Preamble | Pre.1-Pre.5 |
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 scientific names
which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups
of plants ¹.
The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group
is not to
indicate its characters or history,
but to supply a means of referring to it
and to indicate its taxonomic rank. This
Code aims at the provision of a
stable method of naming taxonomic groups,
avoiding and rejecting the use
of names which may cause error or ambiguity
or throw science into con-
fusion.
Next in importance is the avoidance
of the useless creation of
names.
Other considerations,
such as absolute grammatical correctness,
regularity or euphony of names,
more or less prevailing custom,
regard for
persons, etc.,
notwithstanding their undeniable importance,
are relatively
accessory.
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 recom-
mendations 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 clarity, especially in future nomen-
clature;
names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account,
be
rejected, but they are not examples to be followed.
———————————————————————
¹ In this
Code, unless otherwise indicated,
the word “plant” means any organism tradition-
ally studied by botanists (see
Pre. 7).
1 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 01 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Pre.6-Pre.11 | Preamble |
6.
The provisions regulating the governance of this
Code form its
last
division.
7.
The rules and recommendations apply
to all organisms traditionally
treated as plants,
whether fossil or non-fossil ¹,
e.g., blue-green algae
(Cy-
anobacteria) ² ;
fungi, including chytrids, oomycetes, and slime moulds;
photosynthetic protists and taxonomically related
non-photosynthetic
groups.
Provisions for the names
of hybrids appear in
App. I.
8.
The
International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants
is pre-
pared under
the authority of
the International Commission for the Nomen-
clature of Cultivated Plants
and deals with the use
and formation of names
for special plant categories
in agricultural, forestry,
and horticultural
no-
menclature.
9.
The only proper reasons for changing a name
are either a more pro-
found 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 nomen-
clature of bacteria.
2 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 02 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Principles | I-VI |
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).
The application of names of taxonomic groups
is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.
The nomenclature of a taxonomic group
is based upon priority of publica-
tion.
Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription,
position, and
rank can bear only one correct name,
the earliest that is in accordance with
the Rules,
except in specified cases.
Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated
as Latin regardless of
their derivation.
The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.
3 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 03 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
1-3 | Taxa & Ranks |
DIVISION
II.
RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER
I.
TAXA
AND THEIR
RANKS
1.1.
Taxonomic groups of any rank will, in this
Code, be referred to as
taxa (singular:
taxon).
1.2.
Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa.
A morphotaxon
is defined
as a fossil taxon which,
for nomenclatural purposes,
comprises only the
parts,
life-history stages,
or preservational states
represented by the corre-
sponding nomenclatural type.
1.3.
As in the case of
form-taxa for asexual forms
(anamorphs) of
certain
pleomorphic fungi
(Art.
59), the provisions of this
Code
authorize the
publication
and use of names of
morphotaxa
(Art.
11.7).
2.1.
Every individual plant is treated as belonging to an indefinite
number
of taxa of consecutively subordinate rank,
among which the rank of spec-
cies
(species) is basic.
3.1.
The principal ranks of taxa
in descending sequence are: kingdom
(regnum), division or phylum
(divisio, phylum), class
(classis), order
(ordo), family
(familia), genus
(genus), and species
(species). Thus, 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
nothospecies.
These
ranks are the
same
as genus and species. The addition
of “notho”
indicates
the hybrid character (see
App.
I).
4 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 04 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Taxa & Ranks | 4-5 |
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 descending sequence):
regnum, subregnum,
divisio or
phylum,
subdivisio or
subphylum,
classis, subclassis,
ordo, subordo,
familia, sub-
familia,
tribus, subtribus,
genus, subgenus,
sectio, subsectio,
series, sub-
series,
species, subspecies,
varietas, subvarietas,
forma, subforma.
4.3.
Further ranks may also be intercalated or added,
provided that confu-
sion 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
per-
mitted (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
categories of plants
used in agriculture,
forestry, and
horticulture,
see Art. 28
Notes
2-5.
Note 3.
In classifying parasites, especially fungi,
authors who do not give spe-
cific, subspecific, or varietal value to taxa
characterized from a physiological
standpoint
but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint
may distin-
guish within the species
special forms
(formae speciales)
characterized by their
adaptation to different hosts,
but the nomenclature of special forms is not gov-
erned by the provisions of this
Code.
5.1.
The relative order of the ranks specified in Art.
3 and
4
must not be
altered (see Art.
33.7 and
33.8).
5 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 05 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
6 | Status definitions |
CHAPTER II. STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF
NAMES
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.
In this
Code,
unless otherwise indicated, the word “name”
means a
name that has been validly published,
whether it is legitimate or illegiti-
mate (see Art.
12).
Note 1.
When the same name, based on the same type,
has been published inde-
pendently
at different times by different authors,
then only the earliest of these so-
called “isonyms” has nomenclatural status.
The name is always to be cited from
its original place of valid publication,
and later “isonyms” may be disregarded.
Ex. 1.
Baker (Summary New Ferns: 9. 1892)
and Christensen (Index Filic: 44. 1905)
independently published the name
Alsophila kalbreyeri as a substitute for
A. podophylla
Baker (1891) non Hook. (1857).
As published by Christensen,
Alsophila kalbreyeri is a
later “isonym” of
A. kalbreyeri Baker, without nomenclatural status
(see also Art. 33
Ex.
10).
Ex. 2.
In publishing
“Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.”, Leenhouts
(in Blumea 9: 406.
1959) reused the illegitimate
C. pimela K. D. König (1805),
attributing it to himself and
basing it on the same type.
He thereby created a later “isonym”
without nomenclatural
status.
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
unless it is conserved or sanctioned.
Ex. 3.
Anisothecium Mitten (1869)
when published included
the previously designated
type of
Dicranella (Müll. Hal.) Schimp. (1856). When
Dicranella was conserved with a
different type,
Anisothecium did not thereby become legitimate.
6 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 06 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Status definitions – Typification | 6-7 |
Ex. 4.
Skeletonemopsis P. A. Sims (1995)
was illegitimate when published because it
included the original type of
Skeletonema Grev. (1865). When
Skeletonema was conserved
with a different type,
Skeletonemopsis nevertheless
remained illegitimate and had to be
conserved in order to be available for use.
6.5.
A
legitimate name
is one that is in accordance with the rules, i.e., that
is not illegitimate
as defined in Art. 6.4.
6.6.
At
the rank of family
or below,
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. 5.
The generic name
Vexillifera Ducke (1922),
based on the single species
V. micran-
thera, is legitimate.
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
Vexil-
lifera may therefore
be correct or incorrect according to different
taxonomic concepts.
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.
6.
Combinations:
Mouriri subg.
Pericrene, Arytera sect.
Mischarytera, Gentiana
lutea,
Gentiana tenella var.
occidentalis, Equisetum palustre var.
americanum, Equisetum
palustre f.
fluitans.
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.
32.6).
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 syn-
7 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 07 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
7 | Typification |
onym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily
the most typical or repre-
sentative element of a taxon.
7.3.
A new name published as an avowed substitute
(replacement name,
nomen novum)
for an older name is typified
by the type of the older name
(see Art.
33.3; 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. luci-
da 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 combi-
nation
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 paren-
theses (under Art.
49)
of the name of the original author, Bongard,
indicates the type of the
name.
Ex. 3.
Delesseria gmelinii J. V. Lamour. (1813),
an illegitimate replacement name for
Fucus palmetta S. G. Gmel. (1768),
and all intended combinations based on
D. gmelinii
(and not excluding the type of
F. palmetta; see Art.
48.1)
have the same type as
F. pal-
metta,
even though the material in Lamouroux’s hands is
now assigned to a different spe-
cies,
Delesseria bonnemaisonii C. Agardh (1822).
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 defi-
nitely indicated
by the author of the illegitimate name.
Automatic typifi-
cation does not apply
to names sanctioned under Art.
15.
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 effec-
tively published
description or diagnosis (Art.
32.1(c))
is to be typified by
an element
selected from the context of the validating
description or diag-
nosis,
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 nomenclatural starting-point
later than 1753 (see Art.
13.1)
is to be determined in accordance with the indication
or descriptive
and other matter
accompanying its valid publication (see Art.
32-45).
8 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 08 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Typification | 7 |
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 defi-
nitely
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 descrip-
tion 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.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9: 375-
376. 1960),
although probably consulted by Ray,
is not eligible as type.
The first accept-
able choice
is that of the illustration,
cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of
“Echii altera spe-
cies”
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
morphogenera
of plant fossils (Art.
1.2),
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.
9.17 and
10.5),
designation of a type
is achieved
only by effective publication (Art.
29-31).
7.11.
For purposes of priority (Art.
9.17 and
10.5),
designation of a type
is achieved
only if the type is definitely accepted as such
by the typifying
author,
if the type element is clearly indicated
by direct citation including
the term “type”
(typus) or an equivalent, and, on or after
1 January 2001,
if the typification
statement
includes the phrase
“here designated” (hic
designatus)
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
Chlorosarcina.
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
Chlorosar-
cina elegans.
9 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 09 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
7-8 | Typification |
*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.
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 de-
posited material,
and that it be scrupulously conserved.
8.1.
The type
(holotype, lectotype,
or neotype)
of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon is
either a single specimen
conserved in one herbarium
or other collection
or institution, or
an illustration.
8.2.
For the purpose of typification a specimen
is a gathering, or part of a
gathering,
of a single species or infraspecific taxon
made at one time, dis-
regarding admixtures
(see Art.
9.12).
It
may consist of
a single plant,
parts
of one
or several plants,
or of multiple
small plants.
A specimen is usually
mounted on
a single herbarium sheet or in
an equivalent preparation, such
as a box, packet, jar
or microscope slide.
Ex. 1.
“Echinocereus sanpedroensis”
(Raudonat & Rischer in Echinocereenfreund
8(4): 91-92. 1995) was based on a “holotype”
consisting of a complete plant with
roots,
a detached branch, an entire flower,
a flower cut in halves, and two fruits,
which according to the label were taken
from the same cultivated individual
at differ-
ent times and preserved,
in alcohol, in a single jar.
This material belongs to more than
one gathering
and cannot be accepted as a type.
Raudonat & Rischer’s name
is not
validly published under Art.
37.2.
8.3.
A specimen may be mounted as more
than one preparation, as long
as the parts
are clearly labelled as being part of that same specimen.
Mul-
tiple preparations from a single gathering
which are not clearly labelled as
being part
of a single specimen are duplicates ¹,
irrespective of whether
the source was one plant
or more than one (but see Art. 8.5).
———————————————————————
*
Here and elsewhere in the
Code, a prefixed asterisk
denotes a “voted Example”, accepted
by a Congress in order
to legislate nomenclatural
practice when the
corresponding Article
of the
Code is open
to divergent interpretration
or does not adequately
cover the matter.
¹
Here and elsewhere
in this
Code,
the word duplicate
is given its usual meaning in her-
barium curatorial practice.
It is part of a single gathering
of a single species or in-
fraspecific taxon made by
the same collector(s) at one time.
The possibility of a mixed
gathering must always be considered
by an author choosing a lectotype,
and corre-
sponding caution used.
10 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 10 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Typification | 8-8A |
Ex. 2.
The holotype specimen of
Delissea eleeleensis H. St. John,
Christensen 261
(BISH),
is mounted as two preparations,
a herbarium sheet (BISH No. 519675)
bear-
ing the annotation “fl. bottled”
and an inflorescence preserved in alcohol
in a jar la-
belled
“Cyanea, Christensen 261”.
The annotation indicates
that the inflorescence is
part
of the holotype specimen and not a duplicate,
nor is it part of the isotype speci-
men (BISH No. 519676), which is not labelled
as including additional material pre-
served in a separate preparation.
Ex. 3.
The holotype specimen of
Johannesteijsmannia magnifica J. Dransf.,
Drans-
field 862 (K),
consists of a leaf mounted on five herbarium sheets,
an inflorescence
and infructescence in a box,
and liquid-preserved material in a bottle.
Ex. 4.
The holotype of
Cephaëlis acanthacea Steyerm.,
Cuatrecasas 16752 (F), con-
sists of a single specimen mounted
on two herbarium sheets,
labelled “sheet 1” and
“sheet 2”.
Although the two sheets have separate herbarium numbers,
F-1153741 and
F-1153742, respectively,
the cross-labelling indicates
that they constitute a single
specimen.
A third sheet of
Cuatrecasas 16572, F-1153740,
is not cross-labelled
and is
therefore a duplicate.
Ex. 5.
The holotype specimen of
Eugenia ceibensis Standl.,
Yuncker & al. 8309,
is
mounted on a single herbarium sheet at F.
A fragment was removed from the speci-
men
subsequent to its designation as holotype
and is now conserved in LL.
The frag-
ment is mounted
on a herbarium sheet along with a photograph
of the holotype and is
labelled “fragment of type!”.
The fragment is no longer part of the holotype specimen
because it is not permanently conserved
in the same herbarium as the holotype.
Such
fragments have the status
of a duplicate, i.e. an isotype.
8.4.
Type specimens of names of taxa
must be preserved permanently and
may not
be living plants or cultures.
However,
cultures of fungi
and algae,
if preserved
in a metabolically
inactive state
(e.g. by lyophilization or
deep-freezing),
are acceptable
as types.
Ex.
6.
The strain CBS 7351
is acceptable
as the type of the name
Candida populi Hagler
& al.
(in Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39: 98. 1989)
because it is permanently
preserved in a
metabolically inactive state
by lyophilization (see also Rec. 8B.2).
8.5.
The type, epitypes (Art.
9.7) excepted,
of the name of a taxon of
fossil plants
of the rank of species or below is
always a specimen
(see Art.
9.13).
One whole specimen is to be considered
as the nomenclatural type
(see Rec.
8A.3).
8A.1.
When a holotype, a lectotype, or a neotype
is an illustration,
the specimen
or specimens
upon which that illustration
is based should be used to help deter-
mine the application of the name
(see also Art.
9.13).
11 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 11 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
8A-9 | Typification |
8A.2.
When an illustration
is designated as the type of
a name
under Art.
37.4,
the collection data of the illustrated material
should be given (see also Rec.
32D.2).
8A.3.
If the type specimen of a name
of a fossil plant is cut into pieces (sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coalball plants, etc.),
all parts originally used in estab-
lishing
the diagnosis ought to be clearly marked.
8A.4.
When a single specimen designated as type
is mounted as multiple prepa-
rations,
this should be stated in the protologue ¹,
and the preparations appropri-
ately labelled.
8B.1.
Whenever practicable a living culture
should be prepared from the holo-
type material of the name
of a newly described taxon of fungi or algae
and de-
posited in at least two
institutional culture or genetic resource collections.
(Such
action does not obviate the requirement
for a holotype specimen under Art. 8.4.)
8B.2.
In cases where the type of a name
is a culture permanently preserved in a
metabolically inactive state (see Art. 8
Ex.
6),
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.
9.1.
A holotype of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon is the one
specimen
or illustration
(but see Art.
37.4)
used by the author,
or desig-
nated by the author
as the nomenclatural type.
As long as a holotype is
extant,
it fixes the application of the name concerned
(but see Art.
9.13;
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
and 9.13).
If the author
used 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 considerations apply to material
included by the
earlier author (see Art.
7.7 and
7.8).
9.2.
A lectotype is a specimen or illustration designated
from the original
material
as the nomenclatural type,
in conformity with Art. 9.9
and 9.10,
———————————————————————
¹ Protologue
(from the Greek
protos, first;
logos, discourse): everything associated with a
name at its valid publication,
i.e. description or diagnosis, illustrations,
references, syn-
onymy, geographical data,
citation of specimens,
discussion, and comments.
12 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 12 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Typification | 9 |
if
no holotype was indicated at the time of publication,
or if
it is missing,
or if it
is found to belong to more than one taxon
(see also Art. 9.13).
Note 2.
For
the purposes of this
Code,
the 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 descrip-
tion or diagnosis,
or the author of the name.
9.3. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
9.4.
A syntype is any specimen
cited in the protologue
when no holotype
was designated,
or any one of two or more specimens
simultaneously des-
ignated as types.
9.5.
A paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue
that is neither the
holotype nor an isotype,
nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens
were simultaneously designated as types.
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
3.
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 selected
to serve as nomen-
clatural type
as long as all of the material
on which the name of the taxon
was based
is missing (see also Art. 9.15).
9.7.
An epitype is a specimen or illustration
selected to serve as an inter-
pretative type
when the holotype, lectotype,
or previously designated
neotype,
or all original material
associated with a validly published name,
is demonstrably ambiguous
and cannot be critically identified
for pur-
poses of the precise application
of the name of a taxon.
When an epitype
is designated,
the holotype, lectotype, or neotype
that the epitype supports
must be explicitly cited (see Art. 9.18).
Ex. 2.
The holotype of
Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn. (1807)
is a seed of unknown
provenance (P),
clearly belonging to the species currently known as
Butyrospermum para-
doxum (C. F. Gaertn.) Hepper.
However, the two subspecies recognized within that species
13 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 13 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
9 | Typification |
can only be distinguished by characters of foliage
or inflorescence. Hall & Hurdle
(in
Taxon 44: 410. 1995)
designated an epitype with foliage,
Mungo Park (BM).
It belongs to
the western subspecies,
now to be known as
B. paradoxum subsp.
paradoxum.
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.
3.
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 Note 2), Borssum Waalkes’s use of holotype
is an error to be
corrected to lectotype.
Ex. 4.
In describing the Jurassic dinoflagellate species
Nannoceratopsis triceras, Drugg
(1978)
designated a holotype (slide preparation)
and one isotype (SEM preparation)
from
the same locality, age, and zone.
