Leningrad Code (1978)

Preamble

Pre

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL

NOMENCLATURE

P R E A M B L E

1 Botany requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature used by bota-
nists in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms which denote the
ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the scientific
names which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of plants. The pur-
pose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is not to indicate its characters or
history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its taxonomic
rank. This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic
groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error or ambi-
guity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is the avoidance of
the useless creation of names. Other considerations, such as absolute grammat-
ical correctness, regularity or euphony of names, more or less prevailing cus-
tom, 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 Re-
commendations. Examples are added to the rules and recommendations to il-
lustrate them.

4 The object of the Rules is to put the nomenclature of the past into order
and to provide for that of the future; names contrary to a rule cannot be maintained.

5 The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to bring
about greater uniformity and clearness, especially in future nomenclature;
names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be rejected, but
they are not examples to be followed.

6 The provisions regulating the modification of this Code form its last division.

7 The Rules and Recommendations apply to all organisms treated as plants
(including fungi), whether recent* or fossil, with the exception of the bacteria.
Nomenclature of bacteria is governed by the International Code of Nomen-
clature of Bacteria (1976). Special provisions are needed for certain groups of
plants: The International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants-1969 was
adopted by the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated
Plants; provisions for the names of hybrids appear in Appendix I.

* The term recent as used here and elsewhere in the Code is in contradistinction to fossil (see
Art. 13.3).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 1 –

______________________________________________________________________

Pre

Preamble

8 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.

9 In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubt-
ful, established custom is followed.

11 This edition of the Code supersedes all previous editions.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 2 –

______________________________________________________________________

Principles

1–VI

DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES

Principle I

Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature.

The Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups treated as plants
whether or not these groups were originally so treated*.

Principle II

The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of no-
menclatural types.

Principle III

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

Principle IV

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

Principle V

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

Principle VI

The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

* For the purposes of this Code, the word ‘plants’ does not include the bacteria.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 3 –

______________________________________________________________________

1–4

Ranks

DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C H A P T E R I. R A N K S O F T A X A,

A N D T H E T E R M S D E N O T I N G T H E M

Article 1

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

Article 2

2.1 Every individual plant is treated as belonging to a number of taxa of con-
secutively subordinate ranks, among which the rank of species (species) is basal.

Article 3

3.1 The principal ranks of taxa in ascending sequence are: species (species),
genus (genus), family (familia), order (ordo), class (classis), division (divisio), and
kingdom (regnum). Thus, except for some fossil plants (see 3.2), each species
belongs (is to be assigned) to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.

3.2 Because of the fragmentary nature of the specimens on which the species
of some fossil plants are based, the genera to which they are assigned are not
assignable to a family, although they may be referable to a taxon of higher rank.
Such genera are known as form-genera (forma-genera). (See Art. 59.5.)

Examples (fossil plants): (Not form-genera) Lepidocarpon Scott (Lepidocarpaceae), Mazocar-
pon (Scott) Benson (Sigillariaceae), Siltaria Traverse (Fagaceae); (Form-genera) Dadoxylon
Endl. (Coniferopsida), Pecopteris (Brongn.) Sternb. (Pteropsida), Stigmaria Brongn. (Lepido-
phytales and Lepidospermales), Spermatites Miner (Cormophyta, excl. Eocormophyta et Pa-
laeocormophyta microphylla).

Note 1. For the ranks of hybrid taxa, see Art. H.1.1.

Article 4

4.1 If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required, the terms for these are
made either by adding the prefix sub (sub-) to the terms denoting the ranks or by
the introduction of supplementary terms. A plant may be assigned to taxa of the
following subordinate ranks: Regnum, Subregnum, Divisio, Subdivisio, Classis,
Subclassis, Ordo, Subordo, Familia, Subfamilia, Tribus, Subtribus, Genus, Sub-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 4 –

______________________________________________________________________

Ranks

genus, Sectio, Subsectio, Series, Subseries, Species, Subspecies, Varietas, Sub-
varietas, Forma, Subforma.

4.2 Further supplementary ranks may be intercalated or added, provided that
confusion or error is not thereby introduced.

Note 1. For hybrids and certain variants of species in cultivation, see Appendix I
and Art. 28.

Note 2. In classifying parasites, especially fungi, authors who do not give specific,
subspecific or varietal value to taxa characterized from a physiological stand-
point but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint may distinguish
within the species special forms (formae speciales) characterized by their adap-
tation to different hosts, but the nomenclature of formae speciales shall not be
governed by the provisions of this Code.

Article 5

5.1 The relative order of the ranks specified in Arts. 3 and 4 must not be altered.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 5 –

______________________________________________________________________

6–7

Definitions

C H A P T E R II. N A M E S O F T A X A (G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S)

S E C T I O N 1 . D E F I N I T I O N S

Article 6

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

6.2 Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Arts. 32-45.

6.3 A legitimate name or epithet is one that is in accordance with the rules.

6.4 An illegitimate name or epithet is one that is contrary to Arts. 18.3 or 63-67
(see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 1).

6.5 The correct name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and
rank is the legitimate name which must be adopted for it under the rules (see
Art. 11).

Example: The generic name Vexillifera Ducke (Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 139. 1922),
based on the single species V. micranthera, is legitimate because it is in accordance with the
rules. The same is true of the generic name Dussia Krug et Urban ex Taub. (in Engl. et Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam. III. 3: 193. 1892), based on the single species D. martinicensis. Both generic
names are correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (Repert. Sp. Nov. 19:
291. 1924), however, united Vexillifera Ducke and Dussia Krug et Urban ex Taub. in a single
genus; when this treatment is accepted the latter name is the only correct one for the genus
with this particular circumscription. The legitimate name Vexillifera may therefore be correct
or incorrect according to different concepts of the taxa.

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

6.7 The name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name of a
genus combined with one or two epithets, is termed a combination (see Arts. 21,
23, and 24).

Examples of combinations: Gentiana lutea, Gentiana tenella var. occidentalis, Equisetum pa-
lustre var. americanum, Equisetum palustre f. fluitans, Mouriri subg. Pericrene, Arytera sect.
Mischarytera.

S E C T I O N 2 . T Y P I F I C A T I O N *

Article 7

7.1 The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is deter-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 6 –

______________________________________________________________________

Typification

mined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The application
of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by types when the names
are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.2).

7.2 A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon
is permanently attached, whether as a correct name or as a synonym. The no-
menclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of
a taxon.

7.3 A holotype is the one specimen or other element used by the author or
designated by him as the nomenclatural type. As long as a holotype is extant, it
automatically fixes the application of the name concerned.

7.4 If no holotype was indicated by the author who described a taxon, or when
the holotype has been lost or destroyed, a lectotype or a neotype as a substitute
for it may be designated. A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype.
An isotype, if such exists, must be chosen as the lectotype. If no isotype exists,
the lectotype must be chosen from among the syntypes, if such exist. If neither
an isotype nor a syntype nor any of the original material is extant, a neotype
may be selected.

7.5 A lectotype is a specimen or other element selected from the original material
to serve as a nomenclatural type when no holotype was designated at the time of
publication or as long as it is missing. When two or more specimens have been
designated as types by the author of a specific or infraspecific name (e.g. male
and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.), the lectotype must be chosen from
among them.

7.6 An isotype is any duplicate (part of a single gathering made by a collector
at one time) of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

7.7 A syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited by the author when no
holotype was designated, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously
designated as types.

7.8 A neotype is a specimen or other element selected to serve as nomenclatural
type as long as all of the material on which the name of the taxon was based is
missing.

7.9 A new name published as an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for an older
name is typified by the type of the older name (see Art. 33.2; but see Art. 33
Note 1).

Example: Myrcia lucida McVaugh (Mem. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 18: 100. 1969) was published as a
nomen novum for M. laevis Berg (Linnaea 31: 252. 1862), an illegitimate homonym of M. laevis
G. Don (1832). The type of M. lucida is Spruce 3502, which is the type of M. laevis Berg (non
G. Don).

7.10 A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name or epi-
thet (stat. nov., comb. nov.) is, in all circumstances, typified by the type of the
basionym (see Art. 55.2).

Example: Ankistrodesmus falcatus var. setiformis Nygaard was described with an illustration as
the type. In 1969, Komárková-Legnerová published Monoraphidium setiforme (Nyg.) comb.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 7 –

______________________________________________________________________

8	Typification

nov., stating correctly that the type was ‘Fig. 42, Tab. 4 in Nygaard Dansk Plantepl., 1945.’
Regardless of the actual identity of Komárková-Legnerová’s own material or of the correct
taxonomic disposition of Nygaard’s material, nomenclaturally all combinations for which
Nygaard’s name is the basionym are typified by his type.

7.11 A name or epithet which was nomenclaturally superfluous when published
(see Art. 63) is automatically typified by the type of the name or epithet which
ought to have been adopted under the rules, unless the author of the superfluous
name or epithet has indicated a definite type.

7.12 The type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural
starting-point later than 1753 (see Art. 13) is to be determined in accordance
with the indication or description and other matter accompanying its first valid
publication (see Arts. 32–45).

7.13 When valid publication is by reference to a pre-starting-point description,
the latter must be used for purposes of typification as though newly published.

7.14 A change of the listed type-species of a conserved generic name (see Art. 14
and App. III) can be effected only by a procedure similar to that adopted for the
conservation of generic names.

Example: Bullock and Killick (Taxon 6: 239. 1957) proposed, in the interests of stability and
taxonomic accuracy, that the type-species of Plectranthus L’Hér. should be changed from P.
punctatus (L.f.) L’Hér. to P. fruticosus L’Hér. This was approved by the appropriate Commit-
tees and sanctioned by an International Botanical Congress.

7.15 The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or
below is the specimen whose figure accompanies or is cited in the valid publi-
cation of the name (see Art. 38). If figures of more than one specimen were given
or cited when the name was validly published, one of those specimens must be
chosen as type.

7.16 The typification of names of genera based on plant megafossils and plant
microfossils, form-genera, genera of imperfect fungi, and any other analogous
genera or lower taxa does not differ from that indicated above.

Recommendation 7A

7A.1 It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, es-
pecially the holotype, be deposited in a permanent, responsible institution and that it be scru-
pulously conserved.

Recommendation 7B

7B.1 Whenever the elements on which the name of a taxon is based are heterogeneous, the
lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage unless the element thus selected is
discordant with the major elements of the protologue.*

Article 8

8.1 The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be followed,

* Protologue (from πρωθος, first, λογος, discourse): everything associated with a name at its
first publication, i.e. diagnosis, description, illustrations, references, synonymy, geographical
data, citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 8 –

______________________________________________________________________

Typification

9–10

but his choice is superseded if the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of
the original material is rediscovered; it may also be superseded if it can be shown
that the choice was based upon a misinterpretation of the protologue, or was
made arbitrarily.

Example: In Britton & Brown’s Illustrated Flora (ed. 2. 1913), a type species was designated for
each genus. The lectotype, as understood by the authors, was ‘the first binomial species in or-
der’ eligible under certain provisions. This is considered an arbitrary selection, as e.g. the lecto-
typification of Delphinium L. (a genus assigned by its author to Polyandria Trigynia) by D.
consolida L. (a unicarpellate species).

Article 9

9.1 The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species or infra-
specific taxon is a single specimen or other element except in the following case:
for small herbaceous plants and for most non-vascular plants, the type may
consist of more than one individual, which ought to be conserved permanently
on one herbarium sheet or in one preparation.

9.2 If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet or preparation contains
parts belonging to more than one taxon, the name must remain attached to that
part (lectotype) which corresponds most nearly with the original description.

Examples: The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma, a polygamous species, is a male
specimen collected by Kappler (593a in U). The author designated a hermaphroditic specimen
collected by the Forestry Service of Surinam as a paratype* (B. W. 1618 in U).

The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (J. Bot. 16: 236. 1878) is Lorentz no.
128 in BM; this, however, proved to be a mixture. L. B. Smith (Proc. Am. Acad. 70: 192. 1935)
acted in accordance with this rule in designating one part of Lorentz’s gathering as the lecto-
type.

9.3 If it is impossible to preserve a specimen as the type of a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon of recent plants, or if such a name is without a type speci-
men, the type may be a description or figure.

9.4 One whole specimen used in establishing a taxon of fossil plants is to be
considered the nomenclatural type. If this specimen is cut into pieces (sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coalball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in es-
tablishing the diagnosis ought to be clearly marked.

9.5 Type specimens of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and can-
not be living plants or cultures.

Article 10

10.1 The type of a name of a genus or of any taxon between genus and species
is a species, that of a name of a family or of any taxon between family and genus

* See Guide for the determination of types, para. 4(c), p. 75.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 9 –

______________________________________________________________________

11–13

Priority

is the genus on whose present or former name that of the taxon concerned is
based (see also Art. 18).

10.2 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 ulti-
mately based on generic names (see Art. 16).

10.3 The type of a name of a family not based on a generic name is the genus
that typifies the alternative name of that family (see Art. 18).

Note 1. For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera* see Art.
22.

S E C T I O N 3 . P R I O R I T Y

Article 11

11.1 Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription, po-
sition, and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being made
for 9 families for which alternative names are permitted (see Art. 18.5) and for
certain fungi and fossil plants (see Art. 59).

11.2 For any taxon from family to genus inclusive, the correct name is the ear-
liest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of priority
by conservation (see Arts. 14 and 15) or where Arts. 13.1(f), 19.3, 58, or 59 ap-
ply.

11.3 For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combina-
tion of the earliest available legitimate epithet in the same rank with the correct
name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except where Arts. 13.1(f),
22, 26, 58, or 59 apply.

11.4 The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the
rank of family (but see Rec. 16B).

Article 12

12.1 A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly pub-
lished (see Arts. 32–45).

S E C T I O N 4 . L I M I T A T I O N O F T H E P R I N C I P L E O F P R I O R I T Y

Article 13

13.1 Valid publication of names for plants of the different groups is treated as

* Here and elsewhere in the Code the phrase ‘subdivision of a genus’ refers only to taxa be-
tween genus and species in rank.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 10 –

______________________________________________________________________

Starting points

beginning at the following dates (for each group a work is mentioned which is
treated as having been published on the date given for that group):

Recent plants

(a) SPERMATOPHYTA and PTERIDOPHYTA, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plan-
tarum ed. 1).

(b) MUSCI (the SPHAGNACEAE excepted), 1 Jan. 1801 (Hedwig, Species Musco-
rum).

(d) LICHENES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1). For nomen-
clatural purposes names given to lichens shall be considered as applying to
their fungal components.

(e) FUNGI: UREDINALES, USTILAGANALES and GASTEROMYCETES, 31 Dec. 1801
(Persoon, Synopsis Methodica Fungorum).

(f) FUNGI CAETERI, 1 Jan. 1821 (Fries, Systema Mycologicum vol. 1). Vol. 1 of
      the Systema is treated as having appeared on 1 Jan. 1821, and the Elenchus
      Fungorum (1828) is treated as a part of the Systema. Names of FUNGI CAE-
      TERI published in other works between the dates of the first (vol. 1) and last
      (vol. 3, part 2 and index) parts of the Systema which are synonyms or hom-
      onyms of names of any of the FUNGI CAETERI included in the Systema do not
      affect the nomenclatural status of names used by Fries in this work.

(g) ALGAE, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1). Exceptions:
      NOSTOCACEAE HOMOCYSTEAE, 1 Jan. 1892 (Gomont, Monographie des Oscilla-
      riées, 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 Jan. 1892.
      NOSTOCACEAE HETEROCYSTEAE, 1 Jan. 1886 (Bornet et Flahault, Révision des
      Nostocacées hétérocystées, 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, 1887, and 1888 respectively, are treated as having been published
      simultaneously on 1 Jan. 1886.
      DESMIDIACEAE, 1 Jan. 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).
      OEDOGONIACEAE, 1 Jan. 1900 (Hirn, Monographie und Iconographie der Oe-
      dogoniaceen, Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).

(h) MYXOMYCETES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).

Fossil plants

(i) ALL GROUPS 31 Dec. 1820 (Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch 1: 1–24.
t. 1-13). Schlotheim, Petrefactenkunde, 1820, is regarded as published before
31 Dec. 1820.

13.2 The group to which a name is assigned for the purposes of this Article is
determined by the accepted taxonomic position of the type of the name.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 11 –

______________________________________________________________________

14	Nomina conservanda

Examples: The genus Porella and its single species, P. pinnata, were referred by Linnaeus (Sp.
Pl. 2: 1106. 1753) to the Musci; if the type specimen of P. pinnata is accepted as belonging to
the Hepaticae, the names were validly published in 1753.

The lectotype species of Lycopodium L. (Sp. Pl. 2: 1100. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 486. 1754) is L.
clavatum L. (Sp. Pl. 2: 1101. 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 Whether a name applies to a taxon of fossil plants or of recent plants is
decided by reference to the specimen that serves directly or indirectly as its
nomenclatural type. The name of a species or infraspecific taxon is treated as
pertaining to a recent taxon unless its type specimen is fossil in origin. Fossil
material is distinguished from recent material by stratigraphic relations at the
site of original occurrence. In cases of doubtful stratigraphic relations, regu-
lations for recent taxa shall apply.

13.4 Generic names which first appear in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762–63) are associated with the first subsequent description
given under those names in Linnaeus’ Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6
(1764) (see Art. 41).

13.5 The two volumes of Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753), which ap-
peared in May and August, 1753, respectively, are treated as having been pub-
lished simultaneously on the former date (1 May 1753).

Example: The generic names Thea L. Sp. Pl. 515 (May 1753) and Camellia L. Sp. Pl. 698 (Aug.
1753), Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 311 (1754) are treated as having been published simultaneously in May
1753. Under Art. 57 the combined genus bears the name Camellia, since Sweet (Hort. Suburb.
Lond. 157. 1818), who was the first to unite the two genera, chose that name, citing Thea as a
synonym.

Article 14

14.1 In order to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of genera,
families, and intermediate taxa 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 Appendices II and III, lists of names that are con-

served (nomina conservanda) and must be retained as useful exceptions. Con-
servation aims at retention of those generic names which best serve stability of
nomenclature. (See Rec. 50E.)

14.2 A conserved name is conserved against all other names in the same rank
based on the same type (nomenclatural synonyms, which are to be rejected)
whether these are cited in the corresponding list of rejected names or not, and
against those names based on different types (taxonomic synonyms) that are
cited in that list*.

* The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomen-
clature of Bacteria use the terms ‘objective synonym’ and ‘subjective synonym’ for nomen-
clatural and taxonomic synonym, respectively.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 12 –

______________________________________________________________________

Nomina conservanda

14.3 When a conserved name competes with one or more other 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. 57.

Examples: If the genus 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.

If Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is united with Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the
prior name Berberis, although Mahonia is conserved.

Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nasturtium P. Miller
(1754) and the nomenclatural synonym Cardaminum Moench (1794); consequently if reunited
with Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name Rorippa.

14.4 A rejected name may not be restored for a taxon which includes the type of
the corresponding conserved name.

Example: Enallagma Baillon (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 Dendrosi-
cus.

14.5 The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types.

14.6 When a name of a genus 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 con-
sidered the name of a genus distinct from that of the nomen conservandum except
when the earlier rejected name is a homonym of the conserved name.

Example: The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz et Pav. (1802) is conserved against the earlier
names Enargea Banks et Sol. ex Gaertn. (1788) and Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (1789). If, how-
ever, Enargea Banks et Sol. ex Gaertn. is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea
is retained for it.

14.7 A conserved name is conserved against all its earlier homonyms.

Example: The generic name Smithia Ait. (1789), conserved against Damapana Adans., is
thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777).

14.8 When a name is conserved only to preserve a particular orthography, it is
to be attributed without change of priority to the author who originally de-
scribed the taxon.

14.9 The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for additions.
Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied by a detailed state-
ment of the cases both for and against its conservation. Such proposals must be
submitted to the General Committee (see Division III), which will refer them
for examination to the committees for the various taxonomic groups.

