Preamble | Pre.1-Pre.6 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
PREAMBLE
1.
Botany requires a precise and simple system
of nomenclature used by
botanists in all countries,
dealing on the one hand with the terms
which denote
the ranks of taxonomic groups or units,
and on the other hand with the scien-
tific names
which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups
of plants¹.
The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group
is not to indicate its
characters or history,
but to supply a means of referring to it
and to indicate its
taxonomic rank. This
Code
aims at the provision of a stable method
of naming
taxonomic groups, avoiding and
rejecting the use of names which may cause
error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion.
Next in importance is the
avoidance of the useless
creation of names. Other considerations, such as
abso-
lute grammatical correctness,
regularity or euphony of names, more or less
prevailing custom, regard for persons, etc.,
notwithstanding their undeniable
importance,
are relatively accessory.
2. The Principles form the basis of the system of botanical nomenclature.
3.
The detailed Provisions are divided into
Rules, set out in the Articles, and
Recommendations.
Examples (Ex.) are added to the rules
and recommenda-
tions to illustrate them.
4.
The object of the Rules
is to put the nomenclature of the past into order
and
to provide for that of the future;
names contrary to a rule cannot be maintained.
5.
The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points,
their object being to
bring about greater uniformity
and clearness, especially in future nomencla-
ture;
names contrary to a recommendation
cannot, on that account, be rejected,
but they are not examples to be followed.
6.
The provisions regulating the modification of this
Code
form its
last divi-
sion.
______________
¹
In this
Code, unless otherwise indicated,
the word “plant” means any organism
traditionally studied
by botanists (see
Pre. 7).
1 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 01 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Pre.7-Pre.11 | Preamble |
7.
The rules and recommendations
apply to all organisms
traditionally
treated
as plants,
whether fossil or non-fossil¹, e.g.,
blue-green algae
(Cyanobacteria)²;
fungi, including
chytrids, oomycetes,
and slime moulds;
photosynthetic protists
and taxonomically related
non-photosynthetic
groups.
8.
Special provisions
are needed for certain groups of plants: The
International
code of
nomenclature for
cultivated
plants-1980
was adopted by the Interna-
tional Commission
for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants;
provisions for
the names of hybrids appear in
App. I.
9.
The only proper reasons for changing a name
are either a more profound
knowledge of the facts
resulting from adequate taxonomic study
or the
necessity of giving up a nomenclature
that is contrary to the rules.
10.
In the absence of a relevant rule
or where the consequences of rules are
doubtful,
established custom is followed.
11.
This edition of the
Code supersedes
all previous editions.
______________
¹
In this
Code,
the term “fossil” is applied to a taxon
when its name is based on a fossil type and the
term “non-fossil” is applied to a taxon
when its name is based on a non-fossil type (see Art.
13.3).
²
For the nomenclature
of other prokaryote groups, see the
International
code of
nomenclature of
bacteria.
2 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 02 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Principles | I-VI |
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological
and bacteriological
nomenclature.
The
Code applies
equally to names of taxonomic groups
treated
as plants whether or not
these groups were originally so treated (see
Pre. 7).
The application of names of taxonomic groups
is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.
The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.
Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can
bear only one correct name,
the earliest that is in accordance with the Rules,
except in specified cases.
Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated
as Latin regardless of their
derivation.
The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive
unless expressly limited.
3 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 03 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
1-3 | Ranks |
DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1.
Taxonomic groups of any rank will, in this
Code, be referred to as
taxa
(singular:
taxon).
2.1.
Every individual plant is treated
as belonging to an
indefinite number
of
taxa of consecutively subordinate rank,
among which the rank of species
(species) is basic.
3.1.
The principal ranks of taxa in
descending sequence are:
kingdom
(reg-
num), division
or phylum
(divisio, phylum),
class
(classis),
order
(ordo), family
(familia), genus
(genus),
and species
(species). Thus,
except for some fossil
plants (see Art.
3.3),
each species is assignable to a genus,
each genus to a
family, etc.
3.2.
The principal ranks of nothotaxa (hybrid taxa)
are nothogenus and notho-
species.
These are the same ranks as
genus and
species,
only the terms denot-
ing the ranks
differing in order to indicate the hybrid character (see
App. I).
3.3.
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).
Ex. 1.
Form-genera:
Dadoxylon Endl.
(Coniferopsida),
Pecopteris (Brongn.) Sternb.
(Pteridopsida),
Stigmaria Brongn.
(Lepidodendrales),
Spermatites Miner (seed-bearing plants).
Ex. 2.
The following are, however, not form-genera:
Lepidocarpon D.
H. Scott
(Lepidocarpaceae),
Mazocarpon M.
J. Benson
(Sigillariaceae),
Siltaria Traverse
(Fagaceae).
Note 1.
Art.
59 provides
for form-taxa for asexual forms (anamorphs)
of certain pleomor-
phic fungi, at any rank.
4 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 04 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Ranks | 3-5 |
3.4.
As in the case of certain pleomorphic fungi,
the provisions of this
Code
do
not prevent the publication
and use of names of form-genera of fossils.
4.1.
The secondary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are
tribe
(tribus)
between family and genus, section
(sectio) and series
(series) between genus
and species, and variety
(varietas) and form
(forma) below species.
4.2.
If a greater number of ranks of taxa is desired,
the terms for these are
made by adding the prefix
sub- to the terms denoting the
principal or secondary
ranks.
A plant may thus be assigned to taxa of the following ranks
(in descend-
ing sequence):
regnum, subregnum, divisio
or
phylum,
subdivisio
or
subphy-
lum,
classis, subclassis, ordo, subordo, familia,
subfamilia, tribus, subtribus,
genus, subgenus,
sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species,
subspecies, vari-
etas, subvarietas,
forma, subforma.
4.3.
Further ranks may
also be intercalated
or added, provided that confusion
or error
is not thereby introduced.
4.4.
The subordinate ranks of nothotaxa are the same
as the subordinate ranks
of non-hybrid taxa,
except that nothogenus is the highest rank permitted (see
App. I).
Note 1.