He also cited two other specimens
which are from a
different locality,
stage, and zone as “isotypes”.
Drugg’s second use of the term isotype is
an error and is to be corrected to “paratype”.
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).
9.10.
In
lectotype designation,
an isotype
must be chosen
if such exists,
or otherwise a
syntype
if such
exists.
If no
isotype,
syntype or
isosyntype
(duplicate of
syntype)
is extant,
the lectotype must be chosen from among
the
paratypes if such exist.
If no cited specimens
exist, the lectotype must
be chosen
from among the
uncited specimens
and cited
and uncited illus-
trations which
comprise the
remaining original material, if such exist.
9.11.
If
no original material
is extant, a neotype may be selected.
A lec-
totype always
takes precedence
over a neotype,
except as provided
by Art.
9.15.
9.12.
When a type specimen (herbarium sheet
or equivalent preparation)
contains 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.
5.
The type of the name
Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is
Lorentz 128
(BM); this
specimen,
however, proved to be
mixed.
Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70:
192. 1935) acted in accordance with
Art. 9.12
in designating one part of Lorentz’s
speci-
men
as the lectotype.
14 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 14 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Typification | 9 |
9.13.
The holotype (or
lectotype)
of a
name of a
species or infraspecific
taxon of fossil
plants (Art.
8.5)
is the specimen (or
one of the
specimens)
on which the
validating illustrations
(Art. 38) are based.
When, prior to
1 January 2001
(see Art.
38.2), in the protologue of
a name of a new taxon
of fossil plants
of the rank of species
or below, a type specimen
is indi-
cated (Art.
37.1) but not identified
among the validating
illustrations, a
lectotype must be designated
from among the specimens
illustrated in the
protologue. This choice
is superseded if it can be
demonstrated that the
original type specimen
corresponds
to another validating
illustration.
9.14.
A designation of a lectotype or neotype
that later is found to refer to
a single gathering
but more than one specimen must nevertheless be ac-
cepted (subject to Art. 9.17), but may be further narrowed
to a single one
of these specimens by way of
a subsequent lectotypification or neotypifi-
cation.
Ex. 6.
Erigeron plantagineus Greene (1898)
was described from material collected
by R.
M. Austin in California.
Cronquist (in Brittonia 6: 173. 1947) wrote “Type:
Austin s.n.,
Modoc County, California (ND)”,
thereby designating the Austin material in ND
as the
[first-step] lectotype.
Strother & Ferlatte (in Madroño 35: 85. 1988),
noting that there were
two specimens
of this gathering at ND, designated
one of them (ND-G No. 057228) as the
[second-step] lectotype.
In subsequent references,
both lectotypification steps
may be cited
in sequence.
9.15.
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
taxonomically from the destroyed type,
a neotype may be selected to pre-
serve
the usage established by the previous typification
(see also Art.
9.16).
9.16.
A neotype selected under Art. 9.15
may be superseded if it can be
shown
to differ taxonomically from the holotype
or lectotype that it re-
placed.
9.17.
The author who first designates a lectotype
or a neotype must be
followed, but
that choice
is superseded if
(a) the holotype or,
in the case
of a neotype,
any of the original material is rediscovered;
the choice may
also be superseded if
one
can show that
(b)
it is in serious conflict with the
protologue and another element is available
that
is not in conflict with the
protologue, or
that
(c)
it is contrary to Art. 9.12.
9.18.
The author who first designates an epitype
must be followed; a dif-
ferent epitype
may be designated only if the original epitype
is lost or de-
stroyed.
A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype
may be superseded
in accordance
with Art. 9.17 or, in the case of a neotype,
Art. 9.16. If it
can be shown that an epitype
and the type it supports differ taxonomically
15 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 15 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
9-9A | Typification |
and that neither Art. 9.16 nor 9.17 applies,
the name may be proposed for
conservation
with a conserved type (Art.
14.9;
see also Art.
57).
Note 4.
An epitype supports only the type
to which it is linked by the typifying
author.
If the supported type is superseded,
the epitype has no standing with re-
spect to the replacement type.
9.19.
Designation of an epitype is not effected
unless the herbarium or
institution
in which the epitype is conserved is specified or,
if the epitype
is a published illustration,
a full and direct bibliographic reference to it is
provided.
9.20.
On or after 1 January 1990,
lectotypification or neotypification
of a
name of a species
or infraspecific taxon by a specimen
or unpublished
illustration is not effected
unless the herbarium or institution in which the
type is conserved is specified.
9.21.
On or after 1 January 2001,
lectotypification or neotypification
of a
name of a species
or infraspecific taxon is not effected
unless indicated
by use of the term
“lectotypus” or “neotypus”, its abbreviation, or its
equivalent in a modern language (but see Art. 9.8).
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 par-
ticular it should be realized
that some of the material used by the author in de-
scribing 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 element
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.
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, recog-
nizable figures, and epithets such as
typicus, genuinus, etc.
9A.4.
When a single collection is cited
in the protologue, but a particular institu-
tion 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, un-
less there is evidence that further material
of the same collection was used.
16 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 16 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Typification | 9A-10 |
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 de-
scription or diagnosis (see Art. 9.17).
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;
if this selection proves to be faulty
it will in-
evitably
result in further change.
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 pur-
poses 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 de-
fined 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 simultane-
ously
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.
22.6,
22.7,
37.1 and
37.3)
or designated by
the author of the name.
If no type of a previously or simultaneously pub-
lished species name was definitely 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., Nomencl. Prop. Brit.
Botanists: 182. 1929) designated
Anacy-
clus 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.
17 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 17 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
10 | Typification |
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 con-
specific with Linden’s collection
Swart’s type designation cannot be superseded,
even
though the Spruce specimen became the type of
Paullinia paullinioides Radlk. (1896), be-
cause 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 indi-
rect) 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 reference
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 preparation of the protologue,
other than the type of a name of an in-
cluded species.
Ex. 4.
Physconia Poelt
(1965) was originally
conserved with the specimen
“‘Lichen pul-
verulentus’, Germania, Lipsia in
Tilia, 1767,
Schreber (M)” as the type.
That specimen is
the type of
P. pulverulacea Moberg (1979),
which name is now cited
in the type entry
in
App. IIIA.
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.
Ex. 5.
Pseudolarix Gordon (1858) was conserved
with a specimen from the Gordon her-
barium
as its conserved type. As this specimen is not the type
of any species name, its
accepted identity “[=
P. amabilis (J. Nelson) Rehder ... ]”
has been added to the corre-
sponding entry in
App. IIIA.
10.5.
The author who first designates a type
of a name of a genus or sub-
division 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 an-
other 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.
6.
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 there-
fore be superseded.
For example,
Fink had designated
Biatorina griffithii
(Ach.) A. Mas-
18 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 18 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Typification – Priority | 10-11 |
sal. as the type of
Biatorina A. Massal.;
but his choice was superseded
when the next
subsequent designation,
by Santesson (in Symb. Bot. Upsal. 12(1): 428. 1952),
stated a
different type,
B. atropurpurea (Schaerer) A. Massal.
*Ex.
7.
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 Brit-
ton & 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. peregrinum 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.
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 ge-
neric name is the same
as that of the corresponding alternative name (Art.
18.5 and
19.7).
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.
22.6 and
22.7.
10A.1.
When a combination in a rank of subdivision of a genus
has been pub-
lished 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.
11.1.
Each family or taxon of lower rank
with a particular circumscrip-
tion,
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
19 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 19 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
11 | Priority |
the form-taxa of fungi and for
morphotaxa of fossil plants
is allowed un-
der Art.
1.3 and
59.4-59.5.
11.2.
In no case does a name have priority
outside the rank in which it is
published
(but see Art.
53.4).
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
(heterotypic)
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 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 com-
bination
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 combination 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).
———————————————————————
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.
20 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 20 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Priority | 11 |
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 L. 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 unavailable 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 transferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal
retains its varietal epi-
thet and is named
H. penicillatum var.
micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser
(in Engler,
Pflanzenr. 14: 115. 1903).
Note 1.
The valid publication of a name
at a rank lower than genus precludes any
simultaneous homonymous combination (Art.
53),
irrespective of the priority of
other names
with the same final epithet that may require
transfer to the same
genus or species.
Ex. 14.
Tausch included two species in his new genus
Alkanna: A. tinctoria Tausch
(1824),
a new species based on
“Anchusa tinctoria” in the sense of Linnaeus (1762), and
A. plukenetii Tausch 1824, a nomen novum based on
Lithospermum tinctorium L. (1753).
Both names are legitimate and take priority from
(1824).
Ex. 15.
Raymond-Hamet transferred to the genus
Sedum both
Cotyledon sedoides DC.
(1808) and
Sempervivum sedoides Decne. (1844).
He combined the epithet of the later
name,
Sempervivum sedoides, under Sedum as
S. sedoides (Decne.) Hamet (1929),
and
published a new name,
S. candollei Hamet (1929),
for the earlier name. Both names are
legitimate.
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 between 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 same type and final epithet at that rank,
over the
other competing name(s) (but see Art.
11.6).
Note
2.
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 simultane-
ously rejecting or relegating
to synonymy the other(s), or nomenclatural
(homo-
typic) synonyms thereof.
21 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 21 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
11 | Priority |
Ex.
16.
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.
17.
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.
18.
Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exped. Zaire: 484. 1818)
was the first to unite
Waltheria
americana L. (1753) and
W. indica L. (1753). He adopted the name
W. indica for the com-
bined species,
and this name is accordingly treated as having priority over
W. americana.
Ex.
19.
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 integer-
rimus
is treated as having priority over
S. reticulatus irrespective of the genus
(Sclerocro-
ton, Stillingia, Excoecaria, Sapium)
to which the species is assigned.
Ex.
20.
Linnaeus (1753) simultaneously published the names
Verbesina alba and
V. pro-
strata.
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.
21.
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. spe-
ciosa 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
3.
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.
22.
Heracleum sibiricum L. (1753) includes
H. sibiricum subsp.
lecokii (Godr. &
Gren.) Nyman
(Consp. Fl. Europ.: 290. 1879) and
H. sibiricum subsp.
sibiricum automati-
cally 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
22 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 22 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Priority | 11 |
(L.) Simonk. (Enum. Fl. Transsilv.: 266. 1887), not subsp.
lecokii, whether or not subsp.
lecokii is treated as distinct.
Ex.
23.
The publication of
Salix tristis var.
microphylla Andersson
(Salices Bor.-Amer.:
21. 1858) created the autonym
S. tristis Aiton (1789) var.
tristis, dating from 1858. If
S. tristis, including var.
microphylla, is recognized as a variety of
S. humilis Marshall
(1785),
the correct name is
S. humilis var.
tristis (Aiton) Griggs (in Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci.
4: 301. 1905). However, if both varieties of
S. tristis are recognized as varieties of
S. hu-
milis,
then the names
S. humilis var.
tristis and
S. humilis var.
microphylla (Andersson)
Fernald
(in Rhodora 48: 46. 1946) are both used.
Ex.
24.
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.
ber-
landieri (A. Gray) Rollins & E. A. Shaw.
The latter subspecies
is composed of two varie-
ties.
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.
For purposes of priority, names of fossil taxa
(diatoms excepted)
compete only with names based on a fossil type
representing the same
part, life-history stage,
or preservational state (see Art.
1.2).
Ex. 25.
The generic name
Sigillaria Brongn. (1822),
established for bark fragments, may
in part
represent the same biological taxon as the “cone-genus”
Mazocarpon M. J. Benson
(1918),
which represents permineralizations, or
Sigillariostrobus (Schimp.) Geinitz (1873),
which represents compressions.
Certain species of all three genera,
Sigillaria,
Mazocar-
pon, and
Sigillariostrobus,
have been assigned to the family
Sigillariaceae.
All these
generic names can be used concurrently
in spite of the fact that they may, at least in part,
apply to the same organism.
Ex. 26.
The morphogeneric name
Tuberculodinium D. Wall (1967)
may be retained for a
genus of fossil cysts
even though cysts of the same kind are known
to be part of the life
cycle of an extant genus
that bears an earlier name,
Pyrophacus F. Stein (1883).
Note 4.
Names of plants
(diatoms excepted)
based on a non-fossil type are
treated
as having priority over names of the same rank
based on a fossil (or sub-
fossil) type.
Ex.
27.
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 com-
bined genus, although it is antedated by
Petrophiloides.
Ex. 28.
Boalch and Guy-Ohlson (in Taxon 41: 529-531. 1992)
united the two prasinophyte
genera
Pachysphaera Ostenf. (1899) and
Tasmanites E. J. Newton (1875).
Pachysphaera
is based on a non-fossil type and
Tasmanites on a fossil type. Under the
Code in effect in
1992,
Tasmanites had priority and was therefore adopted.
Under the current
Code, in
which the exemption in Art. 11.7
applies only to diatoms and not to algae in general,
Pachysphaera is correct for the combined genus.
23 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 23 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
11-13 | Priority-Starting points |
Ex.
29.
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. glyptostro-
boides
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
subject to the same rules
as are those of non-hybrid taxa of equivalent
rank.
Ex.
30.
The name
×Solidaster H. R. Wehrh. (1932) antedates
×Asterago Everett (1937)
for
the hybrids between
Aster L. and
Solidago
L.
Ex.
31.
Anemone
×hybrida Paxton (1848) antedates
A.
×elegans Decne. (1852), pro sp.,
as
the binomial for the hybrids derived from
A. hupehensis (Lemoine & E. Lemoine)
Le-
moine & E. Lemoine ×
A. vitifolia Buch.-Ham. ex DC.
Ex.
32.
Camus (in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927)
published the name
×Agroelymus A. Camus
for a nothogenus,
without a Latin description or diagnosis, men-
tioning 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,
Rousseau (in Mém. Jard.
Bot. Montréal
29: 10-11. 1952) published a Latin diagnosis.
However, the date of valid
publication of
×Agroelymus under this
Code (Art.
H.9)
is 1927, not 1952,
so it antedates
the name
×Elymopyrum Cugnac
(in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938).
11.9.
The principle of priority is not mandatory for names
of taxa above
the rank of family (but see Rec.
16B).
12.1.
A name of a taxon has no status under this
Code unless it is validly
published (see Art.
32-45).
SECTION 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
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 men-
tioned 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,
Spe-
cies plantarum, ed. 1).
24 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 24 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Starting points | 13 |
(b)
Musci (the
Sphagnaceae excepted), 1 January 1801 (Hedwig,
Species
muscorum).
(c)
Sphagnaceae and
Hepaticae,
1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species plan-
tarum, ed. 1).
(d)
Fungi
(including slime moulds and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May
1753 (Linnaeus,
Species plantarum, ed. 1).
Names in the
Uredinales,
Ustilaginales, 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
Elen-
chus fungorum, vol. 1-2),
are sanctioned (see Art.
15).
For nomencla-
tural 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, “Monogra-
phie 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,
“Révision 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 “Révision”, which appeared in 1886, 1886, 1887, and 1888, re-
spectively,
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 Icono-
graphie der Oedogoniaceen”,
in Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).
Fossil plants:
(f)
All groups,
31 December 1820 (Sternberg,
Flora der Vorwelt, Ver-
such 1: 1-24, t. 1-13). Schlotheim’s
Petrefactenkunde (1820) is re-
garded as published before 31 December 1820.
13.2.
The group to which a name is assigned
for the purposes of this Arti-
cle
is determined by the accepted taxonomic position
of the type of the
name.
25 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 25 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
13-14 | Starting points-Conservation |
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
designated type 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 pterido-
phyte 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-fossil taxon
unless its type is fossil in origin. Fossil material
is distin-
guished 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 appear in Linnaeus’s
Species plantarum, ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762-1763),
are associated with the first subsequent de-
scription
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 plantarum, 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 simul-
taneously 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).
14.1.
In order to avoid disadvantageous
nomenclatural changes
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
of families, genera, and
species
that are
conserved
(nomina conservanda).
Conserved names are legitimate even
though initially they may have been illegitimate.
14.2.
Conservation aims at retention of those names
which best serve
stability of nomenclature
(see Rec.
50E).
26 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 26 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Conservation | 14 |
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, i.e.
homotypic, synonyms,
which are to be rejected) whether
or not these are
cited in the corresponding list
as rejected names,
and against those names
based on different types (taxonomic, i.e.
heterotypic, synonyms)
that are
listed as rejected ¹.
A conserved name of a species is conserved
against all
names listed as rejected,
and against all combinations based on the re-
jected 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 authorship (but see Art. 14.9).
Note 2.
A species name listed as conserved or rejected in
App. IIIB
may have
been published as the name of a new taxon,
or as a combination based on an ear-
lier name.
Rejection of a name based on an earlier name does not in itself
pre-
clude 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,
ex-
cept 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
Cas-
sipourea 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
(homotypic) synonym
Cardaminum Moench (1794);
consequently if reunited with
Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name
Rorippa.
———————————————————————
¹ The
International code of zoological nomenclature and the
International code of nomen-
clature of bacteria use the terms “objective synonym”
and “subjective synonym” for no-
menclatural and taxonomic synonym, respectively.
27 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 27 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
14 | Conservation |
14.6.
When a name of a taxon has been conserved
against an earlier name
based on a different type,
the latter is to be restored, subject to Art.
11,
if it
is considered the name of a taxon
at the same rank distinct from that of the
nomen conservandum,
except when the earlier rejected name is a homo-
nym 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, how-
ever,
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
Amphitecna Miers (1868); if
Enallagma and
Amphitecna are united,
the combined
genus must bear the name
Amphitecna, although the latter
is not explicitly conserved
against
Dendrosicus.
14.8.
