INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
 
 

                                               PREAMBLE
 

1.  Botany requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature used by bota-
nists 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 taxo-
nomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error
or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is the avoid-
ance of the useless creation of names. Other considerations, such as absolute
grammatical correctness, regularity or euphony of names, more or less pre-
vailing custom, regard for persons, etc., notwithstanding their undeniable
importance, are relatively accessory.

2.  The Principles form the basis of the system of botanical nomenclature.

3.  The detailed Provisions are divided into Rules, set out in the Articles, and
Recommendations. Examples (Ex.) are added to the rules and recommenda-
tions to illustrate them.

4.  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 main-
tained.

5.  The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to
bring about greater uniformity and clearness, especially in future nomencla-
ture; names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be re-
jected, but they are not examples to be followed.

6.  The provisions regulating the modification of this Code form its last divi-
sion.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 01 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

7.  The rules and recommendations apply to all organisms treated as plants
(including fungi and blue-green algae but excluding other prokaryotic
groups¹), whether fossil or non-fossil². Special provisions are needed for cer-
tain groups of plants: The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated
Plants-1980 was adopted by the International Commission for the Nomencla-
ture of Cultivated Plants; provisions for the names of hybrids appear in Ap-
pendix I.

8.  The only proper reasons for changing a name are either a more profound
knowledge of the facts resulting from adequate taxonomic study or the neces-
sity of giving up a nomenclature that is contrary to the rules.

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

10.  This edition of the Code supersedes all previous editions.

—————

1)   For the nomenclature of other prokaryotic groups, see the International Code of Nomencla-
       ture of Bacteria.

2)   In this Code, the term "fossil" is applied to a taxon when its name is based on a fossil type and
       the term "non-fossil" is applied to a taxon when its name is based on a non-fossil type (see Art.
       13.3).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 02 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

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 so treated (see Pre. 7).

Principle II

The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means
of nomenclatural 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, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 03 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 

CHAPTER I. RANKS OF TAXA,

AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM
 
 

Article 1

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

Article 2

2.1.  Every individual plant is treated as belonging to a number of taxa of con-
secutively subordinate rank, among which the rank of species (species) is basal.

Article 3

3.1.  The principal ranks of taxa in ascending sequence are: species (species),
genus (genus), family (familia), order (ordo), class (classis), division (divisio),
and kingdom (regnum). Thus, except for some fossil plants (see Art. 3.2), each
species is assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.

3.2.  The principal ranks of nothotaxa (hybrid taxa) are nothospecies and
nothogenus. These are the same rank as species and genus, only the terms
denoting the ranks differing in order to indicate the hybrid character (see
Appendix I).

3.3.  Because of the fragmentary nature of the specimens on which the species
of some fossil plants are based, the genera to which they are assigned are not
assignable to a family, although they may be referable to a taxon of higher
rank. Such genera are known as form-genera (forma-genera).

Ex. 1.  Form-genera: Dadoxylon Endl. (Coniferopsida), Pecopteris (Brongn.) Sternb. (Pteropsida),
Stigmaria Brongn. (Lepidodendrales), Spermatites Miner (seed-bearing plants).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 04 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  The following are, however, not form-genera: Lepidocarpon D. Scott (Lepidocarpaceae),
Macrocarpon M. Benson (Sigilariaceae), Siltaria Traverse (Fagaceae).

Note 1.  Art. 59 provides for form-taxa for asexual forms (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic
fungi at any rank.

3.4.  As in the case of certain pleomorphic fungi, the provisions of this Code do
not prevent the publication and use of names of form-genera of fossils.

Article 4

4.1.  If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required, the terms for these are
made either by adding the prefix sub- to the terms denoting the ranks or by the
introduction of supplementary terms. A plant may thus be assigned to taxa of
the following ranks (in descending sequence): regnum, subregnum, divisio,
subdivisio, classis, subclassis, ordo, subordo, familia, subfamilia, tribus, subtribus,
genus, subgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, subspecies, varietas,
subvarietas, forma, subforma.

4.2.  Further supplementary ranks may be intercalated or added, provided that
confusion or error is not thereby introduced.

4.3.  The subordinate ranks of nothotaxa are the same as the subordinate ranks
of non-hybrid taxa, except that nothogenus is the highest rank permitted (see
Appendix I).

Note 1.  Throughout this Code the phrase "subdivision of a family" refers only to taxa of a rank
between family and genus and "subdivision of a genus" refers only to taxa of a rank between genus
and species.

Note 2.  For the designation of certain variants of species in cultivation, see Art. 28 Notes 1 and 2.

Note 3.  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 special forms is not
governed by the provisions of this Code.

Article 5

5.1.  The relative order of the ranks specified in Arts. 3 and 4 must not be
altered (see Arts. 33.4 and 33.5).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 05 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER II. RANKS OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
 
 

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

Article 6

6.1.  Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 29-31.

6.2.  Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Arts. 32-45
or H.9 (see also Art. 75).

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

6.4.  An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in Arts. 18.3 or
63-65 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 1). A name which according to
this Code was illegitimate when published cannot become legitimate later
unless it is conserved or sanctioned.

6.5.  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).

Ex. 1.  The generic name Vexillifera Ducke (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 & Urban ex Taubert (1892), based on the single species D. martinicensis. Both generic
names are correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni
Veg. 19: 291. 1924), however, united Vexillifera Ducke and Dussia Krug & 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.

6.6.  In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word "name" means a name
that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate (see Art.
12).

6.7.  The name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name of a
genus combined with one or two epithets, is termed a combination (see Arts
21, 23, and 24).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 06 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  Combinations: Gentiana lutea, Gentiana tenella var. occidentalis, Equisetum palustre var.
americanum, Equisetum palustre f. fluitans, Mouriri subg. Pericrene, Arytera sect. Mischarytera.

6.8.  Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under Arts.
19.4, 22.2, and 26.2, whether they were formally created or not.
 

SECTION 2.  TYPIFICATION

Article 7

7.1.  The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is deter-
mined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The applica-
tion of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by types when the
names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.5).

7.2.  A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon
is permanently attached, whether as a correct name or as a synonym. The
nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative ele-
ment of a taxon.

7.3.  A holotype is the one specimen or illustration 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 1.  Any designation made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of the
original publication of the name of the taxon, is final (but see Art. 7.4). If the author included only
one element, that one must be accepted as the holotype. If a new name is based on a previously
published description of the taxon, the same considerations apply to material included by the
earlier author (see Arts. 7.14-7.16).

7.4.  If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name, or when the holo-
type has been lost or destroyed, or when the material designated as type is
found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or, if permissible (Art.
7.9), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated. A lectotype always
takes precedence over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 7.10. 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 material¹ is extant, a neotype may be se-
lected.

——————

1)   For the purposes of this Code, "original material" includes illustrations examined by an
       author prior to publication of a name and associated by the author with the concept of the
       named taxon.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 07 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

7.5.  A lectotype is a specimen or illustration selected from the original mate-
rial to serve as a nomenclatural type when no holotype was indicated 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 infraspecific name
(e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.), the lectotype must be cho-
sen from among them.

7.6.  An isotype is any duplicate¹ of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

7.7.  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 simultane-
ously designated as types.

7.8.  A paratype is a specimen or illustration cited in the protologue that is
neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if two or more
specimens were simultaneously designated as types.

7.9.  A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomencla-
tural type as long as all of the material on which the name of the taxon was
based is missing (see also Art. 7.10).

7.10.  When a holotype or a previously designated lectotype has been lost or
destroyed and it can be shown that all the other original material differs taxo-
nomically from the destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to preserve the
usage established by the previous typification (see also Art. 8.5).

7.11.  A new name published as an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for an
older name is typified by the type of the older name (see Art. 33.2; but see Art.
33 Note 1).

Ex. 1.  Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a nomen novum for M. laevis O. Berg
(1862), an illegitimate homonym of M. laevis G. Don (1832). The type of M. lucida is therefore the
type of M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely, Spruce 3502.

7.12.  A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name (stat.
nov., comb. nov.) is, in all circumstances, typified by the type of the basionym
(see Art. 55.2).

Ex. 2.  Iridaea splendens (Setch. & Gardner) Papenf., I. cordata var. splendens (Setch. & Gardner)
Abbott, and Gigartina cordata var. splendens (Setch. & Gardner) Kim all have the same type as
their basionym, Iridophycus splendens Setch. & Gardner, namely, Gardner 7781 (UC 539565).

——————

1)   Here and elsewhere, the word duplicate is given its usual meaning in herbarium curatorial
       practice. It is part of a single gathering made by a collector at one time. However, the possi-
       bility of a mixed gathering must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype, and
       corresponding caution used.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 08 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

7.13.  A name which was nomenclaturally superfluous when published (see Art.
63) is automatically typified by the type of the name which ought to have been
adopted under the rules, unless the author of the superfluous name has defi-
nitely indicated a different type. Automatic typification does not apply to
names sanctioned under Art. 13.1(d).

7.14.  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 valid
publication (see Arts. 32-45).

7.15.  When valid publication is by reference to a pre-starting-point descrip-
tion, the latter must be used for purposes of typification.

7.16.  A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively
published description or diagnosis (Art. 32.3) is to be typified by an element
selected from the context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the
validating author has definitely designated a different type.

Ex. 3.  Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to Rum-
phius, Herbarium Amboinense 3: t. 112, the type of the name, in the absence of the specimen from
which it was figured, is the illustration referred to. It is not the specimen, at Kew, collected by
Moon and labelled "Adenanthera bicolor", since Moon did not definitely designate the latter as
the type.

Ex. 4.  Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl. 12. 1754) was published without a description but with refer-
ence to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit. ed. 3. 227. 1724), in which a "Lycopsis" species was discussed
with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax 255. 1623), but also with no description.
The accepted validating description of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen
from the context of his work. Consequently the Sherard specimen in the Morison herbarium
(OXF), selected by Klotz (Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Naturwiss.
Reihe 9: 375-376. 1960), although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The first
acceptable choice is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of "Echii altera species"
in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt. 620. 1583), suggested by P. E. Gibbs (Lagascalia 1: 60-61. 1971)
and formally made by W. T. Stearn (Ray Soc. Publ. 149, Introd. 65. 1973).

7.17.  A change of the listed type 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.

Ex. 5.  Bullock and Killick (Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the type of Plectran-
thus L’Hér. be changed from P. punctatus (L.f.) L’Hér. to P. fruticosus L’Hér. This proposal was
approved by the appropriate Committees and by an International Botanical Congress.

7.18.  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 publi-
cation 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 the type.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 09 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

7.19.  The typification of names of form-genera of plant fossils (Art. 3.3), of
fungal anamorphs (Art. 59), and of any other analogous genera or lower taxa
does not differ from that indicated above.

Note 2.  See also Art. 59 for details regarding typification of names in certain pleomorphic fungi.

7.20.  Typification of names adopted in one of the works specified in Art.
13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned, may be effected in the light of anything asso-
ciated with the name in that work.

7.21.  The type of an autonym is the same as that of the name from which it is
derived.

Recommendation 7A

7A.1.  It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, espe-
cially the holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection and that it be
scrupulously conserved.

Recommendation 7B

7B.1.  If no holotype was indicated by the original author and if no syntypes are extant, the lecto-
type should be chosen from among duplicates of the syntypes (isosyntypes), if such exist. If neither
an isotype, nor a syntype, nor an isosyntype is extant, a paratype, if such exists, may be chosen as
lectotype.

7B.2.  Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be carried out with
an understanding of the author’s method of working; in particular it should be realized that some
of the material used by the author in describing the taxon may not be in the author’s own her-
barium or may not even have survived, and conversely, that not all the material surviving in the
author’s herbarium was necessarily used in describing the taxon.

7B.3.  Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an understanding of the
group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the protologue should be considered as a
basic guide. Mechanical methods, 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 changes.

7B.4.  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, genui-
nus, etc.

7B.5.  In cases where two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the
original description, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular,
if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, the residue or part of
it should be designated as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the
original description or diagnosis (see Art. 8.1).

7B.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 valid publication of the name (Art. 7.18).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 10 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

7B.7.  When a combination in a rank of subdivision of a genus has been published under a generic
name that has not yet been typified, the lectotype of the generic name should be selected from the
subdivision of the genus that was designated as nomenclaturally typical, if that is apparent.

Recommendation 7C

7C.1.  In selecting a neotype particular care and critical knowledge should be exercised, because
the reviewer usually has no guide except personal judgement as to what best fits the protologue,
and if this selection proves to be faulty, it will inevitably result in further change.

Article 8

8.1.  The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be followed,
but his choice is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any
of the original material is rediscovered; it may also be superseded if (b) it can
be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue¹ and another ele-
ment is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (c) that it was
based on a largely mechanical method of selection, or (d) that it is contrary to
Art. 9.2.

Ex. 1.  Authors following the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Canon 15 (Bull. Torrey
Bot. Club 34: 172. 1907), designated as the type "the first binomial species in order" eligible under
certain provisions. This method of selection has been considered to be largely mechanical. Thus
the first lectotypification of Delphinium L., by Britton (in Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S. ed. 2, 2:
93. 1913), who followed the American Code and chose D. consolida L., has been superseded by
the choice of D. peregrinum L. by Hitchcock & Green (Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists 162. 1929).
As Linnaeus described Delphinium as having "germina tria vel unum", the unicarpellate D. conso-
lida is not in "serious conflict with the protologue". It could not otherwise be displaced as the type,
even though the tricarpellate D. peregrinum would seem a better choice for the type of the name
of a genus assigned by its author to "Polyandria Trigynia".

8.2.  For purposes of priority under Art. 8.1, designation of a type is achieved
only by effective publication (Arts. 29-31).

8.3.  For purposes of priority under Art. 8.1, designation of a type is achieved
only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, and if the
type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term "type" or
an equivalent.

Ex. 2.  The phrase "standard species" as used by Hitchcock & Green (Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Bota-
nists 110-199. 1929) and by the same authors in the Cambridge Rules (1935) (in which it is subor-
dinate to the words "species lectotypicae propositae") is now regarded as equivalent to "type", and
hence lectotypifications in these works are acceptable.

