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 scientific names which
are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of plants.
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 con-
fusion.
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 prevailing 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
Recom-
mendations; the notes
attached to these are integral parts of them.
Examples are
added to the rules
and recommendations
to illustrate 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 nomenclature;
names
contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account,
be rejected, but they are
not examples to be followed.
The provisions regulating the modification of 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 Inter-
national Microbiological Congress
has therefore issued an
International Code of
Nomenclature of Bacteria and Viruses
(Ames, Iowa, June 1958). Similarly the
International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants
has published
an
International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
(Utrecht, June 1961).
Provisions for the names of hybrids
and some special categories appear in
Appendix I..
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.
This edition of the Code supersedes all previous editions (see
Bibliographia,
p.
400).
15 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 1 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
I-VI | Principles |
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature.
The Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups
treated as plants whether
or not these groups
were originally assigned to the plant kingdom.
The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined
by means of nomen-
clatural types.
The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.
Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can
bear only one correct name,
the earliest that is in accordance with the Rules,
except
in specified cases.
Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin
regardless of their
derivation.
The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.
16 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 2 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Ranks | 1-5 |
Division
I I .
Rules and Recommendations
Chapter I. RANKS OF TAXA, AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM
Taxonomic groups of any rank will,
in this Code, be referred to as
taxa (singular:
taxon).
Every individual plant is treated as belonging
to a number of taxa of consecutively
subordinate ranks,
among which the rank of species
(species) is basic.
The principal ranks of taxa
in ascending sequence are: species
(species), genus
(genus), family
(familia), order
(ordo), class
(classis), and division
(divisio). Thus
each species belongs (is to be assigned) to a genus,
each genus to a family (certain
groups of fossil plants excepted), etc.
Note 1.
Since the names of species,
and consequently of many higher taxa,
of
fossil plants are usually based on fragmentary specimens,
and since the connection
hetween these specimens
can only rarely be proved, organ-genera
(organo-genera)
and form-genera
(forma-genera) are distinguished
as taxa within which species may
be recognized
and given names according
to this Code.
An organ-genus is a genus assignable to a family.
A form-genus is a genus
unassignable to a family,
but it may be referable to a taxon of higher rank
(see
Art.
59).
Form-genera are artificial in varying degree.
Examples:
Organ-genera:
Lepidocarpon Scott (Lepidocarpaceae),
Mazocarpon (Scott) Benson
(Sigillariaceae),
Siltaria Traverse (Fagaceae).
Form-genera:
Dadoxylon Endl. (Coniferopsida),
Pecopteris (Brongn.) Sternb. (Pteropsida),
Stigmaria Brongn. (Lepidophytales and Lepidospermales),
Spermatites Miner (Cormophyta,
excl. Eocormophyta et Palaeocormophyta microphylla).
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 of the plant kingdom (Regnum Vegetabile):
Divisio,
Subdivisio,
Classis, Subclassis,
Ordo, Subordo,
Familia, Subfamilia,
Tribus, Sub-
tribus,
Genus, Subgenus,
Sectio, Subsectio,
Series, Subseries,
Species, Subspecies,
Varietas, Subvarietas,
Forma, Subforma.
Further supplementary ranks may be intercalated
or added, provided that con-
fusion or error
is not thereby introduced.
For hybrids and some special categories, see Appendix I.
Note.
In classifying parasites, especially fungi,
authors who do not give specific,
subspecific or varietal
value to taxa characterized from a physiological standpoint
but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint
may distinguish within
the species special forms
(formae speciales) characterized by their adaptation
to
different hosts, but the nomenclature of
formae speciales
shall not be governed by
the provisions of this Code.
The relative order of the ranks specified in Arts. 3 and 4 must not be altered.
17 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 3 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
6-7 | Definitions, typification |
Chapter
II.
NAMES OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 29—31.
Valid publication of names 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).
Example:
The generic name
Vexillifera Ducke
(Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de
Janeiro 3:
139.
1922), based on the single species
V. micranthera,
is legitimate because it is in accordance
with the rules.
The same is true of the generic name
Dussia Krug et Urban ex Taub.
(in
Engl. et Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III. 3: 193. 1892),
based on the single species
D. martini-
censis.
Both generic names are correct
when the genera are thought to be separate.
Harms
(Repert. Sp. Nov. 19:
291. 1924), however, united
Vexillifera Ducke and
Dussia Krug et
Urban
ex Taubert
in a single genus; when this
treatment is accepted
the latter name is the
only correct one
for the genus with this particular circumscription.
The legitimate name
Vexillifera
may therefore be correct or incorrect
according to different concepts of the taxa.
Note
1.
In this Code, unless otherwise indicated,
the word “name” means a
name that has been
validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate.
Note 2.
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 tenella var.
occidentalis, Equisetum
palustre var.
americanum f.
fluitans, Mouriri subg.
Pericrene, Arytera sect.
Mischarytera.
The application of names of taxa of the rank of family
or below is determined
by means of
nomenclatural types
(types of names of taxa).
A nomenclatural type
(typus) is that constituent element of a taxon
to which the name of the taxon is
permanently attached,
whether as a correct name or as a synonym.
Note 1.
The nomenclatural type is not necessarily
the most typical or represen-
tative element
of a taxon; it is that element
with which the name is permanently
associated.
Note 2.
A
holotype is the one specimen or other element
used by the author or
designated by him as the nomenclatural type.
As long as a holotype is extant, it
automatically fixes
the application of the name concerned.
Note 3.
If no holotype was indicated by the author
who described a taxon, or
when the holotype
has been lost or destroyed, a
lectotype or a
neotype as a sub-
18 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 4 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Typification | 7 |
stitute for it may be designated.
A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype.
An
isotype, if such exists, must be chosen
as the lectotype. If no isotype exists,
the
lectotype must be chosen from among the
syntypes, if such exist.
If neither an
isotype nor a syntype
nor any of the original material is extant,
a neotype may be
selected.
A
lectotype is a specimen or other element selected
from the original material to
serve as a nomenclatural type
when no holotype was designated at the time of
publication
or as long as it is missing.
When two or more specimens have been designated as
types by the author of a
specific or infra-specific name
(e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.),
the lectotype must be chosen from among them.
An
isotype is any duplicate
(part of a single gathering made by a collector at
one time)
of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
A
syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited
by the author when no
holotype was designated,
or any one of two or more specimens
simultaneously
designated as types.
A
neotype is a specimen or other element selected to serve
as nomenclatural type
as long as all of the material
on which the name of the taxon was based is missing.*
Note 4.
A new name or epithet published as an avowed substitute
(nomen novum)
for an older name or epithet
is typified by the type of the older name.
A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name
or epithet
(stat.
nov., combo nov.) is, in all circumstances,
typified by the type of the basionym.
A name or epithet which was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published (see
Art.
63)
is automatically typified by the type of the name or epithet
which ought
to have been adopted under the rules,
unless the author of the superfluous name
or epithet has indicated a definite type.
Note 5.
The typification of names of genera
based on plant megafossils and
plant microfossils
(form- and organ-genera), genera of imperfect fungi,
and any
other analogous genera or lower taxa
does not differ from that indicated above.
Note 6.
The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants
of the rank of species
or below is the specimen
whose figure accompanies or is cited in the valid
publica-
tion of the name (see Art.
38).
If figures of more than one specimen were given
or cited
when the name was validly published,
one of those specimens must be
chosen as type.
Note 7.
The type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group
with a nomenclatural
starting-point later than 1753
(see Art.
13)
is to be determined in accordance with
the indication
or description and other matter accompanying
its first valid publica-
tion (see Arts.
32-45).
When valid publication is by reference
to a pre-starting-
point description,
the latter must be used for purposes of typification
as though
newly published.
Note 8.
A change of the listed type-species
of a conserved generic name (see
Art.
14 and
App. III)
can be effected only by a procedure similar to that adopted
for the conservation of generic names.
Example:
Bullock and Killick (Taxon 6: 239. 1957) proposed,
in the interests of stability
and taxonomic accuracy,
that the type-species of
Plectranthus L’Hér. should be changed from
P. punctatus (L.f.) L’Hér. to
P. fruticosus L’Hér.
This was approved by the appropriate
Committees
and sanctioned by an International Botanical Congress.
———————–
* See also Guide for the determination of types (p. 71).
19 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 5 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
8—9 | Typification |
It is strongly recommended that the material
on which the name of a taxon
is based,
especially the holotype,
be deposited in a permanent, responsible institution
and that it be
scrupulously conserved.
When living material is designated as a nomenclatural type
(for
Bacteria only;
see Art. 9, Note 3),
appropriate parts of it should be immediately preserved.
Whenever the material
on which the name of a taxon
is based 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.
The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype
must be followed, but
his choice is superseded if the holotype
or, in the case of a neotype,
any of the
original material is rediscovered,
or if it can be shown that the choice was based
upon a misinterpretation of the original description.
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.
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 herma-
phroditic 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. Am. Acad. 70: 192. 1935)
acted in accordance with this rule in designating
one
element of Lorentz’s specimen as the lectotype.
Note 1.
For the name of a species or infraspecific taxon of
Recent
plants of
which it is impossible to preserve a specimen,
or for such a name without a type
specimen,
the type may be a description or figure.
Note 2.
One whole specimen used in establishing a taxon of fossil plants
is to
be considered the nomenclatural type.
If this specimen is cut into pieces
(sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coalball plants, etc.),
all parts originally used in establishing
the diagnosis
ought to be clearly marked.
Note 3.
Type specimens of names of taxa of
Recent plants, the Bacteria excepted,
must be
preserved permanently and cannot be living plants or cultures.
———————–
* See Guide for the determination of types (p. 71).
20 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 6 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Priority | 10-13 |
The nomenclatural type of a genus
or of any taxon between genus and species
is a species,
that of a family or of any taxon between family and genus
is the genus
on whose present or former name
that of the taxon concerned is based (see also
Art.
18).
Note 1.
The nomenclatural type of a family
not based on a generic name is
the genus
that typifies the alternative name of that family (see Art.
18).
Note 2.
The principle of typification does not apply
to names of taxa above
the rank of family (see Art.
16).
Note 3. For the typification of names of subdivisions of genera* see Art. 22.
Each family 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 and fossil plants (see Art.
59).
For any taxon from family to genus inclusive,
the correct name
is the earliest
legitimate one with the same rank,
except in cases of limitation of priority by
conservation
(see Arts.
14 and
15)
or where
Arts.
13f,
58
or
59
apply.
For any taxon below the rank of genus,
the correct name is the combination of
the earliest available legitimate epithet in the same rank
with the correct name of
the genus, species,
or taxon of lower rank to which it is assigned, except where
Arts.
13f,
22,
26,
58
or
59
apply.
Note.
The
principle of priority
does not apply to names of taxa above the rank
of family (see Art.
16).
A name of a taxon has no status under this Code
unless it is validly published
(see Arts.
32—45).
Section 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
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).
———————–
*
Here and elsewhere in the Code
the phrase “subdivision of a genus” refers only to taxa
between genus and species in rank.
21 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 7 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
13 | Starting points |
b. MUSCI (the SPHAGNACEAE excepted), 1 Jan. 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).
For nomenclatural
purposes names given to lichens
shall be considered as applying to their
fungal components.
e.
FUNGI:
UREDINALES,
USTILAGANALES and
GASTEROMYCTES, 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 homonyms
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 et Flahault,
Revision des
Nostocacées hétérocystées,
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 Oedogonia-
ceen, 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).
The names of
bacteria are subject to provisions of the
International Code of Nomenclature
of Bacteria and Viruses.
Fossil plants
j.
ALL GROUPS,
31 Dec. 1820 (Sternberg,
Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch 1: 1—24.
t. 1—13). Schlotheim,
Petrefactenkunde, 1820,
is regarded as published before
31 Dec. 1820.
Note 1.
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 Plantarum ed. 5 (1754)
and ed. 6 (1764) (see Art.
41).
Note 2.
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 having 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 3.
Whether a name applies to a taxon of fossil plants
or of Recent plants
is decided by reference to the specimen
that serves directly or indirectly as its
22 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 8 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Nomina conservanda | 14 |
nomenclatural type.
The name of a species or infraspecific taxon
is treated as per-
taining to a Recent taxon
unless its type specimen is fossil in origin.
Fossil material
is distinguished from Recent material
by stratigraphic relations at the site of original
occurrenee.
In cases of doubtful geological relations,
regulations for Recent taxa
shall apply.
In order to avoid disadvantageous changes
in the nomenclature of genera, families,
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
Appendices II and
III,
lists of names that are conserved
(nomina con-
servanda)
and must be retained as
useful exceptions.
Conservation aims at retention
of those generic names
which best serve stability of
nomenclature.
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 (see Rec.
50E).
Note 1.
These lists of conserved names
will remain permanently open for addi-
tions.
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 determined
by nomenclatural types.
Note 3.
A conserved name is conserved against all other names
in the same rank
based on the same type
(nomenclatural synonyms) whether these are cited
in the
corresponding list of rejected names or not,
and against those names based on
different types
(taxonomic synonyms)
that are cited in that list. When a conserved
name
competes with one or more other names based on different types
and against
which it is not explicitly conserved,
the earliest of the 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.
Note 4.
When a name of a genus has been conserved
against an earlier name
based on a different type,
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 et Pav. (1802)
is conserved against the earlier
names
Enargea Banks et Sol. ex Gaertn. (1788) and
Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (1789). If,
however,
Enargea Banks et Sol. ex Gaertn.
is considered to be a separate genus, the name
Enargea is retained for it.
Note 5. A conserved name is conserved against all its earlier homonyms.