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
Plectranthus 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 Bo-
tanical Congress.
14.9.
A name may be conserved with a different type
from that desig-
nated 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. cyna-
roides (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 de-
signed 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
any
corresponding autonym,
is conserved
against all earlier homonyms.
An earlier homonym of a conserved name is
28 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 28 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Conservation | 14-14A |
not made illegitimate by that conservation
but is unavailable for use; if
not
otherwise
illegitimate,
it may serve as basionym of another name
or com-
bination 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
spelling
or gender.
A name so conserved is to be attributed
without change of pri-
ority to the author
who validly published it, not to an author
who later
introduced the conserved spelling or gender.
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 con-
served name,
which is determined only on the basis
of the date of valid publica-
tion (Art.
32-45).
14.12.
The lists of conserved names will remain
permanently open for
additions and changes.
Any proposal of an additional name must be ac-
companied 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 of a name,
or
of its
rejection
under Art.
56,
has been approved by the General Committee
after study by
the Committee
for the taxonomic group concerned,
retention (or rejection)
of that name
is authorized subject to the decision of a later
International
Botanical Congress.
14A.1.
When a proposal for the conservation
of a name,
or
of its
rejection
under
Art.
56,
has been referred to the appropriate Committee
for study, authors should
follow existing usage
as far as possible pending the General Committee’s rec-
ommendation on the proposal.
29 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 29 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
15 | Sanctioning |
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
not otherwise illegitimate,
it may serve as a basionym of another name
or combination based on the
same type (see also Art.
55.3).
Ex. 2.
Patellaria
Hoffm.
(1789)
is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned generic name
Patellaria Fr. (1822)
: Fr..
Hoffmann’s name
is legitimate but unavailable for use.
Lecanidion
Endl. (1830), based on the same type as
Patellaria Fr. : Fr., is illegitimate
under Art.
52.1.
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
is legitimate
and
may serve as basionym for combinations in other genera. In
Pluteus Fr. the combina-
tion
is cited as
P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm.
and has priority over the
taxonomic (hete-
rotypic) synonym
P. atricapillus (Batsch) Fayod, based on
A. atricapillus Batsch (1786).
15.3.
When, for a taxon from family to
and
including genus,
two or more
sanctioned 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 sanc-
tioned name,
which is determined only on the basis
of valid publication.
In par-
ticular,
when two or more homonyms are sanctioned
only the earliest of them
may be used,
the later being illegitimate under Art.
53.2.
Ex. 4.
Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821) accepted
Agaricus flavovirens Pers. (1801), treat-
ing
A. equestris L. (1753) as a synonym. Later
(Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828) he stated “No-
men prius
et aptius arte restituendum” and accepted
A. equestris.
Both names are sanct-
ioned,
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
sanctioning.
30 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 30 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Higher taxa | 16 |
CHAPTER III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO
THEIR RANK
SECTION 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
16.1.
The
name of
a taxon above the rank of family
is treated as a noun in
the plural and
is written with an
initial capital letter.
Such names may be
either
(a)
automatically typified
names,
formed by replacing
the termina-
tion
-aceae
in
a legitimate name
of an included family
based on a generic
name
by the termination
denoting their rank
(preceded by the connecting
vowel
-o- if the termination
begins with a consonant),
as specified in
Rec.
16A.1-3
and Art.
17.1; or
(b)
descriptive names, not so formed, which
apply to taxa with
a recognized circumscription
and which may be used
unchanged at different ranks.
Ex. 1.
Automatically
typified names
above the rank of family:
Magnoliophyta, based on
Magnoliaceae;
Gnetophytina, based on
Gnetaceae;
Pinopsida, based on
Pinaceae;
Marat-
tiidae, based on
Marattiaceae;
Caryophyllidae and
Caryophyllales, based on
Caryophyl-
laceae;
Fucales, based on
Fucaceae;
Bromeliineae, based on
Bromeliaceae.
Ex. 2.
Descriptive names
above the rank of family:
Anthophyta, Chlorophyta,
Parietales;
Ascomycota, Ascomycotina, Ascomycetes;
Angiospermae,
Centrospermae,
Coniferae,
Enan-
tioblastae,
Gymnospermae.
16.2.
For
automatically
typified names, the name of
the subdivision or
subphylum
that includes
the type of the adopted name of a division or
phylum, the name of
the subclass
that includes
the type of the adopted
name of a class,
and the name of
the suborder
that includes
the type of the
adopted name of an order
are to be based on the
same type
as the corre-
sponding higher-ranked
name.
Ex. 3.
Pteridophyta Bergen & B. M. Davis (1906) and
Pteridophytina B. Boivin (1956);
Gnetopsida Engl. (1898) and
Gnetidae Cronquist & al. (1966);
Liliales Perleb (1826) and
Liliineae Rchb. (1841).
16.3.
When an automatically
typified name
above the rank
of family
has
been published with
an improper Latin termination,
not agreeing with
31 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 31 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
16-16A | Higher taxa |
those provided
for in Rec.16A.1-3 and
Art. 17.1, the termination
must
be
changed to
conform with
these standards,
without change of the author
citation
or date of publication
(see Art.
32.5).
However,
if such names are
published with a
non-Latin termination
they are not validly
published.
Ex. 4.
“Cactarieae” (Dumortier, 1829, based on
Cactaceae) and
“Coriales” (Lindley,
1833, based on
Coriariaceae),
both published for taxa of the rank of order,
are to be cor-
rected to
Cactales Dumort. (1829) and
Coriariales Lindl. (1833), respectively.
Ex. 5.
However, Acoroidées
(Kirschleger, Fl. Alsace 2: 103. 1853 - Jul 1857),
published
for a taxon of the rank of order,
is not to be accepted as
“Acorales Kirschl.”, as it has a
French
rather than a Latin termination. The name
Acorales was later validly published by
Reveal (in Phytologia 79: 72. 1996).
Note 1.
The terms “divisio” and “phylum”,
and their equivalents in modern lan-
guages,
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 corresponding names are not validly published (Art.
33.7).
16.4.
Where one of the word elements
-monad-, -cocc-, -nemat-, or
-clad-,
being the genitive
singular stem
of the second part of a
name
of an in-
cluded
genus,
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 indi-
cated at establishment of the group name.
Ex. 6.
The name
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);
but see Rec. 16B).
16A.1.
A name
of a division or phylum should end in
-phyta unless
the taxon is a
division or phylum of fungi,
in which case its name
should end in
-mycota.
16A.2.
A name
of a subdivision or subphylum
should end
in
-phytina,
unless it is
a subdivision or subphylum of fungi,
in which case it should end in
-mycotina.
16A.3. A name of a class or of a subclass 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,
but not
-viridae
(subclass).
32 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 32 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Higher taxa – Families | 16B-18 |
16B.1.
In choosing among typified names
for a taxon above the rank of family,
authors should generally follow the principle of priority.
17.1.
Automatically
typified names of orders or suborders are to end in
-ales
(but not
-virales) and
-ineae,
respectively.
17.2.
Names intended as names of orders, but published
with their rank
denoted by a term such as
“cohors”, “nixus”, “alliance”, or “Reihe” in-
stead of “order”, are treated as having been published
as names of orders.
17A.1.
Authors should not publish new names
for orders
that include a family
from
the name
of which an existing ordinal name
is derived.
SECTION 2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND
SUBTRIBES
18.1.
The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a
noun;
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
(but see Art.18.5).
For ge-
neric 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
Rhodo-
phyllis, Rhodophyllidos),
Sclerodermataceae (from
Scleroderma, Sclerodermatos),
Aex-
toxicaceae (from
Aextoxicon, Aextoxicou),
Potamogetonaceae (from
Potamogeton, Pota-
mogetonos).
33 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 33 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
18 | Families |
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 natu-
ralis)
instead of “family”,
are treated as having been published
as names
of families (see also Art.
19.2).
Ex. 3.
Cyperaceae Juss. (1789),
Lobeliaceae
Juss. (1813), and
Xylomataceae Fr. (1820)
were published as “ordo
Cyperoideae”, “ordo naturalis
Lobeliaceae”,
and “ordo
Xylo-
maceae”, respectively.
18.3.
A name of a family based
on an illegitimate generic name
is ille-
gitimate 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
R. Br. ex 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
citation
or date of publication (see Art.
32.5).
However, if such a name
is published
with a non-Latin
termination,
it is not validly
published.
Ex. 5.
“Coscinodisceae” (Kützing 1844),
published to designate a family,
is to be accepted
as
Coscinodiscaceae Kütz. 1844
and not attributed to De Toni,
who first used the correct
spelling
(in Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).
Ex. 6.
“Atherospermeae” (Brown 1814), published to designate
a family,
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), published to
designate a family,
is not to be accepted as
“Tricholomataceae Roze”, as it has a French
rather than a Latin termination. The name
Tricholomataceae was later validated
by Pouzar
(1983; see
App. IIA).
18.5.
The following names, of long usage,
are treated as validly pub-
lished:
Palmae
(Arecaceae; type,
Areca L.);
Gramineae
(Poaceae; type,
Poa L.);
Cruciferae
(Brassicaceae; type,
Brassica L.);
Leguminosae
(Fa-
baceae; type,
Faba Mill. [=
Vicia L.]);
Guttiferae
(Clusiaceae; type,
Clu-
sia L.);
Umbelliferae
(Apiaceae; type,
Apium L.);
Labiatae
(Lamiaceae;
type,
Lamium L.);
Compositae
(Asteraceae; type,
Aster L.).
When the
Pa-
pilionaceae
(Fabaceae; type,
Faba Mill.)
are regarded as a family distinct
34 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 34 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Families – Subdivisions of families | 18-19 |
from the remainder of the
Leguminosae, the name
Papilionaceae is con-
served against
Leguminosae.
18.6.
The use, as alternatives,
of the family names indicated in parenthe-
ses in Art.
18.5 is authorized.
19.1.
The name of a subfamily
is a plural adjective used as a
noun;
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
(but not
-virinae).
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
(but see Art. 19.7).
Ex. 1.
The type of the family name
Rosaceae
Adans. 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
Adans. –
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
Rhododen-
dron L.,
the type of the subfamily name
Rhododendroideae Endl., and
Rhodora L. is
Rho-
doreae D. Don (1834) not
Rhododendreae Brongn. (1843).
Ex. 4.
The subfamily of the family
Asteraceae
Martinov (nom. alt.,
Compositae
Adans.)
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
Cichorioideae 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 dis-
tinct from
Compositae).
35 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 35 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
19-19A | Subdivisions of families |
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.
Con-
trary to Art.
32.1(b)
such a name is validly published if it complies
with
the other requirements for valid publication.
Ex. 5.
The name
Caryophylloideae
Arn. (1832), based on
Caryophyllaceae Juss.,
nom.
cons.,
is legitimate although it is
ultimately based on 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
subfamily or
-oideae for a tribe,
the termination must be changed to ac-
cord with the rule, without change of the author
citation
or date of publi-
cation (see Art.
32.5).
However, if such names
are published with a non-
Latin termination
they are not validly
published.
Ex. 6.
“Climacieae”
(Grout,
Moss Fl. N. Amer. 3: 4. 1928),
published to designate a
sub-
family,
is to be changed to
Climacioideae
Grout (1928).
Ex. 7.
However, Melantheen
(Kittel in Richard, Nouv. Elém. Bot.,
ed. 3, Germ. Transl.:
727. 1840),
published to designate a tribe,
is not to be accepted as
“Melanthieae Kitt.”,
as it
has a German
rather than a Latin termination.
The name
Melanthieae was validated later
by Grisebach
(Spic. Fl. Rumel. 2: 377. 1846).
19.7.
When the
Papilionaceae are included in the family
Leguminosae
(nom. alt.,
Fabaceae; see Art.
18.5)
as a subfamily, the name
Papilionoi-
deae
may be used as an alternative to
Faboideae.
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
Griseb. (1859)
(Euphorbiaceae)
when raised to the rank of
tribe was named
Drypeteae
Hurus. (1954);
the subtribe
Antidesmatinae
Müll. Arg. (1865)
(Euphorbiaceae)
when raised to the rank of subfamily was named
Antidesmatoideae
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 A. Gray,
Monotropoideae A. Gray, and
Vaccinioideae Endl.
are
based on the same generic names.
36 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 36 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Genera | 20 |
SECTION 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA
20.1.
The name of a genus is a
noun in the
nominative singular,
or a word
treated as such,
and is written with an
initial
capital letter (see Art.
60.2).
It may be taken from any source whatever,
and may even be composed in
an absolutely arbitrary manner, but it must
not end in
-virus.
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 cur-
rently used
in morphology unless it was published
before 1 January 1912
and accompanied
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 Lin-
naeus. 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 unconnected 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 originally 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.
37 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 37 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
20-21 | Genera – Subdivision of genera |
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. These un-
named genera were later legitimately named
Kyllinga Rottb. and
Fuirena Rottb.
(b) Unitary designations of species.
Note 2.
Examples such as
“Leptostachys” and
“Anthopogon”, listed in
pre-
Tokyo editions of the
Code, were from publications now listed in
App. V.
20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the following advice:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin language.
(c) Not to make names which are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(d) Not to make names by combining words from different languages.
(e)
To indicate, if possible, by the formation
or ending of the name the affinities
or analogies of the genus.
(f) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(g)
Not to use a name similar to or derived
from the epithet 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 com-
memorate 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.
is based on
Hordeum subg.
Hordelymus K. Jess.
The
subgeneric epithet was formed
by combining parts of the generic names
Hordeum L. and
Elymus L. (see also Art. H.3
Ex. 2).
21.1.
The name of a subdivision of a genus
is a combination of a generic
name
and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term
(subgenus, sectio,
series, etc.)
is used to denote the rank.
38 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 38 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Subdivisions of genera | 21-21B |
21.2.
The epithet is either of the same form
as a generic name,
or a noun
in the genitive
plural,
or a plural adjective agreeing in gender
with the
generic name, but not noun
in the genitive
singular. It is written with an
initial
capital letter (see Art.
32.5 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 pre-
fix
Eu-.
Ex. 1.
Costus subg.
Metacostus;
Ricinocarpos sect.
Anomodiscus;
Valeriana sect.
Valeri-
anopsis;
Euphorbia sect.
Tithymalus;
Pleione subg.
Scopulorum;
Euphorbia subsect.
Te-
nellae;
Sapium subsect.
Patentinervia;
Arenaria ser.
Anomalae; but not
Carex sect.
“Eu-
carex”.
Note 1.
Names of subdivisions
of the same genus, even
if they
differ in rank,
are
homonyms if they
have the same epithet
but are based on different types
(Art.
53.4).
Note 2.
The names of hybrids with the rank
of a subdivision of a genus are formed
according to the provisions of Art.
H.7.
21.4.
The use of a binary combination
instead of a subdivisional 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 author cita-
tion or date of publication.
Ex. 2.
Sphagnum “b.
Sph. rigida” (Lindberg in Öfvers. Förh. Kongl.
Svenska Vetensk.-
Akad. 19: 135. 1862) and
S. sect.
“Sphagna rigida”
(Limpricht, Laubm. Deutschl. 1: 116.
1885)
are to be cited as
Sphagnum [unranked]
Rigida Lindb. and
S. sect.
Rigida (Lindb.)
Limpr.,
respectively.
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 spe-
cific epithet,
the subdivisional epithet should be placed
in parentheses between
the two; when desirable,
the subdivisional rank may also be indicated.
21A.1.
Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus;
A. (Phaca) umbellatus;
Loranthus (sect.
Ischnanthus)
gabonensis.
21B.1.
The epithet in the name of a subgenus
or section is preferably a
noun,
that
in the
name 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
noun
when other co-ordinate
39 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 39 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
21B-22 | Subdivisions of genera |
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.
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,
not followed by an author
cita-
tion (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
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.
35.3),
named subdivisions of the genus
Cactus, comprising
C. me-
locactus L. (its type under Art.
22.6) and
C. mammillaris L.
It is validly published, even
though
C. melocactus was subsequently 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 con-
served).
22.3.
The first instance of valid publication
of a name of a subdivision of
a genus
under a
legitimate generic
name automatically
establishes the
corresponding autonym
(see also Art.
11.6 and
32.6).
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.
Malpi-
ghia, not
M. sect.
Apyrae DC.
40 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 40 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
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.
Anthoden-
dron.
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.
The epithet
in the name of a subdivision of a genus
may not repeat
the generic name unaltered
if the latter is illegitimate.
22.6.
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 spe-
cies 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.
22.7.
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 homo-
nym,
its type is the type of that later homonym,
the correct name
of which
necessarily has a different epithet.
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.
Pseudofrangula Grubov to the rank of subgenus as
R. subg.
Pseudofrangula (Grubov)
Brizicky.
The type of both names is the same,
R. alnifolia L’Hér.
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
41 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 41 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
23 | Species |
adjective, a noun in the genitive,
or a word in apposition, or several words,
but not a phrase name of one or more
descriptive nouns 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.
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 gussonei,
Geranium robertianum,
Embelia sarasiniorum,
Atropa bella-donna,
Impatiens noli-tangere,
Adiantum capillus-veneris,
Spondias mombin
(an indeclinable
epithet).
23.3.
Symbols forming part of specific epithets
proposed by Linnaeus do
not invalidate
the relevant names but must be transcribed.
Ex. 2.
Scandix pecten ♀ L.
is to be transcribed as
Scandix pecten-veneris;
Veronica ana-
gallis ∇ L.
is to be transcribed as
Veronica anagallis-aquatica.
23.4.
The specific epithet,
with or without
the addition
of a transcribed
symbol,
may not exactly repeat the generic name
(such repetition
would
result in
a tautonym).
