Preamble Pre.1-Pre.5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
 
 

                                         PREAMBLE

 
 

1.  Botany requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature used by
botanists in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms 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

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Pre.5-Pre.11 Preamble

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).

2  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 02 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Principles I-VI

 
 
 
 
 
 

DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES
 
 

Principle I

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

Principle II

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

Principle III

The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of 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.
 
 

  3

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 03 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

1-2 Taxa & Ranks

 
 
 
 

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.

4  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 04 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Taxa & Ranks 3-4

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.

  5

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 05 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

4-5A Taxa & Ranks

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).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

6  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 06 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Status definitions 6

 
 
 
 

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.

  7

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 07 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

6-7 Status definitions – Typification

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).

8  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 08 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 7

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

  9

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 09 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

7 Typification

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.

10  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 10 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 7-8

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.

  11

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 11 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

8 Typification

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.

12  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 12 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 8-9

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.

  13

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 13 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

9 Typification

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.

14  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 14 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 9

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).

  15

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 15 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

9 Typification

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

16  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 16 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 9-9A

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

  17

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 17 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

9A-10 Status definitions – Typification

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.

18  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 18 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification 10

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

  19

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 19 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

10 Typification

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.

20  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 20 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification – Priority 10-11

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.

  21

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 21 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

11 Priority

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.

22  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 22 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 11

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.

  23

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 23 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 11

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

24  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 24 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

11 Priority

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

  25

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 25 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

11-12 Priority

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).

26  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 26 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Starting points 13

SECTION 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

Article 13

13.1.  Valid publication of names for plants of the different groups is
treated as beginning at the following dates (for each group a work is 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.

  27

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 27 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

13 Starting points

       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).

28  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 28 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Conservation 14

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.

  29

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 29 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

14 Conservation

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-

30  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 30 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Conservation 14

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)

  31

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 31 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

14-15 Conservation – Sanctioning

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.

 
 
 

32  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 32 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Sanctioning 15

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  33

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 33 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

16 Higher taxa

 
 
 
 
 
 

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

34  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 34 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Higher taxa 16-16A

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).

  35

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 35 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

16A-18 Higher taxa – Families

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
).

36  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 36 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Families 18

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,

  37

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 37 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

18-19 Families – Subdivisions of families

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).

38  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 38 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of families 19-19A

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
publish
ed 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.

 
 

  39

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 39 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

20 Genera

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.

40  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 40 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Genera 20-20A

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).

  41

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 41 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

21-21B Subdivisions of genera

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.

42  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 42 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of genera 21B-22

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).

  43

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 43 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

22-22A Subdivisions of genera

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.

44  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 44 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of genera – Species 22B-23

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).

  45

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 45 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

23 Species

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.

46  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 46 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Species 23

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]).

  47

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 47 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

23-23A Species

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.

48  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 48 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa 24

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.

  49

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 49 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

24-26 Infraspecific taxa

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,

50  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 50 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa 26

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.

  51

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 51 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

26A-27 Infraspecific taxa

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

52  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 52 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa – Cultivated plants 27-28

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.

 
 
 
 

  53

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 53 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication 29-30

 
 
 
 

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.

54  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 54 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication 30

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-

  55

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 55 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

30-30A Effective publication

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.

56  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 56 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication 30A-31

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.

  57

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 57 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

31-32 Effective publication – Valid publication

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.

58  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 58 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 32

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.

  59

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 59 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

32 Valid publication

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
publish
ed 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.

60  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 60 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 32-33

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.

  61

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 61 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

33 Valid publication

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.

62  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 62 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 33

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.

  63

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 63 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

33 Valid publication

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

64  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 64 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 33

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.

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

33.7.  On or after 1 January 1953, in any of the following cases, a full and
direct reference to a work other than that in which the basionym or replaced
synonym was validly published is treated as an error to be corrected, not
affecting the valid publication of a new combination, a new generic name
with a basionym, or nomen novum:

(a)  when the name cited as the basionym or replaced synonym was validly
      published earlier than in the cited publication, but in that cited publi-
      cation, in which all conditions for valid publication are again fulfilled,
      there is no reference to the actual place of valid publication;

(b)  when the failure to cite the place of valid publication of the basionym or
      replaced synonym is explained by the later nomenclatural starting point
      for the group concerned, and in particular by the backward shift of the
      starting date for some fungi;

(c)  when an intended new combination or new generic name with a basio-
      nym would otherwise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegiti-
      mate) nomen novum; or

(d)  when an intended new combination, new generic name with a basio-
      nym, or nomen novum would otherwise be the validly published name
      of a new taxon.

Ex. 19.  (a) The combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (1970) with a
full and direct reference to “Alsophila Kalbreyeri C. Chr. Ind. Fil. 44. 1905”. This, however,
is not the place of valid publication of the intended basionym, which had previously been
published, with the same type, by Baker (1891; see Art. 6 Ex. 1). As Christensen provided
no reference to Baker’s earlier publication, Tryon’s error of citation does not affect the valid
publication of his new combination, which is to be cited as T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M.
Tryon.

  65

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 65 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

33 Valid publication

Ex. 20.  (a) The intended new combination “Machaerina iridifolia” was proposed by Koy-
ama (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69: 64. 1956) with a full and direct reference to “Cladium
iridifolium
Baker, Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”. However, C. iridifolium had been proposed by
Baker as a new combination based on Scirpus iridifolius Bory (1804). As Baker provided an
explicit reference to Bory, Art. 33.7(a) does not apply and the combination under Ma-
chaerina
was not validly published by Koyama.

Ex. 21.  (b) The combination Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with
a full and direct reference to Peziza corticalis in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This,
however, is not the place of valid publication of the basionym, which, under the Code
operating in 1980, was in Mérat (Nouv. Fl. Env. Paris, ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821), and under the
current Code is in Persoon (Observ. Mycol. 1: 28. 1796). Raitviir’s error of citation, being
partly explained by the backward shift of the starting date for ascomycetes and partly by the
absence of a reference to Mérat in Fries’s work, does not negate valid publication of the new
combination, which is to be cited as L. corticale (Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.

Ex. 22.  (c) The intended new combination Mirabilis laevis subsp. glutinosa was proposed
by Murray (in Kalmia 13: 32. 1983) with a full and direct reference to “Mirabilis glutinosa
A. Nels., Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 92 (1904)” as “basionymum”. This, however, cannot be
a basionym because it is an illegitimate later homonym of M. glutinosa Kuntze (1898); it is
also the replaced synonym of Hesperonia glutinosa Standl. (1909). Under Art. 33.7(c)
Murray validly published a new combination based on H. glutinosa because otherwise he
would have published a nomen novum for M. glutinosa. The name is therefore to be cited as
M. laevis subsp. glutinosa (Standl.) A. E. Murray.

Ex. 23.  (d) The nomen novum Agropyron kengii was proposed by Tzvelev (1968) with a
full and direct reference to “Roegneria hirsuta Keng, Fl. ill. sin., Gram. (1959) 407”. This,
however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended replaced synonym, which was
subsequently validly published by Keng (1963). As Tzvelev also provided a Latin descrip-
tion and indicated a single gathering as the type, the nomen novum was validly published as
such because it would otherwise have been the validly published name of a new taxon.

33.8.  On or after 1 January 1953, if an author claims to be publishing a new
combination, new generic name with a basionym, or avowed substitute, but
fails to provide the full information required under Art. 33.4, as qualified by
Art. 33.5 and 33.7, the name is not validly published even though the author
may have at the same time provided other information that would have
resulted in valid publication as the name of a new taxon.

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

33.10.  Only those names published with the rank-denoting terms that must
be removed so as to achieve a proper sequence are to be regarded as not
validly published. In cases where terms are switched, e.g. family-order, and
a proper sequence can be achieved by removing either or both of the
rank-denoting terms, names at neither rank are validly published unless one

66  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 66 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 33-34

is a secondary rank (Art. 4.1) and one is a principal rank (Art. 3.1), e.g.
family-genus-tribe, in which case only names published at the secondary
rank are not validly published.

Ex. 24.  “Sectio Orontiaceae” was not validly published by Brown (Prodr.: 337. 1810) since
he misapplied the term “sectio” to a rank higher than genus.

Ex. 25.  “Tribus Involuta” and “tribus Brevipedunculata” (Huth in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20: 365,
368. 1895) are not validly published names, since Huth misapplied the term “tribus” to a
rank lower than section, within the genus Delphinium.

Note 3.  Sequential use of the same rank-denoting term in a taxonomic sequence
does not represent misplaced-rank denoting terms.

Ex. 26.  Danser (in Recueil Trav. Bot. Néerl. 18: 125-210. 1921) published ten new names
of subspecies in a treatment of Polygonum in which he recognized subspecies (indicated by
Roman numerals) within subspecies (indicated by Arabic numerals). These do not represent
misplaced rank-denoting terms, so Art. 33.9 does not apply and the new names are validly
published.

33.11.  Situations where the same rank-denoting term is used at more than
one non-successive position in the taxonomic sequence represent informal
usage of rank-denoting terms. Names published with such rank-denoting
terms are treated as unranked (see Art. 35.1 and 35.3).

Ex. 27.  Names published with the term “series” by Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1-3.
1862-1883) are treated as unranked because this term was used at seven different hierar-
chical positions in the taxonomic sequence. Therefore, the sequence in Rhynchospora (3:
1058-1060. 1883) of genus-“series“-section does not contain a misplaced rank-denoting
term.

33.12.  An exception to Art. 33.9 is made for names of the subdivisions of
genera termed tribes (tribus) in Fries’s Systema mycologicum, which are
treated as validly published names of subdivisions of genera.

Ex. 28.  Agaricus “tribus” Pholiota Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 1: 240. 1821), sanctioned in the same
work, is the validly published basionym of the generic name Pholiota (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm.
(1871) (see Art. 33 Ex. 7).

Recommendation 33A

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

Article 34

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

  67

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 67 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

34 Valid publication

cipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular
circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name),
except as provided for in Art. 59; (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym;
(d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon
concerned. Art. 34.1(a) does not apply to names published with a question
mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.

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

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

Ex. 3.  (a) Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in Mag.
Neusten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809), even
though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory’s request, Flörke included Bory’s
diagnosis (and name) making Bory the author of the name under Art. 46.2. The acceptance
or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not, therefore, relevant for valid publication.

Ex. 4.  (a) (b) The designation “Conophyton”, suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82.
1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words
“If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt”, was not a
validly published generic name since Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The
name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).

Ex. 5.  (b) “Pteridospermaexylon” and “P. theresiae” were published by Greguss (in Földt.
Közl. 82: 171. 1952) for a genus and species of fossil wood. As Greguss explicitly stated
“Vorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen ...” [provisionally I designate it by the names ...],
these are provisional names and as such are not validly published.

Ex. 6.  (b) The designation “Sterocaulon subdenudatum” proposed by Havaas (in Bergens
Mus. Arbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published in spite of it being presented as a new
species with a Latin diagnosis, since on both pages it was indicated to be “ad int.”

Ex. 7.  (c) Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch.” was not validly published by Kunth
(Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) when he cited it as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum
Kunth; the combination under Ornithogalum L. was validly published later: O. boucheanum
(Kunth) Asch. (1866).

Ex. 8.  (d) The family designation “Rhaptopetalaceae” was not validly published by Pierre
(in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. Mai 1897), who merely mentioned the constituent
genera, Brazzeia Baill., “Scytopetalum”, and Rhaptopetalum Oliv., but gave no description
or diagnosis; the family bears the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897), accompanied by
a description.

Ex. 9.  (d) The generic designation “Ibidium” was not validly published by Salisbury (in
Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812), who merely mentioned four included species but
supplied no generic description or diagnosis.

68  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 68 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 34-34A

Ex. 10.  (final sentence) Aponogetonaceae Planch. (in Bot. Mag.: ad. t. 4894. 1856) was val-
idly published by reference to the description of “Aponogétacées” (Planchon in Ann. Sci.
Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 1: 119. 1844) even though Hooker indicated taxonomic doubt when he
wrote (pp. [4-5]) “M. Planchon ... suggests that Aponogeton should form a suborder of Al-
ismaceae,
or probably a new order, Aponogetaceae”.

34.2.  When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names based
on the same type are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the
same author (so-called alternative names), none of them is validly pub-
lished. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combination
is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within
a species or for subdivisions of a genus within a genus (see Rec. 22A.1-2
and 26A.1-3).

Ex. 11.  The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de
Janeiro 3: 23-29. 1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl. added
in a footnote (pp. 23-24). The publication of both sets of names, being effected before 1
January 1953, is valid.

Ex. 12.  “Euphorbia jaroslavii” (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad.
Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, “Tithymalus
jaroslavii”
. Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with
a different transliteration of the initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961), who
effectively published it with a reference to the earlier publication and simultaneously
rejected assignment to Tithymalus.

Ex. 13.  Description of “Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill var. tumidum,
subsp. et var. nov.” (in Brittonia 32: 474. 1980) simultaneously validated both M. bicus-
pidatum
subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill and M. bicuspidatum var. tumidum S. R. Hill.

Ex. 14.  Hitchcock (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507-508. 1969) used the name Bromus
inermis
subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct reference to its
basionym, B. pumpellianus Scribn. Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties, one of
which he named B. inermis var. pumpellianus (without author citation but clearly based on
the same basionym and type). In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of
B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.

Note 1.  The name of a fungal holomorph and that of a correlated anamorph (see
Art. 59), even if proposed simultaneously, are not alternative names in the sense of
Art. 34.2, and both are validly published. They have different types, and the cir-
cumscription of the holomorph is considered to include the anamorph, but not vice
versa.

Ex. 15.  Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929), the name of a fungal holomorph, and the
simultaneously published name of a correlated anamorph, Helicosporium elinorae Linder,
are both validly published, and both can be used under Art. 59.5.

Recommendation 34A

34A.1.  Authors should avoid mentioning in their publications previously unpub-
lished names that they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for these

  69

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 69 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

34A-35 Valid publication

unpublished names have not formally authorized their publication (see Rec.
23A.3(i)).

Article 35

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

35.2.  For suprageneric names published on or after 1 January 1908, the use
of one of the terminations specified in Rec. 16A.1-3, Art. 17.1, 18.1, 19.1,
and 19.3 is accepted as an indication of the corresponding rank, unless this
(a) would conflict with the explicitly designated rank of the taxon (which
takes precedence), (b) would result in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5 (in
which case Art. 33.9 applies), or (c) would result in a rank sequence in
which the same rank-denoting term occurs at more than one hierarchical
position.

Ex. 1.  Jussieu (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827) proposed Zanthoxyleae without
specifying the rank. Although he employed the present termination for tribe (-eae), that
name, being published prior to 1908, is unranked. Zanthoxyleae Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.:
45. 1829), however, is a tribal name, as Dumortier specified its rank.

Ex. 2.  Nakai (Chosakuronbun Mokuroku [Ord. Fam. Trib. Nov.], 1943) validly published
the names Parnassiales, Lophiolaceae, Ranzanioideae, and Urospatheae. He indicated the
respective ranks of order, family, subfamily, and tribe, by virtue of their terminations, even
though he did not mention these ranks explicitly.

35.3.  A new name or combination published before 1 January 1953 with-
out a clear indication of its rank is validly published provided that all other
requirements for valid publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative
in questions of priority except for homonymy (see Art. 53.4). If it is a new
name, it may serve as a basionym for subsequent combinations or a re-
placed synonym for nomina nova in definite ranks.

