Preamble Pre.1-Pre.6

 
 
 
 
 
 

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).

  1

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 01 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Pre.7-Pre.11 Preamble

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.

2  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 02 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Principles I-VI

 
 
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 

  3

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 03 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

1-3 Ranks

 
 
 
 

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.

4  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 04 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Ranks 3-5

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).

  5

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 05 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

6 Definitions

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

6  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 06 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Definitions – Typification 6-7

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.

  7

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 07 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

7 Typification

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.

8  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 08 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 7-8A

*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).

  9

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 09 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

8A-9 Typification

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.

10  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 10 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 9

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.

  11

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 11 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

9-9A Typification

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.

12  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 12 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 9A-10

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.,

  13

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 13 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

10 Typification

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.

14  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 14 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification – Priority 10-11

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

  15

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 15 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

11 Priority

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.

16  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 16 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 11

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)

  17

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 17 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

11-12 Priority

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).

18  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 18 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Starting points 13

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)).

  19

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 19 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

13-14 Starting points – Conservation

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.

20  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 20 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Conservation 14

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-
lishe
d 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.

  21

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 21 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

14 Conservation

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.

22  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 22 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Conservation – Sanctioning 14-15

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).

  23

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 23 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

15 Sanctioning

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

24  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 24 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Higher taxa 16-16A

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

 
 

  25

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 25 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

16A-17A Higher taxa

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.

26  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 26 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Families 18

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-

  27

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 27 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

18-19 Families – Subdivisions of families

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).

28  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 28 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of families – Genera 19-20

             
             

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.

  29

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 29 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

18-19 Families – Subdivisions of families

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.

30  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 30 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Genera – Subdivisions of genera 20A-21A

(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.

  31

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 31 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

21B-22 Subdivisions of genera

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.

32  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 32 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of genera – Species 22-23

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.

  33

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 33 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

23 Species

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).

34  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 34 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Species 23-23A

(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.  Apocynumfol. [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.

  35

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 35 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

23A-24 Species – Infraspecific taxa

(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 spicatavar. 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.

36  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 36 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa 24-26

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).

  37

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 37 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

26-26A Infraspecific taxa

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

38  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 38 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa – Cultivated plants 26A-28

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.

  39

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 39 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

29-30 Effective publication

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.d. 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.

40  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 40 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication 30-31A

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.

  41

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 41 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

32 Valid publication

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 asKratzmannia O.” constitutes indirect reference to the diagnosis
published in 1836.

42  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 42 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 32-32A

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.

  43

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 43 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

32B-33 Valid publication

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

44  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 44 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 33

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

  45

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 45 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

33-34 Valid publication

(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,

46  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 46 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 34

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.

  47

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 47 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

34-35 Valid publication

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.

48  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 48 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 35-36A

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

Article 36

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

Ex. 1.  Arabis “Sekt. Brassicoturritis O. E. Schulz” and “Sekt. Brassicarabis O. E. Schulz” (in Engler &
Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 17b: 543-544. 1936), published with German but no Latin descriptions
or diagnoses, are not validly published names.

Ex. 2.  “Schiedea gregoriana (Degener, Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 9 Apr 1936) was not accompanied
by a Latin
description or diagnosis, and is accordingly not a validly published name. S. kealiae Caum &
Hosaka (in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Mus. 11(23): 3. 10 Apr 1936), the type of which is part
of the material used by Degener, is provided with a Latin description and is validly published.

Ex. 3.  Alyssum flahaultianum Emb., first published without a Latin description or diagnosis (in Bull.
Soc. Hist. Nat. Maroc 15: 199. 1936), was validly published posthumously when a Latin translation of
Emberger’s original French description was provided (in Willdenowia 15: 62-63. 1985).

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

Ex. 4.  Although Neoptilota Kylin (Gatt. Rhodophyc.: 392. 1956) was accompanied by only a German
description, it is a validly published name since it applies to an alga and was published before 1958.

36.3.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of fossil plants
published on or after 1 Jan 1996 must be accompanied by a Latin or English
description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished Latin or English description or diagnosis.

Recommendation 36A

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

  49

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 49 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

37-38 Valid publication

Article 37

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

37.2.  For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference (direct
or indirect) to one species name only, or the citation of the holotype or lecto-
type of one previously or simultaneously published species name only, con-
stitutes indication of the type (Art. 10 Note 1; see also Art. 22.5; but see Art.
37.4).

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

37.4.  For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below published on
or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words
“typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern lan-
guage.

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

Note 1.  Specification of the herbarium or institution may be made in an abbreviated form,
e.g. as given in Index herbariorum, part I (Regnum Veg. 120).

Recommendation 37A

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

Article 38

38.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of fossil plants of
specific or lower rank published on or after 1 January 1912 must be accompa-
nied by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters, in addition to
the description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively
published illustration or figure.

50  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 50 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 39-41

Article 39

39.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae of specific or lower rank published on or after 1 January 1958 must be
accompanied by an illustration or figure showing the distinctive morphological
features, in addition to the Latin description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a
previously and effectively published illustration or figure.

Recommendation 39A

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

Article 40

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

Ex. 1.  “Nepeta ×faassenii (Bergmans, Vaste Pl. Rotsheesters, ed. 2: 544. 1939, with a description in
Dutch; Lawrence in Gentes Herb. 8: 64. 1949, with a diagnosis in English) is not validly published, not
being accompanied by or associated with a Latin description or diagnosis. The name Nepeta ×faassenii
Bergmans ex Stearn (1950) is validly published, being accompanied by a Latin description.

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

Ex. 3.  “Fumaria salmonii (Druce, List Brit. Pl.: 4. 1908) is not validly published, because only the
presumed parentage F. densiflora × F. officinalis is stated.

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

Article 41

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

Ex. 1.  Pseudoditrichaceae fam. nov.” (Steere & Iwatsuki in Canad. J. Bot. 52: 701. 1974) was not
a validly published name of a family as there was no Latin description or diagnosis nor reference to
either, but only mention of the single included genus and species (see Art. 34.1(d)), “Pseudoditrichum
mirabile
gen. et sp. nov.”, for both of which the name was validated under Art. 42 by a single Latin
diagnosis.

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

  51

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 51 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

41-42 Valid publication

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

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

Note 2.  In certain circumstances, an illustration with analysis is accepted as equivalent to a
generic description or diagnosis (see Art. 42.3).

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

Ex. 3.  Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated by a generic description but without mention of a
name of a species. T. madagascariense DC. (1828) was subsequently proposed without a description or
diagnosis of the species. Neither author gave any indication that there was more than one species in the
genus. Candolle’s specific name is therefore validly published.

Article 42

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

Ex. 1.  Nylander (1879) described the new species “Anema nummulariellum” in a new genus “Anema”
without providing a generic description or diagnosis. Since at the same time he also transferred Ompha-
laria nummularia
Durieu & Mont. to “Anema”, none of his names were validly published. They were
later validated by Forsell (1885).

42.2.  For the purpose of Art. 42, a monotypic genus is one for which a single
binomial is validly published, even though the author may indicate that other
species are attributable to the genus.

52  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 52 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 42-43

Ex. 2.  The names Kedarnatha P. K. Mukh. & Constance (1986) and K. sanctuarii P. K. Mukh. &
Constance, the latter designating the only species in the new genus, are both validly published although
a Latin description is provided only under the generic name.

Ex. 3.  Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth. (1840) was a new species assigned to the monotypic new genus
Piptolepis published with a combined generic and specific description, and both names are validly
published
.

Ex. 4.  In publishing Phaelypea without a generic description or diagnosis, P. Browne (Civ. Nat.
Hist. Jamaica: 269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave the species a phrase-
name and did not provide a valid binomial. Art. 42 does not therefore apply and Phaelypea is not a
validly published name.

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

42.4.  For the purpose of Art. 42, an analysis is a figure or group of figures,
commonly separate from the main illustration of the plant (though usually on
the same page or plate), showing details aiding identification, with or without a
separate caption.

Ex. 5.  The generic name Philgamia Baill. (1894) was validly published, as it appeared on a plate with
analysis of the only included species, P. hibbertioides Baill., and was published before 1 January 1908.

Article 43

43.1.  A name of a taxon below the rank of genus is not validly published
unless the name of the genus or species to which it is assigned is validly
published at the same time or was validly published previously.

Ex. 1.  Binary designations for six species of Suaeda, including S. baccata and S. vera, were
published with descriptions and diagnoses by Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 69-71. 1775), but he pro-
vided no description or diagnosis for the genus: these were not therefore validly published names.

Ex. 2.  Müller (in Flora 63: 286. 1880) published the new genus Phlyctidia with the species P.
hampeana
n. sp., P. boliviensis (= Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.), P. sorediiformis (= Phlyctis sore-
diiformis
Kremp.), P. brasiliensis (= Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and P. andensis (= Phlyctis an-
densis
Nyl.). These were not, however, validly published specific names in this place, because the
intended generic name Phlyctidia was not validly published; Müller gave no generic description or
diagnosis but only a description and a diagnosis of the new species P. hampeana. This description
and diagnosis did not validate the generic name as a descriptio generico-specifica under Art. 42 since
the new genus was not monotypic. Valid publication of the name Phlyctidia was by Müller (1895), who
provided a short generic diagnosis and explicitly included only two species, P. ludoviciensis Müll. Arg.
and P. boliviensis (Nyl.) Müll. Arg. The latter names were validly published in 1895.

Note 1.  This Article applies also when specific and other epithets are published under words
not to be regarded as generic names (see Art. 20.4).

Ex. 3.  The binary designation Anonymos aquatica (Walter, Fl. Carol.: 230. 1788) is not a validly
published name. The correct name for the species concerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel. (1791),
and the date of the name, for purposes of priority, is 1791. The name must not be cited as P. aquatica
(Walter) J. F. Gmel.”

Ex. 4.  Despite the existence of the generic name Scirpoides Ség. (1754), the binary designation “S.
paradoxus
(Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.: 27. 1772) is not validly published since Scirpoides in Rott-
bøll’s
context was a word not intended as a generic name. The first validly published name for this
species is Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).

  53

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 53 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

44-45 Valid publication

Article 44

44.1.  The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon published before 1
January 1908 is validly published if it is accompanied only by an illustration
with analysis (as defined in Art. 42.4).

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

44.2.  Single figures of non-vascular plants showing details aiding identifica-
tion are considered as illustrations with analysis (see also Art. 42.4).

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

Article 45

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

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

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

45.2.  After 1 January 2000, when one or more of the other conditions for valid
publication have not been met prior to registration, the name must be resub-
mitted for registration after these conditions have been met.

45.3.  A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 32.6 and 60)
does not affect its date of valid publication.

Ex. 3.  The correction of the orthographical error in Gluta benghas (Linnaeus, Mant.: 293. 1771) to
Gluta renghas L. does not affect the date of publication of the name even though the correction dates
only from 1883 (Engler in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).

45.4.  For purposes of priority only legitimate names are taken into consider-
ation (see Art. 11, 52-54). However, validly published earlier homonyms,
whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection of their later homonyms, unless
the latter are conserved or sanctioned (but see Art. 15 Note 1).

54  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 54 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 45-45C

45.5.  If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to a group of plants other than algae, the authorship and
date of any of its names are determined by the first publication that satisfies the
requirements for valid publication under this Code. If the taxon is treated as
belonging to the algae, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements of
the pertinent non-botanical Code for status equivalent to valid publication
under the present Code (but see Art. 54, regarding homonymy).

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

Ex. 5.  Petalodinium Cachon & Cachon-Enj. (in Protistologia 5: 16. 1969) is available under the Inter-
national
code of zoological nomenclature
as the name of a genus of dinoflagellates. When the taxon is
treated as belonging to the algae, its name retains its original authorship and date even though the
original publication lacked a Latin diagnosis.

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

Ex. 7.  Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy (in Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921, “Protodiniferidae”),
available under the International code of zoological nomenclature, is validly published as a name of a
family of algae with its original authorship and date but with the original termination changed in
accordance with Art. 18.4 and 32.6.

Recommendation 45A

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

Recommendation 45B

45B.1.  Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In a work
appearing in parts the last-published sheet of the volume should indicate the precise dates on
which the different fascicles or parts of the volume were published as well as the number of
pages and plates in each.

Recommendation 45C

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

______________ 

¹ The word “available” in the International code of zoological nomenclature is equivalent to “validly
   published” in the present Code.

  55

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 55 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Citation

 

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

Article 46

46.1.  For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate and complete,
and in order that the date may be readily verified, it is necessary to cite the
name of the author(s) who validly published the name concerned unless the
provisions for autonyms apply (Art. 22.1 and 26.1).

