21 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 11 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
21~22 | Names of subdivisions of genera |
(h)
Not to dedicate
genera to persons quite unconnected
with botany or at least
with natural science.
(i)
To give a feminine form to all personal generic names,
whether they commemorate
a man or a woman.
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
its
rank.
The
epithet of
a subgenus
or section must not
be formed from the name
of the genus to which
it belongs by adding the ending
~oides or
~opsis.
Examples:
Banisteria subg.
Hemiramma;
Ricinocarpus sect.
Anomodiscus;
Sapium
subgenus
Patentinervia;
Euphorbia sect.
Tithymalus subsect.
Tenellae.
The same epithet may be used
for
subdivisions of different genera, but
two subdivisions
of
the same genus,
even if they are of different rank, can~
not 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
contrary to Rec.
22
For
a subgenus and
a section
the epithet
is usually
a substantive resembling the name
of
a genus
or repeating the name of
the genus itself
(see Art. 22).
For
a subsection and
a lower subdivision
of a genus the epithet
is preferably
a
plural adjective agreeing in gender with the generic name
and written with a capital
initial letter.
The subgenus
or section
including the type species of
the correct name
of the
genus to which it is assigned
repeats that name unaltered
as its epithet,
but contrary to
Art
46, without citation
of an author’s name.
Similarly, a section including the type species
of any subgenus must bear
as its epithet
the correct epithet of the subgenus.
Valid publication of a name
for a subgenus or section
which does not
include the nomenclatural type
of the next
higher taxon automatically
circum~
scribes
another subgenus or section
which has as its type
the type of this
higher taxon
and which bears the generic name
(or subgeneric epithet)
unaltered as its epithet.
Examples:
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.
The section of the genus
Mouriri Aubl.
containing the type species of the subgenus
Taphroxylon Morley
(M. acutiflora Naudin) must be called
Mouriri subg.
Taphroxylon
Morley sect.
Taphroxylon and not
Mouriri sect.
Acutiflos Morley.
Botanists
proposing an epithet for
a subdivision of a
genus should avoid adopting
one already used for a
subdivision of a closely
related genus, or
one which is identical
with
the name of
such a genus.
They should also avoid
the use of epithets
in the form of a substantive together
with others
in the form of a plural adjective
in
co~ordinated subdivisions of a genus.
22 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 12 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Specific names | 23 |
If it is
desired
to indicate the resemblance
of a subgenus
or section
(other than the
type subgenus or section) of one genus
to another genus, the ending
~oides or
~opsis may be
added to the name of that other genus
to form the epithet of the subgenus or section
concerned.
When it is desired
to indicate the name of
a subdivision
of the
genus
to which a
particular species belongs in connection
with the generic name and specific epithet,
its epithet
is placed in parentheses between the two;
when necessary,
its rank is also indicated.
Examples:
Astragalus
(Cycloglottis)
contortuplicatus;
Loranthus
(sect.
Ischnanthus)
gabonensis.
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
or more words,
these must either be united or hyphened.
An
epithet
not so
joined when originally published
is not to be rejected but, when used, must
be hyphened
(see also Art.
70 (5)).
The epithet of a species
may be taken from any source
whatever, and
may even be composed
arbitrarily.
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;
Veronica anagallis ∇ L.
must be transcribed as
Veronica anagallis~aquatica.
The specific epithet, when adjectival in form
and not used as a sub~
stantive,
agrees in gender with the generic name.
Examples:
Helleborus niger,
Brassica nigra,
Verbascum nigrum,
Rubus amnicola;
Peri~
dermium balsameum Peck.
but also
Gloeosporium balsameae
J. J. Davis, both from
Abies
balsamea,the specific epithet of which
is treated as a substantive in
the second example.
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
(see Art.
68(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
correct
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 indicate
that the epithet
originated with Walter,
the name may be cited as
Planera aquatica [Walt.]
J. F. Gmel.
Names of men and women and also of countries
and localities used as specific epithets
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).
In forming specific epithets, botanists should comply also with the following suggestions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
23 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 13 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
24 | Infraspecific names |
(b) To avoid those which are very long and difficult to pronounce.
(c) Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.
(d) To avoid specific epithets formed of two or more hyphened words.
(e) To avoid epithets which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).
(f)
To avoid those which express a character common
to all or nearly all the
species of a genus.
(g)
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.
(h) To avoid epithets which have been used before in any closely allied genus.
(i)
Not to adopt unpublished names
found in traveller’s notes or in herbaria,
attributing them to their authors,
unless these have approved publication.
(j)
To avoid using the names
of little~known or very restricted localities, unless
the species is quite local.
Section 6. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
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 grammatically 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.
Certain epithets specified in Art.
71
may not be used for infraspecific
taxa
(except as provided in that Article).
The use of a binary
combination for
an infraspecific taxon
is not
admissible.
It is permissible to
cite more complicated names
as ternary com~
binations, provided that the rank of
the taxon is stated.
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 & Irmscher is
permissible for
Saxifraga
aizoon var.
aizoon subvar.
brevifolia forma
multicaulis subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmscher.
The same epithet may be used for
infraspecific taxa
within
different
species, and those within 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
previous existence of a different species named
Viola hirta.
Recommendations made for
specific epithets (see
Rec. 23A,
B) apply equally to
infraspecific epithets.
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.
Botanists proposing new
infraspecific epithets
should avoid such
as have been used
previously for species in the same genus.
24 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 14 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Infraspecific names | 35~38 |
For nomenclatural purposes,
a species or any taxon below the rank of
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
circumscribes
another variety,
Lycopodium inundatum L. var.
inundatum,
the
type of which is that of
Lycopodium inundatum L.
In
the name of an
infraspecific taxon which includes the nomenclatural
type
of the epithet of the next higher taxon, the epithet of this higher taxon
must be
repeated unaltered but,
contrary to Art.
46,
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
replaced by
Lobelia spicata Lam.
var.
spicata.
Since under
Lobelia siphilitica L. there is 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 described
a variety
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.
An infraspecific epithet may repeat unchanged
that of the next higher
taxon only
when it has the same nomenclatural type.
Two
infraspecific taxa
within the same species,
even if they are of
different rank,
cannot bear the same
infraspecific epithet,
unless their names
are based on the same type.
If the earlier
infraspecific name was validly
published,
the later one is illegitimate and must be rejected.
Examples:
The following is inadmissible:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum and
E. hieraciifolium subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum ~ a form of
nomenclature
which allows two varieties bearing the same
epithet
in the same species.
The name
Andropogon sorghum subsp.
halepensis
(L.) Hackel var.
halepensis is
legitimate,
since the subspecies and the variety have the same type
and the epithet must
be repeated under Art.
26.
Section 7. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION
Plants brought into cultivation from the wild
and which differ in no fun~
damental way
from the parent stocks bear the same names
as are applied to
the same species and
infraspecific taxa in nature.
25 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 15 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
28 | Cultivated plants |
Plants arising 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 the
International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants.
26 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 16 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Effective publication | 29~30 |
Chapter IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
Section 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
Publication is effected, under this Code,
only by distribution
of printed
matter
(through
sale, exchange, or gift)
to the general public
or at least to
botanical institutions
with libraries accessible
to botanists generally.
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, typescripts, or other unpublished
material.
Offer for sale of
printed matter that does not exist
does not constitute
effective publication.
Publication by indelible autograph before 1 Jan. 1953 is accepted.
Note.
For
the purpose of this Article,
handwritten material,
even though
reproduced by some mechanical or graphic process
(such as lithography,
offset, metallic etching, or microfilm),
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).
Effective publication in reproduced
handwritten material:
H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy
Tchéou (1914~15),
a work lithographed from the handwritten manuscript.
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.
Publication
on
or after 1 Jan. 1953 of a new name
in tradesmen’s
catalogues or in
non~scientific newspapers,
even if accompanied by a Latin
diagnosis,
does not constitute effective publication.
Authors
are urged scrupulously to avoid
publishing
new
names or descriptions
in
ephemeral publications, in popular periodicals,
in any publication unlikely to reach the
general botanical public,
in those produced by such methods
that their permanence is
unlikely, or in abstracting journals.
The date of effective publication is the
date on which
the printed matter
became available as defined in Art.
29.