Ex. 3.  The groups “Soldanellae”, “Sepincoli”, “Occidentales”, etc., were published with-
out any indication of rank under Convolvulus L. by House (in Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908).
The names C. [unranked] Soldanellae, etc., are validly published but they are not in any
definite rank and have no status in questions of priority except for purposes of homonymy.

Ex. 4.  In Carex L., the epithet Scirpinae was used in the name of a subdivision of a genus of
no stated rank by Tuckerman (Enum. Meth. Caric.: 8. 1843); this taxon was assigned sec-
tional rank by Kükenthal (in Engler, Pflanzenr. 38: 81. 1909) and its name may be cited as
Carex sect. Scirpinae (Tuck.) Kük. (C. [unranked] Scirpinae Tuck.).

Ex. 5.  Loesener published “Geranium andicola var. vel forma longipedicellatum” (Bull.
Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, 3(2): 93. 1903) without a clear indication of infraspecific rank. The
name is correctly cited as “G. andicola [unranked] longipedicellatum Loes.” The epithet
was used in a subsequent combination, G. longipedicellatum (Loes.) R. Knuth (1912).

70  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 70 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 35-36

35.4.  If in one whole publication (Art. 35.5), prior to 1 January 1890, only
one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that of variety un-
less this would be contrary to the author’s statements in the same publica-
tion.

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

Ex. 6.  In Link’s Handbuch (1829-1833) the rank-denoting term “O.” (ordo) was used in all
three volumes. These names of orders cannot be considered as having been published as
names of families (Art. 18.2) since the term family was used for Agaricaceae and Tremel-
laceae
under the order Fungi in vol. 3 (pp. 272, 337; see Art. 18 Note 1). This applies to all
three volumes of the Handbuch, even though vol. 3 was published later (Jul -29 Sep 1833)
than vols. 1 and 2 (4-11 Jul 1829).

Article 36

36.1.  On or after 1 January 1935 a name of a new taxon (algal and all fossil
taxa excepted) must, in order to be validly published, be accompanied by a
Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effec-
tively published Latin description or diagnosis (but see Art. H.9).

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

Ex. 2.  “Schiedea gregoriana” (Degener, Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 9 Apr 1936) was ac-
companied by an English but no Latin description and is accordingly not a validly published
name. Schiedea kealiae Caum & Hosaka (in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Mus.
11(23): 3. 10 Apr 1936), the type of which is part of the material used by Degener, is pro-
vided with a Latin description and is validly published.

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

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

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

  71

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 71 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

36-37 Valid publication

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

Recommendation 36A

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

Article 37

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

37.2.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, indication of the
type as required by Art. 37.1 can be achieved by reference to an entire gath-
ering, or part thereof, even if it consists of two or more specimens as de-
fined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 37.7).

Ex. 1.  When Cheng described “Gnetum cleistostachyum” (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 13(4): 89.
1975) the name was not validly published because two gatherings were designated as types:
K. H. Tsai 142 (as “♀ Typus”) and X. Jiang 127 (as “♂ Typus”).

Note 1.  When the type is indicated by reference to a gathering that consists of
more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes (see Art. 9.4).

Ex. 2.  The protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (in Engler, Pflanzenr. 108: 855.
1968) includes the type statement “E. Esterhuysen No. 17070! Typus  –  Pret., Bol.” The
name is validly published because a single gathering is cited, despite the mention of dup-
licate specimens (syntypes) in two different herbaria.

37.3.  For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference
(direct or indirect) to one species name only, or the citation of the holotype
or lectotype of one previously or simultaneously published species name
only, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable
as indication of the type (see also Art. 22.6; but see Art. 37.6). Similarly, for
the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, mention of a single
specimen or gathering (Art. 37.2) or illustration (when permitted by Art.
37.4 or 37.5), even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is
acceptable as indication of the type (but see Art. 37.6).

Ex. 3.  “Baloghia pininsularis” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist.
Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann 13823.
As the author failed to designate one of them as the type, he did not validly publish the name.

72  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 72 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 37

Valid publication was effected when McPherson & Tirel (in Fl. Nouv.-Caléd. 14: 58. 1987)
wrote “Lectotype (désigné ici): Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!; iso-, Z)” while providing a
full and direct reference to Guillaumin’s Latin description (Art. 45.1; see Art. 46 Ex. 9);
McPherson & Tirel’s use of “lectotype” is correctable to “holotype” under Art.
9.8.

Note 2.  Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single spec-
imen or gathering. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual type, such
as the collector’s name or collecting number or date, is required.

Note 3.  Cultures of fungi and algae preserved in a metabolically inactive state are
acceptable as types (Art. 8.4; see also Rec. 8B.1).

37.4.  For the purpose of this Article, the type of a name of a new species or
infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration
prior to 1 January 2007, on or after which date, the type must be a specimen
(except as provided in Art. 37.5).

37.5.  For the purpose of this Article, the type of a name of a new species or
infraspecific taxon
of microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted:
see Art.
8.5) may be an effectively published illustration if there are tech-
nical difficulties of preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen
that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the
name.

37.6.  For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below published
on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the
words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a
modern language (see also Rec. 37A). In the case of the name of a new
genus or subdivision of a genus that is monotypic (as defined in Art. 42.2),
indication of the type of the species name is sufficient
.

37.7.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or
after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illus-
tration, the single herbarium or collection or institution in which the type is
conserved must be specified.

Ex. 4.  In the protologue of Setaria excurrens var. leviflora Keng ex S. L. Chen (in Bull.
Nanjing Bot. Gard. 1988-1989: 3. 1990) the gathering Guangxi Team 4088 was indicated as
““模式” (Chinese for “type”) and the herbarium where the type is conserved was specified as
“中国科学院植物研究所標本室” (Botanical Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
i.e. PE).

Note 4.  Specification of the herbarium or collection or institution may be made in
an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index herbariorum, part I, or in the World
directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms
.

Ex. 5.  When ’t Hart described “Sedum eriocarpum subsp. spathulifolium” (in Ot Sist. Bot.
Dergisi 2(2): 7. 1995) the name was not validly published because no herbarium or collec-
tion or institution in which the holotype specimen was conserved was specified. Valid pub-
lication was effected when ’t Hart (in Strid & Tan, Fl. Hellen. 2: 325. 2002) wrote “Type ...

  73

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 73 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

37-40 Valid publication

’t Hart HRT-27104 ... (U)” while providing a full and direct reference to his previously pub-
lished Latin diagnosis (Art. 45.1).

Recommendation 37A

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

Article 38

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

38.2.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of fossil plants
published on or after 1 January 2001, at least one of the validating illus-
trations must be identified as representing the type specimen (see also Art.
9.13).

Article 39

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

Recommendation 39A

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

Article 40

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

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

74  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 74 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 40-41

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

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

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

Article 41

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

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

Ex. 2.  Presl did not validly publish “Cuscuteae“ (in Presl & Presl, Delic. Prag.: 87. 1822) as
the name of a family (see “Praemonenda”, pp. [3-4]) by direct reference to the previously
and effectively published description of “Cuscuteae“ (Berchtold & Presl, Přir. Rostlin: 247.
1820) because the latter is the name of an order (see Art. 18 *Ex. 4).

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

Ex. 3.  Validly published generic names: Carphalea Juss., accompanied by a generic de-
scription; Thuspeinanta T. Durand, replacing the name of the previously described genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (non Herb.); Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch, based on the
name of a previously described section, Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC.; Scirpoides Ség.
(Pl. Veron. Suppl.: 73. 1754), accepted there but without a generic description or diagnosis,
validly published by indirect reference (through the title of the book and a general statement
in the preface) to the generic diagnosis and further direct references in Séguier (Pl. Veron. 1:
117. 1745).

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

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

  75

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 75 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

41-42 Valid publication

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

Ex. 4.  Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated by a generic description but without
mention of a name of a species. T. madagascariense DC. (1825) was subsequently proposed
without a description or diagnosis of the species. Neither author gave any indication that
there was more than one species in the genus. Candolle’s specific name is therefore validly
published.

Article 42

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

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

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

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

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

Ex. 4.  In publishing “Phaelypea” without a generic description or diagnosis, P. Browne
(Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave the

76  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 76 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 43-43

species a phrase-name not a validly published binomial. Art. 42 does not therefore apply and
“Phaelypea” is not a validly published name.

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

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

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

Article 43

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

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

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

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

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

Ex. 4.  Despite the existence of the generic name Scirpoides Ség. (1754), the binary desig-
nation “S. paradoxus” (Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.: 27. 1772) is not validly published since

  77

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 77 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

43-45 Valid publication

“Scirpoides” in Rottbøll’s context was a word not intended as a generic name. The first
validly published name for this species is Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).

Article 44

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

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

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

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

Article 45

45.1.  The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When the various
conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is
that on which the last is fulfilled. However, the name must always be ex-
plicitly accepted in the place of its validation. A name published on or after
1 January 1973 for which the various conditions for valid publication are
not simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and direct
reference (Art. 33.4) is given to the places where these requirements were
previously fulfilled (but see Art. 33.6).

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

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

45.2.  A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 32.7 and 60)
does not affect its date of valid publication.

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

78  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 78 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication 45

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

45.4.  If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to a group of
plants other than algae or fungi, the
authorship and date of any of its names are determined by the first pub-
lication that satisfies the requirements for valid publication under this
Code. If the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its
names need satisfy only the requirements of the pertinent non-botanical
Code for status equivalent to valid publication under the present Code (but
see Art. 54, regarding homonymy). However, a name generated in zoolog-
ical nomenclature in accordance with the Principle of Coordination is not
considered validly published under the botanical Code unless it appears in
print and is applied to an accepted taxon.

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

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

Ex. 6.  Labyrinthodyction Valkanov (in Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969), available under the
International code of zoological nomenclature as the name of a genus of rhizopods, is con-
sidered to have been validly published in 1969 if the taxon is treated as belonging to the
fungi even though the original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis.

Ex. 7.  Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy (in Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921, “Protodinife-
ridae”
), available under the International code of zoological nomenclature, is validly pub-
lished as a name of a family of algae with its original authorship and date but with the
original termination changed in accordance with Art. 18.4 and 32.7.

Ex. 8.  Pneumocystis P. Delanoë & Delanoë (in Comp. Rend. Acad. Hebd. Séances Acad.
Sci. 155: 660. 1912) was published for a “protozoan” genus with a description expressing
doubt as to its generic status, “Si celui-ci doit constituer un genre nouveau, nous proposons
de lui donner le nom de Pneumocystis Carinii”. Under Art. 34.1(b) Pneumocystis would not
be validly published, but Art. 11.5.1 of the International code of zoological nomenclature
allows for such qualified publication at that time and therefore Pneumocystis is an available
name under the ICZN and, as provided by Art. 45.4, validly published under this Code.

Ex. 9.  Pneumocystis jirovecii Frenkel (in Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 43: 16. 1976, ‘jiroveci’),
treated as a protozoan, was published with only an English description and without desig-

———————————————————————

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

  79

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 79 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

45-46 Valid publication – Author citations

nation of a type, but these conditions are no obstacle to availability under Art. 72.3 and Rec.
13B of the International code of zoological nomenclature. Therefore, when considered the
name of a fungus, P. jirovecii, with modified termination (Art. 60.11), is accepted as validly
published under Art. 45.4. Subsequent publication of a Latin diagnosis by Frenkel (J. Eu-
karyot. Microbiol. 46 Suppl.: 91S. 1999), who treated the species as a fungus, was necessary
under the edition of the ICBN in operation at that time, but is no longer so; hence, under this
Code, P. jirovecii has priority from 1976, not 1999.

Ex. 10.  Fibrillanosema crangonycis Galbreath & al. (in Int. J. Parasitol. 34: 241-242.
2004), was described as belonging to the Microsporidia, which until recently were con-
sidered to constitute a protozoan phylum. Its name is available under the International code
of zoological nomenclature
and is considered to be validly published when treated as a
fungus although it lacks a Latin description or diagnosis.

Recommendation 45A

45A.1.  A new name should be followed by a direct citation indicating its novel
status, including the word “novus” (-a, -um) or its abbreviation, e.g. genus novum
(gen. nov.), species nova (sp. nov.), combinatio nova (comb. nov.), nomen novum
(nom. nov.), or status novus (stat. nov.).

Recommendation 45B

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

Recommendation 45C

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

SECTION 3. AUTHOR CITATIONS

Article 46

46.1.  In publications, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and no-
menclature, it may be desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to
the protologue is made, to cite the author(s) of the name concerned (see Art.
6 Note 2; see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1). In so doing, the following rules are to
be followed.

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

80  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 80 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

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

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

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

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

Ex. 5.  The name Brachystelma was published by Sims (1822) along with one new species
listed as “Brachystelma tuberosa. Brown Mscr.”; in addition, at the end of the generic de-
scription, Sims added “Brown, Mscr.”, indicating that Brown wrote it. Because the generic
and specific names were validly published simultaneously (Art. 42), the direct association of
Brown’s name with the specific name and the generic description establishes the correct
citation of the generic name as Brachystelma R. Br.

Ex. 6.  When publishing Eucryphiaceae (1848) the otherwise unnamed author “W.”, in a
review of Gay’s Flora chilena (1845-1854), wrote “wird die Gattung Eucryphia als Typus
einer neuen Familie, der Eucryphiaceae”, thus ascribing both the name and its validating
description to Gay (Fl. Chil. 1: 348. 1846), who used the name “Eucrifiaceas”, which was
not validly published under Art. 18.4. The name is therefore cited as Eucryphiaceae Gay.

Ex. 7.  Green (1985) ascribed the new combination Neotysonia phyllostegia to Paul G.
Wilson and elsewhere in the same publication acknowledged his assistance. The name is
therefore cited as N. phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul G. Wilson.

Ex. 8.  The authorship of Steyerbromelia discolor L. B. Sm. & H. Rob. (1984) is accepted as
originally ascribed, although the new species was described in a paper authored by Smith
alone. The same applies to the new combination Sophora tomentosa subsp. occidentalis (L.)
Brummitt (in Kirkia 5: 265. 1966), thus ascribed, published in a paper authored jointly by
Brummitt & Gillett.

Ex. 9.  The appropriate author citation for Baloghia pininsularis (see Art. 37 Ex. 3) is Guil-
laumin, and not McPherson & Tirel, because both the name and validating description were
ascribed to Guillaumin in the protologue.

  81

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 81 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Author citations

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

Ex. 10.  The original description of the new species Verrucaria aethiobola Wahlenb. (in
Acharius, Methodus, Suppl.: 17. 1803) is ascribed by Acharius to “Wahlenb. Msc.”, and the
name itself is ascribed to “Wahlenb.” (not in the text of the Supplement but in the index to
the Methodus, p. 392). The name is therefore appropriately cited as V. aethiobola Wahlenb.,
better not as V. aethiobola “Wahlenb. in Acharius” (unless followed by a bibliographic
citation of the place of publication), and certainly not as V. aethiobola “Wahlenb. ex Ach.”

Ex. 11.  The name Drymaria arenarioides was published in Roemer & Schultes (Syst. Veg.
5: 406. 1819), with the name ascribed to “Humb. et Bonpl.” and the description ascribed to
“Reliqu. Willd. MS.” Because of this ascription, and because vol. 5 of this work is authored
by Schultes alone, the name is to be cited as D. arenarioides Humb. & Bonpl. ex Schult., not
as D. arenarioides Willd. or D. arenarioides Willd. ex Roem. & Schult. or D. arenarioides
Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.