Ex. 3.
“Linaria linaria” and
“Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum”
are contrary to this rule
and cannot be validly published.
Ex. 4.
Linum radiola L. (1753)
when transferred to
Radiola Hill may not be named
“Ra-
diola radiola”,
as was done by Karsten (1882),
since that combination is invalid (see Art.
32.1(b)).
The next oldest name,
L. multiflorum Lam. (1779),
is illegitimate, being a super-
fluous name for
L. radiola.
Under
Radiola,
the species has been given the legitimate name
R. linoides Roth (1788).
23.5.
The specific epithet,
when adjectival in form and not used as a
noun,
agrees grammatically with the generic name; when it is a noun
in
apposition or
a genitive noun,
it retains its own gender
and termination
irrespective
of the gender of
the generic name.
Epithets not conforming
to
this rule are
to be corrected (see Art.
32.5).
In particular,
the usage of the
word element
-cola as
an adjective is
a correctable
error.
Ex.
5.
Adjectival epithets:
Helleborus niger L.,
Brassica nigra (L.) W. D. J. Koch,
Ver-
bascum nigrum L.;
Vinca major L.,
Tropaeolum majus
L.;
Peridermium balsameum Peck,
derived from the epithet of
Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.,
treated as an adjective.
Ex. 6.
Names with a
noun for an epithet:
Lythrum salicaria L.,
Convolvulus
cantabrica L.,
Gentiana pneumonanthe L.,
all with epithets featuring
pre-Linnaean
generic names.
Gloeosporium balsameae Davis,
derived
from the epithet of
Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.,
treated as a
noun.
42 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 42 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Species | 23 |
Ex. 7.
Correctable errors: The epithet of
Polygonum segetum Kunth (1817)
is a genitive
plural noun
(of the corn fields); the combination
Persicaria “segeta”, proposed by Small,
is a correctable error for
Persicaria segetum (Kunth) Small (1903).
–
In
Masdevallia
echidna Rchb. f. (1855),
the epithet corresponds to the generic name
of an animal; upon
transfer to
Porroglossum Schltr., the combination
P. “echidnum” was proposed by Garay,
which is a correctable error for
P. echidna (Rchb. f.) Garay (1953).
Ex. 8. Rubus “amnicolus” is a correctable error for R. amnicola Blanch. (1906).
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 descriptive
nouns
and associated adjectives in the ablative.
Ex.
9.
Smilax “caule inermi”
(Aublet, Hist. Pl. Guiane 2, Tabl.: 27. 1775)
is an abbrevi-
ated 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 a specific epithet.
Ex.
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
Cornus “gharaf”
(Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xci, xcvi. 1775)
is an interim des-
ignation
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 “Centu-
riae” 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.
13.
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).
Ex. 14.
Honckeny (1782; see Art. 46
Ex. 27)
used species designations such as, in
Agrostis,
“A. Reygeri I.”,
A. Reyg. II.”, “A. Reyg. III.”
(all referring to species described but
not named in Reyger, Tent. Fl. Gedan.: 36-37. 1763),
and also
“A. alpina. II”
for a newly
described species following after
A. alpina Scop.
These are informal designations used for
enumeration,
not validly published binomials;
they may not be expanded into, e.g.,
“Agro-
stis reygeri-prima”.
43 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 43 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
23-23A | Species |
(c)
Designations of species
consisting of a generic name followed by two
or more adjectival words in the nominative case.
Ex.
15.
Salvia “africana coerulea”
(Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 26. 1753) and
Gnaphalium “fruti-
cosum 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.
16.
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
noun 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 nouns
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
Impatiens “noli tangere” L.
(Sp. Pl.:
938. 1753),
where the generic name is followed by two verbs,
is corrected to
I. noli-tan-
gere.
Ex.
17.
Similarly, in
Narcissus “Pseudo Narcissus” L.
(Sp. Pl.: 289. 1753)
the generic
name is followed by an independent prefix
and a noun 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 trivia-
lia”) are to be corrected
in accordance with later usage
by Linnaeus him-
self.
Ex.
18.
Apocynum “fol.
[foliis]
androsaemi” L. is to be cited as
A. androsaemifolium L.
(Sp. Pl.: 213. 1753
[corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 946. 1759]); and
Mussaenda “fr.
[fructu]
frondoso” L., as
M. frondosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 177. 1753
[corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 931.
1759]).
23.8.
Where the status of a designation of a species
is uncertain under
Art. 23.6,
established custom is to be followed
(Pre. 10).
*Ex.
19.
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).
23A.1.
Names of persons and also of countries and localities
used in specific
epithets should take the form of
nouns in the genitive
(clusii, porsildiorum, sa-
harae) or of adjectives
(clusianus, dahuricus) (see also Art.
60, Rec.
60C and
D).
44 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 44 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Species - Infraspecific taxa | 23A-24 |
23A.2.
The use of the genitive and the adjectival form
of the same word to desig-
nate 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 follow-
ing suggestions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(c) Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.
(d) To avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words.
(e)
To avoid those which have the same meaning
as the generic name (pleo-
nasm).
(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)
24.1.
The name of an infraspecific taxon
is a combination of the name of
a species and an infraspecific epithet. A connecting term
is used to denote
the rank.
Ex. 1.
Saxifraga aizoon subf.
surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.
This
taxon may also
be referred
to 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,
not
only its name.
24.2.
Infraspecific epithets are formed
like specific epithets and, when
adjectival in form and not used as
nouns,
they agree grammatically with
the generic name (see Art.
32.5).
Ex. 2. Solanum melongena var. insanum Prain (Bengal Pl.: 746. 1903, “insana”).
45 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 45 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
24-25 | Infraspecific taxa |
24.3.
Infraspecific names with final epithets such as
typicus, originalis,
originarius, genuinus, verus, and
veridicus, purporting to indicate the
taxon containing the type of the name
of the next higher taxon,
are not
validly published unless
they are autonyms (Art.
26).
Ex. 3.
Lobelia spicata “var.
originalis”
(McVaugh in Rhodora 38: 308. 1936)
was not
validly published (see Art. 26
Ex. 1).
24.4.
The use of a binary combination instead
of an infraspecific epithet
is not admissible.
Contrary to Art.
32.1(b),
names so constructed are val-
idly published
but are to be altered to the proper form
without change of
the author
citation
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.
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.
Names of
infraspecific taxa
within the same species,
even if they differ in
rank,
are homonyms
if they have the
same epithet
but are based
on different types
(Art.
53.4).
24A.1.
Recommendations made
for forming specific epithets (Rec.
23A)
apply
equally for infraspecific epithets.
24B.1.
Authors proposing new infraspecific names
should avoid epithets previ-
ously 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.
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).
46 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 46 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Infraspecific taxa | 25-26 |
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. parvi-
folia subsp.
flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris. The name
M. parvifolia applies to the species
in its
entirety.
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,
not followed by an author
citation (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).
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 pub-
lished 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.
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.
Ex. 3.
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 3. 1753)
recognized two named varieties under
Salicornia eu-
ropaea.
Since
S. europaea has no holotype
and no syntypes are cited,
both varietal names
are validly published
irrespective of the facts that the lectotype of
S. europaea, designated
by Jafri and Rateeb
(in Jafri & El-Gadi, Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1979),
can be attributed to
S. eu-
ropaea var.
herbacea L. (1753) and that the latter name
was subsequently lectotypified by
Piirainen (in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 28: 82. 1991)
by the same specimen as the species name.
Ex.
4.
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 779-781. 1753)
recognized
13 named varieties under
Medicago
polymorpha.
Since
M. polymorpha L. has
neither a
holotype
nor
syntypes,
all varietal
names
are validly published, and indeed
the lectotype subsequently
designated
(by Heyn in
Bull. Res. Council Israel,
Sect. D, Bot., 7: 163. 1959)
is not part of
the original material for
any of the varietal names
of 1753.
47 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 47 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
26-26A | Infraspecific taxa |
26.3.
The first instance of valid publication of a name
of an infraspecific
taxon
under a
legitimate species name
automatically establishes the corre-
sponding autonym (see also Art.
32.6 and
11.6).
Ex.
5.
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. inun-
datum L. var.
inundatum,
the type of which is that of the name
L. inundatum L.
Ex.
6.
Utricularia stellaris L. f. (1782) 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).
Ex. 7.
Pangalo (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23: 258. 1930)
when describing
Cucurbita mixta
Pangalo
distinguished two varieties,
C. mixta var.
cyanoperizona Pangalo and var.
steno-
sperma Pangalo, together
encompassing the entire circumscription of the species.
Since
neither a holotype nor any syntypes
were indicated for
C. mixta, both varietal names
were
validly published (see Art. 26.2).
Merrick & Bates (in Baileya 23: 96, 101. 1989),
in the
absence of known type material,
neotypified
C. mixta by an element
that can be attributed
to
C. mixta var.
stenosperma.
As long as their choice of neotype is followed,
the correct
name for that variety is
C. mixta var.
mixta, not
C. mixta var.
stenosperma.
When it is
treated as a variety of
C. argyrosperma Huber (1867),
as by Merrick & Bates,
its correct
name under Art.
11.6 is not
C. argyrosperma var.
stenosperma (Pangalo) Merrick & D. M.
Bates;
a combination based on
C. mixta is required.
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 spec-
ies,
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 in-
cluding 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.
48 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 48 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Infraspecific taxa – Cultivated plants | 26A-28 |
Ex. 2.
There being no legitimate name available
at the rank of subspecies,
Bonaparte made
the combination
Pteridium aquilinum subsp.
caudatum (L.) Bonap.
(Notes Ptérid. 1: 62.
1915),
using the same 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).
27.1.
The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon
may not re-
peat unchanged the epithet
of the correct name of the species to which the
taxon
is assigned unless the two names have the same type.
27.2.
The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific
taxon may not re-
peat unchanged
the epithet of the species name
if that species name is
illegitimate.
SECTION 6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION
28.1.
Plants brought from the wild
into cultivation retain the names that
are applied to the same taxa growing in nature.
Note 1.
Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation,
may receive names as
provided in
App. I
(see also Art.
11.8,
40, and
50).
Note
2.
Additional, independent designations for
special categories
of plants used
in agriculture, forestry, and horticulture
(and arising either in nature or cultiva-
tion)
are dealt with in the
International code of nomenclature for cultivated
plants, where
the term “cultivar”
is defined
and
regulations are provided for
the
formation and use
of cultivar
epithets.
Note
3.
Nothing
precludes
the use,
for cultivated plants,
of names published in
accordance with the requirements of the
botanical
Code.
Note
4.
Epithets in names published
in conformity with
the botanical
Code may
be used
as cultivar epithets
under the rules of the
International code of nomen-
clature for cultivated plants, when
cultivar
is considered to be the appropriate
status for the groups concerned.
Ex. 1.
Mahonia japonica DC. (1821)
may be treated
as a cultivar,
which is then
desig-
nated as
Mahonia ‘Japonica’;
Taxus baccata var.
variegata Weston
(1770),
when treated
as a cultivar,
is designated as
Taxus baccata
‘Variegata’.
49 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 49 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
28 | Cultivated plants |
Note 5.
The
International code of nomenclature
for cultivated plants
provides for
the establishment of
cultivar epithets
differing
markedly
from epithets
in Latin
form.
Ex. 2.
×Disophyllum ‘Frühlingsreigen’;
Eriobotrya japonica ‘Golden Ziad’ and
E. japonica
‘Maamora Golden Yellow’;
Phlox drummondii ‘Sternenzauber’;
Quercus frainetto ‘Hun-
garian Crown’
Ex. 3.
Juniperus
×pfitzeriana ‘Wilhelm Pfitzer’ (P. A. Schmidt 1998)
was established for
a tetraploid cultivar
presumed to result from the original cross between
J. chinensis L. and
J. sabina L.
50 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 50 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Effective publication | 29-30 |
CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
SECTION 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
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 gener-
ally.
It is not effected by communication of new names
at a public meet-
ing, by the placing of names
in collections or gardens open to the public,
by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts,
typescripts or other
unpublished material, by publication online,
or by dissemination
of dis-
tributable
electronic media.
Ex. 1.
Cusson announced his establishment of the genus
Physospermum in a memoir read
at
the Société des Sciences de Montpellier in 1770,
and later in 1782 or 1783
at the Société
de Médecine de Paris,
but its effective publication dates from 1787
(in Hist. Soc. Roy.
Méd. 5(1): 279).
30.1.
Publication by indelible autograph
before 1 January 1953 is effec-
tive.
Indelible autograph
produced at a later date
is not effectively
pub-
lished.
Ex. 1.
Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr.
was effectively published in an indelible autograph
catalogue placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich,
Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum ...
ab A.
Blanco lectarum,
Paris, Jul 1850, folio).
Ex. 2.
The
Journal of the International Conifer Preservation
Society, vol. 5[1]. 1997
(“1998”),
consists of duplicated sheets
of typewritten text with handwritten additions
and
corrections in several places.
The handwritten portions, being indelible autograph
pub-
lished after 1 January 1953,
are not effectively published.
Intended new combinations
(“Abies koreana var.
yuanbaoshanensis”, p. 53)
for which the basionym reference
is
handwritten are not validly published.
The entirely handwritten account of a new taxon
(p. 61: name, Latin description, statement of type)
is treated as unpublished (see also Rec.
34A.1).
51 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 51 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
30-30A | Effective publication |
30.2.
For the purpose of this Article, indelible autograph
is handwritten
material reproduced by some mechanical
or graphic process (such as li-
thography, offset,
or metallic etching).
Ex.3.
Léveillé,
Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914-1915),
is a work lithographed from a hand-
written text.
30.3.
Publication on or after 1 January 1953
in trade catalogues or non-
scientific 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 ac-
companying exsiccata
does not constitute effective publication.
Note 1.
If the printed matter is also distributed
independently of the exsiccata, it
is effectively published.
Ex. 4.
The printed labels of Fuckel’s
Fungi rhenani exsiccati (1863-1874)
are effectively
published
even though not independently issued.
The labels antedate Fuckel’s subsequent
accounts
(e.g., in Jahrb. Nassauischen Vereins Naturk. 23-24. 1870).
Ex. 5.
Vězda’s
Lichenes selecti exsiccati (1967-)
were issued with printed labels that were
also distributed independently as printed fascicles;
the latter are effectively published and
new names
appearing in Vězda’s exsiccata are to be cited
from the fascicles.
30A.1.
It is strongly recommended that authors avoid
publishing new names and
descriptions or diagnoses
of new taxa in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in
particular
printed matter
that
is multiplied in restricted
and uncertain numbers,
in
which
the permanence of the text may be limited,
for which
effective publication
in terms of number of copies is not obvious, or
that is unlikely
to reach the gen-
eral public.
Authors should also avoid publishing
new names and descriptions or
diagnoses
in popular periodicals, in abstracting journals,
or on correction slips.
Ex. 1.
Kartesz provided an unpaged,
printed insert titled
“Nomenclatural innovations” to
accompany
the electronic version (1.0) of the
Synthesis of the North American flora
pro-
duced on compact disk (CD-ROM;
a distributable electronic medium in terms of Art
29.1).
This insert, which is effectively published
under Art. 29-30, is the place of valid
publication of 41 new combinations,
which also appear on the disk,
in an item authored by
Kartesz:
“A synonymized checklist and atlas
with biological attributes for the vascular
flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland” (e.g.,
Dichanthelium hirstii (Swallen)
Kartesz
in Kartesz & Meacham, Synth. N. Amer. Fl., Nomencl.
Innov.: [1]. Aug 1999).
Kartesz’s procedure is not to be recommended,
as the insert is unlikely to be permanently
stored and catalogued in botanical libraries
and so reach the general public.
30A.2.
Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties
should give preference to
periodicals
that regularly publish taxonomic articles,
or else they should send a
copy of their work
to the appropriate indexing centre(s).
30A.3.
Authors and editors are encouraged to mention
nomenclatural novelties in
the summary or abstract,
or list them in an index in the publication.
52 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 52 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Effective publication – Valid publication | 31-32 |
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 establishing some other date,
the one appearing in the printed matter
must be accepted as correct.
Ex. 1.
Individual parts of Willdenow’s
Species plantarum were published as follows:
1(1),
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;
4(1), 1805;
4(2), 1806;
these dates are presently accepted
as the dates
of effective publication
(see Stafleu & Cowan
in Regnum Veg. 116:
303. 1988).
Ex. 2.
T. M. Fries
first published
Lichenes arctoi
in 1860
as an independently paginated
preprint,
which predates the identical version published
in a journal (Nova Acta Reg. Soc.
Sci. Upsal.
ser. 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 ef-
fective publication
unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.
Ex. 3.
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.
31A.1.
The date on which the publisher or
publisher’s agent
delivers printed
matter to one of the usual carriers
for distribution to the public should be accepted
as its date of effective publication.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF
NAMES
32.1.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a taxon (autonyms ex-
cepted) 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,
19.5,
and
24.4), and Art.
H.6 and
H.7;
(c) be accompanied by a description or
diagnosis or by a reference to a previously
and effectively published de-
scription
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).
53 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 53 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
32 | Valid publication |
Ex. 1.
“Egeria”
(Néraud in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot.:
25, 28. 1826), published
without a description or a diagnosis
or a reference to a former one,
was not validly pub-
lished.
Ex. 2.
“Loranthus macrosolen Steud.”
originally appeared without a description or diag-
nosis 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 pub-
lished, 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.
A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement
of that which in the opinion of
its author distinguishes the taxon from others.
32.3.
For the purpose of valid publication
of a name, reference to a previ-
ously
and effectively published description or diagnosis
may be direct or
indirect (Art. 32.4).