Throughout this
Code the phrase
“subdivision of a family” refers only to taxa of a
rank
between family and genus and “subdivision of a genus”
refers only to taxa of a rank
between genus and species.
Note 2.
For the designation of certain variants of species
in cultivation, see Art. 28
Notes 1
and
2.
Note 3.
In classifying parasites, especially fungi,
authors who do not give specific, subspe-
cific,
or varietal value to taxa characterized
from a physiological standpoint but scarcely or
not at all from a morphological standpoint
may distinguish within the species special forms
(formae speciales) characterized
by their adaptation to different hosts, but the nomenclature
of special forms is not governed by the provisions of this
Code.
5.1.
The relative order of the ranks specified in Art.
3 and
4
must not be
altered (see Art.
33.5 and
33.6).
5 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 05 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
6 | Definitions |
CHAPTER II. RANKS OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
6.1. Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 29-31.
6.2.
Valid publication of names is publication
in accordance with Art.
32-45 or
H.9 (see also Art.
61).
6.3. A legitimate name is one that is in accordance with the rules.
6.4.
An illegitimate name is one
that is designated as such in Art.
18.3,
19.5, or
52-54 (see also Art. 21
Note 1 and Art. 24
Note 2).
A name which according to
this
Code was illegitimate
when published cannot become legitimate later
un-
less it is conserved or sanctioned.
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).
Ex. 1.
The generic name
Vexillifera Ducke (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
& Urb. ex Taub. (1892),
based on the single species
D. martinicensis.
Both generic names are correct
when the genera are thought to be separate.
Harms
(in Repert. Spec. Nov.
Regni Veg. 19: 291. 1924),
however, united
Vexillifera and
Dussia in a single genus; the latter name is the correct one for the genus
with this particular circumscription. The legitimate name
Vexillifera may therefore be correct or incor-
rect
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 Art.
21,
23, and
24).
Ex. 2.
Combinations:
Mouriri subg.
Pericrene,
Arytera
sect.
Mischarytera,
Gentiana lutea,
Gentiana
tenella
var.
occidentalis,
Equisetum palustre
var.
americanum,
Equisetum palustre
f.
fluitans.
6 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 06 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Definitions – Typification | 6-7 |
6.8.
Autonyms are such names
as can be established automatically under Art.
22.3 and
26.3, whether
or not they
appear in print
in the publication
in which
they are created
(see Art.
32.7).
7.1.
The application of names of taxa of the rank of family
or below is
determined by means of nomenclatural types
(types of names of taxa). The
application of names of taxa
in the higher ranks is also determined by
means of
types
when the names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art.
10.7).
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
nomenclatural type is not necessarily
the most typical or representative element
of a taxon.
7.3.
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
2).
Ex. 1.
Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a
nomen novum for
M. laevis O. Berg (1862),
an illegitimate homonym of
M. laevis G. Don (1832). The type of
M. lucida is therefore the type of
M.
laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely, Spruce 3502.
7.4.
A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name
(stat.
nov., comb. nov.) is,
in all circumstances,
typified by the type of the basionym,
even though it may have been applied
erroneously to a
taxon now considered
not to include that type
(but see Art.
48.1
and
59.6).
Ex. 2.
Pinus mertensiana Bong.
was transferred to the genus
Tsuga by Carrière,
who, however, as is
evident from his description,
erroneously applied the new combination
T. mertensiana to another
species of
Tsuga, namely
T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. The combination
Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.)
Carrière
must not be applied to
T. heterophylla but must be retained for
P. mertensiana when that
species is placed in
Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art.
49)
of the name of the original author,
Bongard, indicates the type of the name.
Ex.
3.
Iridaea splendens (Setch. &
N. L. Gardner) Papenf.,
I. cordata var.
splendens (Setch. &
N. L.
Gardner)
I. A. Abbott
(in Syesis 4: 55. 1972), and
Gigartina cordata var.
splendens (Setch. &
N. L.
Gardner)
D. H. Kim
(in Nova Hedwigia 27: 40. 1976)
all have the same type as their basionym,
Iridophycus splendens Setch. &
N. L. Gardner,
namely, Gardner 7781 (UC
No. 539565).
7.5.
A name which, under
Art.
52, was
illegitimate when published is
either
automatically
typified by the type of the name which ought to have been
adopted under the rules,
or by a different type
designated or
definitely indi-
cated
by the author of the
illegitimate name. Automatic typification
does not
apply to names sanctioned under Art.
15.
7 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 07 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
7 | Typification |
7.6.
The type of
an autonym is the same
as that of the name from which it is
derived.
7.7.
A name validly published by reference to a previously
and effectively
published description or diagnosis (Art.
32.1(c))
is to be typified by an element
selected from the context
of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the
validating author has definitely designated a different type
(but see Art.
10.2).
However,
the type of a name of a taxon
assigned to a group with a nomenclatu-
ral
starting-point later than 1753 (see Art.
13.1)
is to be determined in accord-
ance
with the indication or descriptive and other matter
accompanying its valid
publication (see Art.
32-45).
Ex.
4.
Since the name
Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824)
is validated solely by reference to Rumphius
(Herb. Amboin. 3: t. 112. 1743), the type of the name,
in the absence of the specimen from which it was
figured,
is the illustration referred to. It is not the specimen,
at Kew, collected by Moon and labelled
“Adenanthera bicolor”, since Moon did not
definitely designate the latter as the type.
Ex.
5.
Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754)
was published without a description
or diagnosis
but
with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a
“Lycopsis” species was
discussed
with no description
or diagnosis
but with citation of earlier
references, including Bauhin
(Pinax: 255. 1623).
The accepted validating description of
E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin,
and the type
must be chosen from the context of his work.
Consequently the Sherard specimen
in the Morison
herbarium (OXF), selected by Klotz
(in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ.
Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Natur-
wiss. Reihe
9: 375-376. 1960), although probably consulted by Ray,
is not eligible as type. The first
acceptable choice
is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of
“Echii altera species” in
Dodonaeus
(Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620. 1583), suggested by Gibbs
(in Lagascalia 1: 60-61. 1971)
and
formally made by Stearn
(in
Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973).