Ex. 12.  When publishing Strasburgeriaceae (1908) Solereder wrote of Strasburgeria Baill.
“welche neuerdings von Van Tieghem als Typus einer eigenen Familie (Strasburgeriaceae)
angesehen wird” thus ascribing both the family name and its validating description to
Tieghem (in J. Bot. (Morot) 17: 204. 1903), who used the name “Strasburgériacées”, which
was not validly published under Art. 18.4. The name is therefore cited as Strasburgeriaceae
Tiegh., or Strasburgeriaceae Tiegh. in Solereder when followed by a bibliographic citation,
but not Strasburgeriaceae Tiegh. ex Soler.

Ex. 13.  When publishing Elaeocarpaceae (1816) Candolle wrote “Elaeocarpeae. Juss.,
Ann. Mus. 11, p. 233” thus ascribing both the name and its validating diagnosis to Jussieu
(in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 11: 233. 1808), who provided a diagnosis separating an un-
amed family comprising Elaeocarpus L. from Tiliaceae. The family name is therefore
cited as Elaeocarpaceae Juss., or Elaeocarpaceae Juss. in Candolle when followed by a bib-
liographic citation, but not Elaeocarpaceae Juss. ex DC.

46.3.  For the purposes of this Article, ascription is the direct association of
the name of a person or persons with a new name or description or diag-
nosis of a taxon. An author citation appearing in a list of synonyms does not
constitute ascription, nor does reference to a basionym or a replaced syno-
nym (regardless of bibliographic accuracy) or reference to a homonym, or a
formal error.

Ex. 14.  The name Asperococcus pusillus was published in Hooker (Brit. Fl., ed. 4, 2(1):
277. 1833), with the name and diagnosis ascribed simultaneously in a paragraph ending with
“Carm. MSS.” followed by a description ascribed similarly to Carmichael. Direct associ-
ation of Carmichael with both the name and the diagnosis is thus inferred and the name must
be cited as A. pusillus Carmich. However, the paragraph containing the name A. castaneus
and its diagnosis, published by Hooker on the same page of the same work, ends with
Scytosiphon castaneus, Carm. MSS.” Because Carmichael is directly associated with “S.
castaneus”
and not A. castaneus, the name of this species is correctly cited as A. castaneus
Hook. even though the following description is ascribed to Carmichael.

82  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 82 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

Ex. 15.  Lichen debilis Sm. (1812) was not ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s citing
Calicium debile Turn. and Borr. Mss.” as a synonym.

Ex. 16.  Malpighia emarginata DC. (1824) was not ascribed to Moçino & Sessé by Can-
dolle’s writing “M. emarginata (fl. mex. ic. ined.)”. However, Sicyos triqueter Moç. &
Sessé ex Ser. (1830) was ascribed to these authors by Seringe’s writing “S. triqueter (Moç.
& Sessé, fl. mex. mss.)”.

Ex. 17.  When Opiz (1852) wrote “Hemisphace Bentham” he did not ascribe the generic
name to Bentham but provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Salvia sect. Hemi-
sphace
Benth. (see Art. 32 Ex. 8).

Ex. 18.  When Brotherus (1907) published “Dichelodontium nitidulum Hooker & Wilson”
he provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Leucodon nitidulus Hook. f. & Wilson,
and did not ascribe the new combination to Hooker and Wilson. He did, however, ascribe to
them the simultaneously published name of his new genus, Dichelodontium.

Ex. 19.  When She & Watson (in Wu & al., Fl. China 14: 72. 2005) wrote “Bupleurum ham-
iltonii
var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 12: 291.
1974” they did not ascribe the new combination to any of those authors but provided a full
and direct reference to the basionym, B. tenue var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu ex R. H. Shan &
Yin Li.

Ex. 20.  When Sirodot (1872) wrote “Lemanea Bory” he in fact published a later homonym
(see Art. 48 Ex. 1). His reference to Bory’s earlier homonym is not therefore ascription of
the later homonym, Lemanea Sirodot, to Bory.

Ex. 21.  When Piper (in Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 28: 42. 1915) wrote “Andropogon sorghum
drummondii
(Nees) Hackel” for one of eleven “wild subspecies” of A. sorghum (L.) Brot.,
this was not an ascription to Hackel, but is treated as a formal error, since Hackel (in Can-
dolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6: 507. 1889) had actually published this as A. sorghum
var. drummondii (Nees) Hack. Furthermore, because the basionym was published by
Steudel (1854) as “A. drummondii Nees (mpt. sub Sorghum)” this reference to the unpub-
lished name “Sorghum drummondii Nees” is also not ascription (see Note 2), therefore the
correct author citation for Hackel’s taxon is A. sorghum var. drummondii (Steud.) Hack. and
for Piper’s taxon A. sorghum subsp. drummondii (Steud.) Piper.

Note 2.  When the epithet of a validly published name is taken up from and attrib-
uted to the author of a different binary designation that has not been validly pub-
lished, only the author of the validly published name is to be cited.

Ex. 22.  “Catha edulis” was published, but not validly so, by Forsskal (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.:
cvii, 63. 1775). The epithet was taken up by Vahl (Symb. Bot. 1: 21. 1790), who validly pub-
lished the name Celastrus edulis citing “Catha edulis Forssk.” in synonymy. The name
Celastrus edulis must be attributed to Vahl alone, not to “Forssk. ex Vahl”. The name Catha
edulis
was first validly published by Endlicher (Enchir. Bot.: 575. 1841), whose combi-
nation is to be cited as Catha edulis (Vahl) Endl.

46.4.  A name of a new taxon must be attributed to the author or authors of
the publication in which it appears when only the name but not the valid-
ating description or diagnosis was ascribed to a different author or to differ-
ent authors. A new combination or a nomen novum must be attributed to

  83

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 83 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Author citations

the author or authors of the publication in which it appears, although it was
ascribed to a different author or to different authors, when no separate state-
ment was made that they contributed in some way to that publication. How-
ever, in both cases authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inser-
ted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s).

Ex. 23.  Seemann (1865) published Gossypium tomentosum “Nutt. mss.”, followed by a
validating description not ascribed to Nuttall; the name may be cited as G. tomentosum Nutt.
ex Seem. or G. tomentosum Seem.

Ex. 24.  Rudolphi published Pinaceae (1830) as “Pineae. Spreng.”, followed by a validating
diagnosis not ascribed to Sprengel; the name may be cited as Pinaceae Spreng. ex F. Rud-
olphi or Pinaceae F. Rudolphi.

Ex. 25.  The name Lithocarpus polystachyus published by Rehder (1919) was based on
Quercus polystachya A. DC. (1864), ascribed by Candolle to “Wall.! list n. 2789” but
formerly a nomen nudum; Rehder’s combination may be cited as L. polystachyus (Wall. ex
A. DC.) Rehder or L. polystachyus (A. DC.) Rehder.

Ex. 26.  Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (1977) as a new species and its
name was ascribed to Ivanova; since there is no indication that Ivanova provided the
validating description, the name may be cited as L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov
or L. tianschanicum Grubov.

Ex. 27.  In a paper by Boufford, Tsi and Wang (1990) the name Rubus fanjingshanensis was
ascribed to Lu with no indication that Lu provided the description; the name should be
attributed to Boufford & al. or to L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al.

Ex. 28.  Green (1985) ascribed the new combination Tersonia cyathiflora to “(Fenzl) A.
S. George”; since Green nowhere mentioned that George had contributed in any way, the
combining author must be cited as A. S. George ex J. W. Green or just J. W. Green.

Ex. 29.  However, R. Brown is accepted as the author of the treatments of genera and species
appearing under his name in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis, ed. 2 (1810-1813), even when new
names or the descriptions validating them are not explicitly ascribed to him. In a postscript
to that work (5: 532. 1813), Aiton wrote: “Much new matter has been added by [Robert
Brown] ... the greater part of his able improvements are distinguished by the signature
Brown mss.” The latter phrase is therefore a statement of authorship not merely an ascrip-
tion. For example, the combination Oncidium triquetrum, based by indirect reference on
Epidendrum triquetrum Sw. (1788), is to be cited as O. triquetrum (Sw.) R. Br. (1813) and
not attributed to “R. Br. ex Aiton”, or to Aiton alone, because in the generic heading Brown
is credited with authorship of the treatment of Oncidium.

46.5.  For the purposes of this Article, the authorship of a publication is the
authorship of that part of a publication in which a name appears regardless
of the authorship or editorship of the publication as a whole.

Ex. 30.  Pittosporum buxifolium was described as a new species, with its name ascribed to
Feng, in Wu & Li, Flora yunnanica, vol. 3 (1983). The account of Pittosporaceae in that flora
was authored by Yin, while the whole volume was edited by Wu & Li. The author of the pub-
lication (including the validating diagnosis) was Yin. The name may therefore be cited as
either P. buxifolium K. M. Feng ex W. Q. Yin or just P. buxifolium W. Q. Yin, but not P. buxi-
folium
K. M. Feng ex C. Y. Wu & H. W. Li, nor P. buxifolium C. Y. Wu & H. W. Li.

84  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 84 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

Ex. 31.  Vicia amurensis f. sanneensis was described as a new form, with its name ascribed
to Jiang & Fu in Ma & al., Flora intramongolica, ed. 2, vol. 3 (1989). The account of Vicia
in that flora was authored by Jiang, while the whole volume was jointly edited by Ma & al.
The author of the publication is Jiang, who is common to the authorship ascribed to the
name, which must therefore be cited as V. amurensis f. sanneensis Y. C. Jiang & S. M. Fu
and not V. amurensis f. sanneensis Y. C. Jiang & S. M. Fu ex Ma & al.

Ex. 32.  Centaurea funkii var. xeranthemoides “Lge. ined.” was described in Prodromus
florae hispanicae
(2: 154. 1865). On the title page of each volume Willkomm & Lange are
given as authors (“auctoribus ...”). However, the different family treatments are by one or
the other and Fam. 63 Compositae has a footnote “Auctore Willkomm”. The full citation is
therefore C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. [in Willkomm & Lange, ...].

46.6.  The citation of an author who published the name before the starting-
point of the group concerned may be indicated by the use of the word “ex”.
For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a pre-starting-point
name was changed in rank or taxonomic position by the first author who
validly published it, the name of the pre-starting-point author may be added
in parentheses, followed by “ex”.

Ex. 33.  Linnaeus (1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author Tourne-
fort; the name may be cited as Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (1753) or Lupinus L. (see Art. 13.4).

Ex. 34.  Lyngbya glutinosa C. Agardh (Syst. Alg.: 73. 1824) was taken up by Gomont in the
publication which marks the starting point of the “Nostocaceae homocysteae” (in Ann. Sci.
Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15: 339. 1892) as Hydrocoleum glutinosum. This may be cited as H.
glutinosum
(C. Agardh) ex Gomont.

46.7.  In determining the correct author citation, only internal evidence in
the publication (as defined in Art. 35.5) where the name was validly pub-
lished is to be accepted, including ascription of the name, statements in the
introduction, title, or acknowledgements, and typographical or stylistic dis-
tinctions in the text.

Ex. 35.  Although the descriptions in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally con-
sidered to have been written by Solander or Dryander, the names of new taxa published there
must be attributed to Aiton, the stated author of the work, except where a name and de-
scription were both ascribed in that work to somebody else.

Ex. 36.  The name Andreaea angustata was published in a work of Limpricht (1885) with
the ascription “nov. sp. Lindb. in litt. ad Breidler 1884”, but there is no internal evidence that
Lindberg had supplied the validating description. Authorship is therefore to be cited as
“Limpr.” or “Lindb. ex Limpr.”

Note 3.  External evidence may be used to determine authorship of new names and
combinations included in a publication or article for which there is no internal ev-
idence of authorship.

Ex. 37.  No authorship appears anywhere in the work known as “Cat. Pl. Upper Louisiana.
1813”, a catalogue of plants available from the Fraser Brothers Nursery. Based on external
evidence (cf. Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 105: 785. 1981), authorship of the docu-

  85

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 85 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

46-46A Author citations

ment, and of new names such as Oenothera macrocarpa that are published in it, are attrib-
uted to Thomas Nuttall.

Ex. 38.  The book that appeared under the title Vollständiges systematisches Verzeichniß
aller Gewächse Teutschlandes ...
(Leipzig 1782) bears no explicit authorship but is attrib-
uted to “einem Mitgliede der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde”. External evidence
may be used to determine that G. A. Honckeny is the author of the work and of new names
that appear in it (e.g. Poa vallesiana Honck., Phleum hirsutum Honck.; but see Art. 23 Ex.
14), as done by Pritzel (Thes. Lit. Bot.: 123. 1847).

Note 4.  Authors publishing new names and wishing to establish that other persons’
names followed by “ex” may precede theirs in authorship citation may adopt the
“ex” citation in the protologue.

Ex. 39.  In validating the name Nothotsuga, Page (1989) cited it as “Nothotsuga H.-H. Hu ex
C. N. Page”, noting that in 1951 Hu had published it as a nomen nudum; the name may be
attributed to Hu ex C. N. Page or just C. N. Page.

Ex. 40.  Atwood (1981) ascribed the name of a new species, Maxillaria mombachoënsis, to
“Heller ex Atwood”, with a note stating that it was originally named by Heller, then
deceased; the name may be attributed to A. H. Heller ex J. T. Atwood or just J. T. Atwood.

Recommendation 46A

46A.1.  For the purpose of author citation, prefixes indicating ennoblement (see
Rec. 60C.5(d-e)) should be suppressed unless they are an inseparable part of the
name.

Ex. 1.  Lam. for J. B. P. A. Monet Chevalier de Lamarck, but De Wild. for E. De Wildeman.

46A.2.  When a name in an author citation is abbreviated, the abbreviation should
be long enough to be distinctive, and should normally end with a consonant that, in
the full name, precedes a vowel. The first letters should be given without any omis-
sion, but one of the last characteristic consonants of the name may be added when
this is customary.

Ex. 2.  L. for Linnaeus; Fr. for Fries; Juss. for Jussieu; Rich. for Richard; Bertol. for Bert-
oloni, to distinguish it from Bertero; Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish it from Micheli.

46A.3.  Given names or accessory designations serving to distinguish two botanists
of the same name should be abridged in the same way.

Ex. 3.  R. Br. for Robert Brown; A. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu; Burm. f. for Burman filius; J.
F. Gmel. for Johann Friedrich Gmelin, J. G. Gmel. for Johann Georg Gmelin, C. C. Gmel.
for Carl Christian Gmelin, S. G. Gmel. for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin; Müll. Arg. for Jean
Müller argoviensis (of Aargau).

46A.4.  When it is a well-established custom to abridge a name in another manner,
it is advisable to conform to custom.

Ex. 4.  DC. for Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle; St.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire.

Note 1.  Brummitt & Powell’s Authors of plant names (1992) provides unam-
biguous standard abbreviations, in conformity with the present Recommendation,

86  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 86 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46A-47

for a large number of authors of plant names, and these abbreviations, updated as
necessary from the International Plant Names Index (www.ipni.org) and Index
Fungorum
(www.indexfungorum.org),
have been used for author citations through-
out the present Code.

Recommendation 46B

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

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

Recommendation 46C

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

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

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

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

Recommendation 46D

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

Article 47

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

  87

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 87 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

47-48 Author citations

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

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

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

Recommendation 47A

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

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

Article 48

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

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

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

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

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

88  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 88 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 49-50

Article 49

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

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

Ex. 2.  Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. (Prodr. 2: 169. 1825) raised to generic rank, retain-
ing the epithet Aspalathoides as its name, is cited as Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (1853).

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

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

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

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

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

49.2.  Parenthetical authors are not to be cited for suprageneric names.

Ex. 8.  Even though Illiciaceae A. C. Sm. (1947) was validly published by reference to Illic-
ieae
DC. (1824) it is not to be cited as Illiciaceae “(DC.) A. C. Sm.”