23 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 9 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
15 | Nomina conservanda |
Example:
The generic name
Smithia Ait. (1789), conserved against
Damapana Adans.,
is
thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym
Smithia Scop. (1777).
Note 6.
Provision for the conservation of a name
in a sense that excludes the
original type
is made in Art.
48.
Note 7.
When a name is conserved only to preserve
a particular orthography,
it is to be attributed
without change of priority to the author
who originally
described the taxon.
When a name proposed for conservation has been approved
by the General
Committee after study by the Committee
for the taxonomic group concerned,
botanists
are authorized to retain it pending the decision
of a later International Botanical
Congress.
When a name proposed for conservation has been referred
to the appropriate Committee
for study,
botanists should follow existing usage as far as possible
pending the General
Committee’s recommendation on the proposal.
24 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 10 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Names of higher taxa | 16—18 |
Chapter III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK
Section 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
The principles of priority and typification do not affect
the form of names of
taxa above the rank of family.
(a)
The name of a division is preferably taken from
characters indicating the nature of
the division as closely as possible;
it 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 a
divisional name
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 (class) and -phycidae (subclass);
2. In the FUNGI: -mycetes(class) and -mycetidae (subclass);
3. In the CORMOPHYTA: -opsida (class) and -idae (subclass).
If the name of an order
is based on the stem of a name of a family,
it must have
the ending
-ales. If the name of a suborder
is based on the stem of a name of a
family,
it must have the ending
-ineae.
Note 1.
Names
intended as names of orders,
but published
with their rank
denoted by a term
such as “Cohors”, “Nixus”, “Alliance”, or “Reihe” instead of
ordo are treated as having been published as names of orders.
Note 2.
When the name of an order or suborder based
on the stem of 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.
Examples of
names of orders:
Fucales, Polygonales, Centrospermae, Parietales,
Farinosae,
Ustilaginales; suborders:
Enantioblastae, Bromeliineae, Malvineae.
Authors should not publish new names of orders
for taxa of that rank which include a
family
from whose name an existing ordinal name is derived.
Section 2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES,
TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed
25 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 11 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
19 | Names of subfamilies |
by adding the suffix
-aceae to the stem of a legitimate name
of an included genus
(see also Art.
10).
(For the treatment of final vowels of stems
in composition, see
Rec.
73G).
Examples:
Rosaceae (from
Rosa),
Salicaceae (from
Salix),
Plumbaginaceae (from
Plumbago),
Caryophyllaceae, nom. cons. (from
Caryophyllus Mill. non L.),
Winteraceae, nom. cons. (from
Wintera Murr., an illegitimate synonym of
Drimys J. R. et G. Forst.).
Names
intended as names of families,
but published
with their rank denoted by
one of the terms
order
(
ordo)
or natural order
(ordo naturalis) instead of
family,
are treated as having been published as names of families.
Note 1.
A name of a family based on the stem of an illegitimate generic name
is illegitimate unless conserved. Contrary to Art.
32 (2)
such a name is validly
published if it complies
with the other requirements for valid publication.
Note 2.
When a name of a family has been published with an improper
Latin
termination, the ending must be changed to accord
with the rule, without change
of the author’s name.
Note 3.
The following names, sanctioned by long usage,
are treated as
validly
published:
Palmae
(Arecaceae; type,
Areca L.);
Gramineae
(Poaceae; type,
Poa L.);
Cruciferae
(Brassicaceae; type,
Brassica L.);
Leguminosae
(Fabaceae; type,
Faba
Mill. (=
Vicia L. p.p.));
Guttiferae
(Clusiaceae; type,
Clusia L.);
Umbelliferae
(Apiaceae; type,
Apium L.);
Labiatae
(Lamiaceae; type,
Lamium L.);
Compositae
(Asteraceae; type,
Aster L.).
Botanists are authorized, however,
to use as alternatives the appropriate names
ending in
-aceae.
When
the
Papilionaceae are regarded as a family
distinct from the remainder
of the
Leguminosae, the name
Papilionaceae
is conserved against
Leguminosae. The
alternative name is
Fabaceae. This is an unique exception to Art.
51.
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 a legitimate name of an included genus.
A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the ending
-eae, and a subtribe
similarly with the ending
-inae.
The name of any taxon of a rank
below family and above genus
which includes
the type of the next higher taxon
must be based on the same stem
as the name of
the next higher taxon,
but without citation of an author’s name (see Art.
46).
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 subfamily 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
26 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 12 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Generic names | 20 |
changed to
Climacioideae with rank and author’s name 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 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA
The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number,
or a word treated
as such. 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,
Rhododendron,
Manihot, Ifloga (an anagram of
Filago).
The name of a genus may not coincide with
a technical term currently used
in morphology
unless it was published before 1 Jan. 1912 and was accompanied,
when
originally published, by a specific name published
in accordance with the binary
method of Linnaeus.
Examples:
The generic name
Radicula Hill
(Brit. Herbal 264. 1756)
coincides with the
technical term
radicula (radicle) and, when originally published,
was not accompanied by
a specific name in accordance
with the Linnaean method. The name must be attributed
to
Moench (Meth. 262. 1794),
who first combined it with specific epithets,
but at that time
he included in the genus
the type-species of the generic name
Rorippa Scop. (Fl. Carn. 520.
1760).
Radicula Moench 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.
The name of a genus may not consist of two words,
unless these words are joined
by a hyphen.
Examples:
The generic name
Uva ursi Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754) as originally
published consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen,
and must therefore
be rejected; the name must be attributed to
Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Arbust. 2: 371. 1755)
as
Uva-ursi (hyphened when published).
However, names such as
Quisqualis
(formed by combining two words into one when
originally published),
Sebastiano-Schaueria, and
Neves-Armondia (both hyphened when
originally published)
are admissible.
Note. The following are not to be regarded as generic names:
(1) Words not intended as names.
Examples:
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.
Schaenoides
and
Scirpoides, used by Rottböll
(Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 14, 27. 1772)
to
indicate unnamed genera resembling
Schoenus and
Scirpus which he stated (on page 7)
he intended to name later,
are token words and not generic names.
Kyllinga Rottböll and
Fuirena Rottböll (Descr. Ic. Nov. Pl. 12, 70. 1773)
are the first legitimate names of these
genera.
27 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 13 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
21 | Names of subdivisions of genera |
(2) Unitary designations of species.
Examples:
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).
N. J. de Necker
in his Elementa Botanica, 1790,
proposed unitary designations for his
“species naturales”.
These names, which resemble generic names, are not to be treated
as
such, unless they have been published as generic names
by a subsequent author; for example
Anthopogon, employed by Necker for one of his
“species naturales”,
was published as a
generic name by Rafinesque:
Anthopogon Raf.
(Fl. Tell. 3: 25. 1837, non Nuttall 1818).
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 language.
(c) Not to make names which are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(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.
(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 (see Rec.
73B).
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 is either of the same form
as a generic name, or a plural adjective
agreeing in gender with the generic name
and written with a capital initial letter.
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, or the prefix
Eu-.
Examples:
Costus subg.
Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect.
Anomodiscus; Sapium subsect.
Patentinervia; Euphorbia sect.
Tithymalus subsect.
Tenellae.
When it is desired to indicate the name of a subdivision
of the genus to which a
particular species belongs
in connection with the generic name and specific epithet,
its
epithet is placed in parentheses between the two;
when necessary, its rank is also indicated.
Examples:
Astragalus
(Cycloglottis)
contortuplicatus; Loranthus (sect.
Ischnanthus)
gabo-
nensis.
28 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 14 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Names of subdivisions of genera | 22 |
The epithet of a subgenus or section
is preferably a substantive,
that of a subsection
or lower subdivision of a genus
preferably a plural adjective.
Botanists,
when proposing new epithets for subdivisions of genera,
should avoid those
in the form of a substantive
when other co-ordinate subdivisions of the same genus have
them in the form of
a plural adjective, and vice-versa.
They should also avoid, when proposing an epithet
for a subdivision of a genus, one
already used
for a subdivision of a closely related genus,
or one which is identical with
the name of such a genus.
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.
The subgenus or section including the type species
of the correct name of the
genus to which it is assigned
bears that name unaltered as its epithet,
but without
citation of an author’s name (see Art.
46).
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 establishes
the name
of another subgenus or section
which has as its
nomenclatural type
the type of this
higher taxon and which bears as its epithet
the generic name (or subgeneric epithet)
unaltered.
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.
When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus
is identical with or derived from
the epithet of one
of its constituent species, this species is the nomenclatural
type
of the epithet unless the original author of the
subdivision of the genus has designated
another type.
Example:
The type of
Euphorbia subg.
Esula Persoon (Syn. Pl. 2: 14. 1806) is
E. esula
L.; the designation of
E. peplus L. as lectotype by Croizat
(Rev. Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13. 1939)
must be rejected.
Note.
When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus is
identical with or derived
from the epithet of
a specific name that is a later homonym, it is the species
designated by that later homonym, whose correct name
necessarily has a different
epithet,
that is the nomenclatural type.
29 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 15 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
23 | Specific names |
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 united or hyphened.
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,
Im-
patiens noli-tangere,
Adiantum capillus-veneris,
Spondias mombin
(an indeclinable epithet).
Symbols forming part of specific epithets
proposed by Linnaeus must be tran-
scribed.
Examples:
Scandix pecten ♀ L. must be transcribed as
Scandix pecten-veneris:
Veronica
anagallis ∇ L. must be transcribed as
Veronica anagallis-aquatica.
The specific epithet may not exactly repeat
the generic name with or without the
addition
of a transcribed symbol (tautonym).
Examples: Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum.
The specific epithet, when adjectival in form
and not used as a substantive, agrees
grammatically with the generic name.
Examples:
Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra,
Verbascum nigrum; Rubus amnicola,
the
specific epithet being an invariable Latin substantive;
Peridermium balsameum Peck, but also
Gloeosporium balsameae J. J. Davis,
both derived from the epithet of
Abies balsamea, the
specific epithet of
which is treated as a substantive in the second example.
Note. The following are not to be regarded as specific epithets:
(1) Words not intended as names.
Examples:
Viola “qualis” Krocker
(Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790);
Atriplex “nova” Winterl
(Ind. Hort. Bot. Univ. Pest. fol. A. 8, recto et verso, 1788),
the word
“nova” being here used
in connection
with four different species of
Atriplex.
(2) Ordinal adjectives used for enumeration.
Examples: Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.
(3)
Those published in works
in which the Linnaean system of binary nomen-
clature
for species was not consistently employed.
Examples:
The name
Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herbal 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.
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).
30 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 16 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Infraspecific names | 24 |
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)
(see
also
Art. 73, Note 3).
It will be well, in the future,
to avoid the use of the genitive and the adjectival form
of the same word to designate two different species
of the same genus; for example,
Lysimachia hemsleyana Maxim. (1891) and
L. hemsleyi Franch. (1895).
In forming specific epithets, botanists should comply also with the following suggestions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(c) Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.
(d) To avoid those formed of two or more hyphened words.
(e) To avoid those 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 those which are very much alike,
especially those which
differ only in their last letters or in the arrangement of two letters.
(h) To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus.
(i)
Not to adopt unpublished names found in correspondence,
travellers’ notes, herbarium
labels, or similar sources,
attributing them to their authors, unless these
authors have
approved publication.
(j)
To avoid using the names of little-known
or very restricted localities, unless the
species is quite local.
Section 5. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)
The name of an infraspecific taxon
is a combination of the name of
a
species
and an infraspecific epithet connected by a
term denoting its rank. Infraspecific
epithets are formed as those of species and,
when adjectival in form and not used
as substantives,
they agree grammatically with the generic name.
Infraspecific epithets such as
typicus,
originalis,
originarius,
genuinus,
verus, and
veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon containing
the nomenclatural type of the
next higher taxon, are
inadmissible and
cannot be validly
published
except where
they repeat the specific epithet because Art.
26
requires their use.
The use of a binary combination for an infraspecific taxon is not admissible.
Examples:
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
macrothrix (not
Andropogon macrothrix);
Herniaria
hirsuta var.
diandra (not
Herniaria diandra);
Trifolium stellatum forma
nanum (not
nana).
Names published in the form of e.g.
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
A. macrothrix are to be
altered to the proper form
without change of author’s name.
Saxifraga aizoon subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmscher
can also be cited as
Saxifraga
aizoon var.
aizoon subvar.
brevifolia forma
multicaulis subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmscher;
by this the full classification
under the species is given.
Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear
the same epithets; those
within one species may bear
the same epithets as other species (but see Rec. 24B).
31 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 17 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
25—27 | Infraspecific names |
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.
Note.
The use within the same species of the same epithet
for infraspecific taxa,
even if they are of different rank,
based on different types is illegitimate
under Art. 64.
Example:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum and
E. hieraciifolium
subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum.
Recommendations made for specific epithets
(see Recs. 23A, B)
apply equally to infra-
specific epithets.
Botanists proposing new infraspecific epithets should
avoid those previously used for
species in the same genus.
For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon
below the rank of species
is regarded as the sum
of its subordinate taxa, if any.
Valid publication of a name of a subordinate taxon
which does not include the
nomenclatural type of
the higher taxon automatically establishes
the name of a
second taxon of the same rank which has as its type
the nomenclatural type of the
higher taxon (see Art. 26)
and bears the same epithet.
Example:
The publication in 1843 of the name
Lycopodium inundatum L. var.
bigelovii
Tuckerm.
automatically established the name of another variety,
Lycopodium inundatum L.
var.
inundatum, the type of which is that of
Lycopodium inundatum L.
In the name of an infraspecific taxon which includes
the nomenclatural type of
the epithet of the next higher
taxon, the epithet of this higher taxon must be repeated
unaltered but without citation of an author’s name
(see Art. 46).
