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 that denote
the ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the
scientific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of
plants¹. The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is not to indi-
cate 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 that may cause error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion.
Next in importance is the avoidance of the useless creation of names. Other
considerations, such as absolute grammatical correctness, regularity or eu-
phony 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 nomencla-

———————————————————————

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, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 01 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

ture; names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be
rejected, but they are not examples to be followed.

6.  The provisions regulating the governance of this Code form its last di-
vision.

7.  The rules and recommendations apply to all organisms traditionally
treated as plants, whether fossil or non-fossil¹, e.g. blue-green algae (Cyano-
bacteria)²; fungi, including chytrids, oomycetes, and slime moulds; pho-
tosynthetic 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 prepared
under the authority of the International Commission for the Nomenclature
of Cultivated Plants and deals with the use and formation of names for
special plant categories in agricultural, forestry, and horticultural nomen-
clature.

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

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

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

———————————————————————

¹   In this Code, the term “fossil” is applied to a taxon when its name is based on a fossil type
    and the term “non-fossil” is applied to a taxon when its name is based on a non-fossil type
    (see Art. 13.3).

²   For the nomenclature of other prokaryote groups, see the International code of nomen-
    clature of bacteria (Bacteriological Code).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 02 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES
 
 

Principle I

Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological and bacteriological
nomenclature. The Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups
treated as plants whether or not these groups were originally so treated (see
Pre. 7).

Principle II

The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.

Principle III

The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of pub-
lication.

Principle IV

Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank
can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the
Rules, except in specified cases.

Principle V

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

Principle VI

The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.
 
 

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 03 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER I. TAXA AND THEIR RANKS
 
 

Article 1

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

1.2.  Fossil taxa (diatoms excepted) may be treated as morphotaxa. A mor-
photaxon is defined as a fossil taxon which, for nomenclatural purposes,
comprises only the one part, life-history stage, or preservational state rep-
resented by the corresponding nomenclatural type.

Note 1.  Any fossil taxon that is described as including more than one part, life-
history stage, or preservational state is not a morphotaxon.

Ex. 1.  Alcicornopteris hallei J. Walton (in Ann. Bot, n.s., 13: 450. 1949) was described from
fossil material that included a compression on the surface of a petrified nodule with anatomy
permitting description of the rachides, sporangia, and spores of a pteridosperm. This species
comprises two preservational stages, two life-history stages, and three parts of the plant and
is therefore not a morphotaxon.

Ex. 2.  Protofagacea allonensis Herend. & al. (in Int. J. Pl. Sci. 56: 94. 1995) was described
on the basis of dichasia of staminate flowers, with anthers containing pollen grains, fruits,
and cupules. This species comprises more than one part and more than one life-history stage
and is therefore not a morphotaxon.

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).

Article 2

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 04 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Article 3

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.

Note 1.  Species and subdivisions of genera must be assigned to genera, and
infraspecific taxa must be assigned to species, because their names are com-
binations (Art. 21.1, 23.1, and 24.1), but this provision does not preclude the
placement of taxa as incertae sedis with regard to ranks higher than genus.

Ex. 1.  The genus Haptanthus Goldberg & C. Nelson (in Syst. Bot. 14: 16. 1989) was orig-
inally described without being assigned to a family.

Ex. 2.  The family assignment of the fossil genus Paradinandra Schönenberger & E. M.
Friis (in Amer. J. Bot. 88: 467. 2001) was given as “incertae sedis”.

3.2.  The principal ranks of nothotaxa (hybrid taxa) are nothogenus and
nothospecies. These ranks are the same as genus and species. The prefix
“notho” indicates the hybrid character (see App. I).

Article 4

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

4.2.  If a greater number of ranks of taxa is desired, the terms for these are
made by adding the prefix “sub-” to the terms denoting the principal or
secondary ranks. A plant may thus be assigned to taxa of the following
ranks (in 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.

Note 1.  Ranks formed by adding “sub-” to the principal ranks (Art. 3.1) may be
formed and used whether or not any secondary ranks (Art. 4.1) are adopted.

4.3.  Further ranks may also be intercalated or added, provided that con-
fusion 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 2.  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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 05 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Note 3.  For the designation of certain categories of plants used in agriculture,
forestry, and horticulture, see Art. 28 Notes 2-5.

Note 4.  In classifying parasites, especially fungi, authors who do not give specific,
subspecific, or varietal value to taxa characterized from a physiological standpoint
but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint may distinguish within
the species special forms (formae speciales) characterized by their adaptation to
different hosts, but the nomenclature of special forms is not governed by the pro-
visions of this Code.

Article 5

5.1.  The relative order of the ranks specified in Art. 3 and 4 must not be
altered (see Art. 33.9 and 33.12).

Recommendation 5A

5A.1.  For purposes of standardization, the following abbreviations are recom-
mended: cl. (class), ord. (order), fam. (family), tr. (tribe), gen. (genus), sect. (sec-
tion), ser. (series), sp. (species), var. (variety), f. (forma). The abbreviations for
additional ranks created by the addition of the prefix sub-, or for nothotaxa with the
prefix notho-, should be formed by adding the prefixes, e.g. subsp. (subspecies),
nothosp. (nothospecies), but subg. (subgenus).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 06 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER II. STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF

NAMES

SECTION 1. STATUS DEFINITIONS

Article 6

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

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

Note 1.  For nomenclatural purposes, valid publication creates a name, and
sometimes also an autonym (Art. 22.1 and 26.1), but does not itself imply any
taxonomic circumscription beyond inclusion of the type of the name (Art. 7.1).

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

Note 2.  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
“isonyms” has nomenclatural status. The name is always to be cited from its orig-
inal 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. 19).

Ex. 2.  In publishing “Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.”, Leenhouts (in Blumea 9: 406.
1959) reused the illegitimate C. pimela K. D. Koenig (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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 07 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 3.  Anisothecium Mitt. (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.

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. one
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 palus-
tre 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. 32.8, Rec. 22B.1 and 26B.1).

SECTION 2. TYPIFICATION

Article 7

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 08 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

7.2.  A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a
taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a syn-
onym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or rep-
resentative 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. 33.4; but see Art. 33 Note 2).

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

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 com-
bination Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière must not be applied to T. heterophylla but
must be retained for P. mertensiana when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation in
parentheses (under Art. 49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the
basionym, and hence the type of the name.

Ex. 3.  Delesseria gmelinii J. V. Lamour. (1813), is a legitimate replacement name for Fucus
palmetta S. G. Gmel. (1768), the change of epithet being necessitated by the simultaneous
publication of D. palmetta (Stackh.) J. V. Lamour. (see Art. 11 Note 1). All intended com-
binations based on D. gmelinii (and not excluding the type of F. palmetta; see Art. 48.1)
have the same type as F. palmetta, even though the material possessed by Lamouroux is now
assigned to a different species, D. bonnemaisonii C. Agardh (1822).

7.5.  A name that is illegitimate under Art. 52 is typified either by the type
of the name that ought to have been adopted under the rules (automatic
typification), or by a different type designated or definitely indicated by the
author of the illegitimate name. However, if no type was designated or
definitely indicated and the type of the earlier name was included (see Art.
52.2) in a subordinate taxon that did not include the evidently intended type
of the illegitimate name, typification is not automatic. Automatic typifica-
tion does not apply to names sanctioned under Art. 15.

Ex. 4.  Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (1976) is illegitimate under Art. 52 (see Art. 52 Ex. 10),
but its publication as a replacement name for B. retusa Roxb. (1832) non Poir. (1811) is
definite indication of a different type (that of B. retusa) from that of the name (B. roxburghi-
ana Voigt, 1845), which ought to have been adopted.

Ex. 5.  Hewittia bicolor Wight & Arn. (1837), the type of Hewittia Wight & Arn., is illegit-
imate under Art. 52 because, in addition to the illegitimate intended basionym Convolvulus

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 09 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

bicolor Vahl (1794) non Desr. (1792), the legitimate C. bracteatus Vahl (1794) was cited as
a synonym. Wight & Arnott’s adoption of the epithet “bicolor” is definite indication that the
type of H. bicolor, and therefore the type of Hewittia, is the type of C. bicolor, and not that
of C. bracteatus whose epithet ought to have been adopted.

Ex. 6.  Gilia splendens, when validly published by Mason & Grant (in Madroño 9: 212.
1948), included, as “a long-tubed form of the species”, G. splendens subsp. grinnellii based
on G. grinnellii Brand (1907) and is thus superfluous and illegitimate. Although Mason &
Grant, believing that G. splendens was already validly published, did not indicate its type, it
is not automatically that of G. grinnellii; the specimen that has since been adopted as the
conserved type could have been selected as lectotype.