Note 1.  Art. 46.6 provides for the use of parenthetical author citations preceding
the word “ex”, after some names in groups with a starting point later than 1753.

Article 50

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

  89

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 89 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

50-50D4 Author citations – Citation

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

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

SECTION 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION

Recommendation 50A

50A.1.  In the citation of a name that is not validly published because it was
merely cited as a synonym, the words “as synonym” or “pro syn.” should be
added.

Recommendation 50B

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

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

Recommendation 50C

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

Ex. 1.  Ulmus racemosa Thomas in Amer. J. Sci. Arts 19: 170. 1831, non Borkh. 1800.

Ex. 2.  Lindera Thunb., Nov. Gen. Pl.: 64. 1783, non Adans. 1763.

Ex. 3.  Bartlingia Brongn. in Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 10: 373. 1827, non Rchb. 1824 nec F.
Muell. 1882.

Recommendation 50D

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

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

90  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 90 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Citation 50E-50F

Recommendation 50E

50E.1.  If a name of a family, genus, or species is accepted as a nomen conserv-
andum (see Art. 14 and App. II-IV) the abbreviation “nom. cons.” or, in the case of
a conserved spelling, “orth. cons.” should be added in a formal citation.

Ex. 1.  Protea L., Mant. Pl.: 187. 1771, nom. cons., non L. 1753.

Ex. 2.  Combretum Loefl. 1758, nom. cons. [= Grislea L. 1753].

Ex. 3.  Glechoma L. 1753, orth. cons., ‘Glecoma’.

50E.2.  If a name has been rejected and has been placed on the list of nomina utique
rejicienda (see Art. 56 and App. V) the abbreviation “nom. rej.” should be added in
a formal citation.

Ex. 4.  Betula alba L. 1753, nom. rej.

Note 1.  Rec. 50E.2 also applies to any combination based on a nomen utique rejic-
iendum (see Art. 56.1).

Ex. 5.  Dryobalanops sumatrensis (J. F. Gmel.) Kosterm. in Blumea 33: 346. 1988, nom. rej.

50E.3.  If a name has been adopted by Fries or Persoon, and thereby sanctioned
(see Art. 13.1(d) and 7.8), “: Fr.” or “: Pers.” should be added in a formal citation.
The same convention should be used for the basionym of the sanctioned name, if it
has one, and for all combinations based on either the sanctioned name or its bas-
ionym.

Ex. 6.  Boletus piperatus Bull. (Herb. France: t. 451, f. 2. 1790) was accepted in Fries (Syst.
Mycol. 1: 388. 1821) and was thereby sanctioned. It should thus be cited as B. piperatus
Bull. : Fr., and a subsequent combination based on it, as Chalciporus piperatus (Bull. : Fr.)
Bataille.

Ex. 7.  Agaricus sarcocephalus Fr. 1815 : Fr. was sanctioned as Agaricus compactus [un-
ranked] sarcocephalus (Fr. : Fr.) Fr. 1821; Psathyrella sarcocephala (Fr. : Fr.) Singer is a
subsequent combination based on it.

Recommendation 50F

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

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

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

Ex. 3.  Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson in Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496. 1967, solomon-
ensis
.

  91

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 91 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

51-52 Maintenance – Illegitimacy (Superfluity)

 
 
 
 

CHAPTER V. REJECTION OF NAMES

Article 51

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

Ex. 1.  The following changes are contrary to the rule: Staphylea to Staphylis, Tamus to
Thamnos, Thamnus, or Tamnus, Mentha to Minthe, Tillaea to Tillia, Vincetoxicum to Al-
exitoxicum;
and Orobanche rapum to O. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae to O. colum-
barihaerens, O. artemisiae
to O. artemisiepiphyta.

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

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

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

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

Ex. 6.  The name Sphaeria tiliae Pers. (Syn. Meth. Fung.: 84. 1801) is not to be rejected
because the holotype represents an anamorphic fungus, whereas the type of Sphaeria Haller
1768, that of S. fragiformis Pers., is a teleomorphic fungus. The epithet may therefore be
used in the combination Rabenhorstia tiliae (Pers.) Fr. (Summ. Veg. Scand.: 410. 1849) for
the anamorph of Hercospora tiliae Tul. & C. Tul. (Sel. Fung. Carp. 2: 154. 1863).

Article 52

52.1.  A name, unless conserved (Art. 14) or sanctioned (Art. 15), is ille-
gitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when
published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its
author, definitely included the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name

92  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 92 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Illegitimacy (Superfluity) 52

which ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have
been adopted, under the rules (but see Art. 52.3).

52.2.  For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type of a name
is effected by citation (a) of the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type
under Art. 10 or all syntypes under Art. 9.4 or all elements eligible as types
under Art. 10.2; or (b) of the previously designated type under Art. 9.9-11
or 10.2; or (c) of the previously conserved type under Art. 14.9; or (d) of the
illustrations of these. It is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or
any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time ex-
cluded either explicitly or by implication.

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

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

Ex. 3.  On the other hand, Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (1796) is legitimate, being explicitly
based upon S. myrsinites of Hoffmann (Hist. Salic. Ill.: 71. 1787), a misapplication of the
name S. myrsinites L. (1753), which Salisbury excluded by implication as he did not cite
Linnaeus as he did under each of the other 14 species of Salix in his 1796 publication
.

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

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

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

Ex. 7.  Exclusion of type by implication: Tmesipteris elongata P. A. Dang. (in Botaniste 2:
213. 1891) was published as a new species but Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited as a
synonym. However, on the following page, T. truncata (R. Br.) Desv. is recognized as a
different species and two pages later both are distinguished in a key, thus showing that the
meaning of the cited synonym was either “P. truncatum R. Br. pro parte” or “P. truncatum
auct. non R. Br.”

Ex. 8.  Exclusion of type by implication: Solanum torvum Sw. (Prodr.: 47. 1788) was pub-
lished with a new diagnosis but S. indicum L. (1753) was cited as a synonym. In accordance
with the practice in his Prodromus, Swartz indicated where the species was to be inserted in
the latest edition [ed. 14, by Murray] of Linnaeus’s Systema vegetabilium. Solanum torvum
was to be inserted between species 26 (S. insanum) and 27 (S. ferox), the number of S.
indicum
being 32. S. torvum is thus a legitimate name.

Ex. 9.  Under Persicaria maculosa Gray (1821), the name Polygonum persicaria L. (1753)
was cited as the replaced synonym, and hence the type of Polygonum persicaria was

  93

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 93 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

52 Illegitimacy (Superfluity)

definitely included. However, Persicaria mitis Delarbre (1806), as the earlier legitimate re-
placement name for Polygonum persicaria, is necessarily homotypic; hence, Persicaria
maculosa
when published was an illegitimate superfluous name for Persicaria mitis and its
continued use has been made possible only by conservation.

Ex. 10.  Under Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (1976), the name B. retusa Roxb. (1832), non
Poir. (1811), was cited as the replaced synonym while B. emarginata Roxb. ex G. Don
(1832), non Mill. (1768) nec Jack (1822), was also cited in synonymy, and hence the types
of the two synonyms were definitely included. However, B. roxburghiana Voigt (1845),
which was published as a replacement name for B. emarginata, is necessarily homotypic
with it and should have been adopted by Wunderlin. Therefore, B. semla is an illegitimate
superfluous name typified by the type of its replaced synonym, B. retusa (see Art. 7 Ex. 4).

Ex. 11.  Erythroxylum suave O. E. Schulz (1907) is illegitimate because Schulz cited “Er-
ythroxylum brevipes
DC. var. spinescens (A. Rich.) Griseb.” (1866) in synonymy. This cita-
tion constitutes inclusion of the type of E. spinescens A. Rich. (1841).

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

Ex. 12.  The protologue of Blandfordia grandiflora R. Br. (1810) includes, in synonymy,
Aletris punicea. Labill. nov. holl. 1. p. 85. t. 111 ?”, indicating that the new species might
be the same as Aletris punicea Labill. (1805). Blandfordia grandiflora is nevertheless a
legitimate name.

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

Ex. 13.  Leccinum Gray (1821) does not include all potential types (in fact, none) of Boletus
L. (1753) and thus is not illegitimate, even though it included, as L. edule (Bull. : Fr.) Gray,
the subsequently conserved type of Boletus, B. edulis Bull. : Fr.

52.3.  A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous when published is not
illegitimate on account of its superfluity if it is based on a name-bringing or
epithet-bringing synonym (basionym), or if it is based on the stem of a le-
gitimate generic name. When published it is incorrect, but it may become
correct later.

Ex. 14.  Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (1788) was nomenclaturally superfluous when published,
since Swartz cited Andropogon fasciculatus L. (1753) as a synonym. However, it is not il-
legitimate since it was
based on the legitimate Agrostis radiata L. (1759). Chloris radiata is
the correct name in the genus Chloris for Agrostis radiata when Andropogon fasciculatus is
treated as a different species, as was done by Hackel (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr.
Phan. 6: 177. 1889).

Ex. 15.  The generic name Hordelymus (Jess.) Harz (1885) was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published because its type, Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of Cuviera Koeler
(1802). However, it is not illegitimate since it was based on the legitimate Hordeum [un-

94  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 94 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Illegitimacy (Superfluity – Homonymy) 52-53

ranked] Hordelymus Jess. (Deutschl. Gräser: 202. 1863). Cuviera Koeler has since been
rejected in favour of its later homonym Cuviera DC., and Hordelymus can now be used as
the correct name for a segregate genus containing Elymus europaeus L.

Ex. 16.  Carpinaceae Vest (Anleit. Stud. Bot.: 265, 280. 1818) was nomenclaturally super-
fluous when published because of the inclusion of Salix L., the type of Salicaceae Mirb.
(1815). However, it is not illegitimate because it is based on the stem of a legitimate generic
name, Carpinus L.

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

Ex. 17.  The name Polypodium ×shivasiae Rothm. (1962) was proposed for hybrids between
P. australe Fée and P. vulgare subsp. prionodes (Asch.) Rothm., while at the same time the
author accepted P. ×font-queri Rothm. (1936) for hybrids between P. australe and P. vul-
gare
L. subsp. vulgare. Under Art. H.4.1, P. ×shivasiae is a synonym of P. ×font-queri;
nevertheless, it is not an illegitimate name.

Article 53

53.1.  A name of a family, genus or species, unless conserved (Art. 14) or
sanctioned (Art. 15), is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it is
spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously
and validly published for a taxon of the same rank (see also Art. 6 Note 2,
and Art. 53.2 and 53.4
).

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

Ex. 2.  The name Torreya Arn. (1838) is a nomen conservandum and is therefore available
for use in spite of the existence of the earlier homonym Torreya Raf. (1818).

Ex. 3.  Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (1843) is a later homonym of the validly published
name A. rhizanthus Royle (1835) and is therefore unavailable for use. Boissier renamed it A.
cariensis
Boiss. (1849).

Note 1.  A later homonym is unavailable for use even if the earlier homonym is il-
legitimate or is otherwise generally treated as a synonym.

Ex. 4.  Zingiber truncatum S. Q. Tong (1987) is illegitimate, being a later homonym of Z.
truncatum
Stokes (1812), even though the latter name is itself illegitimate under Art. 52.1
because in its protologue the name Amomum zedoaria Christm. (1779) was cited in syno-
nymy. It was renamed Z. neotruncatum T. L. Wu & al. (2000).

Ex. 5.  The name Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym of the validly pub-
lished Amblyanthera Blume (1849) and is therefore unavailable for use, although Ambly-
anthera
Blume is now considered to be a synonym of Osbeckia L. (1753).

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

  95

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 95 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

53 Illegitimacy (Homonymy)

53.3.  When two or more generic or specific names based on different types
are so similar that they are likely to be confused (because they are applied
to related taxa or for any other reason) they are to be treated as homonyms
(see also Art. 61.5). If established practice has been to treat two similar
names as homonyms, this practice is to be continued if it is in the interests
of nomenclatural stability.

*Ex. 6.  Names treated as homonyms: Asterostemma Decne. (1838) and Astrostemma Benth.
(1880); Pleuropetalum Hook. f. (1846) and Pleuripetalum T. Durand (1888); Eschweilera
DC. (1828) and Eschweileria Boerl. (1887); Skytanthus Meyen (1834) and Scytanthus Hook.
(1844).

*Ex. 7.  The three generic names Bradlea Adans. (1763), Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn. (1790),
and Braddleya Vell. (1827), all commemorating Richard Bradley, are treated as homonyms
because only one can be used without serious risk of confusion.

*Ex. 8.  The names Acanthoica Lohmann (1902) and Acanthoeca W. N. Ellis (1930), both
designating flagellates, are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms (Taxon 22: 313.
1973).

*Ex. 9.  Epithets so similar that they are likely to be confused if combined under the same
generic or specific name: chinensis and sinensis; ceylanica and zeylanica; napaulensis, ne-
palensis,
and nipalensis; polyanthemos and polyanthemus; macrostachys and macrostach-
yus; heteropus
and heteropodus; poikilantha and poikilanthes; pteroides and pteroideus;
trinervis
and trinervius; macrocarpon and macrocarpum; trachycaulum and trachycaulon.

*Ex. 10.  Names not likely to be confused: Rubia L. (1753) and Rubus L. (1753); Mono-
chaetum
(DC.) Naudin (1845) and Monochaete Döll (1875); Peponia Grev. (1863) and Pe-
ponium
Engl. (1897); Iris L. (1753) and Iria (Pers.) Hedw. (1806); Desmostachys Miers
(1852) and Desmostachya (Stapf) Stapf (1898); Symphyostemon Miers (1841) and Sym-
phostemon
Hiern (1900); Gerrardina Oliv. (1870) and Gerardiina Engl. (1897); Urvillea
Kunth (1821) and Durvillaea Bory (1826); Peltophorus Desv. (1810; Gramineae) and
Peltophorum (Vogel) Benth. (1840; Leguminosae); Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip.
(1845, “napeaefolius”; see Art. 60 Ex. 18) and S. napifolius MacOwan (1890; the epithets
being derived, respectively, from Napaea and Brassica napus); Lysimachia hemsleyana
Oliv. (1891) and L. hemsleyi Franch. (1895) (see, however, Rec. 23A.2); Euphorbia peplis
L. (1753) and E. peplus L. (1753).

Ex. 11.  Names conserved against earlier names treated as homonyms (see App. III): Lyng-
bya
Gomont (vs. Lyngbyea Sommerf.); Columellia Ruiz & Pav. (vs. Columella Lour.), both
commemorating Columella, the Roman writer on agriculture; Cephalotus Labill. (vs. Cepha-
lotos
Adans.); Simarouba Aubl. (vs. Simaruba Boehm.).

Ex. 12.  The name Gilmania Coville (1936) was published as a substitute name for Phyl-
logonum
Coville (1893) because the author considered the latter to be a later homonym of
Phyllogonium Bridel (1827). Treating them as homonyms has become accepted, e.g. in In-
dex Nominum Genericorum,
and the name Gilmania has been accepted as legitimate ever
since. Therefore the names Phyllogonum and Phyllogonium are to continue to be treated as
homonyms.

53.4.  The names of two subdivisions of the same genus, or of two infra-
specific taxa within the same species, even if they are of different rank, are

96  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 96 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Illegitimacy (Homonymy) 53

treated as homonyms, the later of which is illegitimate, if they have the same
or a confusingly similar final epithet and are not based on the same type.