This epithet can
no langer be used if that of
the next higher taxon is changed.
Examples:
The combination
Lobelia spicata Lam. var.
originalis McVaugh, which includes
the type of
Lobelia spicata Lam., must be replaced by
Lobelia spicata Lam. var.
spicata.
Because under
Lobelia syphilitica L. there is described var.
ludoviciana A. DC., one
must write
Lobelia syphilitica L. var.
syphilitica if only that part of
L. syphilitica L. which
includes the type is meant.
Because under
Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafleu there is described a
variety
fulva Stafleu, one must write
Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafleu var.
sericea if only that part of the subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafleu 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.
32 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 18 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Cultivated plants | 28 |
Section 6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION
Plants brought
from the wild into cultivation
bear the names
that are applied to
the same
taxa
growing in nature.
Examples:
Davallia canariensis and
Spiraea hypericifolia var.
obovota are taxa having the
same name
in both the wild and in cultivation.
Variants of infraspecific rank,
which arise in cultivation
through hybridization,
mutation,
selection or other processes, and which are of sufficient interest
to cul-
tivators to be distinguished
by a name, receive
cultivar epithets preferably in com-
mon language
(i.e. fancy epithets) markedly different
from the Latin epithets of
species and varieties.
Examples:
Anemone
× hybrida ‘Honorine Jaubert’,
Fraxinus excelsior ‘Westhofs Glorie’,
Juglans regia ‘King’,
Primula malacoides ‘Pink Sensation’ and
Viburnum
× bodnantense
‘Dawn’
are variants which have arisen in cultivation
and are recognized as cultivars.
Variants found growing in the wild, which are brought
into cultivation, may
also be given cultivar epithets.
Examples:
Phlox nivalis ‘Gladwyne’ and
P. nivalis ‘Azure’ are variants
taken into cultiva-
tion from the wild
for their horticultural interest.
Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants
in cultivation appear in the
International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants.
For names of hybrid groups, both wild and cultivated, see Arts. 40, H. 3 and H. 4.
33 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 19 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
29—30 | Effective publication |
Chapter IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
Section
1.
CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution
of printed matter
(through sale, exchange, or gift)
to the general public or at least to botanical institu-
tions
with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected
by communica-
tion 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,
type-scripts
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 effective.
Note.
For the purpose of this Article, handwritten material,
even though repro-
duced by some mechanical or graphic process
(such as lithography, offset, or metallic
etching),
is still considered as autographic.
Examples:
Effective publication without printed matter:
Salvia oxyodon Webb et Heldr.
was published in July 1850
in an autograph catalogue placed on sale
(Webb et Heldreich,
Catalogus Plantarum Hispanicarum
. . .
ab A. Blanco lectarum, Paris, July 1850, folio).
Effective publication in reproduced handwritten material:
H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy
Tchéou (1914-15),
a work lithographed from the handwritten manuscript.
Non-effective publication at a public meeting:
Cusson announced his establishment of
the genus
Physospermum in a memoir read at
the Société des Sciences de Montpellier in
1770,
and later in 1782 or 1783 at the Société de Médecine de Paris,
but its effective
publication dates from 1787 in
the Mémoires de la Société Royale de Médecine de Paris
5(1): 279.
Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of a new name
in tradesmen’s catalogues or
in non-scientific newspapers,
even if accompanied by a Latin diagnosis,
does not
constitute effective publication.
Authors are urged to avoid publishing new names or descriptions
in ephemeral publica-
tions, 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
joumals.
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.
Example:
Individual parts of Willdenow’s
Species Plantarum were published as follows:
1(1), 1797;
1(2), 1798;
2(1), 1799;
2(2), 1799 or
January 1800;
3(1) (to page 850), 1800;
3(2)
34 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 20 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 32 |
(to page 1470), 1802;
3(3) (to page 2409), 1803 (and later than Michaux’s
Flora
boreali-
americana);
4(1) (to page 630), 1805; 4(2), 1806;
these dates, which are partly in disagree-
ment 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.
Example:
Publication in separates issued in advance: the
Selaginella species published
by Hieronymus
in Hedwigia 51: 241-272 (1912)
were effectively published on 15 Oct. 1911,
since the volume in which the paper appeared states
(p. ii) that the separate appeared on
that date.
The date on which the publisher or his agent delivers
printed matter to one of the usual
carriers for distribution
to the public should be accepted as its date of publication.
The distribution on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of
printed
matter accompanying exsiccata
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 et Nannfeldt, Fungi
exsiccati
suecici etc., Uppsala
1-. . ., 1934-. . .,
distributed independently
of the exsiccata,
whether published before or
after 1 Jan. 1953,
are effectively published.
Section 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon must
(1) be effectively
published (see Art.
29),
(2) have a form which complies with the provisions of
Arts.
16–27 (but see Art. 18,
notes 1,
2
and
3) and
(3) be accompanied by a
description
or a diagnosis *)
of the taxon or by a reference (direct or indirect)
to
a previously and effectively published description
or diagnosis of it.
Note 1.
An indirect reference is a clear indication,
by the citation of the author’s
name or in some other way,
that a previously and effectively published description
or diagnosis applies to the taxon to which the new name is given.
Examples of
names not validly published:
Egeria Néraud (in Gaudichaud,
in de Freycinet,
Voyage Monde Uranie et
Physicienne,
Bot.
25, 28. 1826),
published without a description
or a diagnosis or a reference to a former
one.
The name Loranthus macrosolen Steud. originally appeared without a description or
———————–
*
A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which
in the opinion of its author distinguishes
the taxon from others.
35 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 21 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
32 | Valid publication |
diagnosis 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.
Examples of
indirect reference:
Kratzmannia Opiz (in Berchtold et Opiz, Oekon.-techn.
Fl. Böhmens 1/2: 398. 1836) is published with a
diagnosis,
but it was not definitely accepted
by the author
and is therefore not validly published.
It is accepted definitely in Opiz,
Seznam Rostlin Květeny České 56 (1852),
but without any description
or diagnosis.
The
citation of “Kratzmannia
O.” includes
an indirect reference to the previously published
diagnosis in 1836.
Opiz published the name of the genus
Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz in Seznam Rostlin
Květeny České 50 (1852) without a description
or diagnosis, but as he wrote
Hemisphace
Benth. he indirectly referred to
the previously validly published description by Bentham,
Labiat. Gen. Sp. 193. (1833), of
Salvia sect.
Hemisphace.
The publication
of the new combination
Cymbopogon martinii 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.
Note 2.
In certain circumstances an illustration with analysis
is accepted as
equivalent to a description (see Arts.
42 and
44).
Note 3.
For names of plant taxa originally published
as names of animals, see
Art.
45.
Publication of a name should not be validated solely
by a reference to a description
or
diagnosis published before 1753.
The description or diagnosis of any new taxon
should mention the points in which the
taxon
differs from its allies.
Authors should avoid adoption of a name or an epithet
which has been previously but
not validly published
for a different taxon.
In describing new taxa, authors should,
when possible, supply figures with details of
structure as an aid to identification.
In the explanation of the figures,
it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s)
on which
they are based.
Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.
The description
or diagnosis 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
scientific names
and not solely by names in modern languages, the
applications of which
are often doubtful.
36 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 22 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 33—34 |
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
Blephilia
(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 on the basis of the listing of
Cnidium
peucedanoides H.B.K. under
Eulophus (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867).
A new combination or a new name for a previously
recognized taxon published
on or after 1 Jan. 1953
is not validly published unless its basionym
(name-bringing
or epithet-bringing synonym) or
the replaced synonym
(when a new name or epithet
is proposed)
is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given
to its author
and original publication
with page or plate reference and date.
Note 1.
Mere reference to the
Index Kewensis, the
Index of Fungi, or any work
other than that
in which the name was validly published
does not constitute a full
and direct reference
to the original publication of a name.
Note 2.
Bibliographic errors of citation
do not invalidate the publication of a
new combination.
A name given to a taxon whose rank
is at the same time denoted by a misplaced
term
(one contrary to Art. 5) 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
(Bot. Jahrb. 20: 368), etc.,
are treated as not validly published,
since
Huth misapplied the term “tribus”
to a category of lower rank than section.
A name is not validly published
(1) when it is not accepted by the author
in the
original publication;
(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;
(4) when it is merely cited as a synonym;
(5) by the mere mention
of the subordinate taxa
included in the taxon concerned.
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
37 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 23 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
33 | Valid publication |
by an author who does not intend to introduce
the new name or combination
concerned.
Examples:
(1)
The
name
of the monotypic
genus
Sebertia Pierre
(msc.) was not validly
published by Baillon
(Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891)
because he did
not accept
it.
Although he gave
a description of the taxon,
he referred its only species
Sebertia acuminata
Pierre (msc.)
to the genus
Sersalisia
R. Br. as
“Sersalisia ?
acuminata.” The name
Sebertia
Pierre (msc.)
was later validly published by Engler
(in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam.
Nachtr. 1: 280; 1897).
(1) (2)
The generic name
Conophyton Haw., suggested by Haworth
(Rev: Pl. Succ. 82.
1821) for
Mesembryanthemum sect.
Minima Haw.
(Rev. Pl. Succ. 81. 1821)
in the words
“If this section proves to be a genus, the name of
Conophyton would be apt”, was not
validly published,
since Haworth did not adopt that generic name nor accept
that genus.
The correct name for the genus is
Conophytum N. E. Brown (Gard. Chron. III. 71: 198.
1922).
(3)
The generic name
Jollya was mentioned incidentally by Pierre
(Notes Bot. Sapot; 7.
1890)
in the discussion of the stamens of another genus
and was therefore not validly
published in that publication.
(4)
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. 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
O. 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
E. poeppigiana (Walp.) O. F. Cook
(U.S. Dep.
Agr. Bull. 25: 57. 1901).
(5)
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
or diagnosis;
the
family bears the later name
Scytopetalaceae Engler (in Engler
& Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam.
Nachtr. zum II-IV. 1: 242. 1897),
which was accompanied by a description.
The generic name
Ibidium Salisb. (Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812)
was published
merely with the mention of four included species.
As Salisbury supplied no generic description
or diagnosis, his publication of
Ibidium is invalid.
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
(but see Art.
59).
Examples:
The species of
Brosimum described by Ducke
(Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio
de Janeiro.
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.
Euphorbia jaroslavii Poljakov
(Not. Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. Acad. URSS 15: 155. tab. 1953)
was published with an alternative name,
Tithymalus jaroslavii. Neither name was validly
published.
However, one of the names,
Euphorbia yaroslavii,
(with a different transliteration
of the initial letter)
was validly published by Poljakov
(Not. Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. Acad.
URSS 21: 484. 1961),
who effectively published it with a new reference
to the earlier
publication
and simultaneously rejected the other name.
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).
38 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 24 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 35—38 |
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.
Note.
For such names published before 1 Jan. 1953
the choice made by the
first author
who assigned a definite rank must be followed.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of plants,
the bacteria,
algae, and all fossils excepted,
published on or after 1 Jan. 1935
must be accom-
panied by a Latin
description or diagnosis
or by a reference to a previously and
effectively published Latin
description or diagnosis
of the taxon.
Example:
The names
Schiedea gregoriana Degener,
Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 1936 (Apr.
9) and
S. kealiae Caum et 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
description
or diagnosis, the later
S. kealiae is the legitimate name.
In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of
Recent algae published
on
or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied by a Latin
description or diagnosis
or by a reference to a previously and effectively published Latin
description or
diagnosis.
Authors publishing names of new taxa of
Recent plants should give
or cite a full description
in Latin in addition to the diagnosis.
Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1958
of the name of a new taxon of the rank of
family or below
is valid only when the nomenclatural type is indicated
(see Arts.
7—10).
The indication of the nomenclatural type
should immediately follow the Latin
description
or diagnosis
and should be given by the insertion of the Latin word “typus”
(or “holotypus”,
etc.) immediately before
or after the particulars of the type so designated.
When the nomenclatural type of a new taxon is a specimen,
the place where it is
permanently conserved should be indicated.
In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon
of fossil plants of
specific or lower rank
published on or after 1 Jan. 1912 must be accompanied
by
an illustration or figure showing the essential characters,
in addition to the descrip-
tion
or diagnosis,
or by a reference to a previously and effectively
published
illustration or figure.
39 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 25 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
39—40 | Valid publication |
In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of
Recent 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
description or diagnosis,
or by a reference to a previously and effectively
published illustration or figure.
For
purposes of valid publication,
the name of a hybrid group of generic, sub-
generic, or sectional rank,
which is a condensed formula or equivalent to a con-
densed formula see
H.3 and
H.4),
must be published with a statement of the names
of the parent genera, subgenera, or sections respectively,
but no description or
diagnosis is necessary,
whether in Latin or in any other language.
Examples of
validly published names for intergeneric hybrid groups:
× Philageria Masters
(Gard. Chron. 1872: 358),
published with a statement of parentage,
Lapageria ×
Philesia;
× Cupressocyparis Dallimore
(Hand-list Conif. Roy. Bot. Gard. Kew ed. 4. 37. 1938)
published
with a statement of parentage,
Chamaecyparis ×
Cupressus.
For purposes of valid publication, names
of hybrids
of specific or lower rank
with
Latin
epithets
are subject to the same rules
as are those of non-hybrid taxa
of the
same rank.
Examples:
The name
Nepeta
× faassenii Bergmans (Vaste Pl. ed. 2. 544. 1939)
with a
description in Dutch, and in Gentes Herb. 8: 64 (1949)
with a description in English, is not
validly published,
not being accompanied by or associated with a Latin
description or
diagnosis. The name
Nepeta
× faassenii Bergmans ex Stearn
(Journ. Roy. Hort. Soc. Lond.