7.8.
Typification of names
adopted in one of the works specified in Art.
13.1(d),
and thereby sanctioned
(Art.
15),
may be effected in the light of
anything
associated with the name in that work.
7.9.
The typification of names of form-genera
of plant fossils (Art.
3.3),
of
fungal anamorphs (Art.
59),
and of any other analogous genera or lower taxa
does not differ from that indicated above.
Note
1.
See also Art.
59
for details regarding typification of names
in certain pleomorphic
fungi.
7.10.
For purposes of priority
(Art.
9.13 and
10.5),
designation of a type is
achieved
only by effective publication (Art.
29-31).
7.11.
For purposes of priority
(Art.
9.13
and
10.5),
designation of a type is
achieved only if the type
is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author,
and if the type element is clearly indicated
by direct citation including the term
“type”
or an equivalent.
Ex. 6.
Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907)
originally comprised two species,
C. minor and
C. elegans.
Vischer (1933) transferred the former to
Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained the latter in
Chloro-
sarcina.
He did not, however, use the term “type” or an equivalent,
so that his action does not constitute
typification of
Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a type, as “LT.”,
was Starr (in ING Card No.
16528, Nov 1962), who selected
Chlorosarcina elegans.
8 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 08 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Typification | 7-8A |
*Ex. 7.
The phrase “standard species” as used by Hitchcock & Green
(in Anon.,
Nomencl. Prop. Brit.
Botanists: 110-199. 1929) is now
treated
as equivalent to “type”, and hence
type designations in
this
work
are acceptable.
7A.1.
It is strongly recommended that the material
on which the name of a taxon is based,
especially the holotype, be deposited
in a public herbarium or other public collection
with a
policy of giving
bona fide botanists
open access
to deposited material,
and that it be scrupu-
lously conserved.
8.1.
The type
of a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon is a single specimen
or illustration 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
equivalent preparation
(e.g., box, packet, jar, microscope slide).
8.2.
Type specimens
of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and
cannot be living plants or cultures.
*Ex. 1.
The strain CBS 7351, given as the type of the name
Candida populi Hagler & al.
(in Int. J. Syst.
Bacteriol. 39: 98. 1989), is acceptable
as a nomenclatural type as it is permanently preserved
in a
metabolically inactive state by lyophilization
(see also Rec.
8B.2).
8.3.
If it is impossible
to preserve a specimen as the type of a name of a
species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil plants,
or if such a name is without
a type specimen,
the type may be an illustration.
8.4.
The type of
the name of a taxon
of fossil plants of the rank of species or
below
is the specimen whose figure either accompanies
or is cited in the valid
publication 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 speci-
mens must be chosen as the type.
8.5.
One whole specimen used in establishing a taxon
of fossil plants is to be
considered
the nomenclatural type.
8A.1.
When a holotype, a lectotype or a neotype
is an illustration (see Art.
8.3),
the
specimen or specimens upon which
that illustration is based should be used to help
deter-
mine the application of the name.
8A.2.
When it is impossible to preserve a type specimen
and an illustration is designated as
the type of the name of a new taxon (see Art.
8.3),
the collection data of the illustrated
material
should be given (see also Rec.
32D.2).
______________
* Here and elsewhere in the Code, a prefixed asterisk denotes a “voted Example” (see Preface, p. x).
9 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 09 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
8A-9 | Typification |
8A.3.
If the type specimen
of a name of a fossil
plant is cut into pieces
(sections of fossil
wood, pieces of coal-ball plants, etc.),
all parts originally used in establishing the diagnosis
ought to be clearly marked.
8B.1.
Whenever practicable a living culture
should be prepared from the holotype material
of the name of a newly described taxon of fungi
or algae and deposited in
at least two
institutional culture
or genetic resource collections.
(Such action does not obviate the re-
quirement
for a holotype specimen under Art.
8.2.)
8B.2.
In cases where the nomenclatural type is a culture
permanently preserved in a meta-
bolically
inactive state (see Art. 8
Ex. 1),
any living isolates obtained from that
should be
referred to as “ex-type”
(ex typo), “ex-holotype”
(ex holotypo), “ex-isotype”
(ex isotypo),
etc.,
in order to make it clear they are derived
from the type but are not themselves
the
nomenclatural type.
9.1.
A
holotype
of a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon
is the one
specimen or illustration
used by the author, or designated by
the author as the
nomenclatural type. As long as a holotype is extant, it fixes the application
of
the name concerned
(see also Art.
10).
Note 1.
Any designation made by the original author,
if definitely expressed at the time of
the original publication of the name of the taxon,
is final (but see Art.
9.9).
If the author
included only one element,
that one must be accepted as the holotype.
If a new name is
based on a previously published
description
or diagnosis of the taxon,
the same consider-
ations apply to material
included by the earlier author (see Art.
7.7 and
7.8).
9.2.
A lectotype is a specimen or illustration
(see Art.
8.3) designated
as the
nomenclatural type, in conformity with
Art.
9.9,
when no holotype was indi-
cated at the time of publication,
when the
holotype is found
to belong to more
than one taxon,
or as long as it is missing.
9.3. An isotype is any duplicate¹ of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
9.4.
A syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited
in the protologue²
when no holotype was designated, or any one of two or
more specimens
simultaneously designated as types.
______________
¹
Here and elsewhere, the word duplicate is given
its usual meaning in herbarium curatorial practice. It
is part of a single gathering
of a single species
or infraspecific taxon
made by a collector at one time.
The possibility of a mixed gathering
must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype,
and corresponding caution used.
²
Protologue
(from the Greek
protos, first;
logos, discourse):
everything associated with a name at its
valid publication, i.e.
description
or diagnosis, illustrations,
references, synonymy, geographical data,
citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.
10 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 10 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Typification | 9 |
9.5.
A paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue
that is neither the holo-
type nor an isotype,
nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens
were
simultaneously designated as types.
Ex.
1.
The holotype of the name
Rheedia kappleri Eyma,
which applies to a polygamous species,
is a
male specimen collected by Kappler (593a in U).