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

7.7.  A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively
published description or diagnosis (Art. 32.1(d)) is to be typified by an
element selected from the context of the validating description or diagnosis,
unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type (but
see Art. 10.2). However, the type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group
with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1 May 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).

Ex. 7.  Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to
Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 3: t. 112. 1743), the type of the name, in the absence of the
specimen from which it was figured, is the illustration referred to. It is not the specimen, at
Kew, collected by Moon and labelled “Adenanthera bicolor”, since Moon did not definitely
designate the latter as the type.

Ex. 8.  Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or
diagnosis but with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a
“Lycopsis” species was discussed with no description or diagnosis but with citation of
earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax: 255. 1623). The accepted validating description
of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen from the context of his work.
Consequently the Sherard specimen in the Morison herbarium (OXF), selected by Klotz (in
Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9: 375-376. 1960),
although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The first acceptable choice is
that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of “Echii altera species” in
Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620. 1583), suggested by 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 morphotaxa of plant fossils (Art. 1.2), of
fungal anamorphs (Art. 59), and of any other analogous taxa at or below the
rank of genus does not differ from that indicated above.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 10 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Note 1.  See also Art. 59 for details regarding typification of names in certain pleo-
morphic fungi.

7.10.  For purposes of priority (Art. 9.17, 9.18, 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, 9.18, and 10.5), designation of a
type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typi-
fying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation inclu-
ding the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or after 1 January
2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here”
(hic designatus) or an equivalent.

Note 2.  Art. 7.10 and 7.11 apply only to the designation of lectotypes (and their
equivalents under Art. 10), neotypes, and epitypes; for the indication of a holotype
see Art. 37.

Ex. 9.  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 Chlorosarcina
elegans.

*Ex. 10.  The phrase “standard species” as used by Hitchcock & Green (in Anonymous,
Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 110-199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to “type”, and
hence type designations in this work are acceptable.

Recommendation 7A

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

Article 8

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 (but see also Art. 37.4
and 37.6 for names published on or after January 1958).

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

———————————————————————

*   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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 11 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 de-
tached 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 different 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. Multiple
preparations from a single gathering that are not clearly labelled as being
part of a single specimen are duplicates¹, irrespective of whether the source
was one plant or more than one (but see Art. 8.5).

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) bearing the
annotation “fl. bottled” and an inflorescence preserved in alcohol in a jar labelled “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 specimen (BISH No. 519676),
which is not labelled as including additional material preserved in a separate preparation.

Ex. 3.  The holotype specimen of Johannesteijsmannia magnifica J. Dransf., Dransfield 862
(K), consists of a leaf mounted on five herbarium sheets, an inflorescence and infructes-
cence in a box, and liquid-preserved material in a bottle.

Ex. 4.  The holotype of Cephaëlis acanthacea Steyerm., Cuatrecasas 16752 (F), consists of
a single specimen mounted on two herbarium sheets, labelled “sheet 1” and “sheet 2”.
Although the two sheets have separate herbarium accession 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 specimen subsequent to
its designation as holotype and is now conserved in LL. The fragment 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,

———————————————————————

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 infraspecific
    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 corresponding caution used.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 12 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 meta-
bolically 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).

Recommendation 8A

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 determine
the application of the name (see also Art. 9.13).

8A.2.  When an illustration is designated as the type of a name under Art. 37.5, 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 establishing
the diagnosis should be clearly marked.

8A.4.  When a single specimen designated as type is mounted as multiple pre-
parations, this should be stated in the protologue¹, and the preparations appropri-
ately labelled.

Recommendation 8B

8B.1.  Whenever practicable a living culture should be prepared from the holotype
material of the name of a newly described taxon of fungi or algae and deposited in
at least two institutional culture or genetic resource collections. (Such action does
not obviate the 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.

Article 9

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 designated

———————————————————————

¹   Protologue (from the Greek πρώτος, protos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything asso-
    ciated with a name at its valid publication, i.e. description or diagnosis, illustrations, refer-
    ences, synonymy, geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 13 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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, 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. 9.12).

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 description or
diagnosis, or the author of the name (but see also Art. 7.7, second sentence, and
7.8).

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 there is no
holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated
as types (see also Art. 37 Note 1).

Ex. 1.  In the protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (see Art. 37 Ex. 2) a single
gathering in two herbaria was designated as the type. There must exist, therefore, at least two
specimens and these are syntypes.

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. 2.  The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma (1932), which applies to a
polygamous species, is a male specimen, Kappler 593a (U). The author designated a herma-
phroditic specimen, Forestry Service of Surinam B. W. 1618 (U), as a paratype.

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 spe-
cimens are paratypes and not syntypes.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 14 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 3.  In the protologue of Eurya hebeclados Y. Ling (1951) the author simultaneously
designated two specimens as types, Y. Ling 5014 as “typus, ♂” and Y. Y. Tung 315 as “typus,
♀”, which are therefore syntypes. Ling also cited the specimen Y. Ling 5366 but without
designating it as a type; it is therefore a paratype.

9.6.  A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomen-
clatural type if no original material is extant, or as long as it is missing (see
also Art. 9.14).

9.7.  An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an
interpretative 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 purposes
of the precise application of the name of a taxon (but see also Art. 59.7).
When an epitype is designated, the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the
epitype supports must be explicitly cited (see Art. 9.18).

Ex. 4.  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
can only be distinguished by characters of foliage or inflorescence. Hall & Hindle (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.

Ex. 5.  Podlech (in Taxon 46: 465. 1997) designated Herb. Linn. No. 926.43 (LINN) as
the lectotype of Astragalus trimestris L. (1753). He simultaneously designated an epitype
(Egypt. Düben oberhalb Rosetta am linken Nilufer bei Schech Mantur, 9 May 1902, Anon-
ymous (BM)), because the lectotype lacked fruits, “which show important diagnostic feat-
ures for this species.”

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).

Note 4.  Correction can be effected only if the requirements of Art. 7.11 are met.

Ex. 6.  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.

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).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 15 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 or as long as it is missing, a neotype
may be selected. A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype, ex-
cept as provided by Art. 9.14.

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. 7.  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 specimen
as the lectotype.

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 indicated
(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.  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).

9.15.  A designation of a lectotype or neotype that later is found to refer to a
single gathering but to more than one specimen must nevertheless be
accepted (subject to Art. 9.17), but may be further narrowed to a single one
of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypification or neotypi-
fication.

Ex. 8.  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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 16 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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.

9.16.  A neotype selected under Art. 9.14 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
different 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 and
that neither Art. 9.16 nor 9.17 applies, the name may be proposed for con-
servation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).

Note 5.  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 respect
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 illus-
tration 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 equiv-
alent in a modern language (but see Art. 9.8).

Recommendation 9A

9A.1.  Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be
carried out with an understanding of the author’s method of working; in particular

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 17 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

it should be realized that some of the material used by the author in describing the
taxon may not be in the author’s own herbarium or may not even have survived,
and conversely, that not all the material surviving in the author’s herbarium was
necessarily used in describing the taxon.

9A.2.  Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an
understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the
protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as the
automatic selection of the first 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 gathering is cited in the protologue, but a particular institution
housing it is not designated, it should be assumed that the specimen housed in the
institution where the author is known to have worked is the holotype, unless there
is evidence that further material of the same gathering was used.

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, one of the remaining elements should be designated
as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original
description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.17).

Recommendation 9B

9B.1.  In selecting a neotype, particular care and critical knowledge should be
exercised because the reviewer usually has no guide except personal judgement as
to what best fits the protologue; if this selection proves to be faulty it will inevita-
bly result in further change.

Article 10

10.1.  The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the
type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4). For purposes
of designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e., it is
considered as the full equivalent of its type.

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 18 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 simulta-
neously 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 published
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 proto-
logue.

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 Anonymous, Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 182. 1929) designated
Anacyclus valentinus L. (1753), “the only one of the three original species still retained in
the genus”, as the “standard species” (see Art. 7 Ex. 10), and her choice must be followed
(Art. 10.5). Humphries (in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Bot. 7: 109. 1979) designated a
specimen in the Clifford Herbarium (BM) as lectotype of Anacyclus valentinus, and that
specimen thereby became the ultimate type of the generic name.

Ex. 2.  Castanella Spruce ex Benth. & Hook. f. (1862) was described on the basis of a single
specimen collected by Spruce 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 Linden 1360. As long as the Spruce specimen is considered to be conspe-
cific with Linden’s material, Swart’s type designation cannot be superseded, even though
the Spruce specimen became the type of Paullinia paullinioides Radlk. (1896), because the
latter is not a “previously or simultaneously published species name”.