75: 405. 1950)
is validly published, being accompanied by a Latin description
with designa-
tion of type.
The name
Rheum
× cultorum Thorsrud & Reisaeter
(Norske Plantenavr. 95. 1948), being
here a
nomen nudum, is not validly published.
The name
Fumaria
× salmonii Druce (List Brit. Pl. 4. 1908),
is not validly published,
because only its presumed parentage
F. densiflora ×
F. officinalis is stated here.
For
purposes of
priority, names
and epithets
in Latin form given to hybrids are
subject to the same rules
as are those of non-hybrid taxa of
equivalent rank.
Examples:
The name
× Solidaster Wehrhahn
(in Bonstedt, Pareys. Blumengärtn. 2: 525.
1932)
antedates the name
× Asterago Everett
(Gard. Chron. III. 101 6. 1937) for the hybrid
group
Aster ×
Solidago.
The name
× Gaulnettya W. J. Marchant
(Choice Trees, Shrubs 83. 1937) antedates the
name
× Gaulthettia Camp
(Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 66: 26. 1939) for the hybrid group
Gaultheria ×
Pernettya.
Anemone ×
hybrida Paxton (Mag. Bot. 15: 239. 1848) antedates
A.
× elegans Decaisne
(Revue Hort. IV. 1: 41. 1852),
pro sp., as the binomial for the hybrids derived from
A.
hupehensis ×
A. vitifolia.
In 1927, Aimée Camus
(Bull. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927) published the name
Agroelymus as the “generic” name of an intergeneric hybrid,
without a Latin diagnosis or
description,
mentioning only the names of the parents involved
(Agropyron and
Elymus).
Since this name was not validly published
under the Code then in force (Stockholm 1950),
Jacques Rousseau, in 1952 (Mém. Jard. Bot. Montréal, 29: 10-11),
published a Latin
diagnosis.
However, the date of valid publication of the name
Agroelymus under this Code
is 1927, not 1952,
and the name also antedates
× Elymopyrum Cugnac (Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat.
40 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 26 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 41—43 |
Ardennes 33: 14. 1938)
which is accompanied by a statement of parentage
and a description
in French but not Latin.
In order to be validly published, a name of a genus
must be accompanied
(1) by
a description
or diagnosis of the genus, or
(2) by a reference (direct or indirect)
to a previously
and effectively published description
or diagnosis of the genus
in
that rank or as a 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 1).
Note.
In certain circumstances, an illustration with analysis
is accepted as
equivalent to a generic description
(see Art. 42).
Examples of
validly published generic names:
Carphalea Juss. (Gen. 198. 1789),
accom-
panied by a generic description;
Thuspeinanta Th. Dur. (Ind. Gen. Phan. x. 1888),
accom-
panied by a reference to the previously described genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non Herb.);
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (Hort. Dendrol. 242. 1853),
based on a previously described
section,
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides
DC.
The publication of the name of a monotypic new genus
based on a new species
is validated either by
(1) the provision of a combined generic and specific descrip-
tion
(descriptio generico-specifica)
or diagnosis, or
(2), for generic names published
before 1 Jan. 1908,
by the provision of an illustration with analysis
showing essential
characters (see Art. 32,
Note 2).
However, the name of a monotypic genus of fossil
plants
published on or after 1 Jan. 1953 must be accompanied by a description
or
diagnosis of the genus.
Examples:
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.
–
The generic name
Philgamia Baill.
(in Grandidier, Hist.
Madag. Pl. Atlas 3:
pl. 265. 1894) was validly published,
as it appeared on a plate with
analysis of
P. hibbertioides Baill. published before 1 Jan. 1908.
Note 1.
A description
or diagnosis of a new species
assigned to a monotypic
new genus is treated
also as a generic description
or diagnosis if the genus
is not
separately
defined.
Similarly, a description
or diagnosis
of a monotypic new genus based on a new
species
is treated also as a specific description
or diagnosis
if the generic name
and specific epithet
are published together and the species is not separately
defined.
Note 2.
Single figures of microscopic plants showing the details
necessary for
identification are considered
as illustrations with analysis showing essential
characters.
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.
41 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 27 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
44—45 | Valid publication |
Examples:
Suaeda baccata,
S. vera, and names for four other species of
Suaeda
were
published
with diagnosis and descriptions by Forskål
(Fl. Aegypt.-Arab. 69-71. 1775)
but he
provided no diagnosis or description
for the genus: these
specific names were therefore, like
the generic name,
not validly published by him.
In 1880, Müller Argoviensis
(Flora 63: 286) published the new genus
Phlyctidia with
the species
P. hampeana n. sp.,
P. boliviensis (=
Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.),
P. sorediiformis
(=
Phlyctis sorediiformis Krempelh.),
P. brasiliensis (=
Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and
P. 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
description or
diagnosis but only a description
and a diagnosis
of
the new species
P. hampeana. This description
and diagnosis cannot validate
the generic
name as a
descriptio generico-specifica under Art. 42,
since the new genus was not mono-
typic.
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
P. ludoviciensis n. sp. and
P. boliviensis (Nyl.).
The latter combination was validly
published in 1895
by the reference to the basionym.
Note.
This Article applies
also to specific
and other epithets published under
words not
to be regarded as generic names
(see Art.
20).
Examples:
The binary combination
Anonymos aquatica Walt. (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788)
is
not validly published.
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.
The binary combination
Scirpoides paradoxus Rottböll
(Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 27. 1772)
is
not validly published since
Scirpoides is a word not intended as a generic name.
The first
validly published name for this species is
Fuirena umbellata Rottböll (Descr. Ic. Pl. 70. 1773).
The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon
published before 1 Jan. 1908
is validly published
if it is accompanied only by an illustration with analysis
showing
essential characters (see Art. 32,
Note 2).
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. 33 and 34.
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).
42 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 28 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation | 46 |
Note 1.
A correction of the original spelling of a name or epithet
(see Art. 73)
does not affect its date of valid publication.
Example:
The correction of the orthographic error in
Gluta benghas L. (Mant. 293. 1771)
to
Gluta renghas L.
does not affect the date of publication of the epithet
renghas (1771) even
though the correction
dates only from 1883 (Engler in DC. Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).
Note
2.
For purposes of priority only legitimate names and epithets
are taken
into consideration (see Arts.
11,
63—67).
However, validly published earlier homo-
nyms,
whether legitimate or not,
shall cause rejection of their later homonyms
(unless the latter are conserved).
If a taxon is transferred from the animal to the plant kingdom,
its name or
names available * 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 automatically accepted
as having been validly published under this Code
at the time of its valid publication
as the name of an animal
(see, however,
Art.
65).
Example:
Amphiprora Ehrenberg
(Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1841: 401. 1843)
was pub-
lished as the name of a genus of animals
which was transferred to the plant kingdom in
1844 by Kuetzing; it has priority
in botanical nomenclature from 1843, not 1844.
Authors 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.
Authors should indicate precisely the dates of
publication of their works. In a work
appearing in parts
the last-published sheet of the volume should indicate
the precise dates
on which the different fascicles or parts
of the volume were published as well as the number
of pages
and plates in each.
On separately printed and issued copies of works
published in a periodical, the date
(year, month, and day),
the name of the periodical the number of its volume or parts,
and
the original pagination should be indicated.
Section 3. CITATION OF AUTHORS’ NAMES AND OF LITERATURE
FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION
For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate
and complete, and in
order that the date may be readily verified,
it is necessary to cite the name of the
author(s) who first validly published
the name concerned unless the provisions of
Arts.
19,
22, or
26 apply.
———————–
*
The word “available” in
the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature
is equivalent
to “legitimate” in
the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
43 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 29 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
46 | Citation |
Examples:
Rosaceae Juss.,
Rosa L.,
Rosa gallica L.,
Rosa gallica var.
eriostyla R. Keller,
Rosa gallica L. var.
gallica.
Authors’ names put after names of plants
may 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
É. 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 charac-
teristic consonants
of the name is added
(Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish it from Bertero;
Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish it from Micheli).
Given 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,
J. F. Gmelin for Johann Friedrich
Gmelin,
J. G. Gmelin for Johann Georg Gmelin,
C. C. Gmelin for Carl Christian Gmelin,
S. G. Gmelin for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin, Müll. Arg. for Jean Müller of
Aargau).
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,
H.B.K.
for Humboldt,
Bonpland et Kunth,
F. v. Muell. for Ferdinand von Mueller).
When a name has been published jointly by two authors,
the names of both should be
cited, linked by means of the word
et or by an ampersand (&).
When a name has been published jointly
by more than two authors, the citation should
be restricted
to that of the first one followed by
et al.
Examples:
Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et Wilson
(or Britton & Wilson);
Streptomyces
albo-niger Hesseltine, J. N. Porter,
Deduck, Hauck, Bohonos, & J. H. Williams
(Mycologia
46: 19. 1954) should be cited as
S. albo-niger Hesseltine et al.
When a name has been proposed but not validly published
by one author and is sub-
sequently 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.”
(hortula-
norum).
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. et Triana or
Havetia flexilis Planch. et
Triana.
—
Gossypium tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or
Gossypium tomentosum Seem.
—
Litho-
carpus polystachya (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder or
Lithocarpus polystachya (A. DC.) Rehder.
—
Gesneria donklarii Hort. ex Hook. or
Gesneria donklarii Hook.
When a name with a description
or diagnosis
(or reference to a description
or diagnosis)
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.
In such cases the name of the author who
44 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 30 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation | 47—48 |
supplied the description
or diagnosis is the most
important and should be retained when it
is desirable
to abbreviate such a citation.
Examples:
Viburnum ternatum Rehder
in Sargent, Trees and Shrubs 2: 37.
1907, or
Viburnum ternatum Rehder.
–
Teucrium charidemii Sandwith in Lacaita,
Cavanillesia 3:
38.
1930, or
Teucrium charidemii Sandwith.
The citation of an author who published the name
before the starting point of the group
concerned
(see Art.
13)
is indicated, when such indication
is considered useful or desirable,
preferably between square brackets.
Examples:
Lupinus
[Tourn. Inst. 392.
pl. 213. 1719]
L. Sp. Pl. 721. 1753, Gen. Pl. ed. 5.
322. 1754, or
Lupinus [Tourn.] L.
—
Boletus piperatus
[Bulliard, Hist. Champ. Fr. 318.
pl. 451, f. 2. 1791-1812]
Fr. Syst. Myc. 1: 388. 1821, or
Boletus piperatus [Bulliard] Fr.
Authors of new names of taxa should not use the expression
Nobis
(Nob.) or a similar
reference to themselves
as an author citation but should cite their own names in each instance.
An alteration of the diagnostic characters or
of the circumscription of a taxon
without the exclusion
of the type does not warrant the citation of the name of an
author
other than the one who first published its name.
When the alteration mentioned in Art. 47 has been
considerable, the nature of the change
may be indicated
by adding such words, abbreviated where suitable, as
emendavit
(emend.)
(followed by the name of
the author responsible for the
change),
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.),
sensu amplo
(s. ampl.),
sensu stricto
(s. str.), etc.
Examples:
Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.;
Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend.
Lam.).
When an author circumscribes a taxon in such a way
as to exclude the original
type of the name he uses for it,
he is considered to have published a later homonym
that must be ascribed solely to him.
Example:
Lemanea as treated by Sirodot (1872)
explicitly excluded the type of
Lemanea
Bory (1808) and hence must be cited
as
Lemanea Sirodot and not
Lemanea Bory emend.
Sirodot.
Note.
Retention of a name in a sense that excludes
the type can be effected only
by conservation.
When a name is conserved with a type different
from that of the
original author, the author
of the name as conserved, with the new type,
must
be cited.
Example: Bulbostylis Kunth, nom. cons. (non Bulbostylis Steven 1817). This must not be
45 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 31 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
49—50 | Citation |
cited as
Bulbostylis Steven emend. Kunth,
since the type listed was not included in
Bulbo-
stylis by Steven in 1817.
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
(the
author of the basionym)
must be cited in parentheses, followed by the name of
the author who effected the alteration
(the author of the combination).
The same
holds when a taxon of lower rank than genus
is transferred to another taxon,
with
or without alteration of rank.
Examples:
Medicago polymorpha var.
orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of species
becomes
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All.
–
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.
raised to generic
rank, retaining the name
Aspalathoides, is cited as
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch.
Sorbus sect.
Aria Pers. on transference to
Pyrus is cited as
Pyrus sect.
Aria (Pers.) DC.
–
Cheiranthus tristis L. transferred to the genus
Matthiola becomes
Matthiola tristis (L.) R. Br.
The 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.
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. N.Y. Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899)
altered the
status of the taxon to that of a species.
If this view is accepted, the name must be cited
as
Salix glaucops Anderss. (pro hybr.).
Section 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION
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.
Example:
Myrtus serratus,
a manuscript name of Koenig published by Steudel as a
synonym of
Eugenia laurina Willd., should be cited thus:
Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steudel,
Nomencl. 321 (1821) pro syn.
In the citation of a
nomen nudum, its status should be indicated by adding
nomen nudum
(nom. nud.).
46 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 32 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation | 50 |
When a name that is illegitimate because of 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, preceded by the word
nec.
Examples:
Ulmus racemosa
Thomas, Am. Journ. Sci. 19: 170 (1831) non Borkh. 1800.
–
Lindera Thunb. Nov. Gen. Pl. 64 (1783) non Adans. 1763.
–
Bartlingia Brongn. Ann. Sci.
Nat. 10: 373. (1827)
non Reichb. 1824, nec F. v. Muell. 1877.