——————

1)   Protologue (from the Greek protos, first; logos, discourse): everything associated with a
       name at its valid publication, i.e., diagnosis, description, illustrations, references, synonymy,
       geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 11 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 3.  When originally described, Stapelia L. included two species, S. variegata and S. hirsuta.
Haworth (Syn. Pl. Succ. 19, 40. 1812) transferred the former to his new genus Orbea, retaining the
latter in Stapelia. As he did not use the term "type" or an equivalent, his action does not constitute
lectotypification under Art. 8.1. The first lectotypification of Stapelia acceptable under Art. 8.1
appears to be that by Hitchcock & Green (Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists 137. 1929), who chose S.
variegata.

8.4.  On or after 1 Jan. 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a
species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished illustration is not
effected unless the herbarium or institution in which the type is conserved is
specified.

8.5.  A neotype selected under Art. 7.10 may be superseded if it can be shown
to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.

Article 9

9.1.  The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species or infra-
specific taxon is a single specimen or illustration 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
on one herbarium sheet or in one equivalent preparation (e.g., box, packet, jar,
microscope slide).

9.2.  If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet or preparation con-
tains parts belonging to more than one taxon (Art. 7.4), the name must remain
attached to that part (lectotype) which corresponds most nearly with the origi-
nal description.

Ex. 1.  The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma, which applies to a polygamous species, is
a male specimen collected by Kappler (593a in U). The author designated a hermaphroditic speci-
men collected by the Forestry Service of Surinam as a paratype (B. W. 1618 in U).

Ex. 2.  The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is Lorentz 128 in BM;
this, however, proved to be a mixture. L. B. Smith (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in
accordance with this rule in designating one part of Lorentz’s gathering as the lectotype.

9.3.  If it is impossible to preserve a specimen as the type of a name of a spe-
cies or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil plants, or if such a name is without a
type specimen, the type may be an illustration.

9.4.  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 coal-ball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in estab-
lishing the diagnosis ought to be clearly marked.

9.5.  Type specimens of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and
cannot be living plants or cultures.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 12 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 9A

9A.1.  Whenever practicable a living culture should be prepared from the holotype material of the
name of a newly described taxon of fungi or algae and deposited in a reputable culture collection.
(Such action does not obviate the requirement for a holotype specimen under Art. 9.5.).

Article 10

10.1.  The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type
of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.3). For purposes of
designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e., it is
considered as the fuIl equivalent of its type.

10.2.  If in the protologue of the name of a genus or of any subdivision of a
genus reference is made to the name(s) of one or more definitely included
species, the type must be chosen from among the types of these names. If such
a reference is lacking, a type must be otherwise chosen, but the choice is to be
superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type is not conspecific
with any of the material associated with the protologue.

10.3.  By conservation (Art. 14.8), the type of the name of a genus can be a
specimen or illustration used by the author in the preparation of the proto-
logue, other than the type of a name of an included species.

Ex. 1.  The General Committee has approved conservation of Physconia Poelt with the specimen
"Germania, Lipsia in Tilia, 1767, Schreber sub "Lichen pulverulentus" (M)." as the type.

10.4.  The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is the
same as that of the generic name on which it is based (see Art. 18.1). For
purposes of designation or citation of a type, the generic name alone suffices.
The type of a name of a family or subfamily not based on a generic name is the
same as that of the corresponding alternative name (Arts. 18.5 and 19.8).

10.5.  The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the
rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based
on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of
the generic name on which it is based.

Note 1.  For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera see Art. 22.

Recommendation 10A

10A.1.  If the element selected under Art. 10.3 is the type of a species name, that name may be
cited as the type of the generic name. If the element selected is not the type of a species name the
type element should be cited and, optionally, a parenthetical reference to its correct name may be
given.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 13 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 3.   PRIORITY

Article 11

11.1.  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 and 1 subfamily for which alternative names are permitted
(see Arts. 18.5 and 19.7). However, the use of separate names for the form-
taxa of fungi and for form-genera of fossil plants is allowed under Arts. 3.3 and
59.5.

11.2.  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 Art. 14) or where Arts. 13.1(d), 19.3, 58, or 59
apply.

11.3.  For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combina-
tion of the final epithet¹ of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon in the
same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is as-
signed, except (a) in cases of limitation of priority under Arts. 13.1(d) and 14,
or (b) if the resulting combination would be invalid under Art. 32.1(b) or ille-
gitimate under Art. 64, or (c) if Arts. 22.1, 26.1, 58, or 59 rule that a different
combination is to be used.

11.4.  The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the
rank of family (but see Rec. 16B).

Article 12

12.1.  A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly pub-
lished (see Arts. 32-45).

SECTION 4.   LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

Article 13

13.1.  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):

——————

1)   Here and elsewhere in this Code, the phrase "final epithet" refers to the last epithet in
       sequence in any particular combination, whether that of a subdivision of a genus, or of a
       species, or of an infraspecific taxon.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 14 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Non-fossil plants:

(a)  Spermatophyta and Pteridophyta, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species
       Plantarum ed. 1).

(b)  Musci (the Sphagnaceae excepted), 1 Jan. 1801 (Hedwig, Species Mus-
       corum).

(c)  Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Planta-
       rum ed. 1).

(d)  Fungi (including Myxomycetes and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May 1753
       (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1). Names in the Uredinales, Ustilagi-
       nales, and Gasteromycetes adopted by Persoon (Synopsis Methodica
       Fungorum, 31 Dec. 1801) and names of other fungi (excluding Myxo-
       mycetes) adopted by Fries (Systema Mycologicum, vols. 1 (1 Jan. 1821) to
       3, with additional Index (1832), and Elenchus Fungorum, vols. 1-2), are
       sanctioned, i.e., are treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and
       competing synonyms. For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens
       shall be considered as applying to their fungal component.

(e)  Algae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1). Exceptions:

       Nostocaceae homocysteae, 1 Jan. 1892 (Gomont, Monographie des
       Oscillariées, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 7, 15: 263-368; 16: 91-264). The two
       parts of Gomont’s "Monographie", which appeared in 1892 and 1893 res-
       pectively, are treated as having been published simultaneously on 1 Jan.
       1892.

       Nostocaceae heterocysteae, 1 Jan. 1886 (Bornet & Flahault, Révi-
       sion des Nostocacées hétérocystées, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 7, 3: 323-381;
       4: 343-373; 5: 51-129; 7: 177-262). The four parts of the "Révision", which
       appeared in 1886, 1886, 1887, and 1888 respectively, are treated as having
       been published simultaneously on 1 Jan. 1886.

       Desmidiaceae, 1 Jan. 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).

       Oedogoniaceae, 1 Jan. 1900 (Hirn, Monographie und Iconographie der
       Oedogoniaceen, Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).

Fossil plants:

(f)   All groups, 31 Dec. 1820 (Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch 1:
       1-24. t. 1-13). Schlotheim, Petrefactenkunde, 1820, is regarded as pub-
       lished before 31 Dec. 1820.

13.2.  The group to which a name is assigned for the purposes of this Article is
determined by the accepted taxonomic position of the type of the name.

Ex. 1.  The genus Porella and its single species, P. pinnata, were referred by Linnaeus (1753) to the
Musci; if the type specimen of P. pinnata is accepted as belonging to the Hepaticae, the names
were validly published in 1753.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 15 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  The lectotype of Lycopodium L. (1753) is L. clavatum L (1753) and the type specimen of
this is currently accepted as a pteridophyte. Accordingly, although the genus is listed by Linnaeus
among the Musci, the generic name and the names of the pteridophyte species included by Lin-
naeus under it were validly published in 1753.

13.3.  For nomenclatural purposes, a name is treated as pertaining to a non-
fossil taxon unless its type is fossil in origin. Fossil material is distinguished
from non-fossil material by stratigraphic relations at the site of original occur-
rence. In cases of doubtful stratigraphic relations, provisions for non-fossil
taxa apply.

13.4.  Generic names which first appear in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762-63) are associated with the first subsequent description
given under those names in Linnaeus’ Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6
(1764) (see Art. 41). The spelling of the generic names included in the Spe-
cies Plantarum ed. 1 is not to be altered because a different spelling has been
used in the Genera Plantarum ed. 5.

13.5.  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).

Ex. 2.  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.

13.6.  Names of anamorphs of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle do not, ir-
respective of priority, affect the nomenclatural status of the names of the cor-
related holomorphs (see Art. 59.4).

Article 14

14.1.  In order to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of fami-
lies, genera, and species 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 conservanda) and must be retained as useful exceptions.

Note 1.  The rules on conserved names also apply to names at any rank sanctioned under Art.
13.1(d).

14.2.  Conservation aims at retention of those names which best serve stability
of nomenclature (see Rec. 50E). Conservation of specific names is restricted to
species of major economic importance and to cases provided for by Arts. 14.3
and 69.3 (see also Art. 13.1(d)).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 16 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

14.3.  The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types. When typification of the species name cited as the type
of a conserved generic name is in dispute, the type of the specific name may be
conserved, and listed in Appendix IIIA, so that the application of the generic
name is not in doubt.

14.4.  A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other
names in the same rank based on the same type (nomenclatural synonyms,
which are to be rejected) whether these are cited in the corresponding list of
rejected names or not, and against those names based on different types (taxo-
nomic synonyms) that are cited in that list¹. A conserved name of a species is
conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all combinations
based on the rejected names.

14.5.  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. 57.1, except for
names sanctioned under Art. 13.1(d) and for some conserved family names
(Appendix IIB), which are conserved against unlisted names.

Ex. 1.  If the genus Weihea Sprengel (1825) is united with Cassipourea Aublet (1775), the com-
bined genus will bear the prior name Cassipourea, although Weihea is conserved and Cassipourea
is not.

Ex. 2.  If Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is united with Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the
prior name Berberis, although Mahonia is conserved.

Ex. 3.  Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nasturtium Miller
(1754) and the nomenclatural synonym Cardaminum Moench (1794); consequently if reunited with
Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name Rorippa.

14.6.  When a name of a taxon 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 taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the no-
men conservandum except when the earlier rejected name is a homonym of the
conserved name.

Ex. 4.  The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pavón (1802) is conserved against the earlier names
Enargea Banks & Sol. ex Gaertner (1788) and Callixene Comm. ex A. L. Juss. (1789). If, however,
Enargea Banks & Sol. ex Gaertner is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea is
retained for it.

14.7.  A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may not be
restored for a taxon which includes the type of the corresponding conserved
name.

——————

1)   The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of
       Nomenclature of Bacteria use the terms "objective synonym" and "subjective synonym" for
       nomenclatural and taxonomic synonym, respectively.

17

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 17 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 5.  Enallagma Baillon (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against
Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma and Amphitecna are united, the combined genus must
bear the name Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved against Dendrosicus.

14.8.  A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by
the author or determined by application of the Code (see Art. 10.3). A name

with a type so conserved (typ. cons.) is legitimate even if it would otherwise be
illegitimate under Art. 63. 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.

Ex. 6.  Bulbostylis Kunth (1837), nom. cons. (non Bulbostylis Steven 1817). This is not to be cited as
Bulbostylis Steven emend. Kunth, since the type listed was not included in Bulbostylis by Steven
in 1817.

14.9.  A conserved name, with its corresponding autonyms, is conserved against
all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved or sanctioned name
is not made illegitimate by that conservation or sanctioning but is unavailable
for use; if legitimate, it may serve as basionym of another name or combination
based on the same type (see also Art. 68.3).

Ex. 7.  The generic name Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against Damapana Adanson (1763), is
thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777).

14.10.  A name may be conserved in order to preserve a particular orthography
or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of priority
to the author who validly published it, not to an author who later introduced
the conserved spelling or gender.

Ex. 8.  The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved against the ori-
ginal spelling Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be cited as Rhodymenia Grev.
(1830).

Note 2.  The date of conservation or sanctioning does not affect the nomenclatural status of the
conserved or sanctioned name, whose priority depends on its date of valid publication. When two
or more conserved or sanctioned names are considered to be synonyms, the first to have been
validly published has priority. When two or more homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of
them can be used, the later being illegitimate under Art. 64.

14.11.  The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for ad-
ditions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against its conserva-
tion. Such proposals must be submitted to the General Committee (see Divi-
sion III), which will refer them for examination to the committees for the
various taxonomic groups.

14.12.  Entries of conserved names cannot be deleted. Similarly, a name once
sanctioned remains sanctioned, even if elsewhere in the sanctioning works the
sanctioning author does not recognize it.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 18 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Article 15

15.1.  When a proposal for the conservation (or rejection under Art. 69) of a
name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Com-
mittee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention (or rejection) of that
name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical
Congress.

Recommendation 15A

15A.1.  When a proposal for the conservation or rejection of a name has been referred to the
appropriate Committee for study, authors should follow existing usage as far as possible pending
the General Committee’s recommendation on the proposal.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 19 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER III.  NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO

THEIR RANK
 
 

SECTION 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY

Article 16

16.1.  Names of taxa above the rank of family are automatically typified if they
are based on generic names (see Art. 10.5); for such automatically typified
names, the name of a subdivision which includes the type of the adopted name
of a division, the name of a subclass which includes the type of the adopted
name of a class, and the name of a suborder which includes the type of the
adopted name of an order, are to be based on the generic name equivalent to
that type, but without the citation of an author’s name.

16.2.  Where one of the word elements -monado-, -cocco-, -nemato-, or -clado­
as the second part of a generic name has been omitted before the termination
-phyceae- or -phyta, the shortened class or division name is regarded as based
on the generic name in question if such derivation is obvious or is indicated at
establishment of the group name.

Ex. 1.  Raphidophyceae Chadefaud ex P. C. Silva (1980) was indicated by its author to be based on
Raphidomonas F. Stein (1878).

Note 1.  The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the rank of family (Art.
11.4).