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

Ex. 3.  The protologue of Elodes Adans. (1763) included references to “Elodes” of Clusius
(1601), “Hypericum” of Tournefort (1700), and Hypericum aegypticum L. (1753). The last
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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 19 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

the type of P. pulverulacea Moberg (1979), which name is now cited in the type entry in
App. III.

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
herbarium 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 correspon-
ding entry in App. III.

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

Ex. 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 therefore
be superseded under Art. 10.5(b). For example, Fink had designated Biatorina griffithii
(Ach.) A. Massal. 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 (Schaer.) 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 Britton
& Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 93. 1913), who followed the American code and chose D.
consolida L., has been superseded under Art. 10.5(b) by the designation of D. peregrinum L.
by Green (in Anonymous, 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 suf-
fices. The type of a name of a family or subfamily not based on a generic
name is the same as that of the corresponding alternative name (Art. 18.5
and 19.7).

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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 20 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Note 3.  For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera see Art. 22.6
and 22.7.

Recommendation 10A

10A.1.  When a combination in a rank of subdivision of a genus has been published
under a generic name that has not yet been typified, the type of the generic name
should be selected from the subdivision of the genus that was designated as nomen-
claturally typical, if that is apparent.

SECTION 3. PRIORITY

Article 11

11.1.  Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being
made for 9 families and 1 subfamily for which alternative names are per-
mitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.7). However, the use of separate names for the
form-taxa of fungi and for morphotaxa of fossil plants is allowed under Art.
1.3, 59.4 and 59.5.

11.2.  In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is
published (but see Art. 53.4).

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 Calo-
thyrsus Spach (1834) are referred to a single genus, its name is Aesculus L.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 21 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 could not be validly published
under Art. 32.1(c) or would be illegitimate under Art. 53, or (c) if Art. 11.7,
22.1, 26.1, or 59 rules 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 Wen-
delbo (in Bot. Not. 112: 496. 1959) is illegitimate under Art. 52.1.

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 (Art. 52.1) named the species P. muticus Cass. (1826). In that genus, the
correct name is P. chamaepeuce (L.) Less. (1832).

Ex. 9.  The correct name for Rubus aculeatiflorus var. taitoensis (Hayata) T. S. Liu & T. Y.
Yang (in Annual Taiwan Prov. Mus. 12: 12. 1969) is R. taitoensis Hayata var. taitoensis,
because R. taitoensis Hayata (1911) has priority over R. aculeatiflorus Hayata (1915).

Ex. 10.  When transferring Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798) to Cytisus Desf., Spach correctly
proposed the substitute name C. fontanesii Spach (1849) because of the previously and
validly published C. biflorus L’Hér. (1791); the combination C. biflorus based on S. biflor-
um would be illegitimate under Art. 53.1.

Ex. 11.  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. 12.  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 (Art. 23.4).

Ex. 13.  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
(Art. 52.1) since the specific epithet vulgaris was available. In Silene, the correct name of
the species is S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke (1869).

Ex. 14.  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 epithet
and is named H. penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser (in Engler,
Pflanzenr. 14: 115. 1903).

———————————————————————

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 22 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 15.  The final epithet of the combination Thymus praecox subsp. arcticus (Durand) Jalas
(in Veröff. Geobot. Inst. ETH Stiftung Rübel Zürich 43: 190. 1970), based on T. serpyllum
var. arcticus Durand (Pl. Kaneanae Groenl. 196. 1856), was first used at the rank of
subspecies in the combination T. serpyllum L. subsp. arcticus (Durand) Hyl. (in Uppsala
Univ. Arsskr. 1945(7): 276. 1945). However, if T. britannicus Ronniger (1924) is included
in this taxon, the correct name at subspecies rank is T. praecox subsp. britannicus (Ron-
niger) Holub (in Preslia 45: 359. 1973), for which the final epithet was first used at this rank
in the combination T. serpyllum subsp. britannicus (Ronniger) P. Fourn. (Quatre Fl. France:
841. 1938, “S.-E. [Sous-Espèce] Th. Britannicus”).

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. 16.  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.
mathioli Tausch (1824), a nomen novum based on Lithospermum tinctorium L. (1753).
Both names are legitimate and take priority from 1824.

Ex. 17.  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.) Raym.-Hamet (1929),
and published a new name, S. candollei Raym.-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 pos-
sible between legitimate names of equal priority in the corresponding rank,
or between available final epithets of names of equal priority in the cor-
responding rank, the first such choice to be effectively published (Art. 29-
31) establishes the priority of the chosen name, and of any legitimate com-
bination 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 simulta-
neously rejecting or relegating to synonymy the other(s), or nomenclatural (ho-
motypic) synonyms thereof.

Ex. 18.  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. 19.  When Claudopus Gillet (1876), Eccilia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), Entoloma (Fr.
ex Rabenh.) P. Kumm. (1871), Leptonia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), and Nolanea (Fr. : Fr.)
P. Kumm. (1871) are united, one of the generic names simultaneously published by Kum-
mer 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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 23 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 20.  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. 21.  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 (Sclerocroton,
Stillingia, Excoecaria or Sapium) to which the species is assigned.

Ex. 22.  Linnaeus (1753) simultaneously published the names Verbesina alba and V.
prostrata. Later (1771), he published Eclipta erecta, an illegitimate name because V. alba
was cited in synonymy, and E. prostrata, based on V. prostrata. The first author to unite
these taxa was Roxburgh (Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 3: 438. 1832), who adopted the name E. pros-
trata (L.) L. Therefore V. prostrata is treated as having priority over V. alba.

Ex. 23.  Donia speciosa and D. formosa, which were simultaneously published by Don
1832), were illegitimately renamed Clianthus oxleyi and C. dampieri, respectively, by
Lindley (1835). Brown (in Sturt, Narr. Exped. C. Australia 2: 71. 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. Clianthus
speciosus (G. Don) Asch. & Graebn. (1909), published with D. speciosa and C. dampieri
listed as synonyms, is an illegitimate later homonym of C. speciosus (Endl.) Steud. (1840);
again, conditions for a choice under Art. 11.5 were not satisfied. Ford & Vickery (1950)
published the legitimate combination C. formosus (G. 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 (G. 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. 24.  By describing Synthyris subg. Plagiocarpus, Pennell (in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Philadelphia 85: 86. 1933) established the name Synthyris Benth. subg. Synthyris (although
using the designation “Eusynthyris”), and when this group is included in Veronica, V. subg.
Synthyris (Benth.) M. M. Mart. Ort. & al. (in Taxon 53: 440. 2004) has precedence over a
combination in Veronica based on S. subg. Plagiocarpus Pennell.

Ex. 25.  Heracleum sibiricum L. (1753) includes H. sibiricum subsp. lecokii (Godr. &
Gren.) Nyman (Consp. Fl. Eur.: 290. 1879) and H. sibiricum subsp. sibiricum automatically
established at the same time. When H. sibiricum is included in H. sphondylium L. (1753) as
a subspecies, the correct name for the taxon is H. sphondylium subsp. sibiricum (L.) Simonk.
(Enum. Fl. Transsilv.: 266. 1887), not subsp. lecokii, whether or not subsp. lecokii is treated
as distinct.

Ex. 26.  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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 24 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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. humilis, then the
names S. humilis var. tristis and S. humilis var. microphylla (Andersson) Fernald (in Rho-
dora 48: 46. 1946) are both used.

Ex. 27.  In the classification adopted by Rollins and Shaw, Lesquerella lasiocarpa (Hook.
ex A. Gray) S. Watson (1888) is composed of two subspecies, subsp. lasiocarpa (which
includes the type of the name of the species and is cited without an author) and subsp.
berlandieri (A. Gray) Rollins & E. A. Shaw. The latter subspecies is composed of two var-
ieties. 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. berlan-
dieri which, at varietal rank, is treated as having priority over var. hispida.

11.7.  For purposes of priority, names of fossil morphotaxa compete only
with names based on a fossil type representing the same part, life-history
stage, or preservational state (see Art. 1.2).

Ex. 28.  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, Mazocarpon,
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. 29.  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).

Ex. 30.  A common Jurassic leaf-compression fossil is referred to by different authors either
as Ginkgo huttonii (Sternb.) Heer or Ginkgoites huttonii (Sternb.) M. Black. Both names are
in accordance with the Code, and either name can correctly be used, depending on whether
this Jurassic morphospecies is regarded as rightly assigned to the living (non-fossil) genus
Ginkgo L. or whether it is more appropriate to assign it to the morphogenus Ginkgoites
Seward (type, G. obovata (Nath.) Seward, a Triassic leaf compression).

11.8.  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
subfossil) type.

Ex. 31.  If Platycarya Siebold & Zucc. (1843), a non-fossil genus, and Petrophiloides
Bowerb. (1840), a fossil genus, are united, the name Platycarya is correct for the combined
genus, although it is antedated by Petrophiloides.