Misidentifications should not be included in the synonymy
but added after it. A mis-
applied name
should be indicated by the words
auct. non followed by the name of the
original author
and the bibliographical reference of the misidentification.
Example:
Ficus stortophylla Warb. in Warb. et De Wild.
Ann. Mus. Congo, Bot. VI. 1:
32 (1904).
F. irumuensis De Wild. Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341 (1922).
F. exasperata auct. non Vahl:
De Wild. et Th. Dur. Ann. Mus. Congo, Bot. II. 1: 54. 1899;
De Wild. Pl. Laur. 26 (1903);
Th. et H. Dur. Syll. Fl. Congol. 505 (1909).
If a generic name is accepted as a
nomen conservandum (see Art.
14 and
App. III),
the
abbreviation
nom. cons. should be added to the citation.
Examples:
Protea L. Mant. 187 (1771),
nom. cons., non L. 1753.
–
Combretum Loefl.
1758
nom. cons. (syn. prius
Grislea L. 1753).
–
Schouwia DC.
(1821, Mai sero),
nom. cons.
(homonymum prius
Schouwia Schrad.
1821, Mai).
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 added,
preferably between quotation marks.
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. 23: 225. 1888),
but not as
Z. caribaeum
var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray.
Quercus bicolor Willd.
(Q. prinus discolor Michx. f. Hist. Arb. For. 2: 46. 1811),
but not
as
Q. prinus var.
discolor Michx. f.
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 com-
bination under
‘varieties’.
Ribes tricuspis Nakai, Bot. Mag. Tokyo 30: 142. 1916, ‘tricuspe’.
47 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 33 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
51—53 | Remodelling of taxa |
Chapter V. RETENTION, CHOICE, AND REJECTION OF NAMES
Section 1. RETENTION OF NAMES OR EPITHETS OF TAXA
WHICH ARE REMODELLED OR DIVIDED
An alteration of the diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of a taxon
does not warrant a change in its name,
except as may be required
(1) by trans-
ference of the taxon (Arts.
54—56), or
(2) by its union with another taxon of the
same rank (Arts.
57,
58, Rec.
57A), or
(3) by a change of its rank (Art.
60).
An unique exception is made for the family name
Papilionaceae (see Art. 18,
Note 3).
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 et Germain,
emend. Visiani, or emend. Godr., etc.;
the
creation of a new name such as
Centaurea vulgaris Godr. is superfluous and illegitimate.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera,
the generic name must be
retained for one of them or,
if it has not been retained, must be reinstated for one
of them.
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 has been
designated, a type must be chosen (see
Guide for the determination of types, p.
71).
Examples:
The genus
Dicera J. R. et G. Forster (Char. Gen. Pl. 79. 1776)
was divided
by Rafinesque (Sylva Tell. 60. 1838)
into the two genera
Misipus and
Skidanthera; this
procedure is inadmissible: the name
Dicera must be kept for one of the genera,
and it is
now retained for that part of
Dicera based on the lectotype,
D. dentata.
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. 161. 1754); Tournefort’s name
Hippocastanum must not
be used for a genus including
Aesculus hippocastanum L. as was done by P. Miller
(Gard.
Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754).
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 for one
of them.
When a particular specimen, description, or figure
was originally designated
48 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 34 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Transference | 54 |
as the type, the specific epithet must be retained
for the species including that
element.
When no type has been designated, a type must be chosen (see
Guide for
the determination of types, p.
71).
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.
C.
F. Hoffmann (Deutschl. Fl.
3: 166. 1800) divided
Juncus articulatus L. (1753) into
two species,
J. lampocarpus Ehrh. ex Hoffm. and
J. acutiflorus Ehrh. ex Hoffm. 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. ex Hoffm.
(see Briq., Prodr. Fl.
Corse 1: 264. 1910).
Genista horrida (Vahl) DC.
(in Lam. et DC., Fl. Franç. ed. 3. 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
P. 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.
Stipa pennata L. (Sp. Pl. 78. 1753)
has been split into several species all bearing other
names.
Mansfeld (Repert. Sp. Nov. 47: 268. 1939)
rightly reintroduced this name for one of
the species, namely
Stipa joannis Čel.
(Oest. Bot. Zeitschr. 34: 318. 1884),
which name must
be abandoned.
The same rule applies to infraspecific taxa,
for example, to a subspecies divided
into two or more subspecies,
or to a variety divided into two or more varieties.
Section 2. RETENTION OF EPITHETS OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF GENUS
ON TRANSFERENCE TO ANOTHER GENUS OR SPECIES
When a subdivision of a genus * is transferred to another genus
or placed under
another generic name for the same genus
without change of rank, its epithet must
be retained or,
if it has not been retained, must be reinstated
unless one of the
following obstacles exists:
(1)
The resulting combination has been previously and validly
published for a
subdivision of a genus
based on a different type;
(2)
An earlier
and legitimate epithet of the same rank is available
(but see Arts.
13f,
58,
59);
(3) Arts. 21 or 22 provide that another epithet be used.
Examples:
Saponaria sect.
Vaccaria DC. when transferred to
Gypsophila becomes
Gypso-
phila sect.
Vaccaria (DC.) Godr.
Primula
sect.
Dionysiopsis Pax when transferred to the genus
Dionysia cannot become
Dionysia sect.
Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melchior because of Art.
21; the name
Dionysia sect.
Ariadna Wendelbo, based on the same type,
has to be used instead.
———————–
*
Here and elsewhere in this Code
the phrase “subdivision of a genus” refers only
to taxa
between genus and species in rank.
49 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 35 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
55—56 | Transference |
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)
The resulting
binary name is a later homonym
c (Art.
64)
or a tautonym
d
(Art.
23);
(2) An earlier legitimate specific epithet is available (but see Arts. 13f, 58, 59). 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
the name
Arenaria stricta Michx. (1803),
referring to 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
C. biflorus,
because this name had been previously and validly
published
for a different species by L’Héritier in 1791; the name
C. fontanesii given by Spach
is therefore legitimate.
(d)
Pyrus malus L. (1753)
when transferred to the genus
Malus must be called
Malus
pumila Mill. (1768),
the combination
Malus malus
(L.) Britton (1913)
being inadmissible.
(e)
Melissa calamintha L. (1753)
when transferred to the genus
Thymus becomes
T.
calamintha (L.) Scop. (1772); placed in the genus
Calamintha it cannot be called
C. cala-
mintha (a tautonym) but is called
C. officinalis Moench (1794). However, when
C. officinalis
is transferred to the genus
Satureja, the earlier legitimate epithet is again available
and its
name becomes
S. calamintha (L.) Scheele (1843).
When, on transference to another genus,
the specific epithet has been applied
erroneously
in its new position to a different species,
the new combination 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 not be applied to
T. heterophylla (Raf.)
Sargent but must be retained for
Pinus mertensiana Bong. when that species is placed in
Tsuga;
the citation in parentheses (under Art.
49)
of the name of the original author, Bongard,
indicates the type of the epithet.
When an infraspecific taxon is transferred without
change of rank to another
genus or species, the original
epithet must be retained or, if it has not been retained,
must be reinstated unless one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
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) An earlier legitimate epithet is available (but see Arts. 13f, 58 or 59);
(3) Arts. 24 or 26 provide that another epithet be used.
50 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 36 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Union of taxa | 57 |
Example:
The variety
micranthum Gren. et Godr. (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847) of
Helian-
themum italicum Pers. when transferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thib. retains its
varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var.
micranthum (Gren. et Godr.) Crosser
(Pflan-
zenreich, Heft 14 (IV. 193): 115. 1903).
When, on transference to another genus or species,
the epithet of an infraspecific
taxon
has been applied erroneously in its new position
to a different taxon of the
same rank,
the new combination must be retained for the taxon
to which the original
combination was applied,
and must be attributed to the author who first published it.
Section 3. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN TAXA OF THE SAME RANK ARE
UNITED
When two or more taxa of the same rank are united,
the oldest legitimate name
or (for taxa below the rank of genus)
the oldest legitimate epithet is retained, unless
a later name
or epithet must be accepted under the provisions of
Arts.
13f,
22,
26,
58
or
59.
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 et Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III. 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 Crantz
(Class. Crucif. 126. 1769),
who
was the first to unite the two genera.
Robert Brown
(in Tuckey, Narr. Exp. Congo 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
W. indica for the combined species,
and this name must accordingly
be retained.
Fiori et Paoletti
(Fl. Ital. 1(1): 107. 1896) united
Triticum aestivum L. (Sp. Pl. 85. 1753)
and
T. hybernum L.
(Sp. Pl. 85. 1753)
into one species under one of these names,
T. aestivum
L.
Consequently the latter name is correct for the combined taxon
comprising common soft
wheat.
The use of an illegitimate name, such as
Triticum vulgare Vill. (Hist. Pl. Dauph. 2:
153. 1787),
or the creation of a new name is contrary to the Code.
Baillon (Adansonia 3: 162. 1862-1863),
when uniting for the first time
Sclerocroton
integerrimus Hochst. ex Krauss
(Flora 28: 85. 1845) and
Sclerocroton reticulatus Hochst. ex
Krauss
(Flora 28: 85. 1845)
adopted the first epithet for the combined taxon.
Consequently
this epithet must be retained
irrespective of the generic name
(Sclerocroton, Stillingia,
Excoecaria, Sapium)
to which it is attached.
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.
51 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 37 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
58—59 | Pleomorphic fungi |
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
Recent taxon
must take precedence.
Example:
If
Platycarya Sieb. et Zucc. (1843), a genus of
Recent plants, and
Petrophiloides
Bowerbank (1840),
a genus of fossil plants, are united, the name
Platycarya must be accepted
for the combined genus,
although it is antedated by
Petrophiloides.
Section 4. NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE AND
OF FOSSILS ASSIGNED TO FORM-GENERA
In Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes
(inclusive of Ustilaginales)
with two or more
states in the life cycle
(except those which are lichen-fungi),
the correct name of
all states
which are states of any one species
is the earliest legitimate name
typified
by the perfect state.
The perfect state is that which
is characterized by the presence
of asci in the Ascomycetes,
cells of the kind
giving rise to basidia in the Uredinales
and in the Ustilaginales, or
basidia or organs which bear basidia in the
other
orders of
the Basidiomycetes. 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; in the case of
imperfect states,
a name refers only to the
state
represented by its
type.
When not already available,
specific or infraspecific names
for imperfect states
may be proposed at the time
of publication of the name for a perfect state or later,
and may contain either the specific epithet applied
to the perfect state or any other
epithet available.
The nomenclatural type of a taxon whose name
has been ascribed to a genus
characterised
by a perfect state must be one of which
the original description or
diagnosis
included a description or diagnosis of the perfect state
(or of which the
possibility cannot be excluded
that the original author included the perfect state
in
his description or diagnosis). If these requirements
are not fulfilled the name,
although validly published,
shall be considered illegitimate.
The
combination of the
specific or infraspecific
epithet of a name
typified by
an
imperfect state
with a name of a genus characterised by a
perfect state
shall be
considered
not validly published
as a new combination,
but shall be considered
the validly published name of a new taxon if
the author provides a
description (in
Latin, on or after 1 Jan. 1935) of
the perfect state
and indicates a type (on or after
1 Jan. 1958) showing
the perfect state, and shall
be attributed to
the author of
that name and
to him alone.
However, publication on or after 1 Jan. 1967 of a
combination based on an imperfect state
and applied inclusive of the perfect state
shall not be considered the valid publication
of a new name of the perfect state.
Examples:
Ravenelia cubensis Arth. & J. R. Johnston
(Mem. Torrey Bot. Club
17: 118. 1918),
based on a specimen bearing only uredia (an imperfect state),
was validly
published but is considered illegitimate
because the species concerned was described in a
genus
characterised by a perfect state. The correct name is
Uredo cubensis Cummins
52 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 38 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Change of rank | 60 |
(Mycologia 48: 607. 1956), published as
‘(Arth. & J. R. Johnston) Cumm. comb. nov.’
(see
Art. 72).
The combination
‘Mycosphaerella aleuritidis (Miyake) Ou nov. comb.,
(Sinensia 11: 183.
1940), syn.
Cercospora aleuritidis Miyake’,
published with a Latin diagnosis of the perfect
state,
shall be considered not validly published as a new combination
(since the type of
the basionym does not bear the perfect state)
but validly published as a new name of a
new species,
which must be cited as
‘M. aleuritidis Ou’,
based on the material examined
by Ou which bore the perfect state.
Since this is an undesirable method of publishing the
name of a new taxon,
a name published in this manner on or after 1 Jan. 1967
will be
considered not validly published
either as a new combination or as a new name of a new
taxon.
The correct method of publication of this name would be
‘Mycosphaeraella aleuritidis
Ou, syn.
Cercospora aleuritidis Miyake’,
though it is not essential (for the purposes of
nomenclature)
that the synonymy be mentioned,
and Ou could equally well have
chosen
any available epithet other than
aleuritidis.
Corticium microsclerotia (Matz) Weber, nov. comb., syn.
Rhizoctonia microsclerotia Matz,
was published
(Phytopathology 29: 565. 1939) with a description in English
of the perfect
state drawn up from a specimen different
from the type of
Rhizoctonia microsclerotia Matz.
Weber’s combination must nevertheless be considered
to be based on Matz’s type of
Rhizoctonia microsclerotia and is considered
not validly published because this type does
not show
the characteristics of a perfect state genus.
The name is likewise not validly
published as a new name
of a new taxon based on Weber’s material, because no Latin
diagnosis was provided. The correct name for this species is
Corticium microsclerotia Weber
(Mycologia 43: 728. 1951),
where a Latin diagnosis was supplied for the perfect state:
the
epithet
microsclerotia was not preoccupied in
Corticium.