Recommendation 16A

16A.1.  The name of a division is taken either from distinctive characters of the division (descrip-
tive names) or from a name of an included genus; it should end in -phyta, unless it is a division of
fungi, in which case it should end in -mycota.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 20 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

16A.2.  The name of a subdivision is formed in a similar manner; it is distinguished from a divi-
sional name by an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the termination -phytina, unless it is a subdivi-
sion of fungi, in which case it should end in -mycotina.

16A.3.  The name of a class or of a subclass is formed in a similar manner and should end as fol-
lows:

(a)  In the algae: -phyceae (class) and -phycidae (subclass);

(b)  In the fungi: -mycetes (class) and –mycetidae (subclass);

(c)  In other groups of plants: -opsida (class) and -idae (subclass).

16A.4.  When a name has been published with a Latin termination not agreeing with this recom-
mendation, the termination may be changed to accord with it, without change of author’s name or
date of publication.

Recommendation 16B

16B.1.  In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of family, authors should
generally follow the principle of priority.

Article 17

17.1.  The name of an order or suborder is taken either from distinctive charac-
ters of the taxon (descriptive name) or from a legitimate name of an included
family based on a generic name (automatically typified name). An ordinal
name of the second category is formed by replacing the termination -aceae by
-ales. A subordinal name of the second category is similarly formed, with the
termination -ineae.

Ex. 1.  Descriptive names of orders: Centrospermae, Parietales, Farinosae; of a suborder: Enantio-
blastae.

Ex. 2.  Automatically typified names: Fucales, Polygonales, Ustilaginales; Bromeliineae, Malvi-
neae.

17.2.  Names intended as names of orders, but published with their rank de-
noted by a term such as "cohors", "nixus", "alliance", or "Reihe" instead of
"order", are treated as having been published as names of orders.

17.3.  When the name of an order or suborder based on a name of a genus has
been published with an improper Latin termination, this termination must be
changed to accord with the rule, without change of the author’s name or date
of publication.

Recommendation 17A

17A.1.  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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 21 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES

Article 18

18.1.  The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is
formed from the genitive singular of a legitimate name of an included genus by
replacing the genitive singular inflection (Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated
Greek -ou, -os, -es, -as, or -ous, including the latter’s equivalent -eos) with the
termination -aceae. For generic names of non-classical origin, when analogy
with classical names is insufficient to determine the genitive singular, -aceae is
added to the full word. For generic names with alternative genitives the one
implicitly used by the original author must be maintained.

Ex. 1.  Family names based on a generic name of classical origin: Rosaceae (from Rosa, Rosae),
Salicaceae (from Salix, Salicis), Plumbaginacae (from Plumbago, Plumbaginis), Rhodophyllaceae
(from Rhodophyllus, Rhodophylli), Rhodophyllidaceae (from Rhodophyllis, Rhodophyllidos),
Sclerodermataceae (from Scleroderma, Sclerodermatos), Aextoxicaceae (from Aextoxicon, Aex-
toxicou, Potamogetonaccae (from Potamogeton, Potamogetonos).

Ex. 2.  Family names based on a generic name of non-classical origin: Nelumbonaccae (from Ne-
lumbo, Nelumbonis, declined by analogy with umbo, umbonis), Ginkgoaceae (from Ginkgo,
indeclinable).

18.2.  Names intended as names of families, but published with their rank de-
noted 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.

18.3.  A name of a family or subdivision of a family based on an illegitimate
generic name is illegitimate unless conserved. Contrary to Art. 32.1(b) such a
name is validly published if it complies with the other requirements for valid
publication.

Ex. 3.  Caryophyllaceae, nom. cons. (from Caryophyllus Miller non L.); Winteraceae, nom. cons.
(from Wintera Murray, an illegitimate synonym of Drimys Forster & Forster f.).

18.4.  When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin
termination, the termination must be changed to conform with the rule, with-
out change of the author’s name or date of publication (see Art. 32.5).

Ex. 4.  "Coscinodisceae" Kütz. is to be accepted as Coscinodiscaceae Kütz. and not attributed to De
Toni, who first used the correct spelling (Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).

Ex. 5.  "Atherospermeae" R. Br. is to be accepted as Atherospermataceae R. Br. and not attributed
to Airy Shaw (in Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl. ed. 7. 104. 1966), who first used the correct spelling, or to
Lindley, who used the spelling "Atherospermaceae" (Veg. Kingd. 300. 1846).

Ex. 6.  However, Tricholomées Roze (Bull. Soc. Bot. France 23: 49. 1876) is not to be accepted as
Tricholomataceae Roze, because it has a French rather than a Latin termination. The name Tri-
cholomataceae was later validated by Pouzar (1983; see App. II).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 22 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

18.5.  The following names, sanctioned by long usage, are treated as validly
published: Palmae (Arecaceae; type, Areca L.); Gramineae (Poaceae; type, Poa
L.); Cruciferae (Brassicaceae; type, Brassica L.); Leguminosae (Fabaceae; type,
Faba Miller (= Vicia L. p.p.)); Guttiferae (Clusiaceae; type, Clusia L.); Umbel-
liferae (Apiaceae; type, Apium L.); Labiatae (Lamiaceae; type, Lamium L.);
Compositae (Asteraceae; type, Aster L.). When the Papilionaceae (Fabaceae;
type, Faba Miller) are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the
Leguminosae, the name Papilionaceae is conserved against Leguminosae (see
Art. 51.2).

18.6.  The use, as alternatives, of the names indicated in parentheses in Art.
18.5 is authorized.

Article 19

19.1.  The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is
formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by using the
termination -oideae instead of -aceae.

19.2.  A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination -eae, and a
subtribe similarly with the termination -inae.

19.3.  The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the family to which it is assigned is to be based on
the generic name equivalent to that type, but not followed by an author’s name
(see Art. 46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.18).

Ex. 1.  The type of the family name Rosaceae A. L. Juss. is Rosa L. and hence the subfamily and
tribe which include Rosa are to be called Rosoideae and Roseae.

Ex. 2.  The type of the family name Poaceae Barnhart (nom. alt., Gramineae A. L. Juss. – see Art.
18.5) is Poa L. and hence the subfamily and tribe which include Poa are to be called Pooideae and
Poëae.

Note 1.  This provision applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that include the type of
the adopted name of the family (but see Rec. 19A).

Ex. 3.  The subfamily including the type of the family name Ericaceae A. L. Juss. (Erica L.) is
called Ericoideae, and the tribe including this type is called Ericeae. However, the correct name of
the tribe including both Rhododendron L., the type of the subfamily name Rhododendroideae
Endl., and Rhodora L. is Rhodoreae G. Don (the oldest legitimate name), and not Rhododen-
dreae.

Ex. 4.  The subfamily of the family Asteraceae Dumort. (nom. alt., Compositae Giseke) including
Aster L., the type of the family name, is called Asteroideae, and the tribe and subtribe including
Aster are called Astereae and Asterinae, respectively. However, the correct name of the tribe
including both Cichorium L., the type of the subfamily name Cichorioideae Kitamura, and Lactuca
L. is Lactuceae Cass., not Cichorieae, while that of the subtribe including both Cichorium and
Hyoseris L. is Hyoseridinae Less., not Cichoriinae (unless the Cichoriaceae A. L. Juss. are ac-
cepted as a family distinct from Compositae).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 23 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

19.4.  The first valid publication of a name of a subdivision of a family that does
not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the family automatical-
ly establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts. 32.6 and 57.3).

19.5.  The name of a subdivision of a family may not be based on the same
generic name as is the name of the family or of any subdivision of the same
family unless it has the same type as that name.

19.6.  When a name of a taxon assigned to one of the above categories has been
published with an improper Latin termination, such as -eae for a subfamily or
-oideae for a tribe, the termination must be changed to accord with the rule,
without change of the author’s name or date of publication (see Art. 32.5).

Ex. 5.  The subfamily name "Climacieae" Grout (Moss Fl. N. Amer. 3: 4. 1928) is to be changed to
Climacioideae with rank and author’s name unchanged.

19.7.  When the Papilionaceae are included in the family Leguminosae (nom.
alt., Fabaceae; see Art. 18.5) as a subfamily, the name Papilionoideae may be
used as an alternative to Faboideae.

Recommendation 19A

19A.1.  If a legitimate name is not available for a subdivision of a family which includes the type of
the correct name of another taxon of higher or lower rank (e.g., subfamily, tribe, or subtribe), but

not of the family to which it is assigned, the new name of that taxon should be based on the same
generic name as the name of the higher or lower taxon.

Ex. 1.  Three tribes of the family Ericaceae, none of which includes the type of that family name
(Erica L.), are Pyroleae D. Don, Monotropeae D. Don, and Vaccinieae D. Don. The names of the
later-described subfamilies Pyroloideae (D. Don) A. Gray, Monotropoideae (D. Don) A. Gray,
and Vaccinioideae (D. Don) Endl. are based on the same generic names.
 

SECTION 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA

Article 20

20.1.  The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number, or a word
treated as such, and is written with a capital initial letter (see Art. 73.2). It may
be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an absolute-
ly arbitrary manner.

Ex. 1.  Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia, Liquidambar, Gloriosa, Impatiens, Rhododen-
dron, Manihot, Ifloga (an anagram of Filago).

20.2.  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 accom-
panied by a specific name published in accordance with the binary system of
Linnaeus.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 24 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  The generic name Radicula Hill (1756) coincides with the technical term "radicula" (radicle)
and was not accompanied by a specific name in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.
The name is correctly attributed to Moench (1794), who first combined it with specific epithets,
but at that time he included in the genus the type of the generic name Rorippa Scop. (1760). Radi-
cula Moench is therefore rejected in favour of Rorippa.

Ex. 3.  Tuber Wigg. : Fr., when published in 1780, was accompanied by a binary specific name
(Tuber gulosorum Wigg.) and is therefore validly published.

Ex. 4.  The generic names Lanceolatus Plumstead (1952) and Lobata V. J. Chapman (1952) coin-
cide with technical terms and are therefore not validly published.

Ex. 5.  Names such as Radix, Caulis, Folium, Spina, etc., cannot now be validly published as generic
names.

20.3.  The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless these words
are joined by a hyphen.

Ex. 6.  The generic name Uva ursi Miller (1754) as originally published consisted of two separate
words unconnected by a hyphen, and is therefore rejected; the name is correctly attributed to
Duhamel (1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphened when published).

Ex. 7.  However, names such as Quisqualis (formed by combining two words into one when origi-
nally published), Sebastiano-schaueria, and Neves-armondia (both hyphenated when originally
published) are validly published.

Note 1.  The names of intergeneric hybrids are formed according to the provisions of Art. H.6.

20.4.  The following are not to be regarded as generic names:

(a)  Words not intended as names.

Ex. 8.  Anonymos Walter (Fl. Carol. 2, 4, 9, etc. 1788) is rejected as being a word applied to 28
°ifferent genera by Walter to indicate that they were without names.

Ex. 9.  Schaenoides and Scirpoides, as used by Rottbøll (Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 14, 27. 1772) to
indicate unnamed genera resembling Schoenus and Scirpus which he stated (on page 7) he in-
tended to name later, are token words and not generic names. Kyllinga Rottb. and Fuirena Rottb.
(1773) are the first legitimate names of these genera.

(b)  Unitary designations of species.

Ex. 10.  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 are to 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.

Ex. 11.  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, em-
ployed by Necker for one of his "species naturales", was published as a generic name by Rafi-
nesque: Andropogon Raf. non Nutt.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 25 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 20A

20A.1.  Authors 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 genus.

(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).

(j)  Not to form generic names by combining parts of two existing generic names, e.g. Hordelymus
      from Hordeum and Elymus, because such names are likely to be confused with nothogeneric
       names (see Art. H.6).

Article 21

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

21.2.  The epithet is either of the same form as a generic name, or a plural ad-
jective agreeing in gender with the generic name and written with a capital
initial letter (see Art. 32.5).

21.3.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is not to be formed
from the name of the genus to which it belongs by adding the prefix Eu-.

Ex. 1.  Costus subg. Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect. Anomodiscus; Sapium subsect. Patentinervia;
Valeriana sect. Valerianopsis; Euphorbia sect. Tithymalus; Euphorbia subsect. Tenellae; Arenaria
ser. Anomalae; but not Carex sect. Eucarex.

Note 1. The use within the same genus of the same epithet in names of subdivisions of the genus,
even in different ranks, based on different types is illegitimate under Art. 64.

Note 2. The names of hybrids with the rank of a subdivision of a genus are formed according to
the provisions of Art. H.7.

Recommendation 21A

21A.1. 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 should be
placed in parentheses between the two; when desirable, its rank may also be indicated.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 26 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus; Astragalus (Phaca) umbellatus; Loranthus (sect.
Ischnanthus) gabonensis.

Recommendation 21B

21B.1. 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.

21B.2. Authors, 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.

Article 22

22.1.  The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat that
generic name unaltered as its epithet, but not followed by an author’s name
(see Art. 46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.21).

Note 1. This provision applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that include the type of
the adopted name of the genus (but see Rec. 22A).

22.2.  The first valid publication of a name of a subdivision of a genus that does
not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus automatically
establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts. 32.6 and 57.3).

Ex. 1.  The subgenus of Malpighia L. which includes the lectotype of the generic name (M. glabra
L.) is called Malpighia subg. Malpighia, and not Malpighia subg. Homoiostylis Niedenzu.

Ex. 2.  The section of Malpighia L. including the lectotype of the generic name is called Malpighia
sect. Malpighia, and not Malpighia sect. Apyrae DC.

Ex. 3.  However, the correct name of the section of the genus Rhododendron L. which includes
Rhododendron luteum Sweet, the type of Rhododendron subg. Anthodendron (Reichenb.) Reh-
der, is Rhododendron sect. Penthanthera G. Don, the oldest legitimate name for that section, and
not Rhododendron sect. Anthodendron.

22.3.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat un-
changed the correct name of the genus, except when the two names have the
same type.

22.4.  When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus is identical with or derived
from the epithet of one of its constituent species, the type of the name of the
subdivision of the genus is the same as that of the species name, unless the
original author of the subdivisional name designated another type.

