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).

 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 1 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

I-VI Principles

 
 
 

Division  I .   Principles
 

Principle I

    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.

Principle II

    The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of nomen-
clatural types.

Principle III

    The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.

Principle IV

    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.

Principle V

    Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin regardless of their
derivation.

Principle VI

    The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 2 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Ranks 1-5

 
 

Division  I I .   Rules  and  Recommendations
 

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

Article  1

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

Article  2

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

Article  3

    The principal ranks of taxa in ascending sequence are: species (species), genus
(genus), family (familia), order (ordo), class (classis), and division (divisio). Thus
each species belongs (is to be assigned) to a genus, each genus to a family (certain
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).

Article  4

    If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required, the terms for these are made
either by adding the prefix sub (sub-) to the terms denoting the ranks or by the
introduction of supplementary terms. A plant may be assigned to taxa of the
following subordinate ranks 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.

Article  5

    The relative order of the ranks specified in Arts. 3 and 4 must not be altered.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 3 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

6-7 Definitions, typification

 
 
 

Chapter II.   NAMES OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
 

Section 1.  DEFINITIONS

Article  6

    Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 2931.

    Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Arts. 3245.

    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.

Section 2.  TYPIFICATION

Article  7

    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-

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 4 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 5 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

8—9 Typification

Recommendation  7A

    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.

Recommendation  7B

    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.

Article  8

    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.

Article  9

    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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 6 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 10-13

Article  10

    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.

Section 3.   PRIORITY

Article  11

    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).

Article  12

    A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly published
(see Arts. 3245).

Section 4.  LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

Article  13

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

    Recent plants

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

———————–

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 7 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 8 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Article  14

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 9 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Article  15

    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.

Recommendation  15A

    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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 10 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Names of higher taxa 16—18

 
 
 

Chapter IIINOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK

Section 1NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY

Article  16

    The principles of priority and typification do not affect the form of names of
taxa above the rank of family.

Recommendation  16A

    (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).

Article  17

    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.

Recommendation  17A

    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

Article  18

    The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 11 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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
publishedPalmae (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

Article  19

    The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed
by adding the suffix -oideae to the stem of 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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 12 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

Article  20

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 13 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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).

Recommendation  20A

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

    (a To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

    (b To avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin 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).

Article  21

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

    The epithet 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.
 

Recommendation  21A

    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
.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 14 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Names of subdivisions of genera 22

Recommendation  21B

    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.

Article  22

    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.

 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 15 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

23 Specific names

Section 4.   NAMES OF SPECIES

Article  23

     The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of the
genus followed by a single specific epithet. If an epithet consists of two or more
words, these must either be united or hyphened. An epithet not so joined when
originally published is not to be rejected but, when used, must be 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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 16 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific names 24

Recommendation  23A

    Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epithets
may be substantives in the genitive (clusii, saharae) or adjectives (clusianus, dahuricus) (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).

Recommendation  23B

    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)

Article  24

    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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 17 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  24A

    Recommendations made for specific epithets (see Recs. 23A, B) apply equally to infra-
specific epithets.

Recommendation  24B

    Botanists proposing new infraspecific epithets should avoid those previously used for
species in the same genus.

Article  25

    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.
 

Article  26

    In the name of an infraspecific taxon which includes the nomenclatural type of
the epithet of the next higher taxon, the epithet of this higher taxon must be repeated
unaltered but 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.
 

Article  27

    An infraspecific epithet may repeat unchanged that of the next higher taxon only
when it has the same nomenclatural type.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 18 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Cultivated plants 28

Section 6.   NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION

Article  28

    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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 19 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

29—30 Effective publication

 
 
 

Chapter IVEFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

Section 1.   CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
 

Article  29

    Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed matter
(through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to botanical 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.

Recommendation  29A

    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.

Article  30

    The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter became
available as defined in Art. 29. In the absence of proof establishing some other date,
the one appearing in the printed matter must be accepted as correct.

    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)

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 20 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  30A

    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.

Article  31

    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

Article  32

    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. 1627 (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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 21 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  32A

    Publication of a name should not be validated solely by a reference to a description or
diagnosis published before 1753.

Recommendation  32B

    The description or diagnosis of any new taxon should mention the points in which the
taxon differs from its allies.

Recommendation  32C

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

Recommendation  32D

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

    In the explanation of the figures, it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s) on which
they are based.

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

Recommendation  32E

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 22 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 33—34

Article  33

    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.

Article  34

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 23 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  34A

    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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 24 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 35—38

Article  35

    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.