For names published on or after 1 January 1953 it
must, however, be full and direct as specified in Art.
33.3.
32.4.
An indirect reference is a clear
(if cryptic) indication, by
an
author
citation
or in some other way,
that a previously and effectively published
description or diagnosis applies.
Ex. 4.
“Kratzmannia” (Opiz in Berchtold & Opiz,
Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398. 1836)
was published 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 definitely accepted, and its citation as
“Kratzmannia O.” constitutes
indirect reference
to the diagnosis published in 1836.
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
(but see Art. 45
Ex. 1; 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 are then
accepted as new combinations (e.g.,
Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill., based on
Cactus ficus-
indica L.) or
nomina nova (e.g.,
Opuntia vulgaris Mill., based on
Cactus opuntia
L.:
both
names have the reference to
“Opuntia vulgo herbariorum”
of Bauhin & Cherler in common).
54 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 54 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 32-32C |
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.
32.5.
Names
or
epithets 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.
17-20,
21,
23, and
24,
without
change of the author
citation
or date of publication (see also Art.
60.11).
32.6.
Autonyms (Art.
6.8)
are accepted as validly published names,
dat-
ing 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.
32.7.
Names in specified ranks included in
publications listed as sup-
pressed 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 Committee (see
Div. III),
which will refer them for examina-
tion
to the committees for the various taxonomic groups
(see Rec.
32F;
see also Art.
14.14 and Rec.
14A).
32.8.
When a proposal for the suppression of a publication
as been ap-
proved by the General Committee
after study by the committees
for the
taxonomic groups concerned,
suppression
of
that publication
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.
45.4.
32A.1.
A name should not be validated
solely by a reference to a description or
diagnosis published before 1753.
32B.1.
The description or diagnosis of any new taxon
should mention the points
in which the taxon
differs from its allies.
32C.1.
When naming
a new taxon,
authors should
not
adopt a name
that has been
previously but not validly published
for a different taxon.
55 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 55 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
32D-33 | Valid publication |
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.3.
Authors should indicate clearly and precisely
the scale of the figures
which they publish.
32E.1.
Descriptions or diagnoses of parasitic plants
should always be followed
by indication
of the hosts, especially those of parasitic fungi.
The hosts should be
designated by their scientific names
and not solely by names in modern lan-
guages,
the applications of which are often doubtful.
32F.1.
When a proposal for the suppression
of a publication under Art. 32.7
has
been referred to the appropriate committees
for study, authors should follow
existing usage
as far as possible pending the General Committee’s
recommenda-
tion on the proposal.
33.1.
A combination (autonyms excepted)
is not validly published unless
the author
definitely associates the final epithet
with the name of the ge-
nus 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 typographical device
which associates an epithet
with a particular generic or specific name.
Ex. 2.
Combinations not validly published:
Rafinesque’s statement under
Blephilia that
“Le type de ce genre est la
Monarda ciliata Linn.”
(in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89:
98. 1819)
does not constitute valid publication of the combination
B. ciliata,
since Rafi-
nesque
did not definitely associate the 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.
56 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 56 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 33 |
33.2.
If, for a presumed new combination,
no reference to a basionym is
given but the epithet of a previously
and validly published name that ap-
plies to the same taxon is adopted,
the new combination is validly pub-
lished as such if, and only if,
it would otherwise be validly published as
the name of a new taxon
(see also Art. 33.6(d)).
Ex. 3.
Scaevola taccada was validly published
by Roxburgh (1814) by reference to an
illustration
in Rheede (Hort. Malab. 4: t. 59. 1683)
that appears to be its sole basis.
As the
name applies to the species
previously described as
Lobelia taccada Gaertn. (1788),
it is
treated as a new combination,
S. taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb.,
not as the name of a new spe-
cies,
even though Gaertner is not referred to
in Roxburgh’s protologue.
33.3.
A new combination, or an avowed substitute
(replacement name,
nomen novum),
published on or after 1 January 1953
based
on a previ-
ously and validly published name
is not validly published unless its ba-
sionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym)
or the replaced
synonym (when a new name is proposed)
is clearly indicated and a full
and direct reference
given to its author and place of valid publication,
with
page or plate reference and date
(but see Art. 33.2,
33.4, and 33.6).
Ex.
4.
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 ba-
sionym 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 pro-
tologue.
Ex.
5.
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 pro-
tologue of the intended basionym alone,
the combination was not validly published by
Peerally.
33.4.
Errors
in the citation
of the basionym
or replaced synonym,
including
incorrect author citation
(Art.
46), but not omissions
(Art. 33.3; but
see Art. 33.2),
do not invalidate publication
of a new combination or
no-
men novum.
Ex. 6.
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 cita-
tion and do not invalidate the publication
of the new combination.
57 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 57 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
33 | Valid publication |
33.5.
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
(but see Art. 33.6) .
Ex.
7.
Ciferri (in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86-89. 1954),
in proposing 142 new com-
binations 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 campestris f.
“pseudistera (Nyl.) Grumm. c.n. –
L. p.
Nyl., Z 5: 521”,
in which “Z 5” referred
to Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. Univ. 5: 521. 1928),
who gave the full citation of the basionym,
Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.; Grummann’s com-
bination was not validly published.
Note 2.
The publication of a name for a taxon
previously known under a misap-
plied name
must be valid under Art.
32-45.
This procedure is not the same as
publishing an avowed substitute
(replacement
name, nomen novum)
for a validly
published
but illegitimate name (Art.
58.1),
the type of which is necessarily the
same as that of the name which it replaced (Art.
7.3).
Ex.
8.
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.
9.
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 pre-
vious publication providing these requirements,
the name is not validly published.
33.6.
In any of the following cases,
reference to a work other than that in
which the basionym or replaced synonym was
validly published is treated
as an error
to be corrected, not affecting the valid publication
of a new
combination or nomen novum,
even if published on or after 1 January
1953:
(a)
when the name cited as basionym
or replaced synonym was validly
published earlier than in the cited publication,
but in that cited publi-
cation, in which all conditions
for valid publication are again fulfilled,
there is no reference to the actual place
of valid publication;
(b)
when the failure to cite the place
of valid publication of the basionym
or replaced synonym is explained
by the later nomenclatural starting
point for the group concerned,
and in particular by the backward shift
of the starting date for some fungi;
58 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 58 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 33 |
(c)
when an intended new combination
would otherwise be validly pub-
lished as a (legitimate or illegitimate)
nomen novum; or
(d)
when an intended new combination
or nomen novum would otherwise
be the validly published name of a new taxon
(see also Art. 33.2).
Ex. 10.
The combination
Trichipteris kalbreyeri
was proposed by Tryon
(1970)
with a full
and direct reference to
“Alsophila
Kalbreyeri C. Chr. Ind. Fil. 44. 1905”.
This, however, is
not the place of valid publication of the
intended basionym,
which had previously been
published,
with the same type, by Baker (1891; see Art. 6
Ex. 1).
As Christensen provided
no reference
to Baker’s earlier
validation, Tryon’s error of citation does not
affect the valid
publication of
his new combination,
which is to be cited as
T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M.
Tryon.
Ex. 11.
The intended new combination
“Machaerina iridifolia” was proposed
by Koyama
(in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69: 64. 1956)
with a full and direct reference to
“Cladium iridifo-
lium Baker,
Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”.
However,
C. iridifolium had been proposed by
Baker as a new combination based on
Scirpus iridifolius Bory (1804).
As Baker provided
an explicit reference to Bory,
Art. 33.6(a) does not apply and the combination under
Ma-
chaerina
was not validly published by Koyama.
Ex. 12.
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,
is 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
current
Code is in Persoon (Observ. Mycol. 1: 28. 1796).
Raitviir’s error of citation, being
partly explained
by the backward shift
of the starting date
for ascomycetes
and partly by
the absence of
a reference to
Mérat in Fries’s
work, does not invalidate
the publication
of
the new combination,
which is to be cited as
L. corticale (Pers.
: Fr.) Raitv.
33.7.
A name given to a taxon
of which
the rank
is at the same time,
con-
trary 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. 13.
“Sectio
Orontiaceae” was not validly published
by Brown (Prodr.: 337. 1810)
since he misapplied the term “sectio” to a rank
higher than genus.
Ex.
14.
“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 rank lower than section, within the genus
Delphinium.
33.8.
An exception to Art. 33.7
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. 15.
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).
59 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 59 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
33A-34 | Valid publication |
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 bibliogra-
phy at the end of the publication
or to other parts of the same publication,
e.g. by
use of the abbreviations
“loc. cit.” or
“op. cit.”
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 anti-
cipation of the future acceptance of the group concerned,
or of a particular
circumscription, 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 accepted by
their 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
“Seber-
tia acuminata Pierre (ms.)”
to the genus
Sersalisia R. Br. as
S. ?
acuminata, which he
thereby validly published
under the provision of Art. 34.1,
last sentence. The name
Seber-
tia was validly published by Engler (1897).
Ex. 2.
(a)
The designations listed in the lefthand 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.
(b)
“Pteridospermaexylon” and
“P. theresiae” were published by Greguss
(in
Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952)
for a genus and species of fossil wood.
As Greguss explicitly
stated
“Vorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen ...”
[provisionally I designate it by the
names ...],
these are provisional names
and as such are not validly published.
Ex.
5.
(c)
“
Acosmus Desv.”
was not validly published
by Desfontaines (Cat. Pl. Hort.
Paris.: 233. 1829)
when he
cited
it
as a synonym of the generic name
Aspicarpa Rich.
Ex. 6.
(c)
“
Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch.”
was not validly published
by Kunth,
(Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843)
when he cited
it as a synonym under
Myogalum boucheanum
Kunth;
the combination under
Ornithogalum L.
was validly published later:
O. bouche-
anum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).
60 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 60 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 34 |
Ex. 7.
(d)
The family designation
“Rhaptopetalaceae”
was not
validly published
by Pierre
(in Bull. Mens.
Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. Mai 1897),
who
merely mentioned
the constituent
genera,
Brazzeia Baill.,
“Scytopetalum”, and
Rhaptopetalum Oliv.,
but
gave no descrip-
tion or diagnosis;
the family bears the name
Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897),
accompa-
nied by a description.
Ex. 8.
(d)
The generic designation
“Ibidium”
was not validly published
by Salisbury
(in
Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812)
who
merely
mentioned four included species
but
supplied no generic description or diagnosis.
34.2.
When, on or after 1 January 1953,
two or more different names
based
on the same type
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 combi-
nation
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 Ja-
neiro 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 ja-
roslavii”.
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 simultane-
ously rejected the other name.
Ex. 11.
Description of
“Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp.
tumidum S. R. Hill var.
tumi-
dum, subsp. et var. nov.”
(in Brittonia 32: 474. 1980)
simultaneously validated both
M. bi-
cuspidatum 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
Bro-
mus 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
(see also Rec.
60C.2).
61 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 61 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
34A-35 | Valid publication |
34A.1.
Authors should avoid mentioning in their publications
previously unpub-
lished 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)).
35.1.
A new name or combination published
on or after 1 January 1953
without a clear indication
of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly
published.
35.2.
For suprageneric names published
on or after 1 January 1908, the
use of one of the terminations specified in Rec.
16A.1-3, Art.
17.1,
18.1,
19.1, and
19.3
is accepted as an indication
of the corresponding rank, un-
less this
(a) would conflict with the explicitly
designated rank of the taxon
(which takes precedence) or
(b) would result in a rank sequence
contrary
to Art.
5
(in which case Art.
33.7 applies).
Ex. 1.
Jussieu (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827)
proposed
Zanthoxyleae without
specifying the rank.
Although he employed the present termination for tribe
(-eae), that
name,
being published prior to 1908, is unranked.
Zanthoxyleae Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.:
45. 1829),
however, is a tribal name,
as Dumortier specified its rank.
Ex. 2.
Nakai (Chosakuronbun Mokuroku [Ord. Fam. Trib. Nov.], 1943)
validly published
the names
Parnassiales, Lophiolaceae, Ranzanioideae, and
Urospatheae.
He indicated the
respective ranks of order,
family, subfamily, and tribe,
by virtue of their terminations, even
though he did not mention these ranks explicitly.
35.3.
A new name or combination published
before 1 January 1953 with-
out
a clear indication of its rank
is validly published provided that all
other requirements for valid publication
are fulfilled; it is, however, inop-
erative in questions of priority
except for homonymy (see Art.
53.4).
If it
is a new name,
it may serve as a basionym
for subsequent combinations or
a replaced synonym
for nomina nova
in definite ranks.
Ex. 3.
The groups
“Soldanellae”, “Sepincoli”, “Occidentales”, etc.,
were published with-
out any indication 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 defi-
nite rank
and have no status in questions of priority
except that they may act as homonyms.
Ex.
4.
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
taxon
was assigned
sectional rank by Kükenthal
(in Engler, Pflanzenr. 38: 81. 1909) and
its name
may be cited
as
Carex sect.
Scirpinae (Tuck.) Kük.
(C. [unranked]
Scirpinae Tuck.).
35.4.
If in
one whole publication
(Art. 35.5),
prior to 1 January 1890,
only
one infraspecific rank is admitted,
it is considered to be that of variety
un-
less this would be contrary to the author’s
statements
in the same publication.
62 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 62 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 35-36A |
35.5.
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 considered as a whole, and any statement
made therein designat-
ing the rank of taxa
included in the work must be considered
as if it had
been published
together with the first instalment.
36.1.
On or after 1 January
1935 a name of a new taxon
(algal and all
fossil
taxa excepted) must,
in order to be
validly published,
be accompa-
nied by a Latin description
or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously
and effectively published Latin description
or diagnosis (but see Art.
H.9).
Ex. 1.
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
ac-
companied by an English
but no Latin description
and is accordingly not a validly pub-
lished 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 diagno-
sis (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 Will-
denowia 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 ef-
fectively published 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 January 1996 must be accompanied
by a
Latin or English description or diagnosis
or by a reference to a previously
and effectively published
Latin or English description or diagnosis.
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.
63 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 63 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
37 | Valid publication |
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 indi-
cated (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 species
or infraspecific taxon,
indication of
the type
as required
by Art. 37.1
can be achieved
by
reference
to an entire
gathering, or part
thereof, even if it
consists of two
or more
specimens as
defined in Art.
8
(see
also
Art.
37.5).
Ex. 1.
The protologue of
Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm.
(in Engler, Pflanzenr. 108:
855. 1968)
includes the type statement
“E. Esterhuysen No. 17070! Typus - Pret., Bol.”
The name is validly published
because a single gathering is cited,
despite the mention of
duplicate specimens
in two different herbaria.
37.3.
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 holo-
type or lectotype of
one previously or simultaneously published species
name only,
even if that
element
is not explicitly
designated as type,
is
acceptable
as indication of the type
(see also Art.
22.6;
but see Art. 37.5).
Similarly,
for the name
of a new
species or infraspecific taxon,
mention of
a single
specimen
or gathering (Art. 37.2)
or illustration
(when permitted
by Art. 37.4),
even if that
element
is not explicitly
designated
as type,
is
acceptable as indication of the
type
(but see Art. 37.5).
Ex. 2.
“Baloghia pininsularis”
was published by Guillaumin
(in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.,
B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962)
with two cited gatherings:
Baumann 13813 and
Baumann 13823.
As
the author failed to designate one of them
as the type, he did not validly publish the name.
Valid publication was effected in McPherson & Tirel
(in Fl. Nouv.-Caléd. 14: 58. 1987),
who
wrote “Lectotype (désigné ici):
Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!; iso-, Z)”
while providing
a full and direct reference
to Guillaumin’s Latin description (Art.
45.1; see Art. 46
Ex. 8).
Note 1.
Mere citation of a locality
does not constitute
mention of a single speci-
men or gathering.
Concrete reference to
some detail
relating to the
actual type,
such as
the collector’s name
or collecting number or date, is required.
37.4.
For the purpose
of this
Article,
the type of a name of a
new species
or infraspecific taxon
(fossils
excepted:
see Art.
8.5)
may be an illustra-
tion
if, and only if,
it is impossible
to preserve a
specimen.
Note 2.
Cultures of fungi and algae preserved
in a metabolically inactive state are
acceptable as types (Art.
8.4; see also Rec.
8B.1).
37.5.
For the name of a new taxon of the rank
of genus or below pub-
lished
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 language
(see also Rec. 37A
and Art.
38.2).
64 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 64 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 37-39A |
37.6.
For the name of a new species
or infraspecific taxon published on or
after 1 January 1990
of which
the type
is a specimen or unpublished il-
lustration, the
single herbarium
or collection
or institution in which the
type is conserved must be specified.
Note 3.
Specification of the herbarium
or collection
or institution may be made in
an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in
Index herbariorum,
part I,
or in the
World
directory of collections of cultures
of microorganisms.
37A.1.
The indication of the nomenclatural type
should immediately follow the
description
or diagnosis and should include the Latin word
“typus” or “holoty-
pus”.
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 accompanied
by an illustration or figure
showing the essential charac-
ters,
in addition to the description or diagnosis,
or by a reference to a pre-
viously
and effectively published illustration or figure.
38.2.
For the name of a new species
or infraspecific taxon of fossil plants
published on or after 1 January 2001,
one of the validating illustrations
must be identified as representing the type specimen
(see also Art.
9.13
and
37.5).
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 morpho-
logical features, in addition to the Latin
description or diagnosis, or by a
reference to a previously
and effectively published illustration or figure.
39A.1.
The illustration or figure required by Art. 39
should be prepared from
actual specimens,
preferably including the holotype.
65 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 65 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
40-41 | Valid publication |
40.1.