In the absence of proof establishing
some other date,
the one appearing in the printed matter
must be accepted
as correct.
Examples:
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;
1(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
27 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 17 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
31~32 | Valid publication |
(and later than Michaux’
Flora Boreali-Americana);
4(1) (to page 630), 1805;
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).
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.
Examples:
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.
The distribution
on
or after 1 Jan. 1953 of exsiccata relative to any new
taxon,
accompanied by an original diagnosis, even if this is printed,
does not
constitute effective publication.
Note.
If the printed matter is also distributed
independently of the
exsiccata, this
constitutes
effective publication.
Example:
Works such as
Schedae operis..... Plantae Finlandiae Exsiccatae,
Helsingfors
1. 1906. 2. 1916. 3. 1933, 1944,
or Lundell & Nannfeldt. Fungi Exsiccatae Suecici etc.,
Uppsala 1~....., 1934~....., whether published
before or after
1 Jan. 1953,
are effectively
published.
Section 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION
In order to be
validly published, a name of a taxon
of recent plants
must be both
(1) effectively published (see Art.
29) 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.
Examples of
names not validly published:
Egeria Néraud
(in Gaudichaud.
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. no. 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.
Example of
validation of a combination by indirect reference:
The publication of
the new combination
Cymbopogon martini by W. Watson
in Atkinson. 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 Steudel. Syn. Pl. Glum.
1: 388 (1854).
Although the reference to the synonym
Andropogon
martini is indirect,
it is perfectly unambiguous.
A combination is
not validly published
unless the author definitely
indicates that
the epithet or epithets concerned are to be
used
in that particular
combination.
Examples of
combinations definitely indicated:
In Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum the
placing of
the epithet in the margin 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 under
28 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 18 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 33~34 |
Blephilia
(in Journ. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat.
89: 98. 1819) that
“Le type de ce genre
est
la
Monarda ciliata
Linn.”
does not constitute publication 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
(Gen.
Pl.
1: 885. 1867).
A
new transfer or combination
published
on
or
after 1 Jan. 1953
is not
validly published
unless the basionym
(name~bringing or epithet~bringing
synonym)
is clearly indicated with
a full reference
to its author and
original
publication.
Note 1.
In certain circumstances an
illustration with analysis is accepted
as equivalent to a description
(see Arts.
41
and
43).
Note 2.
Bibliographic errors of citation do not
invalidate the publication
of a new combination.
Note 3.
For names of plant taxa originally published
as names of animals,
see Art.
45.
Valid
publication of a name
should not be effected solely by
a reference to
a
description or
illustration published before 1753.
A name
is not validly published
(1)
when it
is not accepted by the author
who published it;
(2)
when it 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);
(3)
when it is merely
mentioned incidentally.
Note 1.
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.
Note 2.
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.
Example:
The generic name
Conophyton Haw., suggested by Haworth
(Rev. Pl.
Succ. 82. 1821) for
Mesembryanthemum sect.
Minima Haw.
(l.c. 81. 1821) in the 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).
When,
on
or after 1 Jan. 1953, 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.
Example:
The species of
Brosimum described by Ducke
(Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio
3:
23~29. 1922)
were published with alternative names under
Piratinera added in a footnote
(pp. 23~24).
The publication of these names,
being effected before 1 Jan. 1953, is valid.
In order to be
validly published, a name of
a new taxon of recent plants,
the bacteria
and algae excepted,
published
on
or after
1 Jan. 1935
must be
accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis
or by a reference to a previously and
effectively published Latin diagnosis.
29 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 19 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 35~38 |
Example:
The names
Schiedea gregoriana Degener, Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 1936
(Apr. 9) and
S. kealiae Caum & Hosaka,
Bernice P. Bishop Mus. Occas. Papers 11 (23):
3. 1936 (Apr. 10)
were proposed for the same plant;
the type of the former is a part
of the original material
of the latter. Since the name
S. gregoriana is not accompanied by
a Latin diagnosis,
the later
S. kealiae is the legitimate name.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of algae published
on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis or by a
reference
to a previously and effectively published Latin diagnosis.
Publication
on or after 1 Jan. 1958 of
the name of a new taxon
of recent
plants of the rank of order or below
is valid only when the nomenclatural
type is
indicated (see Arts.
7~10).
When the nomenclatural
type of a new taxon
is a specimen,
the place where it is
permanently conserved should be indicated.
In order to be
validly published, a name of
a new taxon of fossil plants
published
on
or from
1 Jan. 1912
must be accompanied by
an illustration or
figure
showing the essential characters,
in addition to the description,
or by
a reference to a previously
and effectively published illustration or figure.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of algae of
specific or
lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1958
must be accompanied
by an illustration or figure
showing the distinctive morphological features,
in addition to the Latin diagnosis, or by a reference to
a previously and
effectively published illustration or figure.
A name of a taxon is not validly published
when it is merely cited as
a synonym.
Examples:
Acosmus Desv.
(in Desf. Cat. Pl. Hort. Paris
ed. 3. 233. 1829),
cited as
a synonym of the generic name
Aspicarpa
L.C. Rich.,
was not validly published thereby.
~
Ornithogalum undulatum Hort. Bouch. ex 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)
Aschers.
(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).
The name of a taxon is not validly published
by the mere mention of
the subordinate 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. Pflanzen~
30 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 20 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 39~41 |
fam. Nachtr.
1: 242. 1897),
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
Ibidium is invalid.
In order to be
validly published,
a name of a genus of recent plants
must be accompanied
(1) by a description of the genus,
or
(2) by a citation
of a previously and
effectively published description of the genus, or
(3) by a
reference to a previously and
effectively published description of the genus
as a subgenus,
section, or other subdivision of a genus.
An exception
is made for the generic names first 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.
13).
Note.
In certain circumstances, an
illustration with analysis is accepted
as equivalent to a generic description (see Art.
41).
Examples of
validly published generic names:
Carphalea Juss. (Gen. Pl. 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.
For purposes of valid publication, names in Latin form
given to hybrids
(any 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
taxon of hybrid
origin, whether Fı,
segregate, or backcross.
The publication of the name of a monotypic new genus
based on a new
species is validated either
by
(1) the provision of a combined generic
and
specific description
(descriptio
generico-specifica), or
(2), for
generic names
published
before 1 Jan. 1908,
by the provision of an
illustration with analysis
showing essential characters.
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.
hibbertioides 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.
Note
1.
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.
Note 2.
Single figures of microscopic plants showing
the details necessary
for identification
are considered as illustrations with analysis
showing
essential characters.
31 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 21 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
42~45 | Valid publication |
A combined generic and specific description
should mention the points in which the
new genus
differs from its allies.
A
name of a taxon
below the rank of genus
is
not validly published
unless the
name
of the
genus or
species
to which
it is assigned
is validly
published
at the same time or was validly 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
(P. 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
Phlyctidia
was not validly published;
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.
41,
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. ludoviciensis n. sp.
and
Ph. boliviensis (Nyl.).
The latter combination was validly published in 1895
by the
reference to the basionym.
The name of a species or of an
infraspecific
taxon of recent plants
published before 1 Jan. 1908
is treated
(contrary to Art. 32) as validly
published
when it is accompanied
only by an
illustration with analysis showing
essential characters.
Note.
Single figures of microscopic plants
showing the details necessary
for identification
are considered as illustrations with analysis
showing essential
characters.
Examples:
Panax nossibiensis Drake
(in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas
3:
pl. 406.
1896), published on a plate with analyses.
~
Eunotia gibbosa Grunow
(in Van Heurck.
Syn. Diat. Belg.
pl. 35, fig. 13. 1881),
a name of a diatom published
with a single figure
of the valve.
Examples of
names of species not validly published
are given under Arts.
32 and
37.
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.
The date of a name or of an epithet
is that of its valid publication.
When the various conditions
for valid publication
are not simultaneously fulfilled,
the date is that on which the last
is fulfilled.
Example:
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. 1882).
32 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 22 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 45 |
For purposes of priority only legitimate names
and epithets published in
legitimate combinations
are taken into consideration (see Arts.
11,
64, and
70).