Ex. 4.  The type of Euphorbia subg. Esula Pers. is E. esula L.; the designation of E. peplus L. as
lectotype by Croizat (Revista Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13. 1939) is rejected.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 27 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 5.  The type of Lobelia sect. Eutupa Wimmer is L. tupa L.

22.5.  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 type of
that later homonym, whose correct name necessarily has a different epithet,
that is the nomenclatural type.

Recommendation 22A

22A.1.  A section including the type of the correct name of a subgenus, but not including the type
of the correct name of the genus, should, where there is no obstacle under the rules, be given a
name with the same epithet and type as the subgeneric name.

22A.2.  A subgenus not including the type of the correct name of the genus should, where there is
no obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same epithet and type as a name of one of its
subordinate sections.

Ex. 1.  Instead of using a new name at the subgeneric level, Brizicky raised Rhamnus sect. Pseudo-
frangula Grubov to the rank of subgenus as Rhamnus subg. Pseudofrangula (Grubov) Briz. The
type of both names is the same, R. alnifolia L’Hér.
 

SECTION 4. NAMES OF SPECIES

Article 23

23.1.  The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of
the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an adjective, a
noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, but not a phrase in the ablative
(see Art. 23.6(c)). If an epithet consists of two or more words, these are to be
united or hyphenated. An epithet not so joined when originally published is not
to be rejected but, when used, is to be united or hyphenated (see Art. 73.9).

23.2.  The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source what-
ever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art. 73.1).

Ex. 1.  Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces fabae, Fumaria
gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasiniorum, Atropa bella-donna, Impatiens noli-tan-
gere, Adiantum capillus-veneris, Spondias mombin (an indeclinable epithet).

23.3.  Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus do not
invalidate the relevant names but must be transcribed.

Ex. 2.  Scandix pecten ♀ L. is to be transcribed as Scandix pecten-veneris; Veronica anagallis ∇ L.
is to be transcribed as Veronica anagallis-aquatica.

23.4.  The specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name with or
without the addition of a transcribed symbol (tautonym).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 28 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 3.  Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum.

23.5.  The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a substan-
tive, agrees grammatically with the generic name (see Art. 32.5).

Ex. 4.  Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra, Verbascum nigrum; Vinca major, Tropaeolum majus;
Rubus amnicola ("amnicolus"), the specific epithet being a Latin substantive; Peridermium bal-
sameum 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.

23.6.  The following are not to be regarded as specific epithets:

(a)  Words not intended as epithets.

Ex. 5.  Viola "qualis" Krocker (Fl. Sites. 2: 512, 517. 1790); Urtica "dubia?" Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-
Arab. cxxi. 1775), the word "dubia?" being repeatedly used in that work for species which could not
be reliably identified.

Ex. 6.  Atriplex "nova" Winterl (Index Horti Bot. Univ. Pest. fol. A. 8, recto et verso. 1788), the
word "nova" being here used in connection with four different species of Atriplex.

Ex. 7.  However, in Artemisia nova A. Nelson (Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274. 1900), nova was
intended as a specific epithet, the species having been newly distinguished from others.

(b)  Ordinal adjectives used for enumeration.

Ex. 8.  Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.

(c)  Epithets published in works in which the Linnaean system of binary
      nomenclature for species is not consistently employed. Linnaeus is re-
      garded as having used binary nomenclature for species consistently from
      1753 onwards, although there are exceptions, e.g. Apocynum fol. andro-
      saemi L. (Sp. Pl. 213. 1753 = Apocynum androsaemifolium L. Syst. Nat. ed.
      10: 946. 1759).

Ex. 9.  Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herb. 49. 1756) is a descriptive phrase reduced to two words, not
a binary name in accordance with the Linnaean system, and is to be rejected: Hill’s other species
was Abutilon flore flavo.

Ex. 10.  Secretan (Mycographie Suisse. 1833) introduced a large number of new specific names,
more than half of them not binomials, e.g. Agaricus albus corticis, Boletus testaceus scaber, Bole-
tus aereus carne lutea. He is therefore considered not to have consistently used the Linnaean
system of binary nomenclature and none of the specific names, even those with a single epithet, in
this work are validly published.

Ex. 11.  Other works in which the Linnaean system of binary nomenclature is not consistently
employed: Gilibert, Fl. Lit. Inch. 1781; Gilibert, Exerc. Phyt. 1792; Miller, Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4.
1754; W. Kramer, Elench. Veg. 1756.

(d)  Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H.10.3).

Recommendation 23A

23A.1.  Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epithets
should be in the form of substantives in the genitive (clusii, porsildiorum, saharae) or of adjectives
(clusianus, dahuricus) (see also Art. 73, Recs. 73C and D).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 29 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

23A.2.  The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to designate two different
species of the same genus should be avoided (e.g. Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliver and L. hemsleyi
Franchet).

Recommendation 23B

23B.1.  In forming specific epithets, authors 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 hyphenated 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 epithets from 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

24.1.  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.

Ex. 1.  Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engler & Irmscher. This can also be cited as Saxifraga
aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa Engler & Irmscher; in this way a
full classification of the subforma within the species is given.

24.2.  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 (see Art. 32.5).

Ex. 2.  Trifolium stellatum forma nanum (not nana).

24.3.  Infraspecific epithets such as typicus, originalis, originarius, genuinus,
verus, and veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon containing the type of the
name of the next higher taxon, are not validly published unless they repeat the
specific epithet because Art. 26 requires their use.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 30 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

24.4.  The use of a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet is not
admissible. Contrary to Art. 32.1(b), names so constructed are validly pub-
lished but are to be altered to the proper form without change of the author’s
name or date of publication.

Ex. 3.  "Salvia grandiflora subsp. S. willeana" Holmboe is to be cited as Salvia grandiflora subsp.
willeana Holmboe.

Ex. 4.  "Phyllerpa prolifera var. Ph. firma" Kütz. is to be altered to Phyllerpa prolifera var. firma
Kütz.

24.5.  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).

Ex. 5.  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 1.  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. 64.3.

Recommendation 24A

24A.1.  Recommendations made for specific epithets (Recs. 23A, B) apply equally to infraspecific
epithets.

Recommendation 24B

24B.1.  Authors proposing new infraspecific epithets should avoid those previously used for
species in the same genus.

Article 25

25.1.  For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon below the rank of
species is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, if any. In fungi, a holo-
morph (see Art. 59.4) also includes its correlated form-taxa.

Ex. 1.  When Montia parvifolia (DC.) Greene is treated as containing two subspecies, the name M.
parvifolia applies to the sum of these subordinate taxa. Under this taxonomic treatment, one must
write M. parvifolia (DC.) Greene subsp. parvifolia if only that part of M. parvifolia which includes
its nomenclatural type and excludes the type of the name of the other subspecies (M. parvifolia
subsp. flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris) is meant.

Article 26

26.1.  The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat the
specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet, but not followed by an author’s
name (see Art. 46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art.
7.21).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 31 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  The combination Lobelia spicata var. originalis McVaugh, applying to a taxon which in-
cludes the type of the name Lobelia spicata Lam., is to be replaced by Lobelia spicata Lam. var.
spicata.

Note 1.  This provision applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that include the type of
the adopted name of the species (but see Rec. 26A).

26.2.  The first valid publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon that does
not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species automati-
cally establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts. 32.6 and 57.3).

Ex. 2.  The publication of the name Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii Tuckerman (1843)
automatically established the name of another variety, Lycopodium inundatum L. var. inundatum,
the type of which is that of the name Lycopodium inundatum L.

Ex. 3.  Utricularia stellaris L. f. (1781) includes U. stellaris var. coromandeliana A. DC. (1844) and
U. stellaris L. f. var. stellaris (1844) automatically established at the same time. When U. stellaris is
included in U. inflexa Forsskål (1775) as a variety the correct name of the variety, under Art. 57.3,
is U. inflexa var. stellaris (L. f.) P. Taylor (1961).

Recommendation 26A

26A.1.  A variety including the type of the correct name of a subspecies, but not including the type
of the correct name of the species, should, where there is no obstacle under the rules, be given a
name with the same epithet and type as the subspecies name.

26A.2.  A subspecies not including the type of the correct name of the species should, where there
is no obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same epithet and type as a name of one of
its subordinate varieties.

26A.3.  A taxon of lower rank than variety which includes the type of the correct name of a subspe-
cies or variety, but not the type of the correct name of the species, should, where there is no
obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same epithet and type as the name of the sub-
species or variety. On the other hand, a subspecies or variety which does not include the type of the
correct name of the species should not be given a name with the same epithet as the name of one
of its subordinate taxa below the rank of variety.

Ex. 1.  Fernald treated Stachys palustris subsp. pilosa (Nutt.) Epling as composed of five varieties,
for one of which (that including the type of S. palustris subsp. pilosa) he made the combination S.
palustris var. pilosa (Nutt.) Fern., there being no legitimate varietal name available.

Ex. 2.  There being no legitimate name available at the rank of subspecies, Bonaparte made the
combination Pteridium aquilinum subsp. caudatum (L.) Bonap., using the same epithet that
Sadebeck had used earlier in the combination P. aquilinum var. caudatum (L.) Sadeb. (both names
based on Pteris caudata L.). Each name is legitimate, and both can be used, as by Tryon, who
treated P. aquilinum var. caudatum as one of four varieties under subsp. caudatum.

Article 27

27.1.  The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat
unchanged the epithet of the correct name of the species to which the taxon is
assigned unless the two names have the same type.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 32 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION

Article 28

28.1.  Plants brought from the wild into cultivation retain the names that are
applied to the same taxa growing in nature.

28.2.  Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as
provided in Appendix I (see also Arts. 40, and 50).

Note 1.  Additional, independent designations for plants used in agriculture, forestry, and horticul-
ture (and arising either in nature or cultivation) are dealt with in the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, where regulations are provided for their formation and use.
However, nothing precludes the use for cultivated plants of names published in accordance with
the requirements of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

Note 2.  Epithets published in conformity with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
may be used as cultivar epithets under the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants, when this is considered to be the appropriate status for the groups concerned.
Otherwise, cultivar epithets published on or after 1 January 1959 in conformity with the Inter-
national Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants are required to be fancy names markedly
different from epithets of names in Latin form governed by the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (see that Code, Art. 27).

Ex. 1.  Cultivar names: Taxus baccata 'Variegata' or Taxus baccata cv. Variegata (based on T.
baccata var. variegata Weston), Phlox drummondii 'Sternenzauber', Viburnum ×bodnantense
"Dawn".

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 33 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
 
 

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

Article 29

29.1.  Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed
matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to
botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not
effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of
names in collections or gardens open to the public, or by the issue of microfilm
made from manuscripts, type-scripts or other unpublished material.

Ex. 1.  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.

29.2.  Publication by indelible autograph before 1 Jan. 1953 is effective.

Ex. 2.  Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr. was effectively published in July 1850 in an autograph cata-
logue placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich, Catalogus Plantarum Hispanicarum ... ab A. Blanco
lectarum. Paris, July 1850, folio).

Ex. 3.  H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914-1915), a work lithographed from the handwritten
manuscript, is effectively published.

29.3.  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.

29.4.  Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1953 in tradesmen’s catalogues or non-
scientific newspapers, and on or after 1 Jan. 1973 in seed-exchange lists, does
not constitute effective publication.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 34 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 29A

29A.1.  It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing new names and descriptions of
new taxa in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular that which is multiplied in restrict-
ed and uncertain numbers, where the permanence of the text may be limited, where the effective
publication in terms of number of copies is not obvious, or where the printed matter is unlikely to
reach the general public. Authors should also avoid publishing new names and descriptions in
popular periodicals, in abstracting journals, or on correction slips.

Article 30

30.1.  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.

Ex. 1.  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) (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 disagreement with those on the title-pages of
the volumes, are accepted as the correct dates of effective publication.

30.2.  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.

Ex. 2.  Publication in separates issued in advance: the names of 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

30A.1.  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 effective publication.

Article 31

31.1.  The distribution on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of printed matter accompanying
exsiccata does not constitute effective publication.

Note 1.  If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the exsiccata, this constitutes
effective publication.

Ex. 1.  Works such as Schedae operis . . . plantae finlandiae exsiccatae, Helsingfors 1. 1906, 2. 1916,
3. 1933, 1944, or Lundell & Nannfeldt, Fungi exsiccati suecici etc., Uppsala 1-. . ., 1934-. . ., distrib-
uted independently of the exsiccata, whether published before or after 1 Jan. 1953, are effectively
published.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 35 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

Article 32

32.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted)
must (a) be effectively published (see Art. 29) on or after the starting-point
date of the respective group (Art. 13.1); (b) have a form which complies with
the provisions of Arts. 16-27 and Arts. H.6-7; (c) be accompanied by a de-
scription or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished description or diagnosis (except as provided in Art. H.9); and (d) com-
ply with the special provisions of Arts. 33-45.

Ex. 1.  Egeria Néraud (in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot. 25, 28. 1826), published without a de-
scription or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one, was not validly published.

Ex. 2.  The name Loranthus macrosolen Steudel originally appeared without a description or
diagnosis on the printed labels 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. Pl. Abyss. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.

Ex. 3.  In Sweet’s Hortus Britannicus, ed. 3 (1839), for each listed species the flower colour, the
duration of the plant, and a translation into English of the specific epithet are given in tabular
form. In many genera the flower colour and duration may be identical for all species and clearly
their mention is not intended as a validating description. New names appearing in that work are
therefore not validly published, except in some cases where reference is made to earlier descrip-
tions or to validly published basionyms.

32.2.  A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the opinion of its
author distinguishes the taxon from others.

32.3.  For the purpose of valid publication of a name, reference to a previously
and effectively published description or diagnosis may be direct or indirect
(Art. 32.4). For names published on or after 1 Jan. 1953 it must, however, be
full and direct as specified in Art. 33.2.

32.4.  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 descrip-
tion or diagnosis applies.