Note 1. Provision for the conservation of a name in a sense that excludes the
original type is made in Art. 48.2.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 13 –

______________________________________________________________________

15	Nomina conservanda

Article 15

15.1 When a name proposed for conservation has been approved by the Gener-
al Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic group concerned,
botanists are authorized to retain it pending the decision of a later International
Botanical Congress.

Recommendation 15A

15A.1 When a name proposed for conservation has been referred to the appropriate Commit-
tee for study, botanists should follow existing usage as far as possible pending the General
Committee’s recommendation on the proposal.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 14 –

______________________________________________________________________

Names of higher taxa

C H A P T E R III. N O M E N C L A T U R E O F T A X A A C C O R D I N G

T O T H E I R R A N K

S E C T I O N 1 . N A M E S O F T A X A A B O V E T H E R A N K O F F A M I L Y

Article 16

16.1 Names of taxa above the rank of family are automatically typified if they
are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10); for such automatically
typified names the autonym rule (as exemplified in Art. 19.3) governs the name
of the nomenclaturally typical subdivision of a division, the nomenclaturally
typical subclass of a class, and the nomenclaturally typical suborder of an order.

16.2 Where one of the stems -monado-, -cocco-, -nemato-, or -clado- as second
part of a generic name has been omitted before the termination -phyceae or
-phyta, the shortened class or division 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.

Examples: The class name Prasinophyceae is regarded as being based on the generic name
Prasinocladus in agreement with the indication by Chadefaud (Rev. Sci. 85: 862. 1947). – The
division name Chrysophyta may be regarded as automatically typified by the generic name
Chrysococcum if reintroduced as based on that name.

Note 1. The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above
the rank of family (Art. 11.4).

Recommendation 16A

16A.1 The name of a division is taken either from distinctive characters of the division des-
criptive names) or from the name of an included genus; it should end in -phyta, except when it
is a division of Fungi, in which case it should end in -mycota.

16A.2 The name of a subdivision is formed in a similar manner; it is distinguished from a di-
visional name by an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the termination -phytina, except when it
is a subdivision of Fungi, in which case it should end in -mycotina.

16A.3 The name of a class or of a subclass is formed in a similar manner and should end as
follows:

(a) In the Algae: -phyceae (class) and -phycidae (subclass);

(b) In the Fungi: -mycetes (class) and -mycetidae (subclass);

16A.4 When a name has been published with a termination not agreeing with this recommen-
dation, the termination may be changed to accord with it, without change of author’s name or
date of publication.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 15 –

______________________________________________________________________

17–18

Names of 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 If the name of an order is based on the stem of a name of a family, it must
have the termination -ales. If the name of a suborder is based on the stem of a
name of a family, it must have the termination -ineae.

Examples of names of orders: Fucales, Polygonales, Centrospermae, Parietales, Farinosae,
Ustilaginales; suborders: Enantioblastae, Bromeliineae, Malvineae.

17.2 Names intended as names of orders, but published with their rank denoted
by a term such as ‘Cohors’, ‘Nixus’, ‘Alliance’, or ‘Reihe’ instead of ordo are
treated as having been published as names of orders.

17.3 When the name of an order or suborder based on the stem of a name of a
family has been published with an improper termination, this termination must
be changed to accord with the rule, without change of the author’s name.

Recommendation 17A

17A.1 Authors should not publish new names of orders for taxa of that rank which include a
family from whose name an existing ordinal name is derived.

S E C T I O N 2. N A M E S O F F A M I L I E S A N D S U B F A M I L I E S ,

T R I B E S A N D S U B T R I B E S

Article 18

18.1 The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed
by adding the termination -aceae to the stem of a legitimate name of an included
genus (see also Art. 10). (For the treatment of final vowels of stems in compo-
sition, see Rec. 73G).

Examples: Rosaceae (from Rosa), Salicaceae (from Salix), Plumbaginaceae (from Plumbago).

18.2 Names intended as names of families, but published with their rank de-
noted by one of the terms order (ordo) or natural order (ordo naturalis) instead
of family, are treated as having been published as names of families.

18.3 A name of a family based on the stem of an illegitimate generic name is
illegitimate unless conserved. Contrary to Art. 32.1(b) such a name is validly
published if it complies with the other requirements for valid publication.

Examples: Caryophyllaceae, nom. cons. (from Caryophyllus Mill. non L.), Winteraceae, nom.
cons. (from Wintera Murr., an illegitimate synonym of Drimys J. R. et G. Forst.).

18.4 When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 16 –

______________________________________________________________________

Names of subfamilies

termination, the termination must be changed to conform with the rule, without
change of the author’s name. (See Art. 32.4.)

Examples: Coscinodisceae Kütz. (Die kies. Bacill. 130. 1844) is to be accepted as Coscinodis-
caceae Kütz. and not attributed to De Toni, who first used the correct spelling (Notarisia 5:
915. 1890). – Atherospermeae R. Br. (Voy. Terra Austral. 2: 553. 1814) is to be accepted as
Atherospermataceae R. Br. and not attributed to Shaw (in Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl. ed. 7. I04. 1966),
who first used the correct spelling, or to Lindley, who used the spelling Atherospermaceae
(Veg. King. 300. 1846). – However, Tricholomées Roze (Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 23: 49.1876) is not
to be accepted as Tricholomataceae Roze.

18.5 The following names, sanctioned by long usage, are treated as validly pub-
lished: Palmae (Arecaceae; type, Areca L.); Gramineae (Poaceae; type, Poa L.);
Cruciferae (Brassicaceae; type, Brassica L.); Leguminosae (Fabaceae; type, Faba
Mill. (= Vicia L. p.p.)); Guttiferae (Clusiaceae; type, Clusia L.); Umbelliferae
(Apiaceae; type, Apium L.); Labiatae (Lamiaceae; type, Lamium L.); Composi-

tae (Asteraceae; type, Aster L.). When the Papilionaceae (Fabaceae; type, Faba
Mill.) are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the Leguminosae,
the name Papilionaceae is conserved against Leguminosae (see Art. 51.2).

18.6 The use, as alternatives, of the names indicated in parentheses in Art. 18.5
is authorized.

Article 19

19.1 The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is
formed by adding the termination -oideae to the stem of a legitimate name of an
included genus.

19.2 A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination -eae, and a
subtribe similarly with the termination -inae.

19.3 The name of any taxon of a rank below family and above genus which
includes the type genus of the correct name of the family to which it is assigned
is to be based on the name of that genus, but without the citation of an author’s
name (see Art. 46). This provision applies only to the names of those taxa which
include the type of the correct name of the family; the type of the correct name
of each such taxon is the same as that of the correct name of the family.

Examples: The type genus of the family Rosaceae A. L. Juss. is Rosa L. and hence the sub-
family and tribe which include Rosa are to be called Rosoideae and Roseae. Similarly, the type
genus of the family Poaceae Barnh. (nom. alt., Gramineae A. L. Juss. – see Art. 18.5) is Poa L.
and hence the subfamily and tribe which include Poa are to be called Pooideae and Poeae.

Note 1. Names of other taxa of a rank below family and above genus are subject
to the provisions of priority.

Examples: The subfamily including the type genus of the family Ericaceae A. L. Juss. (Erica
L.) is called subfamily Ericoideae, and the tribe including this genus is called tribe Ericeae.
However, the correct name of the tribe including both Rhododendron L., the type genus of the

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 17 –

______________________________________________________________________

20	Generic names

subfamily Rhododendroideae Endl., and Rhodora L. is Rhodoreae G. Don (the oldest legiti-
mate name), and not Rhododendreae.

The subfamily of the family Asteraceae Dumort. (nom. alt., Compositae Giseke) including
Aster L., the type genus of the family name, is called subfamily Asteroideae, and the tribe and
subtribe including Aster are called Astereae and Asterinae, respectively. However, the correct
name of the tribe including both Cichorium L., the type genus of the subfamily Cichorioideae
Kitamura, and Lactuca L. is Lactuceae Cass., not Cichorieae, while that of the subtribe includ-
ing both Cichorium and Hyoseris L. is Hyoseridinae Less., not Cichoriinae (unless the Cicho-
riaceae A. L. Juss. are accepted as a family distinct from the Compositae).

19.4 The first valid publication of a name of a taxon at a rank below family and
above genus which does not include the type of the correct name of the family
automatically establishes the name of another taxon at the same rank which
does include that type. Such autonyms (automatically established names) are
not to be taken into consideration for purposes of priority. However, when no
earlier name is available, they may be adopted in another position and treated
as new.

19.5 The name of a subdivision of a family may not be based on the same stem
of a generic name as is the name of the family or of any subdivision of the same
family unless it has the same type as that name.

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’s name. However, when the rank of the group is
changed by a later author, he is then cited as author for the name with the ap-
propriate termination, in the usual way. (See Art. 32.4.)

Example: The subfamily name Climacieae Grout (Moss Fl. N. Am. 3: 4. 1928) is to be changed
to Climacioideae with rank and author’s name unchanged. If it is held necessary to change the
rank of this taxon to a tribe, then the name Climacieae is to be used followed by the name of
the author making the change.

Recommendation 19A

19A.1 If a legitimate name is not available for a taxon of a rank below family and above genus
which includes the type genus of the name of another higher or lower taxon (e.g., subfamily,
tribe, or subtribe), but not that of the family to which it is assigned, the new name of that taxon
should be based on the same generic name as the name of the higher or lower taxon.

Examples: Three tribes of the family Ericaceae, none of which includes the nomenclatural type
of the family (Erica L.), are Pyroleae D. Don, Monotropeae D. Don, and Vaccinieae D. Don.
the names of the later-described subfamilies Pyroloideae A. Gray, Monotropoideae A. Gray,
and Vaccinioideae Endl. are based on the same generic names.

S E C T I O N 3 . N A M E S O F G E N E R A A N D S U B D I V I S I O N S O F G E N E R A

Article 20

20.1 The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number, or a word

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 18 –

______________________________________________________________________

Generic names

treated as such. It may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be
composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner.

Examples: Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia, Liquidambar, Gloriosa, Impatiens,
Rhododendron, Manihot, Ifloga (an anagram of Filago).

20.2 The name of a genus may not coincide with a technical term currently used
in morphology unless it was published before 1 Jan. 1912 and was accompanied,
when originally published, by a specific name published in accordance with the
binary system of Linnaeus.

Examples: The generic name Radicula Hill (Brit. Herbal 264. 1756) coincides with the technical
term radicula (radicle) and, when originally published, was not accompanied by a specific
name in accordance with the Linnaean system. The name is correctly attributed to Moench
(Meth. 262. 1794), who first combined it with specific epithets, but at that time he included in
the genus the type-species of the generic name Rorippa Scop. (Fl. Cam. 520. 1760). Radicula
Moench is therefore rejected in favour of Rorippa.

Tuber Micheli ex Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 2: 289. 1823) was accompanied by binary specific names,
e.g. Tuber cibarium, and is therefore admissible.

Names such as Radix, Caulis, Folium, Spina, etc., cannot now be validly published as new
generic names.

20.3 The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless these words are
joined by a hyphen.

Examples: The generic name Uva ursi Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754) as originally publish-
ed consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen, and is therefore rejected; the
name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Arbust. 2: 371. 1755) as Uva-ursi
(hyphened when published).

However, names such as Quisqualis (formed by combining two words into one when originally
published), Sebastiano-Schaueria, and Neves-Armondia (both hyphened when originally
published) are admissible.

Note 1. The names of intergeneric hybrids are formed according to the provisions
of Appendix I, Art. H. 7.

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

(a) Words not intended as names.

Examples: Anonymos Walt. (Fl. Carol. 2,4,9, etc. 1788) is rejected as being a word applied to
28 different genera by Walter to indicate that they were without names.

Schaenoides and Scirpoides, as used by Rottböll (Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 14, 27. 1772) to indi-
cate unnamed genera resembling Schoenus and Scirpus which he stated (on page 7) he intended
to name later, are token words and not generic names. Kyllinga Rottböll and Fuirena Rottböll
(Descr. Ic. Nov. Pl. 12, 70. 1773) are the first legitimate names of these genera.

(b) Unitary designations of species.

Examples: F. Ehrhart (Phytophylacium 1780, and Beitr. 4: 145-150. 1789) proposed unitary
names for various species known at that time under binary names, e.g. Phaeocephalum for
Schoenus fuscus, and Leptostachys for Carex leptostachys. These names, which resemble
generic names, should not be confused with them and are to be rejected, unless they have been

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 19 –

______________________________________________________________________

21	Names of subdivisions of genera

published as generic names by a subsequent author; for example, the name Baeothryon,
employed as a unitary name of a species by Ehrhart, was subsequently published as a generic
name by A. Dietrich (Sp. Pl. 2(2): 89. 1833).

N. J. de Necker in his Elementa Botanica, 1790, proposed unitary designations for his ‘species
naturales’. These names, which resemble generic names, are not to be treated as such, unless
they have been published as generic names by a subsequent author; for example Anthopogon,
employed by Necker for one of his ‘species naturales’, was published as a generic name by
Rafinesque: Anthopogon Raf. (Fl. Tell. 3: 25. 1837, non Nuttall 1818).

Recommendation 20A

20A.1 Botanists who are forming generic names should comply with the following suggestions:

(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

(b) To avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin language.

(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 of one of the species of the taxon.

(h) Not to dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected with botany or at least with natural
science.

(i) To give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemorate a man
or a woman (see Rec. 73B).

(j) Not to form generic names by combining parts of two existing generic names, e.g. Horde-
lymus from Hordeum and Elymus, because such names are likely to be confused with names
of intergeneric hybrids (see Art. H. 7).

Article 21

21.1 The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name
and a subdivisional epithet connected by a term (subgenus, section, series, etc.)
denoting its rank.

21.2 The epithet is either of the same form as a generic name, or a plural ad-
jective agreeing in gender with the generic name and written with a capital
initial letter (see Art. 32.4).

21.3 The epithet of a subgenus or section is not to be formed from the name of
the genus to which it belongs by adding the termination -oides or -opsis, or the
prefix Eu-.

Examples: Costus subg. Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect. Anomodiscus; Sapium subsect. Pa-
tentinervia; Euphorbia sect. Tithymalus; Euphorbia subsect. Tenellae; but not Carex sect.
Eucarex.

Note 1. The use within the same genus of the same epithet for subdivisions of
the genus, even if they are of different rank, based on different types is illegiti-
mate under Art. 64.

Note 2. The names of hybrids with the rank of a subdivision of a genus are form-
ed according to the provisions of Appendix I, Art. H.7.9.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 20 –

______________________________________________________________________

Autonyms

Recommendation 21A

21A.1 When it is desired to indicate the name of a subdivision of the genus to which a particu-
lar species belongs in connection with the generic name and specific epithet, its epithet is placed
in parentheses between the two; when necessary, its rank is also indicated.

Examples: Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus; Astragalus (Phaca) umbellatus; Loran-
thus (sect. Ischnanthus) gabonensis.

Recommendation 21B

21B.1 The epithet of a subgenus or section is preferably a substantive, that of a subsection or
lower subdivision of a genus preferably a plural adjective.

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

21B.3 If it is desired to indicate the resemblance of a subgenus or section (other than the sub-
genus or section including the type of the generic name) of one genus to another genus, the
termination -oides or -opsis may be added to the stem of the name of that other genus to form
the epithet of the subgenus or section concerned.

Article 22

22.1 The subgenus or section (but not subsection or lower subdivision) in-
cluding the type species of the correct name of the genus to which it is assigned
bears that generic name unaltered as its epithet, but without citation of an au-
thor’s name (see Art. 46). The type of the correct name of each such subgenus
or section is the same as that of the generic name. This provision does not apply
to sections which include the type species of the names of other subgenera of the
genus. The names of such sections are subject to the provisions of priority; they
may repeat the name of the subgenus if no other epithet is available (see Rec.
22A).

22.2 The first valid publication of a name of a subgenus or section which does
not include the type of the correct name of the genus automatically establishes
the name of another subgenus or section respectively which does include that
type and which bears as its epithet the generic name unaltered. Such autonyms
(automatically established names) are not to be taken into consideration for
purposes of priority. However, when no other epithet is available, the epithets of
autonyms may be adopted in another position or rank and treated as new.

Examples: The subgenus of Malpighia L. which includes the lectotype of the generic name (M.
glabra L.) is called Malpighia subg. Malpighia, and not Malpighia subg. Homoiostylis Nieden-

zu. Similarly, the section including the lectotype of the generic name is called Malpighia sect.
Malpighia, and not Malpighia sect. Apyrae DC.

However, the correct name of the section of the genus Phyllanthus which includes both P.
casticum Willem., the type of the subgenus Kirganelia (Juss.) Webster, and P. reticulatus Poir.,
the type of the section Anisonema (Juss.) Griseb., is Phyllanthus sect. Anisonema (Juss.) Griseb.,
the oldest legitimate name for that section, and not Phyllanthus sect. Kirganelia.
21

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 21 –

______________________________________________________________________

23	Specific names

22.3 The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat un-
changed the correct name of the genus, except when the two names have the
same type.

22.4 When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus is identical with or derived
from the epithet of one of its constituent species, this species is the type of the
name of the subdivision of the genus unless the original author of that name
designated another type.

Examples: The type of Euphorbia subg. Esula Persoon (Syn. Pl. 2: 14. 1806) is E. esula L.; the
designation of E. peplus L. as lectotype by Croizat (Rev. Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13. 1939) is rejected.

The type of Lobelia sect. Eutupa Wimmer (Ann. Nat. Mus. Wien 61: 365. 1948) is L. tupa L.

22.5 When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus is identical with or derived
from the epithet of a specific name that is a later homonym, it is the species
designated by that later homonym, whose correct name necessarily has a differ-
ent epithet, that is the nomenclatural type.

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 the same epithet and type as the subgenus.

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 the same epithet and type as one of its subordinate
sections.

Example: Instead of using a new name at the subgeneric level, Brizicky raised Rhamnus L.
sect. Pseudofrangula Grubov to the rank of subgenus as Rhamnus subg. Pseudofrangula
(Grubov) Brizicky. The type species of both names is the same, R. alnifolia L’Hér.

S E C T I O N 4 . N A M E S O F S P E C I E S

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. If an epithet consists of two or
more words, these are to be united or hyphened. An epithet not so joined when
originally published is not to be rejected but, when used, is to be united or hy-
phened (see Art. 73.9).

23.2 The epithet of a species may be taken from any source whatever, and may
even be composed arbitrarily.

Examples: Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces fabae, Fu-
maria gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasinorum, Atropa bella-donna, Impatiens
noli-tangere, Adiantum capillus-veneris, Spondias mombin (an indeclinable epithet).

23.3 Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus must be
transcribed.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 22 –

______________________________________________________________________

Specific names

Examples: Scandix pecten ♀ L. is to be transcribed as Scandix pecten-veneris; Veronica anagal-
lis ∇ L. is to be transcribed as Veronica anagallis-aquatica.

23.4 The specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name with or with-
out the addition of a transcribed symbol (tautonym).

Examples: Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum.

23.5 The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a substantive,
agrees grammatically with the generic name (see Art. 32.4).

Examples: Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra, Verbascum nigrum; Rubus amnicola, the specific
epithet being an invariable Latin substantive; Peridermium balsameum Peck, but also Gloeo-
sporium balsameae J. J. Davis, both derived from the epithet of Abies balsamea, the specific
epithet of which is treated as a substantive in the second example.

23.6 The following are not to be regarded as specific epithets:

(a) Words not intended as names.

Examples: Viola ‘qualis’ Krocker (Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790); Urtica ‘dubia?’ Forsskål (Fl.
Aegypt.-Arab. cxxi. 1775), the word ‘dubia?’ being repeatedly used in that work for species

which could not be reliably identified; Atriplex ‘nova’ Winterl (Ind. Hort. Bot. Univ. Pest. fol.
A. 8, recto et verso. 1788), the word ‘nova’ being here used in connection with four different

species of Atriplex; however, in Artemisia nova A. Nels. (Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274. 1900),
nova was intended as a specific epithet, the species having been newly distinguished from others.

(b) Ordinal adjectives used for enumeration.

Examples: Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.