Article  36

    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.

Recommendation  36A

    Authors publishing names of new taxa of Recent plants should give or cite a full description
in Latin in addition to the diagnosis.

Article  37

    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.
710).

Recommendation  37A

    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.

Recommendation  37B

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

Article  38

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 25 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

39—40 Valid publication

Article  39

    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.

Article  40

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 26 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 41—43

Ardennes 33: 14. 1938) which is accompanied by a statement of parentage and a description
in French but not Latin.

Article  41

    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.

Article  42

    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.

Article  43

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 27 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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).

Article  44

    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.

Article  45

    The date of a name or of an epithet is that of its valid publication. When the
various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date
is that on which the last is fulfilled.

    Example Specimens of Mentha foliicoma Opiz were distributed by Opiz in 1832, but
the name dates from 1882, when it was validly published by Déséglise (Bull. Soc. Etud.
Sci. Angers 1881-82: 210. 1882).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 28 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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, 6367). 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.

Recommendation  45A

    Authors publishing a name of a new taxon in works written in a modern language (floras,
catalogues, etc.) should simultaneously comply with the requirements of valid publication.

Recommendation  45B

    Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In a work
appearing in parts the last-published sheet of the volume should indicate the precise dates
on which the different fascicles or parts of the volume were published as well as the number
of pages and plates in each.

Recommendation  45C

    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

Article  46

    For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate and complete, and in
order that the date may be readily verified, it is necessary to cite the name of the
author(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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 29 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Citation

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

Recommendation  46A

    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).

Recommendation  46B

    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.

Recommendation  46C

    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.

Recommendation  46D

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 30 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  46E

    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.

Recommendation  46F

    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.

Article  47

    An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a taxon
without the exclusion of the type does not warrant the citation of the name of an
author other than the one who first published its name.

    Examples:  see under Art. 51.

Recommendation  47A

    When the alteration mentioned in Art. 47 has been considerable, the nature of the change
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.).

Article  48

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 31 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

49—50 Citation

cited as Bulbostylis Steven emend. Kunth, since the type listed was not included in Bulbo-
stylis
by Steven in 1817.

Article  49

    When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank but retains its name
or epithet, the author who first published this as a legitimate name or epithet (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.

Article  50

    When the status of a taxon bearing a binary name is altered from species to
hybrid or vice versa, the name of the original author must be cited, followed by
an indication in parentheses of the original status. If it is desirable or necessary to
abbreviate such a citation, the indication of the original status may be omitted.

    Examples:  Stachys ambigua J. E. Smith (Engl. Bot. 30: pl. 2089. 1810) was published as
a species. If regarded as a hybrid, it must be cited as Stachys  × ambigua J. E. Smith (pro sp.).

    The binary name Salix  × glaucops Anderss. (in DC. Prodr. 16(2): 281. 1868) was published
as the name of a hybrid. Later, Rydberg (Bull. 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

Recommendation  50A

    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.

Recommendation  50B

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 32 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation 50

Recommendation  50C

    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.

Recommendation  50D

    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).

Recommendation  50E

    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).

Recommendation  50F

    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.

 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 33 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

51—53 Remodelling of taxa

 
 
 

Chapter V. RETENTION, CHOICE, AND REJECTION OF NAMES

AND EPITHETS

Section 1.   RETENTION OF NAMES OR EPITHETS OF TAXA

WHICH ARE REMODELLED OR DIVIDED

Article  51

    An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a taxon
does not warrant a change in its name, except as may be required (1) by trans-
ference of the taxon (Arts. 5456), 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.

Article  52

    When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name must be
retained for one of them or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated 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).

Article  53

    When a species is divided into two or more species, the specific epithet must be
retained for one of them or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated for one
of them. When a particular specimen, description, or figure was originally designated

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 34 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

Article  54

    When a subdivision of a genus * is transferred to another genus or placed under
another generic name for the same genus without change of rank, its epithet must
be retained or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated unless one of the
following obstacles exists:

    (1)   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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 35 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

55—56 Transference

Article  55

    When a species is transferred to another genus or placed under another generic
name for the same genus without change of rank, the specific epithet, if legitimate,
must be retained a or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated b unless one
of the following obstacles exists:

    (1)   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.

Article  56

    When an infraspecific taxon is transferred without change of rank to another
genus or species, the original epithet must be retained or, if it has not been retained,
must be reinstated unless one of the following obstacles exists:

    (1)   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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 36 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

Article  57

    When two or more taxa of the same rank are united, the oldest legitimate name
or (for taxa below the rank of genus) the oldest legitimate epithet is retained, unless
a later name or epithet must be accepted under the provisions of 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.

