INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
 
 

                                               PREAMBLE
 

1.  Botany requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature used by
botanists in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms which denote
the ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the scien-
tific names which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of plants¹.
The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is not to indicate its
characters or history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its
taxonomic rank. This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming
taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause
error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is the
avoidance of the useless creation of names. Other considerations, such as abso-
lute grammatical correctness, regularity or euphony of names, more or less
prevailing 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 maintained.

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 rejected,
but they are not examples to be followed.

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

______________ 

¹  In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “plant” means any organism traditionally studied
   by botanists (see Pre. 7).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 01 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

7.  The rules and recommendations apply to all organisms traditionally treated
as plants, whether fossil or non-fossil¹, e.g., blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria)²;
fungi, including chytrids, oomycetes, and slime moulds; photosynthetic protists
and taxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups.

8.  Special provisions are needed for certain groups of plants: The International
code of nomenclature for cultivated plants-1980 was adopted by the Interna-
tional Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants; provisions for
the names of hybrids appear in App. I.

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

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

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

______________ 

¹  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).

²  For the nomenclature of other prokaryote groups, see the International code of nomenclature of
   bacteria.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 02 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

DIVISION I.  PRINCIPLES

Principle I

Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological and bacteriological
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, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 03 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

DIVISION II.  RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER I.  RANKS OF TAXA

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 an indefinite number of
taxa of consecutively subordinate rank, among which the rank of species
(species) is basic.

Article 3

3.1.  The principal ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom (reg-
num), division or phylum (divisio, phylum), class (classis), order (ordo), family
(familia), genus (genus), and species (species). Thus, except for some fossil
plants (see Art. 3.3), each species is assignable to a genus, each genus to a
family, etc.

3.2.  The principal ranks of nothotaxa (hybrid taxa) are nothogenus and notho-
species. These are the same ranks as genus and species, only the terms denot-
ing the ranks differing in order to indicate the hybrid character (see App. 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. (Pteridopsida),
Stigmaria Brongn. (Lepidodendrales), Spermatites Miner (seed-bearing plants).

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

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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 04 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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.  The secondary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are tribe (tribus)
between family and genus, section (sectio) and series (series) between genus
and species, and variety (varietas) and form (forma) below species.

4.2.  If a greater number of ranks of taxa is desired, the terms for these are
made by adding the prefix sub- to the terms denoting the principal or secondary
ranks. A plant may thus be assigned to taxa of the following ranks (in descend-
ing sequence): regnum, subregnum, divisio or phylum, subdivisio or subphy-
lum, classis, subclassis, ordo, subordo, familia, subfamilia, tribus, subtribus,
genus, subgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, subspecies, vari-
etas, subvarietas, forma, subforma.

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

4.4.  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
App. 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, subspe-
cific, 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 Art. 3 and 4 must not be
altered (see Art. 33.5 and 33.6).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 05 –

text: © 1994, 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 Art. 29-31.

6.2.  Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Art. 32-45 or
H.9 (see also Art. 61).

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 Art. 18.3, 19.5, or
52-54 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 2). A name which according to
this Code was illegitimate when published cannot become legitimate later un-
less 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
& Urb. ex Taub. (1892), based on the single species D. martinicensis. Both generic names are correct
when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 19: 291. 1924),
however, united Vexillifera and Dussia in a single genus; the latter name is the correct one for the genus
with this particular circumscription. The legitimate name Vexillifera may therefore be correct or incor-
rect 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 Art. 21,
23, and 24).

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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 06 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

6.8.  Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under Art.
22.3 and 26.3, whether or not they appear in print in the publication in which
they are created (see Art. 32.7).

SECTION 2.  TYPIFICATION

Article 7

7.1.  The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is
determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The
application of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by means of
types when the names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.7).

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 element
of a taxon.

7.3.  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 2).

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.

7.4.  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,
even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered
not to include that type (but see Art. 48.1 and 59.6).

Ex. 2.  Pinus mertensiana Bong. was transferred to the genus Tsuga by Carrière, who, however, as is
evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combination T. mertensiana to another
species of Tsuga, namely T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. The combination Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.)
Carrière must not be applied to T. heterophylla but must be retained for P. mertensiana 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.

Ex. 3.  Iridaea splendens (Setch. & N. L. Gardner) Papenf., I. cordata var. splendens (Setch. & N. L.
Gardner) I. A. Abbott (in Syesis 4: 55. 1972), and Gigartina cordata var. splendens (Setch. & N. L.
Gardner) D. H. Kim (in Nova Hedwigia 27: 40. 1976) all have the same type as their basionym,
Iridophycus splendens Setch. & N. L. Gardner, namely, Gardner 7781 (UC No. 539565).

7.5.  A name which, under Art. 52, was illegitimate when published is either
automatically typified by the type of the name which ought to have been
adopted under the rules, or by a different type designated or definitely indi-
cated by the author of the illegitimate name. Automatic typification does not
apply to names sanctioned under Art. 15.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 07 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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

7.7.  A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively
published description or diagnosis (Art. 32.1(c)) 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 (but see Art. 10.2).
However, the type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatu-
ral starting-point later than 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be determined in accord-
ance with the indication or descriptive and other matter accompanying its valid
publication (see Art. 32-45).

Ex. 4.  Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to Rumphius
(Herb. Amboin. 3: t. 112. 1743), 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. 5.  Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or diagnosis but
with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a “Lycopsis” species was
discussed with no description or diagnosis but with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin
(Pinax: 255. 1623). 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 (in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Natur-
wiss. 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 Gibbs (in Lagascalia 1: 60-61. 1971) and
formally made by Stearn (in Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973).

7.8.  Typification of names adopted in one of the works specified in Art.
13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned (Art. 15), may be effected in the light of
anything associated with the name in that work.

7.9.  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 1.  See also Art. 59 for details regarding typification of names in certain pleomorphic
fungi.

7.10.  For purposes of priority (Art. 9.13 and 10.5), designation of a type is
achieved only by effective publication (Art. 29-31).

7.11.  For purposes of priority (Art. 9.13 and 10.5), 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. 6.  Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907) originally comprised two species, C. minor and C. elegans.
Vischer (1933) transferred the former to Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained the latter in Chloro-
sarcina. He did not, however, use the term “type” or an equivalent, so that his action does not constitute
typification of Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a type, as “LT.”, was Starr (in ING Card No.
16528, Nov 1962), who selected Chlorosarcina elegans.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 08 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

*Ex. 7.  The phrase “standard species” as used by Hitchcock & Green (in Anon., Nomencl. Prop. Brit.
Botanists: 110-199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to “type”, and hence type designations in this
work are acceptable.

Recommendation 7A

7A.1.  It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based,
especially the holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection with a
policy of giving bona fide botanists open access to deposited material, and that it be scrupu-
lously conserved.

Article 8

8.1.  The type of a name of a species or infraspecific 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).

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

*Ex. 1.  The strain CBS 7351, given as the type of the name Candida populi Hagler & al. (in Int. J. Syst.
Bacteriol. 39: 98. 1989), is acceptable as a nomenclatural type as it is permanently preserved in a
metabolically inactive state by lyophilization (see also Rec. 8B.2).

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

8.4.  The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or
below is the specimen whose figure either accompanies or is cited in the valid
publication 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 speci-
mens must be chosen as the type.

8.5.  One whole specimen used in establishing a taxon of fossil plants is to be
considered the nomenclatural type.

Recommendation 8A

8A.1.  When a holotype, a lectotype or a neotype is an illustration (see Art. 8.3), the
specimen or specimens upon which that illustration is based should be used to help deter-
mine the application of the name.

8A.2.  When it is impossible to preserve a type specimen and an illustration is designated as
the type of the name of a new taxon (see Art. 8.3), the collection data of the illustrated
material should be given (see also Rec. 32D.2).

______________ 

*  Here and elsewhere in the Code, a prefixed asterisk denotes a “voted Example” (see Preface, p. x).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 09 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

8A.3.  If the type specimen of a name of a fossil plant is cut into pieces (sections of fossil
wood, pieces of coal-ball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in establishing the diagnosis
ought to be clearly marked.

Recommendation 8B

8B.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 at least two
institutional culture or genetic resource collections. (Such action does not obviate the re-
quirement for a holotype specimen under Art. 8.2.)

8B.2.  In cases where the nomenclatural type is a culture permanently preserved in a meta-
bolically inactive state (see Art. 8 Ex. 1), any living isolates obtained from that should be
referred to as “ex-type” (ex typo), “ex-holotype” (ex holotypo), “ex-isotype” (ex isotypo),
etc., in order to make it clear they are derived from the type but are not themselves the
nomenclatural type.

Article 9

9.1.  A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one
specimen or illustration used by the author, or designated by the author as the
nomenclatural type. As long as a holotype is extant, it fixes the application of
the name concerned (see also Art. 10).

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. 9.9). 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 or diagnosis of the taxon, the same consider-
ations apply to material included by the earlier author (see Art. 7.7 and 7.8).

9.2.  A lectotype is a specimen or illustration (see Art. 8.3) designated as the
nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art. 9.9, when no holotype was indi-

cated at the time of publication, when the holotype is found to belong to more
than one taxon, or as long as it is missing.

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

9.4.  A syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited in the protologue²
when no holotype was designated, or any one of two or more specimens
simultaneously designated as types.