Ex. 32.  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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 25 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

exemption in Art. 11.8 applies only to diatoms and not to algae in general, Pachysphaera is
correct for the combined genus.

Ex. 33.  The generic name Metasequoia Miki (1941) was based on the fossil type of M.
disticha (Heer) Miki. After discovery of the non-fossil species M. glyptostroboides Hu & W.
C. Cheng, conservation of Metasequoia Hu & W. C. Cheng (1948) as based on the non-
fossil type was approved. Otherwise, any new generic name based on M. glyptostroboides
would have had to be treated as having priority over Metasequoia Miki.

Note 4.  The provisions of Art. 11 determine priority between different names
applicable to the same taxon; they do not concern homonymy. In accordance with
Art. 53, later homonyms are illegitimate whether the type is fossil or non-fossil.

Ex. 34.  Endolepis Torr. (1861), based on a non-fossil type, is an illegitimate later homonym
of, and does not have priority over, Endolepis Schleid. (1846), based on a fossil type.

Ex. 35.  Cornus paucinervis Hance (1881), based on a non-fossil type, is an illegitimate later
homonym and does not have priority over C. paucinervis Heer (Fl. Tert. Helv. 3: 289. 1859),
based on a fossil type.

Ex. 36.  Ficus crassipes F. M. Bailey (1889), F. tiliifolia Baker (1885), and F. tremula Warb.
(1894), each based on a non-fossil type, were illegitimate later homonyms of, respectively, F.
crassipes (Heer) Heer (1882), F. tiliifolia (A. Braun) Heer (1856), and F. tremula (Heer) Heer
(1874), each based on a fossil type. The three names with non-fossil types have been con-
served against their earlier homonyms in order to maintain their use.

11.9.  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. 37.  The name ×Solidaster H. R. Wehrh. (1932) antedates ×Asterago Everett (1937) for
the hybrids between Aster L. and Solidago L. 

Ex. 38.  Anemone ×hybrida Paxton (1848) antedates A. ×elegans Decne. (1852), pro sp., as
the binomial for the hybrids derived from A. hupehensis (Lemoine & É. Lemoine) Lemoine
& É. Lemoine × A. vitifolia Buch.-Ham. ex DC.

Ex. 39.  Camus (in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927) published the name ×Agro-
elymus A. Camus for a nothogenus, without a Latin description or diagnosis, mentioning
only the names of the parents involved (Agropyron Gaertn. and Elymus L.). Since this name
was not validly published under the Code then in force, Rousseau (in Mém. Jard. Bot.
Montréal 29: 10-11. 1952) published a Latin diagnosis. However, the date of valid pub-
lication 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).

11.10.  The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of family
(but see Rec. 16B).

Article 12

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 26 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

Article 13

13.1.  Valid publication of names for plants of the different groups is
treated as beginning at the following dates (for each group a work is 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, Species
       plantarum, ed. 1), except suprageneric names, 4 August 1789 (Jussieu,
       Genera plantarum).

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

(c)   Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plan-
       tarum, ed. 1), except suprageneric names, 4 August 1789 (Jussieu, Gen-
       era plantarum).

(d)   Fungi (including slime moulds and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May 1753
       (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1). Names in the Uredinales, Ustil-
       aginales, and Gasteromycetes (s. l.) adopted by Persoon (Synopsis
       methodica fungorum, 31 December 1801) and names of other fungi
       (excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries (Systema mycologicum, vol.
       1 (1 January 1821) to 3, with additional Index (1832), and Elenchus
       fungorum, vol. 1-2), are sanctioned (see Art. 15). For nomenclatural
       purposes names given to lichens apply 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, respec-
       tively, are treated as having been published simultaneously on 1 Jan-
       uary 1886.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 27 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

       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 regar-
       ded 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.

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 pteridophyte
species included by Linnaeus under it were validly published in 1753.

13.3.  For nomenclatural purposes, a name is treated as pertaining to a
non-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 hav-
ing been published simultaneously on 1 May 1753.

Ex. 3.  The generic names Thea L. (Sp. Pl.: 515. 24 Mai 1753), and Camellia L. (Sp. Pl.:
698. 16 Aug 1753; Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 311. 1754), are treated as having been published
simultaneously on 1 May 1753. Under Art. 11.5 the combined genus bears the name Camel-
lia, 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).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 28 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Article 14

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-IV, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved
(nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E). 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.

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.
III.

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. ho-
motypic, 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 rejected¹. A conserved name of a species is conserved against all
names listed as rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected
names.

Note 1.  The Code does not provide for conservation of a name against itself, i.e.
against an “isonym” (Art. 6 Note 2), the same name with the same type but with a
different place and date of valid publication and perhaps with a different authorship
(but see Art. 14.9) than is given in the relevant entry in App. II, III or IV.

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

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

14.5.  When a conserved name competes with one or more names based on
different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of
the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11, except for some

———————————————————————

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
   nomenclatural and taxonomic synonym, respectively.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 29 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

conserved family names (App. IIB), which are conserved against unlisted
names.

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

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

Ex. 4.  Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nasturtium Mill.
(1754) and the nomenclatural (homotypic) synonym Cardaminum Moench (1794); conse-
quently if reunited with Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name Rorippa.

14.6.  When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier name
based on a different type, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art. 11, if it
is considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the
nomen conservandum, except when the earlier rejected name is a homonym
of the conserved name.

Ex. 5.  The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802) is conserved against the earlier
names Enargea Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (1789). If, however,
Enargea is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea is retained for it.

Ex. 6.  To preserve the name Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook (1900), its basionym
Oreodoxa regia Kunth (1816) is conserved against Palma elata W. Bartram (1791). How-
ever, the latter remains available as the basionym of R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper (1946),
if this name is applied to a species distinct from R. regia.

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

Ex. 7.  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. 8.  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 Botanical
Congress.

14.9.  A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated
by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 10.4).
Such a name may be conserved either from its place of valid publication
(even though the type may not then have been included in the named taxon)
or from a later publication by an author who did include the type as con-

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 30 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

served. 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 con-
served was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named.

Ex. 9.  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 origi-
nally included in Linnaeus’s species.

Ex. 10.  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 designed
to be a new generic name and still including the original type elements, is treated as if it were
a validly published homonym of Protea L. (1753).

14.10.  A conserved name, with any corresponding autonym, is conserved
against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name is
not made illegitimate by that conservation but is unavailable for use; if 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. 11.  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 intro-
duced the conserved spelling or gender.

Ex. 12.  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 Rho-
dymenia 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 publication
(Art. 32-45; but see Art. 14.9).

14.12.  The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for
additions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against its conser-
vation. 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)

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 31 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

of that name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International
Botanical Congress.

Recommendation 14A

14A.1.  When a proposal for the conservation of a name, or of its rejection under
Art. 56, has been referred to the appropriate Committee for study, authors should
follow existing usage of names as far as possible pending the General Committee’s
recommendation on the proposal.

Article 15

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

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

15.2.  An earlier homonym of a sanctioned name is not made illegitimate
by that sanctioning but is unavailable for use; if 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. Lecani-
dion 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 combination is
cited as P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm. and has priority over the taxonomic (heterotypic)
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 partic-
ular, when two or more homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of them may be
used, the later being illegitimate under Art. 53.2.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 32 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 4.  Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821) accepted Agaricus flavovirens Pers. (1793), treating
A. equestris L. (1753) as a synonym. Later (Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828) he stated “Nomen
prius et aptius arte restituendum” and accepted A. equestris. Both names are sanctioned, but
when they are considered synonyms A. equestris, having priority, is to be used.

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

15.6.  Conservation (Art. 14) and explicit rejection (Art. 56.1) override
sanctioning.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 33 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO

THEIR RANK

SECTION 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY

Article 16

16.1.  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 termin-
ation -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 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, En-
antioblastae, 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 corresponding
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 those
provided for in Rec. 16A.1-3 and Art. 17.1, the termination must be changed

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 34 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

to conform with these standards, without change of the author citation or
date of publication (see Art. 32.7). 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
corrected 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
languages, are treated as referring to one and the same rank. When “divisio” and
“phylum” are used simultaneously to denote different ranks, this is to be treated as
informal usage of rank-denoting terms (see Art. 33.11).

16.4.  Where one of the word elements -clad-, -cocc-, -cyst-, -monad-,
-myces-, -nemat-, or -phyton-, being the genitive singular stem of the
second part of a name of an included genus, has been omitted before the
termination -phyceae, -phycota (algae), -mycetes, -mycota (fungi), -opsida,
or -phyta (other groups of plants), the shortened class name or division or
phylum name is regarded as based on the generic name in question if such
derivation is obvious or is indicated at establishment of the group name.
These word elements may also be omitted before the termination for sub-
division or subphylum as appropriate in each case.