In order to be validly published,
names of hybrids of specific or
lower rank with Latin epithets
must comply with the same rules as names
of non-hybrid taxa of the same rank.
Ex. 1.
“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 Plantenavn: 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,
as
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.
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 effec-
tively 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 diagno-
sis 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 previ-
ously and effectively published
description or diagnosis of a genus or
subdivision of a genus.
Ex. 2.
Validly published generic names:
Carphalea Juss.,
accompanied by a generic de-
scription;
Thuspeinanta 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. Ve-
ron. Suppl.: 73. 1754),
accepted there but without a generic description
or diagnosis, vali-
dated by indirect reference
(through the title of the book and a general statement
in the pref-
ace) to the generic diagnosis
and further direct references
in Séguier (Pl. Veron. 1: 117. 1745).
66 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 66 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 41-42 |
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 effec-
tively published description
or diagnosis of a species or infraspecific taxon.
A name of a species may also be validly published
(c), under certain cir-
cumstances,
by reference to a genus
the name
of which was previously
and validly published simultaneously with its description
or diagnosis.
A
reference as mentioned under (c) is acceptable
only if neither the author of
the name of the genus
nor the author of the name of the species
indicate
that more than one species
belongs to the genus in question.
Ex. 3.
Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated
by a generic description but without
mention
of a name of a species.
T. madagascariense DC. (1828)
was subsequently pro-
posed
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.
42.1.
The names of a genus and a species
may be simultaneously vali-
dated
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.
Refer-
ence
to an earlier description or diagnosis
is not acceptable in place of a
descriptio
generico-specifica.
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.
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
Omphalaria nummularia Durieu & Mont. to
“Anema”, none of his names
was validly published.
They were later validated by Forsell (1885).
67 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 67 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
42-43 | Valid publication |
Ex. 2.
The names
Kedarnatha P. K. Mukh. & Constance (1986) and
K. sanctuarii P. K.
Mukh. & Constance,
the latter designating the
single, new species
of the new genus,
are both
validly published
although a Latin description
was 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
not a validly published binomial.
Art. 42 does not therefore ap-
ply and
“Phaelypea” is not a validly published name.
42.3.
Prior to 1 January 1908 an illustration with analysis,
or for non-vascu-
lar 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 fig-
ures,
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 pub-
lished before 1 January 1908.
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 provided no description or diagnosis for the genus:
these were not there-
fore 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. sorediifor-
mis” (=
Phlyctis sorediiformis Kremp.),
“P. brasiliensis” (=
Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and
“P. andensis” (=
Phlyctis andensis 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
also
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).
68 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 68 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 43-45 |
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 desig-
nation
“S. paradoxus”
(Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.: 27. 1772)
is not validly published since
“Scirpoides” in Rottbøll’s context
was a word not intended as a generic name.
The first
validly published name for this species is
Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).
44.1.
The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon
published before
1 January 1908
may be validly published
even if
only accompanied
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 identifi-
cation
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 pro-
vision of a figure of a single valve.
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 simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published
unless a full and
direct reference (Art.
33.3)
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
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 desig-
nate a holotype.
G. meridionalis
M. Nakan.
was validly published in 1967
(in J. Sci. Hi-
roshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 265)
when he designated the holotype of the name and pro-
vided a full and direct reference
to the previous publication.
69 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 69 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
45-45A | Valid publication |
45.2.
A correction of the original spelling of a name
(see Art.
32.5 and
60)
does not affect its date of valid publication.
Ex. 3.
The correction of the
erroneous spelling of
Gluta “benghas” (Linnaeus, Mant.: 293.
1771)
to
G. 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).
45.3.
For purposes of priority only legitimate names
are taken into con-
sideration (see Art.
11,
52-54).
However, validly published earlier homo-
nyms,
whether legitimate or not,
shall cause rejection of their later homo-
nyms,
unless the latter are conserved or sanctioned
(but see Art. 15
Note 1).
45.4.
If a taxon originally assigned to a group
not covered by this
Code is
treated as belonging
to a group of plants other than algae, the authorship
and date of any of its names are determined
by the first publication that
satisfies
the requirements for valid publication under this
Code.
If the
taxon is treated as belonging to the algae,
any of its names need satisfy
only the requirements
of the pertinent non-botanical
Code for status
equivalent to valid publication
under the 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 belonging 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
International code of zoological nomenclature
as the name of a genus of dinoflagel-
lates.
When the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae,
its name retains its original author-
ship and date
even though the original publication lacked a Latin
description or 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 rhizo-
pods,
is not valid when the taxon is treated as belonging
to the fungi because the original
publication lacked a Latin
description
or diagnosis.
Ex. 7.
Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy
(in Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921,
“Protodinife-
ridae”), 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
32.5.
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.
———————————————————————
¹ The
word “available” in the
International code of zoological nomenclature
is equivalent to
“validly published” in the present Code.
70 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 70 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Valid publication – Author citations | 45B-46 |
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 indi&
cate 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.
45C.1.
On separately printed and issued copies of works
published in a periodi-
cal,
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.
46.1.
In
publications,
particularly those dealing
with taxonomy and no-
menclature, it may be desirable,
even when no bibliographic
reference to
the protologue is
made, to cite the author(s)
of the name concerned
(see Art.
6
Note 1; see also Art.
22.1 and
26.1).
In so doing,
the following rules
are to
be followed.
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. 1.
Rosaceae
Adans.,
Rosa L.,
Rosa gallica L.,
Rosa gallica var.
eriostyla R. Keller,
Rosa gallica L. var.
gallica.
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
end 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.
71 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 71 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
46 | Author citations |
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.
occi-
dentalis (L.) Brummitt
(in Kirkia 5: 265. 1966), thus ascribed,
published in a paper
authored jointly
by Brummitt & Gillett.
Ex. 8.
The appropriate author citation for
Baloghia pininsularis (see Art. 37
Ex. 2)
is
Guillaumin, and not McPherson & Tirel,
because both the name and validating description
were ascribed to Guillaumin in the protologue.
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.
Ex. 9.
The original description of the new species
Verrucaria aethiobola Wahlenb.
(in
Acharius, Methodus, Suppl.: 17. 1803)
is ascribed by Acharius to “Wahlenb. Msc.”,
and
the name itself is ascribed to “Wahlenb.”
(not in the text of the Supplement
but in the
index to the Methodus, p. 392).
The name is therefore appropriately cited as
V. aethiobola
Wahlenb., better not as
V. aethiobola “Wahlenb. in Acharius”
(unless followed by a bib-
liographic citation
of the place of publication), and certainly not as
V. aethiobola “Wah-
lenb. ex Ach.”
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.
An author
citation
appearing in a list of synonyms
does not
constitute ascription, nor
does reference
to a basionym or a re-
placed synonym,
including bibliographic errors,
or reference
to a homo-
nym,
or a formal error.
Ex.
10.
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.
11.
Lichen debilis Sm. (1812)
was not ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s citing
Calicium debile Turn. and Borr. Mss.” as a synonym.
Ex.
12.
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.
Hemi-
sphace Benth. (see Art. 32
Ex. 5).
72 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 72 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46 |
Ex.
13.
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.
14.
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 attrib-
uted to the author or authors
of the publication in which it appears,
al-
though 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.
15.
Seemann (1865) published
Gossypium tomentosum “Nutt. mss.”,
followed by a
validating description
not ascribed to Nuttall;
the name may be cited as
G. tomentosum
Nutt. ex Seem. or
G. tomentosum Seem.
Ex.
16.
The name
Lithocarpus polystachyus published by Rehder (1919)
was based on
Quercus polystachya 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.
17.
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 vali-
dating description,
the name may be cited as
L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or
L. tianschanicum Grubov.
Ex.
18.
In a paper by Boufford, Tsi and Wang (1990) the name
Rubus fanjingshanensis
was ascribed to Lu
with no indication that Lu provided the description;
the name should be
attributed to Boufford & al.
or to L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al.
Ex.
19.
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.
Ex. 20.
However, R. Brown is accepted as the author
of the treatments of genera and
species
appearing under his name in Aiton’s
Hortus kewensis, ed. 2 (1810-1813),
even
when new names or the descriptions
validating them are not explicitly ascribed to him.
In a
postscript to that work (op. cit. 5: 532. 1813),
Aiton wrote:
“Much new matter has been
added by [Robert Brown] ...
the greater part of his able improvements
are distinguished by
the signature
Brown mss.”
The latter phrase is therefore a statement
of authorship not
merely an ascription.
For example, the combination
Oncidium triquetrum,
based by indi-
rect reference on
Epidendrum triquetrum Sw. (1788),
is to be cited as
O. triquetrum (Sw.)
R. Br. (1813)
and not attributed to “R. Br. ex Aiton”,
or to Aiton alone,
because in the
generic heading
Brown is credited with authorship of the treatment of
Oncidium.
73 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 73 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
46 | Author citations |
46.5.
The citation of an author who published the name
before the start-
ing 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 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 parentheses, followed by “ex”.
Ex.
21.
Linnaeus (1754) ascribed the name
Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author
Tour-
nefort; the name may be cited as
Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (1753) or
Lupinus L.
(see Art.
13.4).
Ex.
22.
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.
35.5)
where the name was validly pub-
lished
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.
23.
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.
24.
Although the descriptions in Aiton’s
Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally consid-
ered 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 de-
scription
were both ascribed in that work to somebody else.
Ex.
25.
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.
External evidence may be used
to determine authorship of new names
and combinations
included in a publication or article for which
there is no inter-
nal evidence of authorship.
Ex. 26.
No authorship appears anywhere in the work known as
“Cat. Pl. Upper Louisiana.
1813”, a catalogue of plants
available from the Fraser Brothers Nursery.
Based on external
evidence
(cf. Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 105: 785. 1981),
authorship of the docu-
ment,
and of new names such as
Oenothera macrocarpa that are published in it,
are attrib-
uted to Thomas Nuttall.
Ex. 27.
The book that appeared under the title
Vollständiges systematisches Verzeichniß
aller Gewächse Teutschlandes ... (Leipzig 1782)
bears no explicit authorship but is attrib-
uted to
“einem Mitgliede der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde”.
External evidence
may be used to determine
that G. A. Honckeny is the author of the work
and of new names
that appear in it (e.g.
Poa vallesiana Honck.,
Phleum hirsutum Honck.; but see Art. 23 Ex.
14),
as done by Pritzel (Thes. Lit. Bot.: 123. 1847).
74 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 74 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46-46B |
Note
3.
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.
28.
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.
29.
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 de-
ceased; the name may be attributed
to A. H. Heller ex J. T. Atwood or just J. T. Atwood.
46A.1.
For
the
purpose
of
author
citation,
prefixes indicating
ennoblement (see Rec.
60C.4(d-e))
should be suppressed
unless they are an inseparable part of the name.
Ex. 1.
Lam. for J. B. P. A. Monet
Chevalier de Lamarck,
but De Wild. for
E. De Wilde-
man.
46A.2.
When
a name
in an author
citation
is abbreviated,
the abbreviation
should
be long enough
to be distinctive,
and should normally
end with a
consonant
that,
in the full name,
precedes a vowel.
The first letters
should be given
without any
omission, but
one of the last
characteristic
consonants of the name
may be added
when this is
customary.
Ex. 2.
L.
for
Linnaeus; Fr. for
Fries; Juss. for Jussieu; Rich. for Richard; Bertol.
for Ber-
toloni,
to distinguish it from Bertero;
Michx. for Michaux,
to distinguish it from Micheli.
46A.3.
Given names or accessory designations
serving to distinguish two bota-
nists
of the same name should be abridged in the same way.
Ex. 3.
R.
Br. for
Robert Brown;
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
argoviensis
(of Aargau).
46A.4.
When it is a well-established custom
to abridge a name in another man-
ner,
it is advisable to conform to
custom.
Ex. 4. DC. for Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle; St.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire.
Note 1.
Brummitt & Powell’s
Authors of plant names (1992)
provides unambi-
guous standard 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 throughout the present
Code.
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
75 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 75 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
46B-47 | Author citations |
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 accor-
dance
with an internationally available standard.
46B.2.
Authors of scientific names whose personal names
are not written in Ro-
man letters
should romanize their names,
preferably (but not necessarily) in ac-
cordance
with an internationally available standard and,
as a matter of typo-
graphical 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.
46C.1.
After a name published jointly by two authors,
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 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.
46D.1.
Authors should cite
themselves
by
name after each new name
they pub-
lish rather than refer to themselves
by expressions such as “nobis”
(nob.) or
“mihi”
(m.).
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
the author citation
of 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).
76 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 76 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Author citations | 47-48 |
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).
47A.1.
When an alteration as mentioned in Art. 47
has been considerable,
the
nature of the change
may be indicated by adding such words,
abbreviated where
suitable, as “emendavit”
(emend.)
followed
by the name of the author responsible
for the change,
“mutatis characteribus”
(mut. char.), “pro parte”
(p. p.),
“excluso
genere” or “exclusis generibus”
(excl. gen.),
“exclusa specie” or “exclusis specie-
bus”
(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.).
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 at-
tributed 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 illegitimate
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.
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).
77 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 77 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
49-50 | Author citations |
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
Aspalathoides 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 Geo-
bot. 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.
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.).
78 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 78 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Author citations – Citation | 50-50D |
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 Anders-
son (pro hybr.).
SECTION 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION
50A.1.
In the citation of a name invalidly published
as a synonym, the words
“as
synonym” or “pro syn.” should be added.
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 descrip-
tion or diagnosis,
should be cited as
Carex bebbii Olney,
nomen nudum (or nom. nud.).
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.
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 misiden-
tification.
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 Wilde-
man, Miss. Em. Laurent: 26. 1905;
Durand & Durand, Syll. Fl. Congol.: 505. 1909.
79 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 79 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
50E-50F | Citation |
50E.1.
If a
name
of a family,
genus,
or species is accepted as a
nomen conser-
vandum (see Art.
14 and
App. II-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
a name
has been
adopted by Fries
or
Persoon, and thereby
sanctioned
(see Art.
13.1(d)
and
7.8),
“: Fr.” or “:
Pers.” should be added
in a full citation.
The same convention
should be used
for the basionym
of the sanctioned name,
if
it has one,
and for all combinations
based on either the
sanctioned name
or its
basionym.
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
should
thus be cited as
B. pipe-
ratus Bull. : Fr., and a subsequent
combination
based on it, as
Chalciporus piperatus
(Bull. : Fr.)
Bataille.
Ex. 3.
Agaricus sarcocephalus Fr. 1815 : Fr. was sanctioned as
Agaricus compactus [un-
ranked]
sarcocephalus (Fr. : Fr.) Fr. 1821;
Psathyrella sarcocephala (Fr. : Fr.) Singer
is a
subsequent combination based on it.
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, prefera-
bly 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. ca-
ribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray
in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 23: 225. 1888,
“Xan-
thoxylum”).
Ex. 3.
Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson
in Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496. 1967,
“solomonen-
sis”.
80 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 80 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Maintenance – Illegitimacy | 51-52 |
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)
be-
cause 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
Ale-
xitoxicum; and
Orobanche rapum to
O. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae to
O. colum-
barihaerens, 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 spec-
ies 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,
having 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.
52.1.
A name, unless conserved (Art.
14)
or sanctioned (Art.
15),
is ille-
gitimate and is to be rejected
if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when
published,
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
of which the epithet
ought to have
been adopted, under the rules
(but see Art. 52.3).
81 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 81 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
52 | Illegitimacy |
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.
9.9-11 or
10.2;
or
(c) of the previously
conserved type under
Art
14.9; or
(d)
of the illustrations of these. It is also effected
(e)
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 superflu-
ous 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 ex-
plicitly excluded
the type of the latter name.
Ex.
7.
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. truncatum R. Br. pro parte” or
“P. truncatum
auct. non R. Br.”
Ex.
8.
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. in-
dicum 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
nomenclaturally superfluous.
Ex.
9.
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.
82 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 82 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Illegitimacy – Homonymy | 52-53 |
Note 2.
The inclusion, in a new taxon,
of an element that was subsequently des-
ignated as the type of a name which, so typified,
ought to have been adopted, or
of which
the epithet
ought to have been adopted, does not in itself
make the name
of the new taxon illegitimate.
Ex. 10.
Leccinum Gray (1821)
does not include all potential types (in fact, none) of
Boletus L. (1753) and thus is not illegitimate,
even though it included, as
L. edule (Bull. :
Fr.) Gray,
the subsequently conserved type of
Boletus, B. edulis Bull. : Fr.
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 be-
come correct later.
Ex. 11.
Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (1788), based on
Agrostis radiata L. (1759), was nomen-
claturally 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 fasciculatus 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 contain-
ing
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 be-
tween
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.
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
(see also Art. 6
Note 1).
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
unavailable for use.
It was renamed
Thuspeinanta T. Durand (1888).
Ex.
2.
The name
Torreya Arn. (1838) is a
nomen
conservandum
and is therefore
available
for use in spite
of the existence of the earlier homonym
Torreya Raf. (1818).
83 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 83 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
53 | Homonymy |
Ex.
3.
Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (1843)
is a later homonym of the validly published
name
Astragalus rhizanthus Royle (1835)
and is therefore
unavailable
for use.
Boissier re-
named it
A. cariensis Boiss. (1849).
Note 1.
A
later homonym
is unavailable for use
even
if the earlier homonym is
illegitimate or is
otherwise
generally treated as a synonym.
Ex. 4.
Zingiber truncatum S. Q. Tong (1987)
is illegitimate, being a later homonym of
Z. trun-
catum Stokes (1812),
even though the latter name is itself illegitimate
under Art
52.1
because
in its protologue the name
Amomum zedoaria Christm. (1779)
was cited in synonymy.