(c) Epithets published in works in which the Linnaean system of binary nomen-
     clature for species is not consistently employed. Linnaeus is regarded as
     having used binary nomenclature for species consistently from 1753 on-
     wards, although there are exceptions, e.g. Apocynum fol. androsaemi L. (Sp.
     Pl. 213. 1753 ≡ Apocynum androsaemifolium L. Sp. Pl. ed. 2. 311. 1762).

Examples: The name Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herbal 49. 1756) is a descriptive phrase reduced
to two words, not a binary name in accordance with the Linnaean system, and is to be rejected:

Hill’s other species was Abutilon flore flavo. — Secretan (Mycographie Suisse. 1833) introduced
a large number of new specific names, more than half of them not binomials, e.g. Agaricus
albus corticis, Boletus testaceus scaber, Boletus aereus carne lutea. He is therefore considered
not to have consistently used the Linnaean system of binary nomenclature and none of the

specific names, even those with a single epithet, in this work are validly published. Other ex-
amples of works in which the Linnaean system of binary nomenclature is not consistently em-
ployed: J. E. Gilibert (Fl. Lith. 1781; Exerc. Phyt. 1792), P. Miller (Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4.
1754), J. G. Kramer (Elench. Veg. 1756).

(d) Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H. 4).

Recommendation 23A

23A.1 Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epithets
may be substantives in the genitive (clusii, saharae) or adjectives (clusianus, dahuricus) (see also
Art. 73, Rec. 73C, and Rec. 73D).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 23 –

______________________________________________________________________

24	Intraspecific names

23A.2 The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to designate two dif-
ferent species of the same genus should be avoided (e.g. Lysimachia hemsleyana Maxim. (1891)
and L. hemsleyi Franch. (1895)).

Recommendation 23B

23B.1 In forming specific epithets, botanists 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.

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

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

(f) To avoid those which express a character common to all or nearly all the species of a genus.

(g) To avoid in the same genus those which are very much alike, especially those which differ
only in their last letters or in the arrangement of two letters.

(h) To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus.

(i) Not to adopt unpublished names found in correspondence, travellers’ notes, herbarium
labels, or similar sources, attributing them to their authors, unless these authors have
approved publication.

(j) To avoid using the names of little-known or very restricted localities, unless the species is
quite local.

S E C T I O N 5 . N A M E S O F T A X A B E L O W T H E R A N K O F S P E C I E S

( I N F R A S P E C I F I C T A X A )

Article 24

24.1 The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a
species and an infraspecific epithet connected by a term denoting its rank.

Example: Saxifraga aizoon subforma surculosa Engler & Irmscher. This can also be cited as
Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia forma multicaulis subforma surculosa Engler &
Irmscher; in this way a full classification of the subforma within the species is given.

24.2 Infraspecific epithets are formed as those of species and, when adjectival
in form and not used as substantives, they agree grammatically with the generic
name (see Art. 32.4).

Example: Trifolium stellatum forma nanum (not nana).

24.3 Infraspecific epithets such as typicus, originalis, originarius, genuinus, verus,
and veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon containing the nomenclatural
type of the next higher taxon, are inadmissible and cannot be validly published
except where they repeat the specific epithet because Art. 26 requires their use.

24.4 The use of a binary combination for an infraspecific taxon is not admis-

sible. Names published in the form of e.g. Andropogon ternatus subsp. A. macro-
thrix are to be altered to the proper form without change of author’s name.

Examples: Andropogon ternatus subsp. macrothrix (not Andropogon macrothrix); Herniaria
hirsuta var. diandra (not Herniaria diandra).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 24 –

______________________________________________________________________

Infraspecific names

25–26

24.5 Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear the same epithets; those
within one species may bear the same epithets as other species (but see Rec. 24B).

Examples: Rosa jundzillii var. leioclada and Rosa glutinosa var. leioclada; Viola tricolor var.
hirta in spite of the previous existence of a different species named Viola hirta.

Note 1. The use within the same species of the same epithet for infraspecific
taxa, even if they are of different rank, based on different types is illegitimate
under Art. 64.3.

Recommendation 24A

24A.1 Recommendations made for specific epithets (see Recs. 23A, B) apply equally to infra-
specific epithets.

Recommendation 24B

24B.1 Botanists proposing new infraspecific epithets should avoid those previously used for
species in the same genus.

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.

Article 26

26.1 The name of an infraspecific taxon which includes the type of the correct
name of the species has as its final epithet* the same epithet, unaltered, as that
of the correct name of the species, but without citation of an author’s name (see
Art. 46). The type of the correct name of each such infraspecific taxon is the
same as that of the correct name of the species. If the epithet of the species is
changed, the names of those infraspecific taxa which include the type of the
name of the species are changed accordingly.

Examples: The combination Lobelia spicata var. originalis McVaugh, which includes the type
of the name Lobelia spicata Lam., is to be replaced by Lobelia spicata Lam. var. spicata.

Because under Lobelia siphilitica L. there is described var. ludoviciana A. DC., one must write
Lobelia siphilitica L. var. siphilitica if only that part of L. siphilitica L. which includes the type
is meant.

26.2 The first valid publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon which does
not include the type of the correct name of the species automatically establishes
the name of a second taxon of the same rank which does include that type and

* Here and elsewhere in the Code, the phrase ‘final epithet’ refers to the last epithet in sequence
in any particular combination, whether that of a subdivision of a genus or of a species or of
an infraspecific taxon.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 25 –

______________________________________________________________________

27	Infraspecific names

has the same epithet as the name of the species. Such autonyms (automatically
established names) are not to be taken into consideration for purposes of pri-
ority. Where no other epithet is available, the final epithets of autonyms may be
adopted in another position or rank and treated as new.

Examples: The publication in 1843 of the name Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii Tuckerm.
automatically established the name of another variety, Lycopodium inundatum L. var. inunda-
tum, the type of which is that of the name Lycopodium inundatum L.

If Campanula gieseckiana subsp. groenlandica (Berlin) Böcher and C. gieseckiana Vest ex
Roem. & Schuit. subsp. gieseckiana are united as a subspecies of C. rotundifolia L., the correct
name is C. rotundifolia subsp. groenlandica (Berlin) Löve & Löve, since the subspecific epithet
gieseckiana is not to be taken into consideration for purposes of priority.

In the classification adopted by Rollins & Shaw, Lesquerella lasiocarpa (Hook. ex A.Gray)
Wats. 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 & Shaw.
The latter subspecies is composed of two varieties. In this classification the correct name of the
variety which includes the type of subsp. berlandieri is not L. lasiocarpa var. berlandieri (A.
Gray) Payson (1922) nor L. lasiocarpa var. berlandieri (cited without an author) but is instead
L. lasiocarpa var. hispida (Wats.) Rollins & Shaw (1972), based on Synthlipsis berlandieri var.
hispida Wats. (1882), the oldest legitimate varietal name.

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 the same epithet and type as the subspecies.

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 the same epithet and type as one of its subordinate
varieties.

26A.3 A taxon of lower rank 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 the same epithet and type as 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 the same epithet as that of one of its subordinate taxa below
the rank of variety.

Examples: Fernald treated Stachys palustris subsp. pilosa (Nutt.) Epling (1934) as composed of
five varieties, for one of which (that including the type of subsp. pilosa) he made the combi-
nation S. palustris var. pilosa (Nutt.) Fern. (1934), there being no legitimate varietal epithet
available.

There being no legitimate epithet available at the rank of subspecies, Bonaparte (1915) made
the combination Pteridium aquilinum subsp. caudatum (L.) Bonap., using the same epithet that
Sadebeck had used earlier (1897) in the combination P. aquilinum var. caudatum (L.) Sadeb.
(both names based on Pteris caudata L.). Each name is correct in its own rank, and both can be
used, as by Tryon (1940), who treated P. aquilinum var. caudatum as one of four varieties under
subspecies caudatum.

Article 27

27.1 The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat un-
changed the epithet of the correct name of the species to which the taxon is as-
signed except when the two names have the same type.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 26 –

______________________________________________________________________

Cultivated plants

S E C T I O N 6 . N A M E S O F P L A N T S I N C U L T I V A T I O N

Article 28

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

28.2 Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as pro-
vided in Appendix I and Arts. 40 and 50.

Note 1. An additional independent set of infrageneric and infraspecific ranks
for plants used in agriculture, forestry, and horticulture (and arising either in
nature or in cultivation) is defined in the International Code of Nomenclature
of Cultivated Plants, where regulations are provided for the formation and use
of names in those ranks. However, nothing precludes the use for cultivated
plants of botanical names published in accordance with the requirements of the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

Note 2. Epithets published in conformity with the International Code of Botan-
ical Nomenclature before 1 Jan. 1959 may be used as cultivar epithets under
the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants, when
this is considered to be the appropriate status for the groups concerned. Other-
wise, epithets for groups in ranks recognized by the International Code of No-
menclature of Cultivated Plants are required to be markedly different from those
for taxa regulated by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

Examples of cultivar names: Taxus baccata ‘Variegata’ (based on T. baccata var. variegata
Weston), Phlox drummondii ‘Sternenzauber,’ Viburnum × bodnantense ‘Dawn’.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 27 –

______________________________________________________________________

29	Effective publication

C H A P T E R IV. E F F E C T I V E A N D V A L I D P U B L I C A T I O N

S E C T I O N 1 . C O N D I T I O N S A N D D A T E S O F E F F E C T I V E P U B L I C A T I O N

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 botan-
ical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected
by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of names
in collections or gardens open to the public, or by the issue of microfilm made
from manuscripts, type-scripts or other unpublished material.

Example: 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 the Mémoires de la Société
Royale de Médecine de Paris 5(1): 279.

29.2 Offer for sale of printed matter that does not exist does not constitute
effective publication.

29.3 Publication by indelible autograph before 1 Jan. 1953 is effective.

Examples: Salvia oxyodon Webb et Heldr. was effectively published in July 1850 in an auto-
graph catalogue placed on sale (Webb et Heldreich, Catalogus Plantarum Hispanicarum . . .
ab A. Blanco lectarum. Paris, July 1850, folio).

H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914–15), a work lithographed from the handwritten
manuscript, is effectively published.

29.4 For the purpose of this Article, handwritten material, even though repro-
duced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography, offset, or
metallic etching), is still considered as autographic.

29.5 Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of a new name in tradesmen’s catalo-
gues or non-scientific newspapers, and on or after 1 Jan. 1973 in seed-exchange
lists, does not constitute effective publication.

Recommendation 29A

29A.1 Authors are urged to avoid publishing new names or descriptions in ephemeral publi-
cations, in popular periodicals, in any publication unlikely to reach the general botanical pub-
lic, in those produced by such methods that their permanence is unlikely, or in abstracting jour-
nals.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 28 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

30–32

Article 30

30.1 The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter
became available as defined in Art. 29. In the absence of proof establishing some
other date, the one appearing in the printed matter must be accepted as correct.

Example: Individual parts of Willdenow’s Species Plantarum were published as follows: 1(1),
1797; 1(2), 1798; 2(1), 1799; 2(2), 1799 or January 1800; 3(1) (to page 850),1800; 3(2) (to page
1470), 1802; 3(3) (to page 2409), 1803 (and later than Michaux’s Flora boreali-americana); 4(1)
(to page 630), 1805; 4(2), 1806; these dates, which are partly in disagreement with those on the
title-pages of the volumes, are the dates of publication (see Rhodora 44: 147-150. 1942).

30.2 When separates from periodicals or other works placed on sale are issued
in advance, the date on the separate is accepted as the date of effective publi-
cation unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

Example: Publication in separates issued in advance: the Selaginella species published by
Hieronymus in Hedwigia 51: 241-272 (1912) were effectively published on 15 Oct. 1911, since
the volume in which the paper appeared states (p. ii) that the separate appeared on that date.

Recommendation 30A

30A.1 The date on which the publisher or his agent delivers printed matter to one of the usual
carriers for distribution to the public should be accepted as its date of publication.

Article 31

31.1 The distribution on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of printed matter accompanying
exsiccata does not constitute effective publication.

Note 1. If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the exsiccata,
this constitutes effective publication.

Example: Works such as Schedae operis . . . plantae finlandiae exsiccatae, Helsingfors 1. 1906,
2. 1916, 3. 1933, 1944, or Lundell et Nannfeldt, Fungi exsiccati suecici etc., Uppsala 1-. . .,
1934-. . ., distributed independently of the exsiccata, whether published before or after 1 Jan
1953, are effectively published.

S E C T I O N 2 . C O N D I T I O N S A N D D A T E S O F

V A L I D P U B L I C A T I O N O F N A M E S

Article 32

32.1 In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon must (a) be effectively
published (see Art. 29); (b) have a form which complies with the provisions of
Arts. 16–27 and Art. H. 7; (c) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis of
the taxon or by a reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively
published description or diagnosis of it (except as provided in Art. H. 9); and
(d) comply with the special provisions of Arts. 33–45.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 29 –

______________________________________________________________________

32	Valid publication

Examples of names not validly published: Egeria Néraud (in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot.
25, 28. 1826), published without a description or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one.

The name Loranthus macrosolen Steud. originally appeared without a description or diagnosis
on the printed tickets issued about the year 1843 with Sect. II. no. 529, 1288, of Schimper’s her-
barium specimens of Abyssinian plants; it was not validly published, however, until A. Ri-
chard (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.

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

32.3 An indirect reference is a clear indication, by the citation of the author’s
name or in some other way, that a previously and effectively published descrip-
tion or diagnosis applies to the taxon to which the new name is given.

Examples of indirect reference: Kratzmannia Opiz (in Berchtold et Opiz, Oekon.-techn. Fl.
Böhmens 1/2: 398. 1836) is published with a diagnosis, but it was not definitely accepted by the
author and is therefore not validly published. It is accepted definitely in Opiz, Seznam Rostlin
Květeny České 56 (1852), but without any description or diagnosis. The citation of ‘Kratz-
mannia O.’ includes an indirect reference to the previously published diagnosis in 1836.

Opiz published the name of the genus Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz in Seznam Rostlin Květeny
České 50 (1852) without a description or diagnosis, but as he wrote Hemisphace Benth. he
indirectly referred to the previously validly published description by Bentham, Labiat. Gen.
Sp. 193 (1833), of Salvia sect. Hemisphace.

The publication of the new combination Cymbopogon martinii by W. Watson in Atkinson,
Gaz. NW. Prov. India 10: 392 (1882) is validated by the addition of the number ‘309’, which,
as explained at the top of the same page, is the running-number of the species (Andropogon
martini Roxb.) in Steudel, Syn. Pl. Glum. 1: 388 (1854). Although the reference to the synonym
Andropogon martini is indirect, it is perfectly unambiguous.

32.4 Names published with an incorrect Latin termination but otherwise in ac-
cordance with this Code are regarded as validly published; they are to be
changed to accord with Arts. 17–19, 21, 23, and 24, without change of the au-
thor’s name.

Note 1. In certain circumstances an illustration with analysis is accepted as
equivalent to a description (see Arts. 42 and 44).

Note 2. For names of plant taxa that were originally not treated as plants, see
Art. 45.

Recommendation 32A

32A.1 Publication of 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 Authors should avoid adoption of a name or an epithet which has been previously but
not validly published for a different taxon.

Recommendation 32D

32D.1 In describing new taxa, authors should, when possible, supply figures with details of
structure as an aid to identification.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 30 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

32D.2 In the explanation of the figures, it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s) on which they
are based.

32D.3 Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.

Recommendation 32E

32E.1 The description or diagnosis of parasitic plants should always be followed by an indica-
tion of the hosts, especially those of parasitic fungi. The hosts should be designated by their
scientific names and not solely by names in modern languages, the applications of which are
often doubtful.

Article 33

33.1 A combination is not validly published unless the author definitely indi-
cates that the epithet or epithets concerned are to be used in that particular
combination.

Examples of combinations definitely indicated: In Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum the placing of
the epithet in the margin opposite the name of the genus clearly indicates the combination in-
tended. 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 indicates that an epithet is associated with a parti-
cular generic or other name.

Examples of combinations not definitely indicated: Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia (J.
Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. 89: 98. 1819) that ‘Le type de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn.’
does not constitute publication of the combination Blephilia ciliata, since he did not indicate
that that combination was to be used. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is
not to be ascribed to Bentham on the basis of the listing of Cnidium peucedanoides H.B.K.
under Eulophus (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867).

33.2 A new combination, or an avowed substitute (nomen novum), published on
or after 1 Jan. 1953, for a previously and validly published name is not validly
published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or
the replaced synonym (when a new name or epithet is proposed) is clearly indi-
cated and a full and direct reference given to its author and original publication
with page or plate reference and date. Bibliographic errors of citation do not in-
validate the publication of a new combination.

Example: The combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (Contr. Gray Herb.
200: 45. 1970) with a full and direct reference to Alsophila kalbreyeri C. Chr. (Index Filic. 44.
1905). This, however, was not the first place of valid publication of the basionym, which had
previously been published, with the same type, by Baker (Summ. New Ferns 9. 1892). Tryon’s
bibliographic error of citation does not invalidate this new combination, which is to be cited as
Trichipteris kalbreyeri (Baker) Tryon.

33.3 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.

Note 1. The publication of a name for a taxon previously known under a mis-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 31 –

______________________________________________________________________

34	Valid publication

applied name must be valid under Arts. 32–45. This procedure is not the same
as publishing an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for a validly published but
illegitimate name (Art. 72.1(a)), the type of which is necessarily the same as that
of the name which it replaced (Art. 7.9).

Examples: Sadleria hillebrandii Robinson (Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 40: 226. 1913) was introduc-
ed as a ‘nom. nov.’ for ‘Sadleria pallida Hilleb. Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888. Not Hook. & Arn. Bot.
Beech. 75. 1832.’ Since the requirements of Arts. 32–45 are satisfied (in 1913 a simple reference
to a previous description was sufficient for valid publication), the name is validly published. It
is, however, to be considered the name of a new species, validated by the citation of the mis-
application of S. pallida Hook. & Arnott by Hillebrand, and not a nomen novum as stated;
hence Art. 7.9 does not apply.

Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis F. J. Herm. (U.S. For. Serv. Tech. 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 nor designation of type, nor reference to any previous publication pro-
viding these requirements, the name is not validly published.

33.4 A name given to a taxon whose rank is at the same time denoted by a
misplaced term (one contrary to Art. 5) is treated as not validly published, ex-
amples of such misplacement being a form divided into varieties, a species
containing genera, or a genus containing families or tribes.

Examples: The names Delphinium tribus Involuta Huth (Bot. Jahrb. 20: 365. 1895), tribus
Brevipedunculata Huth (Bot. Jahrb. 20: 368), etc., are not validly published, since Huth mis-
applied the term ‘tribus’ to a category of lower rank than section.

Gandoger, in his Flora Europæ (1883–1891), applied the term species (‘espèce’) and used binary
nomenclature for two categories of taxa of consecutive rank, the higher rank being equivalent
to that of species in contemporary literature. He misapplied the term species to the lower rank
and the names of these taxa (‘Gandoger’s microspecies’) are not validly published.

33.5 An exception to Art. 33.4 is made for names of the infrageneric taxa termed
tribes (tribus) in Fries’ Systema Mycologicum, which are treated as validly pub-
lished.

Article 34

34.1 A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author
in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the
future acceptance of the group concerned, or of a particular circumscription,
position, or rank of the group (so-called provisional name); (c) when it is merely
mentioned incidentaIly; (d) when it is merely cited as a synonym; (e) by the
mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned.

34.2 Art. 34.1(a) does not apply to names or epithets published with a question
mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet published and accepted by
the author.

34.3 By ‘incidental mention’ of a new name or combination is meant mention
by an author who does not intend to introduce the new name or combination
concerned.

Examples: (a) The name of the monotypic genus Sebertia Pierre (ms.) was not validly publish-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 32 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

      ed by Baillon (Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept it. Although he
      gave a description of the taxon, he referred its only species Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)
      to the genus Sersalisia R. Br. as Sersalisia ? acuminata; under the provision of Art. 34.2
      this combination is validly published. The name Sebertia Pierre (ms.) was later validly
      published by Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. 1: 280. 1897).