Ex. 6.  The name Raphidophyceae Chadef. ex P. C. Silva (1980) was indicated by its author
to be based on Raphidomonas F. Stein (1878). The name Saccharomycetes G. Winter (1881)
is regarded as being based on Saccharomyces Meyen (1838). The name Trimerophytina H.
P. Banks (1975) was indicated by its author to be based on Trimerophyton Hopping (1956).

Note 2.  The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of family (Art.
11.10; but see Rec. 16B).

Recommendation 16A

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).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 35 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 16B

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

Article 17

17.1.  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” instead
of “order”, are treated as having been published as names of orders.

Recommendation 17A

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

Article 18

18.1.  The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is formed
from the genitive singular of a name of an included genus by replacing the
genitive singular inflection (Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated Greek -ou,
-os, -es, -as, or -ous, and its equivalent -eos) with the termination -aceae
(but see Art. 18.5). For generic names of non-classical origin, when ana-
logy with classical names is insufficient to determine the genitive sing-
ular, -aceae is added to the full word. Likewise, when formation from the
genitive singular of a generic name results in a homonym, -aceae may be
added to the nominative singular. For generic names with alternative geni-
tives the one implicitly used by the original author must be maintained,
except that the genitive of names ending in -opsis is, in accordance with
botanical tradition, always -opsidis.

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, Potam-
ogetonos).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 36 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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), unless this treatment would result in a taxo-
nomic sequence with a misplaced rank-denoting term.

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.

Note 1.  If the term “family” is simultaneously used to denote a rank different from
“order” or “natural order”, a name published for a taxon at the latter rank cannot be
considered to have been published as the name of a family.

*Ex. 4.  Names published at the rank of order (“ŕad”) by Berchtold & Presl (O pŕirozenosti
rostlin .... 1820) are not to be treated as having been published at the rank of family, since the
term family (“čeled”) was sometimes used to denote a rank below the rank of order.

18.3.  A name of a family based on an illegitimate generic name is illegit-
imate unless conserved.

Ex. 5.  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. 32.7).
However, if such a name is published with a non-Latin termination, it is not
validly published.

Ex. 6.  “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. 7.  “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. 8.  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 finally validly published
by Pouzar (1983; see App. IIA).

18.5.  The following names, of long usage, are treated as validly published:
Compositae (Asteraceae; type, Aster L.); Cruciferae (Brassicaceae; type,

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 37 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Brassica L.); Gramineae (Poaceae; type, Poa L.); Guttiferae (Clusiaceae;
type, Clusia L.); Labiatae (Lamiaceae; type, Lamium L.); Leguminosae
(Fabaceae; type, Faba Mill. [= Vicia L.]); Palmae (Arecaceae; type, Areca
L.); Papilionaceae (Fabaceae; type, Faba Mill.); Umbelliferae (Apiaceae;
type, Apium L.). When the Papilionaceae are regarded as a family distinct
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 parentheses
in Art. 18.5 is authorized.

Article 19

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), unless this would result in a taxonomic sequence with a misplaced
rank-denoting term.

Ex. 1.  Cyrilloideae Torr. & A. Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 256. 1838) and Sphenocleoideae
Lindl. (Intr. Nat. Syst. Bot., ed. 2: 238. 1836) were published as “suborder Cyrilleae” and
“Sub-Order ? Sphenocleaceae”, respectively.

Note 1.  If the term “subfamily” is simultaneously used to denote a rank different
from “suborder”, a name published for a taxon at the latter rank cannot be con-
sidered to have been published as the name of a subfamily.

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 (Art. 10.6, but see Art. 19.7).

Ex. 2.  The type of the family name Rosaceae Juss. is Rosa L. and hence the subfamily and
tribe which include Rosa are to be called Rosoideae Endl. and Roseae DC.

Ex. 3.  The type of the family name Gramineae Juss. (nom. alt., Poaceae Barnhart – see Art.
18.5) is Poa L. and hence the subfamily, tribe and subtribe which include Poa are to be
called Pooideae Asch., Poëae R. Br. and Poinae Dumort.

Note 2.  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).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 38 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 4.  The subfamily including the type of the family name Ericaceae Juss. (Erica L.),
irrespective of priority, is to be called Ericoideae Endl., and the tribe including this type is
called Ericeae D. Don. However, the correct name of the tribe including both Rhododendron
L., the type of the subfamily name Rhododendroideae Endl., and Rhodora L. is Rhodoreae
D. Don (1834) not Rhododendreae Brongn. (1843).

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.

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 accord
with the rule, without change of the author citation or date of publication
(see Art. 32.7). 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
subfamily, 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 later validly
published 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 Papilionoid-
eae may be used as an alternative to Faboideae.

Recommendation 19A

19A.1.  When a family is changed to the rank of a subdivision of a family, or the in-
verse 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) when raised to the rank of tribe was named
Drypeteae Hurus. (1954); the subtribe Antidesmatinae Müll. Arg. (1865) 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.  Among the tribes of the family Ericaceae are Pyroleae D. Don, Monotropeae D.
Don, and Vaccinieae D. Don, none of which includes the type of the family name (Erica L.).
The later names Pyroloideae A. Gray, Monotropoideae A. Gray, and Vaccinioideae Endl.
are based on the same generic names.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 39 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA

Article 20

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, Rho-
dodendron, Manihot, Ifloga (an anagram of Filago).

20.2.  The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term in
use in morphology at the time of publication unless it was published before
1 January 1912 and accompanied by a specific name published in accord-
ance with the binary system of Linnaeus.

Ex. 2.  “Radicula” (Hill, 1756) coincides with the Latin technical term “radicula” (radicle)
and was not accompanied by a specific name in accordance with the binary system of
Linnaeus. The name Radicula is correctly attributed to Moench (1794), who first combined
it with specific epithets.

Ex. 3.  Tuber F. H. Wigg. : Fr., when published in 1780, was accompanied by a binary
specific name (Tuber gulosorum F. H. Wigg.) and is therefore validly published, even
though it coincides with a Latin technical term.

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

Ex. 5.  Cleistogenes Keng (1934) coincides with “cleistogenes”, the English plural of a
technical term in use at the time of publication. Keng’s name is validly published, however,
because the technical term is not Latin. Kengia Packer (1960), published as a replacement
name for Cleistogenes, is illegitimate under Art. 52.1.

Ex. 6.  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. 7.  “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(c); the
name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).

Ex. 8.  However, names such as Quisqualis L. (formed by combining two words into one
when originally published), Neves-armondia K. Schum., Sebastiano-schaueria Nees, and
Solms-laubachia Muschl. ex Diels (all hyphenated when originally published) are validly
published.

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 40 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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

(a) Words not intended as names.

Ex. 9.  The designation “Anonymos” was applied by Walter (Fl. Carol.: 2, 4, 9, etc. 1788) to
28 different genera to indicate that they were without names.

Ex. 10.  “Schaenoides” and “Scirpoides”, as used by Rottbøll (Descr. Pl. Rar.: 14, 27.
1772) to indicate unnamed genera resembling Schoenus and Scirpus which he stated (on p.
7) that he intended to name later, are token words and not generic names. These unnamed
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. VI.

Recommendation 20A

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 (Jess.) Harz is based on Hordeum [unranked] Hordelymus Jess. The
epithet was formed by combining parts of the generic names Hordeum L. and Elymus L. (see
also Art. H.3 Ex. 2).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 41 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Article 21

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, se-
ries, etc.) is used to denote the rank.

Note 1.  Names of subdivisions of the same genus, even if they differ in rank, are
treated as homonyms if they have the same epithet but are based on different types
(Art. 53.4), the connecting term not being part of the name.

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 a noun in the genitive singular. It is written with an initial
capital letter (see Art. 32.7 and 60.2).

21.3.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is not to be
formed from the name of the genus to which it belongs by adding the prefix
Eu- (see also Art. 22.2).

Ex. 1.  Costus subg. Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect. Anomodiscus; Valeriana sect. Valerian-
opsis; Euphorbia sect. Tithymalus; Pleione subg. Scopulorum; Euphorbia subsect. Tenellae;
Sapium subsect. Patentinervia; Arenaria ser. Anomalae; but not Carex sect. “Eucarex”.

21.4.  The use of a binary combination instead of a subdivisional epithet is
not admissible. Contrary to Art. 32.1(c), names so constructed are validly
published but are to be altered to the proper form without change of author
citation or date of publication.

Ex. 2.  Sphagnum “b. Sph. rigida” (Lindberg in Öfvers. Förh. Kongl. Svenska Vet-
ensk.-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.