The author designated a hermaphroditic specimen
collected
by the Forestry Service of Surinam as a paratype (B. W. 1618 in U).
Note 2.
In
most cases in which no holotype was designated
there will also be no paratypes,
since all the cited specimens will be syntypes.
However, when an author designated two or
more
specimens as types (Art. 9.4), any remaining cited specimens
are paratypes and not
syntypes.
9.6.
A neotype is a specimen or illustration
(see Art.
8.3)
selected to serve as
nomenclatural type as long as all
of the material on which the name of the
taxon
was based is missing (see also Art.
9.11).
9.7.
An epitype is a specimen or illustration
selected to serve as an interpret-
ative type
when the holotype, lectotype
or previously designated neotype,
or all
original material¹ associated
with a validly published name,
is demonstrably
ambiguous
and cannot be critically identified
for purposes of the precise appli-
cation
of the name of a taxon.
When an epitype is designated, the holotype,
lectotype or neotype that the epitype supports
must be explicitly cited.
9.8.
The use of a term defined in the
Code (Art. 9.1-9.7) as denoting a type,
in
a sense other than that in which it is so defined,
is treated as an error to be
corrected
(for example, the use of the term lectotype
to denote what is in fact a
neotype).
Ex. 2.
Borssum Waalkes
(in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited
Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7 (LINN) as the
holotype of
Sida retusa L. (1763).
The term is incorrectly used because illustrations
in Plukenet
(Phytographia: t. 9, f. 2. 1691) and
Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 19. 1750)
were cited by Linnaeus in
the protologue of
S. retusa.
Since all three elements are original material
(Art. 9.9, footnote), Borssum
Waalkes’s use of holotype
is an error to be corrected to lectotype.
9.9.
If no holotype
was indicated by the author of a name
of a species or
infraspecific taxon,
or when the holotype has been lost or destroyed,
or when
the material designated as type
is found to belong to more than one taxon,
a
lectotype or, if permissible (Art.
9.6),
a neotype as a substitute for it may be
designated
(Art.
7.10
and
7.11).
A lectotype always takes precedence over a
neotype, except as provided by Art.
9.11.
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 an
______________
¹
For the purposes of this
Code,
“original material”
comprises:
(a) those specimens
and illustrations
(both unpublished and
published either prior to
or together with the protologue)
upon which it can be
shown that the description
or diagnosis validating the name
was based;
(b) the holotype and those
specimens which,
even if not seen
by the author of the description
or diagnosis validating the name,
were indicated as types
(syntypes or paratypes) of the name
at its valid publication; and
(c) the
isotypes or isosyntypes
of the name irrespective
of whether such specimens
were seen by either the
author of the validating
description or diagnosis,
or the author of the
name.
11 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 11 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
9-9A | Typification |
isosyntype
(duplicate of
syntype) nor any
other part of the
original material is
extant, a neotype may be selected.
Note 3.
When two or more specimens have been designated
as types by the author of
a
name
(e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.),
the lectotype must be chosen from
among them
(see Art. 9.4).
9.10.
When a type
specimen (herbarium sheet or
equivalent preparation) con-
tains parts
belonging to more than one taxon
(see Art.
9.9),
the name must
remain attached to that part which corresponds
most nearly with the original
description
or diagnosis.
Ex.
3.
The type of the name
Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878)
is Lorentz 128 in BM; this,
however, proved to be a mixture.
Smith
(in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935)
acted in accordance
with this rule in designating one part
of Lorentz’s gathering as the lectotype.
9.11.
When a holotype
or a previously designated lectotype has been lost
or
destroyed and it can be shown that all the other
original material differs taxo-
nomically
from the destroyed type, a neotype may be selected
to preserve
the usage established by the previous
typification (see also Art.
9.12).
9.12.
A
neotype selected
under Art.
9.11
may be superseded if it can be shown
to differ
taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype
that it replaced.
9.13.
The author who
first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be fol-
lowed,
but his choice is superseded if
(a)
the holotype or, in the case of a
neotype,
any of the original material is rediscovered;
it may also be superseded
if
(b)
it can be shown that
it is in serious conflict with the protologue
and
another element is available which
is not in conflict with the protologue, or
(c)
that it is contrary to Art. 9.10.
9.14.
On or after 1 January 1990,
lectotypification or neotypification of a
name
of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen
or unpublished illustra-
tion
(see Art.
8.3) is not effected
unless the herbarium or institution in which
the type is conserved is specified.
9A.1.
Typification of names
for which no holotype was designated should only be carried
out with an understanding of the author’s method of working;
in particular it should be
realized that some of the material
used by the author in describing the taxon may not be in
the author’s own herbarium or may not even have survived,
and conversely, that not all the
material surviving
in the author’s herbarium
was necessarily used in describing the taxon.
9A.2.
Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken
only in the light of an understanding
of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype,
all aspects of the protologue should be
considered
as a basic guide. Mechanical methods,
such as the automatic selection of the first
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 changes.
12 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 12 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Typification | 9A-10 |
9A.3.
In choosing a lectotype,
any indication of intent by the author of a name
should be
given preference unless such indication
is contrary to the protologue. Such indications are
manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets,
recognizable figures, and epithets such
as
typicus, genuinus, etc.
9A.4.
When a single collection is cited in the protologue,
but a particular institution housing
this is not designated, it should be assumed
that the specimen housed in the institution
where
the author is known to have worked
is the holotype, unless there is evidence
that he used
further material of the same collection.
9A.5.
When two
or more heterogeneous elements were included in
or cited with the original
description
or diagnosis,
the lectotype should be so selected
as to preserve current usage. In
particular,
if another author has already segregated one
or more elements as other taxa, the
residue
or part of it should be designated as the lectotype
provided that this element is not in
conflict
with the original description or diagnosis (see Art.
9.13).
9A.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 valid publication of the name (see Art.
8.4).
9B.1.
In selecting a neotype, particular care
and critical knowledge should be exercised
because the reviewer usually has no guide
except personal judgement as to what best fits the
protologue, and if this selection proves to be faulty,
it will inevitably result in further
change.