______________ 

¹  Here and elsewhere, the word duplicate is given its usual meaning in herbarium curatorial practice. It
   is part of a single gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon made by a collector at one time.
   The possibility of a mixed gathering must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype,
   and corresponding caution used.

²  Protologue (from the Greek protos, first; logos, discourse): everything associated with a name at its
   valid publication, i.e. description or diagnosis, illustrations, references, synonymy, geographical data,
   citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 10 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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

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 specimen
collected by the Forestry Service of Surinam as a paratype (B. W. 1618 in U).

Note 2.  In most cases in which no holotype was designated there will also be no paratypes,
since all the cited specimens will be syntypes. However, when an author designated two or
more specimens as types (Art. 9.4), any remaining cited specimens are paratypes and not
syntypes.

9.6.  A neotype is a specimen or illustration (see Art. 8.3) selected to serve as
nomenclatural type as long as all of the material on which the name of the
taxon was based is missing (see also Art. 9.11).

9.7.  An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpret-
ative type when the holotype, lectotype or previously designated neotype, or all
original material¹ associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably
ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise appli-
cation of the name of a taxon. When an epitype is designated, the holotype,
lectotype or neotype that the epitype supports must be explicitly cited.

9.8.  The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1-9.7) as denoting a type, in
a sense other than that in which it is so defined, is treated as an error to be
corrected (for example, the use of the term lectotype to denote what is in fact a
neotype).

Ex. 2.  Borssum Waalkes (in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7 (LINN) as the
holotype of Sida retusa L. (1763). The term is incorrectly used because illustrations in Plukenet
(Phytographia: t. 9, f. 2. 1691) and Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 19. 1750) were cited by Linnaeus in
the protologue of S. retusa. Since all three elements are original material (Art. 9.9, footnote), Borssum
Waalkes’s use of holotype is an error to be corrected to lectotype.

9.9.  If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon, or when the holotype 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. 9.6), a neotype as a substitute for it may be
designated (Art. 7.10 and 7.11). A lectotype always takes precedence over a
neotype, except as provided by Art. 9.11. 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 an

______________ 

¹  For the purposes of this Code, “original material” comprises: (a) those specimens and illustrations
   (both unpublished and published either prior to or together with the protologue) upon which it can be
   shown that the description or diagnosis validating the name was based; (b) the holotype and those
   specimens which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name,
   were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid publication; and (c) the
   isotypes or isosyntypes of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either the
   author of the validating description or diagnosis, or the author of the name.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 11 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

isosyntype (duplicate of syntype) nor any other part of the original material is
extant, a neotype may be selected.

Note 3.  When two or more specimens have been designated as types by the author of a
name (e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.), the lectotype must be chosen from
among them (see Art. 9.4).

9.10.  When a type specimen (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) con-
tains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.9), the name must
remain attached to that part which corresponds most nearly with the original
description or diagnosis.

Ex. 3.  The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is Lorentz 128 in BM; this,
however, proved to be a mixture. Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in accordance
with this rule in designating one part of Lorentz’s gathering as the lectotype.

9.11.  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. 9.12).

9.12.  A neotype selected under Art. 9.11 may be superseded if it can be shown
to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.

9.13.  The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be fol-
lowed, 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 protologue and
another element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (c)
that it is contrary to Art. 9.10.

9.14.  On or after 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of a
name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished illustra-
tion (see Art. 8.3) is not effected unless the herbarium or institution in which
the type is conserved is specified.

Recommendation 9A

9A.1.  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 herbarium 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.

9A.2.  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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 12 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

9A.3.  In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name should be
given preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue. Such indications are
manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recognizable figures, and epithets such
as typicus, genuinus, etc.

9A.4.  When a single collection is cited in the protologue, but a particular institution housing
this is not designated, it should be assumed that the specimen housed in the institution where
the author is known to have worked is the holotype, unless there is evidence that he used
further material of the same collection.

9A.5.  When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original
description or diagnosis, 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. 9.13).

9A.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 (see Art.
8.4).

Recommendation 9B

9B.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 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. 10.4). For purposes of
designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e., it is
considered as the full equivalent of its type.

Note 1.  Terms such as “holotype”, “syntype”, and “lectotype”, as presently defined in Art.
9, although not applicable, strictly speaking, to the types of names in ranks higher than
species, are so used by analogy.

10.2.  If in the protologue of the name of a genus or of any subdivision of a
genus the holotype or lectotype of one or more previously or simultaneously
published species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. 10.3), the type must
be chosen (Art. 7.10 and 7.11) from among these types unless the type was
indicated (Art. 22.5, 22.6, and 37.2) or designated by the author of the name. If
no type of a previously or simultaneously published species name was defi-
nitely included, 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.

Ex. 1.  The genus Anacyclus, as originally circumscribed by Linnaeus (1753), comprised three validly
named species. Cassini (in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 34: 104. 1825) designated Anthemis valentina L.
(1753) as type of Anacyclus, but this was not an original element of the genus. Green (in Anon.,

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 13 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 182. 1929) designated Anacyclus valentinus L. (1753), “the only one of
the three original species still retained in the genus”, as the “standard species” (see Art. 7 Ex. 7), and her
choice must be followed (Art. 10.5). Humphries (in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Bot. 7: 109. 1979)
designated a specimen in the Clifford Herbarium (BM) as lectotype of Anacyclus valentinus, and that
specimen thereby became the ultimate type of the generic name.

Ex. 2.  Castanella Spruce ex Benth. & Hook. f. (1862) was described on the basis of a single specimen
and without mention of a species name. Swart (in ING Card No. 2143. 1957) was the first to designate a
type (as “T.”): C. granatensis Triana & Planch. (1862), based on a Linden collection. As long as the
Spruce specimen is considered to be conspecific with Linden’s collection Swart’s type designation
cannot be superseded, even though the Spruce specimen became the type of Paullinia paullinioides
Radlk. (1896), because the latter is not a “previously or simultaneously published species name”.

10.3.  For the purposes of Art. 10.2, definite inclusion of the type of a name of
a species is effected by citation of, or reference (direct or indirect) to, a validly
published name, whether accepted or synonymized by the author, or by citation
of the holotype or lectotype of a previously or simultaneously published name
of a species.

Ex. 3.  The protologue of Elodes Adans. (1763) included references to “Elodes” of Clusius (1601),
“Hypericum” of Tournefort (1700), and Hypericum aegypticum L. (1753). The latter is the only refer-
ence to a validly published name of a species, and neither of the other elements is the type of a name of
a species. The type of H. aegypticum is therefore the type of Elodes, even though subsequent authors
designated H. elodes L. (1759) as the type (see Robson in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 5: 305, 336.
1977).

10.4.  By and only by conservation (Art. 14.9), the type of a name of a genus
may be a specimen or illustration, preferably used by the author in the prepara-
tion of the protologue, other than the type of a name of an included species.

Ex. 4.  Physconia Poelt has been conserved with the specimen “‘Lichen pulverulentus’, Germania,
Lipsia in Tilia, 1767, Schreber (M)” as the type.

Note 2.  If the element designated under Art. 10.4 is the type of a species name, that name
may be cited as the type of the generic name. If the element is not the type of a species
name, a parenthetical reference to the correct name of the type element may be added.

10.5.  The author who first designates a type of a name of a genus or subdivi-
sion of a genus must be followed, but the choice may be superseded if (a) it
can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another
element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (b) that it
was based on a largely mechanical method of selection.

Ex. 5.  Fink (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 14(1): 2. 1910) specified that he was “stating the types of the
genera according to the ‘first species’ rule”. His type designations may therefore be superseded.

*Ex. 6.  Authors following the American code of botanical nomenclature, Canon 15 (in 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 is to be considered as largely mechanical. Thus the first
type designation for 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 under Art. 10.5(b) by
the designation of D. peregrinum L. by Green (in Anon., Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 162. 1929).
The unicarpellate D. consolida could not have been superseded as type by the tricarpellate D. peregri-
num under Art. 10.5(a), however, because it is not in serious conflict with the generic protologue, which
specifies “germina tria vel unum”, the assignment of the genus to “Polyandria Trigynia” by Linnaeus
notwithstanding.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 14 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

10.6.  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 (Art. 18.5 and 19.8).

10.7.  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 3.  For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera see Art. 22.5 and 22.6.

Recommendation 10A

10A.1.  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 type of the generic name should be selected
from the subdivision of the genus that was designated as nomenclaturally typical, if that is
apparent.

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 Art. 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 Art. 3.3 and 59.5.

11.2.  In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is
published (but see Art. 53.5).

Ex. 1.  Campanula sect. Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr.: 561. 1810) when treated 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 M. grandiflora
L. (1759), not M. foetida (L.) Sarg. (1889).

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

Ex. 4.  When the two varieties constituting Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus L. (1753), var. flava L. and
var. fulva L., are considered to be distinct species, the one not including the lectotype of the species
name is called H. fulva (L.) L. (1762), but the other one bears the name H. lilioasphodelus L., which in
the rank of species has priority over H. flava (L.) L. (1762).

11.3.  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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 15 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

priority by conservation (see Art. 14) or where Art. 11.7, 15, 19.4, 56, 57, or 59
apply.

Ex. 5.  When Aesculus L. (1753), Pavia Mill. (1754), Macrothyrsus Spach (1834) and Calothyrsus
Spach (1834) are referred to a single genus, its name is Aesculus L.