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

Recommendation 21A

21A.1.  When it is desired to indicate the name of a subdivision of the genus to
which a particular species belongs in connection with the generic name and spe-
cific epithet, the subdivisional epithet should be placed in parentheses between the
two; when desirable, the subdivisional rank may also be indicated.

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

Recommendation 21B

21B.1.  Recommendations made for forming the name of a genus (Rec. 20A) apply
equally to an epithet of a subdivision of a genus, unless Rec. 21B.2-4 recommend
otherwise.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 42 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

21B.2.  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.3.  Authors, when proposing new epithets for names of subdivisions of genera,
should avoid those in the form of a noun when other co-ordinate subdivisions of the
same genus have them in the form of a plural adjective, and vice-versa. They
should also avoid, when proposing an epithet for a name of a subdivision of a ge-
nus, one already used for a subdivision of a closely related genus, or one which is
identical with the name of such a genus.

21B.4.  When a section or a subgenus is raised to the rank of genus, or the inverse
change occurs, the original name or epithet should be retained unless the resulting
name would be contrary to this Code.

Article 22

22.1.  The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat
that generic name unaltered as its epithet, 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 subgenus which includes the type of the name Rhododendron L. is to be named
Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron.

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. 2.  “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. 3.  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. mammillaris was subsequently designated as the type of Cactus L. (by Coulter in
Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 3: 95. 1894).

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 cor-
responding autonym (see also Art. 11.6 and 32.8).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 43 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 4.  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 that includes the lectotype of the generic name is called M. sect.
Malpighia, not M. sect. Apyrae DC.

Ex. 5.  However, the correct name of the section of the genus Rhododendron L. that includes
R. luteum Sweet, the type of R. subg. Anthodendron (Rchb.) Rehder, is R. sect. Pentanthera
G. Don, the oldest legitimate name for the section, and not R. sect. Anthodendron.

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

22.5.  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 species
name, unless the original author of the subdivisional name designated an-
other type.

Ex. 6.  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.

Ex. 7.  The type of Plantago sect. Oliganthos (Greek for few-flowered) Barnéoud (Monogr.
Plantag.: 17. 1845) is necessarily P. pauciflora (Latin for few-flowered) Lam.; the later
lectotype designation of P. pauciflora by Rahn (in Nordic J. Bot. 4: 609. 1984) was
superfluous.

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 homonym,
its type is the type of that later homonym, the correct name of which nec-
essarily has a different epithet.

Recommendation 22A

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

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

Ex. 1.  Instead of using a new epithet at the subgeneric level, Brizicky raised Rhamnus sect.
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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 44 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 22B

22B.1.  When publishing a name of a subdivision of a genus that will also establish
an autonym, the author should mention this autonym in the publication.

SECTION 4. NAMES OF SPECIES

Article 23

23.1.  The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name
of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an
adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, or several words,
but not a phrase name of one or more descriptive 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 epi-
thet).

23.3.  Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus do
not prevent valid publication of 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 re-
sult 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 cannot be validly
published (see Art. 32.1(c)). The next oldest name, L. multiflorum Lam. (1779), is illegit-
imate, being a superfluous name for L. radiola. Under Radiola, the species has been given
the legitimate name R. linoides Roth (1788).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 45 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 apposi-
tion or a genitive noun, it retains its own gender and termination irres-
pective of the gender of the generic name. Epithets not conforming to this
rule are to be corrected (see Art. 32.7). 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.; Rumex cantabricus Rech. f., Daboecia cantabrica (Huds.) K. Koch (=
Vaccinium cantabricum Huds.); Vinca major L., Tropaeolum majus L.; Bromus mollis L.,
Geranium molle L.; Peridermium balsameum Peck, derived from the epithet of Abies bal-
samea (L.) Mill., treated as an adjective.

Ex. 6.  Names with a noun for an epithet: Convolvulus cantabrica L., Gentiana pneumo-
nanthe L., Lythrum salicaria L., Schinus molle 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.

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 abbreviated
descriptive reference to an imperfectly known species which is not given a binomial in the
text but referred to merely by a phrase name cited from Burman.

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 46 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 “Cen-
turiae” 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 or-
dinal adjectives used for enumeration. The corresponding species were given validly pub-
lished 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. 38) 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., “Ag-
rostis reygeri-prima”.

(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 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-tangere.

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 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 himself.

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]).

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 47 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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.” [Tricho-
manes] and “M.” [Melilotus] in the names of Linnaean species of Asplenium and Trifolium,
respectively, are to be deleted, so that names in the form Asplenium “Trich. dentatum” and
Trifolium “M. indica”, for example, are treated as A. dentatum L. and T. indicum L. (Sp. Pl.:
765, 1080. 1753).

Recommendation 23A

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

23A.2.  The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to
designate two different species of the same genus should be avoided (e.g. Lysi-
machia hemsleyana Oliv. and L. hemsleyi Franch.).

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

(a)  To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

(b)  To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin.

(c)  Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.

(d)  To avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words.

(e)  To avoid those which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).

(f)  To avoid those which express a character common to all or nearly all the spec-
       ies 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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 48 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

SECTION 5. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES

(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)

Article 24

24.1.  The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a
species and an infraspecific epithet. 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 ad-
jectival in form and not used as nouns, they agree grammatically with the
generic name (see Art. 32.7).

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

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), whereas the autonyms Galium verum L. subsp. verum
and G. verum var. verum are validly published.

Ex. 4.  Aloe perfoliata var. vera L. (Sp. Pl.: 320. 1753) is validly published because it does
not purport to contain the type of A. perfoliata L. (1753).

24.4.  The use of a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet is
not admissible. Contrary to Art. 32.1(c), names so constructed are validly
published but are to be altered to the proper form without change of the
author citation or date of publication.

Ex. 5.  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. 6.  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. 7.  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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 49 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Note 2.  Names of infraspecific taxa within the same species, even if they differ in
rank, are treated as homonyms if they have the same final epithet but are based on
different types (Art. 53.4), the connecting term not being part of the name.

Recommendation 24A

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

Recommendation 24B

24B.1.  Authors proposing new infraspecific names should avoid final epithets pre-
viously used as specific epithets in the same genus.

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

Article 25

25.1.  For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon below the rank of
species is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, if any. In fungi, a
holomorph also includes its correlated form-taxa (see Art. 59).

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

Article 26

26.1.  The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat
the specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet, 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 ho-
lotype or all syntypes or the previously designated type) of the adopted,

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 50 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 typ-
ical element of the species is included is considered as equivalent to inclu-
sion 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 in-
cluded “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 euro-
paea. 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. europaea
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.

26.3.  The first instance of valid publication of a name of an infraspecific
taxon under a legitimate species name automatically establishes the cor-
responding autonym (see also Art. 32.8 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. inundatum
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 was done 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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 51 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Recommendation 26A

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

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

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

Ex. 1.  Fernald treated Stachys palustris subsp. pilosa (Nutt.) Epling (in Repert. Spec. Nov.
Regni Veg. Beih. 8: 63. 1934) as composed of five varieties, for one of which (that including
the type of S. palustris subsp. pilosa) he made the combination S. palustris var. pilosa
(Nutt.) Fernald (in Rhodora 45: 474. 1943), there being no legitimate varietal name avail-
able.

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).

Recommendation 26B

26B.1.  When publishing a name of an infraspecific taxon that will also establish an
autonym, the author should mention this autonym in the publication.

Article 27

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

27.2.  The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat
unchanged the epithet of the species name if that species name is illegit-
imate.

Ex. 1.  When Honda (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 41: 385. 1927) published Agropyron japonicum
var. hackelianum Honda under the illegitimate A. japonicum Honda (1927), which is a later

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 52 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

homonym of A. japonicum (Miq.) P. Candargy (1901), he did not validly publish an auto-
nym “A. japonicum var. japonicum” (see also Art. 55 Ex. 2).

SECTION 6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION

Article 28

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

Note 1.  Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as pro-
vided in App. I (see also Art. 11.9, 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 cultivation)
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 nomenclature
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 designated
as Mahonia ‘Japonica’; Taxus baccata var. variegata Weston (1770), when treated as a
cultivar, is designated as Taxus baccata ‘Variegata’.

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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 53 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

Article 29

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

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).

Recommendation 29A

29A.1.  Publication of nomenclatural novelties in periodicals (see Rec. 30A.2) that
distribute an electronic version as well as a printed version, should only be in those
with the following features:

(a)  The printed and electronic versions are identical in content and pagination;

(b)  The electronic version is in a platform-independent and printable format;

(c)  The electronic version is publicly available via the World Wide Web or its
       successors;

(d)  The presence of nomenclatural novelties is prominently indicated in the work
       (see Rec. 30A.2).