Ex. 4.  Kratzmannia Opiz (in Berchtold & Opiz, Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398. 1836) is pub-
lished 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 56. 1852), but without any description or
diagnosis. The citation of "Kratzmannia O." includes an indirect reference to the previously
published diagnosis in 1836.

Ex. 5.  Opiz published the name of the genus Hemisphace (Bentham) Opiz (1852) without a
description or diagnosis, but as he wrote "Hemisphace Benth." he indirectly referred to the pre-
viously effectively published description by Bentham (Labiat. Gen. Spec. 193. 1833) of Salvia sect.
Hemisphace.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 36 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 6.  The new combination Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) W. Watson (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 basionym Andropogon martini is indirect, it is perfectly unam-
biguous.

32.5.  Names published with an incorrect Latin termination but otherwise in
accordance with this Code are regarded as validly published; they are to be
changed to accord with Arts. 17-19, 21, 23, and 24, without change of the
author’s name or date of publication (see also Art. 73.10).

32.6.  Autonyms (Art. 6.8) are accepted as validly published names, dating
from the publication in which they were established (see Arts. 19.4, 22.2, 26.2),
whether or not they appear in print in that publication.

Note 1.  In certain circumstances an illustration with analysis is accepted as equivalent to a descrip-
tion (see Arts. 42 and 44).

Note 2.  For names of plant taxa that were originally not treated as plants, see Art. 45.4.

Recommendation 32A

32A.1.  A name should not be validated solely by a reference to a description or diagnosis pub-
lished before 1753.

Recommendation 32B

32B.1.  The description or diagnosis of any new taxon should mention the points in which the taxon
differs from its allies.

Recommendation 32C

32C.1.  Authors should avoid adoption of a name which has been previously but not validly pub-
lished for a different taxon.

Recommendation 32D

32D.1.  In describing new taxa, authors should, when possible, supply figures with details of struc-
ture as an aid to identification.

32D.2.  In the explanation of the figures, it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s) on which they
are based.

32D.3.  Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.

Recommendation 32E

32E.1.  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, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 37 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Article 33

33.1.  A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless the
author definitely associates the final epithet with the name of the genus or
species, or with its abbreviation.

Ex. 1.  Combinations validly published: In Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum the placing of the epithet
in the margin opposite the name of the genus clearly associates the epithet with the name of the
genus. 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 Botani-
cus by the arrangement of the epithets in a list headed by the name of the genus, and in general by
any typographical device which associates an epithet with a particular generic or specific name.

Ex. 2.  Combinations not validly published: Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia that "Le type
de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn." (J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not
constitute valid publication of the combination Blephilia ciliata, since he did not definitely as-
sociate the epithet ciliata with the generic name Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus
peucedanoides is not to be ascribed to Bentham on the basis of the listing of "Cnidium peucedano-
ides, H. B. et K." under Eulophus (in Bentham & Hooker, Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867).

33.2.  A new combination, or an avowed substitute (nomen novum), published
on or after 1 Jan. 1953, for a previously and validly published name is not valid-
ly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym)
or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated
and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication
with page or plate reference¹ and date. Errors of bibliographic citation and
incorrect forms of author citation (see Art. 46) do not invalidate publication of
a new combination or nomen novum.

Ex. 3.  In transferring Ectocarpus mucronatus Saund. to Giffordia, Kjeldsen & Phinney (Madroño
22: 90. 27 Apr. 1973) cited the basionym and its author but without reference to its place of valid
publication. They later (Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul. 1973) validated the binomial Giffordia mucronata
(Saund.) Kjeldsen & Phinney by giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication
of the basionym.

Ex. 4.  Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) Seymour (1969) was published as a new combination
"Based on Mespilus arbutifolia L. var. nigra Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800." Willdenow treated
these plants in the genus Pyrus, not Mespilus, and publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors
are treated as bibliographic errors of citation and do not invalidate the new combination.

Ex. 5.  The combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (Contr. Gray Herb. 200: 45.
1970) with a full and direct reference to Alsophila kalbreyeri C. Chr. (Index Filic. 44. 1905). This,
however, was not the place of valid publication of the basionym, which had previously been pub-
lished, with the same type, by Baker (Summ. New Ferns 9. 1892). Tryon’s bibliographic error of
citation does not invalidate this new combination, which is to be cited as Trichipteris kalbreyeri
(Baker) Tryon.

——————

1)  A page reference (for publications with a consecutive pagination) is here understood to
     mean a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym was validly published or on which
     the protologue is printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coex-
     tensive with that of the protologue.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 38 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 6.  The combination Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with a full and
direct reference to Peziza corticalis Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This, however, was not the place
of valid publication of the basionym, which, under the Code operating in 1980, was in Mérat
(Nouv. Fl. Env. Paris ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821), and under the present Code is in Persoon (Obs. Mycol. 1:
28. 1796). Raitviir’s bibliographic error of citation does not invalidate the new combination, which
is to be cited as Lasiobelonium corticale (Pers.) Raitviir.

33.3.  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.

Ex. 7.  Ciferri (Mycopath. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86-89. 1954), in proposing 142 new combinations in
Meliola, omitted references to places of publication of basionyms, stating that they could be found
in Petrak’s lists or in the Index of Fungi; none of these combinations was validly published. Simi-
larly, Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ. 18. 1963) introduced a new combination in the form Lecanora
campestns f. "pseudistera (Nyt.) Grumm. c.n. – L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521", in which "Z 5" referred to
Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. Univ., vol. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the basionym,
Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.; Grummann’s combination is not validly published.

Note 1.  The publication of a name for a taxon previously known under a misapplied name must be
valid under Arts. 32-45. This procedure is not the same as publishing an avowed substitute
(nomen novum) for a validly published but illegitimate name (Art. 72.1(b)), the type of which is
necessarily the same as that of the name which it replaced (Art. 7.11).

Ex. 8.  Sadleria hillebrandii Robinson (1913) was introduced as a "nom. nov." for "Sadleria pallida
Hilleb. Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888. Not Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. 75. 1832." Since the requirements of
Arts. 32-45 were satisfied (for valid publication prior to 1935, simple reference to a previous
description in any language is sufficient), the name is validly published. It is, however, to be
considered the name of a new species, validated by the citation of the misapplication of S. pallida
Hooker & Arn. by Hillebrand, and not a nomen novum as stated; hence, Art. 7.11 does not apply.

Ex. 9.  Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis F. J. Herm. (U.S. Forest Serv. Techn. Rep. RM-18: 14.
1975) was published as a "nom. et stat. nov." for J. sphaerocarpus "auct. Am., non Nees". Since
there is no Latin diagnosis, designation of type, or reference to any previous publication providing
these requirements, the name is not validly published.

33.4.  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.

Ex. 10.  The name sectio Orontiaceae was not validly published by R. Brown (Prodr. 337. 1810)
since he misapplied the term "sectio" to taxa of a rank higher than genus.

Ex. 11.  The names tribus Involuta Huth and tribus Brevipedunculata Huth (Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20:
365, 368. 1895) are not validly published, since Huth misapplied the term "tribus" to a taxon of a
rank lower than section, within the genus Delphinium.

Ex. 12.  Gandoger, in his Flora Europae (1883-1891), applied the term species ("espèce") and used
binary nomenclature for two categories of taxa of consecutive rank, the higher rank being equiva-
lent to that of species in contemporary literature. He misapplied the term species to the lower rank
and the names of these taxa ("Gandoger’s microspecies") are not validly published.

33.5.  An exception to Art. 33.4 is made for names of the subdivisions of genera
termed tribes (tribus) in Fries’s Systema Mycologicum, which are treated as
validly published names of subdivisions of genera.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 39 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 13.  Agaricus tribus Pholiota Fr. (1821) is a validly published basionym for the generic name
Pholiota (Fr.) P. Kummer (1871).

Recommendation 33A

33A.1.  The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym or replaced syn-
onym should immediately follow a proposed new combination or nomen novum. It should not be
provided by mere cross-reference to a bibliography at the end of the publication or to other parts
of the same publication, e.g. by use of the abbreviations "loc. cit." or "op. cit."

Article 34

34.1.  A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author
in the original publication; (b) 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); (c) when it is

merely cited as a synonym; (d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa
included in the taxon concerned.

34.2.  Art. 34.1( a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or
other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet published and accepted by the author.
Art. 34.1(b) does not apply to names for anamorphs of fungi published in
holomorphic genera in anticipation of the discovery of a particular kind of
teleomorph (see Art. 59, Ex. 2). 

Ex. 1.  (a) The name of the monotypic genus Sebertia Pierre (ms.) was not validly published by
Baillon (Bull. Mens. 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 (ms.) to the genus
Sersalisia R. Br. as Sersalisia ? acuminata; under the provision of Art. 34.2 this combination is
validly published. The name Sebertia Pierre (ms.) was later validly published by Engler (1897).

Ex. 2.  (a) The names listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium Amboinen-
se defended by Stickman (1754) were not accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not
validly published.

Ex. 3.  (a) (b) 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 or accept that genus. The correct name for the genus is
Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).

Ex. 4.  (c) Acosmus Desv. (in Desf., Cat. Pl. Horti Paris. 233. 1829), cited as a synonym of the
generic name Aspicarpa Rich., was not validly published thereby.

Ex. 5.  (c) Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch. (in Kunth, Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843), cited as a
synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth, was not validly published thereby; when trans-
ferred to Ornithogalum, this species is to be called O. boucheanum (Kunth) Ascherson (1866).

Ex. 6.  (c) Erythrina micropteryx Poeppig was not validly published by being cited as a synonym of
Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (1850); the species concerned, when placed under Erythrina, is to
be called E. poeppigiana (Walp.) Cook (1901).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 40 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 7.  (d) The family name Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre (Bull. Mens. 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 (Oct. 1897), which was accompanied by a
description.

Ex. 8.  (d) 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 Ibidium is not validly published.

34.3.  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. This rule does not apply in
those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different
ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within a species or for subdivisions of a
genus within a genus (see Recs. 22A.1-2, 26A.1-3).

Ex. 9.  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.

Ex. 10.  Euphorbia jaroslavii Polj. (Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 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 translitera-
tion of the initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961), who effectively published it with
a new reference to the earlier publication and simultaneously rejected the other name.

Ex. 11.  Description of "Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill var. tumidum, subsp.
et var. nov." (Brittonia 32: 474. 1980) simultaneously validated both M. bicuspidatum subsp.
tumidum S. R. Hill and M. bicuspidatum var. tumidum S. R Hill.

Note 1.  The name of a fungal holomorph and that of a correlated anamorph (see Art. 59), even if
validated simultaneously, are not alternative names in the sense of Art. 34.3. They have different
types and do not pertain to the same taxon: the circumscription of the holomorph is considered to
include the anamorph, but not vice versa.

Ex. 12.  Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929), the name of a fungal holomorph, and the simulta-
neously published name of a correlated anamorph, Helicosporium elinorae Linder, are both valid,
and both can be used under Art. 59.5.

Recommendation 34A

34A.1.  Authors should avoid publishing or mentioning in their publications unpublished names
which they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for these unpublished names have
not formally authorized their publication (see Rec. 23B.1(i)).

Article 35

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 41 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

35.2.  A new name or combination published before 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear
indication of rank is validly published provided that all other requirements for
valid publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative in questions of priority
except for homonymy (see Art. 64.4). If it is a new name, it may serve as a
basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent combinations or avowed substi-
tutes in definite ranks.

Ex. 1.  The groups Soldanellae, Sepincoli, Occidentales, etc., were published without any indication
of rank under the genus Convolvulus by House (Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908). These names are
validly published but they are not in any definite rank and have no status in questions of priority
except that they may act as homonyms.

Ex. 2.  In the genus Carex, the epithet Scirpinae was published for an infrageneric taxon of no
stated rank by Tuckerman (Enum. Caric. 8. 1843); this was assigned sectional rank by Kükenthal
(in Engler, Pflanzenr. 38 (IV.20): 81. 1909) and if recognized at this rank is to be cited as Carex
sect. Scirpinae (Tuckerman) Kükenthal.

35.3.  If in a given publication prior to 1 Jan. 1890 only one infraspecific rank is
admitted it is considered to be that of variety unless this would be contrary to
the statements of the author himself in the same publication.

35.4.  In questions of indication of rank, all publications appearing under the
same title and by the same author, such as different parts of a Flora issued at
different times (but not different editions of the same work), must be consid-
ered as a whole, and any statement made therein designating the rank of taxa
included in the work must be considered as if it had been published together
with the first instalment.

Article 36

36.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of plants, the
algae and all fossils excepted, published on or after 1 Jan. 1935 must be ac-
companied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously
and effectively published Latin description or diagnosis (but see Art. H.9).

Ex. 1.  The names Schiedea gregoriana Degener (Pl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 1936, Apr. 9) and S.
kealiae Caum & Hosaka (Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Mus. 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 it is not
validly published; the later S. kealiae is legitimate.

36.2.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae published on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied by a Latin de-
scription or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished Latin description or diagnosis.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 42 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 36A

36A.1.  Authors publishing names of new taxa of non-fossil plants should give or cite a full descrip-
tion in Latin in addition to the diagnosis.

Article 37

37.1.  Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1958 of the name of a new taxon of the rank
of genus or below is valid only when the holotype of the name is indicated (see
Arts. 7-10; but see Art. H.9, Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids).

37.2.  For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, inclusion of
reference (direct or indirect) to a single type of a name of a species is accept-
able as indication of the holotype (see also Art. 22.4; but see Art. 37.4).

37.3.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, citation of a single
element is acceptable as indication of the holotype (but see Art. 37.4). Mere
citation of a locality without concrete reference to a specimen does not how-
ever constitute indication of a holotype. Citation of the collector’s name and/or
collecting number and/or date of collection and/or reference to any other
detail of the type specimen or illustration is required.

37.4.  For the name of a new taxon published on or after 1 Jan. 1990, indication
of the holotype must include one of the words "typus" or "holotypus", or its
abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language.

37.5.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or
after 1 Jan. 1990 whose type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the
herbarium or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified.