(a) (b) The generic name Conophyton Haw., suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ. 82. 1821) for
      Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ. 81. 1821) in the words ‘If this sec-
      tion proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt’, was not validly published,
      since Haworth did not adopt that generic name nor accept that genus. The correct name for
      the genus is Conophytum N. E. Brown (Gard. Chron. III. 71: 198. 1922).

(d) Acosmus Desv. (in Desf. Cat. Pl. Hort. Paris ed. 3. 233. 1829), cited as a synonym of the
generic name Aspicarpa L. C. Rich., was not validly published thereby.

      Ornithogalum undulatum Hort. Bouch. ex Kunth (Enum. 4: 348. 1843), cited as a synonym
      under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth, was not validly published thereby; when transferred
      to Ornithogalum, this species is to be called O. boucheanum (Kunth) Aschers. (Oest. Bot.
      Zeitschr. 16: 192. 1866).

      Similarly Erythrina micropteryx Poepp. was not validly published by being cited as a
      synonym of Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (Linnaea 23: 740. 1850); the species concerned,
      when placed under Erythrina, is to be called E. poeppigiana (Walp.) O. F. Cook (U.S. Dep.
      Agr. Bull. 25: 57. 1901).

(e) The family name Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre (Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. May 1897),
      which was accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera, Brazzeia, Scytopetalum,
      and Rhaptopetalum, was not validly published, as Pierre gave no description or diagnosis;
      the family bears the later name Scytopetalaceae Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzen-
      fam. Nachtr. zu II-IV. 1: 242. Oct. 1897), which was accompanied by a description.

      The generic name Ibidium Salisb. (Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812) was published
      merely with the mention of four included species. As Salisbury supplied no generic des-
      cription or diagnosis, his publication of Ibidium is invalid.

34.4 When, on or after 1 Jan. 1953, two or more different names (so-called
alternative names) are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same
author, none of them is validly published (but see Art. 59.2).

Examples: The species of Brosimum described by Ducke (Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3:
23–29. 1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera added in a footnote (pp.
23–24). The publication of these names, being effected before 1 Jan. 1953, is valid.

Euphorbia jaroslavii Poljakov (Not. Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. Acad. URSS 15: 155. tab. 1953) was
published with an alternative name, Tithymalus jaroslavii. Neither name was validly published.
However, one of the names, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a different transliteration of the initial
letter), was validly published by Poljakov (Not. Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. Acad. URSS 21: 484.
1961), who effectively published it with a new reference to the earlier publication and simul-
taneously rejected the other name.

Recommendation 34A

34A.1 Authors should avoid publishing or mentioning in their publications unpublished names
which they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for these names have not for-
mally authorized their publication (see Rec. 23B.1(i)).

Article 35

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

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 33 –

______________________________________________________________________

36	Valid publication

35.2 A new name or combination published before 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear
indication of 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. 64). If it is a new name, it may serve as a
basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent combinations or avowed sub-
stitutes in definite ranks.

Examples: The groups Soldanellae, Sepincoli, Occidentales, etc., were published without any
indication of rank under the genus Convolvulus by House in Muhlenbergia 4: 50 (1908). These
names are validly published but they are not in any definite rank and have no status in ques-
tions of priority except that they may act as homonyms.

In the genus Carex, the epithet Scirpinae was published for an infrageneric taxon of no stated
rank by Tuckerman (Enum. Caric. 8. 1843); this was assigned sectional rank by Kükenthal in
Engler (Pflanzenr. 38 (IV.20): 81. 1909) and if recognized at this rank is to be cited as Carex
sect. Scirpinae (Tuckerman) Kükenthal.

35.3 If in a given publication prior to 1 Jan. 1890 only one infraspecific rank is
admitted it is considered to be that of variety unless this would be contrary to
the statements of the author himself in the same publication.

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

Article 36

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

Example: The names Schiedea gregoriana Degener, Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 1936 (Apr. 9)
and S. kealiae Caum et Hosaka, Bernice P. Bishop Mus. Occas. Papers 11(23): 3. 1936 (Apr.
10) were proposed for the same plant; the type of the former is a part of the original material of
the latter. Since the name S. gregoriana is not accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis
it is not validly published; the later S. kealiae is legitimate.

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

Recommendation 36A

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

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 34 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

37–40

Article 37

37.1 Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1958 of the name of a new taxon of the rank
of family or below is valid only when the nomenclatural type is indicated (see
Arts. 7–10) except as permitted by Art. H. 9 for names of certain hybrids.

Recommendation 37A

37A.1 The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the Latin descrip-
tion or diagnosis and should be given by the insertion of the Latin word ‘typus’ (or ‘holoty-
pus’, etc.) immediately before or after the particulars of the type so designated.

Recommendation 37B

37B.1 When the nomenclatural type of a new taxon is a specimen, the place where it is per-
manently conserved should be indicated.

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 Jan. 1912 must be accompanied
by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters, in addition to the
description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished illustration or figure.

Article 39

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

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 those pertaining to
names of non-hybrid taxa of the same rank.

Examples: The name Nepeta × faassenii Bergmans (Vaste Pl. ed. 2. 544. 1939) with a descrip-
tion in Dutch, and in Gentes Herb. 8: 64 (1949) with a description 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 (J. Roy. Hort. Soc. London 75: 405. 1950) is
validly published, being accompanied by a Latin description with designation of type.

The name Rheum × cultorum Thorsrud & Reisaeter (Norske Plantenavr. 95. 1948), being here a
nomen nudum, is not validly published.

The name Fumaria × salmonii Druce (List Brit. Pl. 4. 1908) is not validly published, because
only its presumed parentage F. densiflora × F. officinalis is stated.
35

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 35 –

______________________________________________________________________

41–42

Valid publication

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

40.2 For purposes of priority, names and epithets in Latin form given to hybrids
are subject to the same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa of equivalent rank.

Examples: The name × Solidaster Wehrhahn (in Bonstedt, Pareys Blumengärtn. 2: 525. 1932)
antedates the name × Asterago Everett (Gard. Chron. III. 101: 6. 1937) for the hybrid Aster ×
Solidago.

The name × Gaulnettya W. J. Marchant (Choice Trees, Shrubs 83. 1937) antedates the name
× Gaulthettia Camp (Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 66: 26. 1939) for the hybrid Gaultheria × Pernet-
tya.

Anemone × hybrida Paxton (Mag. Bot. 15: 239. 1848) antedates A. × elegans Decaisne (Revue
Hort. IV. I: 41. 1852), pro sp., as the binomial for the hybrids derived from A. hupehensis ×
A. vitifolia.

In 1927, Aimée Camus (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 33: 538. 1927) published the name
Agroelymus as the ‘generic’ name of an intergeneric hybrid, without a Latin diagnosis or des-
cription, mentioning only the names of the parents involved (Agropyron and Elymus). Since
this name was not validly published under the Code then in force (Stockholm 1950), Jacques
Rousseau, in 1952 (Mém. Jard. Bot. Montréal 29: 10-11), published a Latin diagnosis. How-
ever, the date of valid publication of the name Agroelymus under this Code is 1927, not 1952,
and the name also antedates × Elymopyrum Cugnac (Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14.
1938) which is accompanied by a statement of parentage and a description in French but not
Latin.

Article 41

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

Examples of validly published generic names: Carphalea Juss. (Gen. 198. 1789), accompanied
by a generic description; Thuspeinanta Th. Dur. (Ind. Gen. Phan. x. 1888), accompanied by a
reference to the previously described genus Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non Herb.); Aspalathoides
(DC.) C. Koch (Hort. Dendrol. 242. 1853), based on a previously described section, Anthyllis
sect. Aspalathoides DC.; Scirpoides Scheuchzer ex Séguier (Pl. Veron. Suppl. 73. 1754), ac-
cepted there but without a generic description, validated by indirect reference (through the
title of the book and a general statement in the preface) to the generic diagnosis and further
direct references in Séguier, Pl. Veron. 1. 117. 1745.

Note 1. An exception to Art. 41.1 is made for the generic names first published
by Linnaeus in Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762-63), which are
treated as having been validly published on those dates (see Art. 13.4).

Note 2. In certain circumstances, an illustration with analysis is accepted as
equivalent to a generic description (see Art. 42).

Article 42

42.1 The publication of the name of a monotypic new genus based on a new
species is validated either (a) by the provision of a combined generic and specific

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 36 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis, or (b), for generic names
published before 1 Jan. 1908, by the provision of an illustration with analysis
showing essential characters.

Examples: Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth. (Pl. Hartw. 29. 1840) is a new species assigned to the
monotypic new genus Piptolepis published with a combined generic and specific description. –
The generic name Philgamia Baill. (in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas 3: pl. 265. 1894) was
validly published, as it appeared on a plate with analysis of P. hibbertioides Baill. published be-
fore 1 Jan. 1908.

42.2 A description or diagnosis of a new species assigned to a monotypic new
genus is treated also as a generic description or diagnosis if the genus is not
separately defined.

42.3 A description or diagnosis of a monotypic new genus based on a new
species is treated also as a specific description or diagnosis if the generic name
and specific epithet are published together and the species is not separately
defined.

Example: Strophioblachia fimbriicalyx Boerl. (Handl. Fl. Ned. Ind. 3(1): 236. 1900) is a new
species without separate definition, assigned to the monotypic new genus Strophioblachia
which is treated as published with a combined generic and specific description.

42.4 Single figures of microscopic plants showing the details necessary for
identification are considered as illustrations with analysis showing essential
characters.

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.

Examples: Suaeda baccata, S. vera, and names for four other species of Suaeda were published
with diagnosis and descriptions by Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab. 69–71. 1775) but he provided
no diagnosis or description for the genus: these specific names were therefore, like the generic
name, not validly published by him.

In 1880, Müller Argoviensis (Flora 63: 286) published the new genus Phlyctidia with the spe-
cies P. hampeana n. sp., P. boliviensis (= Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.), P. sorediiformis (= Phlyctis
sorediiformis Krempelh.), P. brasiliensis (= Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and P. andensis (=
Phlyctis andensis Nyl.). These specific names are, however, not validly published in this place,
because the generic name Phlyctidia was not validly published; Müller gave no generic descrip-
tion or diagnosis but only a description and a diagnosis of the new species P. hampeana. This
description and diagnosis cannot validate the generic name as a descriptio generico-specifica
under Art. 42, since the new genus was not monotypic. The first valid publication of the name
Phlyctidia was made by Müller in 1895 (Hedwigia 34: 141), where a short generic diagnosis was
given. The only species mentioned here were P. ludoviciensis n. sp. and P. boliviensis (Nyl.).
The latter combination was validly published in 1895 by the reference to the basionym.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 37 –

______________________________________________________________________

44–45

Valid publication

Note 1. This Article applies also to specific and other epithets published under
words not to be regarded as generic names (see Art. 20).

Examples: The binary combination Anonymos aquatica Walt. (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788) is not
validly published. The correct name for the species concerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel.
(1791), and the date of the epithet aquatica for purposes of priority is 1791. The species must
not be cited as Planera aquatica (Walt.) J. F. Gmel.

The binary combination Scirpoides paradoxus Rottböll (Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 27. 1772) is not
validly published since Scirpoides in this context is a word not intended as a generic name. The
first validly published name for this species is Fuirena umbellata Rottböll (Descr. Ic. Pl. 70.
1773).

Article 44

44.1 The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon published before 1 Jan.
1908 is validly published if it is accompanied only by an illustration with anal-
ysis showing essential characters.

Example: Panax nossibiensis Drake (in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas 3: pl. 406. 1896),
published on a plate with analyses.

44.2 Single figures of microscopic plants showing the details necessary for
identification are considered as illustrations with analysis showing essential
characters.

Example: Eunotia gibbosa Grunow (in Van Heurck, Syn. Diat. Belg. pl. 35, fig. 13. 1881), a
name of a diatom published with a single figure of the valve.

Article 45

45.1 The date of a name or of an epithet 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. A name published on or after 1 Jan.
1973 for which the various conditions for valid publication are not simulta-
neously fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and direct reference is
given to the places where these requirements were previously fulfilled.

Example: Specimens of Mentha foliicoma Opiz were distributed by Opiz in 1832, but the name
dates from 1882, when it was validly published by Déséglise (Bull. Soc. Étud. Sci. Angers
1881-82: 210. 1882).

45.2 A correction of the original spelling of a name or epithet (see Art. 73) does
not affect its date of valid publication.

Example: The correction of the orthographic error in Gluta benghas L. (Mant. 293. 1771) to
Gluta renghas L. does not affect the date of publication of the epithet renghas (1771) even
though the correction dates only from 1883 (Engler in A. et C. DC. Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).

45.3 For purposes of priority only legitimate names and epithets are taken into
consideration (see Arts. 11, 63–67). However, validly published earlier hom-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 38 –

______________________________________________________________________

Citation

onyms, whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection of their later homonyms
(unless the latter are conserved).

45.4 If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
transferred to a group of plants, any name for it available* or validly published
under a code of nomenclature for taxa other than plants shall date from its
first valid publication in the form prescribed in the botanical Code (except that
for algae validity under the zoological code only is required). (But see Art. 65,
regarding homonymy.)

Example: Amphiprora Ehrenberg (Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1841: 401. 1843) was published
as the name of a genus of animals which was transferred to the Algae, a group of plants, in
1844 by Kützing; it has priority in botanical nomenclature from 1843, not 1844.

Recommendation 45A

45A.1 Authors publishing a name of a new taxon in works written in a modern language (flo-
ras, catalogues, etc.) should simultaneously comply with the requirements of valid publication.

Recommendation 45B

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

Recommendation 45C

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

S E C T I O N 3 . C I T A T I O N O F A U T H O R S ’ N A M E S A N D O F L I T E R A T U R E

F O R P U R P O S E S O F P R E C I S I O N

Article 46

46.1 For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate and complete, and
in order that the date may be readily verified, it is necessary to cite the name of
the author(s) who first validly published the name concerned unless the pro-
visions for autonyms apply (see Arts. 16.1, 19.3, 22.1, and 26.1).

Examples: Rosaceae Juss., Rosa L., Rosa gallica L., Rosa gallica var. eriostyla R. Keller, Rosa
gallica L. var. gallica.

Recommendation 46A

46A.1 Authors’ names put after names of plants may be abbreviated, unless they are very short.
For this purpose, particles are suppressed unless they are an inseparable part of the name, and

* The word ‘available’ in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is equivalent to
‘validly published’ in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 39 –

______________________________________________________________________

46	Citation

the first letters are given without any omission (Lam. for J.B.P.A. Monet Chevalier de La-
marck, but De Wild. for É. De Wildeman).

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

46A.3 When it is necessary to give more of a name to avoid confusion between names begin-
ning with the same syllable, the same system is to be followed. For instance, two syllables are
given together with the one or two first consonants of the third; or one of the last characteristic
consonants of the name is added (Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish it from Bertero; Michx.
for Michaux, to distinguish it from Micheli).

46A.4 Given names or accessory designations serving to distinguish two botanists of the same
name are abridged in the same way (Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu, Gaertn. f. for Gaertner
filius, R. Br. for Robert Brown, A. Br. for Alexander Braun, J. F. Gmelin for Johann Friedrich
Gmelin, J. G. Gmelin for Johann Georg Gmelin, C. C. Gmelin for Carl Christian Gmelin, S.
G. Gmelin for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin, Müll. Arg. for Jean Müller of Aargau).

46A.5 When it is a well-established custom to abridge a name in another manner, it is best to
conform to it (L. for Linnaeus, DC. for de Candolle, St.-Hil. for Saint Hilaire, H.B.K. for
Humboldt, Bonpland et Kunth, F. v. Muell. for Ferdinand von Mueller).

Recommendation 46B

46B.1 When a name has been published jointly by two authors, the names of both should be
cited, linked by means of the word et or by an ampersand (&).

Example: Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et Wilson (or Britton & Wilson).

46B.2 When a name has been published jointly by more than two authors, the citation should
be restricted to that of the first one followed by et al. (but see Rec. 46A.5).

Example: Lapeirousia erythrantha var. welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck, Lisowski, Malaisse, &
Symoens (Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belg. 105: 336. 1972) should be cited as L. erythrantha var. wel-
witschii (Baker) Geerinck et al.

Recommendation 46C

46C.1 When an author who first validly publishes a name ascribes it to another person, the
correct author citation is the name of the actual publishing author, but the name of the other
person, followed by the connecting word ex, may be inserted before the name of the publishing
author, if desired. The same holds for names of garden origin ascribed to ‘hort.’ (hortulano-
rum).

Examples: Gossypium tomentosum Seem. or G. tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. – Lithocarpus
polystachya (A. DC.) Rehder or L. polystachya (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder – Orchis rotundifolia
Pursh or O. rotundifolia Banks ex Pursh – Carex stipata Willd. or C. stipata Muhl. ex Willd. –
Gesneria donklarii Hook. or G. donklarii hort. ex Hook.

Recommendation 46D

46D.1 When a name with a description or diagnosis (or reference to a description or diagnosis)
supplied by one author is published in a work by another author, the word in should be used to
connect the names of the two authors. In such cases the name of the author who supplied the
description or diagnosis is the most important and should be retained when it is desirable to
abbreviate such a citation.

Examples: Viburnum ternatum Rehder in Sargent, Trees and Shrubs 2: 37. 1907, or Viburnum

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 40 –

______________________________________________________________________

Citation

47–48

ternatum Rehder. – Teucrium charidemii Sandwith in Lacaita, Cavanillesia 3: 38. 1930, or
Teucrium charidemii Sandwith.

Recommendation 46E

46E.1 When an author who first validly publishes a name ascribes it to an author who publish-
ed the name before the starting point of the group concerned (see Art. 13), the author citation
may include, when such indication is considered useful or desirable, the name of the pre-start-
ing-point author followed by ex as in Rec. 46C.

Examples: Lupinus L. or Lupinus Tourn. ex L. – Boletus piperatus Fr. or B. piperatus Bulliard
ex Fr. – Euastrum binale Ralfs or E. binale Ehrenb. ex Ralfs.

Recommendation 46F

46F.1 Authors of new names of taxa should not use the expression nobis (nob.) or a similar
reference to themselves as an author citation but should cite their own names in each instance.

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 the citation of the
name of an author other than the one who first published its name.

Examples: see under Art. 51.

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 characteri-
bus (mut. char.), pro parte (p.p.), excluso genere or exclusis generibus (excl. gen.), exclusa specie
or exclusis speciebus (excl. sp.), exclusa varietate or exclusis varietatibus (excl. var.), sensu amplo
(s. ampl.), sensu stricto (s. str.), etc.

Example: Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.; Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).

Article 48

48.1 When an author circumscribes a taxon in such a way as to exclude the
original type of the name he uses for it, he is considered to have published a
later homonym that must be ascribed solely to him.

Examples: Lemanea as treated by Sirodot (1872) explicitly excluded the type of Lemanea Bory
(1808) and hence is to be cited as Lemanea Sirodot and not Lemanea Bory emend. Sirodot.

48.2 Retention of a name in a sense that excludes the type can be effected only
by conservation. When a name is conserved with a type different from that of
the original author, the author of the name as conserved, with the new type,
must be cited.

Example: Bulbostylis Kunth, nom. cons. (non Bulbostylis Steven 1817). This is not to be cited as
Bulbostylis Steven emend. Kunth, since the type listed was not included in Bulbostylis by Ste-
ven in 1817.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 41 –

______________________________________________________________________

49–50

Citation

Article 49

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

Examples: Medicago polymorpha var. orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of species becomes
Medicago orbicularis (L.) Bartal. – Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. raised to generic rank, re-
taining the name Aspalathoides, is cited as Aspalathoides (DC.) C. Koch.

Sorbus sect. Aria Pers. on transference to Pyrus is cited as Pyrus sect. Aria (Pers.) DC. –
Cheiranthus tristis L. transferred to the genus Matthiola becomes Matthiola tristis (L.) R. Br.

The species of Corydalis based on Fumaria bulbosa γ solida L. (1753) is cited as Corydalis solida
(L.) Sw. (1819) and not as Corydalis solida (Mill.) Sw. The latter citation refers to Fumaria
solida (L.) Mill. from 1771, also based on Fumaria bulbosa γ solida L.; the former, correct cita-
tion refers to the first author of the legitimate epithet.