Article 30

30.1.  Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is ef-
fective. Indelible autograph produced at a later date is not effectively pub-
lished.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 54 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 published
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).

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 accom-
panying 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 exsiccatae (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.

30.5.  Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial
work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of
education for the purpose of obtaining a degree is not effectively published
unless it includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the
Code for effective publication) or other internal evidence that it is regarded
as an effective publication by its author or publisher.

Note 2.  The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a
statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed
version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effec-
tively published.

Ex. 6.  “Meclatis in Clematis; yellow flowering Clematis species – Systematic studies in
Clematis L. (Ranunculaceae), inclusive of cultonomic aspects” a “Proefschrift ter verkrijg-

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 55 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

ing van de graad van doctor ... van Wageningen Universiteit” by Brandenburg, was effec-
tively published on 8 June 2000, because it bore the ISBN 90-5808-237-7.

Ex. 7.  The thesis “Comparative investigations on the life-histories and reproduction of
some species in the siphoneous green algal genera Bryopsis and Derbesia” by Rietema,
submitted to Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen in 1975, is stated to have been printed (“Druk”)
by Verenigde Reproduktie Bedrijven, Groningen and is therefore effectively published.

Ex. 8.  The dissertation “Die Gattung Mycena s.l.” by Rexer, submitted to the Eberhard-
Karls-Universität Tübingen, was effectively published in 1994 because it bore the statement
“Druck: Zeeb-Druck, Tübingen 7 (Hagelloch)”, referring to a commercial printer. The gene-
ric name Roridomyces Rexer, typified by Agaricus roridus Scop., and combinations in
Mycena are therefore validly published. The generic name Roridella E. Horak (Röhrlinge
und Blätterpilze in Europa: 509. 2005), also published with A. roridus Scop. as type, is
illegitimate (Art. 52.1).

Ex. 9.  The thesis by Demoulin, “Le genre Lycoperdon en Europe et en Amérique du Nord”,
defended in 1971, does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as effectively pub-
lished. Even if photocopies of it can be found in some libraries, new species of Lycoperdon,
e.g. “L. americanum”, “L. cokeri”, and ”L. estonicum“, introduced there, were validly pub-
lished in the effectively published “Espèces nouvelles ou méconnues du genre Lycoperdon
(Gastéromycètes)” (Demoulin in Lejeunia, n.s., 62: 1-28. 1972).

Ex. 10.  The dissertation “Nasa and the conquest of South America – Systematic Rearrange-
ments in Loasaceae Juss.” submitted in June 1997 to the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München by Weigend is not effectively published as it does not include an ISBN, the name
of any printer or publisher or distributor, or any statement that it was intended to be effec-
tively published under the Code, even though 40 copies were distributed, all the other for-
malities for the publication of new taxa were met, and statements were made implying
effective publication but not mentioning the Code, such as that although “the majority of
names will be published elsewhere ... for some ... groups new names are here provided”. The
names intended to be published in the thesis were validly published in Taxon 55: 463-468.
2006.

Ex. 11.  Montanoa imbricata V. A. Funk was validly published in “The systematics of Mon-
tanoa (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)” (Funk in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 36: 116. 1982), not
in Funk’s dissertation “The Systematics of Montanoa Cerv. (Asteraceae)” submitted to the
Ohio State University in 1980, nor in facsimile copies of the dissertation printed from
microfiche and distributed, on demand, by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, beginning in
1980.

Recommendation 30A

30A.1.  It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing new names and
descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa (nomenclatural novelties) in ephemeral prin-
ted 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 general public. Authors should also avoid publishing new names and
descriptions or diagnoses in popular periodicals, in abstracting journals, or on cor-
rection slips.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 56 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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; distribution through an 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.  To aid availability through time and place, authors publishing nomencla-
tural novelties should give preference to periodicals that regularly publish taxon-
omic articles, or else printed copies of a publication (even if also distributed elec-
tronically) should be deposited in at least ten, but preferably more, botanical or
other generally accessible libraries throughout the world including a name-index-
ing centre appropriate to the taxonomic group.

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.

Article 31

31.1.  The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed
matter became available as defined in Art. 29 and 30. In the absence of
proof 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).

Ex. 3.  Diatom Research, vol. 2, no. 2, bears a title-page date of Dec 1987, but the authors of
a paper included in a later issue (vol. 3, p. 265) stated that the date of publication was 18 Feb
1988, which therefore should be taken as the date of all nomenclatural novelties in that issue
of the journal.

Note 1.  Effective publication requires distribution of printed matter, which estab-
lishes the date of effective publication, even if a name is published in a periodical
with parallel printed and electronic versions.

Ex. 4.  The paper in which the name Ceratocystis omanensis Al-Subhi & al. is described was
available online in final form on Science Direct on 7 November 2005, and distributed in a
printed version in Mycological Research 110(2): 237-245 on 7 March 2006. The date of
effective publication of the name for the purposes of this Article is 7 March 2006 and not 7
November 2005.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 57 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 effect-
ive publication unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

Ex. 5.  The names of the Selaginella species published by Hieronymus (in Hedwigia 51:
241-272) were effectively published on 15 October 1911, since the volume in which the
paper appeared, though dated 1912, states (p. ii) that the separate appeared on that date.

Recommendation 31A

31A.1.  The date on which the publisher or 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

Article 32

32.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms
excepted) must: (a) be effectively published (see Art. 29-31) on or after the
starting-point date of the respective group (Art. 13.1); (b) be composed
only of letters of the Latin alphabet, except as provided in Art. 23.3 and Art.
60.4, 60.6, 60.9, and 60.10; (c) have a form which complies with the pro-
visions of Art. 16-27 (but see Art. 21.4 and 24.4), and Art. H.6 and H.7; (d)
be accompanied by a description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previ-
ously and effectively published description or diagnosis (except as provid-
ed in Art. 42.3, 44.1, and H.9); and (e) comply with the special provisions
of Art. 33-45 (see also Art. 61).

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

Ex. 1.  “Egeria” (Néraud in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot.: 25, 28. 1826), published with-
out a description or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one, was not validly published.

Ex. 2.  “Loranthus macrosolen Steud.” originally appeared without a description or 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 published,
however, until Richard (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.

*Ex. 3.  In Don, Sweet’s Hortus britannicus, ed. 3 (1839), for each listed species the flower
colour, the duration of the plant, and a translation into English of the specific epithet are
given in tabular form. In many genera the flower colour and duration may be identical for all
species and clearly their mention is not intended as a validating description or diagnosis.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 58 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 basio-
nyms.

Ex. 4.  “Crepis praemorsa subsp. tatrensis” (Dvorák & Dadáková in Biológia (Bratislava)
32: 755. 1977) appeared with “a subsp. praemorsa karyotypo achaeniorumque longitudine
praecipue differt”. This statement specifies the features by which the two taxa differ but not
how these features differ and so it does not satisfy the requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a
“description or diagnosis”.

Ex. 5.  The generic name Epilichen Clem. (Gen. Fungi 174. 1909) is validly published with
the two-word diagnosis “Karschia lichenicola”, referring to the ability of the included
species formerly included in Karschia to grow on lichens. This statement, in the opinion of
Clements, distinguished the genus from others although provision of such a diagnosis would
not be considered good practice today.

32.3.  The requirements of Art. 32.1(d) are not met by statements describing
properties such as purely aesthetic features, economic, medicinal or culinary
usage, cultural significance, cultivation techniques, geographical origin, or
geological age.

Ex. 6.  “Musa basjoo” (Siebold in Verh. Bat. Genootsch. Kunsten 12: 18. 1830) appeared
with “Ex insulis Luikiu introducta, vix asperitati hiemis resistens. Ex foliis linteum, prae-
sertim in insulis Luikiu ac quibusdam insulis provinciae Satzuma conficitur. Est haud dubie
linteum, quod Philippinis incolis audit Nippis”. This statement gives information about the
economic use (linen is made from the leaves), horticultural attribute (scarcely survives the
winter), and on its origin (introduced from the Ryukyu Islands), but since there is no de-
scriptive information given for the “leaves”, the only descriptive feature mentioned, it does
not satisfy the requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a “description or diagnosis”. Musa basjoo
Siebold & Zucc. ex Iinuma was later validly published in Iinuma, Sintei Somoku Dzusetsu
[Illustrated Flora of Japan], ed. 2, 3: pl. 1. 1874 with floral details and an extensive de-
scription in Japanese on the page facing the plate.

32.4.  When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the
requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a “description or diagnosis”, a request for a
decision may be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III), which
will refer it for examination to the committee for the appropriate taxonomic
group. A recommendation whether or not to treat the name concerned as
validly published may then be put forward to an International Botanical
Congress, and if ratified will become a binding decision.