10.1.
The type of a name of a genus
or of any subdivision of a genus is the
type
of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4).
For purposes of
designation or citation of a type,
the species name alone suffices, i.e., it is
considered as the full equivalent of its type.
Note 1.
Terms such as “holotype”, “syntype”,
and “lectotype”, as presently defined in Art.
9,
although not applicable, strictly speaking,
to the types of names in ranks higher than
species, are so used by analogy.
10.2.
If in the protologue of the name of a genus
or of any subdivision of a
genus
the holotype
or lectotype of one or more
previously or
simultaneously
published
species name(s)
is definitely included
(see Art. 10.3),
the type must
be chosen
(Art.
7.10
and
7.11) from among
these types
unless the type was
indicated
(Art.
22.5,
22.6, and
37.2)
or designated by the author
of the name. If
no
type of
a previously or
simultaneously published
species name
was
defi-
nitely
included,
a type must be otherwise chosen, but the choice
is to be
superseded if it can be demonstrated
that the selected type is not conspecific
with any of the material associated with the protologue.
Ex. 1.
The genus
Anacyclus,
as originally circumscribed by Linnaeus (1753),
comprised three validly
named species. Cassini
(in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 34: 104. 1825) designated
Anthemis valentina L.
(1753) as type of
Anacyclus,
but this was not an original element of the genus.
Green (in Anon.,
13 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 13 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
10 | Typification |
Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 182. 1929) designated
Anacyclus valentinus L. (1753), “the only one of
the three original species still retained in the genus”,
as the “standard species” (see Art. 7
Ex. 7),
and her
choice must be followed (Art. 10.5). Humphries
(in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Bot. 7: 109. 1979)
designated a specimen in the Clifford Herbarium (BM) as lectotype of
Anacyclus valentinus, and that
specimen
thereby became the ultimate type of the generic name.
Ex. 2.
Castanella Spruce ex Benth. & Hook. f. (1862)
was described on the basis of a single specimen
and without mention of a species name.
Swart (in ING Card No. 2143. 1957)
was the first to designate a
type (as “T.”):
C. granatensis Triana & Planch. (1862),
based on a Linden collection.
As long as the
Spruce specimen
is considered to be conspecific with Linden’s collection
Swart’s type designation
cannot be superseded,
even though the Spruce specimen became the type of
Paullinia paullinioides
Radlk. (1896),
because the latter is not a
“previously or simultaneously published species name”.
10.3.
For the purposes of Art. 10.2, definite inclusion
of the type of a name of
a species is effected
by citation of, or reference (direct or indirect) to,
a validly
published name, whether accepted or
synonymized by the author, or by citation
of the holotype or lectotype of a previously
or simultaneously published name
of a species.
Ex. 3.
The protologue of
Elodes Adans. (1763) included references to
“Elodes” of Clusius (1601),
“Hypericum” of Tournefort (1700), and
Hypericum aegypticum L. (1753). The latter is the
only refer-
ence to a validly published name of a species,
and neither of the other elements is the type of a name of
a species. The type of
H. aegypticum is therefore the type of
Elodes, even though subsequent authors
designated
H. elodes L. (1759) as the type (see Robson
in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 5: 305, 336.
1977).
10.4.
By
and only by conservation (Art.
14.9), the type of
a name of a genus
may be a specimen or illustration, preferably used by the author
in the prepara-
tion of the protologue,
other than the type of a name of an included species.
Ex.
4.
Physconia Poelt
has
been
conserved with the specimen
“‘Lichen pulverulentus’, Germania,
Lipsia in
Tilia, 1767, Schreber (M)” as the type.
Note 2.
If the element
designated under Art. 10.4
is the type of a species name, that name
may be cited
as the type of the generic name. If the element
is not the type of a species
name,
a parenthetical reference to
the correct name
of
the type element may be added.
10.5.
The author who first designates a
type of a name of a genus
or subdivi-
sion
of a genus must be followed,
but the choice may be superseded if
(a)
it
can be shown that it is in serious conflict
with the protologue and another
element
is available which is not in conflict
with the protologue,
or
(b) that it
was
based on a largely
mechanical method
of selection.
Ex. 5.
Fink (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 14(1): 2. 1910)
specified that he was “stating the types of the
genera according to the ‘first species’ rule”.
His type designations may therefore be superseded.
*Ex. 6.
Authors following the
American
code of
botanical
nomenclature, Canon 15
(in
Bull. Torrey
Bot. Club 34: 172. 1907),
designated as the type “the first binomial species in order”
eligible under
certain provisions.
This method of selection
is to be considered
as largely mechanical.
Thus the first
type
designation for
Delphinium L., by Britton (in Britton & Brown,
Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 93. 1913),
who followed the
American
code and chose
D. consolida L., has been superseded
under Art. 10.5(b) by
the
designation of
D. peregrinum L. by Green
(in Anon.,
Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 162. 1929).
The unicarpellate
D. consolida could not
have been superseded
as type
by the tricarpellate
D. peregri-
num
under Art. 10.5(a), however,
because it
is not in serious conflict
with the
generic
protologue,
which
specifies
“germina tria
vel unum”,
the
assignment
of
the
genus to “Polyandria Trigynia”
by Linnaeus
notwithstanding.
14 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 14 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Typification – Priority | 10-11 |
10.6.
The type of a name of a family or of
any subdivision of a family is the
same as that
of the generic name on which it is based (see Art.
18.1).
For
purposes of designation or citation of a type,
the generic name alone suffices.
The type of a name of a family or subfamily
not based on a generic name is the
same
as that of the corresponding alternative name (Art.
18.5 and
19.8).
10.7.
The principle of typification does not apply
to names of taxa above the rank of family,
except for names that are automatically typified
by being based on generic names (see Art.
16).
The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic
name on which it is based.
Note 3. For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera see Art. 22.5 and 22.6.
10A.1.
When a combination
in a rank of subdivision of a genus has been published
under a
generic name that has not yet been typified, the
type of the generic name
should be selected
from the subdivision of the genus
that was designated as nomenclaturally typical,
if that is
apparent.