11.4.  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 assigned,
except (a) in cases of limitation of priority under Art. 14, 15, 56 or 57, or (b) if
the resulting combination would be invalid under Art. 32.1(b) or illegitimate
under Art. 53, or (c) if Art. 11.7, 22.1, 26.1, or 59 rule that a different combina-
tion is to be used.

Ex. 6.  Primula sect. Dionysiopsis Pax (in Jahresber. Schles. Ges. Vaterländ. Kultur 87: 20. 1909)
when transferred to Dionysia Fenzl becomes D. sect. Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melch. (in Mitt. Thüring. Bot.
Vereins 50: 164-168. 1943); the substitute name D. sect. Ariadna Wendelbo (in Bot. Not. 112: 496.
1959) is illegitimate.

Ex. 7.  Antirrhinum spurium L. (1753) when transferred to Linaria Mill. is called L. spuria (L.) Mill.
(1768).

Ex. 8.  When transferring Serratula chamaepeuce L. (1753) to Ptilostemon Cass., Cassini illegitimately
named the species P. muticus Cass. (1826). In that genus, the correct name is P. chamaepeuce (L.) Less.
(1832).

Ex. 9.  Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798) when transferred to Cytisus Desf. could not be called C. biflorus
because of the previously and validly published C. biflorus L’Hér. (1791); the substitute name C.
fontanesii Spach (1849) was therefore correctly proposed.

Ex. 10.  Spergula stricta Sw. (1799) when transferred to Arenaria L. is called A. uliginosa Schleich. ex
Schltdl. (1808) because of the existence of the name A. stricta Michx. (1803), based on a different type;
but on further transfer to the genus Minuartia the epithet stricta is again available and the species is
called M. stricta (Sw.) Hiern (1899).

Ex. 11.  Arum dracunculus L. (1753) when transferred to Dracunculus Mill. is named D. vulgaris Schott
(1832), as use of the Linnaean epithet would result in a tautonym.

Ex. 12.  Cucubalus behen L. (1753) when transferred to Behen Moench was legitimately renamed B.
vulgaris Moench (1794) to avoid the tautonym “B. behen”. In Silene L., the epithet behen is unavail-
able because of the existence of S. behen L. (1753). Therefore, the substitute name S. cucubalus Wibel
(1799) was proposed. This, however, is illegitimate since the specific epithet vulgaris was available. In
Silene, the correct name of the species is S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke (1869).

Ex. 13.  Helianthemum italicum var. micranthum Gren. & Godr. (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847) when trans-
ferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal retains its varietal epithet and is named H.
penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser (in Engler, Pflanzenr. 14: 115. 1903).

11.5.  When, for any taxon of the rank of family or below, a choice is possible
between legitimate names of equal priority in the corresponding rank, or be-
tween available final epithets of names of equal priority in the corresponding
rank, the first such choice to be effectively published (Art. 29-31) establishes
the priority of the chosen name, and of any legitimate combination with the

______________ 

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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 16 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other competing name(s) (but
see Art. 11.6).

Note 1.  A choice as provided for in Art. 11.5 is effected by adopting one of the competing
names, or its final epithet in the required combination, and simultaneously rejecting or
relegating to synonymy the other(s), or nomenclatural synonyms thereof.

Ex. 14.  When Dentaria L. (1753) and Cardamine L. (1753) are united, the resulting genus is called
Cardamine because that name was chosen by Crantz (Cl. Crucif. Emend.: 126. 1769), who first united
them.

Ex. 15.  When Entoloma (Fr. ex Rabenh.) P. Kumm. (1871), Leptonia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871),
Eccilia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), Nolanea (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), and Claudopus Gillet (1876)
are united, one of the generic names simultaneously published by Kummer must be used for the
combined genus. Donk, who did so (in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg, ser. 3, 18(1): 157. 1949), selected
Entoloma, which is therefore treated as having priority over the other names.

Ex. 16.  Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exp. Congo: 484. 1818) was the first to unite Waltheria americana L.
(1753) and W. indica L. (1753). He adopted the name W. indica for the combined species, and this name
is accordingly treated as having priority over W. americana.

Ex. 17.  Baillon (in Adansonia 3: 162. 1863), when uniting for the first time Sclerocroton integerrimus
Hochst. (1845) and S. reticulatus Hochst. (1845), adopted the name Stillingia integerrima (Hochst.)
Baill. for the combined taxon. Consequently Sclerocroton integerrimus is treated as having priority over
S. reticulatus irrespective of the genus (Sclerocroton, Stillingia, Excoecaria, Sapium) to which the
species is assigned.

Ex. 18.  Linnaeus (1753) simultaneously published the names Verbesina alba and V. prostrata. Later
(1771), he published Eclipta erecta, an illegitimate name because V. alba was cited in synonymy, and
E. prostrata, based on V. prostrata. The first author to unite these taxa was Roxburgh (Fl. Ind. 3: 438.
1832), who adopted the name E. prostrata (L.) L. Therefore V. prostrata is treated as having priority
over V. alba.

Ex. 19.  Donia speciosa and D. formosa, which were simultaneously published by Don (1832), were
illegitimately renamed Clianthus oxleyi and C. dampieri by Lindley (1835). Brown (1849) united both
in a single species, adopting the illegitimate name C. dampieri and citing D. speciosa and C. oxleyi as
synonyms; his choice is not of the kind provided for by Art. 11.5. C. speciosus (D. Don) Asch. &
Graebn. (1909), published with D. speciosa and C. dampieri listed as synonyms, is an illegitimate later
homonym of C. speciosus (Endl.) Steud. (1840); again, conditions for a choice under Art. 11.5 were not
satisfied. Ford & Vickery (1950) published the legitimate combination C. formosus (D. Don) Ford &
Vickery and cited D. formosa and D. speciosa as synonyms, but since the epithet of the latter was
unavailable in Clianthus a choice was not possible and again Art. 11.5 does not apply. Thompson
(1990) was the first to effect an acceptable choice when publishing the combination Swainsona formosa
(D. Don) Joy Thomps. and indicating that D. speciosa was a synonym of it.

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

Note 2.  When the final epithet of an autonym is used in a new combination under the
requirements of Art. 11.6, the basionym of that combination is the name from which the
autonym is derived, or its basionym if it has one.

Ex. 20.  Heracleum sibiricum L. (1753) includes H. sibiricum subsp. lecokii (Godr. & Gren.) Nyman
(Consp. Fl. Europ.: 290. 1879) and H. sibiricum subsp. sibiricum 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.) Simonk. (Enum. Fl. Transsilv.: 266. 1887), not subsp.
lecokii, whether or not subsp. lecokii is treated as distinct.

Ex. 21.  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)

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 17 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Griggs (in 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 (in Rhodora 48: 46. 1946) are both used.

Ex. 22.  In the classification adopted by Rollins and Shaw, Lesquerella lasiocarpa (Hook. ex A. Gray)
S. Watson (1888) 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. A.
Shaw. The latter subspecies is composed of two varieties. In that 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. A. Shaw (1972), based on Synthlipsis berlandieri var. hispida S. Watson (1882),
since publication of the latter name established the autonym S. berlandieri A. Gray var. berlandieri
which, at varietal rank, is treated as having priority over var. hispida.

11.7.  Names of plants (algae excepted) based on a non-fossil type are treated
as having priority over names of the same rank based on a fossil (or subfossil)
type.

Ex. 23.  If Platycarya Siebold & Zucc. (1843), a non-fossil genus, and Petrophiloides Bowerb. (1840),
a fossil genus, are united, the name Platycarya is accepted for the combined genus, although it is
antedated by Petrophiloides.

Ex. 24.  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 & W. C. Cheng, conservation of
Metasequoia Hu & W. C. 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.

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

Ex. 25.  The name ×Solidaster H. R. Wehrh. (1932) antedates the name ×Asterago Everett (1937) for
the hybrid Aster L. × Solidago L.

Ex. 26.  The name ×Gaulnettya Marchant (1937) antedates the name ×Gaulthettya Camp (1939) for the
hybrid Gaultheria L. × Pernettya Gaudich.

Ex. 27.  Anemone ×hybrida Paxton (1848) antedates A. ×elegans Decne. (1852), pro sp., as the binomial
for the hybrids derived from A. hupehensis (Lemoine & E. Lemoine) Lemoine & E. Lemoine × A.
vitifolia Buch.-Ham. ex DC.

Ex. 28.  Camus (in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927) published the name ×Agroelymus A.
Camus as the name of a nothogenus, without a Latin description or diagnosis, mentioning only the
names of the parents involved (Agropyron Gaertn. and Elymus L.). Since this name was not validly
published under the Code then in force (Stockholm 1953), Rousseau (in Mém. Jard. Bot. Montréal 29:
10-11. 1952), published a Latin diagnosis. However, the date of valid publication of the name ×Agro-
elymus under this Code (Art. H.9) is 1927, not 1952, and the name also antedates ×Elymopyrum Cugnac
(in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938) which is accompanied by a statement of parentage and
a description in French but not Latin.

11.9.  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
published (see Art. 32-45).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 18 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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):

Non-fossil plants:

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

(b)  Musci (the Sphagnaceae excepted), 1 January 1801 (Hedwig, Species
       muscorum).

(c)  Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum,
       ed. 1).