Note 1.  Specification of the herbarium or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as
given in the Index Herbariorum.

Recommendation 37A

37A.1.  The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the description or
diagnosis and should use the Latin word "typus" or "holotypus".

Article 38

38.1.  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
description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished illustration or figure.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 43 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Article 39

39.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae of specific or lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be ac-
companied 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.

Recommendation 39A

39A.1.  The illustration or figure required by Art. 39 should be prepared from actual specimens,
preferably including the holotype.

Article 40

40.1.  In order to be validly published, names of hybrids of specific or lower
rank with Latin epithets must comply with the same rules as names of non-
hybrid taxa of the same rank.

Ex. 1.  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 (1950) is validly published, being accompanied by a Latin descrip-
tion with designation of type.

Ex. 2.  The name Rheum ×cultorum Thorsrud & Reis. (Norske Plantenavr. 95. 1948), being there a
nomen nudum, is not validly published.

Ex. 3.  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.

Note 1.  For names of hybrids of the rank of genus or subdivision of a genus, see Art. H.9.

40.2.  For purposes of priority, names in Latin form given to hybrids are subject
to the same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa of equivalent rank.

Ex. 4.  The name ×Solidaster Wehrh. (1932) antedates the name ×Asterago Everett (1937) for the
hybrid Aster × Solidago.

Ex. 5.  The name ×Gaulnettya W. J. Marchant (1937) antedates the name ×Gaulthettya Camp
(1939) for the hybrid Gaultheria × Pernettya.

Ex. 6.  Anemone ×hybrida Paxton (1848) antedates A. ×elegans Decne. (1852), pro sp., as the bino-
mial for the hybrids derived from A. hupehensis × A. vitifolia.

Ex. 7.  In 1927, Aimée Camus (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 33: 538) published the name ×Agro-
elymus as the name of a nothogenus, 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 (Art. H.9) is 1927, not 1952, and the name also antedates
×Elymopyrum Cugnac (Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938) which is accompanied by a
statement of parentage and a description in French but not Latin.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 44 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Article 41

41.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a family must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis of the family, or (b) by a reference (direct or
indirect) to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a
family or subdivision of a family.

Ex. 1.  The name "Pseudoditrichaceae fam. nov." was not validly published by Steere and Iwatsuki
(Canad. J. Bot. 52: 701. 1974) as there was no Latin diagnosis, description, or reference to either,
but only mention of the single included genus and species (see Art. 34.1(e)), "Pseudoditrichum
mirabile gen. et sp. nov.", for both of which the name was validated under Art. 42 by a single Latin
diagnosis.

41.2.  In order to be validly published, a name of a genus must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis of the genus (but see Art. 42), or (b) by a
reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively published descrip-
tion or diagnosis of a genus or subdivision of a genus.

Ex. 2.  Validly published generic names: Carphalea A. L. Juss., accompanied by a generic descrip-
tion; Thuspeinanta T. Durand, accompanied by a reference to the previously described genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non Herbert); Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch, based on a previously de-
scribed section, Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC.; Scirpoides Scheuchzer ex Séguier (Pl. Veron.
Suppl. 73. 1754), accepted there but without a generic description, validated by indirect reference
(through the title of the book and a general statement in the preface) to the generic diagnosis and
further direct references in Séguier (Pl. Veron. 1: 117. 1745).

Note 1.  An exception to Art. 41.2 is made for the generic names first published by Linnaeus in
Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762-1763), which are treated as having been validly
published on those dates (see Art. 13.4).

Note 2.  In certain circumstances, an illustration with analysis is accepted as equivalent to a generic
description (see Art. 42.2).

41.3.  In order to be validly published, a name of a species must be accompa-
nied (a) by a description or diagnosis of the species (but see Arts. 42 and 44),
or (b) by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or
diagnosis of a species or infraspecific taxon, or (c), under certain circumstan-
ces, by reference to a genus whose name was previously and validly published
simultaneously with its description or diagnosis. A reference as mentioned
under (c) is acceptable only if neither the author of the name of the genus nor
the author of the name of the species indicate that more than one species
belongs to the genus in question.

Ex. 3.  Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated by a generic description but without mention of a
name of a species. Trilepisium madagascariense DC. (1828) was subsequently proposed without a
description of the species. Neither author gave any indication that there was more than one species
in the genus. Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s specific name is therefore validly published.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 45 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Article 42

42.1.  The names of a genus and a species may be simultaneously validated by
provision of a single description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis,
even though this may have been intended as only generic or specific, if all of
the following conditions obtain: (a) the genus is at that time monotypic; (b) no
other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the
same type; and (c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the
requirements for valid publication. Reference to an earlier description or
diagnosis is not accepted as provision of such a description or diagnosis.

Note 1.  In this context a monotypic genus is one for which a single binomial is validly published,
even though the author may indicate that other species are attributable to the genus.

Ex. 1.  The names Kedarnatha Mukherjee & Constance (Brittonia 38: 147. 1986) and Kedarnatha
sanctuarii Mukherjee & Constance, the latter designating the only species in the new genus, are
both validly published although a Latin description is provided only under the generic name.

Ex. 2.  Piptolepis phillyreoides Bentham is a new species assigned to the monotypic new genus
Piptolepis published with a combined generic and specific description.

Ex. 3.  In publishing Phaelypea without a generic description, P. Browne (Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica
269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave the species a phrase-name and did
not provide a valid binomial. Art. 42 does not therefore apply and Phaelypea is not validly pub-
lished.

42.2.  Prior to 1 Jan. 1908 an illustration with analysis, or for non-vascular
plants a single figure showing details aiding identification, is acceptable, for the
purpose of this Article, in place of a written description or diagnosis.

Note 2.  An analysis in this context is a figure or group of figures, commonly separate from the
main illustration of the plant (though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding
identification, with or without a separate caption.

Ex. 4.  The generic name Philgamia Baillon (1894) was validly published, as it appeared on a plate
with analysis of the only included species, P. hibbertioides Baillon, and was published before 1 Jan.
1908.

Article 43

43.1.  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.

Ex. 1.  Binary designations for six species of Suaeda, including Suaeda baccata and S. vera, were
published with diagnoses and descriptions by Forsskål (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.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 46 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  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 Kremp.), 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 di-
agnosis cannot validate the generic name as a descriptio generico-specifica under Art. 42 since the
new genus was not monotypic. Valid publication of the name Phlyctidia was by Müller (1895), who
provided a short generic diagnosis. 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 1.  This Article applies also to specific and other epithets published under words not to be
regarded as generic names (see Art. 20.4).

Ex. 3.  The binary combination Anonymos aquatica Walter (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788) is not validly
published. The correct name for the species concerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmelin (1791),
and the date of the name, for purposes of priority, is 1791. The species must not be cited as Pla-
nera aquatica (Walter) J. F. Gmelin.

Ex. 4.  The binary combination Scirpoides paradoxus Rottb. (Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 27. 1772) is not
validly published since Scirpoides in this context is a word not intended as a generic name. The
first validly published name for this species is Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).

Article 44

44.1.  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 (see Art. 42, Note 2).

Ex. 1.  Panax nossibiensis Drake (1896) was validly published on a plate with analysis.

44.2.  Single figures of non-vascular plants showing details aiding identification
are considered as illustrations with analysis (see Art. 42, Note 2).

Ex. 2.  Eunotia gibbosa Grunow (1881), a name of a diatom, was validly published by provision of a
single figure of the valve.

Article 45

45.1.  The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When the various con-
ditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is that on
which the last is fulfilled. However, the name must always be explicitly ac-
cepted in the place of its validation. A name published on or after 1 Jan. 1973
for which the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously
fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and direct reference (Art. 33.2) is
given to the places where these requirements were previously fulfilled.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 47 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  Clypeola minor first appeared in the Linnaean thesis Flora Monspeliensis (1756), in a list of
names preceded by numerals but without an explanation of the meaning of these numerals and
without any other descriptive matter; when the thesis was reprinted in vol. 4 of the Amoenitates
Academicae (1759), a statement was added explaining that the numbers referred to earlier descrip-
tions published in Magnol’s Botanicon Monspeliense. However, Clypeola minor was absent from
the reprint, being no longer accepted by Linnaeus, and the name is not therefore validly published.

Ex. 2.  When proposing Graphis meridionalis as a new species, in 1966. Nakanishi (J. Sci. Hiro-
shima Univ., ser. B (2), 11: 75) provided a Latin description but failed to designate a holotype.
Graphis meridionalis Nakanishi was validly published only in 1967 (J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., ser.
B (2), 11: 265) when he designated the holotype of the name and provided a full and direct re-
ference to the previous publication.

45.2.  A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 73) does not
affect its date of valid publication.

Ex. 3.  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 name even though the correction dates
only from 1883 (Engler in A. DC. & C. DC., Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).

45.3.  For purposes of priority only legitimate names are taken into considera-
tion (see Arts. 11, 63-65). However, validly published earlier homonyms,
whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection of their later homonyms, unless
the latter are conserved or sanctioned (but see Art. 14 Note 2).

45.4.  If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to a group of plants other than algae, the authorship and
date of any of its names are determined by the first publication that satisfies
the requirements for valid publication under this Code. If the taxon is treated
as belonging to the algae, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements
of the pertinent non-botanical code for status equivalent to valid publication
under the botanical Code (but see Art. 65, regarding homonymy).

Ex. 4.  Amphiprora Ehrenb. (1843) is an available¹ name for a genus of animals first treated as
belonging to the algae by Kützing (1844). Amphiprora has priority in botanical nomenclature from
1843, not 1844.

Ex. 5.  Petalodinium J. Cachon & M. Cachon (Protistologica 5: 16. 1969) is available under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the name of a genus of dinoflagellates. When
the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae, its name retains its original authorship and date even
though the original publication lacked a Latin diagnosis.

Ex. 6.  Labyrinthodyction Valkanov (Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969), although available under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the name of a genus of rhizopods, is not valid
when the taxon is treated as belonging to the fungi because the original publication lacked a Latin
diagnosis.

Ex. 7.  Protodiniferidae Kofoid & Swezy (Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921), available under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, is validly published as a name of a family of algae
with its original authorship and date but with the termination -idae changed to -aceae (in accord-
ance with Arts. 18.4 and 32.5).

——————

1)  The word "available" in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is equivalent to
      "validly published" in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 48 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 45A

45A.1.  Authors using new names in works written in a modern language (floras, catalogues, etc.)
should simultaneously comply with the requirements of valid publication.

Recommendation 45B

45B.1.  Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In a work ap-
pearing 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

45C.1.  On separately printed and issued copies of works published in a periodical, the name of the
periodical, the number of its volume or parts, the original pagination, and the date (year, month,
and day) should be indicated.
 

SECTION 3. CITATION OF AUTHORS' NAMES FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION

Article 46

46.1.  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 validly published the name concerned unless the
provisions for autonyms apply (Arts. 19.3, 22.1, and 26.1; see also Art. 16.1).

Ex. 1.  Rosaceae A. L. Juss., Rosa L., Rosa gallica L., Rosa gallica var. eriostyla R. Keller, Rosa
gallica L. var. gallica.

46.2.  When a name of a taxon and its description or diagnosis (or reference to
a description or diagnosis) are supplied by one author but published in a work
by another author, the word "in" is to be used to connect the names of the two
authors. When it is desirable to simplify such a citation, the name of the author
who supplied the description or diagnosis is to be retained.

Ex. 2.  Viburnum ternatum Rehder in Sargent, Trees and Shrubs 2: 37 (1907), or V. ternatum
Rehder; Teucrium charidemi Sandw. in Lacaita, Cavanillesia 3: 38 (1930), or T. charidemi Sandw.

46.3.  When an author who validly publishes a name ascribes it to another per-
son, e.g. to an author who failed to fulfil all requirements for valid publication
of the name or to an author who published the name prior to the nomenclatu-
ral starting point of the group concerned (see Art. 13.1), the correct author
citation is the name of the validating author, but the name of the other person,
followed by the connecting word "ex", may be inserted before the name of the
validating author (see also Rec. 50A.2). The same holds for names of garden
origin ascribed to "hort.", meaning "hortulanorum".

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 49 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 3.  Gossypium tomentosum Seemann or G. tomentosum Nutt. ex Seemann; Lithocarpus poly-
stachyus (A. DC.) Rehder or L. polystachyus (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder; Orchis rotundifolia Pursh
or O. rotundifolia Banks ex Pursh; Carex stipata Willd. or C. stipata Muhlenb. ex Willd.; Gesneria
donklarii Hooker or G. donklarii hort. ex Hooker.

Ex. 4.  Lupinus L. or Lupinus Tourn. ex L.; Euastrum binale Ralfs or E. binale Ehrenb. ex Ralfs.

Ex. 5.  The name Lichen debilis, which was validly published by Smith (1812) with "Calicium debile.
Turn. and Borr. Mss." cited as a synonym, is not to be attributed to "Turner & Borrer ex Smith"
(see also Rec. 50A.2).

Recommendation 46A

46A.1.  Authors’ names put after names of plants may be abbreviated, unless they are very short.
For this purpose, particles should be suppressed unless they are an inseparable part of the name,
and the first letters should be given without any omission (Lam. for J. B. P. A. Monet Chevalier de
Lamarck, but De Wild. for E. De Wildeman).

46A.2.  If a name of one syllable is long enough to make it worth while to abridge it, the first
consonants only should be given (Fr. for Elias Magnus Fries); if the name has two or more sylla-
bles, the first syllable and the first letter of the following one should be taken, or the two first when
both are consonants (Juss. for Jussieu, Rich. for Richard).

46A.3.  When it is necessary to give more of a name to avoid confusion between names beginning
with the same syllable, the same system should be followed. For instance, two syllables should be
given together with the one or two first consonants of the third; or one of the last characteristic
consonants of the name be added (Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish it from Bertero; Michx. for
Michaux, to distinguish it from Micheli).