Ex. 5.
The name
Amblyanthera
Müll. Arg. (1860)
is a later homonym of the validly pub-
lished
Amblyanthera Blume (1849)
and is therefore
unavailable
for use, although
Ambly-
anthera Blume
is now considered to be a synonym of
Osbeckia L. (1753).
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
or
specific 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
(see also Art.
61.5).
*Ex.
6.
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.
7.
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.
*Ex.
8.
The names
Acanthoica Lohmann (1902) and
Acanthoeca W. N. Ellis (1930),
both des-
ignating flagellates,
are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms
(Taxon 22: 313. 1973).
*Ex.
9.
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,
ne-
palensis, and
nipalensis;
polyanthemos and
polyanthemus;
macrostachys and
macrosta-
chyus;
heteropus and
heteropodus;
poikilantha and
poikilanthes;
pteroides and
pteroideus;
trinervis and
trinervius;
macrocarpon and
macrocarpum;
trachycaulum and
trachycaulon.
*Ex.
10.
Names not likely to be confused:
Rubia L. (1753) and
Rubus L. (1753);
Mono-
chaetum (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
Sym-
phostemon 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.
14) 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).
84 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 84 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Homonymy | 53 |
Ex.
11.
Names conserved against earlier names
treated as homonyms (see
App. IIIA):
Lyngbya Gomont (vs.
Lyngbyea Sommerf.);
Columellia Ruiz & Pav. (vs.
Columella
Lour.),
both commemorating Columella,
the Roman writer on agriculture;
Cephalotus
Labill. (vs.
Cephalotos Adans.);
Simarouba Aubl. (vs.
Simaruba Boehm.).
53.4.
The names of
two subdivisions
of the same genus, or of two in-
fraspecific taxa within the same species,
even if they are of different rank,
are treated as homonyms if they have the same
or a confusingly similar
epithet and are not based on the same type.
Ex.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
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.
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 dif-
ferent genera, and of infraspecific taxa
within different species.
Ex.
15.
Verbascum sect.
Aulacosperma Murb. (Monogr. Verbascum: 34, 593. 1933)
is
permissible, although there is an earlier
Celsia sect.
Aulacospermae Murb.
(Monogr. Cel-
sia: 34, 56. 1926).
This, however, is not an example to be followed,
since it is contrary to
Rec
21B.2.
53.5.
When it is
doubtful
whether names or their epithets
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.
16.
Names ruled as likely to be confused,
and therefore to be treated as homonyms:
Ficus gomelleira 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.
17.
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
85 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 85 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
53-54 | Homonymy |
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).
53.6.
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. Like-
wise,
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.
18.
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.
19.
Rouy & Foucaud (Fl. France 2: 30. 1895)
published the name
Erysimum hieracii-
folium var.
longisiliquum, with two different types,
for two different taxa under different
subspecies.
Only one of these names can be maintained.
Note 3.
A homonym renamed or rejected under Art. 53.6
remains legitimate and
takes precedence
over a later synonym of the same rank,
should a transfer to an-
other genus or species be effected.
Ex. 20.
Mimosa cineraria L. (1759), based on
M. cinerea L. (Sp. Pl.: 517 [non 520]. 1753;
see Art. 53 Ex. 18), was transferred to
Prosopis by Druce (1914) as
P. cineraria (L.)
Druce.
However, the correct name in
Prosopis is a combination based on
M. cinerea.
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 ille-
gitimate,
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 be-
comes a homonym of a plant name
when the taxon to which it applies
is first treated as a plant (see also Art.
45.4).
Note 1.
The
International code of nomenclature of bacteria
provides that a bacte-
rial name is illegitimate
if it is a later homonym of a name of a taxon of bacteria,
fungi, algae, protozoa, or viruses.
86 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 86 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Homonymy – Rejection | 54A-56 |
54A.1.
Authors naming new botanical taxa should,
as far as is practicable,
avoid
using such names
as already exist
for zoological
and bacteriological taxa.
55.1.
A name of a species or subdivision of a genus may be legitimate
even if its epithet was originally placed
under an illegitimate generic name
(see also
Art.
22.5).
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 legiti-
mate.
Because Meisner (1864) 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 may be legitimate
even if its final epithet was
originally placed
under an illegitimate specific name
(see also
Art.
27.2).
55.3.
The names of species
and of subdivisions of genera assigned to gen-
era
the names
of which
are conserved or sanctioned later homonyms,
and
which had earlier been assigned
to the genera under the rejected homo-
nyms,
are legitimate 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.
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
basionym 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,
in-
cluding considerations of typification.
Such proposals must be submitted
to the General Committee (see
Div. III),
which will refer them for exami-
nation
to the committees for the various taxonomic groups
(see also Art.
14.14 and Rec.
14A).
87 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 87 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
57-58 | Rejection – Re-use |
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.
58.1.
The
epithet
in an illegitimate name
if available
may be used
in a
different combination,
at the same
or a different rank,
if no other epithet
is
available from a name
that has priority at that
rank. The resulting name is
then treated as new, either as a nomen novum
with the same type
as the
illegitimate name
(see also Art.
7.5
and Art. 33
Note 2),
or as the name of
a new taxon
with a different type.
Its priority does not date
back to the
publication
of the illegitimate
name.
Ex.
1.
The name
Talinum polyandrum Hook. (1855)
is illegitimate,
being a later homo-
nym of
T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (1798).
When Bentham, in 1863, transferred
T. poly-
andrum Hook. to
Calandrinia, he called it
C. polyandra.
This name has priority from
1863,
and is cited as
C. polyandra Benth., not
C. polyandra (Hook.) Benth.
Ex.
2.
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 rendering his new name illegitimate.
The epithet
cyanescens was
taken up in the combination
Parmelia cyanescens Schaer. (1842),
but this is a later homo-
nym of
P. cyanescens (Pers.) Ach. (1803). In
Collema, however, the specific epithet
cya-
nescens 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.
88 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 88 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Pleomorphic fungi | 59 |
CHAPTER VI. NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE
CYCLE
59.1.
In
non
lichen-forming
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
the earliest legitimate
name
typified by an element representing the teleomorph,
i.e. the morph
characterized by the production
of asci/ascospores, basidia/basidiospores,
teliospores, or other basidium-bearing organs.
Ex. 1.
The name
Crocicreomyces guttiferae Bat. & Peres (1964)
was published for a
lichen-forming fungus
producing only a mitosporic asexual morph.
When it was recog-
nized that
C. guttiferae is conspecific with
Byssoloma aeruginescens Vězda (1974),
based
on an ascospore-producing type, and that
Crocicreomyces Bat. & Peres (1964)
is synony-
mous with
Byssoloma Trevis. (1853), Batista &
Peres’s epithet was correctly recombined
as
B. guttiferae (Bat. & Peres) Lücking & Sérus. (1998).
As Art. 59 does not apply to
lichen-forming fungi,
no separate generic or specific names are available
for use for the
mitosporic state.
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
description or diagnosis of this morph
(or be so phrased that the possibil-
ity of reference 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 dispo-
sition 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.
Irrespective
of
priority,
names
with a teleomorphic type take prece-
dence over
names
with an
anamorphic type
when both types
are
judged to
belong to the
same
holomorphic taxon.
89 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 89 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
59 | Pleomorphic fungi |
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.
2.
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.
3.
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
Puc-
cinia Pers. : Pers.
of which the telial stage (teleomorph) was known.
Note 1.
When not already available,
specific or infraspecific names
for ana-
morphs may be proposed
at the time of publication of the name for the holomor-
phic 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 delib-
erate 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 pub-
lication 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) there-
of.
When only the requirements for valid publication
of a new combina-
tion (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.
4.
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. bre-
feldianum
is not available for use
in a restricted sense for the anamorph alone.
Ex.
5.
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.
6.
Mycosphaerella aleuritidis
was published as “(Miyake) Ou comb. nov., syn.
Cerco-
spora aleuritidis 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.
90 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 90 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Pleomorphic fungi | 59-59A |
Ex.
7.
Corticium microsclerotium
was originally published as
“(Matz) Weber, comb. nov.,
syn.
Rhizoctonia microsclerotia Matz”
with a description, only in English,
of the teleo-
morph. Because of Art.
36,
this may not be considered as the valid publication
of the name
of a new species, and so
C. microsclerotium (Matz) G. F. Weber (1939)
must be consid-
ered a validly published
and legitimate new combination 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.
8.
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
Sepedonium chrysospermum (Bull.) Fr.,
which are names of its ana-
morph,
is not to be considered as a new combination
but as the name of a newly described
species,
with a teleomorphic type.
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.)
the name
of which has a
teleomorphic type,
or as a new anamorph (anam. nov.)
the name
of which 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.
59A.3.
Authors should avoid the publication
and use of binary names for ana-
morphs
when the teleomorphic connection is firmly established
and there is no
practical need for separate names
(as e.g. in rust fungi and members of the
Tri-
chocomaceae).
91 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 91 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
CHAPTER VII. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
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 stan-
dardizations
imposed by Art. 60.5
(u/v or
i/j used interchangeably),
60.6
(diacritical signs and ligatures),
60.8 (compounding forms),
60.9 (hy-
phens),
60.10 (apostrophes),
60.11 (terminations; see also Art.
32.5),
and
60.12
(fungal epithets).
Ex. 1.
Retention of original spelling:
The generic names
Mesembryanthemum L. (1753)
and
Amaranthus 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 (Pflan-
zenw. 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 recom-
mended
for adoption in the case of a new name (Rec.
60E),
but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica is not an orthographical 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.
The misspelled
Indigofera “longipednnculata”
Y. Y. Fang & C. Z. Zheng (1983)
is
presumably a typographical error
and is to be corrected to
I. longipedunculata.
*Ex.
4.
Orthographical error:
Gluta “benghas” L. (1771),
being an orthographical error
for
G. renghas,
is cited as
G. renghas L.
(see Engler
in Candolle & Candolle,
Monogr.
Phan. 4: 225. 1883);
the vernacular name used as a specific epithet
by Linnaeus is
“renghas”, not “benghas”.
Note 1.
Art.
14.11
provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of
a name
of a family,
genus,
or species.
Ex. 5. Bougainvillea (see App. IIIA, Spermatophyta, Dicotyledones).
92 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 92 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
60.2.
The words “original spelling” in this Article
mean the spelling em-
ployed
when the name was validly published.
They do not refer to the use
of an initial capital or lower-case letter,
this being a matter of typography
(see Art.
20.1 and
21.2, Rec.
60F).
60.3.
The liberty of correcting a name
is to be used with reserve, espe-
cially 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
language,
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 mod-
ern practices
(e.g., one letter
of a pair
not being used in capitals,
or not
at
all),
those letters are to be transcribed in conformity
with modern botani-
cal usage.
Ex. 7.
Uffenbachia Fabr. (1763), not
“Vffenbachia”; Taraxacum Zinn (1757), not
“Tarax-
acvm”;
Curculigo 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; ø becomes
oe; å becomes
ao.
The diaeresis,
indicating that a vowel
is to be pronounced separately
from the preceding
vowel (as in
Cephaëlis, 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 in
spelling by authors
who adopt personal, geo-
raphic,
or vernacular names in nomenclature
are intentional latinizations,
they are to be preserved, except
when they concern
only the termination
of epithets
to which Art. 60.11
applies.
93 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 93 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
Ex. 9.
Clutia L. (1753),
Gleditsia L. (1753), and
Valantia L. (1753),
commemorating
Cluyt, Gleditsch, and
Vaillant, respectively,
are not to be altered to
“Cluytia”,
“Gleditschia”, and
“Vaillantia”;
Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists
deliber-
ately as
Clutius, Gleditsius, and
Valantius.
Ex. 10.
Abutilon glaziovii K. Schum. (1891),
Desmodium bigelovii A. Gray (1843), and
Rhododendron bureavii Franch. (1887),
commemorating
A. F. M. Glaziou,
J. Bigelow,
and
L. E. Bureau,
respectively, are not to be changed to
A. “glazioui”,
D. “bigelowii”, or
R. “bureaui”.
In these three cases, the implicit latinizations
Glaziovius,
Bigelovius, and
Bureavius
do not affect merely the termination of the names.
Ex.
11.
Blandfordia “backhousii”,
Cephalotaxus “fortuni”,
Chenopodium “loureirei”,
Convolvulus “loureiri”,
Glochidion “melvilliorum”,
and
Zygophyllum “billardierii”
were
published to commemorate
J. Backhouse,
R. Fortune,
J. de Loureiro,
R. Melville and E.
F. Melville,
and
J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la Billardière).
The
implicit latinizations are
Backhousius,
Fortunus,
Loureirus
or
Loureireus,
Melvillius, and
Billardierius, but
they
affect
only the termination
and
are not acceptable
under Art. 60.11. The names are cor-
rectly
cited as
B. backhousei
Gunn & Lindl. (1845),
Cephalotaxus fortunei Hook. (1850),
Chenopodium loureiroi Steud. (1840),
Convolvulus loureiroi G. Don (1836),
G. melvil-
leorum Airy Shaw (1971),
and
Z. billardierei DC.
(1824).
Ex. 12.
Abies alcoquiana Veitch ex Lindl. (1861),
commemorating “Rutherford Alcock
Esq.”,
implies an intentional latinization of that name
to Alcoquius.
In transferring the
epithet to
Picea, Carrière (1867)
deliberately changed the spelling to
“alcockiana”.
The
resulting combination
is nevertheless correctly cited as
P. alcoquiana (Veitch ex Lindl.)
Carrière
(see Art. 61.4).
60.8.
The use of a compounding form contrary to Rec. 60G
in an adjecti-
val epithet
is treated as an error to be corrected.
Ex.
13.
Candolle’s
Pereskia “opuntiaeflora” is to be cited as
P. opuntiiflora DC.
(1828),
and
Myrosma “cannaefolia”
of the younger Linnaeus, as
M. cannifolia L. f. (1782).
Ex.
14.
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 resemblance
of the leaves to those of the genus
Napaea L. (not
“Napea”), and the substitute (connecting) vowel
-i should have been used instead of the
genitive singular inflection
-ae.
Ex. 15.
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
altered to
“poliifolia”
(Polium-leaved).
60.9.
The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet
is treated as an error to
be corrected by deletion of the hyphen,
unless the epithet
is formed of
words that usually stand independently or the letters before
and after the
hyphen are the same,
when a hyphen is permitted (see Art.
23.1 and
23.3).
Ex.
16.
Hyphen to be omitted:
Acer pseudoplatanus L. (1753), not
A. “pseudo-platanus”;
Eugenia
costaricensis
O. Berg, not
E. “costa-ricensis”;
Ficus neoëbudarum Summerh.
(1932), not
F. “neo-ebudarum”;
Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vittad. (1842), not
L. “atro-pur-
pureum”;
Croton ciliatoglandulifer Ortega (1797), not
C. “ciliato-glandulifer”; Scirpus
94 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 94 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
sect.
Pseudoëriophorum Jurtzev
(in Bjull. Moskovsk. Obšč. Isp. Prir.,
Otd. Biol. 70(1):
132. 1965), not
S. sect.
“Pseudo-eriophorum”.
Ex.
17.
Hyphen to be
maintained:
Aster novae-angliae L. (1753),
Coix lacryma-jobi L.
(1753),
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. (1825),
Veronica anagallis-aquatica 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
(Art.
14.11).
Ex.
18.
Pseudo-salvinia Piton (1940)
may not be changed to
“Pseudosalvinia”;
“Pseudo-elephantopus” 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.
19.
Lycium “o’donellii”,
Cymbidium “i’ansoni” and
Solanum tuberosum var.
“mu-
ru’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), respec-
tively.
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.
32.5).
Ex.
20.
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)).
Ex. 21.
However,
Uladendron codesuri Marc.-Berti (1971)
is not to be changed to
U. “co-
desurii” (as by Brenan
in Index Kew., Suppl. 16. 1981),
since the epithet does not com-
memorate a person but derives from an acronym
(CODESUR, Comisión para el Desarrollo
del Sur de Venezuela).
Ex. 22.
Asparagus tamaboki Yatabe (1893)
bears the Japanese vernacular name “tama-
boki”
as its epithet and is therefore not correctable to
A. “tamabokii”.
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.
23.
Rosa דtoddii” 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.
24.
Astragalus “matthewsii”,
published
by Podlech and Kirchhoff
(in Mitt. Bot. Staats-
samml. München 11: 432. 1974)
to commemorate
Victoria A. Matthews, is to be corrected
to
A. matthewsiae Podlech & Kirchhoff;
it is not therefore a later homonym of
A. mat-
thewsii S. Watson (1883)
(see Agerer-Kirchhoff & Podlech
in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml.
München 12: 375. 1976).
95 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 95 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
60-60B | Orthography |
Ex.
25.
Codium “geppii”
(Schmidt
in Biblioth. Bot. 91: 50. 1923),
which commemorates
“A. & E. S. Gepp”,
is to be corrected to
C. geppiorum O. C. Schmidt.
60.12.
Epithets
of fungus names derived from the generic name of
an
associated organism are
to be spelled in accordance
with the accepted
spelling of
that organism’s name;
other spellings are regarded
as ortho-
graphical variants
to be corrected (see Art.
61).
Ex.
26.
Phyllachora “anonicola” (Chardon
in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940) is to be altered to
P. annonicola Chardon, since the spelling
Annona is now accepted in preference to
“Anona”. – Meliola “albizziae” (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”.
60A.1.
When a new name or its epithet is to be derived
from Greek, the translit-
eration to Latin
should conform to classical usage.
60A.2. The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.
