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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 01 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

I~VI Principles

 
 
 

Division IPrinciples

 
 

Principle I

         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. *
 

Principle II

         The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means
of nomenclatural types.
 

Principle III

         The naming of taxonomic groups is based on priority of publication.
 

Principle IV

         Each taxonomic group can bear only one correct name, the earliest that
is in accordance with the Rules, except in specified cases
.
 

Principle V

         Scientific names of plants are Latin or are treated as Latin.
 

Principle VI

         The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive except when expressly limited.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                

         * See Arts. 45 and 64 (3).

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 02 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Ranks 1~5

 
 
 
 

Division II. Rules and Recommendations
 

Chapter I. RANKS OF TAXA, AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM

Article  1

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

Article  2

         Every plant is treated as belonging to a number of taxa of consecutively
subordinate ranks, among which the rank of species (species) is basic.

Article  3

         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.

Article  4

         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.

Recommendation  4A

         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.

Article  5

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 03 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

6~7 Definitions, typification

 
 
 
 

Chapter IINAMES OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)

Section 1.  DEFINITIONS

Article  6

         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.
 

Section 2. TYPIFICATION

Article  7

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 04 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Article  8

         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.

Recommendation  8A

         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.

Recommendation  8B

         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.

Recommendation  8C

         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.

Recommendation  8D

         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.

Recommendation  8E

         The listed type species of a conserved generic name (see Art. 14) should not be
changed without irrefutable evidence in support of such action.
 

Article  9

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 05 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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).
 

Article 10

         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.

Section 3PRIORITY

Article 11

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 06 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Starting points 12~13

Section 4.  LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY:

PUBLICATION, STARTING POINTS, CONSERVATION OF NAMES

 
 

Article 12

         A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly
published (see Chapter IV, section 2, Arts. 32~45).
 
 

Article  13

 

         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).

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 07 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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 4For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens shall be
considered as applying to their fungal components.
 

Article  14

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 08 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 

Article  15

         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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 09 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

16~18 Names of higher taxa

 
 
 

Chapter IIINOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO

THEIR RANK

Section  1NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF ORDER

Article  16

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

Recommendation  16A

         (aThe 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

Article  17

         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

Article  18

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 10 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Article  19

         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*

Article  20

         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).

Recommendation  20A

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 11 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 
 

Article  21

         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. 22A.

Recommendation  21A

         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.
 

Article  22

         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.

Recommendation  22A

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 12 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Recommendation  22B

         When  it  is  desired  to  indicate  the  name  of  a  subdivision  of  thegenus  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.
 
 

Section 5. NAMES OF SPECIES

Article  23

         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.

Recommendation  23A

         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).

Recommendation  23B

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

         (a)    To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 13 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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

(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)
 

Article  24

         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.

Recommendation  24A

         Recommendations   made   for   specific   epithets   (see   Rec.   23A,   B)   apply   equally   to
infraspecific epithets.

Recommendation  24B

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

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

Recommendation  24C

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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 14 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Infraspecific names 35~38

Article  25

         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.

 

Article  26

         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.
 
 

Article 27

         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

Article  28

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 15 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 16 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Effective publication 29~30

 
 
 
 

Chapter IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

Section 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

Article  29

         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.

Recommendation  29A

         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.
 

Article  30

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 17 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 

Article  31

         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

Article  32

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 18 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Recommendation  32A

         Valid publication of a name should not be effected solely by a reference to a
description or illustration published before 1753.
 

Article  33

         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.
T
he 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.
 

Article  34

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 19 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 

Article  35

         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).

Recommendation  35A

         When the nomenclatural type of a new taxon is a specimen, the place where it is
permanently conserved should be indicated.
 

Article  36

         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.
 

Article  37

         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).
 

Article  38

         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~

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 20 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 

Article  39

         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.
 

Article  40

         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.
 

Article  41

         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
3pl.  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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 21 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

42~45 Valid publication

Recommendation  41A

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

Article  42

         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.
 

Article  43

         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.
 

Article  44

         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.
 

Article  45

         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).

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 22 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Recommendation  45A

         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).

Recommendation  45B

         Authors should avoid adoption of an illegitimate epithet previously published for the
same taxon
(but see Art. 72).

Recommendation  45C

         Authors should avoid adoption of a name or an epithet which has been previously
but not validly published for a different taxon.

Recommendation  45D

         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.

Recommendation  45E

         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.

Recommendation  45F

         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.

Recommendation  45G

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

Recommendation  45H

         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.

Recommendation  45I

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 23 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

46~48 Citation author

Section 3. CITATION OF AUTHORS’ NAMES AND OF LITERATURE

FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION

Article  46

         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.

Recommendation  46A

         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.) Rehd
er or L. polystachya (A.DC.) Rehder.  ~ 
Gesneria donklarii Hort. ex Hook. or Gesneria donklarii Hook.

Recommendation  46B

         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).
 

Article  47

         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.

         Examples:  see under Art. 51.

Recommendation  47A

         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.).

Article  48

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 24 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Citation author 49~50

Article  49

         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.
 

Article  50

         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.).