46A.4.  Given names or accessory designations serving to distinguish two botanists of the same
name should be abridged in the same way (Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu, Gaertner f. for
Gaertner filius, J. F. Gmelin for Johann Friedrich Gmelin, J. G. Gmelin for Johann Georg Gme-
lin, C. C. Gmelin for Carl Christian Gmelin, S. G. Gmelin for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin, Müll. Arg.
for Jean Müller of Aargau).

46A.5.  When it is a well-established custom to abridge a name in another manner, it is advisable
to conform to it (L. for Linnaeus, DC. for Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle, St.-Hil. for Saint­
Hilaire, R. Br. for Robert Brown).

Recommendation 46B

46B.1.  In citing the author of the scientific name of a taxon, the romanization of the author’s
name(s) given in the original publication should normally be accepted. Where an author failed to
give a romanization, or where an author has at different times used different romanizations, then
the romanization known to be preferred by the author or that most frequently adopted by the
author should be accepted. In the absence of such information the author’s name should be ro-
manized in accordance with an internationally available standard.

46B.2.  Authors of scientific names whose personal names are not written in Roman letters should
romanize their names, preferably (but not necessarily) in accordance with an internationally
available standard and, as a matter of typographic convenience, without diacritical signs. Once
authors have selected the romanization of their personal names, they should use it consistently
thereafter. Whenever possible, authors should not permit editors or publishers to change the
romanization of their personal names.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 50 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 46C

46C.1.  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 (&).

Ex. 1.  Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et Wilson (or Britton & Wilson).

46C.2.  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."

Ex. 2.  Lapeirousia erythrantha var. welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck, Lisowski, Malaisse & Symoens
(Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique 105: 336. 1972) should be cited as L. erythrantha var. welwitschii
(Baker) Geerinck et al.

Recommendation 46D

46D.1.  Authors should cite their own names after each new name they publish; the expression
"nobis" (nob.) or a similar reference to themselves should be avoided.

Article 47

47.1.  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

47A.1.  When an alteration as 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 lato" (s. l.), "sensu stricto" (s. str.), etc.

Ex. 1.  Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.; Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).

Article 48

48.1.  When an author adopts an existing name but explicitly excludes its origi-
nal type, he is considered to have published a later homonym that must be
ascribed solely to him. Similarly, when an author who adopts a name refers to
an apparent basionym but explicitly excludes its type, he is considered to have
published a new name that must be ascribed solely to him. Explicit exclusion
can be effected by simultaneous explicit inclusion of the type in a different
taxon by the same author (see also Art. 59.6).

Ex. 1.  Sirodot (1872) placed the type of Lemanea Bory (1808) in Sacheria Sirodot (1872); hence
Lemanea, as treated by Sirodot (1872), is to be cited as Lemanea Sirodot non Bory and not as
Lemanea Bory emend. Sirodot.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 51 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  The name Amorphophallus campanulatus, published by Decaisne, was apparently based on
Arum campanulatum Roxb. However, the type of the latter was explicitly excluded by Decaisne,
and the name is to be cited as Amorphophallus campanulatus Decne., not as Amorphophallus
campanulatus (Roxb.) Decne.

Note 1.  Misapplication of a new combination to a different taxon, but without explicit exclusion of
the type of the basionym, is dealt with under Arts. 55.2 and 56.2.

Note 2.  Retention of a name in a sense that excludes the type can be effected only by conservation
(see Art. 14.8).

Article 49

49.1.  When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank but retains its
name or epithet, the author of the earlier, epithet-bringing legitimate name
(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 new name).
The same holds when a taxon of lower rank than genus is transferred to an-
other genus or species, with or without alteration of rank.

Ex. 1.  Medicago polymorpha var. orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of species becomes Medi-
cago orbicularis (L.) Bartal.

Ex. 2.  Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. raised to generic rank, retaining the epithet Aspalatho-
ides as its name, is cited as Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch.

Ex. 3.  Cineraria sect. Eriopappus Dumort. (Pl. Belg. 65. 1827) when transferred to Tephroseris
(Reichenb.) Reichenb. is cited as Tephroseris sect. Eriopappus (Dumort.) Holub (Folia Geobot.
Phytotax. Bohem. 8: 173. 1973).

Ex. 4.  Cistus aegyptiacus L. when transferred to Helianthemum Miller is cited as Helianthemum
aegyptiacum (L.) Miller.

Ex. 5.  Fumaria bulbosa var. solida L. (1753) was elevated to specific rank as F. solida (L.) Miller
(1771). The name of this species when transferred to Corydalis is to be cited as C. solida (L.)
Clairv. (1811), not C. solida (Miller) Clairv.

Ex. 6.  However, Pulsatilla montana var. serbica W. Zimmerm. (Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni
Veg. 61: 95. 1958), originally placed under P. montana subsp. australis (Heuffel) Zam., retains the
same author citation when placed under P. montana subsp. dacica Rummelsp. (see Art. 24.1) and
is not cited as var. serbica (W. Zimmerm.) Rummelsp. (Feddes Repert. 71: 29. 1965).

Ex. 7.  Salix subsect. Myrtilloides C. Schneider (Ill. Handb. Laubholzk. 1: 63. 1904), originally
placed under S. sect. Argenteae Koch, retains the same author citation when placed under S. sect.
Glaucae Pax and is not cited as S. subsect. Myrtilloides (C. Schneider) Dorn (Canad. J. Bot. 54:
2777. 1976).

Article 50

50.1.  When a taxon at the rank of species or below is transferred from the
non-hybrid category to the hybrid category of the same rank (Art. H.10.2), or
vice versa, the author citation remains unchanged but may be followed by an
indication in parentheses of the original category.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 52 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  Stachys ambigua Smith was published as the name of a species. If regarded as applying to a
hybrid, it may be cited as Stachys ×ambigua Smith (pro sp.).

Ex. 2.  The binary name Salix ×glaucops Andersson was published as the name of a hybrid. Later,
Rydberg (Bull. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899) considered the taxon to be a species. If this view
is accepted, the name may be cited as Salix glaucops Andersson (pro hybr.).
 
 

SECTION 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION

Recommendation 50A

50A.1.  In the citation of a name published as a synonym, the words "as synonym" or "pro syn."
should be added.

50A.2.  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 (see also Art. 46.3).

Ex. 1.  Myrtus serratus, a manuscript name of Koenig published by Steudel as a synonym of Euge-
nia laurina Willd., should be cited thus: Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steudel, pro syn.

Recommendation 50B

50B.1.  In the citation of a nomen nudum, its status should be indicated by adding the words
"nomen nudum" or "nom. nud."

Ex. 1.  Carex bebbii Olney (Car. Bor.-Am. 2: 12. 1871), published without a diagnosis or descrip-
tion, should be cited as a nomen nudum.

Recommendation 50C

50C.1.  The citation of a later homonym 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 other homonyms, preceded by the word "nec".

Ex. 1.  Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Amer. J. Sci. Arts 19: 170 (1831), non Borkh. 1800; Lindera
Thunb., Nov. Gen. Pl. 64 (1783), non Adanson 1763; Bartlingia Brongn., Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 10:
373 (1827), non Reichenb. 1824 nec F. Muell. 1882.

Recommendation 50D

50D.1.  Misidentifications should not be included in synonymies but added after them. A misap-
plied name should be indicated by the words "auct. non" followed by the name of the original
author and the bibliographic reference of the misidentification.

Ex. 1.  Ficus stortophylla Warb. in Warb. & De Wild., Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, B, Bot. ser. 4, 1: 32
(1904). F. irumuensis De Wild., Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341 (1922). F. exasperata auct. non Vahl: De Wild.
& T. Durand, Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, B, Bot. ser. 2, 1: 54 (1899); De Wild., Miss. Em. Laurent 26
(1905); T. Durand & H. Durand, Syll. Pl. Congol. 505 (1909).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 53 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 50E

50E.1.  If a generic or specific name is accepted as a nomen conservandum (see Art. 14 and App.
III) the abbreviation "nom. cons." should be added in a full citation.

Ex. 1.  Protea L., Mant. Pl. 187 (1771), nom. cons., non L. 1753; Combretum Loefl. (1758), nom.
cons. (syn. prius Grislea L. 1753).

50E.2.  If it is desirable to indicate the sanctioned status of the names of fungi adopted by Persoon
or Fries (see Art. 13.1(d)), ": Pers." or ": Fr." should be added to the citation.

Ex. 2.  Boletus piperatus Bull. : Fr.

Recommendation 50F

50F.1.  If a name is cited with alterations from the form as originally published, it is desirable that
in full citations the exact original form should be added, preferably between single or double
quotation marks.

Ex. 1.  Pyrus calleryana Decne. (Pyrus mairei H. Léveillé, Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12: 189.
1913, "Pirus").

Ex. 2.  Zanthoxylum cribrosum Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 1: 946 (1825), "Xanthoxylon". (Zanthoxylum
caribaeum var. floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 23: 225. 1888, "Xanthoxylum").

Ex. 3.  Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson, Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496 (1967), "solomonensis".

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 54 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER V. RETENTION, CHOICE, AND REJECTION OF

NAMES AND EPITHETS
 
 

SECTION 1.   RETENTION OF NAMES OR EPITHETS WHEN TAXA

ARE REMODELLED OR DIVIDED

Article 51

51.1.  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 (a) by
transference of the taxon (Arts. 54–56), or (b) by its union with another taxon
of the same rank (Arts. 57,58), or (c) by a change of its rank (Art. 60).

Ex. 1.  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 is cited as Myosotis L. or as Myosotis L. emend. R. Br. (see Art. 47, Rec.
47A).

Ex. 2.  Various authors have united with Centaurea jacea L. one or two species which Linnaeus
had kept distinct; the taxon so constituted is called Centaurea jacea L. sensu amplo or Centaurea
jacea L. emend. Cosson & Germ., emend. Vis., or emend. Godron, etc.; any new name for this
taxon, such as Centaurea vulgaris Godron, is superfluous and illegitimate.

51.2.  An exception to Art. 51.1 is made for the family name Papilionaceae (see
Art. 18.5).

Article 52

52.1.  When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name, if
correct, must be retained for one of them. If a type was originally designated
the generic name must be retained for the genus including that type. If no type
has been designated, a type must be chosen (see Rec. 7B).

Ex. 1.  The genus Dicera Forster & Forster f. was divided by Rafinesque into the two genera Misi-
pus and Skidanthera. This procedure is contrary to the rules: the name Dicera must be kept for
one of the genera, and it is now retained for that part of Dicera including the lectotype, D. dentata.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 55 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 2.  Among the sections which have been recognized in the genus Aesculus L. are Aesculus sect.
Aesculus, sect. Pavia (Miller) Walp., sect. Macrothyrsus (Spach) K. Koch, and sect. Calothyrsus
(Spach) K. Koch, 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 Aesculus hippocastanum L, the type of the generic
name.

Article 53

53.1.  When a species is divided into two or more species, the specific name, if
correct, must be retained for one of them. If a particular specimen, descrip-
tion, or figure was originally designated as the type, the specific name must be
retained for the species including that element. If no type has been designated,
a type must be chosen (see Rec. 7B).

Ex. 1.  Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (1887) was based on specimens which represented at least two
species in the opinion of Munz, who based A. shockleyi Munz (1932) on one of the specimens cited
by Watson, retaining the name A. beckwithii for the others (one of which may be designated as
lectotype of A. beckwithii).

Ex. 2.  Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus L (1753) was originally treated by Linnaeus as consisting of
two varieties: var. flava ("flavus") and var. fulva ("fulvus"). In 1762 he recognized these as distinct
species, calling them H. flava and H. fulva. The original specific epithet was reinstated for one of
these by Farwell (Amer. Midl. Naturalist 11: 51. 1928) and the two species are correctly named H.
lilioasphodelus L. and H. fulva (L.) L.

53.2.  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

54.1.  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, the
epithet of its formerly correct name must be retained unless one of the fol-
lowing obstacles exists:

(a)  The resulting combination has been previously and validly published for a
       subdivision of a genus based on a different type;

(b)  The epithet of an earlier legitimate name of the same rank is available
       (but see Arts. 13.1(d), 58, 59);

(c)  Arts. 21 or 22 provide that another epithet be used.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 56 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  Saponaria sect. Vaccaria DC. when transferred to Gypsophila becomes Gypsophila sect.
Vaccaria (DC.) Godron.

Ex. 2.  Primula sect. Dionysiopsis Pax (1909) when transferred to the genus Dionysia becomes
Dionysia sect. Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melchior (1943); the name Dionysia sect. Ariadne Wendelbo
(1959), based on the same type, is not to be used.

Article 55

55.1.  When a species is transferred to another genus or placed under another
generic name for the same genus without change of rank, the epithet of its
formerly correct name must be retained unless one of the following obstacles
exists:

(a)  The resulting binary name is a later homonym (Art. 64) or a tautonym
       (Art. 23.4);

(b)  The epithet of an earlier legitimate specific name is available (but see
       Arts. 13.1(d), 58, 59).

Ex. 1.  Antirrhinum spurium L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Linaria must be called
Linaria spuria (L.) Miller (1768).

Ex. 2.  Spergula stricta Sw. (1799) when transferred to the genus Arenaria must be called Arenaria
uliginosa Schleicher ex Schlechtendal (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 used and the species called Minuartia stricta (Sw.) Hiern (1899).

Ex. 3.  Conyza candida L. (1753) was illegitimately renamed Conyza limonifolia Smith (1813) and
Inula limonifolia Boiss. (1843). However, the Linnaean epithet must be retained and the correct
name of the species, in the genus Inula, is L. candida (L.) Cass. (1822).

Ex. 4.  When transferring Serratula chamaepeuce L. (1753) to his new genus Ptilostemon, Cassini
renamed the species P. muticus Cass. (1826, "muticum"). Lessing rightly reinstated the original
specific epithet, creating the combination Ptilostemon chamaepeuce (L.) Less. (1832).

Ex. 5.  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 legiti-
mate.

Ex. 6.  Arum dracunculus L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Dracunculus was renamed
Dracunculus vulgaris Schott (1832), as use of the Linnaean epithet would create a tautonym.