If a
taxon
is transferred
from the animal to the plant kingdom, its
name
or names
valid * under the
International Rules of
Zoological Nomenclature
and
validly published
in the form provided in the
botanical Code
(except that
for algae
validity under the zoological rules
only is required)
shall be auto~
matically
accepted
as having been validly published
under this Code at the
time
of its valid publication
as the name of an animal.
Example:
Amphiprora Ehrenberg
(Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1841: 401. 1843)
was
published as the name of a genus of animals
which was transferred to the plant kingdom
in 1844
by Kuetzing; it has priority in botanical nomenclature
from 1843, not 1844.
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 Rec.
23B. i).
Authors should avoid adoption of an
illegitimate epithet previously published
for the
same taxon
(but see Art.
72).
Authors should avoid adoption of a name
or an epithet which has been previously
but not validly published
for a different taxon.
Authors publishing
a name of
a new taxon in works
written in a modern language
(floras, catalogues, etc.) should simultaneously
comply with the requirements of valid
publication.
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.
Authors should indicate
clearly and precisely the scale of the figures
which they
publish.
The description of parasitic plants
should always be followed by
an indication
of the
hosts, especially those of parasitic fungi.
The hosts should be designated by their Latin
scientific names and not
solely
by names in modern languages,
the significance of which
is often doubtful.
The etymology of new names
and epithets should be given when the meaning of
these is not obvious.
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
on which the different fascicles
or parts of the volume were published as well as
the
number of pages
and plates in each.
On separately printed and issued copies of works
published in a periodical, the date
(year, month, and day), the name of the periodical, the number of its volume
or parts,
and the original
pagination should be indicated.
————————–
*
The word “valid” in the International Rules of
Zoological Nomenclature is equivalent
to “legitimate” in the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
33 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 23 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
46~48 | Citation author |
Section 3. CITATION OF AUTHORS’ NAMES AND OF LITERATURE
FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION
For the indication of the name of a taxon
to be accurate and complete,
and in order that the date may be readily verified,
it is necessary to cite
the name of the author
who first published the name concerned
unless the
provisions
of Arts.
22
or
26
apply.
Examples:
Rosaceae Juss.,
Rosa L.,
Rosa gallica L.,
Rosa gallica var.
eriostyla R.
Keller,
Rosa gallica L. var.
gallica.
When
a name has been proposed
but not validly published by one author and is
subsequently validly published and ascribed to him by another author, the name of the
former author
followed by the connecting word
ex
may be inserted before
the name of
the publishing author.
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,
should be retained.
Examples:
Havetia flexilis Spruce ex Planch. & Triana
or
Havetia flexilis Planch. &
Triana.
~
Gossypium tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or
Gossypium tomentosum Seem.
~
Lithocarpus polystachya
(Wall. ex A.DC.) Rehder
or
L. polystachya (A.DC.) Rehder.
~
Gesneria donklarii Hort. ex Hook. or
Gesneria donklarii Hook.
When a name with a description
(or
reference to a description)
supplied 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 and Shrubs
2: 37
(1907);
Teucrium charidemi Sandwith in Lacaita, Cavanillesia
3: 38
(1930).
An alteration of the diagnostic characters or
of the circumscription of
a taxon
without the exclusion
of the type
does not warrant the citation of
the name of an author
other than the one who first published its name.
When the alteration mentioned in Art.
47
has been considerable,
the nature of the
change and
the author responsible should be indicated by adding
such words,
abbreviated
where
suitable, as
emendavit
(emend.),
mutatis characteribus
(mut. char.),
pro parte
(p.p.),
excluso genere or
exclusis generibus
(excl. gen.),
exclusa specie or
exclusis speciebus
(excl. sp.),
exclusa varietate or
exclusis varietatibus
(excl. var.), etc.
Examples:
Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.;
Myosotis L. pro parte, R. Br.;
Globularia
cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).
Retention of a name in a sense that 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
emendavit, mutatis characteribus, etc.;
instead,
the name of the author whose
circumscription is conserved must be cited.
Example:
Protea R. Br.;
Protea R. Br., nom. cons. (non
Protea L. 1753). This must
not be cited as
Protea L. emend. R. Br., since Brown’s circumscription excluded the
Linnaean type.
34 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 24 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Citation author | 49~50 |
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.
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.
The species of
Corydalis based on
Fumaria bulbosa γ solida L. (1753) must be cited as
Corydalis solida (L.) Sw. (1819)
and not as
Corydalis solida (Mill.) Sw.
The latter
citation refers to
Fumaria solida (L.) Mill. from 1771, also based on
Fumaria bulbosa γ solida
L.:
the former, correct citation refers to the first author of
the legitimate epithet.
The same holds
when a taxon of lower rank than genus is transferred
to another taxon, with or without alteration of rank.
Examples:
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.
When the status of a
taxon bearing a binary name
is altered from
species to hybrid or vice versa, the
name of the
original author must be cited,
followed by an indication
in parentheses of
the original status.
If it is desirable
or necessary to abbreviate
such a citation, the
indication of
the original status
may be omitted.
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. New York 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.).
Authors’ names put after names of plants
should be abbreviated, unless they are
very short.
For this purpose, particles are suppressed
unless they are an inseparable part
of the name,
and the first letters are given without any omission
(Lam. for J. B. P. A.
Monet
chevalier de Lamarck, but De Wild. for
E. De Wildeman).
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
beginning
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,
F. v. Muell.
for Ferdinand von Mueller).
In the citation of a name
published as a synonym,
the words “as synonym” or
pro syn. should be added.
When an author
has published as a synonym
a manuscript name of another author,
the word
ex should be used
in citations
to connect the names of the two authors.
35 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 25 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
50 | Citation author |
Example:
Myrtus serratus a manuscript name of Koenig’s
published by Steudel as
a synonym of
Eugenia laurina Willd.
should be cited thus:
Myrtus serratus Koenig ex
Steudel,
Nomencl. 321 (1821) pro syn.
In the citation of a
nomen nudum,
its status should be indicated by adding
nomen
nudum
(nom. nud.).
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. 1754 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.
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.
Examples:
Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Am. Jour. Sci.
19: 170 (1831) non Borkh.
1800.
~
Lindera Thunb. Nov. Gen.
3:
64 (1783) non Adans. 1763.
~
Bartlingia Brongn.
Ann. Sci. Nat. I.
10: 373 (1827) non Reichb. 1824. nec F.
v. Muell. 1877.
Misidentifications should not be included
in the synonymy but added after it.
A
misapplied name should be indicated by the words
auct. non
followed by the name of the
original author
and the bibliographical reference
of the misidentification.
Examples:
FICUS
STORTOPHYLLA Warb.
in Warb. & De Wild. Ann. Mus. Congo Belge
Bot. VI.
1: 32 (1904).
F. irumuensis De Wild. Pl. Bequaert.
1: 341 (1922).
F. exasperata
auct. non Vahl:
De Wild. & Th. Dur. Ann. Mus. Congo Belge Bot. II.
1: 54. 1899;
De Wild. Pl. Laur. 26 (1903);
Th. & H. Dur. Syll. Fl. Congol. 505 (1909).
If a generic name
is accepted as a
nomen conservandum
(see App. III),
the abbreviation
nom. cons.
should be added to the citation.
Examples:
Protea R. Br. Trans. Linn. Soc.
10: 74 (1810), nom. cons., non L. 1753.
~
Combretum Loefl. 1758 nom. cons. (syn. prius
Grislea L.).
~
Schouwia DC. nom.
cons. (homonymum prius
Schouwia Schrad.).
A
name
cited in synonymy should be spelled exactly as published
by its author. If any
explanatory words are required,
these should be inserted in brackets. If a name is adopted
with alterations
from the form as originally published,
it is desirable that
in full citations
the exact original form
should be appended.
Examples:
PYRUS
CALLERYANA Decne.
(Pirus mairei
Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov.
12: 189.
1913) or
(P. mairei
Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov.
12: 189. 1913,
“Pirus”), but
not
as
Pyrus mairei.
ZANTHOXYLUM
CRIBROSUM Spreng. Syst.
1: 946. 1825,
“Xanthoxylon”
(Xanthoxylum
caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. II.
23: 225. 1888), but
not
as
Z. caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray.
QUERCUS
BICOLOR Willd.
(Q. prinus discolor Michx.
Hist. Arb. For.