Recommendation  57A

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 37 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

58—59 Pleomorphic fungi

Article  58

    When a taxon of Recent plants, algae excepted, and a taxon of the same rank of
fossil or subfossil plants are united, the correct name or epithet of the 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

Article  59

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 38 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

Article  60

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

    Examples:  The section Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) of the genus Campanula
was first raised to generic rank by Schrader and, as a genus, must be called Wahlenbergia
Schrad. 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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 39 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

61—63 Rejection

Recommendation  60A

    (1) When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus, or the inverse change occurs, the
original name or epithet should be retained unless it is contrary to this Code.

    (2) When an infraspecific taxon becomes a species, or the inverse change occurs, the
original epithet should be retained unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.

    (3) When an infraspecific taxon is changed in rank within the species, the original
epithet should be retained unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.

Article  61

    When a taxon of a rank higher than 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. 6272.

    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

Article  62

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

    Examples:  This rule was broken by the change of Staphylea to Staphylis, Tamus to
Thamnos, Thamnus, or Tamnus, Mentha to Minthe, Tillaea to Tillia, Vincetoxicum to 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.

Article  63

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 40 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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).

Article  64

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 41 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Article  65

    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.

Article  66

    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).

Article  67

    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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 42 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Rejection 68—71

Article  68

    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).

Article  69

    A name must be rejected if it is used in different senses and so has become a
long-persistent source of error.

    Examples:  The name Rosa villosa L. (Sp. Pl. 491. 1753) is rejected, because it has been
applied to several different species and has become a source of error.

    Lavandula spica L. (Sp. Pl. 572. 1753) included the two species subsequently known as
L. angustifolia Mill. and L. latifolia Vill. The name Lavandula spica has been applied almost
equally to these two species, and, being now ambiguous, must be rejected (see Kew Bull.
1932: 295).

Article  70

    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.

Article  71

    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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 43 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Article  72

    In cases foreseen in Arts. 6371, 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.
T
he 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.

Recommendation  72A

    Authors should avoid adoption of an illegitimate epithet previously published for the
same taxon.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 44 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 73

 
 
 

Chapter VIORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS AND GENDER

OF GENERIC NAMES

Section 1.  ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS

Article  73

    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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 45 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  73A

    When a new name or epithet is to be derived from Greek, the transliteration to Latin
should conform to classical usage.

    The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.

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

Recommendation  73B

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

    (a When the name of the person ends in a vowel, the letter a is added (thus 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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 46 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  73C

    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).

Recommendation  73D

    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).

Recommendation  73E

    A new epithet should be written in conformity with the original spelling of the word or
words from which it is derived and in accordance with the accepted usage of Latin and
latinization (see Art. 23).

    Example: sinensis (not chinensis).

Recommendation  73F

    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.

Recommendation  73G

    A compound name or an epithet combining elements derived from two or more Greek

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 47 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Recommendation  73H

    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.

Article  74

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

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

Article  75

    When two or more generic names are so similar that they are likely to be con-

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 48 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

Recommendation  75A

    The gender of generic names should be determined as follows:

    (1 A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name should retain its gender. When
the gender varies the author should choose one of the alternative genders. In doubtful cases
general usage should be followed. The following names, however, whose classical gender is
masculine, should be treated as feminine in accordance with botanical custom: Adonis,
Diospyros, Strychnos;
so also should Orchis and Stachys, which are masculine in Greek and
feminine in Latin. The name Hemerocallis, derived from the Latin and Greek hemerocalles
(n.), although masculine in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum, should be treated as feminine in
order to bring it into conformity with 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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 49 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.
 

Recommendation  75B

    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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 50 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 51 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 52 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H. 1

 
 
 

Appendix I

Names of hybrids and some special categories
 

Article  H.  1

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

    The formula consists of the 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
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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 53 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.
 

Article  H.  2

    Hybrids or putative hybrids between infraspecific taxa of the same species may
be designated by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name
of the same taxonomic rank as the parents or, if these are of different rank, that
of the higher-ranking parent. In the formula the 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).
 

Article  H.  3

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 54 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

Article  H.  4

    “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.
 

Article  H.  5

    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 , 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).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 55 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

H. 5 Hybrids

Recommendation  H.  5A

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

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

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

    Taxa which are clones may, if desired, be designated as such by the use of the term
“clone” (abbreviated as “cl.”) in the same manner as “ap.