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

46.2.  A name of a new taxon must be attributed to the author or authors to
whom both the name and the validating description or diagnosis were ascribed,
even when authorship of the publication is different. A new combination or a
nomen novum must be attributed to the author or authors to whom it was
ascribed when, in the publication in which it appears, it is explicitly stated that
they contributed in some way to that publication. Art. 46.4 notwithstanding,
authorship of a new name or combination must always be accepted as ascribed,
even when it differs from authorship of the publication, when at least one
author is common to both.

Ex. 2.  The name Viburnum ternatum was published in Sargent (Trees & Shrubs 2: 37. 1907). It was
ascribed to “Rehd.”, and the whole account of the species was signed “Alfred Rehder” at the foot of the
article. The name is therefore cited as V. ternatum Rehder.

Ex. 3.  In a paper by Hilliard & Burtt (1986) names of new species of Schoenoxiphium, including S.
altum, were ascribed to Kukkonen, preceded by a statement “The following diagnostic descriptions of
new species have been supplied by Dr. I. Kukkonen in order to make the names available for use”. The
name is therefore cited as S. altum Kukkonen.

Ex. 4.  In Torrey & Gray (1838) the names Calyptridium and C. monandrum were ascribed to “Nutt.
mss.”, and the descriptions were enclosed in double quotes indicating that Nuttall wrote them, as
acknowledged in the preface. The names are therefore cited as Calyptridium Nutt. and C. monandrum
Nutt.

Ex. 5.  The name Brachystelma was published by Sims (1822) who by implication ascribed it to Brown
and added “Brown, Mscr.” at the end of the generic diagnosis, indicating that Brown wrote it. The name
is therefore cited as Brachystelma R. Br.

Ex. 6.  Green (1985) ascribed the new combination Neotysonia phyllostegia to Paul G. Wilson and
elsewhere in the same publication acknowledged his assistance. The name is therefore cited as N.
phyllostegia
(F. Muell.) Paul G. Wilson.

Ex. 7.  The authorship of Steyerbromelia discolor L. B. Sm. & H. Rob. (1984) is accepted as originally
ascribed, although the new species was described in a paper authored by Smith alone. The same applies
to the new combination Sophora tomentosa subsp. occidentalis (L.) Brummitt (in Kirkia 5: 265. 1966),
thus ascribed, published in a paper authored jointly by Brummitt & Gillett.

Note 1.  When authorship of a name differs from authorship of the publication in which it
was validly published, both are sometimes cited,
connected by the word “in”. In such a case,
“in” and what follows are part of a bibliographic citation and are better omitted unless the
place of publication is being cited.

56  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 56 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation 46

46.3.  For the purposes of this Article, ascription is the direct association of the
name of a person or persons with a new name or description or diagnosis of a
taxon. Mention of an author’s name in a list of synonyms is not ascription, nor
is reference to a basionym or a replaced synonym, including bibliographic
errors, nor is reference to a homonym, nor is a formal error.

Ex. 8.  Hypnum crassinervium Wilson (1833) was not ascribed to Taylor by Wilson’s citing “Hypnum
crassinervium
Dr. Taylor’s MS” in the list of synonyms.

Ex. 9.  Lichen debilis Sm. (1812) was not ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s citingCalicium
debile
Turn. and Borr. Mss.” as a synonym.

Ex. 10.  When Opiz (1852) wrote “Hemisphace Bentham” he did not ascribe the generic name to
Bentham but provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Salvia sect. Hemisphace Benth. (see Art.
32 Ex. 5).

Ex. 11.  When Brotherus (1907) published “Dichelodontium nitidulum Hooker & Wilson” he provided
an indirect reference to the basionym, Leucodon nitidulus Hook. f. & Wilson, and did not ascribe the
new combination to Hooker and Wilson. He did, however, ascribe to them the simultaneously published
name of his new genus, Dichelodontium.

Ex. 12.  When Sirodot (1872) wrote “Lemanea Bory” he in fact published a later homonym (see Art. 48
Ex. 1). His reference to Bory is not therefore ascription of the later homonym, Lemanea Sirodot, to
Bory.

46.4.  A name of a new taxon must be attributed to the author or authors of the
publication in which it appears when only the name but not the validating
description or diagnosis was ascribed to a different author or different authors.
A new combination or a nomen novum must be attributed to the author or
authors of the publication in which it appears, although it was ascribed to a
different author or to different authors, when no separate statement was made
that they contributed in some way to that publication. However, in both cases
authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inserted before the name(s)
of the publishing author(s).

Ex. 13.  Seemann (1865) published Gossypium tomentosum Nutt. mss.”, followed by a validating
description not ascribed to Nuttall; the name may be cited as Gossypium tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or
G. tomentosum Seem.

Ex. 14.  The name Lithocarpus polystachyus published by Rehder (1919) was based on Quercus poly-
stachya
A. DC. (1864), ascribed by Candolle to “Wall.! list n. 2789” but formerly a nomen nudum;
Rehder’s combination may be cited as L. polystachyus (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder or L. polystachyus (A.
DC.) Rehder
.

Ex. 15.  Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (1977) as a new species and its name was
ascribed to Ivanova; since there is no indication that Ivanova provided the validating description, the
name may be cited as L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or L. tianschanicum Grubov.

Ex. 16.  In a paper by Boufford, Tsi and Wang (1990) the name Rubus fanjingshanensis was ascribed to
Lu with no indication that he provided the description; the name should be attributed to Boufford & al.
or to L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al.

Ex. 17.  Green (1985) ascribed the new combination Tersonia cyathiflora to “(Fenzl) A. S. George”;
since Green nowhere mentioned that George had contributed in any way, the combining author must be
cited as A. S. George ex J. W. Green or just J. W. Green.

46.5.  The citation of an author who published the name before the starting
point of the group concerned may be indicated by the use of the word “ex”. For
groups with a starting point later than 1753, when a pre-starting point name

  57

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 57 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

46-46A Citation

was changed in rank or taxonomic position by the first author who validly
published it, the name of the pre-starting point author may be added in paren-
theses, followed by “ex”.

Ex. 18.  Linnaeus (1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author Tournefort; the
name may be cited as Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (1753) or Lupinus L.

Ex. 19.  Lyngbya glutinosa C. Agardh (Syst. Alg.: 73. 1824) was taken up by Gomont in the publication
which marks the starting point of the “Nostocaceae heterocysteae” (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15:
339. 1892) as Hydrocoleum glutinosum. This may be cited as H. glutinosum (C. Agardh) ex Gomont.

46.6.  In determining the correct author citation, only internal evidence in the
publication (as defined in Art. 35.4) where the name was validly published is to
be accepted, including ascription of the name, statements in the introduction,
title, or acknowledgements, and typographical or stylistic distinctions in the
text.

Ex. 20.  Names first published in Britton & Brown’s Illustrated flora of the northern United States
(1896-1898; ed. 2, 1913) must, unless ascribed to Britton alone (see Art. 46.2), be attributed to “Britton
& A. Br.”, since the title page attributes the whole work to both, even though it is generally accepted
that A. Brown did not participate in writing it.

Ex. 21.  Although the descriptions in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally considered to have
been written by Solander or Dryander, the names of new taxa published there must be attributed to
Aiton, the stated author of the work, except where a name and description were both ascribed in that
work to somebody else.

Ex. 22.  The name Andreaea angustata was published in a work of Limpricht (1885) with the ascription
“nov. sp. Lindb. in litt. ad Breidler 1884”, but there is no internal evidence that Lindberg had supplied
the validating description. Authorship is therefore to be cited as “Limpr.” or “Lindb. ex Limpr.”

Note 2.  Authors publishing new names and wishing to establish that other persons’ names
followed by “ex” may precede theirs in authorship citation may adopt the “ex” citation in
the protologue.

Ex. 23.  In validating the name Nothotsuga, Page (1989) cited it as “Nothotsuga H.-H. Hu ex C. N.
Page”, noting that in 1951 Hu had published it as a nomen nudum; the name may be attributed to Hu ex
C. N. Page or just C. N. Page.

Ex. 24.  Atwood (1981) ascribed the name of a new species, Maxillaria mombachoënsis, to “Heller ex
Atwood”, with a note stating that it was originally named by Heller, then deceased; the name may be
attributed to A. H. Heller ex J. T. Atwood or just J. T. Atwood.

Recommendation 46A

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

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

46A.3.  When it is necessary to give more of a name to avoid confusion between names
beginning with the same syllable, the same system should be followed. For instance, two
syllables should be given together with the one or two first consonants of the third; or one of

58  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 58 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation 46A-46D

the last characteristic consonants of the name be added (Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish
it from Bertero; Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish it from Micheli).

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

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

Note 1.  Brummitt & Powell’s Authors of plant names (1992) provides unambiguous stand-
ard abbreviations, in conformity with the present Recommendation, for a large number of
authors of plant names, and these abbreviations have been used for author citations through-
out the present Code.

Recommendation 46B

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

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

Recommendation 46C

46C.1.  After a name published jointly by two authors, the names of both authors should be
cited, linked by the word “et” or by an ampersand (&).

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

46C.2.  After a name published jointly by more than two authors, the citation should be
restricted to the name of the first author followed by “et al.” or “& al.”, except in the
original publication.

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

Recommendation 46D

46D.1.  Authors should cite their own names after each new name they publish rather than
refer to themselves by expressions such as “nobis” (nob.) or “mihi” (m.).

  59

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 59 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

47-48 Citation

Article 47

47.1.  An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a
taxon without the exclusion of the type does not warrant a change of author
citation
for the name of the taxon.

Ex. 1.  When the original material of Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (1887) is attributed to two different
species, as by Munz (1932), that species not including the lectotype must bear a different name (A.
shockleyi
Munz) but the other one is still named A. beckwithii S. Watson.

Ex. 2.  Myosotis as revised by Brown differs from the genus as originally circumscribed by Linnaeus,
but the generic name remains Myosotis L. since the type of the name is still included in the genus (it
may be
cited as Myosotis L. emend. R. Br.: see Rec. 47A).

Ex. 3.  The variously defined species that includes the types of Centaurea jacea L. (1753), C. amara L.
(1763) and a variable number of other species names is still called
C. jacea L. (or L. emend. Coss. &
Germ., L. emend. Vis., or L. emend. Godr., as the case may be: see Rec. 47A).

Recommendation 47A

47A.1.  When an alteration as mentioned in Art. 47 has been considerable, the nature of the
change may be indicated by adding such words, abbreviated where suitable, as “emendavit”
(emend.) (followed by the name of the author responsible for the change), “mutatis charac-
teribus” (mut. char.), “pro parte” (p. p.), “excluso genere” or “exclusis generibus” (excl.
gen.),
“exclusa specie” or “exclusis speciebus” (excl. sp.), “exclusa varietate” or “exclusis
varietatibus” (excl. var.), “sensu amplo” (s. ampl.), “sensu lato” (s. l.), “sensu stricto” (s.
str.),
etc.

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

Article 48

48.1.  When an author adopts an existing name but definitely excludes its
original type, a later homonym that must be attributed solely to that author is
considered to have been published. Similarly, when an author who adopts a
name refers to an apparent basionym but explicitly excludes its type, a new
name is considered to have been published that must be attributed solely to that
author. Exclusion can be effected by simultaneous explicit inclusion of the type
in a different taxon by the same author (see also Art. 59.6).

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

Ex. 2.  The name Amorphophallus campanulatus Decne. (1834) was apparently based on the illegitim-
ate
Arum campanulatum Roxb. (1819). However, the type of the latter was explicitly excluded by
Decaisne, and his name is therefore a legitimate name of a new species, to be attributed solely to him.

Ex. 3.  Cenomyce ecmocyna Ach. (1810) is a superfluous name for Lichen gracilis L. (1753), and so is
Scyphophora ecmocyna Gray (1821), the type of L. gracilis still being included. However, when
proposing the combination Cladonia ecmocyna, Leighton (1866) explicitly excluded that type and
thereby published a new, legitimate name, Cladonia ecmocyna Leight.

60  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 60 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation 48-50

Note 1.  Misapplication of a new combination to a different taxon, but without explicit
exclusion of the type of the basionym, is dealt with under Art. 7.4.

Note 2.  Retention of a name in a sense that excludes its original type, or its type designated
under Art. 7-10, can be effected only by conservation (see Art. 14.9).

Article 49

49.1.  When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank but retains its
name or the final epithet in its name, the author of the earlier, name- or
epithet-bringing legitimate name (the author of the basionym) must be cited in
parentheses, followed by the name of the author who effected the alteration
(the author of the new name). The same holds when a taxon of lower rank than
genus is transferred to another genus or species, with or without alteration of
rank.