(d)  Fungi (including slime moulds and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May 1753
       (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1). Names in the Uredinales, Ustilagi-
       nales, and Gasteromycetes (s. l.) adopted by Persoon (Synopsis methodica
       fungorum, 31 December 1801) and names of other fungi (excluding slime
       moulds) adopted by Fries (Systema mycologicum, vol. 1 (1 January 1821)
       to 3, with additional Index (1832), and Elenchus fungorum, vol. 1-2), are
       sanctioned (see Art. 15). 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 January 1892 (Gomont, “Monographie
       des Oscillariées”, in 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 respectively, are treated as having been published simultaneously on
       1 January 1892.

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

       Desmidiaceae (s. l.), 1 January 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).

       Oedogoniaceae, 1 January 1900 (Hirn, “Monographie und Iconographie
       der Oedogoniaceen”, in Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 19 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Fossil plants:

(f)   All groups, 31 December 1820 (Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch
       1: 1-24, t. 1-13). Schlotheim’s Petrefactenkunde (1820) is regarded as
       published before 31 December 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; since the type specimen of P. pinnata is now accepted as belonging to the Hepaticae, the names
were validly published in 1753.

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 Linnaeus under it were
validly published in 1753.

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

13.4.  Generic names which first appear in Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762-1763), are associated with the first subsequent descrip-
tion given under those names in Linnaeus’s Genera plantarum, ed. 5 (1754)
and ed. 6 (1764). The spelling of the generic names included in Species planta-
rum, ed. 1, is not to be altered because a different spelling has been used in
Genera plantarum, ed. 5.

13.5.  The two volumes of Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, ed. 1 (1753), which
appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively, are treated as having been
published simultaneously on 1 May 1753.

Ex. 3.  The generic names Thea L. (Sp. Pl.: 515. 24 Mai 1753), and Camellia L. (Sp. Pl.: 698. 16 Aug
1753; Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 311. 1754), are treated as having been published simultaneously on 1 May 1753.
Under Art. 11.5 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, and cited Thea as a synonym.

13.6.  Names of anamorphs of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle do not,
irrespective of priority, affect the nomenclatural status of the names of the
correlated holomorphs (see Art. 59.4).

Article 14

14.1.  In order to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of
families, 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 App. II and III, lists of names that are conserved

(nomina conservanda) and must be retained as useful exceptions. Conserved
names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegitimate.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 20 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

14.2.  Conservation aims at retention of those names which best serve stability
of nomenclature (see Rec. 50E). 

14.3.  The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types. The type of the specific name cited as the type of a
conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in
App. IIIA.

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.

Note 1.  The Code does not provide for conservation of a name against itself, i.e. against the
same name with the same type but with a different place and date of valid publication than is
given in the relevant entry in App. II or III, and perhaps with a different authorship² (but see
Art. 14.9).

Note 2.  A species name listed as conserved or rejected in App. IIIB may have been pub-
lished as the name of a new taxon, or as a combination based on an earlier name. Rejection
of a name based on an earlier name does not in itself preclude the use of the earlier name
since that name is not “a combination based on a rejected name” (Art. 14.4).

Ex. 1.  Rejection of Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) H. Karst. in favour of L. esculentum Mill. does not
preclude the use of the homotypic Solanum lycopersicum L.

14.5.  When a conserved name competes with one or more 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. 11, except for some
conserved family names (App. IIB), which are conserved against unlisted
names.

Ex. 2.  If Weihea Spreng. (1825) is united with Cassipourea Aubl. (1775), the combined genus will
bear the prior name Cassipourea, although Weihea is conserved and Cassipourea is not.

Ex. 3.  If Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is united with Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the
prior name Berberis, although Mahonia is conserved and Berberis is not.

Ex. 4.  Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nasturtium Mill. (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

______________ 

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 taxo-
   nomic synonym, respectively.

²  As a temporary exception, the Tokyo Congress has authorized maintenance of the current entries in
   App. IIB, even though, for many of the listed family names, places of earlier valid publication, by
   different authors, have come to light.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 21 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the nomen
conservandum, except when the earlier rejected name is a homonym of the
conserved name.

Ex. 5.  The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802) is conserved against the earlier names Enargea
Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (1789). If, however, Enargea 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.

Ex. 6.  Enallagma Baill. (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against Amphi-
tecna 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.  The listed type of a conserved name may not be changed except by the
procedure outlined in Art. 14.12.

Ex. 7.  Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the listed 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.

14.9.  A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by
the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 10.4). Such a
name may be conserved either from its place of valid publication (even though
the type may not then have been included in the named taxon) or from a later
publication by an author who did include the type as conserved. In the latter
case the original name and the name as conserved are treated as if they were
homonyms (Art. 53), whether or not the name as conserved was accompanied
by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named.

Ex. 8.  Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved from its place of valid publication even though its
conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932, was not originally included in
Linnaeus’s species.

Ex. 9.  Protea L. (1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic name, P. cynaroides (L.) L.
(1771), which in 1753 was placed in the genus Leucadendron. Protea was therefore conserved from the
1771 publication, and Protea L. (1771), although not designed to be a new generic name and still
including the original type elements, is treated as if it were a validly published homonym of Protea L.
(1753).

14.10.  A conserved name, with its corresponding autonyms, is conserved
against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name is not
made illegitimate by that conservation 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. 55.3).

Ex. 10.  The generic name Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against Damapana Adans. (1763), is
thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777).

14.11.  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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 22 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 11.  The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved against the original
spelling Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be cited as Rhodymenia Grev. (1830).

Note 3.  The date of conservation does not affect the priority (Art. 11) of a conserved name,
which is determined only on the basis of the date of valid publication (Art. 32-45).

14.12.  The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for addi-
tions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied
by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against its conservation. Such
proposals must be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III), which
will refer them for examination to the committees for the various taxonomic
groups.

14.13.  Entries of conserved names may not be deleted.

14.14.  When a proposal for the conservation (or rejection under Art. 56) of a
name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Commit-
tee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention (or rejection) of that name is
authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress.

Recommendation 14A

14A.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.

Article 15

15.1.  Names sanctioned under Art. 13.1(d) are treated as if conserved against
earlier homonyms and competing synonyms. Such names, once sanctioned,
remain sanctioned even if elsewhere in the sanctioning works the sanctioning
author does not recognize them.

Ex. 1.  Agaricus ericetorum Fr. was accepted by Fries in Systema mycologicum (1821), but later (1828)
regarded by him as a synonym of A. umbelliferus L. and not included in his Index (1832) as an accepted
name. Nevertheless A. ericetorum is a sanctioned name.

15.2.  An earlier homonym of a sanctioned name is not made illegitimate by
that sanctioning but is unavailable for use; if legitimate, it may serve as a
basionym of another name or combination based on the same type (see also Art.
55.3).

Ex. 2.  Patellaria Hedw. (1794) is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned generic name Patellaria Fr.
(1822). Hedwig’s name is legitimate but unavailable for use. Lecanidion Endl. (1830), based on the
same type as Patellaria Fr. : Fr. non Hedw., is illegitimate.

Ex. 3.  Agaricus cervinus Schaeff. (1774) is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned A. cervinus Hoffm.
(1789) : Fr.; Schaeffer’s name is unavailable for use, but it may serve as basionym for combinations in
other genera. In Pluteus Fr. the combination should be cited as P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm. and has
priority over the heterotypic synonym P. atricapillus (Batsch) Fayod, based on A. atricapillus Batsch
(1786).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 23 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

15.3.  When, for a taxon from family to genus inclusive, two or more sanc-
tioned names compete, Art. 11.3 governs the choice of the correct name (see
also Art. 15.5).

15.4.  When, for a taxon below the rank of genus, two or more sanctioned
names and/or two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a
sanctioned name compete, Art. 11.4 governs the choice of the correct name.

Note 1.  The date of sanctioning does not affect the priority (Art. 11) of a sanctioned name,
which is determined only on the basis of valid publication. In particular, when two or more
homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of them can be used, the later being illegitimate
under Art. 53.2.

Ex. 4.  Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821) accepted Agaricus flavovirens Pers. (1801), treating A. equestris
L. (1753) as a synonym. Later (Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828) he stated “Nomen prius et aptius arte
restituendum” and accepted A. equestris. Both names are sanctioned, but when they are considered
synonyms A. equestris, having priority, is to be used.

15.5.  A name which neither is sanctioned nor has the same type and final
epithet as a sanctioned name in the same rank may not be applied to a taxon
which includes the type of a sanctioned name in that rank the final epithet of
which is available for the required combination (see Art. 11.4(b)).

15.6.  Conservation (Art. 14) and explicit rejection (Art. 56.1) override sanc-
tioning.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 24 –

text: © 1994, 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. 10.7); for such automatically typified
names, the name of a subdivision or subphylum which includes the type of the
adopted name of a division or phylum, 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.

Note 1.  The terms “divisio” and “phylum”, and their equivalents in modern languages, are
treated as referring to one and the same rank. When “divisio” and “phylum” are used
simultaneously to denote different ranks, this usage is contrary to Art. 5, and the corre-
sponding names are not validly published (Art. 33.5).

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 name or division or phylum 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 Chadef. ex P. C. Silva (1980) was indicated by its author to be based on
Raphidomonas F. Stein (1878).

Note 2.  The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the rank of
family (Art. 11.9).

Recommendation 16A

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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 25 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

16A.2.  The name of a subdivision or subphylum is formed in a similar manner; it is
distinguished from a divisional name by an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the termination
-phytina, unless it is a subdivision or subphylum 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
follows:

(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
recommendation, 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, Malvineae.