However, within the same species, Pulsatilla montana var. serbica Zimmermann (Feddes Re-
pert. 61: 95. 1958), originally placed under subsp. australis (Heuffel) Zamels, retains the same
author citation when placed under subsp. dacica Rummelspacher (see Art. 24) and is not cited
as var. serbica (Zimmermann) Rummelspacher (Feddes Repert. 71: 29. 1965).

Article 50

50.1 When the status of a taxon bearing a binary name is altered from species
to interspecific hybrid or vice versa, the name of the original author must be
cited, followed by an indication in parentheses of the original status. A similar
indication of original status must be given when an infraspecific taxon is altered
in status to nothomorph or vice versa (see Art. H. 10). If it is desirable or neces-
sary to abbreviate such a citation, the indication of the original status may be
omitted.

Examples: Stachys ambigua J. E. Smith (Engl. Bot. 30: pl. 2089. 1810) was published as a spe-
cies. If regarded as a hybrid, it is cited as Stachys × ambigua J. E. Smith (pro sp.).

The binary name Salix × glaucops Anderss. (in DC. Prodr. 16(2): 281. 1868) was published as
the name of a hybrid. Later, Rydberg (Bull. N.Y. Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899) altered the status of
the taxon to that of a species. If this view is accepted, the name is cited as Salix glaucops An-
derss. (pro hybr.).

× Carya laneyi var. chateaugayensis Sarg. (Trees and Shrubs 2: 197. 1913) was published as a
variety of an interspecific hybrid – Sargent misplaced the sign × ; under Art. H. 10, the rank of
this taxon should be nothomorph, and, if treated as such, its name is cited as Carya × laneyi
nm. chateaugayensis Sarg. (pro var.).

Mentha gentilis var. cuneifolia Lejeune et Courtois (Comp. Fl. Belg. 2: 233. 1831) was publish-
ed as a variety; if M. gentilis is regarded as a hybrid, the name is cited as Mentha × gentilis
nm. cuneifolia Lejeune et Courtois (pro var.).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 42 –

______________________________________________________________________

Citation

S E C T I O N 4 . G E N E R A L R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S O N C I T A T I O N

Recommendation 50A

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

50A.2 When an author has published as a synonym a manuscript name of another author, the
word ex should be used in citations to connect the names of the two authors (see Rec. 46C).

Example: Myrtus serratus, a manuscript name of Koenig published by Steudel as a synonym of
Eugenia laurina Willd., should be cited thus: Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steudel, Nomencl. 321
(1821) pro syn.

Recommendation 50B

50B.1 In the citation of a nomen nudum, its status should be indicated by adding nomen nudum
(nom. nud.).

Example: Carex bebbii Olney (Car. Bor.-Am. 2: 12. 1871), published without a diagnosis or
description, should be cited as a nomen nudum.

Recommendation 50C

50C.1 When a name that is illegitimate because of an earlier homonym is cited in synonymy,
the citation 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 ad-
visable to cite also any later homonym, preceded by the word nec.

Examples: Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Am. J. Sci. 19: 170 (1831) non Borkh. 1800. – Lindera
Thunb. Nov. Gen. Pl. 64 (1783) non Adans. 1763. – Bartlingia Brongn. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris)
10: 373 (1827) non Reichb. 1824, nec F. v. Muell. 1877.

Recommendation 50D

50D.1 Misidentifications should not be included in the synonymy but added after it. A mis-
applied name should be indicated by the words auct. non followed by the name of the original
author and the bibliographical reference of the misidentification.

Examples: Ficus stortophylla Warb. in Warb. et De Wild. Ann. Mus. Congo, Bot. VI. 1: 32
(1904). F. irumuensis De Wild. Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341 (1922). F. exasperata auct. non Vahl: De
Wild. et Th. Dur. Ann. Mus. Congo, Bot. II. 1: 54. 1899; De Wild. Pl. Laur. 26 (1903); Th. et
H. Dur. Syll. Fl. Congol. 505 (1909).

Recommendation 50E

50E.1 If a generic name is accepted as a nomen conservandum (see Art. 14 and App. III), the
abbreviation nom. cons. should be added to the citation.

Examples: Protea L. Mant. 187 (1771), nom. cons., non L. 1753. – Combretum Loefl. 1758
nom. cons. (syn. prius Grislea L. 1753). – Schouwia DC. (1821, Mai sero), nom. cons. (homony-
mum prius Schouwia Schrad. 1821, Mai).

Recommendation 50F

50F.1 A name cited in synonymy should be spelled exactly as published by its author. If any
explanatory words are required, these should be inserted in brackets. If a name is adopted with
alterations from the form as originally published, it is desirable that in full citations the exact
original form should be added, preferably between quotation marks.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 43 –

______________________________________________________________________

50	Citation

Examples: Pyrus calleryana Decne. (Pirus mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov. 12: 189. 1913) or
(P. mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov. 12: 189. 1913, ‘Pirus’), but not as Pyrus mairei.

Zanthoxylum cribrosum Spreng. Syst. 1: 946. 1825, ‘Xanthoxylon’ (Xanthoxylum caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. 23: 225. 1888), but not as Z. caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray.

Quercus bicolor Willd. (Q. prinus [var.] discolor Michx. f. Hist. Arb. For. 2: 46. 1811), but not
as Q. prinus var. discolor Michx. f. – Spiraea latifolia (Ait.) Borkh. (Spiraea salicifolia [var.] γ
latifolia Ait. Hort. Kew. 2: 198. 1789), but not as S. salicifolia latifolia Ait. or S. salicifolia var.
latifolia Ait. Under Art. 35.3 the rank of variety is to be used.

Juniperus communis var. saxatilis Pallas (J. communis [var.] 3 nana Loudon, Arb. Brit. 4: 2489.
1838). In this case ‘var.’ is added in brackets since Loudon classes this combination
under ‘varieties’.

Ribes tricuspis Nakai, Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 30: 142. 1916, ‘tricuspe’.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 44 –

______________________________________________________________________

Remodelling of taxa

51–52

C H A P T E R V. R E T E N T I O N, C H O I C E, A N D R E J E C T I O N

O F N A M E S A N D E P I T H E T S

S E C T I O N 1 . R E T E N T I O N O F N A M E S O R E P I T H E T S O F T A X A

W H I C H A R E R E M O D E L L E D O R D I V I D E D

Article 51

51.1 An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a
taxon does not warrant a change in its name, except as may be required (a) by
transference of the taxon (Arts. 54–56), or (b) by its union with another taxon of
the same rank (Arts. 57, 58), or (c) by a change of its rank (Art. 60).

Examples: The genus Myosotis as revised by R. Brown differs from the original genus of Lin-
naeus, but the generic name has not been changed, nor is a change allowable, since the type of
Myosotis L. remains in the genus; it is cited as Myosotis L. or as Myosotis L. emend. R. Br.
(see Art. 47, Rec. 47A).

Various authors have united with Centaurea jacea L. one or two species which Linnaeus had
kept distinct; the taxon so constituted is called Centaurea jacea L. sensu amplo or Centaurea
jacea L. emend. Cosson et Germain, emend. Visiani, or emend. Godr., etc.; any new name for
this taxon, such as Centaurea vulgaris Godr., is superfluous and illegitimate.

51.2 A unique exception to Art. 51.1 is made for the family name Papilionaceae
(see Art. 18.5).

Article 52

52.1 When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name must
be retained for one of them or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated for
one of them. When a particular species was originally designated as the type, the
generic name must be retained for the genus including that species. When no
type has been designated, a type must be chosen (see Guide for the determina-
tion of types, p. 75).

Examples: The genus Dicera J. R. et G. Forster (Char. Gen. Pl. 79. 1776) was divided by Ra-
finesque (Sylva Tell. 60. 1838) into the two genera Misipus and Skidanthera; this procedure is
contrary to the rules: the name Dicera must be kept for one of the genera, and it is now retain-
ed for that part of Dicera based on the lectotype, D. dentata.

Among the sections which have been recognized in the genus Aesculus L. are Aesculus sect.
Aesculus, sect. Pavia (P. Mill.) Persoon, sect. Macrothyrsus (Spach) C. Koch, and sect. Calo-
thyrsus (Spach) C. Koch, the last three of which were regarded as distinct genera by the au-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 45 –

______________________________________________________________________

53–54

Transference of taxa

thors cited in parentheses; in the event of these four sections being treated as genera, the name
Aesculus must be kept for the first of them, which includes the species Aesculus hippocastanum
L., as this species is the type of the genus founded by Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. 344. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed.
5. 161. 1754). The name Hippocastanum P. Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754), applied to a ge-
nus including Aesculus hippocastanum L., is superfluous and not to be used.

Article 53

53.1 When a species is divided into two or more species, the specific epithet must
be retained for one of them or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated for
one of them. When a particular specimen, description, or figure was originally
designated as the type, the specific epithet must be retained for the species
including that element. When no type has been designated, a type must be
chosen (see Guide for the determination of types, p. 75).

Examples: Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (Proc. Am. Acad. 22: 467. 1887) was based on speci-
mens which represented at least two species in the opinion of Munz, who based A. shockleyi
(Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 31: 62. 1932) on one of the specimens cited by Watson, retaining the
name A. beckwithii for the others (one of which may be designated as lectotype of A. beckwithii).

Hemerocallis lilio-asphodelus L. (Sp. Pl. 324. 1753) was originally treated by Linnaeus as con-
sisting of two varieties: α flava [sphalm. ‘flavus’] and β fulva [sphalm. ‘fulvus’]. In the second
edition of Sp. Pl. (1762) he recognized these as distinct species, calling them H. flava and H.
fulva. However, the original specific epithet must be reinstated for one of these; this was done
by Farwell (Am. Midl. Nat. 11: 51. 1928) and the two species are correctly named H. lilio-
asphodelus L. and H. fulva (L.) L.

53.2 The same rule applies to infraspecific taxa, for example, to a subspecies
divided into two or more subspecies, or to a variety divided into two or more
varieties.

S E C T I O N 2 . R E T E N T I O N O F E P I T H E T S O F T A X A B E L O W T H E R A N K

O F G E N U S O N T R A N S F E R E N C E T O A N O T H E R G E N U S O R S P E C I E S

Article 54

54.1 When a subdivision of a genus* is transferred to another genus or placed
under another generic name for the same genus without change of rank, its
epithet, if legitimate, must be retained or, if it has not been retained, must be
reinstated unless one of the following obstacles exists:

(a) The resulting combination has been previously and validly published for a
subdivision of a genus based on a different type;

(b) An earlier and legitimate epithet of the same rank is available (but see Arts.
13.1(f), 58, 59);

* Here and elsewhere in this Code the phrase ‘subdivision of a genus’ refers only to taxa be-
tween genus and species in rank.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 46 –

______________________________________________________________________

Transference of taxa

Examples: Saponaria sect. Vaccaria DC. when transferred to Gypsophila becomes Gypsophila
sect. Vaccaria (DC.) Godr.

Primula sect. Dionysiopsis Pax when transferred to the genus Dionysia cannot become Dio-
nysia sect. Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melchior because of Art. 21; the name Dionysia sect. Ariadna
Wendelbo, based on the same type, must be used instead.

Article 55

55.1 When a species is transferred to another genus or placed under another
generic name for the same genus without change of rank, the specific epithet, if
legitimate, must be retained1 or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated2
unless one of the following obstacles exists:

(a) The resulting binary name is a later homonym3 (Art. 64) or a tautonym4
(Art. 23.4);

(b) An earlier legitimate specific epithet is available (but see Arts. 13.1(f), 58, 59).5

Examples: (1) Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl. 613. 1753) when transferred to the genus Linaria
must be called Linaria spuria (L.) P. Mill. (Gard. Dict. ed. 8. no. 15. 1768).

(2) Spergula stricta Sw. (1799) when transferred to the genus Arenaria must be called Arenaria
      uliginosa Schleich. ex Schlechtend. (1808) because of the existence of the name Arenaria
      stricta Michx. (1803), referring to a different species; but on further transfer to the genus
      Minuartia the epithet stricta must be reinstated and the species called Minuartia stricta

      (Sw.) Hiern (1899). – Conyza candida L. (Sp. Pl. 862. 1753) was illegitimately renamed Con-
      yza limonifolia Sm. (Fl. Graec. Prodr. 2: 174. 1813) and Inula limonifolia Boiss. (Diagn. Pl.
      Orient. 4: 4. 1843). However, the legitimate Linnaean epithet must be reinstated and the
      correct name of the species, in the genus Inula, is I. candida (L.) Cass. (Dict. Sci. Nat. 23:

      554. 1822). – When transferring Serratula chamaepeuce L. (Sp. Pl. 819. 1753) to his new
      genus Ptilostemon, Cassini renamed the species P. muticum Cass. (Diet. Sci. Nat. 44: 59.
      1826). Lessing rightly reinstated the original specific epithet, creating the combination
      Ptilostemon chamaepeuce (L.) Less. (Gen. Cynaroceph. Arctot. 5. 1832).

(3) Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798) when transferred to the genus Cytisus by Spach in 1849
      could not be called C. biflorus, because this name had been previously and validly published
      for a different species by L’Héritier in 1791; the name C. fontanesii given by Spach is there-
      fore legitimate.

(4) Pyrus malus L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Malus must be called Malus pumila
Mill. (1768), the combination Malus malus (L.) Britton (1913) being inadmissible.

(5) Melissa calamintha L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Thymus becomes T. calamintha
      (L.) Scop. (1772); placed in the genus Calamintha it cannot be called C. calamintha (a
      tautonym) but is called C. officinalis Moench (1794). However, when C. officinalis is trans-
      ferred to the genus Satureja, the earlier legitimate epithet is again available and its name
      becomes S. calamintha (L.) Scheele (1843).

(4) Cucubalus behen L. (Sp. Pl. 416. 1753) was legitimately renamed Behen vulgaris Moench
      (Meth. 709. 1794) to avoid the tautonym Behen behen. (3) If the species is transferred to the
      genus Silene, it cannot retain its original epithet because of the existence of a Silene behen L.
      (1753). Therefore, the substitute name Silene cucubalus Wibel (Prim. Fl. Werthem. 241. 1799)
      was created. (5) However, the earlier legitimate specific epithet vulgaris was still available
      under Silene. (2) It was rightly reinstated in the combination Silene vulgaris (Moench)
      Garcke (Fl. N. Mitt.-Deutschland ed. 9. 64. 1869).

55.2 When, on transference to another genus, the specific epithet has been ap-
plied erroneously in its new position to a different species, the new combination

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 47 –

______________________________________________________________________

56–57

Union of taxa

must be retained for the species to which the epithet was originally applied, and
must be attributed to the author who first published it. (See Art. 7.10.)

Example: Pinus mertensiana Bong. was transferred to the genus Tsuga by Carrière, who, how-
ever, as is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combination Tsuga mer-
tensiana to another species of Tsuga, namely T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sargent: the combination
Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr. must not be applied to T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sargent but must
be retained for Pinus mertensiana Bong. when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation in
parentheses (under Art. 49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the type of
the epithet.

Article 56

56.1 When an infraspecific taxon is transferred without change of rank to an-
other genus or species, the original epithet, if legitimate, must be retained or, if
it has not been retained, must be reinstated unless one of the following obstacles
exists:

(a) The resulting ternary combination has been previously and validly published
for an infraspecific taxon based on a different type, even if that taxon is of
different rank;

(b) An earlier legitimate epithet is available (but see Arts. 13.1(f), 58, 59);

Example: Helianthemum italicum var. micranthum Gren. et Godr. (Fl. France 1 :171. 1847)
when transferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thib. retains its varietal epithet, becoming H.
penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. et Godr.) Grosser in Engler (Pflanzenr. 14 (IV. 193): 115.
1903).

56.2 When, on transference to another genus or species, the epithet of an infra-
specific taxon has been applied erroneously in its new position to a different
taxon of the same rank, the new combination must be retained for the taxon to
which the original combination was applied, and must be attributed to the au-
thor who first published it (see Art. 7.10).

S E C T I O N 3 . C H O I C E O F N A M E S W H E N T A X A O F T H E S A M E

R A N K A R E U N I T E D

Article 57

57.1 When two or more taxa of the same rank are united, the oldest legitimate
name or (for taxa below the rank of genus) the oldest legitimate epithet is re-
tained, unless a later name or epithet must be accepted under the provisions of
Arts. 13.1(f), 14, 16.1, 19.3, 22.1, 26.1, 27, 55.1, 58, or 59.

57.2 The author who first unites taxa bearing names or epithets of the same date
must choose one of them, and his choice must be followed.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 48 –

______________________________________________________________________

Union of taxa

Examples: K. Schumann (in Engler et Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III. 6: 5. 1890), uniting the
three genera Sloanea L. (1753), Echinocarpus Blume (1825), and Phoenicosperma Miq. (1865),
rightly adopted the oldest of these three generic names, Sloanea L., for the resulting genus.

If the two genera Dentaria L. (Sp. Pl. 653. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295. 1754) and Cardamine L.
(Sp. Pl. 654. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295. 1754) are united, the resulting genus must be called
Cardamine because the name was chosen by Crantz (Class. Crucif. 126. 1769), who was the
first to unite the two genera.

Robert Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exp. Congo 484. 1818) appears to have been the first to unite
Waltheria americana L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753) and W. indica L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753). He adopted
the name W. indica for the combined species, and this name is accordingly to be retained.

Fiori et Paoletti (Fl. Ital. 1(1): 107. 1896) united Triticum aestivum L. (Sp. Pl. 85. 1753) and
T. hybernum L. (Sp. Pl. 85. 1753) into one species under one of these names, T. aestivum L.
Consequently the latter name is correct for the combined taxon comprising common soft
wheat. The use of an illegitimate name, such as Triticum vulgare Vill. (Hist. Pl. Dauph. 2: 153.
1787), or the creation of a new name is contrary to the Code.

Baillon (Adansonia 3: 162. 1862–1863), when uniting for the first time Sclerocroton integerri-
mus Hochst. ex Krauss (Flora 28: 85. 1845) and Sclerocroton reticulatus Hochst. ex Krauss
(Flora 28: 85. 1845) adopted the first epithet for the combined taxon. Consequently this epi-
thet is to be retained irrespective of the generic name (Sclerocroton, Stillingia, Excoecaria,
Sapium) to which it is attached.

Linnaeus in 1753 (Sp. Pl. 902) simultaneously published the names Verbesina alba and V. pro-
strata. Later (Mant. 286. 1771), he published Eclipta erecta, a superfluous name because V.
alba is cited in synonymy, and E. prostrata, based on V. prostrata. However, the first author to
unite these taxa was Hasskarl (Pl. Jav. Rar. 528. 1848), who did so under the name Eclipta alba
(L.) Hassk., which therefore is to be used if these taxa are united and placed in the genus
Eclipta.

When the genera Entoloma (Fr.) Kumm. (1871), Leptonia (Fr.) Kumm. (1871), Eccilia (Fr.)
Kumm. (1871), Nolanea (Fr.) Kumm. (1871), and Claudopus Gill. (1876) are united, one of the
generic names simultaneously published by Kummer must be used for the whole, as was
done by Donk who in 1949 selected Entoloma. The name Rhodophyllus Quél. (1886), introdu-
ced to cover these combined genera, is superfluous.

Recommendation 57A

57A.1 Authors who have to choose between two generic names should note the following
suggestions:

(a) Of two names of the same date, to prefer that which was first accompanied by the descrip-
tion of a species.

(b) Of two names of the same date, both accompanied by descriptions of species, to prefer
that which, when the author makes his choice, includes the larger number of species.

Article 58

58.1 When a taxon of recent plants, algae excepted, and a taxon of the same
rank of fossil or subfossil plants are united, the correct name or epithet of the
recent taxon takes precedence.