11.1.
Each family or taxon of lower rank
with a particular circumscription,
position,
and rank can bear only one correct name,
special exceptions being
made for 9 families
and 1 subfamily for which alternative names
are permitted
(see Art.
18.5 and
19.7).
However, the use of separate names for the form-taxa
of fungi and for form-genera of fossil plants
is allowed under Art.
3.3 and
59.5.
11.2.
In no case does a name
have priority outside
the rank
in which it is
published
(but see Art.
53.5).
Ex.
1.
Campanula sect.
Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr.: 561. 1810)
when treated
as a genus is called
Wahlenbergia Roth (1821),
a name conserved against the taxonomic synonym
Cervicina Delile (1813),
and not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) Kuntze (1891).
Ex.
2.
Magnolia virginiana var.
foetida L. (1753)
when raised to specific rank is called
M. grandiflora
L. (1759), not
M. foetida (L.) Sarg. (1889).
Ex.
3.
Lythrum intermedium Ledeb. (1822)
when treated as a variety of
L. salicaria L. (1753)
is called
L. salicaria var.
glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. 2: 127. 1843), not
L. salicaria var.
intermedium (Ledeb.)
Koehne
(in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1: 327. 1881).
Ex. 4.
When the
two varieties constituting
Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus L. (1753), var.
flava
L. and
var.
fulva
L., are considered
to be distinct species,
the one not including
the lectotype
of the species
name is called
H. fulva
(L.) L.
(1762),
but the other one bears the
name
H. lilioasphodelus L., which in
the rank of species
has priority over
H. flava (L.) L.
(1762).
11.3.
For any taxon from family to genus inclusive,
the correct name is the
earliest legitimate one
with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of
15 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 15 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
11 | Priority |
priority by conservation (see Art.
14)
or where Art.
11.7,
15,
19.4,
56,
57, or
59
apply.
Ex. 5.
When
Aesculus L.
(1753),
Pavia Mill. (1754),
Macrothyrsus Spach
(1834) and
Calothyrsus
Spach
(1834) are referred to a single
genus, its name is
Aesculus L.
11.4.
For any taxon below the rank of genus,
the correct name is the combina-
tion
of the final epithet¹ of the earliest legitimate name
of the taxon in the same
rank,
with the correct name of the genus or species
to which it is assigned,
except
(a) in cases of limitation of priority
under Art.
14,
15,
56
or
57, or
(b) if
the resulting combination
would be invalid under Art.
32.1(b)
or illegitimate
under Art.
53, or
(c) if Art.
11.7,
22.1,
26.1, or
59
rule that a different combina-
tion
is to be used.
Ex. 6.
Primula
sect.
Dionysiopsis Pax
(in Jahresber. Schles.
Ges. Vaterländ.
Kultur 87: 20. 1909)
when transferred
to
Dionysia
Fenzl becomes
D. sect.
Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melch.
(in Mitt. Thüring.
Bot.
Vereins
50: 164-168. 1943); the
substitute name
D. sect.
Ariadna Wendelbo
(in Bot. Not.
112: 496.
1959)
is illegitimate.
Ex. 7.
Antirrhinum
spurium L. (1753)
when transferred
to
Linaria
Mill. is called
L. spuria (L.) Mill.
(1768).
Ex. 8.
When transferring
Serratula chamaepeuce L. (1753)
to
Ptilostemon
Cass., Cassini
illegitimately
named the species
P. muticus Cass. (1826).
In that genus,
the correct name is
P.
chamaepeuce (L.) Less.
(1832).
Ex. 9.
Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798) when transferred
to
Cytisus
Desf. could not be called
C. biflorus
because
of the previously
and validly published
C. biflorus L’Hér. (1791); the
substitute name
C.
fontanesii Spach
(1849)
was therefore correctly
proposed.
Ex. 10.
Spergula stricta Sw. (1799)
when transferred
to
Arenaria
L. is called
A. uliginosa Schleich. ex
Schltdl. (1808)
because of the existence of the name
A. stricta Michx. (1803),
based on a different
type;
but on further transfer to the genus
Minuartia the epithet
stricta
is again
available
and the species
is
called
M.
stricta (Sw.) Hiern (1899).
Ex. 11.
Arum
dracunculus L. (1753)
when transferred
to
Dracunculus
Mill. is named
D. vulgaris
Schott
(1832),
as use of the Linnaean epithet would
result
in a tautonym.
Ex. 12.
Cucubalus
behen L. (1753)
when transferred to
Behen Moench
was legitimately renamed
B.
vulgaris Moench (1794)
to avoid the tautonym
“B. behen”.
In
Silene L.,
the
epithet
behen
is unavail-
able
because of the existence of
S. behen L. (1753).
Therefore, the substitute name
S. cucubalus Wibel
(1799) was
proposed.
This,
however,
is illegitimate
since the specific epithet
vulgaris was available. In
Silene, the correct name
of the species is
S. vulgaris
(Moench) Garcke (1869).
Ex. 13.
Helianthemum
italicum var.
micranthum Gren. & Godr.
(Fl. France 1: 171. 1847)
when trans-
ferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal
retains its varietal epithet
and is named
H.
penicillatum var.
micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser
(in Engler, Pflanzenr. 14: 115. 1903).
11.5.
When, for any
taxon
of the rank of family or below,
a choice is possible
between legitimate
names of equal priority
in the corresponding rank, or be-
tween available final epithets
of names of equal priority in the corresponding
rank, the
first such
choice to be
effectively published (Art.
29-31) establishes
the
priority of
the
chosen
name,
and of any legitimate combination with the
______________
¹
Here and elsewhere in this
Code,
the phrase “final epithet”
refers to the last epithet in sequence in any
particular combination,
whether in the rank of a subdivision of a genus,
or of a species, or of an
infraspecific taxon.
16 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 16 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Priority | 11 |
same type and final epithet at that rank,
over the other competing name(s) (but
see Art. 11.6).
Note 1.