Ex. 13.  The names Andropogon sorghum subsp. halepensis (L.) Hack. and A. sorghum var.
halepensis (L.) Hack. (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6: 502. 1889) are legitimate,
since both have the same type; repetition of the final epithet is in accord with Rec. 26A.1.

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

Ex. 15.  Scenedesmus armatus var. brevicaudatus (Hortob.) Pankow (in Arch. Protistenk.
132: 153. 1986), based on S. carinatus var. brevicaudatus Hortob. (in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci.
Hung. 26: 318. 1981), is a later homonym of S. armatus f. brevicaudatus L. S. Péterfi (in
Stud. Cercet. Biol. (Bucharest), Ser. Biol. Veg. 15: 25. 1963) even though the two names
apply to taxa of different infraspecific rank. Scenedesmus armatus var. brevicaudatus (L. S.
Péterfi) E. H. Hegew. (in Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 60: 393. 1982), however, is not a later
homonym since it is based on the same type as S. armatus f. brevicaudatus L. S. Péterfi.

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

Ex. 18.  Verbascum sect. Aulacosperma Murb. (Monogr. Verbascum: 34, 593. 1933) is per-
missible, although there is an earlier Celsia sect. Aulacospermae Murb. (Monogr. Celsia: 34,
56. 1926). This, however, is not an example to be followed, since it is contrary to Rec. 21B.2.

53.5.  When it is doubtful whether names or their epithets are sufficiently
alike to be confused, a request for a decision may be submitted to the
General Committee (see Div. III), which will refer it for examination to the
committee(s) for the appropriate taxonomic group(s). A recommendation,
whether or not to treat the names concerned as homonyms, may then be put
forward to an International Botanical Congress, and, if ratified, will be-
come a binding decision.

Ex. 17.  Names ruled as likely to be confused, and therefore to be treated as homonyms:
Ficus gomelleira Kunth (1847) and F. gameleira Standl. (1937) (Taxon 42: 111. 1993);
Solanum saltiense S. Moore (1895) and S. saltense (Bitter) C. V. Morton (1944) (Taxon 42:
434. 1993); Balardia Cambess. (1829; Caryophyllaceae) and Ballardia Montrouz. (1860;
Myrtaceae) (Taxon 42: 434. 1993).

Ex. 18.  Names ruled as not likely to be confused: Cathayeia Ohwi (1931; extant Flacourt-
iaceae
) and Cathaya Chun & Kuang (1962; fossil Pinaceae) (Taxon 36: 429. 1987);
Cristella Pat. (1887; Fungi) and Christella H. Lév. (1915; Pteridophyta) (Taxon 35: 551.
1986); Coluria R. Br. (1823; Rosaceae) and Colura (Dumort.) Dumort. (1835; Hepaticae)
(Taxon 42: 433. 1993); Acanthococcus Hook. f. & Harv. (1845; Rhodophyta) and Acan-
thococos
Barb. Rodr. (1900; Palmae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993); Rauia Nees & Mart. (1823;
Rutaceae) and Rauhia Traub (1957; Amaryllidaceae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993).

53.6.  When two or more homonyms have equal priority, the first of them
that is adopted in an effectively published text (Art. 29-31) by an author
who simultaneously rejects the other(s) is treated as having priority. Like-
wise, if an author in an effectively published text substitutes other names

  97

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 97 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

52-53 Illegitimacy (Homonymy – Limitation)

for all but one of these homonyms, the homonym for the taxon that is not
renamed is treated as having priority.

Ex. 19.  Linnaeus simultaneously published “10.” Mimosa cinerea (Sp. Pl.: 517. 1753) and
“25.” M. cinerea (Sp. Pl.: 520. 1753). In 1759, he renamed species 10 M. cineraria L. and
retained the name M. cinerea for species 25, so that the latter is treated as having priority
over its homonym.

Ex. 20.  Rouy & Foucaud (Fl. France 2: 30. 1895) published the name Erysimum hieracii-
folium
var. longisiliquum, with two different types, for two different taxa under different
subspecies. Only one of these names can be maintained.

Note 3.  A homonym renamed or rejected under Art. 53.6 remains legitimate and
takes precedence over a later synonym of the same rank, should a transfer to an-
other genus or species be effected.

Ex. 21.  Mimosa cineraria L. (1759), based on M. cinerea L. (Sp. Pl.: 517 [non 520]. 1753;
see Art. 53 Ex. 19), was transferred to Prosopis by Druce (1914) as P. cineraria (L.) Druce.
However, the correct name in Prosopis would have been a combination based on M. cinerea
had not that name been succesfully proposed for rejection.

Article 54

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

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

(b)  A name originally published for a taxon other than a plant, even if val-
       idly published under Art. 32-45 of this Code, is illegitimate if it be-
       comes a homonym of a plant name when the taxon to which it applies is
       first treated as a plant (see also Art. 45.4).

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

Recommendation 54A

54A.1.  Authors naming new taxa under this Code should, as far as is practicable,
avoid using such names as already exist for zoological and bacteriological taxa.

Article 55

55.1.  A name of a species or subdivision of a genus may be legitimate even
if its epithet was originally placed under an illegitimate generic name (see
also Art. 22.5).

98  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 98 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Illegitimacy (Limitation) – Rejection 55-57

Ex. 1.  Agathophyllum Juss. (1789) is an illegitimate name, being a superfluous substitute
for Ravensara Sonn. (1782). Nevertheless the name A. neesianum Blume (1851) is legiti-
mate. Because Meisner (1864) cited A. neesianum as a synonym of his new Mespilodaphne
mauritiana
but did not adopt the epithet neesiana, M. mauritiana Meisn. is a superfluous
name and hence illegitimate.

55.2.  An infraspecific name may be legitimate even if its final epithet was
originally placed under an illegitimate specific name (see also Art. 27.2).

Ex. 2.  Agropyron japonicum var. hackelianum Honda (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 41: 385. 1927)
is legitimate, even though it was published under the illegitimate A. japonicum Honda
(1927), a later homonym of A. japonicum (Miq.) P. Candargy (1901) (see also Art. 27 Ex. 1).

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

Ex. 3.  Alpinia languas J. F. Gmel. (1791) and Alpinia galanga (L.) Willd. (1797) are to be
accepted although Alpinia L. (1753), to which they were assigned by their authors, is re-
jected and the genus in which they are now placed is named Alpinia Roxb. (1810), nom.
cons.

Article 56

56.1.  Any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change
(Art. 14.1) may be proposed for rejection. A name thus rejected, or its
basionym if it has one, is placed on a list of nomina utique rejicienda (App.
V). Along with the listed names, all combinations based on them are simi-
larly rejected, and none is to be used (see Rec. 50E.2).

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

Article 57

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

  99

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 99 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

57-58 Rejection – Re-use

Ex. 1.  The name Strophostyles helvola (L.) Elliott was widely and persistently used from
the mid-19th century for a taxon that Verdcourt (in Taxon 46: 357-359. 1997) reported did
not include its type, which he found to be referable to Macroptilium lathyroides (L.) Urb.,
based on Phaseolus lathyroides L. (1763) and over which P. helvolus, the basionym of S.
helvola,
has priority. Verdcourt did not transfer the epithet helvolus to Macroptilium which
would have conflicted with current usage, but proposed P. helvolus for conservation with a
conserved type that he believed referred to the species to which the name S. helvola had been
applied; the proposal was accepted. When Delgado-Salinas & Lavin (in Taxon 53: 839-841.
2004) later discovered that this first-conserved type applies to another species, Strophostyles
umbellata
(Muhl. ex Willd.) Britton, they also preserved current usage and proposed a new
conserved type.

Article 58

58.1.  The epithet in an illegitimate name if available may be used in a dif-
ferent combination, at the same or a different rank, if no other epithet is
available from a name that has priority at that rank. The resulting name is
then treated as new, either as a nomen novum with the same type as the
illegitimate name (see also Art. 7.5 and Art. 33 Note 2), or as the name of a
new taxon with a different type. Its priority does not date back to the pub-
lication of the illegitimate name.

Ex. 1.  The name Talinum polyandrum Hook. (1855) is illegitimate, being a later homonym
of T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (1798). When Bentham, in 1863, transferred T. polyandrum
Hook. to Calandrinia, he called it C. polyandra. This name has priority from 1863, and is
cited as C. polyandra Benth., not C. polyandra (Hook.) Benth.

Ex. 2.  Hibiscus ricinifolius E. Mey. ex Harv. (1860) is illegitimate because H. ricinoides
Garcke (1849) was cited in synonymy. When the epithet ricinifolius was combined at var-
ietal rank under H. vitifolius by Hochreutiner (in Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. Genève 4:
170. 1900) his name was legitimate and is treated as a nomen novum, typified by the type of
H. ricinoides, that is to be cited as H. vitifolius var. ricinifolius Hochr., not “(E. Mey. ex
Harv.) Hochr.”

Ex. 3.  When publishing Collema tremelloides var. cyanescens, Acharius (Syn. Meth. Lich.:
326. 1814) cited in synonymy C. tremelloides var. caesium Ach. (Lichenogr. Universalis:
656. 1810), a legitimate name at the same rank, thus rendering his new name superfluous
and
illegitimate. However, the epithet cyanescens was available for use in Collema at the
rank of
species, and the name C. cyanescens Rabenh. (1845), based on the same type, is
legitimate. The correct author citation for Leptogium cyanescens, published by Körber
(1855) by reference to C. cyanescens “Schaer.”, is therefore (Rabenh.) Körb., not (Ach.)
Körb. or (Schaer.) Körb. Körber ascribed the epithet cyanescens to Schaerer because this
author was the first to use the epithet at specific rank in the name
Parmelia cyanescens
Schaerer (1842),
which is however illegitimate being a later homonym of P. cyanescens
(Pers.) Ach. (1803).

Note 1.  In the case of re-use at the same rank of epithets of illegitimate superfluous
names, the type of the name causing the original superfluity must be explicitly
excluded.

100  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 100 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Re-use 58

Ex. 4.  Menispermum villosum Lam. (1797) is an illegitimate superfluous name because M.
hirsutum
L. (1753) was cited in synonymy. The name Cocculus villosus DC. (1817), based
on M. villosum, is also illegitimate since the type of M. hirsutum was not excluded and there
was no obstacle to the use of the epithet hirsutus in Cocculus.

Ex. 5.  Cenomyce ecmocyna Ach. (1810) is an illegitimate superfluous name for Lichen
gracilis
L. (1753), as is Scyphophora ecmocyna Gray (1821), based on C. ecmocyna, since
the type of L. gracilis was not excluded and there was no obstacle to the use of the epithet
gracilis in Scyphophora
. However, when proposing the combination Cladonia ecmocyna,
Leighton (1866) explicitly excluded that type and thereby published a new, legitimate name,
Cladonia ecmocyna Leight.

Ex. 6.  Diospyros discolor Willd. (1806) was illegitimate when published, because Cavan-
illea philippensis
Desr. (1792) was cited as a synonym. Embryopteris discolor, based on D.
discolor
Willd., was published in 1837 by G. Don (Gen. Syst. 4: 41.), who clearly excluded
C. philippensis. The name would, therefore, have been attributable to “G. Don” with priority
from 1837. However, D. discolor is now a conserved name and no longer illegitimate, hence
this provision no longer applies and the correct author citation is Embryopteris discolor
(Willd.) G. Don, with priority from 1806.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  101

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 101 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

59 Pleomorphic fungi

 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER VI. NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE

CYCLE

Article 59

59.1.  In non lichen-forming ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi (in-
cluding Ustilaginales) with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as
a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph), the correct name covering the holo-
morph (i.e., the species in all its morphs) is the earliest legitimate name typ-
ified, or epitypified under Art. 59.7, by an element representing the teleo-
morph, i.e. the morph characterized by the production of asci/ascospores,
basidia/basidiospores, teliospores, or other basidium-bearing organs.

Ex. 1.  The name Crocicreomyces guttiferae Bat. & Peres (1964) was published for a lichen-
forming fungus producing only an asexual morph. When it was recognized that C. guttiferae
is conspecific with Byssoloma aeruginescens Vězda (1974), based on an ascospore-pro-
ducing type, and that Crocicreomyces Bat. & Peres (1964) is synonymous with Byssoloma
Trevis. (1853), Batista & Peres’s epithet was correctly recombined as B. guttiferae (Bat. &
Peres) Lücking & Sérus. (1998). As Art. 59 does not apply to lichen-forming fungi, no
separate generic or specific names are available for use for the asexual morph.

59.2.  For a binary name to qualify as a name of a holomorph, not only must
its type specimen, or its epitype specimen under Art. 59.7, be teleomorphic,
but also the protologue must include a description or diagnosis of this
morph (or be so phrased that the possibility of reference to the teleomorph
cannot be excluded) (see also Art. 59.7).

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

Ex. 2.  The name Ravenelia cubensis Arthur & J. R. Johnst. (1918), based on a specimen
bearing only uredinia (an anamorph), is a validly published and legitimate name of an ana-
morph, in spite of the attribution of the species to a holomorphic genus. It is legitimately
combined with a generic name typified by an anamorph as Uredo cubensis (Arthur & J. R.

102  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 102 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Pleomorphic fungi 59

Johnst.) Cummins (1956). Ravenelia cubensis is not available for use inclusive of the tel-
eomorph.

59.4.  Irrespective of priority, names with a teleomorphic type, or epitype
(Art. 59.7) take precedence over names with only an anamorphic type when
the types are judged to belong to the same holomorphic taxon. Priority of
competing teleomorphic typified or epitypified names follows Principle III
except that teleomorphic typified names published before 1 January 2007
take precedence over anamorphic typified names subsequently epitypified
after 1 January 2007 by teleomorphs.

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

Ex. 3.  Because the teleomorph of Gibberella stilboides W. L. Gordon & C. Booth (1971) is
only known from strains of the anamorph Fusarium stilboides Wollenw. (1924) mating in
culture, and has not been found in nature, it may be thought desirable to use the name of the
anamorph for the pathogen of Coffea.

Ex. 4.  Cummins (1971), in The rust fungi of cereals, grasses and bamboos, found it to be
neither necessary nor desirable to introduce new names of anamorphs under Aecidium Pers.
: Pers. and Uredo Pers. : Pers., for the aecial and uredinial stages of species of Puccinia Pers.
: Pers. of which the telial stage (teleomorph) was known.

Note 1.  In the absence of existing legitimate names, specific or infraspecific names
for anamorphs may be proposed at the time of publication of the name for the ho-
lomorphic fungus or later. The final epithets may, if desired, be identical, as long as
they are not in homonymous combinations.

Ex. 5.  The name Penicillium brefeldianum B. O. Dodge (1933), based on teleomorphic and
anamorphic material, is a validly published and legitimate name of a holomorph, in spite of
the attribution of the species to a generic name typified by an anamorph. It is legitimately
combined with a holomorphic generic name as Eupenicillium brefeldianum (B. O. Dodge)
Stolk & D. B. Scott (1967). Penicillium brefeldianum is not available for use in a restricted
sense for the anamorph alone.

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

  103

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 103 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

59-59A Pleomorphic fungi

Ex. 6.  Mycosphaerella aleuritidis was published as “(Miyake) Ou comb. nov., syn. Cerco-
spora aleuritidis
Miyake” but with a Latin diagnosis of the teleomorph. The indication
“comb. nov.” is taken as a formal error, and M. aleuritidis S. H. Ou (1940) is accepted as a
validly published new specific name for the holomorph, typified by the teleomorphic ma-
terial described by Ou.