2: 46. 1811),
but
not
as
Q. prinus var.
discolor Michx.
SPIRAEA LATIFOLIA (Ait.) Borkh.
(Spiraea salicifolia γ latifolia Ait. Hort. Kew.
2: 198.
1789), but
not
as
S. salicifolia latifolia Ait. or
S. salicifolia var.
latifolia Ait.
JUNIPERUS
COMMUNIS var.
SAXATILIS
Pallas
(J. communis [var.] 3
nana Loudon, Arb.
Brit.
4: 2489. 1838).
In this case “var.” may be added in brackets,
since Loudon classes
this combination under “varieties”.
RIBES TRICUSPIS Nakai, Bot. Mag. Tokyo 30: 142. 1916, “tricuspe”.
36 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 26 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Remodelling of taxa | 51~53 |
Chapter V. RETENTION, CHOICE, AND REJECTION OF NAMES
Section 1. RETENTION OF NAMES OR EPITHETS OF TAXA
WHICH ARE REMODELLED
OR DIVIDED
An alteration of the diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of
a taxon
does not warrant a change in its name, except as may be
required
(1) by transference of the taxon
(Arts.
54~56), or
(2) by its union with
another taxon of the same rank
(Arts.
57~58A), or
(3) by a change of its
rank (Art.
60).
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; it must be cited as
Myosotis L. or as
Myosotis
L. emend. R. Br.
(see Art.
47, Rec.
47A).
~
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 &
Germain.
emend. Visiani,
or emend. Godr., etc.:
the creation of a new name such as
Centaurea vulgaris Godr. is superfluous
and illegitimate.
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
IV).
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 inadmissible:
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
Aesculus, Pavia
(Poir.) Pax,
Macrothyrsus (Spach) Pax, and
Calothyrsus (Spach) Pax, 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 them,
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
for a genus including
Aesculus hippocastanum L.,
as was done by Gaertner (Fruct.
2: 135. 1791).
When a species is divided into two or more species,
the specific epithet
must be retained for one of them,
or (if it has not been retained) must be
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
IV).
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.
~
G. F. Hoffmann (Deutschl. Fl.
1: 166. 1800) divided
Juncus articulatus L. (1753) into
37 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 27 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
54~55 | Transference |
two species,
J. lampocarpus Ehrh. and
J. acutiflorus Ehrh. The name
J. articulatus L.
ought, however,
to have been retained for one of the segregate species,
and it has
been reinstated in the sense of
J. lampocarpus Ehrh.
(see Briq. Prodr. Fl. Corse
1: 264.
1910).
~
Genista horrida (Vahl) DC. (Fl.
Franç.
4: 500. 1805)
was divided by
Spach (Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. III.
2: 252. 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.
2: 109.
pl. 114. 1806), but the name
P. denticulata has
rightly been
kept for the form
which Smith described
and figured under this name.
The same rule applies to
infraspecific taxa, for example,
to a subspecies
divided into two or more subspecies,
or to a variety divided into two or more
varieties.
Section 2. RETENTION OF EPITHETS OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF GENUS
ON TRANSFERENCE TO ANOTHER GENUS
OR SPECIES
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 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 subdivision
of a genus based on a
different
type;
(2) that there is available an earlier and legitimate epithet of the same rank;
(3) that Art. 22 provides that another epithet be used.
Example:
Saponaria sect.
Vaccaria DC. when transferred to
Gypsophila becomes
Gypsophila sect.
Vaccaria (DC.) Godr.
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,
if legitimate,
must be retained
a), or
(if it has not been retained) must be
reinstated
b),
unless one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
that the resulting binary name is a later homonym
c)
(Art.
64(2))
or a tautonym
d)
(Art.
70(4));
(2) that there is available an earlier legitimate specific epithet e).
Examples:
a)
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).
~
b)
Spergula stricta Sw. (1799)
when transferred to the genus
Arenaria must be called
Arenaria uliginosa Schleich.
ex Schlechtend, (1808)
because of the existence of
Arenaria
stricta Michx. (1803),
a different species;
but on further transfer to the genus
Minuartia
the epithet
stricta must be reinstated
and the species called
Minuartia stricta
(Sw.) Hiern
(1899).
~
c)
Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798)
when transferred to the genus
Cytisus
by Spach in 1849 could not be called
Cytisus biflorus,
because this name had been
previously and
validly published for a different species by l’Héritier in 1791; the name
Cytisus fontanesii given by Spach is therefore legitimate.
~
d)
Pyrus malus L. (1753)
when transferred to the genus
Malus must be called
Malus sylvestris Mill. (1768),
the
combination
Malus malus Britton (1913)
being illegitimate.
~
e)
Statice karelinii
Stschegl
(Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou 24 (4): 475. 1851)
when transferred to the genus
————————
*
Here and elsewhere in this Code
the phrase “subdivision of a genus” refers
only
to taxa between genus and species in rank.
38 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 28 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Union of taxa | 56~57 |
Acantholimon must be called
Acantholimon karelinii (Stschegl) Bunge
(Mém. Acad. Sci.
Pétersbourg VII. 18(2): 58. 1872) and not
A. szovitsii Boiss. & Buhse
(Nouv. Mém. Soc.
Nat. Moscou 12: 184. 1860).
When, on transference to another genus,
the specific epithet has been
applied erroneously
in its new position to a different species,
the new com~
bination must be retained for the
species to
which the epithet was originally
applied,
and must be attributed to the author who first published it
f).
Example:
f)
Pinus mertensiana Bong.
was transferred to the genus
Tsuga by
Carrière, who, however,
as is evident from his description,
erroneously applied the new
combination
Tsuga mertensiana to another species of
Tsuga, namely
T. heterophylla
(Raf.) Sargent: 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.
49)
of the name of the original author, Bongard,
indicates the type of
the epithet.
When an infraspecific taxon is transferred without change of rank to
another genus or species, the original 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 an
infraspecific taxon
based on a different type, even if that
taxon is of different rank;
(2) that there is available an earlier legitimate epithet;
(3) that Art. 26 provides that another epithet be used.
Example:
The variety
micranthum Gren. & Godr.
(Fl. France
1: 171. 1847) of
Helianthemum italicum Pers.
when transferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thib.
retains its varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var.
micranthum (Gren. & Godr.)
Grosser
(Pflanzenreich
14: 115. 1903).
When, on transference to another genus or species,
the epithet of an
infraspecific taxon
has been applied erroneously
in its new position to a
different
taxon of the same rank,
the new combination must be retained for
the
taxon
to which the
original combination was
applied, and must
be
attributed to the author who first published it.
Section 3. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN TAXA OF THE SAME RANK ARE
UNITED
When two or more taxa of the same rank are united,
the oldest legitimate
name or (for
taxa below the rank of
genus)
the oldest legitimate epithet is
retained,
unless a later name or epithet must be accepted
under the provisions
of Art.
58.
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. Pflanzenfam.
3(6): 5. 1890),
uniting the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753),
Echinocarpus Blume (1825), and
Phoenicosperma
Miq. (1865),
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
39 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 29 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
58~59 | Pleomorphic fungi |
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
L. (1759),
I. rumicifolia Choisy (1834), and
I. perrottetii Choisy (1845),
he rightly
retained the name
I. verticillata
L.
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)
appears 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.
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.
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.
Section 4. CHOICE OF NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE
In Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes with
two or more states in the life
cycle
(except those which are lichen-fungi),
but not in Phycomycetes, the first
legitimate 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
name applied to a
particular state must
show the
characteristics
of that stage. However,
the provisions of this Article shall not
be construed
as preventing the use of names of imperfect states
in works
referring to such states.
The author who first describes a perfect state may
adopt
the specific epithet applied to 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
applied to the perfect state
or any other epithet
available.
40 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 30 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Change of rank | 60~63 |
Section
5.
CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN THE RANK
OF A TAXON IS CHANGED
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
Campanula
was first raised to generic rank
by Schrader and, as a genus, must be called
Wahlenbergia
Schrad. (Cat. Hort. Goett. 1814), not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) O. Kuntze (Rev.
2: 378.
1891).
~
Magnolia virginiana var.
foetida L. (Sp. Pl. 536. 1753)
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 intermedium Ledeb. (Ind.