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 ap-
propriate (e.g.
Sesleria after Sesler and
Kernera after Kerner).
(c)
In latinized personal names ending with
-us this termination is dropped (e.g.
Dil-
lenia after Dillenius) before applying
the procedure described under (a) and (b).
Note 1.
The
syllables not modified
by these endings retain their original spelling
(Art.
60.1),
unless they contain letters foreign to Latin plant names
or diacritical
signs (see Art.
60.6).
Note
2.
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
Eng-
lerella 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).
96 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 96 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60C |
60C.1.
Personal names may be given Latin terminations
and used to form spe-
cific
and infraspecific epithets as follows
(but see Rec. 60C.2):
(a)
If the personal name ends with a vowel or
-er, substantival epithets are
formed by adding the genitive inflection
appropriate to the sex and number of
the person(s) honoured (e.g.,
scopoli-i for Scopoli (m),
fedtschenko-i for
Fedtschenko (m),
fedtschenko-ae for
Fedtschenko (f),
glaziou-i for Glaziou
(m),
lace-ae for Lace (f),
gray-i for Gray (m),
hooker-orum for the Hookers
(m), 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),
pojarkova-e for
Pojarkova (f),
orlovskaja-e
for Orlovskaja (f)).
(b)
If the personal name ends with a consonant (except
-er), substantival epithets
are formed by adding
-i- (stem augmentation)
plus the genitive inflection appro-
priate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g.
lecard-ii for Le-
card (m),
wilson-iae for Wilson (f),
verlot-iorum for the Verlot brothers,
braun-
iarum for the Braun sisters,
mason-iorum
for Mason, father
and daughter).
(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,
Ver-
bena hassler-iana for Hassler).
Note 1.
The hyphens in the above examples are used only
to set off the total
appropriate termination.
60C.2.
Personal names already in Greek or Latin,
or possessing a well-estab-
lished latinized form,
should be given their appropriate Latin genitive
to form
substantival 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,
wislizeni
from Wislizenus,
edithae
from Editha or
Edith,
elisabethae
from Elisabetha
or Elisabeth,
murielae
from Muriela
or Muriel,
conceptionis
from Conceptio
or Concepción,
beatricis from Beatrix or Béatrice,
hectoris from Hector; but not
“cami”
from Edmond Camus
or Aimée Camus).
Treating modern family names
as if they were in third declension
should be
avoided (e.g.
munronis from Munro,
richardsonis from Richardson).
60C.3.
In forming new epithets
based on personal names the
customary spelling
of the personal name should not be modified
unless it contains letters foreign to
Latin plant names or diacritical signs (see Art.
60.4 and
60.6).
97 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 97 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
60C-60F | Orthography |
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.
macfady-
enii 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.
le-
clercii after Le Clerc,
dubuyssonii after DuBuysson,
lafarinae after La Fa-
rina,
logatoi after Lo Gato).
(d)
A prefix to a family name
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
should
be omitted
(e.g.
iheringii
after von Ihering,
martii
after von Martius,
steenisii
after van Steenis,
strassenii
after zu Stras-
sen,
vechtii
after van der Vecht), but
when it is normally treated as part of the
family name
it should
be included in the epithet
(e.g.
vonhausenii after Von-
hausen,
vanderhoekii after Vanderhoek,
vanbruntiae after Van Brunt).
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 Virginia),
Eryngium amorginum Rech. f. (from Amorgos),
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Marsh.
(from Pennsylvania).
60E.1.
The epithet in a new name
should be written in conformity with the
cus-
tomary 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).
60F.1.
All specific and infraspecific epithets
should be written with an
initial
lower-case letter,
although authors desiring to use
initial
capital 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.
98 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 98 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60G-H |
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.
This may be stated as follows
(see also Note 1):
(a)
In a
regular 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 par-
ticular compounding form.
(b)
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),
albo-marginatus (margined with
white), etc.
In epithets where tingeing is expressed,
the modifying initial col-
our often is in the ablative because the preposition
e, ex, is implicit, e.g.,
atropurpureus (blackish purple) from
ex atro purpureus (purple tinged with
black).
Others have been deliberately introduced
to reveal etymological dif-
ferences when different word elements
have the same compounding forms,
such as
tubi- from tube
(tubus, tubi) or from trumpet
(tuba, tubae) where
tu-
baeflorus can only mean trumpet-flowered; also
carici- is the compounding
form from both papaya
(carica, caricae) and sedge
(carex, caricis) 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 etymological distinction
(see Art.
60.8).
Note 1.
In forming some other apparently
irregular compounds,
classical usage is
commonly followed.
Ex. 1.
The compounding
forms
hydro- and
hydr-
(Hydro-phyllum)
stem
from water
(hy-
dor, hydatos);
calli-
(Calli-stemon)
derive from
the adjective beautiful
(kalos); and
meli-
(Meli-osma, Meli-lotus)
stem
from
honey
(mel, melitos).
Note
2.
The hyphens in the above examples are given solely
for explanatory
reasons. For the use of hyphens in
generic
names and
in epithets see Art.
20.3,
23.1, and
60.9.
60H.1.
The etymology of new names
or
of epithets
in
new names
should be
given,
especially when
their meaning is not obvious.
99 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 99 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
61-62 | Variants – Gender |
61.1.
Only one orthographical variant
of any one name is treated
as val-
idly published: the form
that appears
in the original publication,
except as
provided in Art.
60
(typographical or orthographical errors
and standardi-
zations), Art.
14.11
(conserved spellings), and Art.
32.5
(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
(including typographical errors), only one
nomenclatural type
being in-
volved.
61.3.
If orthographical variants of a name appear
in the original publica-
tion,
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 effective-
ly published text (Art.
29-31),
explicitly adopts one of the variants
and
rejects 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 ortho-
graphical variant of a name be added (Rec.
50F).
61.5.
Confusingly similar names based on the same type
are treated as
orthographical variants.
(For confusingly similar names
based on different
types, see Art.
53.3-5.)
Ex. 1.
“Geaster”
(Fries, 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).
62.1.
A generic name retains the gender
assigned by botanical tradition,
irrespective of classical usage
or the author’s original usage.
A generic name
without a botanical tradition
retains the gender assigned by its author.
100 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 100 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Gender | 62 |
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.,
He-
merocallis L.,
Orchis L.,
Stachys L., and
Strychnos L. must be treated as feminine while
Lotus L. and
Melilotus Mill. 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.
Phy-
teuma L. (n),
Sicyos L. (m), and
Erigeron L. (m)
are other names for which botanical tradi-
tion has reestablished the classical gender
despite another choice by Linnaeus.
62.2.
Compound generic names take the gender
of the last word in the
nominative case in the compound.
If the termination is altered, however,
the gender is altered accordingly.
Ex. 2.
Irrespective of the fact that
Parasitaxus de Laub. (1972)
was treated as masculine
when published,
its gender is feminine: it is a compound of which
the last part coincides
with the generic name
Taxus L.,
which is feminine by botanical tradition (Art. 62.1).
Ex.
3.
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, -ste-
mon, and other masculine words, are masculine.
Ex.
4.
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,
-glochin, -mecon,
-osma
(the modern transcription of the feminine Greek word
osmê),
and other feminine 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 bo-
tanical tradition.
Ex.
5.
Irrespective of the fact that
Tetraglochin Poepp.,
Triglochin L.,
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 end-
ing in
-anthos (or
-anthus),
-chilos
(-chilus or
-cheilos), and
-phykos
(-phycos or
-phycus),
which ought to be neuter,
since that is the gender
of the Greek words
anthos, cheilos,
and
phykos,
but are treated as
masculine in accordance with botanical tradition.
101 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 101 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
62-62A | Gender |
Ex.
6.
Irrespective of the fact that
Aceras R. Br. and
Xanthoceras Bunge were treated as
feminine
when first published, they are neuter.
62.3.
Arbitrarily formed generic names
or vernacular names
or adjectives
used as generic names,
of which the gender
is not apparent, take the gen-
der assigned to them by their authors.
If the original author failed to indi-
cate the gender,
the next subsequent author may choose a gender, and
that
choice,
if effectively published (Art.
29-31),
is to be accepted.
Ex.
7.
Taonabo Aubl. (1775) is feminine
because
Aublet’s two species were
T. dentata
and
T. punctata.
Ex.
8.
Agati Adans. (1763) was published
without indication of gender;
feminine gender
was assigned to it
by Desvaux (in J. Bot. Agric. 1: 120. 1813),
who was the first subse-
quent author
to adopt the name in an effectively published text,
and his choice is to be
accepted.
Ex.
9.
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.
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.
102 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 90 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Div.III.1-Div.III.2 |
DIVISION III. PROVISIONS FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF
THE CODE
Div.III.1.
The
Code may be modified only by action
of a plenary session
of an
International Botanical Congress on a resolution
moved by the No-
menclature Section
of that Congress ¹.
Div.III.2.
Permanent Nomenclature Committees
are established under the
auspices of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
Members
of these Committees are elected by an
International Botanical Congress.
The Committees have power to co-opt
and to establish subcommittees;
such officers as may be desired are elected.
(1)
General Committee,
composed of the secretaries of the other Com-
mittees, the rapporteur-général,
the president and the secretary of the
International Association for Plant Taxonomy,
and at least 5 members
to be appointed by the Nomenclature Section.
The rapporteur-général
is charged with the presentation
of nomenclature proposals to the In-
ternational 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.
———————————————————————
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 Inter-
national 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.
103 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 103 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Div.III.3-Div.III.4 | Governance of the Code |
Div.III.3.
The Bureau of Nomenclature of
the International Botanical
Congress.
Its officers are:
(1) the president of the Nomenclature Section,
elected by the organizing committee of
the International Botanical Con-
gress in question;
(2) the recorder,
appointed by the same organizing com-
mittee;
(3) the rapporteur-général,
elected by the previous Congress;
(4)
the vice-rapporteur,
elected by the organizing committee
on the proposal
of the rapporteur-général.
Div.III.4.
The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds:
(a) a
preliminary guiding mail vote and
(b) a final and binding vote at
the No-
menclature Section of
the International Botanical Congress.
Qualifications for voting:
(1) The members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
(2)
The authors of proposals.
(3)
The members of the
Permanent
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 specified vice-delegates is permissible,
but no single per-
son will be allowed more than 15 votes,
personal vote included.
Institutional votes may be deposited at
the Bureau of Nomencla-
ture to be counted in a specified way
for specified proposals.
104 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 104 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.1-H.3 |
NAMES OF HYBRIDS
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.
H.2.1.
A hybrid between named taxa may be indicated
by placing the
multiplication 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. spi-
cata L.;
Polypodium vulgare subsp.
prionodes (Asch.) Rothm. × subsp.
vulgare;
Tilletia
caries (Bjerk.) Tul. ×
T. foetida (Wallr.) Liro.
H.2A.1.
It is usually preferable to place the names
or epithets in a formula in al-
phabetical 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.
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 indi-
cated
by placing the multiplication sign ×
before the name of an intergen-
eric hybrid or
before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid,
or
———————————————————————
¹ From the Greek nothos, meaning hybrid.
105 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 105 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
H.3-H.4 | Hybrids |
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.
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 An-
dersson (1867);
Mentha
×smithiana R. A. Graham (1949);
Polypodium vulgare notho-
subsp.
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.
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. purpurea 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 (in 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.
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.
H.4.1.
When all the parent taxa can be postulated
or are known, a notho-
taxon is circumscribed
so as to include all individuals
(as far as they can
be recognized) derived
from the crossing of representatives of the stated
parent taxa (i.e. not only the
Fı
but subsequent filial generations and also
back-crosses and combinations of these).
There can thus be only one
106 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 106 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.4-H.5A |
correct name corresponding to a particular hybrid formula;
this is the ear-
liest 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.
×drawertii
Ren-
ner ex Rostański (1966)
are both considered to apply to the hybrid
O.
biennis
L. ×
O.
vil-
losa
Thunb. subsp.
villosa;
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.
Note 1.
Variation within nothospecies and nothotaxa
of lower rank may be treated
according to Art.
H.12
or, if appropriate, according to the
International code of
nomenclature for cultivated plants.
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 ap-
propriate 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 hy-
brid 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 (Simonet & Guin.) Melderis ×
E. repens (L.) Gould,
so that the combina-
tion
is in a rank inappropriate to the hybrid formula.
It is, however, the correct name appli-
cable to all hybrids between
E. farctus (Viv.) Melderis and
E. repens.
Ex. 2.
Radcliffe-Smith incorrectly published
the nothospecific name
Euphorbia
×cornu-
biensis 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. amygdaloi-
des and
E. characias L. is
E.
×martini Rouy (1900); later,
he remedied his mistake by
publishing the combination
E.
×martini nothosubsp.
cornubiensis (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.
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 iden-
tity, at lower ranks,
of the known or postulated parent plants
of the type of the
name.
107 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 107 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
H.6 | Hybrids |
H.6.1.
A nothogeneric name
(i.e. the name at generic rank for a hybrid
between 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 for-
mula
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 con-
necting vowel.
Ex. 1.
×Agropogon P. Fourn. (1934) (=
Agrostis L. ×
Polypogon Desf.);
×Gymnana-
camptis Asch. & Graebn. (1907) (=
Anacamptis Rich. ×
Gymnadenia R. Br.);
×Cupresso-
cyparis Dallim. (1938) (=
Chamaecyparis Spach ×
Cupressus L.);
×Seleniphyllum G.
D. Rowley (1962) (=
Epiphyllum Haw. ×
Selenicereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose).
Ex. 2.
×Amarcrinum Coutts (1925)
is correct for
Amaryllis L. ×
Crinum L., not
“×Crin-
donna”.
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. ×
Gymn-
adenia R. Br.,
but if the generic name
Pseudorchis Ség. 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
×Puc-
ciphippsia 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.
×Beallara Moir (1970) (=
Brassia R. Br. ×
Cochlioda Lindl. ×
Miltonia Lindl. ×
Odontoglossum Kunth).
H.6.4.
The nothogeneric name of a trigeneric hybrid is either
(a) a con-
densed 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.
108 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 108 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.6-H.8 |
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.);
×Devereuxara
Kirsch (1970) (=
Ascocentrum
Schltr. ex J. J. Sm. ×
Phalaenopsis
Blume ×
Vanda
W. Jones ex R. Br.).
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.
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. 1.
Ptilostemon nothosect.
Platon Greuter (in Boissiera 22: 159. 1973),
comprising
hybrids between
P. sect.
Platyrhaphium Greuter and
P. sect.
Ptilostemon;
P. nothosect.
Plinia Greuter (in Boissiera 22: 158. 1973),
comprising hybrids between
P. sect.
Platyrha-
phium and
P. sect.
Cassinia Greuter.
H.8.1.
When the name or the epithet in the name
of a nothotaxon is a
condensed formula (Art.
H.6 and
H.7),
the parental names used in its for-
mation 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
Agro-
pyron 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 between 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
Hor-
deum 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
condensed formulae (Art.
H.6.3-4),
are applicable only to plants which are
accepted
taxonomically as derived from the parents named.
109 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 109 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
H.8-H.10 | Hybrids |
Ex. 2.
If
Euanthe Schltr.
is recognized as a distinct genus,
hybrids simultaneously involv-
ing 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
Holttum (1958)
(Arachnis ×
Renanthera ×
Vanda).
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. Ca-
mus (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 subdi-
vision 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. bealeana”,
nom. inval.)
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.
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 nor-
mal 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).
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.
Ex. 1.
The nothospecies name
Melampsora
×columbiana G. Newc.
(in Mycol. Res. 104:
271. 2000)
was validly published,
with a Latin description and designation of a holotype,
for the hybrid between
M. medusae Thüm. and
M. occidentalis H. S. Jacks.
110 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 110 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.10-H.10B |
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 epi-
thets:
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 combined with the generic name of the other
(with or without
change of termination).
Ex.
2.
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 atrosan-
guinea Lodd. ex D. Don ×
P. pedata Nestl.
Ex.
3.
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
×schiedeanum W. D. J. Koch (1844).
Ex.
4.
The following names include true epithets
(but see Rec. H.10A):
Acaena
×anserovina Orchard (1969) (from
A. anserinifolia (J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.)
J. Armstr. 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,
statements of parentage play a secondary part
in determining the application
of the name.
Ex.
5.
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.
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.
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.
111 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 111 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
H.11-H.12 | Hybrids |
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 nothospeci-
fic epithet
with a nothogeneric name.
Ex. 1.
×Heucherella tiarelloides
(Lemoine & E. Lemoine) H. R. Wehrh.
is considered to
have originated
from the cross between a garden hybrid of
Heuchera L. and
Tiarella cordi-
folia L.
(see Stearn in Bot. Mag. 165: ad t. 31. 1948).
Its original name,
Heuchera
×tiarel-
loides 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.) Hartm.,
×Orchicoeloglossum mixtum
Asch. & Graebn. (1907),
became the basis of the necessary new combination
×Dactylo-
glossum 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
spe-
cies,
may be placed subordinate to the name of a nothospecies
(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).
H.12.1.
Subordinate taxa within nothospecies
may be recognized without
an obligation to specify parent taxa
at the subordinate 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 hav-
ing been published
as names of varieties (see Art.
50).
———————————————————————
¹
Pre-Sydney editions of the
Code
permitted only one rank under provisions equivalent to
H.12.
That rank was equivalent to variety and the category
was termed “nothomorph”.
112 |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — St Louis Code
– 112 –
text: © 2000, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
[ Appendix II,
listing conserved names of families,
is not included here ]
[ Appendix IIA,
Nomina familiarum algarum, fungorum, pteridophytorum et
fossilium 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 ]