Ex. 7.  Corticium microsclerotium was originally published as “(Matz) Weber, comb. nov.,
syn. Rhizoctonia microsclerotia Matz” with a description, only in English, of the teleo-
morph. Because of Art. 36, this may not be considered as the valid publication of the name
of a new species, and so C. microsclerotium (Matz) G. F. Weber (1939) must be considered
a validly published and legitimate new combination based on the specimen of the anamorph
that typifies its basionym. Corticium microsclerotium G. F. Weber (1951), published with a
Latin description and a teleomorphic type, is an illegitimate later homonym.

Ex. 8.  Hypomyces chrysospermus Tul. (1860), presented as the name of a holomorph
without the indication “comb. nov.” but with explicit reference to Mucor chrysospermus
(Bull.) Bull. and Sepedonium chrysospermum (Bull.) Fr., which are names of its anamorph,
is not to be considered as a new combination but as the name of a newly described species,
with a teleomorphic type.

59.7.  Where a teleomorph has been discovered for a fungus previously
known only as an anamorph and for which there is no existing legitimate
name for the holomorph, an epitype exhibiting the teleomorph stage may be
designated for the hitherto anamorphic name even when there is no hint of
the teleomorph in the protologue of that name.

Recommendation 59A

59A.1.  When a new morph of a fungus is described, it should be published either
as a new taxon (e.g., gen. nov., sp. nov., var. nov.) the name of which has a teleo-
morphic type, or as a new anamorph (anam. nov.) the name of which has an ana-
morphic type.

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

59A.3.  Authors should avoid the publication and use of binary names for ana-
morphs when the teleomorphic connection is firmly established and there is no
practical need for separate names (as e.g. in rust fungi and members of the Tri-
chocomaceae
).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

104  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 104 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60

 
 
 
 

CHAPTER VII. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES

SECTION 1. ORTHOGRAPHY

Article 60

60.1.  The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for
the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the standard-
izations imposed by Art. 60.5 (u/v or i/j used interchangeably), 60.6 (dia-
critical signs and ligatures), 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens),
60.10 (apostrophes), 60.11 (terminations; see also Art. 32.7), and 60.12
(fungal epithets).

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

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

Ex. 3.  “Torilis” taihasenzanensis Masam. (in J. Soc. Trop. Agric. 6: 570. 1934) was a typo-
graphical error for Trollius taihasenzanensis, as noted on the errata slip inserted between
pages 4 and 5 of the same volume.

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

*Ex. 5.  Orthographical error: Gluta “benghas” L. (1771), being an orthographical error for
G. renghas, is cited as G. renghas L. (see Engler in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4:
225. 1883); the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is “renghas”, not
“benghas”.

  105

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 105 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

60 Orthography

Note 1.  Art. 14.11 provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of a name of
a family, genus, or species.

Ex. 6.  Bougainvillea (see App. IIIA, Spermatophyta, Dicotyledones).

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

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

*Ex. 7.  The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza Michx. (1803) is not to be altered, al-
though it commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392.
1934). – Cereus jamacaru DC. (1828) may not be altered to C. “mandacaru”, even if jama-
caru
is believed to be a corruption of the vernacular name “mandacaru”.

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

60.5.  When a name has been published in a work where the letters u, v or i,
j
are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern
practices (e.g., one letter of a pair not being used in capitals, or not at all),
those letters are to be transcribed in conformity with modern botanical
usage.

Ex. 8.  Uffenbachia Fabr. (1763), not “Vffenbachia”; Taraxacum Zinn (1757), not “Tarax-
acvm”; Curculigo
Gaertn. (1788), not “Cvrcvligo”.

Ex. 9.  “Geastrvm hygrometricvm” and “Vredo pvstvlata” of Persoon (1801) are written,
respectively, Geastrum hygrometricum Pers. and Uredo pustulata Pers.

Ex. 10.  Brachypodium “iaponicum” of Miquel (1866) is written Brachypodium japonicum
Miq.

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

106  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 106 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60

60.7.  When changes in spelling by authors who adopt personal, geograph-
ic, or vernacular names in nomenclature are intentional latinizations, they
are to be preserved, except when they concern (a) only the termination of
epithets to which Art. 60.11 applies, or (b) changes to personal names in-
volving (1) omission of a final vowel or final consonant or (2) conversion
of a final vowel to a different vowel, for which the final letter of the name is
to be restored.

Ex. 11.  Clutia L. (1753), Gleditsia L. (1753), and Valantia L. (1753), commemorating
Cluyt, Gleditsch, and Vaillant, respectively, are not to be altered to “Cluytia”, “Gledit-
schia”,
and “Vaillantia”; Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists deliberately as
Clutius, Gleditsius, and Valantius.

Ex. 12.  Abies alcoquiana Veitch ex Lindl. (1861), commemorating “Rutherford Alcock
Esq.”, implies an intentional latinization of that name to Alcoquius. In transferring the
epithet to Picea, Carrière (1867) deliberately changed the spelling to “alcockiana”. The
resulting combination is nevertheless correctly cited as P. alcoquiana (Veitch ex Lindl.)
Carrière (see Art. 61.4).

Ex. 13.  Abutilon glaziovii K. Schum. (1891), Desmodium bigelovii A. Gray (1843), and
Rhododendron bureavii Franch. (1887), commemorating A. F. M. Glaziou, J. Bigelow, and
L. E. Bureau, respectively, are not to be changed to A. “glazioui”, D. “bigelowii”, or R.
“bureaui”
. In these three cases, the implicit latinizations Glaziovius, Bigelovius, and Bu-
reavius result from conversion of a final consonant and do not affect merely the termination
of the names.

Ex. 14.  Arnica chamissonis Less. (1831) and Tragus berteronianus Schult. (1824), com-
memorating L. K. A. von Chamisso and C. L. G. Bertero, are not to be changed to A.
“chamissoi”
or T. “berteroanus”. The derivation of these epithets from the third declension
genitive, a practice not now recommended in most cases (see Rec. 60C.2), involves the
addition of letters to the personal name and does not affect merely the termination.

Ex. 15.  Acacia “brandegeana”, Blandfordia “backhousii”, Cephalotaxus “fortuni”, Che-
nopodium “loureirei”, Convolvulus “loureiri”, Glochidion “melvilliorum”, Hypericum
“buckleii”, Solanum “rantonnei”,
and Zygophyllum “billardierii” were published to com-
memorate T. S. Brandegee, J. Backhouse, R. Fortune, J. de Loureiro, R. Melville and E.
F. Melville, S. B. Buckley, V. Rantonnet, and J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la Billardière).
The implicit latinizations are Brandegeus, Backhousius, Fortunus, Loureireus or Loureirus,
Melvillius, Buckleius, Rantonneus, and Billardierius, but these are not acceptable under Art.
60.7. The names are correctly cited as A. brandegeeana I. M. Johnst. (1925), B. backhousei
Gunn & Lindl. (1845), Cephalotaxus fortunei Hook. (1850), Chenopodium loureiroi Steud.
(1840), Convolvulus loureiroi G. Don (1836), G. melvilleorum Airy Shaw (1971), H. buck-
leyi M. A. Curtis (1843), S. rantonnetii Carrière (1859), and Z. billardierei DC. (1824).

Note 2.  The provisions of Art. 60.7, 60.11, Rec. 60C deal with the latinization
of names through their modification. This latinization is different from translation
of names (e.g. Tabernaemontanus from Bergzabern) and from the use of an ad-
jective indirectly derived from a personal name, which are thus not subject to
modification under Art. 60.7 or 60.11.

  107

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 107 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

60 Orthography

Ex. 16.  In Wollemia nobilis W. G. Jones & al. (1995), the use of the adjective nobilis is
indirectly derived from the name of the discoverer David Noble. Cladonia abbatiana S.
Steenroose (1991) honours the French lichenologist H. des Abbayes. In both cases the
adjective is indirectly derived from a personal name. Since no typographical or ortho-
graphical error is present, the original spelling of those names may not be altered.

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

Ex. 17.  Candolle’s Pereskia “opuntiaeflora” is to be cited as P. opuntiiflora DC. (1828),
and Myrosma “cannaefolia” of the younger Linnaeus, as M. cannifolia L. f. (1782).

Ex. 18.  Cacalia “napeaefolia” and Senecio “napeaefolius” are to be cited as Cacalia na-
paeifolia
DC. (1838) and Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip. (1845), respectively; the
specific epithet refers to the resemblance of the leaves to those of the genus Napaea L. (not
“Napea”), and the substitute (connecting) vowel -i should have been used instead of the
genitive singular inflection -ae.

Ex. 19.  However, in Andromeda polifolia L. (1753), the epithet is a pre-Linnaean plant
name (“Polifolia” of Buxbaum) used in apposition and not an adjective; it is not to be
altered to “poliifolia” (Polium-leaved).

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

Ex. 20.  Hyphen to be omitted: Acer pseudoplatanus L. (1753), not A. “pseudo-platanus”;
Eugenia costaricensis
O. Berg (1856), not E. “costa-ricensis”; Ficus neoëbudarum Sum-
merh. (1932), not F. “neo-ebudarum”; Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vittad. (1842), not L.
“atro-purpureum”; Croton ciliatoglandulifer
Ortega (1797), not C. “ciliato-glandulifer”;
Scirpus
sect. Pseudoëriophorum Jurtzev (in Byull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol.
70(1): 132. 1965), not S. sect. “Pseudo-eriophorum”.

Ex. 21.  Hyphen to be maintained: Aster novae-angliae L. (1753), Coix lacryma-jobi L.
(1753), Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. (1825), Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. (1753;
Art. 23.3), Athyrium austro-occidentale Ching (1986).

Note 3.  Art. 60.9 refers only to epithets (in combinations), not to names of genera
or taxa in higher ranks; a generic name published with a hyphen can be changed
only by conservation (Art. 14.11).

Ex. 22.  Pseudo-salvinia Piton (1940) may not be changed to “Pseudosalvinia”; whereas by
conservation
“Pseudo-elephantopus” was changed to Pseudelephantopus Rohr (1792).

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

Ex. 23.  Lycium “o’donellii”, Cymbidium “i’ansoni” and Solanum tuberosum var. “mu-
ru’kewillu”
are to be corrected to L. odonellii F. A. Barkley (1953), C. iansonii Rolfe
(1900) and S. tuberosum var. murukewillu Ochoa (in Phytologia 65: 112. 1988), respec-
tively.

108  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 108 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60

60.11.  The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or
-ianus) contrary to Rec. 60C.1 is treated as an error to be corrected (see also
Art. 32.7). However, terminations of epithets formed in accordance with
Rec. 60C.2 are not to be corrected.

Ex. 24.  Rhododendron “potanini” Batalin (1892) must be corrected to R. potaninii since it
commemorates G. N. Potanin, to whose name Rec. 60C.1 applies. However, Phoenix theo-
phrasti
Greuter (1967) must not be changed to P. “theophrastii” since it commemorates
Theophrastus, to whose name Rec. 60C.2 applies.

Ex. 25.  Rosa “pissarti” (Carrière in Rev. Hort. 1880: 314. 1880) is a typographical error for
R. “pissardi” (see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190. 1881), which in its turn is treated as an error for R.
pissardii
Carrière (see Rec. 60C.1(b)).

Ex. 26.  However, Uladendron codesuri Marc.-Berti (1971) is not to be changed to U.
“codesurii”
(as by Brenan in Index Kew., Suppl. 16. 1981), since the epithet does not
commemorate a person but derives from an acronym (CODESUR, Comisión para el
Desarrollo del Sur de Venezuela).

Ex. 27.  Nigella degenii subsp. barbro Strid and N. degenii subsp. jenny Strid (in Opera Bot.
28: 58, 60. 1970) commemorate the wife and daughter of the author. These spellings are not
to be changed since the personal names were not given Latin terminations to form the
subspecific epithets.

Ex. 28.  Asparagus tamaboki Yatabe (1893) and Agropyron kamoji Ohwi (1942) bear the
Japanese vernacular names “tamaboki” and (in part) “kamojigusa” as their epithets and are
therefore not correctable to A. “tamabokii” and A. “kamojii”.

Note 4.  If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet derived from a per-
sonal name is inappropriate for the sex and/or number of the person(s) whom the
name commemorates, the termination is to be corrected in conformity with Rec.
60C.1.

Ex. 29.  Rosa דtoddii” was named by Wolley-Dod (in J. Bot. 69, Suppl.: 106. 1931) for
“Miss E. S. Todd”; the name is to be corrected to R. ×toddiae Wolley-Dod.

Ex. 30.  Astragalus “matthewsii”, published by Podlech & Kirchhoff (in Mitt. Bot. Staats-
samml. München 11: 432. 1974) to commemorate Victoria A. Matthews, is to be corrected
to A. matthewsiae Podlech & Kirchhoff; it is not therefore a later homonym of A. matthewsii
S. Watson (1883) (see Agerer-Kirchhoff & Podlech in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 12:
375. 1976).

Ex. 31.  Codium “geppii” (Schmidt in Biblioth. Bot. 91: 50. 1923), which commemorates
“A. & E. S. Gepp”, is to be corrected to C. geppiorum O. C. Schmidt.

60.12.  Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of an as-
sociated organism are to be spelled in accordance with the accepted spel-
ling of that organism’s name; other spellings are regarded as orthographical
variants to be corrected (see Art. 61).

Ex. 32.  Phyllachora “anonicola” (Chardón in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940) is to be altered to P.
annonicola
Chardón, since the spelling Annona is now accepted in preference to “Anona”.

  109

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 109 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

60-60C Orthography

Meliola “albizziae” (Hansford & Deighton in Mycol. Pap. 23: 26. 1948) is to be altered to M.
albiziae
Hansf. & Deighton, since the spelling Albizia is now accepted in preference to “Al-
bizzia”
.

Recommendation 60A

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

60A.2.  The Greek spiritus asper (‘rough breathing’) should be transcribed in Latin
as the letter h.

Ex. 1.  Hyacinthus from ὑάκινθος.

Recommendation 60B

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

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

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

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

Note 1.  The syllables not modified by these endings are unaffected unless they
contain letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritical signs (see Art. 60.6).

Note 2.  More than one generic name, or epithet of a subdivision of a genus, may be
based on the same personal name, e.g. by adding a prefix or suffix to that personal
name or by using an anagram or abbreviation of it.

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

Recommendation 60C

60C.1.  When personal names are given Latin terminations in order to form spe-
cific and infraspecific epithets formation of those epithets is as follows (but see
Rec. 60C.2):

110  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 110 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60C

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

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

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

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

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

60C.2.  Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing a well-established
latinized form, should be given their appropriate Latin genitive to form new sub-
stantival epithets (e.g. alexandri from Alexander or Alexandre, augusti from Au-
gustus or August or Auguste, martini from Martinus or Martin, linnaei from Lin-
naeus, martii from Martius, wislizeni from Wislizenus, edithae from Editha or
Edith, elisabethae from Elisabetha or Elisabeth, murielae from Muriela or Muriel,
conceptionis from Conceptio or Concepción, beatricis from Beatrix or Béatrice,
hectoris from Hector; but not “cami” from Edmond Camus or Aimée Camus).
Treating modern family names, i.e. ones that do not have a well-established latin-
ized form,
as if they were in third declension should be avoided (e.g. munronis
from Munro, richardsonis from Richardson).

60C.3.  New epithets based on personal names that have a well-established latin-
ized form should maintain the traditional use of that latinized form.

