CHAPTER V. Valid publication of names
SECTION 1. General provisions
- 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, 60.10, and 60.11; and (c) have a form that complies with the provisions of Art. 16–27 (but see Art. 21.4 and 24.4) and Art. H.6–7 (see also Art. 61).
- 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 (see also Art. 60.12).
- The epithet in Cassia “* Chamaecristae” L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753) is a noun in the nominative plural, derived from “Chamaecrista”, a pre-Linnaean generic designation. Under Art. 21.2, however, this epithet must have the same form as a generic name, i.e. a noun in the nominative singular (Art. 20.1). The name is to be changed accordingly and is cited as Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L.
- 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 actually appear in that publication.
- 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.
- “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.
- “Rheum ×cultorum” (Thorsrud & Reisaeter, Norske Plantenavn: 95. 1948), being there a nomen nudum, is not validly published.
- “Fumaria ×salmonii” (Druce, List Brit. Pl.: 4. 1908) is not validly published, as only the presumed parentage F. densiflora × F. officinalis is stated.
- When publishing nomenclatural novelties, authors should indicate this by a phrase including the word “novus” or its abbreviation, e.g. genus novum (gen. nov., new genus), species nova (sp. nov., new species), combinatio nova (comb. nov., new combination), nomen novum (nom. nov., replacement name), or status novus (stat. nov., name at new rank).