17.2.  Names intended as names of orders, but published with their rank
denoted 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, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 26 –

text: © 1994, 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), Plumbaginaceae (from Plumbago, Plumbaginis), Rhodophyllaceae
from Rhodophyllus, Rhodophylli), Rhodophyllidaceae (from Rhodophyllis, Rhodophyllidos), Scle-
rodermataceae (from Scleroderma, Sclerodermatos), Aextoxicaceae (from Aextoxicon, Aextoxicou),
Potamogetonaceae (from Potamogeton, Potamogetonos).

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

18.2.  Names intended as names of families, but published with their rank
denoted by one of the terms “order” (ordo) or “natural order” (ordo naturalis)
instead of “family”, are treated as having been published as names of families
(see also Art. 19.2).

Ex. 3.  Cyperaceae Juss. (1789) and Xylomataceae Fr. (1820) were published as “ordo Cyperoideae”
and “ordo Xylomaceae”.

18.3.  A name 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. 4.  Caryophyllaceae Juss., nom. cons. (from Caryophyllus Mill. non L.); Winteraceae Lindl., nom.
cons. (from Wintera Murray, an illegitimate synonym of Drimys J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.).

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, without
change of the author’s name or date of publication (see Art. 32.6).

Ex. 5.  “Coscinodisceae” (Kützing 1844) is to be accepted as Coscinodiscaceae Kütz. and not attributed
to De Toni, who first used the correct spelling (in Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).

Ex. 6.  “Atherospermeae” (Brown 1814) 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 (Veg. Kingd.: 300. 1846), who used the spelling “Atherospermaceae”.

Ex. 7.  However, Tricholomées (Roze in 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 Tricholo-
mataceae was later validated by Pouzar (1983; see App. IIA).

18.5.  The following names, of long usage, are treated as validly published:
Palmae (Arecaceae; type, Areca L.); Gramineae (Poaceae; type, Poa L.); Cru-

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 27 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

ciferae (Brassicaceae; type, Brassica L.); Leguminosae (Fabaceae; type, Faba
Mill. [= Vicia L.]); Guttiferae (Clusiaceae; type, Clusia L.); Umbelliferae (Api-
aceae; type, Apium L.); Labiatae (Lamiaceae; type, Lamium L.); Compositae
(Asteraceae; type, Aster L.). When the Papilionaceae (Fabaceae; type, Faba
Mill.) are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the Leguminosae,
the name Papilionaceae is conserved against Leguminosae.

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.  Names intended as names of subfamilies, but published with their rank
denoted by the term “suborder” (subordo) instead of subfamily, are treated as
having been published as names of subfamilies (see also Art. 18.2).

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

19.4.  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.

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

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

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.2).

Ex. 3.  The subfamily including the type of the family name Ericaceae Juss. (Erica L.), irrespective of
priority, is to be called Ericoideae Endl., and the tribe including this type is called Ericeae D. Don.
However, the correct name of the tribe including both Rhododendron L., the type of the subfamily name
Rhododendroideae Endl., and Rhodora L. is Rhodoreae D. Don (1834) not Rhododendreae Brongn. (1843).

Ex. 4.  The subfamily of the family Asteraceae Dumort. (nom. alt., Compositae Giseke) including Aster
L., the type of the family name, is irrespective of priority to be called Asteroideae Asch., and the tribe
and subtribe including Aster are to be called Astereae Cass. and Asterinae Less., respectively. However,
the correct name of the tribe including both Cichorium L., the type of the subfamily name Cichorioi-
deae W. D. J. Koch (1837), and Lactuca L. is Lactuceae Cass. (1815), not Cichorieae D. Don (1829),
while that of the subtribe including both Cichorium and Hyoseris L. is Hyoseridinae Less. (1832), not
Cichoriinae Sch. Bip. (1841) (unless the Cichoriaceae Juss. are accepted as a family distinct from
Compositae).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 28 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

19.5.  A name of a subdivision of a family based on an illegitimate generic
name that is not the base of a conserved family name is illegitimate. Contrary
to Art. 32.1(b) such a name is validly published if it complies with the other
requirements for valid publication.

Ex. 5.  Caryophylloideae (Juss.) Rabeler & Bittrich, based on Caryophyllaceae Juss., nom. cons., is
legitimate although it is derived from the illegitimate Caryophyllus Mill. non L.

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 subfam-
ily 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. 32.6).

Ex. 6.  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.  When a family is changed to the rank of a subdivision of a family, or the inverse
change occurs, and no legitimate name is available in the new rank, the name should be
retained, and only its termination (-aceae, -oideae, -eae, -inae) altered.

Ex. 1.  The subtribe Drypetinae Pax (1890) (Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank of tribe was named
Drypeteae (Pax) Hurus. (1954); the subtribe Antidesmatinae Pax (1890) (Euphorbiaceae) when raised
to the rank of subfamily was named Antidesmatoideae (Pax) Hurus. (1954).

19A.2.  When a subdivision of a family is changed to another such rank, and no legitimate
name is available in the new rank, its name should be based on the same generic name as the
name in the former rank.

Ex. 2.  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 later names 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, or a word treated as
such, and is written with a capital initial letter (see Art. 60.2). It may be taken
from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an absolutely arbi-
trary manner.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 29 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 1.  Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia, Liquidambar, Gloriosa, Impatiens, Rhododendron,
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 January 1912 and accom-
panied by a specific name published in accordance with the binary system of
Linnaeus.

Ex. 2.  “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 Radicula
is correctly attributed to Moench (1794), who first combined it with specific epithets.

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

Ex. 4.  The intended generic names “Lanceolatus” (Plumstead, 1952) and “Lobata” (Chapman, 1952)
coincide with technical terms and are therefore not validly published.

Ex. 5.  Words 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.  “Uva ursi”, as originally published by Miller (1754), consisted of two separate words uncon-
nected by a hyphen, and is therefore not validly published (Art. 32.1(b)); the name is correctly attributed
to Duhamel (1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).

Ex. 7.  However, names such as Quisqualis L. (formed by combining two words into one when origin-
ally published), Sebastiano-schaueria Nees, and Neves-armondia K. Schum. (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.  The designation “Anonymos” was applied by Walter (Fl. Carol.: 2, 4, 9, etc. 1788) to 28
different genera 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 p. 7) he intended to
name later, are token words and not generic names. They were later legitimately named Kyllinga Rottb.
and Fuirena Rottb.

(b)  Unitary designations of species.

Note 2.  Examples such as “Leptostachys” and “Anthopogon”, listed in earlier editions of
the Code, were from publications now listed in App. V.

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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 30 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

(e)  To indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or anal-
       ogies of the genus.

(f)  To avoid adjectives used as nouns.

(g)  Not to use a name similar to or derived from the epithet in the name 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. 60B).

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

Ex. 1.  Hordelymus (K. Jess.) K. Jess. derives from a subgeneric epithet that was formed by combining
parts of the generic names Hordeum L. and Elymus L. (see also Art. H.3 Ex. 2).

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
adjective agreeing in gender with the generic name and written with a capital
initial letter (see Art. 32.6 and 60.2).

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; Valeriana sect. Valerianopsis; Eu-
phorbia sect. Tithymalus; Euphorbia subsect. Tenellae; Sapium subsect. Patentinervia; 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. 53.

Note 2.  The names of hybrids with the rank of a subdivision of a genus are formed accord-
ing 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, the
subdivisional epithet should be placed in parentheses between the two; when desirable, the
subdivisional rank may also be indicated.

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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 31 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 21B

21B.1.  The epithet in the name 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 names of 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 name of 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.

21B.3.  When a section or a subgenus is raised to the rank of genus, or the inverse change
occurs, the original name or epithet should be retained unless the resulting name would be
contrary to this Code.

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. 7.6).

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.  A name of a subdivision of a genus that includes the type (i.e. the
original type or all elements eligible as type or the previously designated type)
of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus is not validly published unless its
epithet repeats the generic name unaltered. For the purposes of this provision,
explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical element of the genus is
included is considered as equivalent to inclusion of the type, whether or not it
has been previously designated (see also Art. 21.3).

Ex. 1.  “Dodecatheon sect. Etubulosa” (Knuth in Engler, Pflanzenr. 22: 234. 1905) was not validly
published since it was proposed for a section that included D. meadia L., the original type of the generic
name Dodecatheon L.

Ex. 2.  Cactus [unranked] Melocactus L. (Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 210. 1754) was proposed for one of four
unranked (Art. 35.2), named subdivisions of the genus Cactus, comprising C. melocactus L. (its type
under Art. 22.5) and C. mammillaris L. It is validly published, even though C. melocactus was sub-
sequently designated as the type of Cactus L. (by Britton & Millspaugh, Bahama Fl.: 294. 1920) and,
later still, C. mammillaris became the conserved type of the generic name (by the way in which the
family name Cactaceae Juss. was conserved).

22.3.  The first instance of 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 Art. 11.6
and 32.7).

Ex. 3.  The subgenus of Malpighia L. that includes the lectotype of the generic name (M. glabra L.) is
called M. subg. Malpighia, not M. subg. Homoiostylis Nied.; and the section of Malpighia including the
lectotype of the generic name is called M. sect. Malpighia, not M. sect. Apyrae DC.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 32 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 4.  However, the correct name of the section of the genus Rhododendron L. that includes R. luteum
Sweet, the type of R. subg. Anthodendron (Rchb.) Rehder, is R. sect. Pentanthera G. Don, the oldest
legitimate name for the section, and not R. sect. Anthodendron.