Ex. 1.  Medicago polymorpha var. orbicularis L. (1753) when raised to the rank of species becomes M.
orbicularis
(L.) Bartal. (1776).

Ex. 2.  Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. (1825) raised to generic rank, retaining the epithet Aspala-
thoides
as its name, is cited as Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (1853).

Ex. 3.  Cineraria sect. Eriopappus Dumort. (Fl. Belg.: 65. 1827) when transferred to Tephroseris
(Rchb.) Rchb. is cited as T. sect. Eriopappus (Dumort.) Holub (in Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 8: 173.
1973).

Ex. 4.  Cistus aegyptiacus L. (1753) when transferred to Helianthemum Mill. is cited as H. aegyptiacum
(L.) Mill. (1768).

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

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

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

Note 1.  Art. 46.5 provides for the use of parenthetical author citations preceding the word
“ex”, after some names in groups with a starting point later than 1753.

Article 50

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

Ex. 1.  Stachys ambigua Sm. (1809) was published as the name of a species. If regarded as applying to a
hybrid, it may be cited as Stachys ×ambigua Sm. (pro sp.).

  61

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 61 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

50-50D Citation

Ex. 2.  The binary name Salix ×glaucops Andersson (1868) was published as the name of a hybrid.
Later, Rydberg (in Bull. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899) considered the taxon to be a species. If this
view is accepted, the name may be cited as Salix glaucops Andersson (pro hybr.).

SECTION 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION

Recommendation 50A

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

Recommendation 50B

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

Ex. 1.  Carex bebbii (Olney, Car. Bor.-Am. 2: 12. 1871), published without a description or diag-
nosis, should be cited as Carex bebbii Olney, nomen nudum (or nom. nud.).

Recommendation 50C

50C.1.  The citation of a later homonym should be followed by the name of the author of the
earlier homonym preceded by the word “non”, preferably with the date of publication
added. In some instances it will be advisable to cite also any other homonyms, preceded by
the word “nec”.

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

Recommendation 50D

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

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

62  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 62 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation 50E-50F

Recommendation 50E

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

Ex. 1.  Protea L., Mant. Pl.: 187. 1771, nom. cons., non L. 1753; Combretum Loefl. (1758), nom. cons.
[= Grislea L. 1753].

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

Ex. 2.  Boletus piperatus Bull. (Herb. France: t. 451, f. 2. 1790) was accepted in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1:
388. 1821) and was thereby sanctioned. It may thus be cited as
B. piperatus Bull. : Fr.

Recommendation 50F

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

Ex. 1.  Pyrus calleryana Decne. (P. mairei H. Lév. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12: 189. 1913,
“Pirus”).

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

Ex. 3.  Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson in Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496. 1967, “solomonensis”.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  63

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 63 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

51-52 Rejection

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER V. REJECTION OF NAMES

Article 51

51.1.  A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet,
is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better
known (but see Art. 56.1), or because it has lost its original meaning, or (in
pleomorphic fungi with names governed by Art. 59) because the generic name
does not accord with the morph represented by its type.

Ex. 1.  The following changes are contrary to the rule: Staphylea to Staphylis, Tamus to Thamnos,
Thamnus,
or Tamnus, Mentha to Minthe, Tillaea to Tillia, Vincetoxicum to Alexitoxicum; and Oroban-
che rapum
to O. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae to O. columbarihaerens, O. artemisiae to O.
artemisiepiphyta
.

Ex. 2.  Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) is not to be changed to A. pentagona A. DC. (1834),
although the specific epithet quinquegona is a hybrid word (Latin and Greek) (contrary to Rec.
23A.3(c)).

Ex. 3.  The name Scilla peruviana L. (1753) is not to be rejected merely because the species does not
grow in Peru.

Ex. 4.  The name Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.) Litv. (1911), based on Polycnemum oppositifolium
Pall. (1771), is not to be rejected merely because the species has leaves only partly opposite, and partly
alternate, although there is another closely related species, Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge, hav-
ing all its leaves opposite.

Ex. 5.  Richardia L. (1753) is not to be changed to Richardsonia, as was done by Kunth (1818),
although the name was originally dedicated to the British botanist, Richardson.

Article 52

52.1.  A name, unless conserved (Art. 14) or sanctioned (Art. 15), is illegiti-
mate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when pub-
lished, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author,
definitely included the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name which ought to
have been adopted, or whose epithet ought to have been adopted, under the
rules (but see Art. 52.3).

52.2.  For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type of a name is
effected by citation (a) of the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type under
Art. 10 or all syntypes under Art. 9.4 or all elements eligible as types under
Art. 10.2; or (b) of the previously designated type under Art. 9.9 or 10.2; or (c)

64  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 64 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Rejection 52

of the illustrations of these. It is also effected (d) by citation of the name itself,
unless the type is at the same time excluded either explicitly or by implication.

Ex. 1.  The generic name Cainito Adans. (1763) is illegitimate because it was a superfluous name for
Chrysophyllum L. (1753), which Adanson cited as a synonym.

Ex. 2.  Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb. (1796) is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for C. cainito
L. (1753), which Salisbury cited as a synonym.

Ex. 3.  On the other hand, Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (1796) is legitimate, being explicitly based upon S.
myrsinites
of Hoffmann (Hist. Salic. Ill.: 71. 1787), a misapplication of the name S. myrsinites L.
(1753).

Ex. 4.  Picea excelsa Link (1841) is illegitimate because it is based on Pinus excelsa Lam. (1778), a
superfluous name for Pinus abies L. (1753). Under Picea the correct name is Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.
(1881)
.

Ex. 5.  On the other hand, Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and C. angustifolius Mill. are not illegitimate
names, although Miller’s species are now united with the species previously named C. behen L. (1753):
C. latifolius and C. angustifolius as circumscribed by Miller (1768) did not include the type of C. behen
L., which name he adopted for another species.

Ex. 6.  Explicit exclusion of type: When publishing the name Galium tricornutum, Dandy (in Watsonia
4: 47. 1957) cited G. tricorne Stokes (1787) pro parte as a synonym, but explicitly excluded the type of
the latter name.

Ex. 7.  Exclusion of type by implication: Cedrus Duhamel (1755) is a legitimate name even though
Juniperus L. (1753) was cited as a synonym; only some of Linnaeus’s species of Juniperus were
included in Cedrus by Duhamel, and the differences between the two genera were discussed, Juniperus
(including the type of its name) being recognized in the same work as an independent genus.

Ex. 8.  Exclusion of type by implication: Tmesipteris elongata P. A. Dang. (in Botaniste 2: 213. 1891)
was published as a new species but Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited as a synonym. However, on the
following page, T. truncata (R. Br.) Desv. is recognized as a different species and two pages later both
are distinguished in a key, thus showing that the meaning of the cited synonym was either “P. trunca-
tum
R. Br. pro parte” or “P. truncatum auct. non R. Br.”

Ex. 9.  Exclusion of type by implication: Solanum torvum Sw. (Prodr.: 47. 1788) was published with a
new diagnosis but S. indicum L. (1753) was cited as a synonym. In accord with the practice in his
Prodromus, Swartz indicated where the species was to be inserted in the latest edition [ed. 14, by
Murray] of Linnaeus’s Systema vegetabilium. S. torvum was to be inserted between species 26 (S.
insanum)
and 27 (S. ferox), the number of S. indicum being 32. S. torvum is thus a legitimate name.

Note 1.  The inclusion, with an expression of doubt, of an element in a new taxon, e.g. the
citation of a name with a question mark, does not make the name of the new taxon nomen-
claturally superfluous.

Ex. 10.  The protologue of Blandfordia grandiflora R. Br. (1810) includes, in synonymy, “Aletris
punicea. Labill. nov. holl. 1. p. 85. t. 111 ?”, indicating that the new species might be the same as Aletris
punicea
Labill. (1805). B. grandiflora is nevertheless a legitimate name.

Note 2.  The inclusion, in a new taxon, of an element that was subsequently designated as
the type of a name which, so typified, ought to have been adopted, or whose epithet ought to
have been adopted, does not in itself make the name of the new taxon illegitimate.

52.3.  A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous when published is not
illegitimate if its basionym is legitimate, or if it is based on the stem of a
legitimate generic name. When published it is incorrect, but it may become
correct later.

Ex. 11.  Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (1788), based on Agrostis radiata L. (1759), was nomenclaturally
superfluous when published, since Swartz also cited Andropogon fasciculatus L. (1753) as a synonym.
It is, however, the correct name in the genus Chloris for Agrostis radiata when Andropogon fascicu-

  65

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 65 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

52-53 Rejection

latus is treated as a different species, as was done by Hackel (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6:
177. 1889).

Ex. 12.  The generic name Hordelymus (K. Jess.) K. Jess. (1885), based on the legitimate Hordeum
subg. Hordelymus K. Jess. (Deutschl. Gräser: 202. 1863), was superfluous when published because its
type, Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of Cuviera Koeler (1802). Cuviera Koeler has since been
rejected in favour of its later homonym Cuviera DC., and Hordelymus can now be used as a correct
name for the segregate genus containing Elymus europaeus L.

Note 3.  In no case does a statement of parentage accompanying the publication of a name
for a hybrid make the name illegitimate (see Art. H.5).

Ex. 13.  The name Polypodium ×shivasiae Rothm. (1962) was proposed for hybrids between P. australe
Fée and P. vulgare subsp. prionodes (Asch.) Rothm., while at the same time the author accepted P.
×font-queri Rothm. (1936) for hybrids between P. australe and P. vulgare L. subsp. vulgare. Under Art.
H.4.1, P. ×shivasiae is a synonym of P. ×font-queri; nevertheless, it is not an illegitimate name.

Article 53

53.1.  A name of a family, genus or species, unless conserved (Art. 14) or
sanctioned (Art. 15), is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it is
spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously and
validly published for a taxon of the same rank.

Note 1.  Even if the earlier homonym is illegitimate, or is generally treated as a synonym on
taxonomic grounds, the later homonym must be rejected.

Ex. 1.  The name Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848), given to a genus of Labiatae, is a later
homonym of Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837), a name previously and validly published for a genus of
Amaryllidaceae. Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. is therefore rejected. It was renamed Thuspeinanta T.
Durand (1888).

Ex. 2.  The name Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym of the validly published Ambly-
anthera
Blume (1849) and is therefore rejected, although Amblyanthera Blume is now considered to be
a synonym of Osbeckia L. (1753).

Ex. 3.  The name Torreya Arn. (1838) is a nomen conservandum and is therefore not to be rejected
because of the existence of the earlier homonym Torreya Raf. (1818).

Ex. 4.  Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (1843) is a later homonym of the validly published name Astra-
galus rhizanthus
Royle (1835) and it is therefore rejected, as was done by Boissier who renamed it A.
cariensis
Boiss. (1849).

53.2.  A sanctioned name is illegitimate if it is a later homonym of another
sanctioned name (see also Art. 15 Note 1).

53.3.  When two or more generic, specific, or infraspecific names based on
different types are so similar that they are likely to be confused (because they
are applied to related taxa or for any other reason) they are to be treated as
homonyms.

*Ex. 5.  Names treated as homonyms: Asterostemma Decne. (1838) and Astrostemma Benth. (1880);
Pleuropetalum Hook. f. (1846) and Pleuripetalum T. Durand (1888); Eschweilera DC. (1828) and
Eschweileria Boerl. (1887); Skytanthus Meyen (1834) and Scytanthus Hook. (1844).

*Ex. 6.  The three generic names Bradlea Adans. (1763), Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn. (1790), and
Braddleya Vell. (1827), all commemorating Richard Bradley, are treated as homonyms because only
one can be used without serious risk of confusion.

66  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 66 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Rejection 53

*Ex. 7.  The names Acanthoica Lohmann (1902) and Acanthoeca W. N. Ellis (1930), both designating
flagellates, are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms (Taxon 22: 313. 1973).

*Ex. 8.  Epithets so similar that they are likely to be confused if combined under the same generic or
specific name: chinensis and sinensis; ceylanica and zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis, and nipalensis;
polyanthemos
and polyanthemus; macrostachys and macrostachyus; heteropus and heteropodus; poiki-
lantha
and poikilanthes; pteroides and pteroideus; trinervis and trinervius; macrocarpon and macrocar-
pum; trachycaulum
and trachycaulon.