Examples: If Platycarya Sieb. et Zucc. (1843), a genus of recent plants, and Petrophiloides
Bowerbank (1840), a genus of fossil plants, are united, the name Platycarya is accepted for the
combined genus, although it is antedated by Petrophiloides.
49

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 49 –

______________________________________________________________________

59	Pleomorphic fungi

S E C T I O N 4 . N A M E S O F F U N G I W I T H A P L E O M O R P H I C L I F E C Y C L E

A N D O F F O S S I L S A S S I G N E D T O F O R M - G E N E R A

Article 59

59.1 In Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes (inclusive of Ustilaginales) with two
or more states in the life cycle (except those which are lichen-fungi), the correct
name of all states which are states of any one species is the earliest legitimate
name typified by the perfect state. The perfect state is that which is character-
ized by the presence of asci in the Ascomycetes, cells of the kind giving rise to
basidia in the Uredinales and in the Ustilaginales, or basidia or organs which

bear basidia in the other orders of the Basidiomycetes. However, the provisions
of this Article shall not be construed as preventing the use of names of imperfect
states in works referring to such states; in the case of imperfect states, a name
refers only to the state represented by its type.

59.2 When not already available, specific or infraspecific names for imperfect
states may be proposed at the time of publication of the name for a perfect
state or later, and may contain either the specific epithet applied to the perfect
state or any other epithet available.

59.3 The nomenclatural type of a taxon whose name has been ascribed to a
genus characterised by a perfect state must be one of which the original descrip-
tion or diagnosis included a description or diagnosis of the perfect state (or of
which the possibility cannot be excluded that the original author included the
perfect state in his description or diagnosis). If these requirements are not ful-
filled the name, although validly published, shall be considered illegitimate.

59.4 The combination of the specific or infraspecific epithet of a name typified
by an imperfect state with a name of a genus characterised by a perfect state
shall be considered not validly published as a new combination, but shall be
considered the validly published name of a new taxon if the author provides
a description (in Latin, on or after 1 Jan. 1935) of the perfect state and indicates
a type (on or after 1 Jan. 1958) showing the perfect state, and shall be attributed
to the author of that name and to him alone. However, publication on or after
1 Jan. 1967 of a combination based on an imperfect state and applied inclusive
of the perfect state shall not be considered the valid publication of a new name
of the perfect state.

Examples: The name Ravenelia cubensis Arth. & J. R. Johnston (Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 17:
118. 1918), based on a specimen bearing only uredia (an imperfect state), was validly published
but is considered illegitimate because the species concerned was described in a genus charac-
terised by a perfect state. The correct name is Uredo cubensis Cummins (Mycologia 48: 607.
1956), published as ‘(Arth. & J. R. Johnston) Cumm. comb. nov.’ (see Art. 72).

The combination ‘Mycosphaerella aleuritidis (Miyake) Ou nov. comb. (Sinensia 11: 183. 1940),
syn. Cercospora aleuritidis Miyake’, published with a Latin diagnosis of the perfect state, is
considered not validly published as a new combination (since the type of the basionym does
not bear the perfect state) but validly published as a new name of a new species, which is cited

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 50 –

______________________________________________________________________

Change of rank

as ‘M. aleuritidis Ou’, based on the material examined by Ou which bore the perfect state.
Since this is an undesirable method of publishing the name of a new taxon, a name published
in this manner on or after 1 Jan. 1967 is not validly published either as a new combination or
as a new name of a new taxon. The correct method of publication of this name would be
‘Mycosphaerella aleuritidis Ou, syn. Cercospora aleuritidis Miyake’, though it is not essential
(for the purposes of nomenclature) that the synonymy be mentioned, and Ou could equally
well have chosen any available epithet other than aleuritidis.

Corticium microsclerotia (Matz) Weber, nov. comb., syn. Rhizoctonia microsclerotia Matz, was
published (Phytopathology 29: 565. 1939) with a description in English of the perfect state
drawn up from a specimen different from the type of Rhizoctonia microsclerotia Matz. Weber’s
combination is nevertheless considered to be based on Matz’s type of Rhizoctonia microsclero-
tia and is considered not validly published because this type does not show the characteristics
of a perfect state genus. The name is likewise not validly published as a new name of a new
taxon based on Weber’s material, because no Latin diagnosis was provided. The correct
name for this species is Corticium microsclerotia Weber (Mycologia 43: 728. 1951, where a
Latin diagnosis was supplied for the perfect state: the epithet microsclerotia was not preoccu-
pied in Corticium).

59.5 As in the case of pleomorphic fungi, the provisions of the Code shall not
be construed as preventing the use of names of form-genera in works referring
to such taxa.

S E C T I O N 5 . C H O I C E O F N A M E S W H E N T H E R A N K O F A T A X O N

I S C H A N G E D

Article 60

60.1 When the rank of a genus or infrageneric* taxon is changed, the correct
name or epithet is the earliest legitimate one available in the new rank. In no
case does a name or an epithet have priority outside its own rank.

Examples: Campanula sect. Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) as a genus is called Wahlen-
bergia Roth (Nov. Pl. Sp. 399. 1821), a name conserved against the taxonomic synonym Cer-
vicina Delile (Descr. Egypte, Hist. Nat. 7. 1813), and not Campanopsis (R. Br.) O. Kuntze
(Rev. Gen. Pl. 2: 378. 1891).

Magnolia virginiana var. foetida L. (Sp. Pl. 536. 1753) when raised to specific rank is called Mag-
nolia grandiflora L. (Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 1082. 1759), not M. foetida (L.) Sargent (Gard. &
For. 2: 615. 1889).

Lythrum intermedium Ledeb. (Ind. Hort. Dorpat 1822) when treated as a variety of Lythrum
salicaria L. (1753), is called L. salicaria var. glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. 2: 127. 1843), not L.
salicaria var. intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne (Bot. Jahrb. 1: 327. 1881).

In all these cases, the name or epithet given to the taxon in its original rank is replaced by the
first correct name or epithet given to it in its new rank.

Recommendation 60A

60A.1 When a section or a subgenus is raised in rank to a genus, or the inverse change occurs,
the original name or epithet should be retained unless it is contrary to this Code.

* Here and elsewhere in this Code the term ‘infrageneric’ refers to all ranks below that of genus.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 51 –

______________________________________________________________________

61–62

Rejection

60A.2 When an infraspecific taxon is raised in rank to a species, or the inverse change occurs,
the original epithet should be retained unless the resulting combination is contrary to this
Code.

60A.3 When an infraspecific taxon is changed in rank within the species, the original epithet
should be retained unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.

Article 61

61.1 When a taxon of a rank higher than genus and not higher than family is
changed in rank, the stem of the name is to be retained and only the termination
altered (-inae, -eae, -oideae, -aceae), unless the resulting name is rejected under
Arts. 63 or 64.

Example: The subtribe Drypetinae Pax (1890) (Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank of tribe
becomes Drypeteae (Pax) Hurusawa (1954); the subtribe Antidesmatinae Pax (1890) (Euphor-
biaceae) when raised to the rank of subfamily becomes Antidesmatoideae (Pax) Hurusawa
(1954).

S E C T I O N 6 . R E J E C T I O N O F N A M E S A N D E P I T H E T S

Article 62

62.1 A legitimate name or epithet must not be rejected merely because it is
inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known,
or because it has lost its original meaning.

Examples: 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 Alexi-
toxicum; and Orobanche rapum to O. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae to O. columbarihaerens,
O. artemisiae to O. artemisiepiphyta. All these modifications are to be rejected.

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) (see Rec. 23B.1(c)). – The
name Scilla peruviana L. (Sp. Pl. 309. 1753) is not to be rejected because the species does not

grow in Peru. – The name Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.) Litw., based on Polycnemum op-
positifolium Pall. (Reise 1: 422, 431, app. 484. 1771), is not to be rejected because the species
has leaves only partly opposite, and partly alternate, although there is another closely related
species, Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge, having all its leaves opposite.

Richardia L. (1753) is not to be changed to Richardsonia, as was done by Kunth (Mém. Mus.
Hist. Nat. 4: 430. 1818), although the name was originally dedicated to the British botanist,
Richardson.

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

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 52 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

Example: Alpinia languas Gmel. (1791) and Alpinia galanga (L.) Willd. (1797) are to be accept-
ed although Alpinia L. (1753), to which they were assigned by their authors, is rejected and the
genus in which they are now placed is Alpinia Roxb. (1810), nom. cons.

Article 63

63.1 A name is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally super-
fluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed
by its author, included the type of a name or epithet which ought to have been
adopted under the rules.

Examples: The generic name Cainito Adans. (Fam. 2: 166. 1763) is illegitimate because it was a
superfluous name for Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl. 192. 1753); the two genera had precisely the

same circumscription. – Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb. (Prodr. 138. 1796) is illegitimate, being
a superfluous name for C. cainito L. (1753), which Salisbury cited as a synonym.

On the other hand, Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (Prodr. 394. 1796) is legitimate, being explicitly
based upon ‘S. myrsinites Hoffm. Hist. Sal. p. 17 t. 71. 19. t. 24. f. 2. 1787’, a misapplication
of the name S. myrsinites L.

Picea excelsa (Lam.) Link is illegitimate, because it is based on Pinus excelsus Lam. (Fl.
Franç. 2: 202. 1778), a superfluous name for Pinus abies L. (Sp. Pl. 1002. 1753). Under Picea
the proper name is Picea abies (L.) Karst. (Deutschl. Fl. 325. 1880).

On the other hand, Cucubalus latifolius P. Mill. and C. angustifolius P. Mill. (Gard. Dict. ed. 8.
nos. 2, 3. 1768) are not illegitimate names, although these species are now united with the spe-
cies previously named C. behen L. (1753): C. latifolius P. Mill. and C. angustifolius P. Mill. as
circumscribed by Miller did not include the type of C. behen L., which name he adopted for
another independent species.

63.2 The inclusion of a type (see Art. 7) is here understood to mean the citation
of a type specimen, the citation of the illustration of a type specimen, the citation
of the type of a name, or the citation of the name itself unless the type is at the
same time excluded either explicitly or by implication.

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

Examples of exclusion of type by implication: Cedrus Duhamel (Trait. Arbr. 1: xxviii, 139. t.
52. 1755) is a legitimate name even though Juniperus L. was cited as a synonym; only some of
the species of Juniperus L. were included in Cedrus and the differences between the two genera
are discussed, Juniperus (including its type species) being recognized in the same work as an
independent genus.

Tmesipteris elongata Dangeard (Le Botaniste 2: 213. 1890–91) was published as a new species
but Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited as a synonym. However, on the following page (214),
T. truncata (R. Br.) Desv. is recognized as a different species and on p. 216 the two are distin-
guished 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.’

Solanum torvum Swartz (Prodr. 47. 1788) was published with a new diagnosis but S. indicum
L. (Sp. Pl. 187. 1753) was cited as a synonym. In accord with the practice in his Prodromus,
Swartz indicated where the species was to be inserted in the latest edition [14, Murray] of the
Systema Vegetabilium. S. torvum was to be inserted between species 26 (S. insanum) and 27
(S. ferox); the number of S. indicum in this edition of the Systema is 32. S. torvum is thus a
legitimate name; the type of S. indicum is excluded by implication.
53

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 53 –

______________________________________________________________________

64	Rejection

63.3 A name, even if nomenclaturally superfluous when published, is not ille-
gitimate if it derives from a basionym which is legitimate (or whose final epithet is
legitimate). When published it is incorrect, but it may become correct later.

Examples: Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (Prodr. 26. 1788), based on Agrostis radiata L. (Syst. Nat.
ed. 10. 2: 873. 1759), was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, since Swartz also cited
Andropogon fasciculatum L. (Sp. Pl. 1047. 1753) as a synonym. It is, however, the correct name
in the genus Chloris for Agrostis radiata when Andropogon fasciculatus is treated as a different
species, as was done by Hackel (in A. et C. DC. Monogr. Phan. 6: 177. 1889).

The generic name Hordelymus (Jessen) Harz (Samenkunde 2: 1147. 1885), based on the legi-
timate Hordeum subgen. Hordelymus Jessen (Deutschl. Gräser 202. 1863), was superfluous
when published, because its type, Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of Cuviera Koeler
(Descr. Gram. Gall. Germ. 328. 1802). Cuviera Koeler has since been rejected in favour of its
later homonym Cuviera DC., and Hordelymus (Jessen) Harz can now be used as a correct
name for the segregate genus containing Elymus europaeus L.

63.4 A statement of parentage accompanying the publication of a name for a
hybrid cannot make the name superfluous.

Example: The name Polypodium ×shivasiae Rothm. (1962) was proposed for hybrids between
P. australe and P. vulgare subsp. prionodes, while at the same time the author accepted P.
×font-queri Rothm. (1936) for hybrids between P. australe and P. vulgare subsp. vulgare.
Under Art. H. 3.2, P. ×shivasiae is a synonym of P. ×font-queri; nevertheless, it is not a super-
fluous name.

Article 64

64.1 A name is illegitimate and must be rejected if it is a later homonym, that is,
if it is spelled exactly like a name previously and validly published for a taxon

of the same rank based on a different type. Even if the earlier homonym is ille-
gitimate, or is generally treated as a synonym on taxonomic grounds, the later
homonym must be rejected, unless it has been conserved.

Examples: The name Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848), given to a genus of Labiatae, is a
later homonym of Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837), a name previously and validly published for a
genus of Amaryllidaceae; Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. is therefore rejected, as was done by
Th. Durand (Ind. Gen. Phan. x. 1888), who renamed it Thuspeinanta.

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

The name Torreya Arnott (1838) is a nomen conservandum (see Art. 14) and is therefore not to
be rejected because of the existence of the earlier homonym Torreya Rafinesque (1818).

Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (Diagn. Pl. Orient. 2: 83. 1843) is a later homonym of the validly
published name Astragalus rhizanthus Royle (Ill. Bot. Himal. 200. 1835) and it is therefore re-
jected, as was done by Boissier, who renamed it A. cariensis (Diagn. Pl. Orient. 9: 56. 1849).

64.2 Orthographic variants of the same name are treated as homonyms when
they are based on different types (see Arts. 73 and 75).

64.3 The names of two subdivisions of the same genus, or of two infraspecific

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 54 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

65–66

taxa within the same species, even if they are of different rank, are treated as
homonyms if they have the same epithet and are not based on the same type.
The same epithet may be used for subdivisions of different genera, and for
infraspecific taxa within different species.

Examples: Under Verbascum the sectional epithet Aulacosperma Murbeck (1933) is allowed,
although there was already in the genus Celsia a section named Aulacospermae Murbeck
(1926). This, however, is not an example to be followed, since it is contrary to Rec. 21B.2.

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

Anagallis arvensis var. caerulea (L.) Gouan (Fl. Monsp. 30. 1765), based on A. caerulea L.
(Amoen. Acad. 4: 479. 1759), makes illegitimate the combination A. arvensis subsp. caerulea
Hartman (Svensk Norsk Exc.-Fl. 32. 1846), based on the later homonym A. caerulea Schreber
(Spicil. Fl. Lips. 5. 1771).

64.4 When the same new name is simultaneously published for more than one
taxon, the first author who adopts it in one sense, rejecting the other, or pro-
vides another name for one of these taxa is to be followed.

Examples: Linnaeus simultaneously published both Mimosa 10 cinerea (Sp. Pl. 517. 1753) and
Mimosa 25 cinerea (Sp. Pl. 520. 1753). Later, he (Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 2: 1311. 1759) renamed
species 10 Mimosa cineraria and retained the name Mimosa cinerea for species 25; Mimosa
cinerea is thus the legitimate name for species 25.

Rouy et Foucaud (Fl. France 2: 30. 1895) published the name Erysimum hieraciifolium var.
longisiliquum for two different taxa with different types under different subspecies. Only one of
these names can be maintained and the choice of the first author must be followed.

Article 65

65.1 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 illegitimate,
even though the taxa have been reassigned to a different group of organisms
to which this Code does not apply.

(b) A name originally published for a taxon other than a plant, even if validly
      published under Arts. 32–45 of this Code, is illegitimate if it becomes a
      homonym of a plant name when the taxon to which it applies is first treated
      as a plant. (See also Art. 45.4.)

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

Article 66

66.1 An epithet of a subdivision of a genus is illegitimate and is to be rejected
in the following special cases:

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 55 –

______________________________________________________________________

67–69

Rejection

(a) If it was published in contravention of Arts. 51, 54, 57, 58 or 60, i.e. if its
author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet available for the taxon
with its particular circumscription, position, and rank.

(b) If it is an epithet of a type subgenus or section which contravenes Art. 22.1.

Note 1. Illegitimate epithets are not to be taken into consideration for purposes
of priority (see Art. 45.3) except in the rejection of a later homonym (Art. 64.1).

Note 2. An epithet originally published as part of an illegitimate name may be
adopted later for the same taxon, but in another combination (see Art. 72).

Article 67

67.1 A specific or infraspecific epithet is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it
was published in contravention of Arts. 51, 53, 55, 56, or 60, i.e. if its author did
not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet available for the taxon with its particu-
lar circumscription, position, and rank. Such an epithet is also illegitimate if it
was published in contravention of Art. 59.

Note 1. The publication of a name containing an illegitimate epithet is not to be
taken into consideration for purposes of priority (see Art. 45) except in the re-
jection of a later homonym (Art. 64).

Note 2. An illegitimate epithet may be adopted later for the same taxon, but in
another combination (see Art. 72).

Article 68

68.1 A specific epithet is not illegitimate merely because it was originally pub-
lished under an illegitimate generic name, but is to be taken into consideration
for purposes of priority if the epithet and the corresponding combination are in
other respects in accordance with the rules.

Example: Agathophyllum A. L. Juss. (Gen. Pl. 431. 1789) is an illegitimate generic name, being
a superfluous substitute for Ravensara Sonnerat (Voy. Ind. Or. 2: 226. 1782). Nevertheless the
epithet of the validly published name Agathophyllum neesianum Blume (Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat.
1: 339. 1851) is legitimate. Because Meisner cited Agathophyllum neesianum as a synonym of
Mespilodaphne mauritiana Meisn. (in DC., Prodr. 15(1): 104. 1864) but did not adopt its epi-
thet, M. mauritiana is a superfluous name and hence illegitimate.

68.2 An infraspecific epithet may be legitimate even if originally published
under an illegitimate name.

Article 69

69.1 A name must be rejected if it has been widely and persistently used for a

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 56 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

70–72

taxon not including its type. Names thus rejected shall be placed on a list of
nomina rejicienda.*

Article 70

70.1 [Article 70, dealing with discordant elements, was deleted by the Leningrad
Congress, 1975.]

Article 71

71.1 [Article 71, dealing with monstrosities, was deleted by the Leningrad Congress,
1975.]

Article 72

72.1 A name or epithet rejected under Arts. 63–67 or 69 is replaced by the oldest
legitimate name or (in a combination) by the oldest available legitimate epithet
in the rank concerned. If none exists in any rank a new name must be chosen:

(a) a new name (nomen novum) based on the same type as the rejected name may

be published, or (b) the taxon may be treated as new and a new name published
for it. If a name or epithet is available in another rank, one of the above alter-
natives may be chosen, or (c) a new combination, based on the name in the
other rank, may be published.

72.2 Similar action is to be taken when the use of an epithet is inadmissible
under Arts. 21.3, 23.4, or 24.3.

Example: Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Radiola must not be called
Radiola radiola (L.) H. Karst. (1882), as that combination is inadmissible under Art. 23.
The next oldest specific epithet is multiflorum, but the name Linum multiflorum Lam. (1778) is
illegitimate, since it was a superfluous name for L. radiola L.; under Radiola, the species is to be
called R. linoides Roth (1788), since linoides is the oldest legitimate specific epithet available.

Note 1. When a new epithet is required, an author may adopt an epithet previ-
ously given to the taxon in an illegitimate name if there is no obstacle to its em-
ployment in the new position or sense; the epithet in the resultant combination
is treated as new.

Examples: The name Talinum polyandrum Hook. (Bot. Mag. pl. 4833. 1855) is illegitimate,
being a later homonym of T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (Syst. 1: 115. 1798); when Bentham
transferred T. polyandrum Hook. to Calandrinia, he called it Calandrinia polyandra (Fl.
Austral. 1: 172. 1863). The epithet polyandra in this combination is treated as new, dating from

* No new procedures for establishing this list were specified by the Leningrad Congress which
authorized it. As an interim procedure, all proposals for rejection under Art. 69 should be re-
ferred to the General Committee for transmittal to the special committees, exactly as under
Art. 14.9.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 57 –

______________________________________________________________________

72	Rejection

1863, and the binomial should be written Calandrinia polyandra Benth., not C. polyandra
(Hook.) Benth.