Hort. Dorpat 1822)
when treated as a variety of
Lythrum salicaria L. (1753) must be
called
L. salicaria var.
glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross.
2: 127. 1843), 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.
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
contrary to this Code.
2.
When an
infraspecific taxon
becomes a species, or the inverse change occurs,
the original epithet should be retained
unless the resulting combination is
contrary to
this Code.
3.
When an infraspecific taxon is changed in rank
within the species, the original
epithet should be retained
unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.
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, ~ales),
unless
the resulting name is rejected under
Chapter V, Section
6.
Section
6.
REJECTION OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
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.
Examples:
This rule was broken by the change of
Staphylea to
Staphylis, Tamus
to
Thamnos, Thamnus, or
Tamnus, Mentha to
Minthe, Tillaea to
Tillia, Vincetoxicum
to
Alexitoxicum; and by the change of
Orobanche rapum to
O. sarothamnophyta, O.
columbariae to
O. columbarihaerens, O. artemisiae to
O. artemisiepiphyta.
All these
modifications must be rejected.
~
Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) must not be changed
to
A. pentagona A. DC. (1834), although the specific epithet
quinquegona is a hybrid
word (Latin and Greek)
(see Rec.
23B.c).
A name must be rejected:
(1) If it is illegitimate (see Arts. 64, 68, 69, 70, 71; however, see also Art. 72).
————————
*
Here and elsewhere in the Code the term
“infrageneric” refers to all ranks below
that of genus.
41 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 31 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
64 | Rejection |
(2) If it is a source of error (see Art. 65).
(3) If it is based on a type consisting of discordant elements (see Art. 66).
(4)
If it
is based on a
monstrosity (see Art.
67).
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 the rules.
Examples:
The generic name
Cainito Adans. (Fam.
2: 166. 1763)
is illegitimate
because 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.
51
the name
Pontederia L.
must be adopted
for the
genus concerned.
Unisema
is 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. 2, 3. 1768)
are not
illegitimate names,
although 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 include the type of
C. behen L.
(2)
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.
Note:
Mere orthographic variants of the same name
are treated as
homonyms
when they are based on different types (see Art.
75).
Examples:
The generic name
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848),
given to a
genus of
Labiatae, is a later homonym of
Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837),
a name previously
and validly published for a genus of
Amaryllidaceae; Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth.
must therefore be rejected, as was done
by Th. Durand (Ind. Gen. Phan.
x. 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).
~
Astragalus 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 therefore be rejected. as was done by Boissier,
who renamed
it
A. cariensis (Diagn. Pl. Orient.
9:
56. 1849).
When the same new name is simultaneously published
for more than one
taxon,
the first author who adopts
it in
one
sense,
rejecting the other, or
provides another name
for one of
these taxa
must be followed.
Example:
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. 1753) published
Aira 1
spicata on p. 63 and
Aira
7
spicata on p. 64, but in
“Errata”
line 9 from base
(vol. 2, after “Nomina trivialia”
and “Addenda”) substituted
indica for
spicata of species 1 on p. 63; the name
Aira spicata
L. is therefore legitimate
for species 7 on p. 64.
(3)
If it is the name of a taxon which on
transfer of that taxon
from
the animal
to the plant kingdom
becomes, at the time of such transfer,
a
homonym of a name for a plant taxon.
If a
taxon is transferred from the plant kingdom
to the animal kingdom, its
name or names
retain their status in botanical nomenclature
for purposes
of homonymy.
42 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 32 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 65~68 |
A name must be rejected if it is used
in different
senses and so
has
become 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 error.
~
Lavandula spica L. (Sp. Pl. 572. 1753)
included the two species subsequently known as
L.
angustifolia Mill. and
L. latifolia Vill. The name
Lavandula spica has been applied
almost equally
to these two species, and, being now ambiguous,
must be rejected (see
Kew Bull.
1932: 295).
A name must be rejected if it
is based on a type
consisting of two or
more entirely discordant elements,
unless it is possible to select
one of these
elements as a satisfactory type.
Examples:
The characters of the genus
Schrebera L.
(Sp. Pl. ed. 2. 1662. 1763;
Gen. Pl. ed. 6. 124. 1764)
were derived from the two genera
Cuscuta and
Myrica
(parasite and host)
(see Retz. Obs.
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 inflorescence 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
a type
which is
a mixture of a species of
Sloanea (Elaeocarpaceae) and a sapotaceous species
(flowers and leaves); both elements can be easily separated,
as has been done by Martius,
and Radlkofer was right in proposing
(Sitzber. Math.~Phys. Cl. Bayer. Akad. München
12:
333. 1882)
to retain the name
Pouteria as correct for the part of the type
belonging
to the
Sapotaceae.
A name must be rejected when it is based on a monstrosity.
Examples:
The generic name
Uropedium Lindl. (Orch. Linden 28. 1846)
was based
on a monstrosity which is now referred to
Phragmipedium caudatum (Lindl.) Rolfe
(Orchid Rev.
4: 330. 1896);
it must therefore be rejected.
~
The name
Ornithogalum
fragiferum Vill. (Hist. Pl. Dauph.
2:
270. 1787)
was based on a monstrosity
and must
therefore be rejected.
Names of genera are illegitimate
and must be rejected
in the following
special cases:
(1) When they are merely words not intended as names.
Example:
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)
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.
All new generic names
published
on
or
after 1 Jan. 1912
and coinciding
with such technical terms
are unconditionally rejected.
Examples:
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 Linnaean method.
These were not added until
43 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 33 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
69~70 | Rejection |
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) When they are unitary designations of species.
Example:
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.
Phaeocephalum
for
Schoenus fuscus, and
Leptostachys for
Carex leptostachys. These names,
which resemble
generic names, should not be confused with them
and must be rejected, unless they have
been published as
generic names by a subsequent author: for example, the name
Baeothryon,
employed as a unitary name of a species by Ehrhart,
was subsequently published as a
generic name by
A. Dietrich (Sp. Pl.
2(2): 89. 1833).
(4)
When they consist of two words,
unless these words were from the
first combined into one,
or joined by a hyphen.
Example:
The generic name
Uva ursi Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abridg. 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 combined
into one when originally published),
Sebastiano~Schaueria, and
Neves~
Armondia
(both hyphened when originally published) are admissible.
An epithet of a subdivision of a genus is
illegitimate and
must be
rejected
in the following special
cases:
(1)
If it
was published
in contravention of Arts.
51,
54, or
60,
i.e. if its
author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet
available for the taxon
with its particular circumscription,
position, and rank.
(2)
If it is an epithet of a type subgenus or section
which contravenes
Art.
22.
(3)
If it is formed by attaching the prefix
Eu~ to the generic name,
or to
that of a higher subdivision of the genus.
Example: Baissea sect. Eubaissea K. Schum. is illegitimate.
Note 1.
The publication of an epithet in an illegitimate name must not
be taken into consideration
for purposes of priority
(see Art.
45)
except
in the rejection of a later homonym (Art.
64).
Note 2.
An epithet originally published as part of
an illegitimate name
may be made legitimate later
in another combination (see Art.
72).
A
specific
or infraspecific epithet
is illegitimate
and must be rejected
in the following special cases:
(1)
When
it
was
published
in contravention of Arts.
51,
53,
55,
56, or
60,
i.e. if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet
available for
the taxon with its particular circumscription,
position, and rank.
(2) When it is merely a word not intended as an epithet.
Examples:
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.
(3) When it is merely an ordinal adjective being used for enumeration.
Examples: Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.
44 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 34 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 11~12 |
(4)
When
it exactly repeats the generic name
with or without the addition
of a transcribed symbol
(tautonym).
Examples: Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium~aquaticum.
(5)
When
it was published in
a work in which the Linnaean system
of
binary nomenclature for species
was not consistently employed.
Example:
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 Linnaean method,
and must be rejected: Hill’s other species was
Abutilon flore flavo.
Note 1.
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).
Note 2.
The publication of
a name containing an illegitimate
epithet
must not be taken into consideration
for purposes of priority (see Art.
45)
except in the rejection of a later homonym (Art.
64).
Note 3.
A specific epithet is not illegitimate
merely because it was
originally published under
an illegitimate generic name, but must be taken
into consideration 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 infraspecific epithet
may be legitimate even if originally published
under an illegitimate name of a species or infraspecific taxon.