  111

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 111 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

60C-60D Orthography

Ex. 1.  In addition to the epithets in Rec. 60C.2, the following epithets commemorate per-
sonal names already in Latin or possessing a well-established latinized form: (a) second
declension: afzelii based on Afzelius; allemanii based on Allemanius (Freire Allemão);
bauhini based on Bauhinus (Bauhin); clusii based on Clusius; rumphii based on Rumphius
(Rumpf); solandri based on Solandrus (Solander); (b) third declension: bellonis based on
Bello; brunonis based on Bruno (Robert Brown); chamissonis based on Chamisso; (c) ad-
jectives (see Art. 23.5): afzelianus, clusianus, linnaeanus, martianus, rumphianus and bru-
nonianus, chamissonianus
.

60C.4.  In forming new epithets based on personal names the customary spelling of
the personal name should not be modified unless it contains letters foreign to Latin
plant names or diacritical signs (see Art. 60.4 and 60.6).

60C.5.  In forming new epithets based on personal names prefixes and particles
should be treated as follows:

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

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

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

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

(e)  A German or Dutch prefix should be omitted (e.g. iheringii after von Ihering,
       martii after von Martius, steenisii after van Steenis, strassenii after zu Stras-
       sen, vechtii after van der Vecht), but when it is normally treated as part of the
       family name it should be included in the epithet (e.g. vonhausenii after Von-
       hausen, vanderhoekii after Vanderhoek, vanbruntiae after Van Brunt).

Recommendation 60D

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

Ex. 1.  Rubus quebecensis L. H. Bailey (from Quebec), Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch
(from Virginia), Eryngium amorginum Rech. f. (from Amorgos), Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Marshall (from Pennsylvania).

112  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 112 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Orthography 60E-60G

Recommendation 60E

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

Ex. 1.  sinensis (not chinensis).

Recommendation 60F

60F.1.  All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written with an initial low-
er-case letter.

Recommendation 60G

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

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

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

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

       (3)  Exceptions are common, and one should review earlier usages of a par-
             ticular compounding form.

Ex. 1.  The following are examples of the formation of a compound epithet derived from a
generic name and another Greek or Latin word. The epithet meaning “having leaves like
those of Myrica” is myricifolia (Myric-, connecting vowel -i- and ending -folia). The epi-
thets aquilegifolia and aquilegiaefolia derived from the name Aquilegia must be changed to
aquilegiifolia (Aquilegi-, connecting vowel -i- and ending -folia).

(b)  In a pseudocompound, a noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a
       word with a case ending, not as a modified stem. Examples are: nidus-avis
       (nest of bird), Myos-otis (ear of mouse), albo-marginatus (margined with
       white), etc. In epithets where tingeing is expressed, the modifying initial col-
       our often is in the ablative because the preposition e, ex, is implicit, e.g.,
       atropurpureus (blackish purple) from ex atro purpureus (purple tinged with
       black). Others have been deliberately introduced to reveal etymological dif-
       ferences when different word elements have the same compounding forms,
       such as tubi- from tube (tubus, tubi) or from trumpet (tuba, tubae) where
       tubaeflorus can only mean trumpet-flowered; also carici- is the compounding
       form from both papaya (carica, caricae) and sedge (carex, caricis) where
       caricaefolius can only mean papaya-leaved. The latter use of the genitive sin-
       gular of the first declension for pseudocompounding is treated as an error to be
       corrected unless it makes an etymological distinction (see Art. 60.8).

  113

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 113 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

60G-61 Orthography – Gender

Note 1.  In forming some other apparently irregular compounds, classical usage is
commonly followed.

Ex. 2.  The compounding forms hydro‐ and hydr- (Hydro-phyllum) stem from water (hydor,
hydatos);
calli-(Calli-stemon) derive from the adjective beautiful (kalos); and meli- (Meli-
osma, Meli-lotus)
stem from honey (mel, melitos).

Note 2.  The hyphens in the above examples are given solely for explanatory rea-
sons. For the use of hyphens in generic names and in epithets see Art. 20.3, 23.1,
and 60.9.

Recommendation 60H

60H.1.  The etymology of new names or of epithets in new names should be given,
especially when their meaning is not obvious.

Article 61

61.1.  Only one orthographical variant of any one name is treated as validly
published: the form that appears in the original publication, except as
provided in Art. 60 (typographical or orthographical errors and standard-
izations), Art. 14.11 (conserved spellings), and Art. 32.5 (improper Latin
terminations).

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

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

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

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

61.5.  Confusingly similar names based on the same type are treated as
orthographical variants. (For confusingly similar names based on different
types, see Art. 53.3-5.)

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

114  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 114 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Gender 62

SECTION 2. GENDER

Article 62

62.1.  A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition,
irrespective of classical usage or the author’s original usage. A generic
name without a botanical tradition retains the gender assigned by its author
(but see Art. 62.4).

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

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

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

Ex. 2.  Irrespective of the fact that Parasitaxus de Laub. (1972) was treated as masculine
when published, its gender is feminine: it is a compound of which the last part coincides
with the generic name Taxus L., which is feminine by botanical tradition (Art. 62.1).

Ex. 3.  Compound generic names in which the termination of the last word is altered:
Stenocarpus R. Br., Dipterocarpus C. F. Gaertn., and all other compounds ending in the
Greek masculine -carpos (or -carpus), e.g. Hymenocarpos Savi, are masculine; those
in -carpa or -carpaea, however, are feminine, e.g. Callicarpa L. and Polycarpaea Lam.; and
those in -carpon, -carpum, or -carpium are neuter, e.g. Polycarpon L., Ormocarpum P.
Beauv., and Pisocarpium Link.

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

Ex. 4.  Irrespective of the fact that the generic names Andropogon L. and Oplopanax (Torr.
& A. Gray) Miq. were originally treated as neuter by their authors, they are masculine.

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

  115

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 115 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

62-62A Gender

Ex. 5.  Irrespective of the fact that Tetraglochin Poepp., Triglochin L., Dendromecon
Benth., and Hesperomecon Greene were originally treated as neuter, they are feminine.

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

Ex. 6.  Irrespective of the fact that Aceras R. Br. and Xanthoceras Bunge were treated as
feminine when first published, they are neuter.

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

Ex. 7.  Taonabo Aubl. (1775) is feminine because Aublet’s two species were T. dentata and
T. punctata.

Ex. 8.  Agati Adans. (1763) was published without indication of gender; feminine gender
was assigned to it by Desvaux (in J. Bot. Agric. 1: 120. 1813), who was the first subsequent
author to adopt the name in an effectively published text, and his choice is to be accepted.

Ex. 9.  The original gender of Manihot Mill. (1754), as apparent from some of the species
polynomials, was feminine, and Manihot is therefore to be treated as feminine.

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

Recommendation 62A

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

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

116  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 116 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Governance of the Code Div.III.1-Div.III.2

 
 
 
 

DIVISION III. PROVISIONS FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF

THE CODE
 
 

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

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

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

(2)  Committee for Vascular Plants.

(3) Committee for Bryophyta.

(4)  Committee for Fungi.

(5)  Committee for Algae.

(6) Committee for Fossil Plants.

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

———————————————————————

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

  117

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 117 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Div.III.3-Div.III.4 Governance of the Code

Div.III.3.  The Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical Con-
gress. Its officers are: (1) the president of the Nomenclature Section, elected
by the organizing committee of the International Botanical Congress in
question; (2) the recorder, appointed by the same organizing committee; (3)
the rapporteur-général, elected by the previous Congress; (4) the vice-rap-
porteur, elected by the organizing committee on the proposal of the rappor-
teur-général.

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

Qualifications for voting:

(a) Preliminary mail vote:

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

      (2)  The authors of proposals.

      (3)  The members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees.

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

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

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

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

———————————————————————

¹  Prior to each International Botanical Congress any institution desiring to vote in the com-
   ing Nomenclature Section (and not listed as having been allocated a vote in the previous
   Nomenclature Section) should notify the Bureau of Nomenclature of the IBC of their wish
   to be allocated one or more votes and provide relevant information regarding the level of
   taxonomic activity in their institution.

118  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 118 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.1-H.3

 
 
 
 

APPENDIX I
 
 

NAMES OF HYBRIDS
 
 

Article H.1

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

Article H.2

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

Ex. 1.  Agrostis L. × Polypogon Desf.; Agrostis stolonifera L. × Polypogon monspeliensis
(L.) Desf.; Salix aurita L. × S. caprea L.; Mentha aquatica L. × M. arvensis L. × M. spicata
L.; Polypodium vulgare subsp. prionodes (Asch.) Rothm. × subsp. vulgare; Tilletia caries
(Bjerk.) Tul. × T. foetida (Wallr.) Liro.

Recommendation H.2A

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

Article H.3

H.3.1.  Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a
name. For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated
by placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hy-
brid or before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid, or by
prefixing the term “notho-” (optionally abbreviated “n-”) to the term de-

———————————————————————

¹  From the Greek νόθος, nothos, meaning hybrid.

  119

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 119 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

H.3-H.4 Hybrids

noting the rank of the taxon (see Art. 3.2 and 4.4). All such taxa are desig-
nated nothotaxa.

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

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

H.3.3.  For purposes of homonymy and synonymy the multiplication sign
and the prefix “notho-” are disregarded.

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

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

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

Recommendation H.3A

H.3A.1.  The multiplication sign ×, indicating the hybrid nature of a taxon, should
be placed so as to express that it belongs with the name or epithet but is not actually
part of it. The exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and
the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves read-
ability.

Note 1.  The multiplication sign × in a hybrid formula is always placed between,
and separate from, the names of the parents.

H.3A.2.  If the multiplication sign is not available it should be approximated by a
lower case letter “x” (not italicized).

Article H.4

H.4.1.  When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a notho-
taxon is circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be

120  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 120 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.4-H.5A

recognized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated par-
ent taxa (i.e. not only the but subsequent filial generations and also back-
crosses and combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct
name corresponding to a particular hybrid formula; this is the earliest le-
gitimate name (see Art. 6.3) in the appropriate rank (Art. H.5), and other
names to which the same hybrid formula applies are synonyms of it.

Ex. 1.  The names Oenothera ×wienii Renner ex Rostański (1977) and O. ×drawertii Renner
ex Rostański (1966) are both considered to apply to the hybrid O. biennis L. × O. villosa
Thunb.; the types of the two nothospecific names are known to differ by a whole gene
complex; nevertheless, the later name is treated as a synonym of the earlier.

Note 1.  Variation within nothospecies and nothotaxa of lower rank may be treated
according to Art. H.12 or, if appropriate, according to the International code of no-
menclature for cultivated plants
.

Article H.5

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

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

Note 1.  When a taxon is designated by a name in a rank inappropriate to its hybrid
formula, the name is incorrect in relation to that hybrid formula but may never-
theless be correct, or may become correct later (see also Art. 52 Note 3).

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

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

Recommendation H.5A

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

  121

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 121 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

H.6 Hybrids

Article H.6

H.6.1.  A nothogeneric name (i.e. the name at generic rank for a hybrid be-
tween representatives of two or more genera) is a condensed formula or is
equivalent to a condensed formula (but see Art. 11.9).

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

Ex. 1.  ×Agropogon P. Fourn. (1934) (= Agrostis L. × Polypogon Desf.); ×Gymnanacamptis
Asch. & Graebn. (1907) (= Anacamptis Rich. × Gymnadenia R. Br.); ×Cupressocyparis
Dallim. (1938) (= Chamaecyparis Spach × Cupressus L.); ×Seleniphyllum G. D. Rowley
(1962) (= Epiphyllum Haw. × Selenicereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose).

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

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

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

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

Ex. 5.  ×Beallara Moir (1970) (= Brassia R. Br. × Cochlioda Lindl. × Miltonia Lindl.
× Odontoglossum Kunth).

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

122  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 122 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.6-H.8

Ex. 6.  ×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst (1898) (= Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl. × Sophronitis
Lindl.); ×Vascostylis Takakura (1964) (= Ascocentrum Schltr. ex J. J. Sm. × Rhynchostylis
Blume × Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br.); ×Rodrettiopsis Moir (1976) (= Comparettia Poepp. &
Endl. × Ionopsis Kunth × Rodriguezia Ruiz & Pav.); ×Devereuxara Kirsch (1970) (= As-
cocentrum
Schltr. ex J. J. Sm. × Phalaenopsis Blume × Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br.).

Recommendation H.6A

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

Article H.7

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

Ex. 1.  Ptilostemon nothosect. Platon Greuter (in Boissiera 22: 159. 1973), comprising hy-
brids between P. sect. Platyrhaphium Greuter and P. sect. Ptilostemon; P. nothosect. Plinia
Greuter (in Boissiera 22: 158. 1973), comprising hybrids between P. sect. Platyrhaphium
and P. sect. Cassinia Greuter.

Article H.8

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

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

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

  123

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 123 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

H.8-H.10 Hybrids

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

Article H.9

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article H.10

H.10.1.  Names of nothotaxa at the rank of species or below must conform
with the provisions (a) in the body of the Code applicable to the same ranks
(see Art. 40.1) and (b) in Art. H.3. Infringements of Art. H.3.1. are treated as
errors to be corrected (see also Art. 11.9).

Ex. 1.  The  nothospecies  name  Melampsora  ×columbiana  G.  Newc.  (in  Mycol.  Res.  104:
271. 2000) was validly published, with a Latin description and designation of a holotype, for
the hybrid between M. medusae Thüm. and M. occidentalis H. S. Jacks.

124  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 124 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Hybrids H.10-H.10B

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

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

Ex. 2.  The designation Potentilla “atrosanguinea-pedata” published by Maund (in Bot.
Gard. 5: No. 385, t. 97. 1833) is considered to be a formula meaning P. atrosanguinea Lodd.
ex D. Don × P. pedata Nestl.

Ex. 3.  Verbascum “nigro-lychnitis” (Schiede, Pl. Hybr.: 40. 1825) is considered to be a
formula, Verbascum lychnitis L. × V. nigrum L.; the correct binary name for this hybrid is V.
×schiedeanum W. D. J. Koch (1844).

Ex. 4.   The   following   names   include   true   epithets   (but   see   Rec.   H.10A):   Acaena
×anserovina Orchard (1969) (from A. anserinifolia (J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.) J. Armstr.
and A. ovina A. Cunn.); Micromeria ×benthamineolens Svent. (1969) (from M. benthamii
Webb & Berthel. and M. pineolens Svent.).

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

Ex. 5.  Quercus ×deamii Trel. (in Mem. Natl. Acad. Sci. 20: 14. 1924) when described was
considered as the cross Q. alba L. × Q. muehlenbergii Engelm. However, progeny grown
from acorns from the tree from which the type originated led Bartlett to conclude that the
parents were in fact Q. macrocarpa Michx. and Q. muehlenbergii. If this conclusion is
accepted, the name Q. ×deamii applies to Q. macrocarpa × Q. muehlenbergii, and not to
Q. alba × Q. muehlenbergii.

Recommendation H.10A

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

Recommendation H.10B

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

  125

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 125 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

H.11-H.12 Hybrids

Article H.11

H.11.1.  The name of a nothospecies of which the postulated or known par-
ent species belong to different genera is a combination of a nothospecific
epithet with a nothogeneric name.

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

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

H.11.2.  The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific nothotaxon of
which the postulated or known parental taxa are assigned to different spe-
cies, may be placed subordinate to the name of a nothospecies (but see Rec.
H.10B).

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

Article H.12

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

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

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

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

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

 
 
 

———————————————————————

¹  Pre-Sydney editions of the Code permitted only one rank under provisions equivalent to
   H.12. That rank was equivalent to variety and the category was termed “nothomorph”.