Uredo aegopodii Strauss (Ann. Wetter. Ges. 2(1): 101. 1810) is a later homonym of U. aegopodii
Schumacher (Enum. Pl. Saell. 2: 233. 1803). Röhling transferred the former to the genus Puc-
cinia; the resulting combination (Deutschl. Fl. ed. 2. 3(3): 131. 1813) is treated as new and
should be written as P. aegopodii Röhl., not as P. aegopodii (Strauss) Röhl.

Recommendation 72A

72A.1 Authors should avoid adoption of an illegitimate epithet previously published for the
same taxon.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 58 –

______________________________________________________________________

Orthography

C H A P T E R VI. O R T H O G R A P H Y O F N A M E S A N D

E P I T H E T S A N D G E N D E R O F G E N E R I C N A M E S

S E C T I O N 1 . O R T H O G R A P H Y O F N A M E S A N D E P I T H E T S

Article 73

73.1 The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the
correction of typographic or orthographic errors (but see Art. 32.4).

Examples of 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. 1928: 113, 287).

Phoradendron Nutt. is not to be altered to Phoradendrum.

Triaspis mozambica Adr. Juss. is not to be altered to T. mossambica, as in Engler, Pflanzenw.
Ost-Afr. C: 232 (1895).

Alyxia ceylanica Wight is not to be altered to A. zeylanica, as in Trimen, Handb. Fl. Ceyl. 3:
127 (1895).

Fagus sylvatica L. is not to be altered to F. silvatica. The correct classical spelling silvatica is
recommended for adoption in the case of a new name (Rec. 73E), but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica is not to be altered.

Scirpus cespitosus L. is not to be altered to S. caespitosus.

Examples of typographic errors: Globba brachycarpa Baker (in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. 6: 205.
1890) and Hetaeria alba Ridley (J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 32: 404. 1896) are typographic errors for
Globba trachycarpa Baker and Hetaeria alta Ridley respectively (see J. Bot. 59: 349. 1921). –
Thevetia nereifolia Adr. Juss. ex Steud. is an obvious typographic error for T. neriifolia.

Example of an orthographic error: Gluta benghas L. (Mant. 293. 1771), being an orthographic
error for G. renghas, should be cited as G. renghas L., as has been done by Engler (in A. et C.
DC., Monogr. Phan. 4: 225. 1883); the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus
is ‘Renghas’, not ‘Benghas’.

Note 1. Art. 14.8 provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of a generic name.

Example: Bougainvillea (see Appendix III, Spermatophyta, no. 2350).

73.2 The words ‘original spelling’ in this Article mean the spelling employed
when the name was validly published. They do not refer to the use of an initial
capital or small letter, this being a matter of typography (see Art. 21.2, Rec.
73F).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 59 –

______________________________________________________________________

73	Orthography

73.3 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.

Example: The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza is not to be altered, although it comme-
morates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392. 1934).

73.4 The letters w and y, foreign to classical Latin, and k, rare in that language,
are permissible in Latin plant names.

73.5 If the letter v is used as a vowel in an original spelling of a name or epithet
published before 1800, the letter u is to be substituted (Uffenbachia, not Vffen-
bachia Fabr.). When alternative typographies of a name or epithet exist in the
original publication and involve choice between the letters i and j or u and v,
the typography with i or u before a consonant or semivowel and j or v before
a vowel is to be accepted (Taraxacum, not Taraxacvm Zinn; Curculigo, not
Cvrcvligo Gaertn.; Jungia, not Iungia, nor Jvngia Gaertn.).

73.6 Diacritic 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 suppress-
ed 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, however, is permissible (Cephaëlis
for Cephaelis). *

73.7 When changes made in orthography by earlier authors who adopt person-
al, geographic, or vernacular names in nomenclature are intentional latiniza-
tions, they are to be preserved.

Examples: Valantia L. (1753), Gleditsia L. (1753), and Clutia L. (1753), commemorating Vail-
lant, Gleditsch and Cluyt respectively, are not to be altered to Vaillantia, Gleditschia and Cluy-
tia; Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists deliberately as ‘Valantius’, ‘Gleditsius’,
and ‘Clutius’.

73.8 The use of an incorrect compounding form in an epithet is treated as an
orthographic error to be corrected (see Rec. 73G).

Examples: Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC. (Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 17: 76. 1828) should be cited
as P. opuntiiflora DC.

Cacalia napeaefolia DC. (Prodr. 6: 328. 1837) and Senecio napeaefolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip.
(Flora 28: 498. 1845) should be cited as Cacalia napaeifolia DC. and Senecio napaeifolius
(DC.) Schlutz-Bip. respectively; the specific epithet refers to the resemblance of the leaves to
those of the genus Napaea (not Napea), and the substitute (connecting) vowel -i should have
been used instead of the genitive singular inflection -ae.

73.9 The use of a hyphen after a compounding form in an epithet is treated as
an orthographic error to be corrected.

* The diaeresis should be used where required in works in which diphthongs are not represent-
ed by special type, e.g. Cephaëlis in works in which there is Arisaema, not Arisæma.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 60 –

______________________________________________________________________

Orthography

Examples: Acer pseudoplatanus L., not A. pseudo-platanus; Ficus neoëbadarum Summerh., not
F. neo-ebudarum; Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vitt., not L. atro-purpureum; Croton ciliatoglan-
dulifer Ortega, not C. ciliato-glandulifer; Scirpus sect. Pseudoëriophorum Jurtz., not sect.
Pseudo-eriophorum. Note that Art. 73.9 refers only to epithets (i.e., of species, of infraspecific
taxa, or of subdivisions of a genus), not to names of genera or taxa of higher rank; a generic

name published with a hyphen, e.g. Pseudo-elephantopus Rohr, can be changed only by conserva-

tion. Note, further, that a hyphen is correctly used in an epithet after a word which could

stand independently (not a compounding form), e.g. Aster novae-angliae L., Coix lachryma-
jobi L., Peperomia san-felipensis J. D. Sm., Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng., Veronica ana-
gallis-aquatica L. (see Arts. 23.1 & 23.3).

73.10 The wrong use of the terminations, for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, and
-ianus, mentioned in Rec. 73C.1 is treated as an orthographic error to be cor-
rected. (See also Art. 32.4.)

Example of both a typographic and an orthographic error: Rosa pissarti Carr. (Rev. Hort.
1880: 314) is a typographic error for R. pissardi (see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190), which in its turn is
treated as an orthographic error for R. pissardii (see Rec. 73C.1(c)).

Recommendation 73A

73A.1 When a new name or epithet is to be derived from Greek, the transliteration to Latin
should conform to classical usage.

73A.2 The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.

Recommendation 73B

73B.1 When a new name for a genus, subgenus, or section is taken from the name of a person,
it should be formed in the following manner:

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

(b) When the name of the person ends in a consonant, the letters ia are added, except when the
name ends in er, when a is added (e.g. Kernera after Kerner). In latinized names ending in
-us, this termination is dropped before adding the suffix (Dillenia after Dillenius).

(c) The syllables not modified by these endings retain their original spelling, unless they contain
letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritic signs (see Art. 73.6).

(d) Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix, or be modified by anagram or abbrevi-
ation. In these cases they count as different words from the original name.

Examples: Durvillea and Urvillea; Lapeirousia and Peyrousea; Englera, Englerastrum, and
Englerella; Bouchea and Ubochea; Gerardia and Graderia; Martia and Martiusia.

Recommendation 73C

73C.1 Modern personal names may be latinized and used to form specific and infraspecific
epithets in the following manner (hyphens are used in examples only to set off the total appro-
priate termination):

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 61 –

______________________________________________________________________

73	Orthography

(c) If the personal name ends in a vowel or -er, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -an-
       plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g.
       Verbena hassler-ana for Hassler, Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne, Vanda lindley-ana for
       Lindley, Aspidium bertero-anum for Bertero), except when the personal name ends in -a
       when -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 in a consonant (except -er), adjectival epithets are formed by ad-
      ding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative sin-
      gular infection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rosa webb-iana for
      Webb, Desmodium griffith-ianum for Griffith).

73C.2 Personal names already in Greek or Latin should be given their appropriate Latin
genitive to form substantive epithets (e.g. alexandri from Alexander, augusti from Augustus,
linnaei from Linnaeus, martii from Martius, beatricis from Beatrix, hectoris from Hector).
Treating modern names as if they were in Third Declension should be avoided (e.g. munronis
from Munro, richardsonis from Richardson).

73C.3 In forming new epithets based on personal names the original spelling of the personal
name should not be modified unless it contains letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritic
signs (see Art. 73.6).

73C.4 Prefixes and particles ought to be treated as follows:

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

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

(c) A prefix consisting of an article, e.g. le, la, 1’, les, el, il, lo, or containing an article, e.g. du,
dela, des, del, della, should be united to the name, e.g. leclercii after Le Clerc, dubuyssonii
after DuBuysson, lafarinae after La Farina, logatoi after Lo Gato.

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

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

Recommendation 73D

73D.1 An epithet derived from a geographical name is preferably an adjective and usually
takes the termination -ensis, -(a)nus, -inus, -ianus, or -icus.

Examples: Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec), Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia), Polygonum
pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania).

Recommendation 73E

73E.1 A new epithet should be written in conformity with the original spelling of the word or
words from which it is derived and in accordance with the accepted usage of Latin and lati-
nization (see Art. 23.5).

Example: sinensis (not chinensis).

Recommendation 73F

73F.1 All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written with a small initial letter, although

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 62 –

______________________________________________________________________

Orthography

authors desiring to use capital initial letters may do so when the epithets are directly derived
from the names of persons (whether actual or mythical), or are vernacular (or non-Latin)
names, or are former generic names.

Recommendation 73G

73G.1 A compound name or an epithet which combines elements derived from two or more
Greek or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable, in accordance with classical
usage. This may be stated as follows:

(a) In a true compound, a noun or adjective in non-final position appears as a stem without
case ending with one of the following modifications to derive its compounding forms:

       (1) If the stem ends in a consonant, a connecting vowel (-o- in Greek, -i- in Latin) is inserted
       before a following consonant (Leont-o-podium, stem leont-; cord-i-folius, stem cord-). Be-
       fore a following vowel the connecting vowel is omitted (Leont-ice; cord-atus).

       (2) If the stem ends, or appears to end, in the vowels -a, -e, -o, or -u, this stem vowel is nor-
       mally deleted before a following consonant. For Greek words, -o is substituted (Acantho-
       panax, stem acantha-; Limno-charis, stem limne-; Cyclo-sorus, stem cyclo-). For Latin
       words, -i is substituted (magnolii-florus, stem magnolia-; lilii-florus, stem lilio-; querci-folius,
       stem quercu-), except for the rare e-stems. Before a following vowel the above stem vowels
       are deleted and the Greek -o and Latin -i are not substituted (Acanth-ella, Limn-anthes,
       Cycl-anthus, Magnoli-aceae, Lili-ales, querc-etum). In certain words the stem vowel may be
       preserved; this can only be determined by comparison with existing classical compounds
       (Coryne-phorus, stem coryne-; re-cula, re-al, stem re-).

       (3) If the stem ends in the vowels -y, -i, or the rare diphthongs -au, -eu, or -ou, the stem vowel
       is normally preserved (Pachy-phytum, Pachy-anthus, stem pachy-; Lysi-machia, Lisi-
       anthus, stem lysi-; Nau-clea, stem nau-). For certain stems, such as those of Greek nouns end-
       ing in -y or sometimes -i, the connecting vowel -o- is added before a consonant (Ichthy-o-
       there, stem ichthy-; Ophi-o-glossum, stem ophi-). The Greek diphthong stem endings are
       normally preserved but often undergo changes (Bo-opis, stem bou-; oreo-comus, stem oreu;
       Basilo-xylon, stem basileu-).

(b) A pseudocompound is a noun or adjectival phrase treated as if it were a single compound
       word. In a pseudocompound, a noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a word
       with a case ending, not as a modified stem. Examples are: nidus-avis (nest of bird), Myos-
       otis (ear of mouse), cannae-folius (leaf of canna), albo-marginatus (margined with white),

       etc. Some irregular forms have been developed on the analogy of pseudocompounds, such
       as atro-purpureus (purple with black, where the correct phrasing could have been purpu-
       reus cum atro). Others have been deliberately introduced to reveal etymological differences
       when different word elements have the same compounding forms, such as tubi- from tube
       (tubus, tubi, stem tubo-) or from trumpet (tuba, tubae, stem tuba-) where tubaeflorus can
       only mean trumpet-flowered; also carici- is the compounding form from both papaya
       (carica, caricae, stem carica-) and sedge (carex, caricis, stem caric-) where caricaefolius
       can only mean papaya-leaved. The latter use of genitive singular of First Declension for
       pseudocompounding is treated as an error to be corrected unless it makes an etymological
       distinction.

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

Note 1. The hyphens in the above examples are given solely for explanatory reasons. For the
use of hyphens in botanical names and epithets see Arts. 20, 23, and 73.9.
63

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 63 –

______________________________________________________________________

74–75

Orthography

Recommendation 73H

73H.1 Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of the host plant should be
spelled in accordance with the accepted spelling of this name; other spellings must be regarded
as orthographic variants and should be corrected.

Examples: Phyllachora anonicola Chardon (1940) should be altered to P. annonicola, since the
spelling Annona is now accepted in preference to Anona; – Meliola albizziae Hansford et Deigh-
ton (1948) should be altered to M. albiziae, since the spelling Albizia is now accepted in pre-
ference to Albizzia.

Recommendation 73I

73I.1 The etymology of new names and epithets should be given when the meaning of these is
not obvious.

Article 74

74.1 When the spelling of a generic name differs in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum
ed. 1 and Genera Plantarum ed. 5, the correct spelling is determined by the
following regulations:

(a) If Linnaeus subsequently to 1753-54 consistently adopted one of the spellings,
that spelling is accepted, e.g. Thuja (not Thuya), Prunella (not Brunella).

(b) If Linnaeus did not do so, then the spelling which is more correct philologi-
cally is accepted, e.g. Agrostemma (not Agrostema), Euonymus (not Evonymus).

(c) If the two spellings are equally correct philologically, and there is a great
preponderance of usage in favour of one of them, that one is accepted, e.g.
Rhododendron (not Rhododendrum).

(d) If the two spellings are equally correct philologically, and there is not a great
      preponderance of usage in favour of one of them, then the spelling that is in
      accordance or more nearly in accordance with Recommendations 73A, 73B,
      and 73G is accepted, e.g. Ludwigia (not Ludvigia), Ortegia (not Ortega).

Article 75

75.1 When two or more generic names 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 variants, which are homonyms when they are based on
different types.

Examples of names treated as orthographic variants: Astrostemma and Asterostemma; Pleu-
ripetalum and Pleuropetalum; Eschweilera and Eschweileria; Skytanthus and Scytanthus.

The three generic names Bradlea Adans., Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn., and Braddleya Vell., all
commemorating Richard Bradley, must be treated as orthographic variants because one only
can be used without serious risk of confusion.

* When it is doubtful whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused, they should be re-
ferred to the General Committee.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 64 –

______________________________________________________________________

Gender

Examples of names not likely to be confused: Rubia and Rubus; Monochaete and Monochae-
tum; Peponia and Peponium; Iria and Iris; Desmostachys and Desmostachya; Symphyostemon
and Symphostemon; Gerrardina and Gerardiina; Durvillea and Urvillea; Peltophorus (Poaceae)
and Peltophorum (Fabaceae).

Examples of names about which the General Committee has expressed an opinion in accor-
dance with the footnote: Kadalia Raf. and Kadali Adans. (both Melastomataceae) are ortho-
graphic variants (Taxon 15: 287. 1966); Acanthoica Lohmann and Acanthoeca W. Ellis (both
phytoflagellate algae) are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms (Taxon 22: 313. 1973).

Acanthococcus Lagerheim (an alga) and Acanthococos Barb. Rodr. (a palm) are not likely to be
confused and should not be treated as orthographic variants (Taxon 18: 735. 1969).

Examples of orthographic variants conserved against earlier homonyms (see Appendix III):
Lyngbya Gomont (vs. Lyngbyea Sommerf.); Columellia Ruiz et Pavon (vs. Columella Lourei-
ro), both commemorating Columella, the Roman writer on agriculture; Cephalotus Labill.
(vs. Cephalotos Adans.); Simarouba Aublet (vs. Simaruba Boehmer).

75.2 The same applies to specific epithets within the same genus and to infra-
specific epithets within the same species.

Examples of epithets treated as orthographic variants: chinensis and sinensis; ceylanica and
zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis, and nipalensis; polyanthemos and polyanthemus; macro-
stachys and macrostachyus; heteropus and heteropodus; poikilantha and poikilanthes; pteroides
and pteroideus; trinervis and trinervius; macrocarpon and macrocarpum; trachycaulum and
trachycaulon.

Solanum saltense and S. saltiense have epithets which should be treated as orthographic va-
riants (see General Committee report, Taxon 22: 153. 1973).

Examples of epithets not likely to be confused: Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip. and
S. napifolius Macowan are different names, the epithets napaeifolius and napifolius being deriv-
ed respectively from Napaea and Napus.

Lysimachia hemsleyana and Lysimachia hemsleyi (see, however, Rec. 23A).

Euphorbia peplis L. and E. peplus L.

S E C T I O N 2. G E N D E R O F G E N E R I C N A M E S

Recommendation 75A

75A.1 A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name should retain its gender. When the
gender varies the author should choose one of the alternative genders. In doubtful cases general
usage should be followed. The following names, however, whose classical gender is masculine,
should be treated as feminine in accordance with botanical custom: Adonis, Diospyros, Stry-
chnos; so also should Orchis and Stachys, which are masculine in Greek and feminine in Latin.
The name Hemerocallis, derived from the Latin and Greek hemerocalles (n), although mascu-
line in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum, should be treated as feminine in order to bring it into
conformity with almost all other generic names ending in -is.

Examples: the classical gender of Atriplex varied (e.g. feminine in Columella, neuter in Pliny);
Linnaeus treated the name as feminine and should be followed. However, Phyteuma was con-
sistently neuter (e.g. Dioscorides, Pliny), Sicyos consistently masculine (Theophrastus, Dio-
scorides), and Erigeron consistently masculine (Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny), and these
should retain their classical gender even though Linnaeus treated them as feminine.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 65 –

______________________________________________________________________

Gender

75A.2 Generic names compounded from two or more Greek or Latin words should take the
gender of the last. If the termination is altered, however, the gender should follow it.

Examples of compound generic names where the termination of the last word is altered:
Stenocarpus, Dipterocarpus, and all other modern compounds ending in the Greek masculine
carpos (or carpus), e.g. Hymenocarpos, should be masculine. Those in -carpa or -carpaea how-
ever, should be feminine, e.g. Callicarpa and Polycarpaea; and those in -carpon, -carpum, or
-carpium should be neuter, e.g. Polycarpon, Ormocarpum, and Pisocarpium.

(a) Modern compounds ending in -codon, -myces, -odon, -panax, -pogon, -stemon, and other
      masculine words should be masculine. The fact that the generic names Andropogon L. and
      Oplopanax (Torr. et Gray) Miquel were originally treated as neuter by their authors is
      immaterial.

(b) Similarly, all modern compounds ending in -achne, -chlamys, -daphne, -mecon, -osma (the
      modern transcription of the feminine Greek word osmé) and other feminine words should
      be feminine. The fact that Dendromecon Benth. and Hesperomecon E. L. Greene were ori-
      ginally ascribed the neuter gender is immaterial. An exception should be made in the case of
      names ending in -gaster, which strictly speaking ought to be feminine, but which should be
      treated as masculine in accordance with botanical custom.