A choice as provided for in Art. 11.5 is effected
by adopting one of the competing
names,
or its final epithet in the required combination,
and simultaneously rejecting or
relegating
to synonymy the other(s), or nomenclatural synonyms thereof.
Ex. 14.
When
Dentaria L.
(1753) and
Cardamine L.
(1753) are united,
the resulting genus
is called
Cardamine because that name was chosen by
Crantz (Cl. Crucif. Emend.: 126. 1769), who
first united
them.
Ex. 15.
When
Entoloma
(Fr. ex Rabenh.) P. Kumm. (1871),
Leptonia (Fr.
: Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871),
Eccilia (Fr.
: Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871),
Nolanea (Fr.
: Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), and
Claudopus Gillet (1876)
are united,
one of the generic names simultaneously published
by Kummer must be used for the
combined genus. Donk,
who
did so
(in
Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg,
ser. 3, 18(1): 157. 1949), selected
Entoloma,
which is therefore
treated as having priority
over the other names.
Ex. 16.
Brown (in Tuckey,
Narr. Exp. Congo: 484. 1818)
was the first
to unite
Waltheria americana L.
(1753) and
W. indica L.
(1753).
He adopted the name
W. indica for the combined species,
and this name
is accordingly
treated as
having priority over
W. americana.
Ex. 17.
Baillon
(in
Adansonia 3: 162. 1863),
when uniting for the first time
Sclerocroton integerrimus
Hochst.
(1845) and
S. reticulatus Hochst.
(1845), adopted the
name
Stillingia integerrima
(Hochst.)
Baill.
for the combined taxon.
Consequently
Sclerocroton integerrimus
is treated
as having priority over
S. reticulatus
irrespective of the genus
(Sclerocroton, Stillingia, Excoecaria, Sapium)
to
which
the
species
is
assigned.
Ex. 18.
Linnaeus
(1753)
simultaneously published the names
Verbesina alba and
V. prostrata. Later
(1771), he published
Eclipta erecta, an illegitimate name because
V. alba was cited in synonymy, and
E. prostrata, based on
V. prostrata.
The first author to unite these taxa was
Roxburgh (Fl. Ind. 3: 438.
1832), who
adopted the name
E. prostrata (L.) L.
Therefore
V. prostrata is treated
as having priority
over
V. alba.
Ex. 19.
Donia speciosa and
D. formosa,
which were simultaneously published by Don (1832),
were
illegitimately renamed
Clianthus oxleyi and
C. dampieri by Lindley (1835).
Brown (1849) united both
in a single species,
adopting the illegitimate name
C. dampieri and citing
D. speciosa and
C. oxleyi as
synonyms;
his choice is not of the kind provided for by Art. 11.5.
C. speciosus (D. Don) Asch. &
Graebn. (1909),
published with
D. speciosa and
C. dampieri listed as synonyms,
is an illegitimate later
homonym of
C. speciosus (Endl.) Steud. (1840); again,
conditions for a choice under Art. 11.5
were not
satisfied. Ford & Vickery (1950)
published the legitimate combination
C. formosus (D. Don) Ford &
Vickery
and cited
D. formosa and
D. speciosa as synonyms,
but since the epithet of the latter was
unavailable in
Clianthus a choice was not possible
and again Art. 11.5 does not apply. Thompson
(1990) was the first to effect an acceptable choice
when publishing the combination
Swainsona formosa
(D. Don) Joy Thomps.
and indicating that
D. speciosa was a synonym of it.
11.6.
An autonym
is treated as having priority over the name
or names of the
same date and rank that established it.
Note 2.
When the
final epithet of an autonym is used
in a new combination under the
requirements of Art.
11.6,
the basionym of that combination is the name
from which the
autonym is derived, or its basionym
if it has one.
Ex. 20.
Heracleum sibiricum
L. (1753) includes
H. sibiricum subsp.
lecokii (Godr. & Gren.) Nyman
(Consp. Fl. Europ.:
290. 1879) and
H. sibiricum subsp.
sibiricum automatically established
at the same
time. When
H. sibiricum is included in
H. sphondylium L. (1753) as a subspecies,
the correct name for
the taxon is
H. sphondylium subsp.
sibiricum (L.) Simonk.
(Enum. Fl. Transsilv.:
266. 1887), not subsp.
lecokii, whether or not subsp.
lecokii is treated as distinct.
Ex. 21.
The publication
of
Salix tristis var.
microphylla Andersson
(Salices Bor.-Amer.: 21. 1858)
created the autonym
S. tristis Aiton (1789) var.
tristis. If
S. tristis, including var.
microphylla, is
recognized as a variety of
S. humilis Marshall (1785), the correct name is
S. humilis var.
tristis (Aiton)
17 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 17 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
11-12 | Priority |
Griggs
(in
Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci. 4: 301. 1905).
However, if both varieties of
S. tristis are recognized
as varieties of
S. humilis, then the names
S. humilis var.
tristis and
S. humilis var.
microphylla (Andersson)
Fernald
(in Rhodora 48: 46. 1946)
are both used.
Ex. 22.
In the classification
adopted by Rollins and Shaw,
Lesquerella lasiocarpa (Hook. ex A. Gray)
S. Watson (1888)
is composed of two subspecies, subsp.
lasiocarpa (which includes the type of the
name of the species and is cited without an author) and subsp.
berlandieri (A. Gray) Rollins & E.
A.
Shaw.
The latter subspecies is composed of two varieties. In
that classification
the correct name of the
variety
which includes the type of subsp.
berlandieri is
L. lasiocarpa var.
berlandieri (A. Gray) Payson
(1922), not
L. lasiocarpa var.
berlandieri (cited without an author) or
L. lasiocarpa var.
hispida (S.
Watson) Rollins & E.
A. Shaw (1972), based on
Synthlipsis berlandieri var.
hispida S. Watson (1882),
since publication of the latter name established the autonym
S. berlandieri A. Gray var.
berlandieri
which, at varietal rank,
is treated as having priority over var.
hispida.
11.7.
Names of plants
(algae excepted)
based on a non-fossil
type are treated
as having priority
over names
of the same rank
based on
a fossil (or subfossil)
type.
Ex. 23.