Note 4.
An epithet originally published as part of an
illegitimate name
may be made legitimate later
in another combination (see Art.
72).
Infraspecific epithets such as
typicus, originalis, originarius, genuinus,
verus, and
veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon
containing the nomen~
clatural type
of the next higher taxon, are illegitimate
except where they repeat
the specific epithet
because Art.
26
requires their use.
In cases foreseen in Arts.
63~71,
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.
Example:
Linum radiola L. (1753)
when transferred to the genus
Radiola must not
be called
Radiola radiola (L.)
H. Karsten (1882),
as that combination is to be rejected
under Art.
70 (4);
the next oldest specific epithet is
multiflorum, but the name
Linum
multiflorum Lam. (1778)
is illegitimate,
since it was a superfluous name for
L. radiola
L.: under
Radiola, the species must be called
R. linoides Roth (1788), since
linoides is the
oldest legitimate epithet available.
Note.
When
a new epithet is required,
an author may, if he wishes,
adopt an epithet
previously given to the taxon in an illegitimate
name, if
there is no obstacle
to its employment in the new position or sense;
the epithet
in the resultant combination is treated as new.
Example:
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, and the binomial
should be written
Calandrinia
polyandra Benth., not
C. polyandra (Hook.) Benth.
45 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 35 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
73 | Orthography |
Chapter
VI.
ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
Section 1. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
The original spelling of a name or epithet
must be retained, except
that
typographic or orthographic errors
should be corrected.
The
consonants
w and
y, foreign to
classical Latin, and
k,
rare in that
language,
are permissible in Latin plant names.
Diacritic signs
are not used in Latin plant names.
In names (either new
or old) drawn from words
in which such signs appear, the signs must be
suppressed with the
necessary transcriptions of the letters so modified:
for
example
ä, ö,
ü become respectively
ae, oe, ue;
é, è, ê become
e, or sometimes
ae;
ø becomes
oe;
Å becomes
Ao;
the diaeresis,
however, is permissible
( Cephaëlis for
Cephaelis ). *
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
(see Recs.
21A,
73F)
Note 2.
The use of a wrong connecting vowel or vowels
(or the omission
of a connecting vowel)
in a name or an epithet is treated
as an orthographic
error (see Rec.
73G).
Note 3.
The use of the
terminations
i,
ae, or
anus instead of
ii,
iae, or
ianus prescribed in Rec.
73C
(a,
b,
d),
and the reverse errors, are treated
as
orthographic errors.
Note
4.
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
5.
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
Amaranthus L. (1753)
were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus
and the
spelling must not be altered to
Mesembrianthemum and
Amarantus respectively,
although
these latter forms
are philologically preferable
(see Kew Bull. 1928: 113, 287).
~
Valantia
L. (1753) and
Clutia L. (1753),
commemorating 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
————————–
*
The diaeresis should be used
where required
in works in which diphthongs
are not
represented
by special type,
e.g.
Cephaëlis
in works in which there is
Arisaema, not
Arisæma.
**
In some cases an altered spelling of a generic name
is conserved; e.g.
Bougainvillea
(see list of nomina conservanda no. 2350).
46 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 36 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 73 |
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.
73F),
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
typographic errors for
G. trachycarpa and
H. alta respectively, should be cited as
Globba
trachycarpa Baker and
Hetaeria alba Ridley (see Jour. of Bot.
59: 349. 1921).
~
Thevetia nereifolia 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
orthographic error for
Hexagonia: Fries had previously (Syst. Myc.
1: 344. 1821) cited
Hexagonia 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.
Phan.
4: 224. 1883):
the vernacular name
used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus
is “Renghas”, not “Benghas”.
~
Pereskia opuntiae~
flora DC. (Mém. Mus.
Hist. Nat. Paris
17: 76. 1828)
should be cited as
P. opuntiiflora
DC. (cf. Rec.
73G).
~
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 resemblance of the leaves to those of the genus
Napaea (not
Napea),
and the reduced stem~ending
“i” should have been used instead of
“ae”.
~
Dioscorea
lecardi De Wild.
should be corrected to
D. lecardii, and
Berberis wilsonae Hemsl.
should
be corrected to
B. wilsoniae: the genitive forms derived from
Lecard (m) and Wilson (f)
prescribed by Rec.
73C are
lecardii and
wilsoniae respectively.
When a new name
or epithet is
to be derived from Greek, the transliteration to
Latin should conform
to classical usage.
The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.
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 not modified
by these endings retain their original spelling,
unless they contain letters foreign
to Latin plant names or diacritic signs
(see Art. 73).
(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; Lapeirousia and
Peyrousea; Englera, Englerastrum
and
Englerella; Bouchea and
Ubochea; Gerardia and
Graderia; Martia and
Martiusia.
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).
(c)
The syllables not modified
by these endings retain their original spelling,
unless they contain letters
foreign to Latin plant names
or diacritic signs
(see Art. 73).
(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
47 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 37 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
73 | Orthography |
should be used, e.g.
alexandri from Alexander,
francisci from Franciscus,
augusti from
Augustus,
linnaei from Linnaeus, hectoris
from Hector.
The same provisions apply to
epithets formed from the names of women.
When these
have a substantival form
they are given a feminine termination (e.g.
Cypripedium hookerae,
Rosa beatricis,
Scabiosa olgae, Omphalodes luciliae).
An
epithet taken from a geographical name is preferably
an adjective and usually
takes the terminations
~ensis, ~(a)nus,
~inus, ~ianus or
~icus.
Examples:
Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec),
Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia),
Polygonum pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania).
A new epithet should be written
in conformity with the original spelling of the
word or words from which
it is derived and in accordance
with the accepted usage of
Latin and latinization.
Examples: silvestris (not sylvestris), sinensis (not chinensis).
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
non~Latin) names,
or are former generic names.
A
compound name or
an epithet combining elements derived
from two or more
Greek or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable, in accordance with classical
usage
(see
notes 2
and
3
to Art. 73). This may be 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
(Hydro~phyllum).
(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, Meliosma).
(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
(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
irregularities occur in the original spelling of
existing compounds, this spelling should
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.
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,
the spelling
which is more correct philologi~
cally is accepted, e.g.
Agrostemma (not
Agrostema).
48 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 38 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Gender | 74 |
(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).
When
two or
more generic names
are so similar,
that they are likely
to be
confused
*, because they are applied to
related
taxa or for any other
reason,
they are to be treated as variants, which are homonyms when they
are based on different types.
Examples of
names treated
as orthographic variants:
Astrostemma and
Asterostemma,
Pleuripetalum and
Pleuropetalum, Columella and
Columellia, both commemorating Columella,
the Roman writer on agriculture,
Eschweilera and
Eschweileria, Skytanthus and
Scytanthus.
~ The four generic names
Bradlea Adans.,
Bradlaeia Neck.,
Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn., and
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.
Examples of
names
not likely to be confused:
Rubia and
Rubus, Monochaete and
Monochaetum, Peponia and
Peponium, lria and
Iris, Desmostachys and
Desmastachya,
Symphyastemon and
Symphostemon, Gerrardina and
Gerardiina, Durvillea and
Urvillea,
Elodes and
Elodea, Peltophorus
(Poaceae) and
Peltophorum
(Fabaceae).
The same applies to specific epithets within the same genus
and to
infraspecific epithets within the same species.
Examples of
epithets
treated as
orthographic variants:
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; macrocarpon and
macrocarpum;
trachy~
caulum and
trachycaulon.
Examples of
epithets
not likely to be confused:
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz~
Bip. and
S. napifolius Macowan are different names; the epithets
napaeifolius and
napifolius
being derived respectively from
Napaea and
Napus.
~
Lysimachia hemsleyana and
Lysimachia hemsleyi
(see however,
Rec.
23A).
Section 2. GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES
The gender of generic names should be determined as follows:
(1)
A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name
should retain its gender.
When the gender varies,
the author should choose one of the alternative genders.
In
doubtful cases general usage should be followed.
The following names, however, whose
classical gender is
masculine, should be treated as feminine in accordance with
botanical
custom:
Adonis, Diospyros,
Strychnos;
so also should
Orchis
and
Stachys,
which are
masculine
in Greek and feminine in Latin.