 
 
 

Appendix   II

Nomina familiarum conservanda

see pp. 209-225

 

Appendix   III

Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda

see pp. 226-369
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 56 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 57 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 58 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 59 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 60 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  –  Edinburgh Code

– 61 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 62 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

      KEY TO THE NUMBERING OF THE ARTICLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

         Code
     Edinburgh
 
   Preamble
 
Division I
 
Principles
      Code
     Montreal
 
    Preamble
 
Division I
 
Principles
  Code
   Paris
 
  Preamble
 

 
        Code
    Stockholm
 
1-9, 11, 17, 17A
 

 
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
1-9, 15, 17, III
 

 
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
 
Division II
 
 
Chapter I
 
1
2
3
4
4 note
5
 
 
Chapter II
 
section 1
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
 
Division II
 
 
Chapter I
 
1
2
3
4
4A
5
 
 
Chapter II
 
section 1
I pp.
II
III
IV
V
VI
 

 
 
Chapter II
 
1
2
3, PB 1
4
4A
5 para 1
 
 
Chapter II
 
section 1
  6 pp.
18 pp.

16 pp.
  7 pp.
  2 pp.
 

 
 
Chapter II
 
  8 pp.
12 pp.
12 pp., PB 1
13, 14
14A
15 para 1
 
 
Chapter III pp.
 
  6 pp.
18 pp.

16 pp.
  7 pp.
  2 pp.
 

 
 
Chapter II
 
  8 pp.
10 pp.
10 pp.
11, 12
 I

 
 
Chapter III pp.
 
6
 
section 2
6
 
section 2
6
 
section 2
10
 
section 2

 
section 2
7
7A
7B

8
9
10
 
section 3
7
7A
7B
7C
8
9
10
 
section 3
7, 8A, 8E, PB 5
8B
8C
8D
8
10, PB 4
9
 
section 3, 4 pp.
18, 19A, PB 5
19B
App. I pp.
App. I pp.
19
21, PB 4
20
 
section 1, 3 pp.
18 pp.
VII


18 pp.
18 pp.
18 pp.
 
section 1, 3 pp.
11
12
 
section 4
11
12
 
section 4
11
12
 
section 4 pp.
16
22
 
section 3 pp.
16
19
 
section 3 pp.
13
14
15
15A
13
14
15
15A
13
14
15
23, 76 pp.
24
25
20
21
22

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 63 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

         Code
     Edinburgh
 
 
Chapter III
 
section 1
      Code
     Montreal
 
 
Chapter III
 
section 1
  Code
   Paris
 
 
Chapter III
 
section 1, 2
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 
section 4
 
subsection 1, 2
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 
section 4
 
§ 1
16
16A
17
17A
 
section 2
16
16A
17

 
section 2
16
16A
17

 
section 3
26
26A
27

 
subsection 3

VIII
IX

 
§ 2
18

19
 
section 3
18
18A
19
 
section 3
18
PB 6C
19
 
section 4
28
PB 6C
29
 
subsection 4
23

24
 
§ 3
20
20A


21
21A
21B
22
 
section 4
20
20A
20B
20C
21
21A
21B
22
 
section 4
20,68
20A
PB 6A
PB 6D
21
22B
21A, 22A
22
 
section 5
30, 78
30A
PB 6A
PB 6D
31
32B
31 pp., 32A
32
 
subsection 5
25, 67
X


26
XII
26 pp., XI

 
§ 4
23

23A
23B
 
section 5
23

23A
23B
 
section 5
23, 70 pp.

23A
23B, 45A
 
section 6
33, 79
33A
33B
33C
 
subsection 6
27, 68
XIII
XIV
XV
 
§ 5
24
24A

24B
25, 26 pp.
26, 25 pp.
27
    
 
section 6
24
24A
24B
24C
25, 26 pp.
26, 25 pp.
27
    
 
section 6
24, 27, 61
24A
24B
24C
25, 26 pp.
26 pp.
26 pp.
    
 
section 7
34 pp., 36
37A
37B
37C
34 pp.
35 pp.
35 pp.
37
 
subsection 7
28 pp., 29
XVI
XVII
XIX
28 pp.