*Ex. 9.  Names not likely to be confused: Rubia L. (1753) and Rubus L. (1753); Monochaetum (DC.)
Naudin
(1845) and Monochaete Döll (1875); Peponia Grev. (1863) and Peponium Engl. (1897); Iris L.
(1753) and Iria (Pers.) Hedw. (1806); Desmostachys Miers (1852) and Desmostachya (Stapf) Stapf
(1898); Symphyostemon Miers (1841) and Symphostemon Hiern (1900); Gerrardina Oliv. (1870) and
Gerardiina Engl. (1897); Urvillea Kunth (1821) and Durvillaea Bory (1826); Peltophorus Desv. (1810;
Gramineae) and Peltophorum (Vogel) Benth. (1840; Leguminosae); Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch.
Bip. (1845, “napeaefolius”; see Art. 60 Ex. 12) and S. napifolius MacOwan (1890; the epithets being
derived respectively from Napaea and Brassica napus); Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliv. (1891) and L.
hemsleyi
Franch. (1895) (see, however, Rec. 23A.2); Euphorbia peplis L. (1753) and E. peplus L.
(1753).

Ex. 10.  Names conserved against earlier names treated as homonyms (see App. IIIA): Lyngbya Gomont
(vs. Lyngbyea Sommerf.); Columellia Ruiz & Pav. (vs. Columella Lour.), both commemorating Colu-
mella, the Roman writer on agriculture; Cephalotus Labill. (vs. Cephalotos Adans.); Simarouba Aubl.
(vs. Simaruba Boehm.).

53.4.  When it is doubtful whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused,
a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee (see Div.
III) which will refer it for examination to the committee or committees for the
appropriate taxonomic group or groups. A recommendation may then be put
forward to an International Botanical Congress, and, if ratified, will become a
binding decision.

Ex. 11.  Names ruled as likely to be confused, and therefore to be treated as homonyms: Ficus gomel-
leira
Kunth (1847) and F. gameleira Standl. (1937) (Taxon 42: 111. 1993); Solanum saltiense S. Moore
(1895) and S. saltense (Bitter) C. V. Morton (1944) (Taxon 42: 434 . 1993); Balardia Cambess. (1829;
Caryophyllaceae) and Ballardia Montrouz. (1860; Myrtaceae) (Taxon 42: 434. 1993).

Ex. 12.  Names ruled as not likely to be confused: Cathayeia Ohwi (1931; Flacourtiaceae) and Cathaya
Chun & Kuang (1962; fossil Pinaceae) (Taxon 36: 429. 1987); Cristella Pat. (1887; Fungi) and
Christella H. Lév. (1915; Pteridophyta) (Taxon 35: 551. 1986); Coluria R. Br. (1823; Rosaceae) and

Colura (Dumort.) Dumort. (1835; Hepaticae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993); Acanthococcus Hook. f. & Harv.
(1845; Rhodophyta) and Acanthococos Barb. Rodr. (1900; Palmae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993); Rauia Nees
& Mart. (1823; Rutaceae) and Rauhia Traub (1957; Amaryllidaceae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993).

53.5.  The names of two subdivisions of the same genus, or of two infraspecific
taxa within the same species, even if they are of different rank, are treated as
homonyms if they have the same epithet and are not based on the same type.

Ex. 13.  The names Andropogon sorghum subsp. halepensis (L.) Hack. and A. sorghum var. halepensis
(L.) Hack. (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6: 502. 1889) are legitimate, since both have the
same type and the epithet may be repeated under Rec. 26A.1.

Ex. 14.  Anagallis arvensis var. caerulea (L.) Gouan (Fl. Monsp.: 30. 1765), based on A. caerulea L.
(1759), makes illegitimate the name A. arvensis subsp. caerulea Hartm. (Sv. Norsk Exc.-Fl.: 32. 1846),
based on the later homonym A. caerulea Schreber (1771).

Ex. 15.  Scenedesmus armatus var. brevicaudatus (Hortob.) Pankow (in Arch. Protistenk. 132: 153.
1986), based on S. carinatus var. brevicaudatus Hortob. (in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 26: 318. 1981),
is a later homonym of S. armatus f. brevicaudatus L. S. Péterfi (in Stud. Cercet. Biol. (Bucharest), Ser.
Biol. Veg. 15: 25. 1963) even though the two names apply to taxa of different infraspecific rank.

  67

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 67 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

53-55 Rejection

Scenedesmus armatus var. brevicaudatus (L. S. Péterfi) E. H. Hegew. (in Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 60:
393. 1982), however, is not a later homonym since it is based on the same type as S. armatus f.
brevicaudatus L. S. Péterfi.

Note 2.  The same final epithet may be used in the names of subdivisions of different
genera, and of infraspecific taxa within different species.

Ex. 16.  Verbascum sect. Aulacosperma Murb. (Monogr. Verbascum: 34, 593. 1933) is permissible,
although there is an earlier Celsia sect. Aulacospermae Murb. (Monogr. Celsia: 34, 56. 1926). This,
however, is not an example to be followed, since it is contrary to Rec. 21B.2.

53.6.  When two or more homonyms have equal priority, the first of them that
is adopted in an effectively published text (Art. 29-31) by an author who
simultaneously rejects the other(s) is treated as having priority. Likewise, if an
author in an effectively published text substitutes other names for all but one of
these homonyms, the homonym for the taxon that is not renamed is treated as
having priority.

Ex. 17.  Linnaeus simultaneously published 10.” Mimosa cinerea (Sp. Pl.: 517. 1753) and 25.” M.
cinerea
(Sp. Pl.: 520. 1753). In 1759, he renamed species 10 M. cineraria L. and retained the name M.
cinerea
for species 25, so that the latter is treated as having priority over its homonym.

Ex. 18.  Rouy & Foucaud (Fl. France 2: 30. 1895) published the name Erysimum hieraciifolium var.
longisiliquum, with two different types, for two different taxa under different subspecies. Only one of
these names can be maintained.

Article 54

54.1.  Consideration of homonymy does not extend to the names of taxa not
treated as plants, except as stated below:

(a)  Later homonyms of the names of taxa once treated as plants are illegiti-
       mate, even though the taxa have been reassigned to a different group of
       organisms to which this Code does not apply.

(b)  A name originally published for a taxon other than a plant, even if validly
       published under Art. 32-45 of this Code, is illegitimate if it becomes a
       homonym of a plant name when the taxon to which it applies is first
       treated as a plant (see also Art. 45.5).

Note 1.  The International code of nomenclature of bacteria provides that a bacterial name
is illegitimate if it is a later homonym of a name of a taxon of bacteria, fungi, algae,
protozoa, or viruses.

Article 55

55.1.  A name of a species or subdivision of a genus, autonyms excepted (Art.
22.1), may be legitimate even if its epithet was originally placed under an
illegitimate generic name.

Ex. 1.  Agathophyllum Juss. (1789) is an illegitimate name, being a superfluous substitute for Ravensara
Sonn. (1782). Nevertheless the name A. neesianum Blume (1851) is legitimate. Because Meisner (1864)

68  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 68 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Rejection 55-58

cited A. neesianum as a synonym of his new Mespilodaphne mauritiana but did not adopt the epithet
neesiana, M. mauritiana Meisn. is a superfluous name and hence illegitimate.

55.2.  An infraspecific name, autonyms excepted (Art. 26.1), may be legitimate
even if its final epithet was originally placed under an illegitimate specific
name.

55.3.  The names of species and of subdivisions of genera assigned to genera
whose names are conserved or sanctioned later homonyms, and which had
earlier been assigned to the genera under the rejected homonyms, are legiti-
mate under the conserved or sanctioned names without change of authorship or
date if there is no other obstacle under the rules.

Ex. 2.  Alpinia languas J. F. Gmel. (1791) and Alpinia galanga (L.) Willd. (1797) are to be accepted
although Alpinia L. (1753), to which they were assigned by their authors, is rejected and the genus in
which they are now placed is named Alpinia Roxb. (1810), nom. cons.

Article 56

56.1.  Any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change
(Art. 14.1) may be proposed for rejection. A name thus rejected, or its basio-
nym if it has one, is placed on a list of nomina utique rejicienda (App. IV).
Along with the listed names, all combinations based on them are similarly
rejected, and none is to be used.

56.2.  The list of rejected names will remain permanently open for additions
and changes. Any proposal for rejection of a name must be accompanied by a
detailed statement of the cases both for and against its rejection, including
considerations of typification. Such proposals must be submitted to the General
Committee (see Div. III), which will refer them for examination to the commit-
tees for the various taxonomic groups (see also Art. 14.14 and Rec. 14A). 

Article 57

57.1.  A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not
including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage
unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 14.1 or 56.1 has been
submitted and rejected.

Article 58

58.1.  A name rejected or otherwise unavailable for use under Art. 52-54 or
56-57 is replaced by the name that has priority (Art. 11) in the rank concerned.
If none exists in any rank a new name must be chosen: (a) the taxon may be

treated as new and another name published for it, or (b) if the illegitimate name
is a later homonym, an avowed substitute (nomen novum) based on the same

  69

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 69 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

58-58A Rejection

type as the rejected name may be published for it. If a name is available in
another rank, one of the above alternatives may be chosen, or (c) a new combi-
nation, based on the name in the other rank, may be published.

58.2.  Similar action is to be taken if transfer of an epithet of a legitimate name
would result in a combination that cannot be validly published under Art. 21.3,
22.4,
23.4 or 27, or in a later homonym.

Ex. 1.  Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to Radiola Hill may not be named Radiola radiola”,
as was done by Karsten (1882), since that combination is invalid (see Art. 23.4 and 32.1(b)). The next
oldest name, L. multiflorum Lam. (1779), is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for L. radiola. Under
Radiola, the species has been given the legitimate name R. linoides Roth (1788).

58.3.  When a new epithet is required, an author may adopt the epithet of a
previous illegitimate name of the taxon if there is no obstacle to its employ-
ment in the new position or sense; the resultant combination is treated as the
name of a new taxon or as a nomen novum, as the case may be.

Ex. 2.  The name Talinum polyandrum Hook. (1855) is illegitimate, being a later homonym of T.
polyandrum
Ruiz & Pav. (1798). When Bentham, in 1863, transferred T. polyandrum Hook. to Caland-
rinia,
he called it C. polyandra. This name is treated as having priority from 1863, and is cited as C.
polyandra
Benth., not C. polyandra (Hook.) Benth.

Ex. 3.  While describing Collema tremelloides var. cyanescens, Acharius (Syn. Meth. Lich.: 326. 1814)
cited C. tremelloides var. caesium Ach. (Lichenogr. Universalis: 656. 1810) in synonymy, thus render-
ing his new name illegitimate. The epithet cyanescens was taken up in the combination Parmelia
cyanescens
Schaer. (1842), but this is a later homonym of P. cyanescens (Pers.) Ach. (1803). In
Collema, however, the epithet cyanescens was available for use, and the name C. cyanescens Rabenh.
(1845), based on the same type, is legitimate. The correct author citation for Leptogium cyanescens,
validated by Körber (1855) by reference to C. cyanescens “Schaer.”, is therefore (Rabenh.) Körb., not
(Ach.) Körb. nor (Schaer.) Körb.

Recommendation 58A

58A.1.  Authors should avoid adoption of the epithet of an illegitimate name previously
published for the same taxon.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

70  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 70 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Pleomorphic fungi 59

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER VI.  NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE

Article 59

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

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

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

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

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

Ex. 1.  Because the teleomorph of Gibberella stilboides W. L. Gordon & C. Booth (1971) is only
known from strains of the anamorph Fusarium stilboides Wollenw. (1924) mating in culture, and has
not been found in nature, it may be thought desirable to use the name of the anamorph for the pathogen
of Coffea.

Ex. 2.  Cummins (1971), in The rust fungi of cereals, grasses and bamboos, found it to be neither
necessary nor desirable to introduce new names of anamorphs under Aecidium Pers. : Pers. and Uredo
Pers. : Pers., for the aecial and uredinial stages of species of Puccinia Pers. : Pers. of which the telial
stage (teleomorph) was known.

  71

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 71 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

59-59A Pleomorphic fungi

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

59.6.  As long as there is direct and unambiguous evidence for the deliberate
introduction of a new morph judged by the author(s) to be correlated with the
morph typifying a purported basionym, and this evidence is strengthened by
fulfilment of all requirements in Art. 32-45 for valid publication of a name of a
new taxon, any indication such as “comb. nov.” or “nom. nov.” is regarded as a
formal error, and the name introduced is treated as that of a new taxon, and
attributed solely to the author(s) thereof. When only the requirements for valid
publication of a new combination (Art. 33 and 34) have been fulfilled, the
name is accepted as such and based, in accordance with Art. 7.4, on the type of
the declared or implicit basionym.