Recommendation  50A

         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).

Recommendation  50B

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 25 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Recommendation  50C

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

Recommendation  50D

         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.

Recommendation  50E

         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.

Recommendation  50F

         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).

Recommendation  50G

         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.).

Recommendation  50H

         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”.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 26 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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
 

Article  51

         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.
 

Article  52

         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).
 

Article  53

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 27 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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
 

Article  54

         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.

 

Article  55

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 28 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Article  56

         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

Article  57

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 29 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 
 

Article  58

         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.

Recommendation  58A

         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

Article  59

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 30 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Change of rank 60~63

Section 5CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN THE RANK OF A TAXON IS CHANGED
 

Article  60

         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.

Recommendation  60A

         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.
 

Article  61

         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 6REJECTION OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
 

Article  62

         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).

Article  63

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 31 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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).
 
 

Article  64

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 32 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Rejection 65~68

Article  65

         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).
 

Article  66

         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.
 

Article  67

         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.
 

Article  68

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 33 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.
 

Article  69

         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).
 

Article  70

         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:  Violaqualis” Krocker (Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790); Atriplexnova
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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 34 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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).
 

Article  71

         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.
 

Article  72

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 35 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

73 Orthography

 
 
 

  Chapter VIORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
 

Section 1ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS

Article  73

         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).

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 36 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

Recommendation  73A

         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.

Recommendation  73B

         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.

Recommendation  73C

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 37 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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
).

Recommendation  73D

         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).

Recommendation  73E

         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).

Recommendation  73F

         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.

Recommendation  73G

         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.
 

Article  74

         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).

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 38 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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).
 

Article  75

         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 2GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES

Recommendation  75A

         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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 39 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 40 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 41 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 
 

Appendix I
 

Names of Hybrids and some special Categories
 

Article  H. 1
 

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

         The formula consists of the specific epithets of the two parents in alpha~
betical order connected by the multiplication sign. When the hybrid is of
known experimental origin, the formula may be made more precise by the
addition of the 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
.
 

Article  H. 2
 

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 42 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

order of the epithets and the use of the signs ♀ and ♂ should follow the
procedure set down in Art. H. 1.

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

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

Article  H. 3
 

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

         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.
 

Article  H. 4

 

         Ternary hybrids, or those of a higher order, are designated like ordinary
hybrids by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a binary
name. Such as are trigeneric or multigeneric may be given new generic names
formed by a combination of parts of the names of the parent genera; usually,
however, multigeneric hybrid groups combining three or more genera receive
a conventional name consisting of the name of a person eminent as a collector,
grower, or student of the group, to which is added the termination -ara; no
such name may exceed eight syllables.

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

Article  H. 5
 

         When different hybrid forms of the same parentage (pleomorphic hybrids,
combinations between different forms of a collective species, segregates, back~
crosses) are united in a collective taxon, the subdivisions are classed under

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 43 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

the binary name applied to the hybrid population or group like the sub~
divisions of a species under the binary name of the species. These forms
are recognized as nothomorphs; when desirable a nothomorph may be
designated by an epithet preceded by the binary name of the hybrid group
and the term “nothomorph” (nothomorpha, abbreviated as nm.).

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

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

Recommendation  H. 5A

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

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

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 44 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 

Appendix II

Special provisions concerning fossil plants

1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 

Article  PB. 1
 

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

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

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

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

         Note 2 It is necessary to distinguish both organ~genera and form~genera
since the former are held to indicate a certain degree of natural affinity,
while the latter may and in many instances do include species belonging
to different families or even groups of higher rank, e.g. ferns and pteridosperms.
But form~genera have been recognized as 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.

Article  PB. 2

         The general rules applicable to the naming of recent plants apply also to
the names of fossil plants and to those of organ~genera and form~genera.
 
 

2 CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
 

Article  PB. 3
 

         From 1 Jan. 1953 the name of a genus or of a taxon of higher rank is
not validly published unless it is accompanied by a description of the taxon
or by reference to a previously and effectively published description of it
(see Art. 39).

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 45 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

Article  PB. 4
 

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

Article  PB. 5
 

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

Article  PB. 6
 

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

Recommendation  PB.  6A

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

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

Recommendation  PB.  6B

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

Recommendation  PB.  6C

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

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

Recommendation  PB.  6D

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

Recommendation  PB.  6E

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

Recommendation  PB.  6F

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

 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 46 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   [ 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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 
 
 

Appendix IV

                                                  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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 48 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 
 
 

Appendix V

                               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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 50 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

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.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 51 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

         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

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 
 

    KEY TO THE NUMBERING OF THE ARTICLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  Code
  Paris
 
 
    Preamble
 
Division I
 
Principles
 
I
II
III
IV
 V
 VI
 
Division II
 
Chapter I
 
  1
  2
  3
  4
  4A
  5
 
Chapter II
 
    section 1
  6
 
    section 2
  7
  8
  8A
  8B
  8C
  8D
  8E
  9
10
 
    section 3
11
 
    section 4
12
13
14
15
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 
1-9,11,17,17A
 
~
 
~
 
  6 pp.
18 pp.
~
16 pp.
  7 pp.
  2 pp.
 