22.4.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat
unchanged the correct name of the genus, unless the two names have the same
type.

22.5.  When the epithet in the name 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. 5.  The type of Euphorbia subg. Esula Pers. is E. esula L.; the designation of E. peplus L. as
lectotype by Croizat (in Revista Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13. 1939) has no standing.

22.6.  When the epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is identical
with or derived from the epithet in a specific name that is a later homonym, its
type is the type of that later homonym, whose correct name necessarily has a
different epithet.

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 the
correct name of one of its subordinate sections.

Ex. 1.  Instead of using a new epithet at the subgeneric level, Brizicky raised Rhamnus sect. Pseudofran-
gula Grubov to the rank of subgenus as R. subg. Pseudofrangula (Grubov) Brizicky. 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, or several words, but not a phrase
name of one or more descriptive substantives and associated adjectives in the
ablative (see Art. 23.6(a)), nor certain other irregularly formed designations
(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, as specified in Art.
60.9.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 33 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

23.2.  The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source
whatever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art. 60.1).

Ex. 1.  Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces fabae, Fumaria gusso-
nei, Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasiniorum, Atropa bella-donna, Impatiens noli-tangere, Adian-
tum 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).

Ex. 3.  “Linaria linaria” and “Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum” are contrary to this rule and cannot
be validly published.

23.5.  The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a substan-
tive, agrees grammatically with the generic name (see Art. 32.6).

Ex. 4.  Helleborus niger L., Brassica nigra (L.) W. D. J. Koch, Verbascum nigrum L.; Vinca major L.,
Tropaeolum majus L.; Rubus amnicola Blanch. (“amnicolus”), the specific epithet being a Latin sub-

stantive; Peridermium balsameum Peck, but also Gloeosporium balsameae Davis, both derived from
the epithet of Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., treated as a substantive in the second example.

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

(a)  Descriptive designations consisting of a generic name followed by a
      phrase name (Linnaean nomen specificum legitimum) of one or more de-
      scriptive substantives and associated adjectives in the ablative.

Ex. 5.  Smilax “caule inermi” (Aublet, Hist. Pl. Guiane 2, Tabl.: 27. 1775) is an abbreviated descriptive
reference to an imperfectly known species which is not given a binomial in the text but referred to
merely by a phrase name cited from Burman.

(b)  Other designations of species consisting of a generic name followed by
      one or more words not intended as specific epithets.

Ex. 6.  Viola “qualis” (Krocker, Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790); Urtica “dubia?” (Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-
Arab.: cxxi. 1775), the word “dubia?” being repeatedly used in Forsskål’s work for species which could
not be reliably identified.

Ex. 7.  Atriplex “nova” (Winterl, Index Hort. Bot. Univ. Hung.: fol. A [8] recto et verso. 1788), the
word “nova” (new) being here used in connection with four different species of Atriplex. However, in
Artemisia nova A. Nelson (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274. 1900), nova was intended as a specific
epithet, the species having been newly distinguished from others.

Ex. 8.  Cornus “gharaf” (Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xci, xcvi. 1775) is an interim designation not
intended as a species name. An interim designation in Forsskål’s work is an original designation (for an
accepted taxon and thus not a “provisional name” as defined in Art. 34.1(b)) with an epithet-like
vernacular which is not used as an epithet in the “Centuriae” part of the work. Elcaja “roka” (Forsskål,
Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xcv. 1775) is another example of such an interim designation; in other parts of the
work (p. c, cxvi, 127) this species is not named.

Ex. 9.  In  Agaricus “octogesimus nonus” and  Boletus “vicesimus sextus” (Schaeffer, Fung. Bavar.
Palat. Nasc. 1: t. 100. 1762; 2: t. 137. 1763), the generic names are followed by ordinal adjectives used
for enumeration. The corresponding species were given valid names, A. cinereus Schaeff. and B.
ungulatus Schaeff., in the final volume of the same work (1774).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 34 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

(c)  Designations of species consisting of a generic name followed by two or
      more adjectival words in the nominative case.

Ex. 10.  Salvia “africana coerulea” (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 26. 1753) and Gnaphalium “fruticosum flavum”
(Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: cxix. 1775) are generic names followed by two adjectival words in the
nominative case. They are not to be regarded as species names.

Ex. 11.  However, Rhamnus “vitis idaea” Burm. f. (Fl. Ind.: 61. 1768) is to be regarded as a species
name, since the generic name is followed by a substantive and an adjective, both in the nominative case;
these words are to be hyphenated (R. vitis-idaea) under the provisions of Art. 23.1 and Art. 60.9. In
Anthyllis “Barba jovis” L. (Sp. Pl.: 720. 1753) the generic name is followed by substantives in the
nominative and in the genitive case respectively, and they are to be hyphenated (A. barba-jovis).
Likewise, Hyacinthus “non scriptus” L. (Sp. Pl.: 316. 1753), where the generic name is followed by a
negative particle and a past participle used as an adjective, is corrected to H. non-scriptus, and Impa-
tiens “noli tangere” L. (Sp. Pl.: 938. 1753), where the generic name is followed by two verbs, is
corrected to I. noli-tangere.

Ex. 12.  Similarly, in Narcissus “Pseudo Narcissus” L. (Sp. Pl.: 289. 1753) the generic name is fol-
lowed by an independent prefix and a substantive in the nominative case, and the name is to be
corrected to N. pseudonarcissus under the provisions of Art. 23.1 and Art. 60.9.

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

23.7.  Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets (nomina trivialia)
are to be treated as orthographical errors to be corrected in accordance with
later usage by Linnaeus himself.

Ex. 13.  Apocynum “fol. [foliis] androsaemi” L. is to be cited as A. androsaemifolium L. (Sp. Pl.: 213.
1753 [corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 946. 1759]); and Mussaenda “fr. [fructu] frondoso” L., as M.
frondosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 177. 1753 [corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 931. 1759]).

23.8.  Where the status of a designation of a species is uncertain under Art.
23.6, established custom is to be followed (Pre. 10).

*Ex. 14.  Polypodium “F. mas”, P. “F. femina”, and P. “F. fragile” (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 1090-1091.
1753) are, in accordance with established custom, to be treated as P. filix-mas L., P. filix-femina L., and
P. fragile L., respectively. Likewise, Cambogia “G. gutta” is to be treated as C. gummi-gutta L. (Gen.
Pl.: [522]. 1754). The intercalations “Trich.“ [Trichomanes] and “M.” [Melilotus] in the names of
Linnaean species of Asplenium and Trifolium, respectively, are to be deleted, so that names in the form
Asplenium “Trich. dentatum” and Trifolium “M. indica”, for example, are treated as A. dentatum L.
and T. indicum L. (Sp. Pl.: 765, 1080. 1753).

Recommendation 23A

23A.1.  Names of persons and also of countries and localities used in specific epithets
should take the form of substantives in the genitive (clusii, porsildiorum, saharae) or of
adjectives (clusianus, dahuricus) (see also Art. 60, Rec. 60C and D).

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 Oliv.
and L. hemsleyi Franch.).

23A.3.  In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also with the following sugges-
tions:

(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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 35 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

(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 (see Rec. 34A).

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

24.2.  Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets and, when adjecti-
val in form and not used as substantives, they agree grammatically with the
generic name (see Art. 32.6).

Ex. 2.  Solanum melongena var. insanum Prain (Bengal Pl.: 746. 1903, “insana”).

24.3.  Infraspecific names with final epithets such as typicus, originalis, origi-
narius, genuinus, verus, and veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon contain-
ing the type of the name of the next higher taxon, are not validly published
unless are autonyms (Art. 26).

Ex. 3.  Lobelia spicata “var. originalis” (McVaugh in Rhodora 38: 308. 1936) was not validly published
(see Art. 26 Ex. 1).

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. 4.  Salvia grandiflora subsp. “S. willeana” (Holmboe in Bergens Mus. Skr., ser. 2, 1(2): 157. 1914)
is to be cited as S. grandiflora subsp. willeana Holmboe.

Ex. 5.  Phyllerpa prolifera var. “Ph. firma” (Kützing, Sp. Alg.: 495. 1849) is to be altered to P.
prolifera var. firma Kütz.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 36 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Note 1.  Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear names with the same final
epithet; those within one species may bear names with the same final epithet as the names of
other species (but see Rec. 24B.1).

Ex. 6.  Rosa glutinosa var. leioclada H. Christ (in Boissier, Fl. Orient. Suppl.: 222. 1888) and Rosa
jundzillii f. leioclada Borbás (in Math. Term. Közlem. 16: 376, 383. 1880) are both permissible, as is
Viola tricolor var. hirta Ging. (in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 304. 1824), in spite of the previous existence of a
species named Viola hirta L.

Note 2.  Infraspecific taxa within the same species, even if they differ in rank, may not bear
names with the same final epithet but different types (Art. 53.5).

Recommendation 24A

24A.1.  Recommendations made for forming specific epithets (Rec. 23A) apply equally for
infraspecific epithets.

Recommendation 24B

24B.1.  Authors proposing new infraspecific names should avoid epithets previously used as
specific epithets in the same genus.

24B.2.  When an infraspecific taxon is raised to the rank of species, or the inverse change
occurs, the final epithet of its name should be retained unless the resulting combination
would be contrary to this Code.

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
holomorph also includes its correlated form-taxa (see Art. 59).