Ex. 3.  The name Penicillium brefeldianum B. O. Dodge (1933), based on teleomorphic and anamorphic
material, is a valid and legitimate name of a holomorph, in spite of the attribution of the species to a
form-genus. It is legitimately combined in a holomorphic genus as Eupenicillium brefeldianum (B. O.
Dodge) Stolk & D. B. Scott (1967). P. brefeldianum is not available for use in a restricted sense for the
anamorph alone.

Ex. 4.  The name Ravenelia cubensis Arthur & J. R. Johnst. (1918), based on a specimen bearing only
uredinia (an anamorph), is a valid and legitimate name of an anamorph, in spite of the attribution of the
species to a holomorphic genus. It is legitimately combined in a form-genus as Uredo cubensis (Arthur
& J. R. Johnst.) Cummins (1956). R. cubensis is not available for use inclusive of the teleomorph.

Ex. 5.  Mycosphaerella aleuritidis was published as “(Miyake) Ou comb. nov., syn. Cercospora aleu-
ritidis
Miyake” but with a Latin diagnosis of the teleomorph. The indication “comb. nov.” is taken as a
formal error, and M. aleuritidis S. H. Ou (1940) is accepted as a validly published new specific name
for the holomorph, typified by the teleomorphic material described by Ou.

Ex. 6.  Corticium microsclerotium was originally published as “(Matz) Weber, comb. nov., syn. Rhizoc-
tonia microsclerotia
Matz” with a description, only in English, of the teleomorph. Because of Art. 36,
this may not be considered as the valid publication of the name of a new species, and so C. microsclero-
tium
(Matz) G. F. Weber (1939) must be considered a validly published and legitimate new combina-
tion based on the specimen of the anamorph that typifies its basionym. C. microsclerotium G. F. Weber
(1951), published with a Latin description and a teleomorphic type, is an illegitimate later homonym.

Ex. 7.  Hypomyces chrysospermus Tul. (1860), presented as the name of a holomorph without the
indication “comb. nov.” but with explicit reference to Mucor chrysospermus (Bull.) Bull. and Sepedo-
nium chrysospermum
(Bull.) Fr., which are names of its anamorph, is not to be considered as a new
combination but as the name of a newly described species, with a teleomorphic type.

Recommendation 59A

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

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

72  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 72 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER VII.  ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS AND

GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES

SECTION 1.  ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS

Article 60

60.1.  The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for
the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the standardizations
imposed by Art. 60.5 (u/v or i/j used interchangeably), 60.6 (diacritical signs
and ligatures),
60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens), 60.10 (apostro-
phes),
and 60.11 (terminations; see also Art. 32.6), as well as Rec. 60H.

Ex. 1.  Retention of original spelling: The generic names Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and Amaran-
thus
L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be altered to
Mesembrianthemum and Amarantus respectively, although these latter forms are philologically
preferable (see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928). – Phoradendron Nutt. (1848) is not to
be altered to Phoradendrum. – Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. (1843) is not to be altered to T.
mossambica,
as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895). – Alyxia ceylanica Wight (1848) is
not to be altered to A. zeylanica, as in Trimen (Handb. Fl. Ceylon 3: 127. 1895). – Fagus sylvatica L.
(1753) is not to be altered to F. silvatica. The classical spelling silvatica is recommended for
adoption in the case of a new name (Rec. 60E), but the mediaeval spelling sylvatica is not an ortho-
graphical error. – Scirpus cespitosus L. (1753) is not to be altered to S. caespitosus.

*Ex. 2.  Typographical errors: Globba brachycarpa Baker (1890) and Hetaeria alba Ridl. (1896)
are typographical errors for Globba trachycarpa Baker and Hetaeria alta Ridl. respectively (see J. Bot.
59: 349. 1921).

*Ex. 3.  Orthographical error: Gluta benghas L. (1771), being an orthographical error for G. renghas,
should be cited as G. renghas L., as by Engler (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4: 225. 1883);
the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is “renghas”, not “benghas”.

Ex. 4.  The misspelled Indigofera “longipednnculata” Y. Y. Fang & C. Z. Zheng (1983) is presumably
a typographical error and is to be corrected to I. longipedunculata.

Note 1.  Art. 14.11 provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of a generic name.

Ex. 5.  Bougainvillea (see App. IIIA, Spermatophyta, No. 2350).

60.2.  The words “original spelling” in this Article mean the spelling employed
when the name was validly published. They do not refer to the use of an initial
capital or small letter, this being a matter of typography (see Art. 20.1 and
21.2, Rec. 60F).

  73

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 73 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

60 Orthography

60.3.  The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if
the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the first letter of the name.

*Ex. 6.  The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza Michx. (1803) is not to be altered, although it
commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392. 1934). – Cereus
jamacaru
DC. (1828) may not be altered to C. mandacaru, even if jamacaru is believed to be a
corruption of the vernacular name “mandacaru”.

60.4.  The letters w and y, foreign to classical Latin, and k, rare in that lan-
guage, are permissible in Latin plant names. Other letters and ligatures foreign
to classical Latin that may appear in Latin plant names, such as the German ß
(double s), are to be transcribed.

60.5.  When a name has been published in a work where the letters u, v or i, j
are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern prac-
tices (one of those letters is not used or only in capitals), those letters are to be
transcribed in conformity with modern botanical usage.

Ex. 7.  Uffenbachia Fabr. (1763), not Vffenbachia; Taraxacum Zinn (1757), not Taraxacvm; Cur-
culigo
Gaertn. (1788), not Cvrcvligo.

Ex. 8.  Geastrvm hygrometricvm” and Vredo pvstvlata” of Persoon (1801) are written respectively
Geastrum hygrometricum Pers. and Uredo pustulata Pers.

60.6.  Diacritical signs are not used in Latin plant names. In names (either new
or old) drawn from words in which such signs appear, the signs are to be
suppressed with the necessary transcription of the letters so modified; for
example ä, ö, ü become respectively ae, oe, ue; é, è, ê become e, or sometimes
ae; ñ becomes n; becomes oe; å becomes ao. The diaeresis, indicating that a
vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in Ce-
phaëlis, Isoëtes
), is permissible; the ligatures -æ- and -œ-, indicating that the
letters are pronounced together, are to be replaced by the separate letters -ae-
and -oe-.

60.7.  When changes made in orthography by earlier authors who adopt per-
sonal, geographic, or vernacular names in nomenclature are intentional latini-
zations, they are to be preserved, except for terminations covered by Art.
60.11.

Ex. 9.  Valantia L. (1753), Gleditsia L. (1753), and Clutia L. (1753), commemorating Vaillant, Gle-
ditsch, and Cluyt respectively, are not to be altered to Vaillantia, Gleditschia, and Cluytia;
Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists deliberately as Valantius, Gleditsius, and Clutius.

Ex. 10.  Zygophyllum billardierii was named by Candolle (1824) for J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la
Billardière). The intended latinization is “Billardierius” (in nominative), but that termination is not
acceptable under Art. 60.11 and the name is correctly spelled Z. billardierei DC.

60.8.  The use of a compounding form contrary to Rec. 60G in an adjectival
epithet is treated as an error to be corrected.

Ex. 11.  Pereskia “opuntiaeflora” of Candolle (1828) is to be cited as P. opuntiiflora DC. However, in

Andromeda polifolia L. (1753), the epithet is a pre-Linnean plant name (“Polifolia” of Buxbaum) used
in apposition and not an adjective; it is not to be corrected to “poliifolia”.

Ex. 12.  Cacalia napeaefolia and Senecio napeaefolius are to be cited as Cacalia napaeifolia DC.
(1838) and Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip. (1845) respectively; the specific epithet refers to the

74  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 74 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60-60A

the resemblance of the leaves to those of the genus Napaea L. (not “Napea”), and the substitute (connect-
ing) vowel -i should have been used instead of the genitive singular inflection -ae.

60.9.  The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to be
corrected by deletion of the hyphen, except if an epithet is formed of words
that usually stand independently, or if the letters before and after the hyphen
are the same, when a hyphen is permitted (see Art. 23.1 and 23.3).

Ex. 13.  Hyphen to be omitted: Acer pseudoplatanus L. (1753), not A. pseudo-platanus; Ficus neoë-
budarum
Summerh. (1932), not F. neo-ebudarum; Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vittad. (1842), not L.
atro-purpureum; Croton ciliatoglandulifer
Ortega (1797), not C. ciliato-glandulifer; Scirpus sect.
Pseudoëriophorum Jurtzev (in Bjull. Moskovsk. Obšč. Ips. Prir., Otd. Biol. 70(1): 132. 1965), not S.
sect. Pseudo-eriophorum.

Ex. 14.  Hyphen to be used: Aster novae-angliae L. (1753), Coix lacryma-jobi L. (1753), Peperomia
san-felipensis
J. D. Sm. (1894), Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. (1825), Veronica anagallis-aqua-
tica
L. (1753; Art. 23.3), Athyrium austro-occidentale Ching (1986).

Note 2.  Art. 60.9 refers only to epithets (in combinations), not to names of genera or taxa in
higher ranks; a generic name published with a hyphen can be changed only by conservation.

Ex. 15.  Pseudo-salvinia Piton (1940) cannot be changed to “Pseudosalvinia”, but “Pseudo-elephan-
topus”
was changed by conservation to Pseudelephantopus Rohr (1792).

60.10.  The use of an apostrophe in an epithet is treated as an error to be
corrected by deletion of the apostrophe.

Ex. 16.  Lycium “o’donellii”, Cymbidium “i’ansoni” and Solanum tuberosum var. “muru’kewillu” are
to be corrected to L. odonellii F. A. Barkley (1953), C. iansonii Rolfe (1900) and S. tuberosum var.
murukewillu Ochoa (in Phytologia 65: 112. 1988), respectively.

60.11.  The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or -ianus)
contrary to Rec. 60C.1 (but not 60C.2) is treated as an error to be corrected (see
also Art. 32.6).

Ex. 17.  Rosa pissarti (Carrière in Rev. Hort. 1880: 314. 1880) is a typographical error for R.
“pissardi”
(see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190. 1881), which in its turn is treated as an error for R. pissardii
Carrière (see Rec. 60C.1(b)).

Note 3.  If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet derived from a personal name
is inappropriate for the sex and/or number of the person(s) whom the name commemorates,
the termination is to be corrected in conformity with Rec. 60C.1.

Ex. 18.  Rosa ×toddii was named by Wolley-Dod (in J. Bot. 69, Suppl.: 106. 1931) for “Miss E. S.
Todd”; the name is to be corrected to R. ×toddiae Wolley-Dod.

Ex. 19.  Astragalus matthewsii, dedicated by Podlech and Kirchhoff (in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml.
München 11: 432. 1974) to Victoria A. Matthews, is to be corrected to A. matthewsiae Podlech &
Kirchhoff; it is not therefore a later homonym of A. matthewsii S. Watson (1883) (see Agerer-Kirchhoff
& Podlech in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 12: 375. 1976).

Ex. 20.  Codium geppii of O. C. Schmidt (in Biblioth. Bot. 91: 50. 1923), which commemorates “A.
& E. S. Gepp”, is to be corrected to C. geppiorum O. C. Schmidt.

Recommendation 60A

60A.1.  When a new name or its epithet is to be derived from Greek, the transliteration to
Latin should conform to classical usage.

60A.2.  The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.

  75

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 75 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

60B-60C Orthography

Recommendation 60B

60B.1.  When a new generic name, or subgeneric or sectional epithet, is taken from the
name of a person, it should be formed as follows:

(a)  When the name of the person ends with a vowel, the letter -a is added (thus Ottoa after
       Otto; Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name ends with -a, when -ea is added (e.g.
       Collaea after Colla), or with -ea (as Correa), when no letter is added.

(b)  When the name of the person ends with a consonant, the letters -ia are added, but when
       the name ends with -er, either of the terminations -ia and -a is appropriate (e.g. Sesleria
       after Sesler and Kernera after Kerner).

(c)  In latinized personal names ending with -us this termination is dropped (e.g. Dillenia
       after Dillenius) before applying the procedure described under (a) and (b).

(d)  The syllables not modified by these endings retain their original spelling, unless they
       contain letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritical signs (see Art. 60.6).

Note 1.  Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix, or be modified by anagram or
abbreviation. In these cases they count as different words from the original name.

Ex. 1.  Durvillaea Bory (1826) and Urvillea Kunth (1821); Lapeirousia Pourr. (1788) and Peyrousea
DC. (1838); Engleria O. Hoffm. (1888), Englerastrum Briq. (1894), and Englerella Pierre (1891);
Bouchea Cham. (1832) and Ubochea Baill. (1891); Gerardia L. (1753) and Graderia Benth. (1846);
Martia Spreng. (1818) and Martiusia Schult. & Schult. f. (1822).