~
 
Chapter II
 
  8 pp.
12 pp.
12 pp.
13, 14
14A
15
 
Chapter III pp.
 
~
10
 
    section 2
18
19
19A
19B
App. I pp.
App. I pp.
~
20
21
 
    section 1
16
 
    section 3
22
23, 76pp.
24
25
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 
1-9,15,17,III
 
~
 
~
 
  6 pp.
18 pp.
~
16 pp.
  7 pp.
  2 pp.
 
~
 
Chapter II
 
  8 pp.
10 pp.
10 pp.
11, 12
 I
13
 
Chapter III pp.
 
~
~
 
    section 2
18 pp.
18 pp.
~
VII
~
~
~
18 pp.
18 pp.
 
    section 1
16
 
    section 3
19
20
21
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  Code
   Paris
 
 
Chapter III
 
    section 1
16
16A
 
    section 2
17
 
    section 3
18
19
 
    section 4
20
20A
21
21A
22
22A
22B
 
    
section 5
23
~
23A
23B
 
    section 6
24
24A
24B
24C
25
26
27
 
    section 7
28
 
 
Chapter IV
 
    section 1
29
29A
30
31
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 
    section 4
 
    subsection 1
26
26A
 
     subsection 2
27
 
    subsection 3
28
29
 
    subsection 4
30
30A
31
31 pp.
32
32A
32B
 
    subsection 5
33
33A
33B
33C
 
    subsection 6
34 pp., 36
37A
37B
37C
34 pp.
35
37
 
    subsection 7
38
 
 
~
 
    section 5
39
39A
40
41
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 
    section 4
 
§ 1 pp.
~
VIII
 
§ 1 pp.
IX
 
§ 2
23
24
 
§ 3
25
X
26
26  pp.
~
XI
XII
 
§ 4
27
XIII
XIV
XV
 
§ 5
28 pp., 29
XVI
XVII
XIX
28 pp.
~
30
 
§ 7
35
 
 
~
 
    section 5
36
~
~
~

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 57 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

  Code
   Paris
 
 
    section 2
32
32A
33
34
35
35A
36
37
38
39
40
41
41A
42
43
44
45
45A
45B
45C
45D
45E
45F
45H
45I
 
 
 
 
    section 3
46
46A
46B
47
47A
48
49
50
50A
50B
50C
50D
50E
50F
50G
50H
 
 
 
Chapter V
 
 
    section 1
51
52
53
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 
    section 6
42
42A
43
44
54A
~
45
46
47
48
49
50
50A
51
52
54
53
54B
54C
54D
54E pp.
54F, 83F
54G
54I
54K, 54L
 
 
 
 
    section 7
55
58
58A
56
56A
57
59
60
60A
60B
60C
60D
60E
60F
60G
60H
 
 
 
~
 
 
    section 8
61
62
63
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 
    section 6
37
~
~
38
XXII
~
39
40
41
42
~
43
~
~
44
XXI pp.
45
XXII
~
~
XXIII pp.
XXIV, XLIX
XXV
XXVII
XXVIII, XXIX
 
 
 
 
    section 7
46
48(1)
48(2)
47(1)
47(2)
~
49
~
XXX
XXXI
~
XXXII
~
~
~
~
 
 
 
~
 
 
    section 8
50
51
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  Code
   Paris
 
 
    section 2
54
55
56
 
    section 3
57
58
58A
~
 
    section 4
59
 
    section 5
60
60A
61
 
    section 6
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
 
Chapter VI
    section 1
73
73A, 45G
73B
73C
73D
73E
73F
73G
74
75
 
    section 2
75A
 
Division III
 
Appendices
I
II
III
IV
V
~
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 
    section 9
64
65
66
 
    section 10
67
68
68A
68B
 
    section 10
69
 
    section 12
70
71A
71
 
    section 13
72
73 pp.
73 pp., 74
75
76
77
78
73 pp.
73 pp., 79
80
81
 
~
    section 14
82 pp.
82A
82B
82C, D
82E
82F
82G
82H
83
82 pp.
 
    section 15
83A
 
~
 
Appendices
II
IV
V
I
VI
III
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 
    section 9
53
54
55
 
    section 10 pp.
56
~
XXXIII
XXXIV
 
    section 10 pp.
57
 
    section 11
58
XXXVI, 2, 3
~
 
    section 12
59
60 pp.,
60 pp., 61
62
64
65
67
60 pp.
68
~
69
 
~
    section 13
70 pp.
XXXVIII
XXXIX
XI, XLI
~
XLII
XLIII
XLIV
71
70 pp.
 
    section 14
72
 
Chapter IV
 
Appendices
Arts. 31-34
~
III
~
~
VII

 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 60 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

                                         BIBLIOGRAPHIA
 

         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’.

         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.

         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’.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 61 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

         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’.

         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’.

         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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 62 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

         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’.
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– 63 –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Not present in this edition ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ sic ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
       [ supposed to be superscript ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ This symbol cannot be represented in HTML: see this .jpg-file ]