126  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 126 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 
 
 
 
 
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 127 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Glossary App. VII

 
 
 
 

APPENDIX VII

 
 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED AND DEFINED IN THIS CODE
 
 

The particular usage of a few other words, not defined in the Code, is also
indicated; these are italicized in the list below and are accompanied by
editorial explanation of their use.
 

admixture. [Not defined] – something mixed in, especially a minor ingredient,
        used of components of a gathering that represent a taxon or taxa other than
        that intended by the collector, and which do not preclude the gathering, or
        part thereof, being a type specimen, the admixture being disregarded (Art.
        18.2).

alternative family names. The eight family names, regularly formed in accord-
        ance with Art. 18.1, allowed as alternatives (Art. 18.6) to the family names of
        long usage treated as validly published under Art. 18.5.

alternative names. Two or more different names proposed simultaneously for
        the same taxon by the same author (Art. 34.2).

analysis. See illustration with analysis.

anamorph. A mitotic asexual morph in pleomorphic fungi (Art. 59.1).

ascription. The direct association of the name of a person or persons with a new
        name or description or diagnosis of a taxon (Art. 46.3).

automatic typification. (1) Typification of a nomenclaturally superfluous and il-
        legitimate name by the type of the name which ought to have been adopted
        under the rules (Art. 7.5). (2) Typification of the name of a taxon above the
        rank of genus by the type of the generic name on which it is based (Art. 10.6
        and 10.7).

autonym. A generic name or specific epithet repeated without an author citation
        as the final epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus or of an infra-
        specific taxon that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the
        genus or species, respectively (Art. 22.1 and 26.1).

available. [Not defined] – applied to an epithet in a legitimate (Art. 11.5 and
        15.5) or illegitimate (Art. 58.1) name, the type of which falls within the cir-

484  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 128 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

App. VII Glossary


        cumscription of the taxon under consideration and where the use of the epi-
        thet would not be contrary to the rules (see also available name)].

available name. A name published under the International Code of Zoological
        Nomenclature with a status equivalent to that of a validly published name
        under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Art. 45.4 footnote).

avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum). A name proposed as a
        substitute for a previously published name (Art. 7.3 and 33.4).

basionym. A previously published legitimate name-bringing or epithet-bringing
        synonym from which a new name is formed for a taxon of different rank or
        position (Art. 33.4, 49.1 and 52.3).

binary combination. A generic name combined with a specific epithet to form a
        specific name (Art. 23.1).

binary designation. [Not defined] – an apparent binary combination that has not
        been validly published (Art. 46 Note 2; see also Art. 6.3).

combinatio nova (comb. nov.). See new combination.

combination. A name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name
        of a genus combined with one or two epithets (Art. 6.7).

compound. A name or epithet which combines elements derived from two or
        more Greek or Latin words, a regular compound being one in which a noun
        or adjective in a non-final position appears as a modified stem (Rec. 60G.1)
        (see also pseudocompound).

confusingly similar names. Orthographically similar names of genera or epithets
        of names of subdivisions of genera, of species, or of infraspecific taxa likely
        to be confused (Art. 53.3 and 53.4).

conserved name (nomen conservandum). (1) A name of a family, genus, or
        species ruled as legitimate and with precedence over other specified names
        even though it may have been illegitimate when published or lack priority
        (Art. 14.114.7). (2) A name for which its type, orthography, or gender has
        been fixed by the conservation process (Art. 14.1, 14.914.11).

correct name. The name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position,
        and rank that must be adopted in accordance with the rules (Art. 6.6, 11.1,
        11.3, and 11.4).

cultivar. A special category of plants used in agriculture, forestry, and horti-
        culture defined and regulated in the International Code of Nomenclature for
        Cultivated Plants (Art. 28 Notes 2, 4, and 5).

date of name. The date of valid publication of a name (Art. 45.1).

descriptio generico-specifica. A single description simultaneously validating the
        names of a genus and its single species (Art. 42.1).

  485

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 129 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Glossary App. VII

description. [Not defined] – a written statement of a feature or features of a taxon
        required for valid publication of its name (cf. Art. 32.1(d) and 32.3).

descriptive name. A name of a taxon above the rank of family not based on a
        generic name (Art. 16.1).

designation. [Not defined] – the term used for what appears to be a name but that
        has not been validly published (Art. 23.6, 46 Note 2; see also Art. 6.3).

diagnosis. A statement of that which in the opinion of its author distinguishes the
        taxon from other taxa (Art. 32.2).

duplicate. Part of a single gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon
        made by the same collector(s) at one time (Art. 8.3 footnote).

effective publication. Publication in accordance with Art. 29-31 (Art. 6.1).

epithet. The final word in a binary combination and the word following the con-
        necting term denoting rank in other combinations (Art. 6.7, 11.4, 21.1, 23.1,
        and 24.1).

epitype. A specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpretative type
        when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all orig-
        inal material associated with a validly published name cannot be identified
        for the purpose of precise application of the name of a taxon (Art. 9.7).

exsiccata. [Not defined] – Latin adjective used as noun, nominative plural “exsic-
        catae”, refers to a set of dried specimens, usually numbered and with printed
        labels, distributed by sale, gift, or exchange (cf. Art. 30.4 and 30 Note 1)].

ex-type (ex typo) [also ex-holotype (ex holotypo), ex-isotype (ex isotypo)]. A
        living isolate obtained from the type of a name when this is a culture per-
        manently preserved in a metabolically inactive state (Rec. 8B.2).

final epithet. 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 (Art. 11.4 footnote).

forma specialis. See special form.

form-taxon. In pleomorphic fungi, a taxon typified by an anamorph (Art. 59.3).

fossil taxon. A taxon the name of which is based on a fossil type (Pre. 7 footnote
        and Art. 13.3).

gathering. [Not defined] – something brought together, used for a collection of
        one or more specimens made at the same place and time (Art. 8.2).

heterotypic synonym (taxonomic synonym). A synonym based on a type dif-
        ferent from that of the accepted name (Art. 14.4); termed a “subjective syno-
        nym” in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Bacteri-
        ological Code
(Art. 14.4 footnote).

486  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 130 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

App. VII Glossary

holomorph. A pleomorphic fungal species in all its morphs (Art. 59.1).

holotype. The one specimen or illustration used by the author or designated by
        the author as the nomenclatural type (Art. 9.1).

homonym. A name spelled exactly like another name published for a taxon of the
        same rank based on a different type (Art. 53.1). Note. Names of subdivisions
        of genera or infraspecific taxa with the same epithet even if of different rank
        are treated as homonyms disregarding the connecting term (Art. 53.4).

homotypic synonym (nomenclatural synonym). A synonym based on the same
        type as that of another name in the same rank (Art. 14.4); termed an “objec-
        tive synonym” in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the
        Bacteriological Code (Art. 14.4 footnote).

hybrid formula. An expression consisting of the names of the parent taxa of a
        hybrid with a multiplication sign placed between them (Art. H.2.1).

illegitimate name. A validly published name that is not in accordance with one
        or more rules (Art. 6.4), principally those on superfluity (Art. 52) and homo-
        nymy (Art. 53 and 54).

illustration with analysis. An illustration with a figure or group of figures, in
        vascular plants commonly separate from the main illustration, showing de-
        tails aiding identification (Art. 42.4).

improper Latin termination. A termination of a name or epithet not agreeing
        with the termination mandated by the Code (Art. 16.3, 18.4, 19.6, and 32.7).

indelible autograph. Handwritten material reproduced by some mechanical or
        graphic process (such as lithography, offset, or metallic etching) (Art. 30.2).

indirect reference. A clear (if cryptic) indication, by an author citation or in
        some other way, that a previously and effectively published description or
        diagnosis applies (Art. 32.6).

informal usage. Usage of rank-denoting terms at more than one non-successive
        position in the taxonomic sequence. Note: names involved in such usage are
        validly published but unranked (Art. 33.11).

isonym. The same name based on the same type, published independently at dif-
        ferent times by different authors. Note: only the earliest isonym has nomen-
        clatural status (Art. 6 Note 2).

isosyntype. A duplicate of a syntype (Art. 9.10).

isotype. A duplicate specimen of the holotype (Art. 9.3).

later homonym. A homonym published later than another (Art. 53.1).

lectotype. A specimen or illustration designated from the original material as the
        nomenclatural type 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 (Art. 9.2).

  487

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 131 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Glossary App. VII

legitimate name. A validly published name that is in accordance with all rules
        (Art. 6.5).

misplaced term. A rank-denoting term used contrary to the relative order speci-
        fied in the Code (Art. 18.2, 19.2, 33.9, and 33 Note 3).

monotypic genus. A genus for which a single binomial is validly published (Art.
         42.2).

morphotaxon. A fossil taxon which, for nomenclatural purposes, comprises only
        one part, life-history stage, or preservational state represented by the corres-
        ponding nomenclatural type (Art. 1.2).

name. A name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegit-
        imate (Art. 6.3).

neotype. A specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomenclatural type if no
        original material is extant or as long as it is missing (Art. 9.6).

new combination. A combination formed from a previously published legitimate
        name and employing the same final epithet (or employing the name itself if
        formed from a generic name) (Art. 7.4).

new name. A newly published name. Note: this name may be the name of a new
         taxon, a new combination, a name at a new rank (status novus), or an avowed
         substitute (nomen novum) for an existing name (Art. 7.3, 7.4, 9 Note 1, Rec.
         45A.1).

nomen conservandum (nom. cons.). See conserved name.

nomen novum (nom. nov.). See avowed substitute.

nomen nudum (nom. nud.). A name of a new taxon published without a descrip-
         tion or diagnosis or reference to a description or diagnosis (Rec. 50B.1).

nomen rejiciendum (nom. rej.). A name rejected in favour of a name conserved
        under Art. 14 or a name ruled as rejected under Art. 56 (see also “ rejected
        name”) (App. II, III, IV, and V).

nomen utique rejiciendum. A name ruled as rejected under Art. 56. Note: it and
        all combinations based on it are not to be used (see App. V).

nomenclatural novelties. New names and descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa
        (Rec. 30A).

nomenclatural synonym. See homotypic synonym.

nomenclatural type. The element to which the name of a taxon is permanently
        attached (Art. 7.2).

non-fossil taxon. A taxon the name of which is based on a non-fossil type (Pre. 7
        footnote and Art. 13.3).

nothogenus. A hybrid genus (Art. 3.2).

488  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 132 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

App. VII Glossary

nothomorph. A rank-denoting term formerly used for a subordinate taxon within
        a nothospecies. Names published as nothomorphs are now treated as names
        of varieties (Art. H.12.2 and footnote).

nothospecies. A hybrid species (Art. 3.2).

nothotaxon. A hybrid taxon (Art. 3.2 and H.3.1).

objective synonym. See homotypic synonym.

opera utique oppressa. Works, ruled as suppressed, in which names in specified
        ranks are not validly published (Art. 32.9 and App. VI).

original material. Specimens and illustrations indicated in the protologue of a
        name (see Art. 9 Note 2 for details).

original spelling. The spelling employed when a name was validly published
        (Art. 60.2).

orthographic variants. Various spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of
        a name or its epithet, only one nomenclatural type being involved (Art. 61.2).

page reference. Citation of the page or pages on which the basionym or replaced
         synonym was validly published (Art. 33 Note 1).

paratype. 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 simulta-
        neously designated as types (Art. 9.5).

plant. Any organism traditionally studied by botanists (Pre. 1 footnote and Pre.7).

position. [Not defined] – used to denote the placement of a taxon relative to other
        taxa in a classification, regardless of rank (Prin. IV, Art. 6.6 and 11.1).

priority. A right to precedence established by the date of valid publication of a
        legitimate name (Art. 11) or of an illegitimate earlier homonym (Art. 45.3),
        or by the date of designation of a type (Art. 7.10, 7.11).

protologue. Everything associated with a name at its valid publication, i.e. de-
        scription or diagnosis, illustrations, references, synonymy, geographical data,
        citation of specimens, discussion, and comments (Rec. 8A footnote).

provisional name. A name proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of
        the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of
        the taxon (Art. 34.1).

pseudocompound. A name or epithet which combines elements derived from
        two or more Greek or Latin words and in which a noun or adjective in a non-
        final position appears as a word with a case ending, not as a modified stem
        (Rec. 60G.1(b)) (see also compound).

rank. [Not defined] – used for the relative position of a taxon in the taxonomic
        hierarchy (Art. 2.1).

  489

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 133 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

Glossary App. VII

rejected name. A name the use of which is prohibited, either by formal action
        under Art. 14 or 56 overriding other provisions of the Code (see nomen
        rejiciendum and nomen utique rejiciendum) or because it was nomenclatur-
        ally superfluous when published (Art. 52) or a later homonym (Art. 53 and
        54).

replaced synonym. The name replaced by an avowed substitute (nomen novum,
        replacement name) (Art. 33.4).

replacement name. See avowed substitute.

sanctioned name. The name of a fungus treated as if conserved against earlier
        homonyms and competing synonyms, through acceptance in one of two sanc-
        tioning works (Art. 15).

special form (forma specialis). A taxon of parasites, especially fungi, character-
        ized from a physiological standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a morpho-
        logical standpoint, the nomenclature of which is not governed by this Code
        (Art. 4 Note 4).

specimen. A gathering, or part of a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific
        taxon made at one time, disregarding admixtures (Art. 8.2).

status. (1) Nomenclatural standing with regard to effective publication, valid pub-
        lication, legitimacy, and correctness (Art. 6 and 12.1). (2) Rank of a taxon
        within the taxonomic hierarchy (see status novus) (Art. 7.4).

status novus (stat. nov.). Assignment of a taxon to a different rank within the
        taxonomic hierarchy, e.g. when an infraspecific taxon is raised to the rank of
        species or the inverse change occurs (Art. 7.4, Rec. 21B.4 and 24B.2).

subdivision of a family. Any taxon of a rank between family and genus (Art. 4
        Note 2).

subdivision of a genus. Any taxon of a rank between genus and species (Art. 4
        Note 2).

subjective synonym. See heterotypic synonym.

superfluous name. A name applied to a taxon circumscribed by the author to de-
        finitely include the type of a name which ought to have been adopted, or of
        which the epithet ought to have been adopted under the rules (Art. 52.1).

synonym. A name considered to apply to the same taxon as the accepted name
        (Art. 7.2).

syntype. Any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype,
        or any of two or more specimens simultaneously designated as types (Art.
        9.4).

tautonym. A binary combination in which the specific epithet exactly repeats the
        generic name (Art. 23.4).

490  

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 134 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 

App. VII Glossary

taxon (taxa). A taxonomic group at any rank (Art. 1.1).

teleomorph. See heterotypic synonym.

teleomorph. Meiotic sexual morph in pleomorphic fungi (Art. 59.1).

type. See nomenclatural type.

validate. [Not defined] – to make valid, used in the context of valid publication of
        a name, either with reference to an existing designation (e.g. Art. 42 Ex. 1),
        or in describing the method by which this is effected (e.g. Rec. 32A.1).

validly published name. A name effectively published and in accordance with
        Art. 32-45 or H.9 (Art. 6.2).

voted example. An Example mandated by a Congress to be inserted in the Code
        in order to legislate nomenclatural practice when the corresponding Article is
        open to divergent interpretation or does not adequately cover the matter (as
        contrasted with other Examples provided by the Editorial Committee) (Art. 7
        Ex. 10 footnote).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  491

_______________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006  —  Vienna Code

– 135 –

text: © 2006, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

_______________________________________________________________ 


 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
        
 
    [ Not present in this edition ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ sic ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
             [ see “Corrections to the Vienna Code”, Taxon 56: 585-586. 2007 ]