Recommendation 60C

60C.1.  Modern personal names may be given Latin terminations and used to form specific and
infraspecific epithets as follows (but see Rec. 60C.2):

(a)  If the personal name ends with a vowel or -er, substantive epithets are formed by
       adding the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) hon-
       oured (e.g., scopoli-i for Scopoli (m), fedtschenko-i for Fedtschenko (m), glaziou-i for
       Glaziou (m), lace-ae for Lace (f), hooker-orum for the Hookers), except when the name
       ends with -a, in which case adding -e (singular) or -rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g.
       triana-e for Triana (m)).

(b)  If the personal name ends with a consonant (except -er), substantive epithets are formed
       by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and
       number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. lecard-ii for Lecard (m), wilson-iae for Wilson
       (f), verlot-iorum for the Verlot brothers, braun-iarum for the Braun sisters).

(c)  If the personal name ends with a vowel, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -an-
       plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name
       (e.g., Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne, Vanda lindley-ana for Lindley, Aspidium bertero-
       anum for Bertero), except when the personal name ends with -a in which case -n- plus
       the appropriate inflection is added (e.g. balansa-nus (m), balansa-na (f), and balansa-
       num (n) for Balansa).

(d)  If the personal name ends with a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -i-
       (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular
       inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rosa webb-iana for Webb,
       Desmodium griffith-ianum for Griffith, Verbena hassler-iana for Hassler).

Note 1.  The hyphens in the above examples are used only to set off the total appropriate
termination.

76  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 76 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60C-60E

60C.2.  Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing a well-established latinized
form, should be given their appropriate Latin genitive to form substantive epithets (e.g.
alexandri from Alexander or Alexandre, augusti from Augustus or August or Auguste,
martini from Martinus or Martin, linnaei from Linnaeus, martii from Martius, beatricis
from Beatrix or Béatrice, hectoris from Hector). Treating modern names as if they were in
third declension should be avoided (e.g. munronis from Munro, richardsonis from Richard-
son).

60C.3.  In forming new epithets based on personal names the original spelling of the per-
sonal name should not be modified unless it contains letters foreign to Latin plant names or
diacritical signs (see Art. 60.4 and 60.6).

60C.4.  Prefixes and particles ought to be treated as follows:

(a)  The Scottish patronymic prefix “Mac”, “Mc” or “M’”, meaning “son of”, should be
       spelled “mac” and united with the rest of the name, e.g. macfadyenii after Macfadyen,
       macgillivrayi after MacGillivray, macnabii after McNab, mackenii after M’Ken.

(b)  The Irish patronymic prefix “O” should be united with the rest of the name or omitted,
       e.g. obrienii, brienianus after O’Brien, okellyi after O’Kelly.

(c)  A prefix consisting of an article, e.g. le, la, l’, les, el, il, lo, or containing an article e.g.
       du, de la, des, del, della, should be united to the name, e.g. leclercii after Le Clerc,
       dubuyssonii after DuBuysson, lafarinae after La Farina, logatoi after Lo Gato.

(d)  A prefix to a surname indicating ennoblement or canonization should be omitted, e.g.
       candollei after de Candolle, jussieui after de Jussieu, hilairei after Saint-Hilaire, remyi
       after St. Rémy; in geographical epithets, however, “St.” is rendered as sanctus (m) or
       sancta (f), e.g. sancti-johannis, of St. John, sanctae-helenae, of St. Helena.

(e)  A German or Dutch prefix when it is normally treated as part of the family name, as
       often happens outside its country of origin, e.g. in the United States, may be included in
       the epithet, e.g. vonhausenii after Vonhausen, vanderhoekii after Vanderhoek, vanbrun-
       tiae after Mrs Van Brunt, but should otherwise be omitted, e.g. iheringii after von
       Ihering, martii after von Martius, steenisii after van Steenis, strassenii after zu Strassen,
       vechtii after van der Vecht.

Recommendation 60D

60D.1.  An epithet derived from a geographical name is preferably an adjective and usually
takes the termination -ensis, -(a)nus, -inus, or -icus.

Ex. 1.  Rubus quebecensis L. H. Bailey (from Quebec), Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch (from Virgi-
nia), Eryngium amorginum Rech. f. (from Amorgos), Polygonum pensylvanicum L. (from Pennsylva-
nia).

Recommendation 60E

60E.1.  The epithet in a new name should be written in conformity with the original spelling
of the word or words from which it is derived and in accordance with the accepted usage
of Latin and latinization (see also Art. 23.5).

Ex. 1.  sinensis (not chinensis).

  77

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 77 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

60F-60H Orthography

Recommendation 60F

60F.1.  All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written with a small initial letter,
although authors desiring to use capital initial letters may do so when the epithets are
directly derived from the names of persons (whether actual or mythical), or are vernacular
(or non-Latin) names, or are former generic names.

Recommendation 60G

60G.1.  A compound name or an epithet which combines elements derived from two or
more Greek or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable, in accordance with
classical usage (see Art. 60.8). This may be stated as follows:

(a)  In a true compound, a noun or adjective in non-final position appears as a compounding
       form generally obtained by

       (1) removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is; Greek -os,
            -es, -as, -ous and the latter’s equivalent -eos) and

       (2) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel (-i- for Latin elements, -o- for
            Greek elements).

      (3) Exceptions are common, and one should review earlier usages of a particular com-
            pounding form.

(b)  A pseudocompound is a noun or adjectival phrase treated as if it were a single com-
       pound word. In a pseudocompound, a noun or adjective in a non-final position appears
       as a word with a case ending, not as a modified stem. Examples are: nidus-avis (nest of
       bird), Myos-otis (ear of mouse), cannae-folius (leaf of canna), albo-marginatus (mar-
       gined with white), etc. In epithets where tingeing is expressed, the modifying initial
       colour often is in the ablative because the preposition e, ex, is implicit, e.g., atropur-
       pureus (blackish purple) from ex atro purpureus (purple tinged with black). Others
       have been deliberately introduced to reveal etymological differences when different
       word elements have the same compounding forms, such as tubi- from tube (tubus, tubi,
       stem tubo-) or from trumpet (tuba, tubae, stem tuba-) where tubaeflorus can only mean
       trumpet-flowered; also carici- is the compounding form from both papaya (carica,
       caricae, stem carica-) and sedge (carex, caricis, stem caric-) where caricaefolius can
       only mean papaya-leaved. The latter use of the genitive singular of the first declension
       for pseudocompounding is treated as an error to be corrected unless it makes an etymo-
       logical distinction.

(c)  Some common irregular forms are used in compounding. Examples are hydro- and
       hydr- (Hydro-phyllum) where the regular noun stem is hydat-; calli- (Calli-stemon)
       where the regular adjective stem is calo-; and meli- (Meli-osma, Meli-lotus) where the
       regular noun stem is melit-.

Note 1.  The hyphens in the above examples are given solely for explanatory reasons. For
the use of hyphens in botanical names and their epithets see Art. 20.3, 23.1, and 60.9.

Recommendation 60H

60H.1.  Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of the host plant are
spelled in accordance with the accepted spelling of this name; other spellings are regarded
as orthographical variants to be corrected (see Art. 61).

78  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 78 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60H-61

Ex. 1.  Phyllachora anonicola (Chardon in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940) is to be altered to P. annoni-
cola
Chardon, since the spelling Annona is now accepted in preference to Anona. – Meliola albiz-
ziae
(Hansford & Deighton in Mycol. Pap. 23: 26. 1948) is to be altered to M. albiziae Hansf. &
Deighton
, since the spelling Albizia is now accepted in preference to Albizzia.

Recommendation 60I

60I.1.  The etymology of new names and their epithets should be given when the meaning of
these is not obvious.

Article 61

61.1.  Only one orthographical variant of any one name is treated as validly
published, the form which appears in the original publication except as pro-
vided in Art. 60 (typographical or orthographical errors and standardizations),
Art. 14.11 (conserved spellings), and Art. 32.6 (incorrect Latin terminations).

61.2.  For the purpose of this Code, orthographical variants are the various
spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a name or its epithet (includ-
ing typographical errors), only one type being involved.

61.3.  If orthographical variants of a name appear in the original publication,
the one that conforms to the rules and best suits the recommendations of Art.
60 is to be retained; otherwise the first author who, in an effectively published
text (Art. 29-31), explicitly adopts one of the variants, rejecting the other(s),
must be followed.

61.4.  The orthographical variants of a name are to be corrected to the validly
published form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in print, it is to
be treated as if it were printed in its corrected form.

Note 1.  In full citations it is desirable that the original form of a corrected orthographical
variant of a name be added (Rec. 50F).

61.5.  Confusingly similar names based on the same type are treated as ortho-
graphical variants. (For confusingly similar names based on different types, see
Art. 53.3.)

Ex. 1.  Geaster Fr. (1829) and Geastrum Pers. (1794) : Pers. (1801) are similar names with the same
type (see Taxon 33: 498. 1984); they are treated as orthographical variants despite the fact that they are
derived from two different nouns, aster (asteris) and astrum (astri).

  79

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 79 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

62 Gender

 

SECTION 2.  GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES

Article 62

62.1.  A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition, irre-
spective of classical usage or the author’s original usage. A generic name
without a botanical tradition retains the gender assigned by its author.

Note 1.  Botanical tradition usually maintains the classical gender of a Greek or Latin word,
when this was well established.

*Ex. 1.  In accordance with botanical tradition, Adonis L., Atriplex L., Diospyros L., Hemerocallis L.,
Orchis
L., Stachys L., and Strychnos L. must be treated as feminine while Lotus L. and Melilotus L.
must be treated as masculine.
Eucalyptus L’Hér., which lacks a botanical tradition, retains the feminine
gender assigned by its author. Although their ending suggests masculine gender, Cedrus Trew and
Fagus L., like most other classical tree names, were traditionally treated as feminine and thus retain that
gender; similarly, Rhamnus L. is feminine, despite the fact that Linnaeus assigned it masculine gender.
Phyteuma L. (n), Sicyos L. (m), and Erigeron L. (m) are other names for which botanical tradition has
reestablished the classical gender despite another choice by Linnaeus.

62.2.  Compound generic names take the gender of the last word in the nomi-
native case in the compound. If the termination is altered, however, the gender
is altered accordingly.

Ex. 2.  Compound generic names in which the termination of the last word is altered: Stenocarpus R.
Br.
, Dipterocarpus C. F. Gaertn., and all other compounds ending in the Greek masculine -carpos (or
-carpus), e.g. Hymenocarpos Savi, are masculine; those in -carpa or -carpaea, however, are feminine,
e.g. Callicarpa L. and Polycarpaea Lam.; and those in -carpon, -carpum, or -carpium are neuter, e.g.
Polycarpon L., Ormocarpum P. Beauv., and Pisocarpium Link.

(a)  Compounds ending in -codon, -myces, -odon, -panax, -pogon, -stemon,
      and other masculine words, are masculine.

Ex. 3.  Irrespective of the fact that the generic names Andropogon L. and Oplopanax (Torr. & A. Gray)
Miq. were originally treated as neuter by their authors, they are masculine.

(b)  Compounds ending in -achne, -chlamys, -daphne, -mecon, -osma (the
      modern transcription of the feminine Greek word osmê), and other femin-
      ine words, are feminine. An exception is made in the case of names
      ending in -gaster, which strictly speaking ought to be feminine, but which
      are treated as masculine in accordance with botanical tradition.

Ex. 4.  Irrespective of the fact that Dendromecon Benth. and Hesperomecon Greene were originally
treated as neuter, they are feminine.

(c)  Compounds ending in -ceras, -dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma, and other
      neuter words, are neuter. An exception is made for names ending in
      -anthos (or -anthus) and -chilos (-chilus or -cheilos), which ought to be
      neuter, since that is the gender of the Greek words anthos and cheilos, but
      are treated as masculine in accordance with botanical tradition.

Ex. 5.  Irrespective of the fact that Aceras R. Br. and Xanthoceras Bunge were treated as feminine when
first published, they are
neuter.

80  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 80 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Gender 62-62A

62.3.  Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names or adjectives used
as generic names, whose gender is not apparent, take the gender assigned to
them by their authors. If the original author failed to indicate the gender, the
next subsequent author may choose a gender, and his choice, if effectively
published (Art. 29-31), is to be accepted.