32.5.  For the purpose of valid publication of a name, reference to a pre-
viously and effectively published description or diagnosis may be direct or
indirect (Art. 32.6). For names published on or after 1 January 1953 it must,
however, be full and direct as specified in Art. 33.4.

32.6.  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.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 59 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Ex. 7.  “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. 8.  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. 9.  The new combination Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson (1882) is validly
published through the cryptic notation “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 indi-
rect, it is unambiguous (but see Art. 45 Ex. 1; see also Rec. 60C.2).

Ex. 10.  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., O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill., based on C. ficus-indica
L.) or nomina nova (e.g., O. vulgaris Mill., based on C. opuntia L.: both names have the
reference to “Opuntia vulgo herbariorum” of Bauhin & Cherler in common).

Ex. 11.  Although no authors are cited for the names in Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde
(1871) statements therein allow implicit reference to earlier authors such as Fries (see Art.
33 Ex. 7 and Pennycook in Mycotaxon 84: 163-219, 2002).

32.7.  Names or epithets published with an improper Latin termination but
otherwise in accordance with this Code are regarded as validly published;
they are to be changed to accord with Art. 16-19, 21, 23 and 24, without
change of the author citation or date of publication (see also Art. 60.11).

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

32.9.  Names in specified ranks included in publications listed as sup-
pressed works (opera utique oppressa; App. VI) are not validly published.
Proposals for the addition of publications to App. VI must be submitted to
the General Committee (see Div. III), which will refer them for examin-
ation to the committees for the various taxonomic groups (see Rec. 32F; see
also Art. 14.14).

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 60 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Note 1.  For valid publication of names of plant taxa that were originally not
treated as plants, see Art. 45.4.

Recommendation 32A

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

Recommendation 32B

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

Recommendation 32C

32C.1.  When naming a new taxon, authors should not adopt a name that has been
previously but not validly published for a different taxon.

Recommendation 32D

32D.1.  In describing or diagnosing new taxa, authors should, when possible, sup-
ply 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.

Recommendation 32E

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 languages,
the applications of which are often doubtful.

Recommendation 32F

32F.1.  When a proposal for the suppression of a publication under Art. 32.9 has
been referred to the appropriate committees for study, authors should follow ex-
isting usage of names as far as possible pending the General Committee’s rec-
ommendation on the proposal.

Article 33

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 61 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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 par-
ticular 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 Rafinesque
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.

Ex. 3.  Erioderma polycarpum subsp. verruculosum Vain. (Étude Lich. Brésil 1: 202. 1890)
is validly published since Vainio clearly linked the subspecific epithet to the specific epithet
by an asterisk.

Ex. 4.  Tuckerman (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 168, 1877) described “Erioderma vellig-
erum subsp. nov.”, but did not associate the subspecific epithet with the epithet of any
species name. His statement that his new subspecies was “very near: E. chilense”, from
which he provided distinguishing features, does not effect valid publication of his intended
subspecies name.

33.2.  Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference to a basionym or re-
placed synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new combination, a
new generic name with a basionym, or a nomen novum. Thus, errors in the
citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, or in author citation (Art.
46), do not affect valid publication of such names.

Ex. 5.  The name “Persicaria runcinata (Hamilt.)” was included in a list of names by
Masamune (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 51: 234. 1937) with no further information. The name
Polygonum runcinatum was validly published by Don (Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 73. 1825) and
ascribed there to “Hamilton mss”. The mention by Masamune of “Hamilt.” is regarded as an
indirect reference through Buchanan-Hamilton to the name published by Don, and the
combination Persicaria runcinata (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Masam. must be accepted as
validly published.

Ex. 6.  The new binomials in Miller’s The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8 (1768) that adopt
epithets used by Linnaeus are regarded as new combinations, e.g. Opuntia ficus-indica (L.)
Mill., based on Cactus ficus-indica L. (see Art. 32 Ex. 10).

Ex. 7.  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. and H. fasciculare (Huds. : Fr.) are accepted as being based
on the corresponding Friesian names (here: A. “tribus” Hypholoma Fr. : Fr. and A. fascic-
ularis Huds. : Fr.) although Kummer did not explicitly refer to Fries.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 62 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

33.3.  Before 1 January 1953, if, for a presumed new combination, no ref-
erence to a basionym is given but the epithet of a previously and validly
published name that applies to the same taxon is adopted and that name is
neither cited nor indicated in any way, the new combination is validly
published as such if, and only if, it would otherwise be a validly published
name. This provision also applies to a new generic name presumed to be
based on the epithet of an earlier validly published name of a subdivision of
a genus.

Ex. 8.  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 species,
even though L. taccada is neither cited nor indicated in any way in Roxburgh’s protologue.

Ex. 9.  Brachiolejeunea was published by Stephani & Spruce (in Hedwigia 28: 167. 1889)
for a taxon that had previously been described as Lejeunea subg. Brachiolejeunea Spruce (in
Trans. & Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 15: 75, 129. 1884) but without any reference to Spruce’s
earlier publication. Because Stephani & Spruce provided a description of B. plagiochiloides
that under Art. 42 is a descriptio generico-specifica of a monotypic genus the name would be
validly published as a new genus. It is, however, to be treated as a new generic name based
on Spruce’s subgeneric name, even though L. subg. Brachiolejeunea is neither cited nor
indicated in any way in the protologue of Stephani & Spruce.

Ex. 10.  When Sampaio published “Psorama murale Samp.” (in Sampaio & Crespo in Bol.
Real Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 27: 142. 1927), he adopted the epithet of Lichen murale Schreb.
(1771), a name applied to the same taxon, without indicating that name directly or indirectly.
He cited Lecanora saxicola Ach. in synonymy. Psorama murale is to be treated as a new
combination based on Lichen murale because otherwise it would be a validly published but
illegitimate replacement name for Lecanora saxicola.

33.4.  On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, a new generic name
with a basionym, or an avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen nov-
um) based on a previously and validly published name is not validly pub-
lished unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or
the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated
and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid pub-
lication, with page or plate reference and date (but see Art. 33.5 and 33.7).
On or after 1 January 2007, a new combination, a new generic name with a
basionym, or an avowed substitute is not validly published unless its bas-
ionym or replaced synonym is cited.

Ex. 11.  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)
validly published the binomial G. mucronata (D. A. Saunders) Kjeldsen & H. K. Phinney by
giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication of the basionym.

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 63 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

Note 1.  For the purpose of this Code, a page reference (for publications with a
consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym
or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue is printed,
but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that
of the protologue.

Ex. 12.  When proposing “Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally (in Mycotaxon 40: 337.
1991) cited the basionym as “Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesew., Can. J. Bot. 60: 2288-
2294. 1982”. As this refers to the pagination of Boesewinkel’s entire paper, not of the
protologue of the intended basionym alone, the combination was not validly published by
Peerally.

Ex. 13.  The new combination Conophytum marginatum subsp. littlewoodii (L. Bolus) S. A.
Hammer (Dumpling & His Wife: New Views Gen. Conophytum: 181. 2002), being made
prior to 1 January 2007, was validly published even though Hammer did not cite the basio-
nym (Conophytum littlewoodii) but only indicated it by citing its bibliographic reference.

33.5.  For names published on or after 1 January 1953, errors in the citation
of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation
(Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 33.4), do not preclude valid publication of
a new combination, new generic name with a basionym, or nomen novum.

Ex. 14.  Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) F. Seym. (Fl. New England: 308. 1969) was
published as a new combination “Based on Mespilus arbutifolia L. var. nigra Willd., in Sp.
Pl. 2: 1013. 1800.” Willdenow treated these plants in the genus Pyrus, not Mespilus, and
publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors are treated as bibliographic errors of citation
and do not prevent valid publication of the new combination.

Ex. 15.  The new combination Agropyron desertorum var. pilosiusculum (Melderis) H. L.
Yang (in Kuo, Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 9(3): 113. 1987) was unknowingly but validly
published by Yang, who wrote “Agropyron desertorum ... var. pilosiusculum Meld. in
Norlindh, Fl. Mong. Steppe. 1: 121. 1949”, which constitutes a full and direct reference to
the basionym, A. desertorum f. pilosiusculum Melderis, despite the error in citing the rank-
denoting term.

33.6.  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.
33.7).

Ex. 16.  Ciferri (in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86-89. 1954), in proposing 142 new
combinations in Meliola, omitted references to places of publication of basionyms, stating
that they could be found in Petrak’s lists or in the Index of fungi; none of these combinations
was validly published. Similarly, Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ.: 18. 1963) introduced a new
combination in the form Lecanora 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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 64 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

_______________________________________________________________ 

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. 17.  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 refer-
ence 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.