The name
Hemerocallis
derived from the Latin
and Greek
hemerocalles
(n.), although
masculine in Linnaeus,
Species
Plantarum, should
be treated as feminine in order to bring it
into conformity with all other generic names
ending in
~is.
(2)
Generic names 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.
————————–
*
When it is doubtful whether names are
sufficiently alike to be confused,
they
should be referred to the General Committee.
49 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 39 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
75 | Gender |
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
~osma
should be feminine,
since
that is the gender
of the Greek word
osmé.
Names ending in
~anthos (or
~anthus), and
those in
~chilos
(~chilus
or
~cheilos)
ought strictly speaking to be neuter,
since that is the
gender of the Greek words
anthos and
cheilos. These names, however, have
generally
been treated as masculine,
hence it is recommended to assign that gender to them.
Similarly, it is
recommended those
ending in
~gaster, which strictly speaking
should
be feminine,
should 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.
(3)
Arbitrarily formed generic names
or vernacular names
or adjectives
used as
generic names, whose gender is not apparent,
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 choice should be accepted.
~
Boehmer (in Ludwig,
Def. Gen.
Pl. ed. 3. 436. 1760)
and Adanson (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.
~
Cordyceps Link
(Hand. Gew. 3: 346. 1822)
is adjectival in form and has no classical
gender;
Link assigned to it
C. capitatus, etc., and
Cordyceps should therefore be treated
as masculine.
(4)
Generic names ending in
~oides or
~odes should be treated as feminine
irrespective
of the gender assigned to them
by their original author.
————————–
*
Examples of names formed from Latin words
are not given as these offer few
difficulties.
50 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 40 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Division
III.
Provisions for modification of the Code
Provision 1.
Modification and amendment of the Code.
The Code
may be modified only by action of a plenary session of
an International
Botanical Congress on a resolution moved by
the Nomenclature Section of
that Congress.
Provision 2.
Nomenclature Committees.
Permanent Nomenclature Com~
mittees are established under
the auspices of the International Association
for Plant Taxonomy.
Members of these committees are elected by an
Inter~
national Botanical Congress. The Committees have power
to co-opt and to
establish subcommittees;
they elect such officers as may be desired.
1.
General Committee,
composed of the secretaries of the other committees,
the
rapporteur~général, the president and the secretary of
the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy,
and at least 5 members to be appointed by the Nomenclature Section.
The rapporteur~général is charged with the presentation of
nomenclature proposals to the
International Botanical Congress.
2. Committee for Spermatophyta.
3. Committee for Pteridophyta.
4. Committee for Bryophyta.
5. Committee for Fungi and Lichens.
6. Committee for Algae.
7. Committee for Bacteria.
8. Committee for Virus.
9. Committee for Cultivated Plants.
10. Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature.
11. Editorial Committee,
charged with the preparation and publication of the Code
in conformity with the decisions adopted by the
International Botanical Congress.
Chairman:
the rapporteur~général,
who is charged with the general duties in connection with the
editing of the Code.
Provision 3.
The Bureau of Nomenclature of
the International Botanical
Congress.
Its officers are:
1. The president of the Nomenclature Section,
elected
by the organizing committee
of the International Botanical Congress
in
question.
2. The recorder,
appointed by the same organizing committee.
3. The rapporteur~général,
elected by the previous Congress.
4. The vice~
rapporteur,
elected by the organizing committee
on the proposal of the
rapporteur-général.
Provision 4. The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds:
1) a preliminary guiding mail vote and
2) a final and binding vote at the
Nomenclature Section of the International Congress.
Qualifications for voting:
A.
Preliminary mail vote
1.
The members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
2. The authors of proposals.
3. The members of the nomenclature committees.
Note.
No accumulation or transfer of personal votes
is permissible under 1~3.
B.
Final vote at the sessions of the Nomenclature Section.
1. All officially enrolled members of the Section.
No accumulation or transfer of
personal votes
is permissible
2.
Official delegates or vice~delegates
of the institutes appearing on a list drawn up
by the Bureau of Nomenclature of the
International Botanical Congress and submitted
to the General Committee for final approval;
such institutes are entitled to 1~7 votes,
as
specified on the list.
Transfer of institutional votes to specified vice~delegates
is permissible,
but no single person will be allowed
more than 15 votes, his personal vote included.
Institutional votes may be deposited
at the Bureau of Nomenclature to be counted
in a
specified way for specified proposals.
51 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 41 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Names of Hybrids and some special Categories
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 sign
♀ to 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:
Digitalis lutea ♀ ×
D. purpurea ♂
~
Salix ×
capreola (=
Salix aurita
×
S. caprea).
Note 1.
When polymorphic parental species are involved
and if in~
fraspecific 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
by the International Code
of Nomen~
clature
for Cultivated Plants.
Hybrids or putative hybrids between
infraspecific 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
52 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 42 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
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).
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.
The formula consists of the names of
the two parents connected by the
multiplication-sign ×,
as in Art. H. 1.
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~
oides ×
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.
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) ×
S. cinerea].
×
Sanderara (=
Brassia ×
Cochlioda ×
Odontoglossum); ×
Potinara
(=
Brassavola
×
Cattleya ×
Laelia ×
Sophronitis).
Correct validly published compounds such as ×
Dialaeliocattleya (composed of
the generic name
Cattleya,
and parts of
Diacrium and
Laelia) must, however, be retained.
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
53 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 43 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
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).
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 term denoting the rank 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.
54 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 44 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Special provisions concerning fossil plants
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 pertaining
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.
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.
2.
CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
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. 39).
55 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 45 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
In descriptions of organs of uncertain nature
or affinities, a name suggesting definite
relationship
with a recent plant should be avoided.
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.
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.
56 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 46 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
[
Appendix
III,
listing conserved names of genera (only), is not included here ]
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 47 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
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
made by 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
Arts.
7,
9).
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
old
name
is automatically that of the
new one
(Art. 7,
note 4).
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. 7,
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.
8).
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 name of the taxon was published and
included in it when it was published (Art.
7,
note
3).
c.
Other things being equal,
a specimen should be given preference over
pre-Linnaean
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.
8).
Whenever the type material of a taxon is heterogeneous the
lectotype should
294 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 48 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
be selected so as to preserve current usage
unless another element agrees
better
with the original description and (or) figure.
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.
8).
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.
7,
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, 1956 — Paris Code
– 49 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
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.
50A.
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.
~
G. F. 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 authors’ names are not abbreviated
strictly in accordance with Rec.
50A
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
except when that omission might create
confusion.
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.
Example of
Citation of Names of Serials:
~ Ann. Sci. Nat.;
not Ann. des Sci. Nat.
~ Am. Journ. Bot; not Amer. Jour. Bot.
~ Bot. Jahrb.
(Botanische Jahrbücher für Syste~
matik,
Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie); not Engl. Bot. Jahrb.
(Engler was the
————————
*)
Titles consisting of a single word,
and personal names, are customarily not abbre~
viated;
but many exceptions are sanctioned by usage.
300 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 50 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
editor, not the author of the series).
~ Mem. Soc. Cub. Hist. Nat. (Memorias de la
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).
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.
Example of
Editions and Series:
~
G. F. 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
from 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.
Dates.
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 date, 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).
Example 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.
III.
4: 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
42: 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
G. F. 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.
Example 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.
301 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 51 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
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.~Pétersb. VII.
12²: 1~277.
pl. 1~8. June 1868.
Glover, George Henry & Robbins, Wilfred William. 1915.
Colorado plants injurious
to livestock.
Bull. Colorado Exp. Sta.
211: 3~74.
f. 1~92.
[ ... ]
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 52 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
KEY TO THE NUMBERING OF THE ARTICLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
329 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 53 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
330 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 54 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHIA
1. | 1867 |
LOIS / DE LA / NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE
/ ADOPTÉES
PAR / LE CONGRÈS
INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE / TENU
A PARIS EN AOUT 1867
/ SUIVIES D’UNE /
DEUXIÈME ÉDITION
/
DE L’INTRODUCTION HISTORIQUE ET DU COMMENTAIRE /
QUI ACCOMPAGNAIENT LA RÉDACTION
PRÉPARATOIRE PRÉ~
SENTÉE
AU CONGRÈS / PAR / M. ALPH. DE CANDOLLE
/ Éditeur
et en partie auteur du /
Prodromus systematis naturalis vegetabilum. /
~ /
GENÈVE ET BALE / H. GEORG,
LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR / PARIS /
J.-B. BAILLIÈRE ET FILS
/ 1867 /
In 8°; p. [1]~64; ‘Lois’: p. 13~32, ‘Commentaire’: p. 33~64.