Ex. 6.  Taonabo Aubl. (1775) is feminine: Aublet’s two species were T. dentata and T. punctata.

Ex. 7.  Agati Adans. (1763) was published without indication of gender: the feminine gender was
assigned to it by Desvaux (in J. Bot. Agric. 1: 120. 1813), who was the first subsequent author to adopt
the name in an effectively published text, and his choice is to be accepted.

Ex. 8.  The original gender of Manihot Mill. (1754), as apparent from some of the species polynomials,
was feminine,
and Manihot is therefore to be treated as feminine.

62.4.  Generic names ending in -anthes, -oides or -odes are treated as feminine
and those ending in -ites as masculine, irrespective of the gender assigned to
them by the original author.

Recommendation 62A

62A.1.  When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the gender of the new generic
name or names should be that of the generic name that is retained.

Ex. 1.  When Boletus L. : Fr. is divided, the gender of the new generic names should be masculine:
Xerocomus Quél. (1887), Boletellus Murrill (1909), etc.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  81

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 81 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Div.III.1-Div.III.3 Modification of Code

 
 
 
 

DIVISION III. PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE

CODE
 

Div.III.1.  Modification of the Code. The Code may be modified only by action
of a plenary session of an International Botanical Congress on a resolution
moved by the Nomenclature Section of that Congress¹.

Div.III.2.  Nomenclature Committees. Permanent Nomenclature Committees
are established under the auspices of the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy. Members of these committees are elected by an International Bo-
tanical Congress. The Committees have power to co-opt and to establish sub-
committees; such officers as may be desired are elected.

(1)  General Committee, composed of the secretaries of the other committees, the
rapporteur-général, the president and the secretary of the International As-
sociation for Plant Taxonomy, and at least 5 members to be appointed by the
Nomenclature Section. The rapporteur-général is charged with the presentation
of nomenclature proposals to the International Botanical Congress.

(2)  Committee for Spermatophyta.

(3)  Committee for Pteridophyta.

(4)  Committee for Bryophyta.

(5)  Committee for Fungi.

(6)  Committee for Algae.

(7)  Committee for Fossil Plants.

(8)  Editorial Committee, charged with the preparation and publication of the
Code in conformity with the decisions adopted by the International Botanical
Congress. Chairman: the rapporteur-général of the previous Congress, who is
charged with the general duties in connection with the editing of the Code.

Div.III.3.  The Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical Con-
gress. Its officers are: (1) the president of the Nomenclature Section, elected by
the organizing committee of the International Botanical Congress in question;
(2) the recorder, appointed by the same organizing committee; (3) the rappor-

______________ 

¹  In the event that there should not be another International Botanical Congress, authority for the
   International code of botanical nomenclature shall be transferred to the International Union of
   Biological Sciences or to an organization at that time corresponding to it. The General Committee is
   empowered to define the machinery to achieve this.

82  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 82 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Modification of Code Div.III.3-Div.III.4

teur-général, elected by the previous Congress; (4) the vice-rapporteur, elected
by the organizing committee on the proposal of the rapporteur-général.

Div.III.4.  The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds: (a) a prelimi-
nary guiding mail vote and (b) a final and binding vote at the Nomenclature
Section of the International Botanical Congress.

Qualifications for voting:

(a)  Preliminary mail vote:

       (1)  The members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

       (2)  The authors of proposals.

       (3)  The members of the nomenclature committees.

Note 1.  No accumulation or transfer of personal votes is permissible.

(b)  Final vote at the sessions of the Nomenclature Section:

       (1)  All officially enrolled members of the Section. No accumulation or
              transfer of personal votes is permissible.

       (2)  Official delegates or vice-delegates of the institutes appearing on a
              list drawn up by the Bureau of Nomenclature of the International
              Botanical Congress and submitted to the General Committee for final
              approval; such institutes are entitled to 1-7 votes, as specified on the
              list. No single institution, even in the wide sense of the term, is
              entitled to more than 7 votes. Transfer of institutional votes to speci-
              fied vice-delegates is permissible, but no single person will be
              allowed more than 15 votes, his personal vote included. Institutional
              votes may be deposited at the Bureau of Nomenclature to be counted
              in a specified way for specified proposals.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  83

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 83 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

H.1-H.3 Hybrids

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPENDIX I

NAMES OF HYBRIDS

Article H.1

H.1.1.  Hybridity is indicated by the use of the multiplication sign ×, or by the
addition of the prefix “notho-”¹ to the term denoting the rank of the taxon.

Article H.2

H.2.1.  A hybrid between named taxa may be indicated by placing the multipli-
cation sign between the names of the taxa; the whole expression is then called
a hybrid formula.

Ex. 1.  Agrostis L. × Polypogon Desf.; Agrostis stolonifera L. × Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf.;
Salix aurita L. × S. caprea L.; Mentha aquatica L. × M. arvensis L. × M. spicata L.; Polypodium
vulgare
subsp. prionodes (Asch.) Rothm. × subsp. vulgare.

Recommendation H.2A

H.2A.1.  It is usually preferable to place the names or epithets in a formula in alphabetical
order. The direction of a cross may be indicated by including the sexual symbols (♀: female;
♂: male) in the formula, or by placing the female parent first. If a non-alphabetical sequence
is used, its basis should be clearly indicated.

Article H.3

H.3.1.  Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a
name. For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated by
placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or
before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid, or by prefixing the
term “notho-” (optionally abbreviated “n-”) to the term denoting the rank of the
taxon (see Art. 3.2 and 4.4). All such taxa are designated nothotaxa.

______________ 

¹  From the Greek nothos, meaning hybrid.

84  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 84 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.3-H.4

Ex. 1.  (The putative or known parentage is found in Art. H.2 Ex. 1.) ×Agropogon P. Fourn. (1934);
×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.) C. E. Hubb. (1946); Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867); Mentha
×smithiana R. A. Graham (1949); Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae (Rothm.) Schidlay (in
Futák, Fl. Slov. 2: 225. 1966)
.

H.3.2.  A nothotaxon cannot be designated unless at least one parental taxon is
known or can be postulated.

H.3.3.  The epithet in the name of a nothospecies is termed a collective epithet.

H.3.4.  For purposes of homonymy and synonymy the multiplication sign and
the prefix “notho-” are disregarded.

Ex. 2.  ×Hordelymus Bachteev & Darevsk. (1950) (= Elymus L. × Hordeum L.) is a later homonym of
Hordelymus (K. Jess.) K. Jess. (1885).

Note 1.  Taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa.

Ex. 3.  The true-breeding tetraploid raised from the artificial cross Digitalis grandiflora L. × D. purpu-
rea
L. may, if desired, be referred to as D. mertonensis B. H. Buxton & C. D. Darl. (1931); Triticum
aestivum
L. (1753) is treated as a species although it is not found in nature and its genome has been
shown to be composed of those of T. dicoccoides (Körn.) Körn., T. speltoides (Tausch) Gren. ex K.
Richt.
, and T. tauschii (Coss.) Schmalh.; the taxon known as Phlox divaricata subsp. laphamii (A. W.
Wood) Wherry (in Morris Arbor. Monogr. 3: 41. 1955) is believed by Levin (Evolution 21: 92-108.
1967) to be a stabilized product of hybridization between P. divaricata L. subsp. divaricata and P.
pilosa
subsp. ozarkana Wherry; Rosa canina L. (1753), a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid
origin, is treated as a species.

Note 2.  The term “collective epithet” is used in the International code of nomenclature for
cultivated plants-1980
to include also epithets in modern language.

Recommendation H.3A

H.3A.1.  The multiplication sign in the name of a nothotaxon should be placed against the
initial letter of the name or epithet. However, if the mathematical symbol is not available
and the letter x is used instead, a single letter space may be left between it and the epithet
if this helps to avoid ambiguity. The letter x should be in lower case.

Article H.4

H.4.1.  When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a nothotaxon
is circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be recog-
nized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated parent taxa
(i.e. not only the but subsequent filial generations and also back-crosses and
combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct name corresponding
to a particular hybrid formula; this is the earliest legitimate name (see Art. 6.3)
in the appropriate rank (Art. H.5), and other names to which the same hybrid
formula applies are synonyms of it.

Ex. 1.  The names Oenothera ×wienii Renner ex Rostański (1977) and O. ×hoelscheri Renner ex
Rostański (1968) are both considered to apply to the hybrid O. rubricaulis Kleb. × O. depressa Greene
the types of the two nothospecific names are known to differ by a whole gene complex; nevertheless,
the later name is treated as a synonym of the earlier.

  85

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 85 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

H.4-H.6 Hybrids

Note 1.  Variation within nothospecies and nothotaxa of lower rank may be treated accord-
ing to Art. H.12 or, if appropriate, according to the International code of nomenclature for
cultivated plants-1980
.

Article H.5

H.5.1.  The appropriate rank of a nothotaxon is that of the postulated or known
parent taxa.

H.5.2.  If the postulated or known parent taxa are of unequal rank the appropri-
ate rank of the nothotaxon is the lowest of these ranks.

Note 1.  When a taxon is designated by a name in a rank inappropriate to its hybrid formula,
the name is incorrect in relation to that hybrid formula but may nevertheless be correct, or
may become correct later (see also Art. 52 Note 3).

Ex. 1.  The combination Elymus ×laxus (Fr.) Melderis & D. C. McClint. (1983), based on Triticum
laxum
Fr. (1842), was published for hybrids with the formula E. farctus subsp. boreoatlanticus (Si-
monet & Guin.) Melderis × E. repens (L.) Gould, so that the combination is in a rank inappropriate to
the hybrid formula. It is, however, the correct name applicable to all hybrids between E. farctus (Viv.)
Melderis and E. repens.

Ex. 2.  Radcliffe-Smith incorrectly published the nothospecific name Euphorbia ×cornubiensis Radcl.-
Sm. (1985)
for E. amygdaloides L. × E. characias subsp. wulfenii (W. D. J. Koch) Radcl.-Sm., although
the correct designation for hybrids between E. amygdaloides and E. characias L. is E. ×martini Rouy
(1900)
; later, he remedied his mistake by publishing the combination E. ×martini nothosubsp. cornu-
biensis
(Radcl.-Sm.) Radcl.-Sm. (in Taxon 35: 349. 1986). However, the name E. ×cornubiensis is
potentially correct for hybrids with the formula E. amygdaloides × E. wulfenii W. D. J. Koch.

Recommendation H.5A

H.5A.1.  When publishing a name of a new nothotaxon at the rank of species or below,
authors should provide any available information on the taxonomic identity, at lower ranks,
of the known or postulated parent plants of the type of the name.

Article H.6

H.6.1.  A nothogeneric name (i.e. the name at generic rank for a hybrid be-
tween representatives of two or more genera) is a condensed formula or is
equivalent to a condensed formula.

H.6.2.  The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid is a condensed formula in
which the names adopted for the parental genera are combined into a single
word, using the first part or the whole of one, the last part or the whole of the
other (but not the whole of both) and, optionally, a connecting vowel.

Ex. 1.  ×Agropogon P. Fourn. (1934) (= Agrostis L. × Polypogon Desf.); ×Gymnanacamptis Asch. &
Graebn. (1907) (= Anacamptis Rich. × Gymnadenia R. Br.); ×Cupressocyparis Dallim. (1838) (= Cha-
maecyparis
Spach × Cupressus L.); ×Seleniphyllum G. D. Rowley (1962) (= Epiphyllum Haw. × Sele-
nicereus
(A. Berger) Britton & Rose).

86  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 86 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.6-H.7

Ex. 2.  ×Amarcrinum Coutts (1925) is correct for Amaryllis L. × Crinum L., not ×Crindonna”. The
latter formula was proposed by Ragionieri (1921) for the same nothogenus, but was formed from the
generic name adopted for one parent (Crinum) and a synonym (Belladonna Sweet) of the generic name
adopted for the other (Amaryllis). Being contrary to Art. H.6, it is not validly published under Art.
32.1(b).

Ex. 3.  The name ×Leucadenia Schltr. (1919) is correct for Leucorchis E. Mey. × Gymnadenia R. Br.,
but if the generic name Pseudorchisg. is adopted instead of Leucorchis, × Pseudadenia P. F. Hunt
(1971) is correct.

Ex. 4.  Boivin (1967) published ×Maltea for what he considered to be the intergeneric hybrid Phippsia
(Trin.) R. Br. × Puccinellia Parl. As this is not a condensed formula, the name cannot be used for that
intergeneric hybrid, for which the correct name is Pucciphippsia Tzvelev (1971). Boivin did, however,
provide a Latin description and designate a type; consequently, Maltea B. Boivin is a validly published
generic name and is correct if its type is treated as belonging to a separate genus, not to a nothogenus.