As in the case of pleomorphic fungi, the provisions
of the Code shall not be
construed as preventing
the use of names of form-genera in works referring to
such taxa.
Section 5. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN THE RANK OF A TAXON IS CHANGED
When the rank of a genus or infrageneric * taxon is changed,
the correct name or
epithet is the earliest legitimate one
available in the new rank. In no case does a
name
or an epithet have priority outside its own rank.
Examples:
The section
Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) of the genus
Campanula
was first raised to generic rank by Schrader
and, as a genus, must be called
Wahlenbergia
Schrad. ex Roth (Nov. Pl. Sp. 399. 1821), not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) O. Kuntze (Rev. Gen.
Pl. 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
M. foetida
(L.) Sargent
(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.
————————–
*
Here and elsewhere in the Code the term
‘infrageneric’ refers to all ranks
below that
of genus.
53 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 39 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
61—63 | Rejection |
(1)
When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus,
or the inverse change occurs, the
original name or epithet
should be retained unless it is contrary to this Code.
(2)
When an infraspecific taxon becomes a species,
or the inverse change occurs, the
original epithet
should be retained unless the resulting combination
is contrary to this Code.
(3)
When an infraspecific taxon is changed in rank within
the species, the original
epithet should be retained
unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.
When a taxon of a rank higher than genus
and not higher than family is changed
in rank,
the stem of the name must be retained
and only the termination altered
(-inae,
-eae,
-oideae,
-aceae),
unless the resulting name is rejected under Arts.
62—72.
Example:
The subtribe
Drypetinae Pax (1890)
(Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank
of tribe becomes
Drypeteae (Pax) Hurusawa (1954); the subtribe
Antidesmatinae Pax (1890)
(Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank of subfamily becomes
Antidesmatoideae (Pax)
Hurusawa (1954).
Section 6. REJECTION OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
A legitimate name or epithet must not be rejected
merely because it is inappropriate
or disagreeable,
or because another is preferable or better known,
or because it has
lost its original meaning.
Examples:
This rule was broken by the change of
Staphylea to
Staphylis, Tamus to
Thamnos, Thamnus, or
Tamnus, Mentha to
Minthe, Tillaea to
Tillia, Vincetoxicum to
Alexi-
toxicum; 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 quiquegona 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).
–
The name
Scilla
peruviana L. (Sp. Pl. 309. 1753)
must not be rejected because
the species does not grow in
Peru.
–
The name
Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.)
Litw.,
based on
Polycnemum oppositifolium Pall.
(Reise 1: 422, 431, app. 484. 1771),
must not be
rejected because the species
has leaves only partly opposite, and partly alternate,
although
there is another closely related species,
Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge,
having all its
leaves opposite.
A name is illegitimate and must be rejected
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.
Note.
The inclusion of a type
(see Art. 7)
is here understood to mean the
citation of a type specimen,
the citation of the illustration of a type specimen,
the
citation of the type of a name, or the citation
of the name itself unless the type
is at the same time excluded.
Examples: The generic name Cainito Adans. (Fam. 2: 166. 1763) is illegitimate because
54 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 40 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 64 |
it was a superfluous name for
Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl. 192. 1753);
the two genera had
precisely the same circumscription.
Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb.
(Prodr. 138. 1796)
is illegitimate, being a superfluous
name for
C. cainito L. (1753),
which Salisbury cited as a synonym.
Picea excelsa (Lam.) Link
is illegitimate, because it is based on
Pinus excelsus Lam. (Fl.
Franç. 2: 202. 1778),
a superfluous name for
Pinus abies L. (Sp. Pl. 1002. 1753). Under
Picea the proper name is
Picea abies (L.) Karst. (Deutschl. Fl. 325. 1880).
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.
Note.
A nomenclaturally superfluous new combination
is not illegitimate if the
epithet of its basionym is legitimate.
When published it is incorrect, but it may
become correct later.
Example:
Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (Prodr. 26. 1788), based on
Agrostis radiata L. (Syst.
Nat. ed. 10. 2: 873. 1759),
was nomenclaturally superfluous when published,
since Swartz
also cited
Andropogon fasciculatum L. (Sp. Pl. 1047. 1753)
as a synonym. It is, however,
the correct name in the genus
Chloris for
Agrostis radiata when
Andropogon fasciculatum
is treated as a different species,
as was done by Hackel (in DC. Monogr. Phan. 6: 177. 1889).
A name is illegitimate and must be rejected
if it is a later homonym, that is, if it
is spelled
exactly like 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, unless it has been conserved.
Note.
Mere orthographic variants of the same name
are treated as homonyms
when they are based on different types (see Arts.
73 and
75).
Examples:
The 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
considered to
be a synonym of
Osbeckia L. (1753).
The name
Torreya Arnott (1838) is a
nomen conservandum (see Art.
14)
and must therefore
not be rejected
because of the existence of the earlier homonym
Torreya Rafinesque (1818).
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).
The names of two subdivisions of the same genus,
or of two infraspecific taxa
within the same species, even if they are of different rank,
are treated as homonyms
if they have the same epithet
and are not based on the same type.
The same epithet
may be used for subdivisions of different genera,
and for infraspecific taxa within
different species.
Examples:
Under
Verbascum the sectional epithets
Aulacosperma and
Bothrosperma are
allowed,
although there are also in the genus
Celsia two sections named
Aulacospermae and
55 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 41 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
65—67 | Rejection |
Bothrospermae. These, however,
are not examples to be followed, since they are contrary
to Rec. 21B.
The following is illegitimate:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum
and
E. hieraciifolium subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum
–
two varieties may not
bear
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.
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
simultaneously published
both
Mimosa 10
cinerea
(Sp. Pl.
517.
1753)
and
Mimosa 25
cinerea
(Sp. Pl.
520.
1753). Later, he
(Syst. Nat., ed. 10. 2: 1311. 1759)
renamed species
10
Mimosa cineraria
and retained the name
Mimosa cinerea for species 25;
Mimosa cinerea is thus the legitimate
name for species
25.
A name is illegitimate and must be rejected
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.
In all other cases, the name of a plant
must not be rejected merely because it is
the same as the name of an animal.
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,
57,
58 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.
Note 1.
Illegitimate epithets 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
adopted later
for the same taxon
but in another combination
(see Art.
72).
A specific or infraspecific epithet is illegitimate
and must be rejected if 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 circum-
scription, position, and rank.
Such an epithet is also illegitimate
if it was published
in contravention of
Art.
59.
Note.
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).
56 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 42 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 68—71 |
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.
Example:
Agathophyllum A. L. Juss. (Gen. Pl. 431. 1789)
is an illegitimate generic name,
being a superfluous substitute for
Ravensara Sonnerat (Voy. Ind. Or. 2: 226. 1782).
Never-
theless the epithet of the validly published name
Agathophyllum neesianum Blume
(Mus.
Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1: 339. 1851)
is legitimate. Because Meisner cited
Agathophyllum neesianum
as a synonym of
Mespilodaphne mauritiana Meisn.
(in DC., Prodr. 15(1): 104. 1864) but did
not adopt its epithet,
M. mauritiana is a superfluous name and hence illegitimate.
Note.
An illegitimate epithet may be
adopted later
for the same taxon but
in
another combination (see Art.
72).
A name must be rejected if it is used in different senses
and so has become a
long-persistent source of error.
Examples:
The name
Rosa villosa L. (Sp. Pl. 491. 1753) is rejected,
because it has been
applied to several different species
and has become a source of error.
Lavandula spica L.
(Sp. Pl. 572. 1753)
included the two species subsequently known as
L. angustifolia Mill. and
L. latifolia Vill. The name
Lavandula spica
has been applied almost
equally to these two species,
and, being now ambiguous, must be rejected
(see Kew Bull.
1932: 295).
A name must be rejected if it is based on a type
consisting of two or more
entirely discordant elements,
unless it is possible to select one of these elements
as
a satisfactory type.
Examples:
The characters of the genus
Schrebera L.
(Sp. Pl. ed. 2. 1662. 1763;
Gen. Pl.
ed. 6. 124. 1764)
were derived from the two genera
Cuscuta and
Myrica (parasite and host)
(see Retz. Obs. 6: 15. 1791).
The characters of the genus
Actinotinus Oliv. (Hook. Ic. Pl.
pl. 1740. 1888)
were derived from the two genera
Viburnum and
Aesculus, owing to the
insertion of the inflorescence of a
Viburnum in the terminal bud of an
Aesculus by a collector.
The names
Schrebera L. and
Actinotinus Oliv. must therefore be abandoned.
The name of the genus
Pouteria Aubl. (Pl. Guiane 85. 1775)
is based on a type which
is a mixture of a species of
Sloanea
(Elaeocarpaceae) and a sapotaceous species
(flowers and
leaves); both elements can be easily separated,
as has been done by Martius,
and Radlkofer
was right in proposing
(Sitzber. Math.-Phys. Cl. Bayer. Akad. München 12: 333. 1882)
to
retain the name
Pouteria as correct for the part of the type belonging to the
Sapotaceae.
A name must be rejected if it is based on a monstrosity.
Examples: The generic name Uropedium Lindl. (Orch. Linden. 28. 1846) was based on
57 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 43 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
72 | Rejection |
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.
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 in the
rank concerned. If none exists, a new name or epithet
must be chosen.
Similar action is to be taken
when use of an epithet is inadmissible under Arts.
21,
23, and
24.
Example:
Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genus
Radiola must not be
called
Radiola radiola (L.) H. Karst. (1882),
as that combination is inadmissible under Art.
23.
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 specific epithet
available.
Note.
When a new epithet is required, an author may
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. 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. poly-
andra (Hook.) Benth.
Authors should avoid adoption of an illegitimate epithet
previously published for the
same taxon.
58 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 44 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 73 |
Chapter VI. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS AND GENDER
OF GENERIC NAMES
Section 1. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
The original spelling of a name or epithet must be retained,
except for the
correction of typographic or orthographic errors
(but see Art. 14,
note 7).
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 transcription of the letters so modified;
for example ä, ö, ü become
respectively
ae,
oe,
ue;
é,
è,
ê become
e, or sometimes
ae;
ñ becomes
n;
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 Art.
21, Rec.
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 wrong use of the terminations
i,
ii,
ae,
iae,
anus, or
ianus, mentioned
in Rec.
73C (a,
b,
d),
is treated as an orthographic error.
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, geographic, or vernacular names
in nomenclature are intentional latiniza-
tions,
they must be preserved.
Note 6.
The letters
j and
v must be changed to
i and
u respectively when they
represent vowels;
the reverse changes must be made when consonants are required.
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),
Gleditsia L. (1753),
and
Clutia L. (1753),
commemorating Vaillant,
Gleditsch
and Cluyt respectively, must not be altered to
Vaillantia,
Gleditschia
and
Clutytia **:
Linnaeus latinized the names
of these botanists deliberately as “Valantius”,
“Gleditsius”,
and
“Clutius”.
Phoradendron Nutt. must not be altered to Phoradendrum.
————————–
*
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).
59 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 45 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
73 | Orthography |
Triaspis mozambica Adr. Juss.
must not be altered to
T. mossambica,
as in Engler, Pfl.
Ost-Afr. C: 232 (1895).
Alyxia ceylanica Wight
must not be altered to
A. zeylanica, as in Trimen,
Handb. Fl.
Ceyl. 3: 127 (1895).
Fagus sylvatica L.
must not be altered to
F. silvatica. The correct classical spelling
silvatica
is recommended for adoption
in the case of a new name (Rec.
73E),
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 commemo-
rates 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
(Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 32: 404. 1896)
are typographic
errors for
Globba trachycarpa Baker and
Hetaeria alta Ridley respectively
(see Journ. of Bot.
59: 349. 1921).
–
Thevetia nereifolia Adr. Juss. ex Steud.
is an obvious typographic error
for
T. neriifolia.
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 DC. Monogr. Phan. 4: 225. 1883);
the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus
is “Renghas”, not “Benghas”.
Pereskia opuntiaeflora 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.
Example of
both a typographic and an orthographic error:
Rosa pissarti Carr. (Rev. Hort.
1880: 314)
is a typographic error for
R. pissardi (see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190),
which may be
corrected to
R. pissardii (see Rec. 73C, b).
Examples illustrating Note 6:
Taraxacvm Zinn must be changed to
Taraxacum, Iungia
L. f. to
Jungia, Saurauja Willd. to
Saurauia.
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.
The etymology of new names and epithets should be given
when the meaning of these
is not obvious.
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
Ottoa
after Otto;
Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name ends in
a, when
ea is added (e.g.
Collea after Colla), or in
ea (as
Correa),
when no letter is added.
(b) When the name of the person ends in a consonant, the letters ia are added, except
60 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 46 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 73 |
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 be modified by anagram or
abbreviation.
In these cases they count as different words from the original name.
Examples:
Durvillea and
Urvillea; Lapeirousia and
Peyrousea; Englera,
Englerastrum, and
Englerella; Bouchea and
Ubochea; Gerardia and
Graderia; Martia and
Martiusia.
When a new specific or infraspecific 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, keayi from Keay),
except when the name ends in
a,
when
e is added (thus
balansae from Balansa,
palhinhae from Palhinha).
(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,
Asarum hayatanum,
Andropogon gayanus).
(e)
If the personal name is already Latin or Greek,
the appropriate Latin genitive should be
used, e.g.
alexandri from Alexander,
francisci from Franciscus,
augusti from Augustus,
linnaei
from Linnaeus,
hectoris from Hector.
The same provisions apply to epithets
formed from the names of women.
When these
have a substantival form,
they are given a feminine termination (e.g.
Cypripedium hookerae,
Rosa beatricis,
Scabiosa olgae,
Omphalodes luciliae).