(c) Similarly, all modern compounds ending in -ceras, -dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma and
      other neuter words should be neuter. The fact that Robert Brown and Bunge respectively
      made Aceras and Xanthoceras feminine is immaterial. An exception should be made for
      names ending in -anthos (or -anthus) and -chilos (-chilus or -cheilos), which ought to be
      neuter, since that is the gender of the Greek words anthos and cheilos, but which have gene-
      rally been treated as masculine and should have that gender assigned to them.

75A.3 Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names or adjectives used as generic
names, whose gender is not apparent, should take the gender assigned to them by their au-
thors. Where the original author has failed to indicate the gender, the next subsequent author
may choose a gender, and his choice should be accepted.

Examples: Taonabo Aubl. (Pl. Guiane 569. 1775) should be feminine: Aublet’s two species
were T. dentata and T. punctata.

Agati Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 326. 1763) was published without indication of gender: the feminine
gender was assigned to it by Desvaux (J. Bot. Agric. 1: 120. 1813), who was the first subsequent
author to adopt the name, and his choice should be accepted.

Boehmer (in Ludwig, Def. Gen. Pl. ed. 3. 436. 1760) and Adanson (Fam. Pl. 2: 356. 1763)
failed to indicate the gender of Manihot: the first author to supply specific epithets was Crantz
(Inst. Rei Herb. I: 167. 1766), who proposed the names Manihot gossypiifolia, etc., and Mani-
hot should therefore be treated as feminine.

Cordyceps Link (Handb. 3: 346. 1833) is adjectival in form and has no classical gender; Link
assigned to it C. capitatus, etc. and Cordyceps should therefore be treated as masculine.

75A.4 Generic names ending in -oides or -odes should be treated as feminine and those ending
in -ites as masculine, irrespective of the gender assigned to them by the original author.

Recommendation 75B

75B.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.

Example: When Boletus is divided, the gender of the new generic names should be masculine:
Xerocomus, Boletellus, etc.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 66 –

______________________________________________________________________

Modification of Code

Div. III

DIVISION III. PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION

OF THE CODE

Provision 1. Modification of the Code. The Code may be modified only by
action of a plenary session of an International Botanical Congress on a reso-
lution moved by the Nomenclature Section of that Congress.

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

1.   General Committee, composed of the secretaries of the other committees, the rapporteur-
      général, the president and the secretary of the International Association for Plant Taxono-
      my, and at least 5 members to be appointed by the Nomenclature Section. The rapporteur-
      général is charged with the presentation of nomenclature proposals to the International
      Botanical Congress.
2.   Committee for Spermatophyta.
3.   Committee for Pteridophyta.
4.   Committee for Bryophyta.
5.   Committee for Fungi and Lichens.
6.   Committee for Algae.
7.   Committee for Hybrids.
8.   Committee for Fossil Plants.
9.   Editorial Committee, charged with the preparation and publication of the Code in con-
      formity 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.

Provision 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 ques-
tion. 2. The recorder, appointed by the same organizing committee. 3. The
rapporteur-général, elected by the previous Congress. 4. The vice-rapporteur,
elected by the organizing committee on the proposal of the rapporteur-général.

Provision 4. The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds: 1. A pre-
liminary guiding mail vote and 2. A final and binding vote at the Nomenclature
Section of the International Botanical Congress.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 67 –

______________________________________________________________________

Div. III

Modification of Code

Qualifications for voting:

A. Preliminary mail vote.

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

2. The authors of proposals.

3. The members of the nomenclature committees.

Note. 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. Transfer of institutional votes to specified vice-delegates is permissible, but no
      single person will be allowed more than 15 votes, his personal vote included. Institutional
      votes may be deposited at the Bureau of Nomenclature to be counted in a specified way for
      specified proposals.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 68 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H. 1–H. 3

A P P E N D I X I

N A M E S O F H Y B R I D S

Article H. 1

H.1.1 Hybrids are assigned to taxa of two principal ranks: interspecific hybrid
and intergeneric hybrid. These ranks are equivalent to species and genus respec-
tively. The nomenclature of these hybrids is governed by the general provisions
of the Code, except where modified by the special provisions of this Appendix.

H.1.2 The term interspecific hybrid, whenever used in the Code, refers to a
hybrid between species of the same genus. The term intergeneric hybrid, when-
ever used in the Code, refers to a hybrid between species of two or more genera.

Article H. 2

H.2.1 Hybrids or putative hybrids between two species of the same genus are
designated by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name.

H.2.2 A formula consists of the names of the two parents connected by the
multiplication sign ( × ) or of the name of the genus followed by the specific epi-
thets of the two parents connected by the same sign. The sequence of the names
or epithets in a formula is either alphabetical (as in this Code) or with the name
or epithet of the female parent first when this is known.

Example: Salix × capreola Kerner ex Andersson = Salix aurita L. × S. caprea L. or alter-
natively Salix aurita × caprea.

Recommendation H. 2A

H.2A.1 The female (♀) and male (♂) signs may be added in formulas. Any other conventions
used in the writing of formulas should be explained by the authors.

Example: Digitalis lutea L. ♀ × D. purpurea L. ♂.

Article H. 3

H.3.1 A name of an interspecific hybrid is a binary combination consisting of
the name of the genus and a single epithet (‘collective’ epithet), the latter pre-
ceded by the multiplication sign ( × ). Such names are subject to the same rules
as those for the names of species (see Arts. 23, 40, & 50).

Example: Salix × capreola Kerner ex Andersson.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 69 –

______________________________________________________________________

H.4–H.5

Hybrids

H.3.2 Where binary names of Latin form are used in the naming of hybrids, all
descendants (whether Fı or succeeding generations) of crosses between indi-

viduals of the same parent species receive the same name (see Art. H. 10.1). An
exception may be made for names of amphidiploids and similar polyploids
treated as species, which may bear an epithet without the multiplication sign.

Example: Digitalis mertonensis Buxton & Darlington, a true-breeding tetraploid obtained
from D. grandiflora Mill. × D. purpurea L.

Recommendation H. 3A

H.3A.1 When polymorphic parental species are involved and if infraspecific taxa are recog-
nized in them, greater precision may be achieved by the use of a formula incorporating the
names of the infraspecific taxa than by the use of a collective epithet.

Article H. 4

H.4.1 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 com-
bined with the generic name of the other (with or without change of termination)
are considered to be formulae and not true epithets.

Examples: The designation Potentilla atrosanguinea-pedata published by Maund (Bot. Gard.
5: no. 385, t. 97. 1833-34) is considered to be a formula meaning Potentilla atrosanguinea Lodd.
ex D. Don (Prodr. Fl. Nepal. 232. 1825) × P. pedata Nestler (Monogr. Potentilla 44. 1816).

Verbascum nigro-lychnitis Schiede (Pl. Hybr. 40. 1825) is considered to be a formula, Verbas-
cum lychnitis L. (Sp. Pl. 177. 1753) × V. nigrum L. (Sp. Pl. 178. 1753); the correct binary name
for this hybrid is Verbascum × schiedeanum Koch (Syn. Fl. Germ. ed. 2. 592. 1843).

The following names include true epithets: Acaena × anserovina Orchard (Trans. Roy. Soc.
South Australia 93: 104. 1969) (from anserinifolia and ovina); Micromeria × benthamineolens
Svent. (Index Sem. Agron. Invest. Nat. Hispan. Inst. 1968: 48. 1969) (from benthamii and pi-
neolens).

Recommendation H. 4A

H.4A.1 In forming epithets for hybrids, authors should avoid combining parts of the epithets
of the names of the parents.

Article H. 5

H.5.1 If a statement of the parentage of a hybrid designated by a name appears
to conflict with the characters of the type of the name, the type takes precedence
in determining the application of the name.

Example: Quercus × deamii Trelease was described as Q. alba L. × Q. muehlenbergii Engelm.
However, progeny grown from acorns from the type tree led Bartlett to conclude that the
parents were in fact Q. macrocarpa Michx. and Q. muehlenbergii. The hybrid Q. alba × Q.
muehlenbergii is left without a binary name, and the name Q. × deamii is applied to Q. macro-
carpa × Q. muehlenbergii.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 70 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H. 6–H. 7

Article H. 6

H.6.1 Hybrids or putative hybrids between infraspecific taxa of the same species
may be designated by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary, by
a name of the same taxonomic rank as the parents or, if these are of different
rank, that of the higher-ranking parent.

Example: Polypodium vulgare subsp. × mantoniae Rothm. ex Schidlay (= P. vulgare subsp.
prionodes × subsp. vulgare).

H.6.2 Epithets of hybrids between infraspecific taxa are subject to the same
rules as those of non-hybrid infraspecific taxa (see Art. 40).

Recommendation H. 6A

H.6A.1 In the formula of a hybrid between infraspecific taxa, the order of the names or epi-
thets and the use of the signs ♀ and ♂ should follow the procedure set down in Art. H. 2 and
Rec. H. 2A. In general, greater precision will be achieved with less danger of confusion if for-
mulae rather than names are used for such hybrids.

Article H. 7

H.7.1 Intergeneric hybrids (i.e. hybrids between species of two or more genera)
are designated at the generic level by a formula and, whenever it seems useful,
by a ‘generic name’.

H.7.2 The formula consists of the names of the two or more parents connected
by the multiplication sign × .

H.7.3 The ‘generic name’ of a bigeneric hybrid (i.e. the name of a bigeneric
hybrid corresponding to a genus) is a condensed formula formed by combining
the names of the two parent genera, i.e. the first part or the whole of one name
and the last part or the whole of the other, into a single word.

Examples: × Agropogon (= Agrostis × Polypogon); × Gymnanacamptis (= Anacamptis
× Gymnadenia); × Gymnaglossum (= Coeloglossum × Gymnadenia); × Sericobonia (= Libo-
nia × Sericographis).

H.7.4 All hybrids between the same genera bear the same ‘generic name.’

H.7.5 The epithet of a bigeneric hybrid must not be placed under the name of
either of the parent genera.

Example: × Heucherella tiarelloides (= Heuchera × brizoides × Tiarella cordifolia), not
Heuchera × tiarelloides.

H.7.6 The ‘generic name’ of an intergeneric hybrid derived from four or more
genera is formed from the name of a collector, grower, or student of the group,
to which is added the termination -ara; no such name may exceed eight syllables.
Such a name is regarded as a condensed formula.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 71 –

______________________________________________________________________

H. 8

Hybrids

Example: × Potinara (= Brassavola × Cattleya × Laelia × Sophronitis).

H.7.7 The ‘generic name’ of a trigeneric hybrid is formed either like that of
bigeneric hybrids, by combining the names of the three parent genera into a
single word not exceeding eight syllables, or, like that of a hybrid derived from
four or more genera, from a personal name, to which is added the termination
-ara.

Examples: × Sophrolaeliocattleya (= Cattleya × Laelia × Sophronitis). × Wilsonara (=
Cochlioda × Odontoglossum × Oncidium).

H.7.8 The collective epithet of an intergeneric hybrid is subject to the same
rules as that of an interspecific hybrid (Arts. H. 3, H. 4, and H. 5), except for the
position of the multiplication sign ( × ). A collective epithet in modern language
is allowable only under the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated
Plants (see that Code, Art. 18).

H.7.9 The epithet of the name of a hybrid derived from two subdivisions of the
same genus is formed in the same way as the ‘generic name’ of an intergeneric
hybrid.

Examples: Ptilostemon sect. × Platon Greuter (Boissiera 22: 159. 1973), comprising hybrids
between Ptilostemon sect. Platyrhaphium Greuter and P. sect. Ptilostemon; Ptilostemon sect.
× Plinia Greuter (Boissiera 22: 158. 1973), comprising hybrids between Ptilostemon sect.
Platyrhaphium and P. sect. Cassinia Greuter.

Article H. 8

H.8.1 The name or epithet of a hybrid with the rank of genus or subdivision of
a genus is applicable only to plants which are accepted taxonomically as de-
rived from the genera or subdivisions of a genus named.

Examples: 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 Hordeum (s. str.)
and Triticum (s. str.) are all to be placed within the hybrid group × Tritordeum Asch. &
Graebn. (Syn. 2: 748. 1902). If, however, Agropyron and Elymus are separated generically from
Triticum (s. str.) and Hordeum (s. str.), hybrids between Agropyron and Hordeum (s. str.) are
placed within the hybrid group × Agrohordeum Camus (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 33: 537.
1927), which has priority over × Hordeopyrum Simonet (Compt. Rend. Acad. Paris 201:
1212. 1935). Hybrids between Agropyron and Elymus are placed in × Agroelymus Camus
(Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 33: 538. 1927), which has priority over × Elymopyrum Cugnac
(Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938, accompanied by a statement of parentage and a
description in French, but not Latin). Hybrids between Elymus and Hordeum are placed in
× Elyhordeum Lepage (Natural. Canad. 84: 97. 1957); × Tritordeum is then restricted to
hybrids between Hordeum (s. str.) and Triticum (s. str.). The name × Hordelymus for hybrids
between Elymus and Hordeum (s. str.) would be illegitimate because of the earlier publication
of Hordelymus (Jessen) Harz (Samenkunde 2: 1147. 1885) based on Hordeum subgen. Hordely-
mus Jessen.

If Euanthe is recognized as a distinct genus, hybrids simultaneously involving its only species,
E. sanderana, and the three genera Arachnis, Renanthera, and Vanda must be placed in × Cog-

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 72 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H. 9–H. 10

niauxara; if on the other hand E. sanderana is included in Vanda, the same hybrids are placed
in × Holttumara (Arachnis × Renanthera × Vanda).

Article H. 9

H.9.1 In order to be validly published, the name of a hybrid with the rank of
genus or the epithet of a hybrid with the rank of subdivision of a genus, which
is a condensed formula or equivalent to a condensed formula (Art. H. 7), must
be effectively published (see Art. 29) 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.

Examples of validly published names: × Philageria Masters (Gard. Chrono 1872: 358), publish-
ed with a statement of parentage, Lapageria × Philesia; × Cupressocyparis Dallimore (Hand-
list Conif. Roy. Bot. Gard. Kew ed. 4. 37. 1938), published with a statement of parentage,
Chamaecyparis × Cupressus; Eryngium sect. × Alpestria Burdet & Miège (Candollea 23: 116.
1968) published with a statement of its parentage, Eryngium sect. Alpina × sect. Campestria.

Article H. 10

H.10.1 When different hybrid forms or groups of hybrid forms derived from
the same parent species (including their infraspecific taxa) are treated as be-
longing to a collective hybrid taxon of rank equivalent to species, they are
classed under the binary name applied to this taxon (see Art. H. 3) like infra-
specific taxa under the binary name of a species. These hybrid forms or groups
of hybrid forms are termed nothomorphs; when it is desirable, a nothomorph
may be designated by an epithet preceded by this binary name and the term
‘nothomorph’ (nothomorpha, abbreviated as nm.).

H.10.2 In the hierarchy of ranks, nothomorph is equivalent to variety (see also Art.
50).

H.10.3 Nothomorpha, a term derived from the Greek νοθος and μορφη meaning
‘hybrid form’, is applied to any hybrid form, whether Fı, segregate or backcross.

Examples: Mentha × niliaca nm. lamarckii (a form of the pleomorphic hybrid Mentha × nili-
aca = M. longifolia × M. rotundifolia); Ulmus × hollandica nm. hollandica and nm. vegeta
(forms of Ulmus × hollandica = U. carpinifolia × U. glabra).

H.10.4 An epithet published before 1 Jan. 1975 subordinate to the binary name
of a recognized hybrid, but at a rank other than that of nothomorph, is treated
as published at the rank of nothomorph, the name of the original author being
cited, followed by an indication of the original status (see Art. 50).

Example: Carduus × orthocephalus Wallr. nm. mulliganii Boivin (pro forma).

H.10.5 An epithet published on or after 1 Jan. 1975 subordinate to the binary
name of a recognized hybrid, but at any rank other than nothomorph, is not
validly published.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 73 –

______________________________________________________________________

App. II–III

Appendices

A P P E N D I X I I

NOMINA FAMILIARUM CONSERVANDA see pp. 238–257.

A P P E N D I X I I I

NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA ET REJICIENDA see pp. 258–412.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 74 –

______________________________________________________________________

Guide

Types

GUIDE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF TYPES

The following is intended as a guide to the determination or selection of the
nomenclatural types of previously published taxa. Where the application of a
rule is concerned, reference is made to the appropriate Article.

1 The choice made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of
the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final. If he included only
one element, that one must always be accepted as the holotype (Arts. 7, 9, 10).
If a new name is based on a previously published description of the taxon, the
same considerations apply to material cited by the earlier author.

2 A new name or epithet published as an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for
an older name or epithet is typified by the type of the older name (Art. 7.9).

3 A lectotype may be chosen only when an author failed to designate a holo-
type, or when, for species or taxa of lower rank, the type has been lost or de-
stroyed (Art. 7.4).

4 Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an under-
standing of the group concerned. Mechanical systems, such as the automatic
selection of the first species or specimen cited or of a specimen collected by the
person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and
productive of possible future confusion and further change. In choosing a lecto-
type, all aspects of the protologue should be considered as a basic guide. (See
Art. 8.)

a A lectotype must be chosen from among elements that were definitely studied
by the author up to the time the name of the taxon was published and included
in the protologue.

b Other things being equal, a specimen should be given preference over pre-
Linnaean or other cited descriptions or illustrations when lectotypes of species
or infraspecific taxa are designated, providing that the choice is in accordance
with Rec. 7B. (See also Art. 9.)

c If a holotype was designated by the original author and has been lost or de-
stroyed, an isotype (Art. 7.6), if such exists, must be chosen as the lectotype. If
no holotype was designated by the original author and if syntypes (Art. 7.7)
exist, one of them must be chosen as the lectotype. If no holotype was designated
by the original author and if no syntypes are extant, the lectotype should be
chosen from among duplicates* of the syntypes (isosyntypes), if such exist. If

* The word duplicate is here given its usual meaning in herbarium curatorial practice. It is
part of a single gathering made by a collector at one time. However, the possibility of a mixed
gathering must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype and corresponding
caution used.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 75 –

______________________________________________________________________

Types

Guide

neither an isotype, a syntype, nor an isosyntype is extant, a paratype* if such
exists, may be chosen as lectotype. If none of the specimens cited in the protologue
nor any duplicates of them are extant, a neotype (Art. 7.8) may be designated.

d 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, vulgaris, communis, etc.

e In cases when two or more elements were included in or cited with the original
description, the reviewer should be guided by Rec. 7B in the selection of a lecto-
type. However, if another author has already segregated one or more elements
as other taxa, the residue or part of it should be designated as the lectotype
provided that this element is not discordant with the original description or
diagnosis. If it can be shown that the element or elements which remain are
discordant, then one of the previously segregated elements is to be selected as
the lectotype (see Rec. 7B).

f The first choice of a lectotype must be followed by subsequent workers (Art.
8) unless the original material is rediscovered, or unless it can be shown that the
choice was based upon a misinterpretation of the protologue, or if the choice
was made arbitrarily (e.g., by a mechanical system) and without understanding
of the group concerned (see 4, above).

5 In selecting a neotype even more care and critical knowledge are essential, as
the reviewer usually has no guide except his own judgment as to what best fits
the protologue. If his selection proves to be faulty it will inevitably result in

further change. A neotype may be designated only when all the originally cited
material and its duplicates are believed lost or destroyed (Art. 7.8).

The first choice of a neotype must be followed by subsequent workers unless the
original material is rediscovered, or unless the choice neglected an available
lectotype, or if it can be shown that the choice was based on a misinterpretation
of the original protologue. A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype
(Art. 7.4).

6 For the name of a fossil species, the lectotype, when one is needed, should, if
possible, be a specimen illustrated at the time of the first valid publication (Art.
7.15).

* A paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue other than the holotype, isotype(s), or syn-
types. In most cases where no holotype was designated there will also be no paratypes, since
all the cited specimens will be syntypes. However, in cases where an author cited two or more
specimens as types (Art. 7.5) the remaining cited specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1978 — Leningrad Code

– 76 –

______________________________________________________________________

[ Not present in this edition ]

[ sic ]

[ supposed to be superscript ]