H.6.3.  The nothogeneric name of an intergeneric hybrid derived from four or
more genera is formed from the name of a person to which is added the
termination -ara; no such name may exceed eight syllables. Such a name is
regarded as a condensed formula.

Ex. 5.  ×Potinara Charlesworth & Co. (1922) (= Brassavola R. Br. × Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl. ×
Sophronitis Lindl.).

H.6.4.  The nothogeneric name of a trigeneric hybrid is either (a) a condensed
formula in which the three names adopted for the parental genera are combined
into a single word not exceeding eight syllables, using the whole or first part of
one, followed by the whole or any part of another, followed by the whole or
last part of the third (but not the whole of all three) and, optionally, one or two
connecting vowels, or (b) a name formed like that of a nothogenus derived
from four or more genera, i.e., from a personal name to which is added the
termination -ara.

Ex. 6.  ×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst (1898) (= Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl. × Sophronitis Lindl.);
×Vascostylis Takakura (1964) (= Ascocentrum Schltr. ex J. J. Sm. × Rhynchostylis Blume × Vanda W.
Jones ex R. Br.
); ×Rodrettiopsis Moir (1976) (= Comparettia Poepp. & Endl. × Ionopsis Kunth ×
Rodriguezia Ruiz & Pav.); ×Wilsonara Charlesworth & Co. (1916) (= Cochlioda Lindl. × Odontoglos-
sum
Kunth × Oncidium Sw.).

Recommendation H.6A

H.6A.1.  When a nothogeneric name is formed from the name of a person by adding the
termination -ara, that person should preferably be a collector, grower, or student of the
group.

Article H.7

H.7.1.  The name of a nothotaxon which is a hybrid between subdivisions of a
genus is a combination of an epithet, which is a condensed formula formed in
the same way as a nothogeneric name (Art. H.6.2), with the name of the genus.

Ex. 7.  Ptilostemon nothosect. Platon Greuter (in Boissiera 22: 159. 1973), comprising hybrids between
Ptilostemon sect. Platyrhaphium Greuter and Ptilostemon Cass. sect. Ptilostemon; Ptilostemon notho-
sect. Plinia Greuter (in Boissiera 22: 158. 1973), comprising hybrids between Ptilostemon sect. Platy-
rhaphium
and P. sect. Cassinia Greuter.

  87

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 87 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

H.8-H.9 Hybrids

Article H.8

H.8.1.  When the name or the epithet in the name of a nothotaxon is a con-
densed formula (Art. H.6 and H.7), the parental names used in its formation
must be those which are correct for the particular circumscription, position, and
rank accepted for the parental taxa.

Ex. 1.  If the genus Triticum L. is interpreted on taxonomic grounds as including Triticum (s. str.) and
Agropyron Gaertn., and the genus Hordeum L. as including Hordeum (s. str.) and Elymus L., then
hybrids between Agropyron and Elymus as well as between Triticum (s. str.) and Hordeum (s. str.) are
placed in the same nothogenus, ×Tritordeum Asch. & Graebn. (1902). If, however, Agropyron is
separated generically from Triticum, hybrids between Agropyron and Hordeum (s. str. or s. lat.) are
placed in the nothogenus ×Agrohordeum A. Camus (1927). Similarly, if Elymus is separated generically
from Hordeum, hybrids between Elymus and Triticum (s. str. or s. lat.) are placed in the nothogenus
×Elymotriticum P. Fourn. (1935). If both Agropyron and Elymus are given generic rank, hybrids be-
tween them are placed in the nothogenus Agroelymus A. Camus (1927); ×Tritordeum is then restricted
to hybrids between Hordeum (s. str.) and Triticum (s. str.), and hybrids between Elymus and Hordeum
are placed in ×Elyhordeum Mansf. ex Tsitsin & Petrova (1955), a substitute name for Hordelymus
Bachteev & Darevsk. (1950) non Hordelymus (K. Jess.) K. Jess. (1885).

H.8.2.  Names ending in -ara for nothogenera, which are equivalent to con-
densed formulae (Art. H.6.3-4), are applicable only to plants which are ac-
cepted taxonomically as derived from the parents named.

Ex. 2.  If Euanthe Schltr. is recognized as a distinct genus, hybrids simultaneously involving its only
species, E. sanderiana (Rchb.) Schltr., and the three genera Arachnis Blume, Renanthera Lour., and
Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br. must be placed in ×Cogniauxara Garay & H. R. Sweet (1966); if, on the
other hand, E. sanderiana is included in Vanda, the same hybrids are placed in ×Holttumara anon.
(1958)
(Arachnis × Renanthera × Vanda).

Article H.9

H.9.1.  In order to be validly published, the name of a nothogenus or of a
nothotaxon with the rank of subdivision of a genus (Art. H.6 and H.7) must be
effectively published (see Art. 29-31), with a statement of the names of the
parent genera or subdivisions of genera, but no description or diagnosis is
necessary, whether in Latin or in any other language.

Ex. 1.  Validly published names: ×Philageria Mast. (1872), published with a statement of parentage,
Lapageria Ruiz & Pav. × Philesia Comm. ex Juss.; Eryngium nothosect. Alpestria Burdet & Miège, pro
sect. (in Candollea 23: 116. 1968), published with a statement of its parentage, E. sect. Alpina H. Wolff
× E. sect. Campestria H. Wolff; ×Agrohordeum A. Camus (1927) (= Agropyron Gaertn. × Hordeum L.),
of which ×Hordeopyron Simonet (1935, “Hordeopyrum”) is a later synonym.

Note 1.  Since the names of nothogenera and nothotaxa with the rank of a subdivision of a
genus are condensed formulae or treated as such, they do not have types.

Ex. 2.  The name ×Ericalluna Krüssm. (1960) was published for plants (E. bealei Krüssm.) which
were thought to be the product of the cross Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull × Erica cinerea L. If it is
considered that these are not hybrids, but are variants of E. cinerea, the name ×Ericalluna Krüssm.
remains available for use if and when known or postulated plants of Calluna Salisb. × Erica L. should
appear.

88  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 88 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.9-H.10A

Ex. 3.  ×Arabidobrassica Gleba & Fr. Hoffm. (in Naturwissenschaften 66: 548. 1979), a nothogeneric
name which was validly published with a statement of parentage for the result of somatic hybridization
by protoplast fusion of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. with Brassica campestris L., is also available
for intergeneric hybrids resulting from normal crosses between Arabidopsis Heynh. and Brassica L.,
should any be produced.

Note 2.  However, names published merely in anticipation of the existence of a hybrid are
not validly published under Art. 34.1(b).

Article H.10

H.10.1.  Names of nothotaxa at the rank of species or below must conform
with the provisions (a) in the body of the Code applicable to the same ranks
and (b) in Art. H.3. Infringements of Art. H.3.1. are treated as errors to be
corrected.

H.10.2.  Taxa previously published as species or infraspecific taxa which are
later considered to be nothotaxa may be indicated as such, without change of
rank, in conformity with Art. 3 and 4 and by the application of Art. 50 (which
also operates in the reverse direction).

H.10.3.  The following are considered to be formulae and not true epithets:
designations consisting of the epithets of the names of the parents combined in
unaltered form by a hyphen, or with only the termination of one epithet
changed, or consisting of the specific epithet of the name of one parent com-
bined with the generic name of the other (with or without change of termina-
tion).

Ex. 1.  The designation Potentilla “atrosanguinea-pedata” published by Maund (in Bot. Gard. 5: No.
385, t. 97. 1833) is considered to be a formula meaning Potentilla atrosanguinea Lodd. ex D. Don × P.
pedata
Nestl.

Ex. 2.  Verbascum nigro-lychnitis (Schiede, Pl. Hybr.: 40. 1825) is considered to be a formula,
Verbascum lychnitis L. × V. nigrum L.; the correct binary name for this hybrid is Verbascum schiedea-
num
W. D. J. Koch (1844).

Ex. 3.  The following names include true epithets: Acaena ×anserovina Orchard (1969) (from A. anse-
rinifolia
(J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.) Druce and A. ovina A. Cunn.); Micromeria ×benthamineolens Svent.
(1969) (from M. benthamii Webb & Berthel. and M. pineolens Svent.).

Note 1.  Since the name of a nothotaxon at the rank of species or below has a type, state-
ments of parentage play a secondary part in determining the application of the name.

Ex. 4.  Quercus ×deamii Trel. (in Mem. Natl. Acad. Sci. 20: 14. 1924) when described was considered
as the cross Q. alba L. × Q. muehlenbergii Engelm. However, progeny grown from acorns from the tree
from which the type originated led Bartlett to conclude that the parents were in fact Q. macrocarpa
Michx. and Q. muehlenbergii. If this conclusion is accepted, the name Q. ×deamii applies to Q.
macrocarpa
× Q. muehlenbergii, and not to Q. alba × Q. muehlenbergii.

Recommendation H.10A

H.10A.1.  In forming epithets for names of nothotaxa at the rank of species and below,
authors should avoid combining parts of the epithets of the names of the parents.

  89

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 89 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

H.10B-H.12 Hybrids

Recommendation H.10B

H.10B.1.  When contemplating the publication of new names for hybrids between named
infraspecific taxa, authors should carefully consider whether they are really needed, bearing
in mind that formulae, though more cumbersome, are more informative.

Article H.11

H.11.1.  The name of a nothospecies of which the postulated or known parent
species belong to different genera is a combination of a nothospecific (collec-
tive) epithet with a nothogeneric name.

Ex. 1.  ×Heucherella tiarelloides (Lemoine & E. Lemoine) H. R. Wehrh. is considered to have origin-
ated from the cross between a garden hybrid of
Heuchera L. and Tiarella cordifolia L. (see Stearn in
Bot. Mag. 165: ad t. 31. 1948). Its original name,
Heuchera ×tiarelloides Lemoine & E. Lemoine
(1912),
is therefore incorrect.

Ex. 2.  When Orchis fuchsii Druce was renamed Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó the name for its
hybrid with Coeloglossum viride (L.) Hart
m., ×Orchicoeloglossum mixtum Asch. & Graebn. (1907),
became the basis of the necessary new combination ×Dactyloglossum mixtum (Asch. & Graebn.)
Rauschert (1969).

H.11.2.  The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific nothotaxon, of which
the postulated or known parental taxa are assigned to different taxa at a higher
rank, may be placed subordinate to the name of a nothotaxon at that higher rank
(see Art. 24.1), e.g to a nothospecific name (but see Rec. H.10B).

Ex. 3.  Mentha ×piperita L. nothosubsp. piperita (= M. aquatica L. × M. spicata L. subsp. spicata);
Mentha
×piperita nothosubsp. pyramidalis (Ten.) Harley (in Kew Bull. 37: 604. 1983) (= M. aquatica
L. × M. spicata subsp. tomentosa (Briq.) Harley).

Article H.12

H.12.1.  Subordinate taxa within nothotaxa of specific or infraspecific rank
may be recognized without an obligation to specify parent taxa at the subordi-
nate rank. In this case non-hybrid infraspecific categories of the appropriate
rank are used.

Ex. 1.  Mentha ×piperita f. hirsuta Sole; Populus ×canadensis var. serotina (R. Hartig) Rehder and
P. ×canadensis var. marilandica (Poir.) Rehder (see also Art. H.4 Note 1).

Note 1.  As there is no statement of parentage at the rank concerned there is no control of
circumscription at this rank by parentage (compare Art. H.4).

Note 2.  It is not feasible to treat subdivisions of nothospecies by the methods of both Art.
H.10 and H.12.1 at the same rank.

H.12.2.  Names published at the rank of nothomorph¹ are treated as having
been published as names of varieties (see Art. 50).

______________ 

¹  Previous editions of the Code (1978, Art. H.10, and the corresponding article in earlier editions)
   permitted only one rank under provisions equivalent to H.12. That rank was equivalent to variety and
   the category was termed “nothomorph”.

90  

___________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994  —  Tokyo Code

– 90 –

text: © 1994, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

___________________________________________________________________ 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix II, listing conserved names of families, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix IIA, Nomina familiarum algarum, fungorum et pteridophytorum
         conservanda et rejicienda
is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix IIB, Nomina familiarum bryophytorum et spermatophytorum
         conservanda
, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix III, listing conserved names of genera and species, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix IIIA, Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix IIIB, Nomina specifica conservanda et rejicienda, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix IV, Nomina utique rejicienda, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Appendix V, Opera utique oppressa, is not included here ]
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
      [ Not present in this edition ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ sic ]