An epithet derived from a geographical name
is preferably an adjective and usually takes
the termination
-ensis,
-(a)nus,
-inus,
-ianus, or
-icus.
Examples:
Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec),
Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia),
Polygonum
pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania).
A new epithet should be written in conformity
with the original spelling of the word or
words
from which it is derived and in accordance
with the accepted usage of Latin and
latinization
(see Art.
23).
Example: sinensis (not chinensis).
All specific and infraspecific epithets
should be written with a small initial letter,
although
authors desiring to use capital initial letters
may do so when the epithets are directly derived
from the names of persons (whether actual or mythical),
or are vernacular (or non-Latin)
names,
or are former generic names.
A compound name or an epithet combining elements derived from two or more Greek
61 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 47 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
74—75 | Orthography |
or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable,
in accordance with classical usage
(see
Note 2
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-angulus), with the exception of Greek
y and
i
(poly-anthus,
Meli-osma).
(c)
Before a consonant the final vowel
is normally preserved in Greek
(mono-carpus,
Poly-gonum,
Coryne-phorus,
Meli-lotus), except that
a is commonly replaced by
o
(Hemero-
callis from
hemera); in Latin the final vowel is reduced to
i
(multi-color, menthi-folius,
salvii-
folius).
(d)
If the stem ends in a consonant, a connecting vowel
(o in Greek,
i in Latin) 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.
For
the use of hyphens
in botanical names and epithets
see Arts.
20
and
23.
Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name
of the host plant should be
spelled in accordance
with the accepted spelling of this name; other spellings
must be
regarded as orthographic variants
and should be corrected.
Examples:
Phyllachora anonicola Chardon
(1940) should be altered to
P. annonicola, since
the spelling
Annona is now accepted in preference to
Anona; –
Meliola albizziae Hansford
et Deighton
(1948) should be altered to
M. albiziae, since the spelling
Albizia is now
accepted in preference to
Albizzia.
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),
Prunella (not
Brunella).
(2)
If Linnaeus did not do so, then the spelling
which is more correct philo-
logically is accepted, e.g.
Agrostemma (not
Agrostema),
Euonymus (not
Evonymus).
(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.
Rhodo-
dendron (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 nearIy
in accordance with Recommendations 73A, 73B,
and
73G is accepted, e.g.
Ludwigia (not
Ludvigia),
Ortegia (not
Ortega).
When two or more generic names are so similar that they are likely to be con-
62 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 48 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Gender | 75 |
fused *, 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
Colu-
mella, the Roman writer on agriculture;
Eschweilera and
Eschweileria; Skytanthus and
Scytanthus.
The three generic names
Bradlea Adans.,
Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn., and
Braddleya Vell.,
all commemorating
Richard Bradley, 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
Mono-
chaetum; Peponia and
Peponium; Iria and
Iris; Desmostachys and
Desmostachya; Sym-
phyostemon and
Symphostemon; Gerrardina and
Gerardiina; Durvillea and
Urvillea;
Pelto-
phorus
(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).
Euphorbia peplis L. and
E. peplus L.
Section 2. GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES
The gender of generic names should be determined as follows:
(1)
A Greek or Latin word adopted
as a generic name should retain its gender.
When
the gender varies the author
should choose one of the alternative genders.
In doubtful cases
general usage should be followed.
The following names, however,
whose classical gender is
masculine,
should be treated as feminine in accordance with botanical custom:
Adonis,
Diospyros, Strychnos; so also should
Orchis and
Stachys, which are masculine in Greek and
feminine in Latin. The name
Hemerocallis, derived from the Latin and Greek
hemerocalles
(n.), although masculine in Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum,
should be treated as feminine in
order to bring it
into conformity with almost 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.
Examples of names formed from Greek words: **
Modern compounds ending in
-codon, -myces, -odon, -panax, -pogon, -stemon,
and other
masculine words should be masculine.
The fact that the generic name
Andropogon L. was
originally treated as neuter
by Linnaeus is immaterial.
————————–
*
When it is doubtful
whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused,
they should
be referred to the General Committee.
** Examples of names formed from Latin words are not given as these offer few difficulties.
63 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 49 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
75 | Gender |
Similarly, all modern compounds ending in
-achne, -chlamys, -daphne, -mecon, -osma
(the modern transcription of the feminine Greek word
osmé) and other feminine words should
be feminine.
The fact that
Dendromecon Benth. and
Hesperomecon E. L. Greene
were
originally ascribed the neuter gender is immaterial.
An exception should be made in the
case of names ending in
-gaster, which strictly speaking ought to be feminine,
but which
should be treated as masculine
in accordance with botanical custom.
Similarly, all modern compounds ending in
-ceras, -dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma
and
other neuter words should be neuter.
The fact that Robert Brown and Bunge respectively
made
Aceras and
Xanthocerus feminine is immaterial.
An exception should be made for
names ending in
-anthos (or
-anthus) and
-chilos
(-chilus or
-cheilos), which ought to be
neuter,
since that is the gender of the greek words
(anthos and
cheilos, but which have
generally been treated as masculine
and should have that gender assigned to them.
Examples of
compound generic names
where the termination of the last word is altered:
Stenocarpus,
Dipterocarpus, and all other modern compounds
ending in the Greek masculine
carpos (or
carpus), e.g.
Hymenocarpos, 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, Omnocarpum, 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:
Toanabo Aubl. (Pl. Guiane 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 (Journ. 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. Hei Herb. 1: 167. 1766),
who proposed the names
Manihot gossypiifolia, etc.,
and
Manihot should therefore be treated as feminine.
Cordyceps
Link
(Handb. 3: 346. 1833) 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 the original author.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera,
the gender of the new generic name
or names should be
that of the generic name that is retained.
Example:
When
Boletus is divided, the gender of the new generic names
should be
masculine:
Xerocomus,
Boletellus, etc.
64 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 50 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Modification | Div. III |
Division
I I I .
Provisions for modification
of the Code
Provision 1.
Modification 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 Committees
are established
under the auspices of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
Members of these committees are elected by
an International Botanical Congress.
The Committees have power to co-opt
and to establish subcommittees;
such officers
as may be desired are elected.
1. General
Comittee,
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 Fossil Plants.
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 of the previous Congress,
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 pre-
liminary 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.
65 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 51 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Div. III | Modification |
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.
66 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 52 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H. 1 |
Names of hybrids and some special categories
Hybrids or putative hybrids between two species
of the same genus are designated
by a formula and,
whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name.
The formula consists of the names of the two parents
connected by the multi-
plication sign (× )
or the name of the genus followed by the specific epithets
of the
two parents connected by the same 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.
Examples:
Digitalis lutea
♀ ×
D. purpurea ♂
–
Salix
× capreola =
Salix aurita ×
S.
caprea, or alternatively
Salix aurita ×
caprea.
Where binary “specific” names of Latin form
are used for hybrids, all
descendants
(whether
Fı
or succeeding generations)
of crosses between individuals of the same
parent species
receive the same binary name
(see Art.
H. 5).
An exception may be
made for names of amphidiploids
treated as species, which may bear a separate
epithet
without the multiplication sign ( × )
and are then subject to the same rules
as names of species.
Example:
Digitalis mertonensis,
a true-breeding tetraploid obtained from
D. grandiflora ×
D. purpurea.
Note 1.
When polymorphic parental species
are involved and if infraspecific
taxa are recognized in them,
greater precision may be achieved by the use of
formulae
than by giving the hybrids “specific” names.
Note 2.
Designation
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 astrosanguinea-formosa
published by Maund is
considered as a formula meaning
Potentilla atrosanguinea ×
P. formosa.
Verbascum nigro-lychnitis Schiede
(Pl. Hybr. 40. 1825) is considered as a formula,
Ver-
bascum lychnites ×
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 Nomenclature
for Cultivated
Plants.
67 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 53 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
H. 2—H. 3 | Hybrids |
Note 4.
The order of the names or epithets in the formula
may be either alpha-
betical (as in this Code)
or with the name or epithet of the female parent first
when
this is known.
The female (♀) and male (♂) signs
may be added if desired.
The
method used in any publication
should be clearly stated.
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 order of the names or epithets
and
the use of the signs ♀ and ♂
should follow the procedure set down in Art. H. l.
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).
Intergeneric hybrids
(i.e. hybrids between species of two
or more genera) are
designated
at the generic level
by a formula and, whenever it seems useful, by a
“generic name”.
The formula consists of the names of the two
or more parents
connected by the
multiplication sign ×.
The “generic
name”
of a bigeneric hybrid
(i.e. the name of a bigeneric hybrid
corresponding to a genus)
is formed by combining
the names of the two parent
genera,
i.e. the first part
or the whole of one name
and the last part or the whole
of the other,
into a single word.
Examples:
× Agropogon (=
Agrostis ×
Polypogon);
× Gymnacamptis (=
Anacamptis
×
Gymnadenia);
× Gymnaglossum (=
Coeloglossum ×
Gymnadenia);
× Sericobonia
(=
(=
Libonia ×
Sericographis).
The epithet of a bigeneric hybrid
must not be placed under the name
of either
of the parent genera.
Example:
× Heucherella tiarelloides (=
Heuchera
× brizoides ×
Tiarella cordifolia), not
Heuchera ×
tiarelloides.
The “generic name” of an intergeneric hybrid
derived from four or more genera
is formed from
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.
Example: × Potinara (= Brassavola × Cattleya × Laelia × Sophronitis).
The “generic name” of a trigeneric hybrid
is formed either like that of bigeneric
hybrids,
by combining the names of the three parent genera
into a single word not
exeeeding eight syllables, or,
like that of a hybrid derived from four or more genera,
from a personal name, to which is added the termination
-ara.
68 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 54 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H. 4—H. 5 |
Examples:
× Sophrolaeliacattleya
(=
Cattleya ×
Laelia ×
Sophronitis).
× Wilsonara
(=
Cochlioda ×
Odontoglossum
×
Oncidium).
Note.
The
“subgeneric name”
or “sectional name”
of a hybrid
between two
subgenera
or two sections
(or other subdivisions of a genus)
of the same genus is
formed in the same way
as the “generic name”
of an intergeneric hybrid.
Example:
Iris subgen.
× Regeliocyclus
comprising the hybrids between species
of
Iris
belonging to subgenus
Regelia and subgenus
Oncocyclus.
“Generic names” of intergeneric hybrids
are regarded as condensed formulae;
they are
preceded by the
multiplication sign ×
(see examples to Art. H. 3).
All
hybrids
between the same genera
bear the same
“generic name”.
In order to be validly published,
the “generic name” of an intergeneric hybrid
must be accompanied by a statement of the parentage
(see Art.
40), and
is applicable
only to plants which are accepted taxonomically
as derived from the genera named.
Example:
If the genus
Triticum L. is interpreted on taxonomic grounds as including
Triticum (s. str.) and
Agropyron Gaertn., and the genus
Hordeum L. as including
Hordeum
(s. str.) and
Elymus L., then hybrids between
Agropyron and
Elymus as well as between
Hordeum (s. str.) and
Triticum (s. str.)
are all to be placed within the hybrid group
× Tritor-
deum Asch. & Graebn.
(Syn. 2: 748. 1902). If, however,
Agropyron and
Elymus are separated
generically from
Triticum (s. str.) and
Hordeum (s. str.), hybrids between
Agropyron and
Hordeum (s. str.) are placed within the hybrid group
× Agro-hordeum Camus (Bull. Mus.
Hist. Nat. Paris 33: 537. 1927), which has priority over
× Hordeopyrum Simonet
(Compt.
Rend. Acad. Paris 201: 1212. 1935). Hybrids between
Agropyron and
Elymus are placed in
× Agroelymus Camus
(Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 33: 538. 1927), which has priority over
× Elymopyrum Cugnac
(Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938,
accompanied by a
statement of parentage
and a description in French, but not Latin). Hybrids between
Elymus
and
Hordeum are placed in
× Elymordeum Lepage
(Natural. Canad. 84: 97. 1957);
× Tritor-
deum is then restricted to hybrids between
Hordeum (s. str.) and
Triticum (s. str.). The
name
× Hordelymus for hybrids between
Elymus and
Hordeum (s. str.)
would be illegitimate
because of the earlier publication of
Hordelymus (Jessen) Harz
(Samenkunde 2: 1147. 1885)
based on
Hordeum subgen.
Hordelymus Jessen.
When different hybrid forms
or groups of hybrid forms
derived from
the same
parent
species
(including their infraspecific taxa)
are treated as belonging to
a
collective
hybrid
taxon
of rank equivalent to species,
they are classed
under the
binary name applied to
this taxon
(see Art.
H. 1) like
infraspecific taxa
under the
binary name of
a species. These
hybrid forms
or groups of hybrid forms are
termed
nothomorphs; when
it is desirable,
a nothomorph may be designated by an epithet
preceded by
this binary name and the term “nothomorph”
(nothomorpha, ab-
breviated as nm.).
Note.
Nothomorpha:
—
a term derived from the Greek
νοθος and
μορφη
meaning
“hybrid form” and applied to any hybrid form, whether
Fı,
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).
69 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 55 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
H. 5 | Hybrids |
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 use of the term
“clone”
(abbreviated as “cl.”) in the same manner as “ap.”
Nomina familiarum conservanda
see pp.
209-225
Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda
see pp.
226-369
70 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 56 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Guide | Types |
GUIDE FOR THE 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 (Arts.
7,
9,
10).
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.
A new name or epithet published as an avowed substitute
(nomen novum)
for an older name or epithet
is typified by the type of the older name (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 automatic
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.
In choosing a lectotype,
all aspects of the protologue*
should be considered as a basic guide.
a.
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
the protologue.
b.