Ex. 1.  When Montia parvifolia (DC.) Greene is treated as comprising two subspecies, one must write
M. parvifolia subsp. parvifolia for that part of the species that includes the nomenclatural type and
excludes the type of the name of the other subspecies, M. parvifolia subsp. flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris.
The name M. parvifolia applies to the species in its entirety.

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.
7.6).

Ex. 1.  The variety which includes the type of the name Lobelia spicata Lam. is to be named Lobelia
spicata Lam. var. spicata (see also Art. 24 Ex. 3).

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).

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 37 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

26.2.  A name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type (i.e. the holotype
or all syntypes or the previously designated type) of the adopted, legitimate
name of the species to which it is assigned is not validly published unless its
final epithet repeats the specific epithet unaltered. For the purpose of this
provision, explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical element of the
species is included is considered as equivalent to inclusion of the type, whether
or not it has been previously designated (see also Art. 24.3).

Ex. 2.  Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 779-781. 1753) included 13 named varieties under Medicago polymorpha.
Since M. polymorpha L. has no holotype and since no syntypes are cited, all varietal names are validly
published irrespective of the fact that the lectotype subsequently chosen (by Heyn in Bull. Res. Council
Israel, Sect. D, Bot., 7: 163. 1959) can be attributed to M. polymorpha var. hispida L.

Ex. 3.  The intended combination “Vulpia myuros subsp. pseudomyuros (Soy.-Will.) Maire & Weiller”
was not validly published in Maire (Fl. Afrique N. 3: 177. 1955) because it included “F. myuros L., Sp.
1, p. 74 (1753) sensu stricto” in synonymy, Festuca myuros L. being the basionym of Vulpia myuros
(L.) C. C. Gmel.

26.3.  The first instance of valid publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon
that does not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species
automatically establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Art. 32.7 and
11.6).

Ex. 4.  The publication of the name Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii Tuck. (in Amer. J. Sci. Arts
45: 47. 1843) automatically established the name of another variety, L. inundatum L. var. inundatum,
the type of which is that of the name L. inundatum L.

Ex. 5.  Utricularia stellaris L. f. (1781) includes U. stellaris var. coromandeliana A. DC. (Prodr. 8: 3.
1844) and U. stellaris L. f. var. stellaris (1844) automatically established at the same time. When U.
stellaris is included in U. inflexa Forssk. (1775) as a variety, the correct name of that variety, under Art.
11.6, 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 final 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 final epithet and type as
a name of one of its subordinate varieties.

26A.3.  A taxon of rank lower than variety which includes the type of the correct name of a
subspecies 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 final epithet and type as
the name of the subspecies 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 final epithet as a name of one of its subordinate taxa below the rank of variety.

Ex. 1.  Fernald treated Stachys palustris subsp. pilosa (Nutt.) Epling (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg.
Beih. 8: 63. 1934) 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.) Fernald (in Rhodora 45: 474.
1943), there being no legitimate varietal name available.

Ex. 2.  There being no legitimate name available at the rank of subspecies, Bonaparte made the combi-
nation Pteridium aquilinum subsp. caudatum (L.) Bonap. (Notes Ptérid. 1: 62. 1915), using the same

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 38 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

final epithet that Sadebeck had used earlier in the combination P. aquilinum var. caudatum (L.) Sadeb.
(in Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. Beih. 14(3): 5. 1897), both combinations being based on Pteris
caudata L. Each name is legitimate, and both can be used, as by Tryon (in Rhodora 43: 52-54. 1941),
who treated P. aquilinum var. caudatum as one of four varieties under subsp. caudatum (see Art. 34.2).

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.

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 App. I (see also Art. 11.8, 40, and 50).

Note 1.  Additional, independent designations for plants used in agriculture, forestry, and
horticulture (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 forma-

tion and use. However, nothing precludes the use for cultivated plants of names published in
accordance with the requirements of the present Code.

Note 2.  Epithets in names published in conformity with this Code may be used as cultivar
epithets under the rules of the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants-

1980, when this is considered to be the appropriate status for the groups concerned. The
International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants-1980, in its Art. 27, requires new
cultivar epithets published on or after 1 January 1959 to be fancy names markedly different
from epithets of names in Latin form governed by the present Code.

Ex. 1.  Cultivar names: Taxus baccata ‘Variegata’ or Taxus baccata cv. Variegata (based on
T. baccata var. variegata Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 292, 347. 1770), Phlox drummondii ‘Ster-
nenzauber’, Viburnum ×bodnantense ‘Dawn’.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 39 –

text: © 1994, 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 Hist. Soc. Roy. Méd. 5(1): 279).

Article 30

30.1.  Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is effective.

Ex. 1.  Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr. was effectively published in a printed autograph catalogue
placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich, Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum ... ab A. Blanco lectarum, Paris,
Jul 1850, folio).

30.2.  For the purpose of this Article, indelible autograph is handwritten ma-
terial reproduced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography,
offset, or metallic etching).

Ex. 2.  H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914-1915), is a work lithographed from a handwritten text.

30.3.  Publication on or after 1 January 1953 in trade catalogues or non-scienti-
fic newspapers, and on or after 1 January 1973 in seed-exchange lists, does not
constitute effective publication.

30.4.  The distribution on or after 1 January 1953 of printed matter accompa-
nying exsiccata does not constitute effective publication.

Note 1.  If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the exsiccata, it is effect-
ively published.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 40 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 3.  Works such as Lundell & Nannfeldt, Fungi exsiccati suecici ..., Uppsala 1-..., 1934-..., dis-
tributed independently of the exsiccata, whether published before or after 1 January 1953, are effec-
tively published.

Recommendation 30A

30A.1.  It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing new names and descrip-
tions or diagnoses of new taxa in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular that
which is multiplied in restricted 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 or diagnoses in popular periodicals, in ab-
stracting journals, or on correction slips.

Article 31

31.1.  The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter
became available as defined in Art. 29 and 30. In the absence of proof estab-
lishing some other date, the one appearing in the printed matter must be ac-
cepted as correct.

Ex. 1.  Individual parts of Willdenow’s Species plantarum were published as follows: 1(1), Jun 1797;
1(2), Jul 1798; 2(1), Mar 1799; 2(2), Dec 1799; 3(1), 1800; 3(2), Nov 1802; 3(3), Apr-Dec 1803 (and
later than Michaux’s Flora boreali-americana); 4(1), 1805; 4(2), 1806; these dates, which are partly in
disagreement with the years on the title-pages of the volumes, are presently accepted as the correct
dates of effective publication.

Ex. 2.  T. M. Fries, “Lichenes arctoi”, was first published as an independently paginated preprint in
1860, which predates the identical version published in a journal (Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Upsal. 3(3):
103-398. 1861).

31.2.  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 publica-
tion unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

Ex. 3.  Publication in separates issued in advance: the names of the Selaginella species published by
Hieronymus (in Hedwigia 51: 241-272) were effectively published on 15 October 1911, since the
volume in which the paper appeared, though dated 1912, states (p. ii) that the separate appeared on that
date.

Recommendation 31A

31A.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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 41 –

text: © 1994, 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. 29-31) on or after the starting-point
date of the respective group (Art. 13.1); (b) have a form which complies with
the provisions of Art. 16-27 (but see Art. 18.3 and 19.6), and Art. H.6 and H.7;
(c) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis or by a reference to a pre-
viously and effectively published description or diagnosis (except as provided
in Art. 42.3, 44.1, and H.9); and (d) comply with the special provisions of Art.
33-45 (see also Art. 61). In addition, subject to the approval of the XVI Inter-
national Botanical Congress, names (autonyms excepted) published on or after
1 January 2000 must be registered.

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

Ex. 2.  “Loranthus macrosolen Steud.” 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; the name was not validly published, however, until Richard (Tent. Fl.
Abyss. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.

*Ex. 3.  In Don, 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 or diagnosis. New names appearing in that work are therefore
not validly published, except in some cases where reference is made to earlier descriptions or diagnoses
or to validly published basionyms.

32.2.  Registration is effected by sending the printed matter that includes the
protologue(s), with the name(s) to be registered clearly identified, to any regis-
tering office designated by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

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

32.4.  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. 32.5). For names published on or after 1 January 1953 it must, however,
be full and direct as specified in Art. 33.2.

32.5.  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) was pub-
lished with a diagnosis but was not definitely accepted by the author and therefore was not validly
published. Kratzmannia Opiz (Seznam: 56. 1852), lacking description or diagnosis, is however defi-
nitely accepted, and its citation as “Kratzmannia O.” constitutes indirect reference to the diagnosis
published in 1836.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 42 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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

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. Glumac. 1: 388. 1854). Although the
reference to the basionym Andropogon martini is indirect, it is unambiguous (see also Rec. 60C.2).

Ex. 7.  Miller (1768), in the preface to The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, stated that he had “now applied
Linnaeus’s method entirely except in such particulars ...”, of which he gave examples. In the main text,
he often referred to Linnaean genera under his own generic headings, e.g., to Cactus L. [pro parte]
under Opuntia Mill. Therefore an implicit reference to a Linnaean binomial may be assumed when this
is appropriate, and Miller’s binomials accepted as new combinations (e.g., Opuntia ficus-indica (L.)
Mill., based on Cactus ficus-indica L.) or avowed substitutes (e.g., Opuntia vulgaris Mill., based on
Cactus opuntia L., where both names have the reference to “Opuntia vulgo herbariorum” of Bauhin &
Cherler in common).