30
 
§ 7
28
 
Chapter IV
 
section 1
28
 
Chapter IV
 
section 1
28
 
Chapter IV
 
section 1
38
 

 
section 5
35
 

 
section 5
29
29A
30
30A
31
29
29A
30
30A
31
29
29A
30

31
39
39A
40

41
36



______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 64 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

         Code
     Edinburgh
 
 
section 2
      Code
     Montreal
 
 
section 2
  Code
   Paris
 
 
section 2
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 
section 6
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 
section 6
32
32A
32B
32C
32D
32E
33
34
34A
35
36
36A
37
37A
37B
38
39
40
41


42
43
44
45
45A
45B
45C
 
 
section 3
32
32A
32B
32C
32D
32E
33
34
34A
35
36
36A
37
37A
37B
38
39
40
41
41A
41B
42
43
44
45
45A
45B
45C
 
 
section 3
32 pp.
32A
41A
45C
45E
45F
32 pp., 5 para 2, 3
33, 37, 38
45A
44
34

35

35A
36(1)
36(2)
40
39
PB 6A

41, PB 6
42
43
45
45D
45H
45I
 
 
section 3
42 pp.
42A
50A
54D
54F, 83F
54G
42 pp., 15 para 2, 3
43, 46, 47
54B
54
44

54A


45

49
48
PB 6A

50, PB 6
51
52
53
54E pp.
54I
54K, 54L
 
 
section 7
37 pp.



XXIV, XLIX
XXV
42 pp., 13
40, 41
XXII
XXI pp.
38

XXII


39


42


43

44
45
XXIII pp.
XXVII
XXVIII, XXIX
 
 
section 7
46
46A
46B
46C
46D
46E
46F
47
47A
48
49
50
50A
50B
50C
50D
50E
50F
46
46A
46B
46C
46D
46E

47
47A
48
49
50
50A
50B
50C
50D
50E
50F
46
50A

46A
46B
50D

47
47A
48
49
50
50B
50C
50E
50F
50G
50H
55
60A

58
58A
60D

56
56A
57
59
60
60B
60C
60E
60F
60G
60H
46
XXX

48(1)
48(2)
XXXII

47(1)
47(2)

49

XXXI




______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 65 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

         Code
     Edinburgh
 
 
Chapter V
 
section 1
      Code
     Montreal
 
 
Chapter V
 
section 1
  Code
   Paris
 
 
Chapter V
 
section 1
        Code
    Stockholm
 
 

 
section 8
       Rules
  Cambridge
 
 

 
section 8
51
52
53
 
section 2
51
52
53
 
section 2
51
52
53
 
section 2
61
62
63
 
section 9
50
51
52
 
section 9
54
55
56
 
section 3
54
55
56
 
section 3
54
55
56
 
section 3
64
65
66
 
section 10
53
54
55
 
section 10 pp.
57
57A

58

 
section 4
57
57A
57B
58

 
section 4
57
58A

58

 
section 4
67
68A

68
68B
 
section 10
56
XXXIII


XXXIV
 
section 10 pp.
59
 
section 5
59
 
section 5
59
 
section 5
69
 
section 12
57
 
section 11
60
60A
61
 
section 6
60
60A
61
 
section 6
60
60A
61
 
section 6
70
71A
71
 
section 13
58
XXXVI, 2, 3

 
section 12
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72A
 
Chapter VI
 
section 1
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72A
 
Chapter VI
 
section 1
62
64(1)(2)
64(2)
64(3), 1 pp.
69
70(1)
70 note 3
65
66
67
72
45B
 
Chapter VI
 
section 1
72
73(1)
74
  6 pp.
73(2) pp.
73(2) pp.

75
76
77
81
54C
 

 
section 14
59
60(1)(2)
61
  6 pp.
60 pp.
68

62
64
65
69

 

 
section 13
73
73A
73B
73C
73D
73E
73F
73G
73
73A
73B
73C
73D
73E
73F
73G
73
73A, 45G
73B
73C
73D
73E
73F
73G
82 pp.
82A
82B
82C, D
82E
82F
82G
82H
70 pp.
XXXIII
XXXIX
XI, XLI

XLII
XLIII
XLIV

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 66 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

         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

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

                                                 BIBLIOGRAPHIA
 

    LOIS  /  DE LA  /  NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE  /  ADOPTÉES PAR  /  LE
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE  /  TENU A PARIS EN AOUT 1867
/  SUIVIES D’UNE  /  DEUXIÈME ÉDITION  /  DE L’INTRODUCTION 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’.

    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.

    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’.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 68 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

    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’.

    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’.

    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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 69 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

    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’.

    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’.

    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’.

 
 
 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966  —  Edinburgh Code

– 70 –

text: © 1966, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
       [ Not present in this edition ]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ sic ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
       [ supposed to be superscript ]