Other things being equal, a specimen should be given preference
over pre-
Linnaean or other cited descriptions
or illustrations when lectotypes of species
or
infraspecific taxa are designated.
c.
If a holotype was designated by
the original author and has been lost or
destroyed, an
isotype (Art. 7,
Note 3),
if such exists, must be chosen as the
lectotype.
If no holotype was designated by the original author and if
syntypes
(Art. 7,
Note 3)
exist, one of them must be chosen as the lectotype.
If no holotype
was designated by the original author
and if no syntypes are extant, the lectotype
should be chosen from among duplicates** of the syntypes
(isosyntypes), if such
————————–
*
Protologue (from
προθος, first,
λογος, discourse):
everything associated with a name at
its first publication,
i.e. diagnosis, description, illustrations, references, synonymy,
geographical
data, citation of specimens, discussion,
and comments.
**
The word duplicate is here given its usual meaning
in herbarium curatorial practice.
It is
part of a single gathering made by a collector at one time.
However, the possibility of a
mixed gathering
must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype
and cor-
responding caution used.
71 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 57 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Types | Guide |
exist.
If neither an isotype, a syntype,
nor an isosintype is extant, a
paratype*,
if
such exists, may be chosen as lectotype.
If none of the specimens cited in the proto-
logue,
nor any duplicates of them are extant, a neotype (Art. 7,
Note 3)
may be
designated.
d.
In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent
by the author of a name
should be given preference
unless such indication is contrary to the protologue.
Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations
on herbarium sheets, recognizable
figures,
and epithets such as
typicus, genuinus, vulgaris, communis, etc.
e.
In cases when two or more elements were included in
or cited with the original
description,
the reviewer should use his best judgment in the selection
of a lecto-
type, but if another author has already
segregated one or two elements as other
taxa,
the residue or part of it should be designated as the lectotype
if its essential
characters correspond
with the original descriptions. If it can be shown
that the
element best fitting the protologue has been removed,
it should be restored and
treated as the lectotype.
Whenever the original material of a taxon is heterogeneous,
the lectotype should be selected so as to preserve current usage
unless another
element agrees better with the protologue (Rec.
7B).
f.
The first choice of a lectotype must be followed
be subsequent workers (Art.
8)
unless the original material is rediscovered,
or unless it can be shown that the choice
was based
upon a misinterpretation of the protologue.
5.
In selecting a
neotype even more care and critical knowledge are essential,
as
the reviewer usually has no guide except his own judgment
as to what best fits the
protologue.
If his selection proves to be faulty it will inevitably result
in further
change. A neotype may be designated only when
all the originally cited material
and its duplicates
are believed lost or destroyed (Art. 7,
Note 3).
The first choice of a neotype
must be followed by subsequent workers
unless the
original material is rediscovered,
or unless the choice neglected an available lecto-
type,
or if it can be shown that the choice was based on
a misinterpretation of the
original protologue.
A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype (Art. 7,
Note 3).
6.
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.
————————–
*
A
paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue
other than the holotype or isotype(s).
In most cases
where no holotype was designated there will also be no paratypes,
since all
the cited specimens will be syntypes.
However, in cases where an author cited
two or more
specimens as types (Art. 7,
Note 3),
the remaining cited specimens are paratypes
and not
syntypes.
72 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 58 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Guide | Citation |
GUIDE TO THE CITATION OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
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.
46A.
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
word
et or by the sign “&” (see Rec.
46B).
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. Elsewhere (as in biblio-
graphies),
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. Nov. Gen. Sp.
–
L. Sp. Pl.
–
Michx. Fl. Bor.-Am.
–
DC. Prodr.
–
T. et G. Fl. N. Am.
The last five authors’
names are not abbreviated
strictly in accordance with Rec.
46A
but with common usage.
Examples of
names written in full:
Mueller, Ferdinand Jacob Heinrich von.
–
Müller,
Johann Friedrich Theodor (“Fritz Müller”).
–
Mueller, Ferdinand Ferdinandowitsch.
–
Müller, 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.
Examples 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 Systematik,
Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie);
not Engl. Bot. Jahrb. (Engler was the editor,
————————–
*
Titles consisting of a single word, and personal names,
are customarily not abbreviated;
but many exceptions
are sanctioned by usage.
73 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 59 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Guide | Citation |
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.
État [Bruxelles]
(Bulletin du Jardin
Botanique de l’État).
–
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.
Examples 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 Academy
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
illustrations 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 purpose
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. or t.
(tabula) respectively;
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).
Examples of
citations
appended to
names of
taxa:
Anacampseros Sims, Bot. Mag.
33:
pl. 1367. 1811.
–
Tittmannia Brongn. Ann. Sci. Nat.
8: 385. 1826.
–
Monochaetum Naud.
Ann. Sci. Nat. III.
4: 48.
pl. 2. 1845.
–
Cudrania Tréc. Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 3.
8: 122.
f. 76-85
74 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 60 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation | Guide |
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 Jul. 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 Mar. 1942.
–
Sanicula tuberosa Torr. Pacif. Railr. Rep.
4(1): 91. 1857.
Examples of
bibliographic
citations:
Norton, John Bitting Smith.
Notes on some plants,
chiefly from the southem United States.
Missouri Bot. Gard. Rep.
9: 151-157.
pl. 46-50. 1898.
Reichenbach, Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig.
Handbuch des natürlichen Pflanzensystems. i-x,
1-346. 1837.
Don, George.
A general history of the dichlamydeous plants.
1: 1-818 (1831).
2: 1-875
(1832).
3: 1-867 (1834).
4: 1-908 (1838).
Schmidt, Friedrich.
Reisen im Amur-Lande und auf der Insel Sachalin. Botanischer Theil.
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.
75 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 – Edinburgh Code
– 61 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 62 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
KEY TO THE NUMBERING OF THE ARTICLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
395 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 63 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
396 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 64 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
397 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 65 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
398 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 66 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Code
Edinburgh 73H 74 75 section 2 |
Code
Montreal 73H 74 75 section 2 |
Code
Paris — 74 75 section 2 |
Code
Stockholm — 83 82 pp. section 15 |
Rules
Cambridge — 71 70 pp. section 14 |
75A
75B Division III Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Guide Types Guide Citation I.C.N.C.P. (separate publication) |
75A
75B Division III Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Guide Types Guide Citation I.C.N.C.P. (separate publication) |
75A
— Division III Appendix I — Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V I.C.N.C.P. |
83A
— — Appendix II — Appendix V Appendix I Appendix VI Appendix III |
72
— Chapter IV Arts. 31-34 — Appendix III — — Appendix III |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 67 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHIA
1. | 1867 |
LOIS / DE LA / NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE
/ ADOPTÉES PAR /
LE
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE
/ TENU A PARIS EN AOUT 1867
/ SUIVIES D’UNE
/ DEUXIÈME ÉDITION
/ DE L’INTRODUCTION HISTO-
RIQUE ET DU COMMENTAIRE
/ QUI ACCOMPAGNAIENT LA RÉDACTION
PRÉPARATOIRE
PRÉSENTÉE AU CONGRÈS
/ PAR / M. ALPH. DE CANDOLLE
/ Éditeur et en partie auteur du /
Prodromus systematis naturalis vegetabilum. /
— / GENÈVE ET BALE /
H. GEORG, LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR
/ PARIS / J.-B.
BAILLIÈRE ET FILS
/ 1867 /
In 8°; p. [1]-64; ‘Lois’: p. 13-32, ‘Commentaire’: p. 33-64.
Sometimes referred to as ‘Paris
Code’ or ‘Paris Rules’.
2. | 1906 |
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES /
DE LA / NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE /
ADOPTÉES PAR LE /
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE DE
VIENNE 1905 / ET
PUBLIÉES AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE
RÉDACTION
DU CONGRÈS
/ PAR / JOHN BRIQUET /
RAPPORTEUR GÉNÉRAL. /
INTER-
NATIONAL RULES OF /
BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS OF VIENNA 1905. /
— / INTER-
NATIONALE REGELN DER
/ BOTANISCHEN NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN
VOM INTERNATIONALEN
BOTANISCHEN KONGRESS ZU WIEN 1905. / — /
VERLAG VON GUSTAV FISCHER IN JENA. / 1906. /
In 8° max.; p. [1]-99; Commission de Rédaction: J. Briquet,
Ch. Flahault, H. Harms,
A. B. Rendle. Title on p. 17:
‘Règles internationales pour la Nomenclature botanique prin-
cipalement des plantes vasculaires’. Sometimes referred
to as ‘Vienna Code’ or ‘First edition
of the Rules’.
Also published in ‘Verhandlungen des internationalen botanischen
Kongresses
in Wien 1905’, Jena 1906, pp. 165-261.
3. | 1912 |
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES / DE LA /
NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE
/
ADOPTÉES PAR LE
/ CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE DE
VIENNE 1905 / DEUXIÈME
ÉDITION MISE AU
POINT D’APRÈS LES /
DÉCISIONS DU
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE
/ BOTANIQUE DE BRUXEL-
LES 1910 /
PUBLIÉE AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE
RÉDACTION DU
CONGRÈS / PAR / JOHN BRIQUET / RAPPORTEUR
GÉNÉRAL / — /
INTER-
NATIONAL 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 BOTA-
NISCHEN 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’.
400 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 68 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
4. | 1935 |
INTERNATIONAL RULES / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL
CONGRESSES / OF VIENNA, 1905,
AND BRUSSELS, 1910
/ REVISED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL
CONGRESS
/ OF CAMBRIDGE, 1930 / COMPILED BY THE
EDITORIAL COM-
MITTEE FOR NOMENCLATURE FROM THE REPORT OF
/ THE SUBSECTION
OF NOMENCLATURE PREPARED BY
/ JOHN BRIQUET (†) / — /
RÈGLES
INTERNATIONALES /
DE LA NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE /
ADOPTÉES
PAR LES
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAUX DE BOTANIQUE
DE VIENNE, 1905,
/ BRUXELLES, 1910, ET CAMBRIDGE, 1930
/ — / INTERNATIONALE REGELN
/ DER BOTANISCHEN NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN VON DEN
INTER-
NATIONALEN 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 supple-
ment
to ‘The Journal of Botany’, June 1934, entitled:
‘International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature adopted by
the Fifth International Botanical Congress, Cambridge, 1930’.
The
abridgement consisted merely in the omission of most of
the examples and of the Appendices.
Mostly referred to as ‘Cambridge Rules' or ‘Third edition of the Rules’.
5. | 1947 |
International Rules of / Botanical Nomenclature
/ Formulated by the International
Botanical Congresses
of Vienna, 1905, / Brussels, 1910, and Cambridge 1930 /
Adopted and revised by the International Botanical Congress
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 Taxonomists / Published by / THE NEW YORK
BOTANICAL GARDEN
/ in co-operation with / THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
PLANT TAXONOMISTS / THE SCIENCE PRESS PRINTING COMPANY
/
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA /
Top line: / Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1—120 BRITTONIA APRIL 9,
1947 /
In 8°; p. [1]-120; Brittonia 6(1): 1-120. 1947.
Second printing, 1948, reproduced by offset and published
by the Chronica Botanica Co.
Waltham, Mass., U.S.A.
for the New York Botanical Garden,
and the American Society of
Plant Taxonomists.
Mostly referred to as ‘Brittonia edition of the Rules’.
6. | 1950 |
INTERNATIONAL RULES / of / BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
/ SUPPLE-
MENT / embodying the alterations
made at the / Sixth International 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.
401 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 69 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
7. | 1952 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY /
THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL / CONGRESS,
STOCK-
HOLM, 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 /
Inter-
national 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’.
8. | 1956 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE / OF / BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY /
THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL / CONGRESS, PARIS,
JULY
1954 / PREPARED AND EDITED BY /
J. LANJOUW, Chairman, / CH. BAEHNI,
W. ROBYNS,
R. C. ROLLINS, R. ROSS, / J. ROUSSEAU, G. M. SCHULZE,
A. C.
SMITH, R. DE VILMORIN, Members, /
F. A. STAFLEU, Secretary of the Editorial
Committee /
[I.A.P.T. emblem] / 1956 / UTRECHT —
NETHERLANDS / Pub-
lished with financial support of
I.U.B.S.—U.N.E.S.C.O. by the / International Bureau
for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature / of the International
Association for Plant
Taxonomy /
In 8°; pp. [l]-338; Regnum Vegetabile, A Series of Handbooks
for the use of Plant
Taxonomists and Plant Geographers, Volume 8.
Issued December 1956. With similar French,
German and Spanish
title pages on pp. [2], [4] and [5]. Mostly referred to as ‘Paris Code’.
9. | 1961 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY /
THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS / MONTREAL,
AUGUST 1959 / PREPARED AND EDITED BY /
J. LANJOUW, Chairman, / CH.
BAEHNI, W. ROBYNS,
R. ROSS, J. ROUSSEAU, J. M. SCHOPF, G. M. SCHULZE,
/ A. C. SMITH, R. DE VILMORIN, Members, /
F. A. STAFLEU, Secretary of the
Editorial Committee /
[I.A.P.T. emblem] / 1961 / UTRECHT —
NETHERLANDS
/ Published with financial support of
I.U.B.S.-U.N.E.S.C.O. / by the International
Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature /
of the International Association
for Plant Taxonomy /
In 8°; pp. [1]-372; Regnum Vegetabile, A series of publications
for the use of plant
taxonomists and plant geographers, volume 23.
Issued December 1961. With similar French
and German title pages
on pp. [2] and [4]. Mostly referred to as ‘Montreal Code’.
402 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code
– 70 –
text: © 1966, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
[ Not present in this edition ]