Ex. 8.  In Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871) the statement that the author intended to adopt at
generic rank the subdivisions of Agaricus then in use, which at the time were those of Fries, and the
general arrangement of the work, which faithfully follows that of Fries, provide indirect reference to
Fries’s earlier names of “tribes”. Therefore, names such as Hypholoma (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. are
accepted as being based on the corresponding Friesian names (here: A. “tribus” Hypholoma Fr. : Fr.)
although Kummer did not explicitly refer to Fries.

32.6.  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 Art. 17-19, 21, 23, and 24, without change of the
author’s name or date of publication (see also Art. 60.11).

32.7.  Autonyms (Art. 6.8) are accepted as validly published names, dating
from the publication in which they were established (see Art. 22.3 and 26.3),
whether or not they appear in print in that publication.

32.8.  Names in specified ranks included in publications listed as suppressed
works (opera utique oppressa; App. V) are not validly published. Proposals for
the addition of publications to App. V must be submitted to the General Com-
mittee (see Div. III), which will refer them for examination to the committees
for the various taxonomic groups (see Rec. 32F; see also Art. 14.14 and
Rec. 14A).

32.9.  When a proposal for the suppression of a publication has been approved
by the General Committee after study by the committees for the taxonomic
groups concerned, treating that publication as suppressed is authorized subject
to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress.

Note 1.  For valid publication of names of plant taxa that were originally not treated as
plants, see Art. 45.5.

Recommendation 32A

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

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 43 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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
published for a different taxon.

Recommendation 32D

32D.1.  In describing or diagnosing new taxa, authors should, when possible, supply figures
with details of structure as an aid to identification.

32D.2.  In the explanation of the figures, authors should indicate the specimen(s) on which
they are based (see also Rec. 8A.2).

32D.1.  Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they
publish.

Recommendation 32E

32E.1.  Descriptions or diagnoses of parasitic plants should always be followed by indica-
tion 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.

Recommendation 32F

32F.1.  When a proposal for the suppression of a publication under Art. 32.8 has been
referred to the appropriate committees for study, authors should follow existing usage as far
as possible pending the General Committee’s recommendation on the proposal.

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 botanicus by the
arrangement of the epithets in a list headed by the name of the genus, and in general by any typo-
graphical 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.” (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not constitute
valid publication of the combination Blephilia ciliata, since Rafinesque did not definitely associate the

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 44 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

epithet ciliata with the generic name Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is
not to be attributed to Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867) on the basis of their listing of
“Cnidium peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under Eulophus.

33.2.  A new combination, or an avowed substitute (nomen novum), published
on or after 1 January 1953, for a previously and validly published name is not
validly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing syn-
onym) 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 reference and date.

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

Note 1.  For the purpose of this Code, a page reference (for publications with a consecutive
pagination) is 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 coextensive with that of the protologue.

Ex. 4.  When proposing “Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally (in Mycotaxon 40: 337. 1991) cited the
basionym as “Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesw., Can. J. Bot. 60: 2288-2294. 1982”. As this refers to
the pagination of Boeswinkel’s entire paper, not of the protologue of the intended basionym alone, the
combination was not validly published by Peerally.

33.3.  Errors of bibliographic citation and incorrect forms of author citation
(see Art. 46) do not invalidate publication of a new combination or avowed
substitute.

Ex. 5.  Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) F. Seym. (Fl. New England: 308. 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. 6.  The combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (in 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 published,
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 T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M. Tryon.

Ex. 7.  The combination Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with a full and direct
reference to Peziza corticalis in Fries (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 (Observ. Mycol. 1: 28. 1796).
Raitviir’s bibliographic error of citation does not invalidate the new combination, which is to be cited as
L. corticale (Pers.) Raitv.

33.4.  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. 8.  Ciferri (in Mycopathol. 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. Similarly,
Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ.: 18. 1963) introduced a new combination in the form Lecanora campe-
stris f. “pseudistera (Nyl.) Grumm. c.n. — L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521”, in which “Z 5” referred to Zahlbruckner

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 45 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

(Cat. Lich. Univ. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the basionym, Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.;
Grummann’s combination was not validly published.

Note 2.  The publication of a name for a taxon previously known under a misapplied name
must be valid under Art. 32-45. This procedure is not the same as publishing an avowed
substitute (nomen novum) for a validly published but illegitimate name (Art. 58.1(b)), the
type of which is necessarily the same as that of the name which it replaced (Art. 7.3).

Ex. 9.  Sadleria hillebrandii Rob. (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 Art. 32-45
were satisfied (for valid publication, prior to 1935, simple reference to a previous description or
diagnosis in any language was sufficient), the name is validly published. It is, however, to be considered
the name of a new species, validated by Hillebrand’s description of the taxon to which he misapplied
the name S. pallida Hook. & Arn., and not a nomen novum as stated by Robinson; hence, Art. 7.3 does
not apply.

Ex. 10.  Juncus bufonius “var. occidentalis” (Hermann in 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 re-
quirements, the name is not validly published.

33.5.  A name given to a taxon whose rank is at the same time, contrary to Art.
5, denoted by a misplaced term is not validly published. Such misplacements
include forms divided into varieties, species containing genera, and genera
containing families or tribes.

Ex. 11.  “Sectio Orontiaceae” was not validly published by Brown (Prodr.: 337. 1810) since he misap-
plied the term “sectio” to taxa of a rank higher than genus.

Ex. 12.  “Tribus Involuta” and ”tribus Brevipedunculata” (Huth in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20: 365, 368. 1895)
are not validly published names, since Huth misapplied the term “tribus” to a taxon of a rank lower than
section, within the genus Delphinium.

33.6.  An exception to Art. 33.5 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.

Ex. 13.  Agaricus “tribus” Pholiota Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 1: 240. 1821), sanctioned in the same work, is the
validly published basionym of the generic name Pholiota (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871) (see Art. 32 Ex.
8).

Recommendation 33A

33A.1.  The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym or replaced
synonym 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 publica-
tion 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,

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 46 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

position, or rank of the group (so-called provisional name), except as provided

for in Art. 59; (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; (d) by the mere
mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. 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.

Ex. 1.  (a) “Sebertia”, proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a monotypic genus, was not validly published by
Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept the genus. Although he
gave a description of it, he referred its only species “Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)” to the genus
Sersalisia R. Br. as Sersalisia ? acuminata, which he thereby validly published under the provision of
Art. 34.1, last sentence. The name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (1897).

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

Ex. 3.  (a) (b) The designation “Conophyton”, 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 a validly published generic name since
Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br.
(1922).

Ex. 4.  (c) “Acosmus Desv.”, cited by Desfontaines (Cat. Pl. Hort. Paris.: 233. 1829) 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 transferred to
Ornithogalum L., this species is to be called O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).

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

Ex. 7.  (d) The family designation “Rhaptopetalaceae” (Pierre in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296.
Mai 1897), which was accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., “Scyto-
petalum”, and Rhaptopetalum Oliv., was not validly published, as Pierre gave no description or dia-
gnosis; the family bears the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897), accompanied by a description.

Ex. 8.  (d) The generic designation “Ibidium” (Salisbury in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812) was
published merely with the mention of four included species. As Salisbury supplied no generic descrip-
tion or diagnosis, it is not a validly published name.

34.2.  When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names are
proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author (so-called
alternative names), 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 Rec. 22A.1 and 22A.2, 26A.1-3).

Ex. 9.  The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23-29.
1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl. added in a footnote (pp. 23-24).
The publication of both sets of names, being effected before 1 January 1953, is valid.

Ex. 10.  “Euphorbia jaroslavii” (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR
15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, “Tithymalus jaroslavii”. Neither was
validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a different transliteration 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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 47 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________ 

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

Ex. 12.  Hitchcock (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507-508. 1969) used the name Bromus inermis
subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct reference to its basionym, B.
pumpellianus Scribn. Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties one of which he named B. inermis
var. pumpellianus (without author citation but clearly based on the same basionym and type). In so
doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L.
Hitchc.

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. 34.2. They
have different types, and the circumscription of the holomorph is considered to include the
anamorph, but not vice versa.

Ex. 13.  Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929), the name of a fungal holomorph, and the simultaneously
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 mentioning in their publications previously unpublished
names which they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for these unpublished
names have not formally authorized their publication (see Rec. 23A.3(i)).

Article 35

35.1.  A new name or combination published on or after 1 January 1953 with-
out a clear indication of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly publish-
ed.

35.2.  A new name or combination published before 1 January 1953 without a
clear indication of rank is validly published provided that all other require-
ments for valid publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative in questions
of priority except for homonymy (see Art. 53.5). If it is a new name, it may
serve as a basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent combinations or
avowed substitutes in definite ranks.

Ex. 1.  The groups “Soldanellae”, “Sepincoli”, “Occidentales”, etc., were published without any indi-
cation of rank under Convolvulus L. by House (in Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908). The names C. [unranked]
Soldanellae, etc., 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 Carex L., the epithet Scirpinae was used in the name of an infrageneric taxon of no stated rank
by Tuckerman (Enum. Meth. Caric.: 8. 1843); this was assigned sectional rank by Kükenthal (in Engler,
Pflanzenr. 38: 81. 1909) and may be cited as Carex sect. Scirpinae (Tuck.) Kük. (C. [unranked]
Scirpinae Tuck.).

35.3.  If in a given publication prior to 1 January 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.

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 48 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

___________________________________________________________________