Sometimes referred to as
‘Paris Code’ or ‘Paris Rules’.
2. | 1906 |
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES / DE LA
/ NOMENCLATURE
BOTANIQUE / ADOPTÉES
PAR LE / CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL
DE BOTANIQUE DE VIENNE 1905 / ET PUBLIÉES
AU NOM DE
LA COMMISSION DE RÉDACTION DU
CONGRÈS / PAR /
JOHN
BRIQUET / RAPPORTEUR
GÉNÉRAL. /
INTERNATIONAL
RULES OF / BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
/ ADOPTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS
OF VIENNA 1905. /
~ / INTERNATIONALE REGELN DER
/ BOTANISCHEN NOMEN~
CLATUR /
ANGENOMMEN VOM INTERNATIONALEN BOTANI~
SCHEN KONGRESS
ZU WIEN 1905. / ~ / VERLAG VON
GUSTAV
FISCHER IN JENA. / 1906. /
In 8° max.; p. [1]~99; Commission de Rédaction: J. Briquet,
Ch. Flahault, H. Harms,
A. B. Rendle. Title on p. 17:
‘Règles internationales pour la Nomenclature botanique prin-
cipalement des plantes vasculaires’. Sometimes referred
to as ‘Vienna Code’ or ‘First edition
of the Rules’.
Also published in ‘Verhandlungen des internationalen botanischen
Kongresses
in Wien 1905’, Jena 1906, pp. 165~261.
3. | 1912 |
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES / DE LA
/ NOMENCLATURE
BOTANIQUE /
ADOPTÉES PAR LE /
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL
DE BOTANIQUE DE VIENNE 1905 /
DEUXIÈME
ÉDITION MISE
AU POINT
D’APRÈS LES / DÉCISIONS DU
CONGRÈS INTER~
NATIONAL DE /
BOTANIQUE DE BRUXELLES 1910 /
PUBLIÉE AU
NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE
RÉDACTION DU
CONGRÈS
/ PAR
/ JOHN BRIQUET / RAPPORTEUR
GÉNÉRAL / ~ /
INTERNATIO~
NAL RULES / OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
/ ADOPTED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESSES
/ OF VIENNA
1905 AND BRUSSELS 1910 / ~
/ INTERNATIONALE REGELN /
DER BOTANISCHEN
NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN VON
DEN INTERNATIONALEN
BOTANISCHEN KONGRESSEN / ZU
WIEN 1905 UND
BRÜSSEL 1910 / JENA /
VERLAG VON GUSTAV
FISCHER / 1912 /
In 8° max.; p. [I]~VIII, [1]~110; Commission de Rédaction:
J. Briquet, H. Harms,
L. Mangin, A. B. Rendle. Title on p. 12
(cf. p. 17, Vienna Code): ‘II. Règles internationales
de la
Nomenclature botanique’. Sometimes referred to as ‘Brussels Code’,
‘Brussels Rules’,
‘Second edition of the Rules’.
331 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 55 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
4. | 1935 |
INTERNATIONAL RULES / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMEN~
CLATURE / ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL
CONGRESSES / OF VIENNA, 1905, AND BRUSSELS, 1910 / REVISED
BY THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS /
OF CAM~
BRIDGE, 1930 / COMPILED BY THE
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
FOR NOMENCLATURE FROM THE REPORT OF
/ THE SUB~
SECTION OF NOMENCLATURE PREPARED BY
/ JOHN BRIQUET
(†) / ~ /
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES /
DE LA NOMENCLATURE
BOTANIQUE / ADOPTÉES
PAR LES CONGRÈS INTERNATIO~
NAUX DE BOTANIQUE
DE VIENNE, 1905, / BRUXELLES, 1910, ET
CAMBRIDGE, 1930
/ ~ / INTERNATIONALE REGELN /
DER
BOTANISCHEN NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN VON DEN
INTERNATIONALEN BOTANISCHEN KONGRESSEN ZU WIEN
1905, /
BRÜSSEL 1910 UND CAMBRIDGE 1930 /
DRITTE AUSGABE
/ ~ / VERLAG VON GUSTAV FISCHER
IN JENA / 1935 /
In 8° max.; p. [I]~[XII], [1]~[152]; General editor: H. Harms;
English text (primary)
prepared by A. B. Rendle,
in collaboration with J. Ramsbottom, T. A. Sprague and A. J.
Wilmott; French text prepared by B. P. G. Hochreutiner;
German text prepared by
H. Harms. An unofficial abridged edition
of the English text was issued by A. B. Rendle as
a supplement
to ‘The Journal of Botany’, June 1934, entitled:
‘International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature adopted by
the Fifth International Botanical Congress, Cambridge, 1930’.
The
abridgement consisted merely in the omission of most of
the examples and of the Appendices.
Mostly referred to as ‘Cambridge Rules' or
‘Third edition of the Rules’.
5. | 1947 |
International Rules of / Botanical Nomenclature
/ Formulated by the
International Botanical Congresses
of Vienna, 1905, / Brussels, 1910, and
Cambridge 1930 /
Adopted and revised by the International Botanical Con~
gress of Amsterdam,
1935 / Compiled from various sources by / W. H. Camp,
H. W. Rickett and C. A. Weatherby / UNOFFICIAL SPECIAL
EDITION
/ Issued as a service to members of the
/ American Society of Plant Taxo~
nomists /
Published by /
THE
NEW
YORK
BOTANICAL
GARDEN /
in co-operation
with /
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF
PLANT
TAXONOMISTS
/ THE SCIENCE
PRESS PRINTING COMPANY
/ LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA /
Top line: / Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1~120 BRITTONIA
APRIL 9, 1947 /
In 8°; p. [1]~120; Brittonia 6(1): 1-120. 1947.
Second printing, 1948, reproduced by offset and published
by the Chronica Botanica
Co. Waltham, Mass., U.S.A.
for the New York Botanical Garden,
and the American
Society of Plant Taxonomists.
Mostly referred to as ‘Brittonia edition of the Rules’.
6. | 1950 |
INTERNATIONAL RULES / of /
BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
/ SUPPLEMENT /
embodying the alterations made at the /
Sixth Inter~
national Botanical Congress, Amsterdam, 1935
/ compiled by / T. A.
SPRAGUE, D. Sc. /
late Deputy Keeper of the Herbarium,
Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew /
Rapporteur Général for Nomenclature,
Sixth International
Botanical Congress
/ ~ / (65) /
In 8°: In: Chronica Botanica, Volume 12, Number 1/2, pp. (65)~[88]. 1950.
332 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 56 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
7. | 1952 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMENCLA~
TURE / ADOPTED BY / THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL
BOTA~
NICAL / CONGRESS, STOCKHOLM,
JULY 1950 / PREPARED BY /
J. LANJOUW,
Chief Editor / CH. BAEHNI, E. D. MERRILL,
H. W.
RICKETT, W. ROBYNS, / T. A. SPRAGUE,
Members of the Editorial
Committee /
F. A. STAFLEU, Secretary of the Committee /
AVEC UNE
TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE / PAR /
CH. BAEHNI / ~ / 1952 /
UTRECHT ~ NETHERLANDS / Published with financial
support of
I.U.B.S. by the / International Bureau
for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature
of the /
International Association for Plant Taxonomy /
The Chronica Botanica
Co.: Waltham, Mass. U.S.A.
In 8°; p.p. [l]~228; Regnum Vegetabile, A Series of Handbooks
for the use of
Plant Taxonomists and Plant Geographers, Volume 3.
Issued September 1952. Mostly
referred to as ‘Stockholm Code’.
333 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956 — Paris Code
– 57 –
text: © 1956, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
[ Not present in this edition ]
[ supposed to be superscript ]
[ This symbol cannot be represented in HTML: see
this .jpg-file ]