Ex. 7.  Melissa calamintha L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Thymus becomes T. calamintha
(L.) Scop. (1772); placed in the genus Calamintha it may not be called C. calamintha (a tautonym)
but has been named C. officinalis Moench (1794). However, when C. officinalis is transferred to
the genus Satureja, the Linnaean epithet is again available and the name becomes S. calamin-
tha (L.) Scheele (1843).

Ex. 8.  Cucubalus behen L. (1753) was legitimately renamed Behen vulgaris Moench (1794) to
avoid the tautonym Behen behen. If the species is transferred to the genus Silene, it may not retain
its original epithet because of the existence of a Silene behen L. (1753). Therefore, the substitute
name Silene cucubalus Wibel (1799) was created. However, the specific epithet vulgaris was still
available under Silene. It was rightly reinstated in the combination Silene vulgaris (Moench)
Garcke (1869).

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 57 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

55.2.  On transference of a specific epithet under another generic name, the
resulting combination must be retained for the species to which the type of the
basionym belongs, and attributed to the author who first published it, even
though it may have been applied erroneously to a different species (Art. 7.12; but
see Arts. 48.1 and 59.6).

Ex. 9.  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.) Sarg. The combination Tsuga mertensiana
(Bong.) Carrière must not be applied to T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. 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 name.

Article 56

56.1.  When an infraspecific taxon is transferred without change of rank to
another genus or species, the final epithet of its formerly correct name must be
retained unless one of the following obstacles exists:

(a)  The resulting ternary combination, with a different type, has been pre-
       viously and validly published for an infraspecific taxon of any rank;

(b)  The epithet of an earlier legitimate name at the same rank is available (but
       see Arts. 13.1(d), 58, 59);

(c)  Art. 26 provides that another epithet be used.

Ex. 1.  Helianthemum italicum var. micranthum Gren. & Godron (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847) when
transferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal retains its varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. & Godron) Grosser (in Engler. Pflanzenr. 14 (IV.193):
115. 1903).

56.2.  On transference of an infraspecific epithet under another specific name,
the resulting combination must be retained for the taxon to which the type of
the basionym belongs, and attributed to the author who first published it, even
though it may have been applied erroneously to a different taxon (Art. 7.12;
but see Arts. 48.1 and 59.6).

SECTION 3.  CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN TAXA OF THE SAME RANK ARE UNITED

Article 57

57.1.  When two or more taxa of the same rank are united, the earliest legiti-
mate name or (for taxa below the rank of genus) the final epithet of the earliest
legitimate name is retained, unless another epithet or a later name must be
accepted under the provisions of Arts. 13.1(d), 14, 16.1, 19.3, 22.1, 26.1, 27,
55.1, 58, or 59.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 58 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  Schumann (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III, 6: 5. 1890), uniting the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753), Echinocarpus Blume (1825), and Phoenicosperma Miq. (1865), rightly adopted
the earliest of these three generic names, Sloanea L., for the resulting genus.

57.2.  The author who first unites taxa bearing names of equal priority must
choose one of them, unless an autonym is involved (see Art. 57.3). As soon as
that choice is effectively published (Arts. 29-31), the name thus chosen is
treated as having priority.

Ex. 2.  If the two genera Dentaria L. (1 May 1753) and Cardamine L. (1 May 1753) are united, the
resulting genus must be called Cardamine because that name was chosen by Crantz (Cl. Crucif.
Emend. 126. 1769), who was the first to unite the two genera.

Ex. 3.  R. Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exp. Congo 484. 1818) appears to have been the first to unite
Waltheria americana L. (1 May 1753) and W. indica L. (1 May 1753). He adopted the name W.
indica for the combined species, and this name is accordingly to be retained.

Ex. 4.  Baillon (Adansonia 3: 162. 1863), when uniting for the first time Sclerocroton integerrimus
Hochst. (Flora 28: 85. 1845) and Sclerocroton reticulatus Hochst. (Flora 28: 85. 1845), adopted the
epithet integerrimus in the name of the combined taxon. Consequently this epithet is to be re-
tained irrespective of the generic name (Sclerocroton, Stillingia, Excoecaria, Sapium) with which it
is combined.

Ex. 5.  Linnaeus in 1753 simultaneously published the names Verbesina alba and V. prostrata.
Later (1771), he published Eclipta erecta, a superfluous name because V. alba is cited in syn-
onymy, and E. prostrata, based on V. prostrata. The first author to unite these taxa was Roxburgh
(Fl. Ind. 3: 438. 1832), who did so under the name Eclipta prostrata (L.) L., which therefore is to
be used if these taxa are united and placed in the genus Eclipta.

Ex. 6.  When the genera Entoloma (Fr. ex Rabenb.) P. Kummer (1871), Leptonia (Fr.) P. Kummer
(1871), Eccilia (Fr.) P. Kummer (1871), Nolanea (Fr.) P. Kummer (1871), and Claudopus Gillet
(1876) are united, one of the generic names simultaneously published by Kummer must be used
for the whole, as was done by Donk (Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg ser. 3, 18(1): 157. 1949) who
selected Entoloma. The name Rhodophyllus Quélet (1886), introduced to cover these combined
genera, is superfluous.

57.3.  An autonym is treated as having priority over the name or names of the
same date and rank that established it.

Note 1.  When the final epithet of an autonym is used in a new combination under the require-
ments of Art. 57.3, the basionym of that combination is the name from which the autonym is
derived.

Ex. 7.  Heracleum sibiricum L. (1753) includes H. sibiricum subsp. lecokii (Godron & Gren.)
Nyman (1879) and H. sibiricum subsp. sibiricum (1879) automatically established at the same time.
When H. sibiricum is included in H. sphondylium L. (1753) as a subspecies, the correct name for
the taxon is H. sphondylium subsp. sibiricum (L.) Simonkai (1887), not subsp. lecokii, whether or
not subsp. lecokii is treated as distinct.

Ex. 8.  The publication of Salix tristis var. microphylla Andersson (Salices Bor.-Amer. 21. 1858)
created the autonym S. tristis Aiton (1789) var. tristis. If S. tristis, including var. microphylla, is
recognized as a variety of S. humilis Marshall (1785), the correct name is S. humilis var. tristis
(Aiton) Griggs (Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci. 4: 301. 1905). However, if both varieties of S. tristis are
recognized as varieties of S. humilis, then the names S. humilis var. tristis and S. humilis var.
microphylla (Andersson) Fernald (Rhodora 48: 46.1946) are both used.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 59 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 9.  In the classification adopted by Rollins and Shaw, Lesquerella lasiocarpa (Hooker ex A.
Gray) S. Watson is composed of two subspecies, subsp. lasiocarpa (which includes the type of the
name of the species and is cited without an author) and subsp. berlandieri (A. Gray) Rollins & E.
Shaw. The latter subspecies is composed of two varieties. In this classification the correct name of
the variety which includes the type of subsp. berlandieri is L. lasiocarpa var. berlandieri (A. Gray)
Payson (1922), not L. lasiocarpa var. berlandieri (cited without an author) or L. lasiocarpa var.
hispida (S. Watson) Rollins & E. Shaw (1972), based on Synthlipsis berlandieri var. hispida S.
Watson (1882), since publication of the latter name established the autonym Synthlipsis berlan-
dieri A. Gray var. berlandieri which, at varietal rank, is treated as having priority over var. hispida.

Recommendation 57A

57A.1.  Authors who have to choose between two generic names should note the following sugges-
tions:

(a)  Of two names of the same date, to prefer that which was first accompanied by the description
       of a species.

(b)  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.

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

Article 58

58.1.  When a non-fossil taxon of plants, algae excepted, and a fossil (or subfos-
sil) taxon of the same rank are united, the correct name of the non-fossil taxon
is treated as having priority (see Pre.7 and Art. 13.3).

Ex. 1.  If Platycarya Siebold & Zucc. (1843), a non-fossil genus, and Petrophiloides Bowerbank
(1840), a fossil genus, are united, the name Platycarya is accepted for the combined genus, al-
though it is antedated by Petrophiloides.

Ex. 2.  The generic name Metasequoia Miki (1941) was based on the fossil type of M disticha
(Heer) Miki. After discovery of the non-fossil species M. glyptostroboides Hu & Cheng, conserva-
tion of Metasequoia Hu & Cheng (1948) as based on the non-fossil type was approved. Otherwise,
any new generic name based on M. glyptostroboides would have had to be treated as having
priority over Metasequoia Miki.

SECTION 4.  NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE

Article 59

59.1.  In ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi (including Ustilaginales)
with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as a meiotic sexual morph
(teleomorph), the correct name covering the holomorph (i.e., the species in all
its morphs) is – except for lichen-forming fungi – the earliest legitimate name
typified by an element representing the teleomorph, i.e. the morph character-
ized by the production of asci/ascospores, basidia/basidiospores, teliospores, or
other basidium-bearing organs.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 60 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

59.2.  For a binary name to qualify as a name of a holomorph, not only must its
type specimen be teleomorphic, but also the protologue must include a diagno-
sis or description of this morph (or be so phrased that the possibility of refer-
ence to the teleomorph cannot be excluded).

59.3.  If these requirements are not fulfilled, the name is that of a form-taxon
and is applicable only to the anamorph represented by its type, as described or
referred to in the protologue. The accepted taxonomic disposition of the type
of the name determines the application of the name, no matter whether the
genus to which a subordinate taxon is assigned by the author(s) is holomorphic
or anamorphic.

59.4.  The priority of names of holomorphs at any rank is not affected by the
earlier publication of names of anamorphs judged to be correlated morphs of
the holomorph.

59.5.  The provisions of this article shall not be construed as preventing the
publication and use of binary names for form-taxa when it is thought necessary
or desirable to refer to anamorphs alone.

Note 1.  When not already available, specific or infraspecific names for anamorphs may be pro-
posed at the time of publication of the name for the holomorphic fungus or later. The epithets
may, if desired, be identical, as long as they are not in homonymous combinations.

59.6.  As long as there is direct and unambiguous evidence for the deliberate
introduction of a new morph judged by the author(s) to be correlated with the
morph typifying a purported basionym, and this evidence is strengthened by
fulfilment of all requirements in Arts. 32-45 for valid publication of a name of a
new taxon, any indication such as "comb. nov." or "nom. nov." is regarded as a
formal error, and the name introduced is treated as that of a new taxon, and
attributed solely to the author(s) thereof. When only the requirements for valid
publication of a new combination (Arts. 33, 34) have been fulfilled, the name is
accepted as such and based, in accordance with Art. 55, on the type of the
declared or implicit basionym.

Ex. 1.  The name Penicillium brefeldianum Dodge, based on teleomorphic and anamorphic mate-
rial, is a valid and legitimate name of a holomorph, in spite of the attribution of the species to a
form-genus. It is legitimately combined in a holomorphic genus as Eupenicillium brefeldianum
(Dodge) Stolk & Scott. P. brefeldianum is not available for use in a restricted sense for the ana-
morph alone.

Ex. 2.  The name Ravenelia cubensis Arthur & Johnston, based on a specimen bearing only uredi-
nia (an anamorph), is a valid and legitimate name of an anamorph, in spite of the attribution of the
species to a holomorphic genus. It is legitimately combined in a form-genus as Uredo cubensis
(Arthur & Johnston) Cummins. R. cubensis is not available for use inclusive of the teleomorph.

Ex. 3.  Mycosphaerella aleuritidis was published as "(Miyake) Ou comb. nov., syn. Cercospora
aleuritidis Miyake" but with a Latin diagnosis of the teleomorph. The indication "comb. nov." is
taken as a formal error, and M. aleuritidis Ou is accepted as a validly published new specific name
for the holomorph, typified by the teleomorphic material described by Ou.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– 61 –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 4.  Corticium microsclerotium was published in 1939 as "(Matz) Weber, comb. nov., syn. Rhiz-
octonia microsclerotia Matz" with a description, only in English, of the teleomorph. Because of
Art. 36, this may not be considered as the valid publication of the name of a new species, and so C.
microsclerotium (Matz) Weber must be considered a validly published and legitimate new combi-
nation based on the specimen of the anamorph that typifies its basionym. C microsclerotium
Weber, as published in 1951 with a Latin description and a teleomorphic type, is an illegitimate
later homonym of the combination C. microsclerotium (Matz) Weber (1939), typified by an ana-
morph.

Ex. 5.  Hypomyces chrysospermus Tul. (Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 4, 13: 16. 1860), presented as the
name of a holomorph without the indication "comb. nov." but with explicit reference to Mucor
chrysospermus (Bull.) Bull. and Sepedonium chrysospermum (Bull.) Fr., which are names of its
anamorph, is not to be considered as a new combination but as the name of a newly described
species, with a teleomorphic type.

Recommendation 59A

59A.1.  When a new morph of a fungus is described, it should be published either as a new taxon
(e.g., gen. nov., sp. nov., var. nov.) whose name has a teleomorphic type, or as a new anamorph
(anam. nov.) whose name has an anamorphic type.

59A.2.  When in naming a new morph of a fungus the epithet of the name of a different, earlier
described morph of the same fungus is used, the new name should be designated as the name of a
new taxon or anamorph, as the case may be, but not as a new combination based on the earlier
name.

SECTION 5.  CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN THE RANK OF A TAXON IS CHANGED

Article 60

60.1.  In no case does a name have priority outside its own rank (but see Art.
64.4).

Ex. 1.  Campanula sect. Campanopsis R Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) as a genus is called Wahlenbergia
Roth (1821), a name conserved against the taxonomic synonym Cervicina Delile (1813), and not
Campanopsis (R Br.) Kuntze (1891).

Ex. 2.  Magnolia virginiana var. foetida L. (1753) when raised to specific rank is called Magnolia
grandiflora L. (1759), not M. foetida (L.) Sarg. (1889).

Ex. 3.  Lythrum intermedium Ledeb. (1822) when treated as a variety of Lythrum salicaria L.
(1753) has been called L. salicaria var. glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. 2: 127. 1843), and hence may not
be called L. salicaria var. intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne (Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1: 327. 1881).