If
Platycarya Siebold & Zucc. (1843),
a non-fossil genus, and
Petrophiloides Bowerb. (1840),
a fossil genus, are united, the name
Platycarya is accepted for the combined genus,
although it is
antedated by
Petrophiloides.
Ex. 24.
The generic name
Metasequoia Miki (1941)
was based on the fossil type of
M. disticha (Heer)
Miki.
After discovery of the non-fossil species
M. glyptostroboides Hu &
W. C. Cheng,
conservation of
Metasequoia Hu &
W. C. Cheng (1948)
as based on the non-fossil type was approved.
Otherwise, any
new generic name based on
M. glyptostroboides
would have had to be treated as having priority over
Metasequoia Miki.
11.8.
For purposes of priority,
names in Latin form given to hybrids
are sub-
ject to the same rules
as are those of non-hybrid taxa of equivalent rank.
Ex. 25.
The name
×Solidaster
H. R. Wehrh. (1932)
antedates the name
×Asterago Everett (1937) for
the hybrid
Aster
L. ×
Solidago
L.
Ex. 26.
The name
×Gaulnettya
Marchant
(1937) antedates the name
×Gaulthettya Camp (1939) for the
hybrid
Gaultheria
L. ×
Pernettya
Gaudich.
Ex. 27.
Anemone
×hybrida Paxton (1848) antedates
A.
×elegans Decne. (1852), pro sp.,
as the binomial
for the hybrids derived from
A. hupehensis
(Lemoine & E. Lemoine)
Lemoine & E. Lemoine
× A.
vitifolia
Buch.-Ham. ex DC.
Ex. 28.
Camus
(in Bull. Mus.
Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538.
1927) published the name
×Agroelymus
A.
Camus
as the name of a nothogenus, without a Latin
description
or diagnosis,
mentioning only the
names of the parents involved
(Agropyron
Gaertn. and
Elymus
L.). Since this name
was not validly
published under the
Code
then in force (Stockholm 1953),
Rousseau
(in
Mém. Jard. Bot. Montréal 29:
10-11.
1952),
published a Latin diagnosis.
However, the date of valid publication of the name
×Agro-
elymus under this
Code (Art.
H.9)
is 1927, not 1952, and the name also antedates
×Elymopyrum Cugnac
(in
Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938)
which is accompanied by a statement of parentage
and
a description in French but not Latin.
11.9.
The principle of priority is not mandatory for names
of taxa above the
rank of family (but see Rec.
16B).
12.1.
A name of a taxon has no status under this
Code unless
it is validly
published (see Art.
32-45).
18 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 18 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Starting points | 13 |
SECTION 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
13.1.
Valid publication of names
for plants of the different groups is treated as
beginning at the following dates (for each group
a work is mentioned which is
treated as having
been published on the date given for that group):
Non-fossil plants:
(a)
Spermatophyta and
Pteridophyta,
1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species
plantarum, ed. 1).
(b)
Musci (the
Sphagnaceae excepted), 1 January 1801 (Hedwig,
Species
muscorum).
(c)
Sphagnaceae and
Hepaticae,
1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species
plantarum,
ed. 1).
(d)
Fungi (including
slime moulds
and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May 1753
(Linnaeus,
Species
plantarum, ed. 1). Names in the
Uredinales, Ustilagi-
nales, and
Gasteromycetes
(s. l.) adopted by Persoon
(Synopsis
methodica
fungorum, 31 December 1801)
and names of other fungi (excluding
slime
moulds) adopted by Fries
(Systema
mycologicum, vol. 1 (1 January 1821)
to 3, with additional
Index (1832), and
Elenchus
fungorum,
vol. 1-2), are
sanctioned
(see Art.
15).
For nomenclatural purposes names given to
lichens shall be considered as applying
to their fungal component.
(e) Algae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1). Exceptions:
Nostocaceae
homocysteae, 1 January 1892 (Gomont,
“Monographie
des Oscillariées”,
in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7,
15: 263-368;
16: 91-264).
The two parts of Gomont’s “Monographie”,
which appeared in 1892 and
1893 respectively,
are treated as having been published
simultaneously on
1 January 1892.
Nostocaceae
heterocysteae, 1 January 1886
(Bornet & Flahault,
“Ré-
vision des Nostocacées hétérocystées”,
in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7,
3:
323-381;
4: 343-373;
5: 51-129;
7: 177-262).
The four parts of the “Révi-
sion”, which appeared in 1886, 1886, 1887,
and 1888 respectively, are
treated as having been published
simultaneously on 1 January 1886.
Desmidiaceae (s. l.), 1 January 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).
Oedogoniaceae,
1 January 1900
(Hirn, “Monographie und Iconographie
der Oedogoniaceen”, in Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).
19 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 19 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
13-14 | Starting points – Conservation |
Fossil plants:
(f)
All groups,
31 December 1820 (Sternberg,
Flora der Vorwelt,
Versuch
1: 1-24, t. 1-13). Schlotheim’s
Petrefactenkunde
(1820) is regarded as
published before 31 December 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.
Ex. 1.
The genus
Porella and its single species,
P. pinnata,
were referred by Linnaeus (1753) to the
Musci;
since the type specimen of
P. pinnata is
now accepted
as belonging to the
Hepaticae,
the names
were validly published in 1753.
Ex. 2.
The lectotype of
Lycopodium L. (1753) is
L. clavatum L. (1753)
and the type specimen of this is
currently accepted as a pteridophyte.
Accordingly, although the genus
is listed by Linnaeus among the
Musci,
the generic name and the names of
the pteridophyte species included by Linnaeus
under it were
validly published in 1753.
13.3.
For nomenclatural purposes, a name is treated
as pertaining to a non-fos-
sil taxon
unless its type is fossil in origin. Fossil material
is distinguished from
non-fossil material
by stratigraphic relations at the site
of original occurrence.
In cases of doubtful stratigraphic relations,
provisions for non-fossil taxa apply.
13.4.
Generic names which first appear in Linnaeus’s
Species
plantarum,
ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762-1763), are associated
with the first subsequent descrip-
tion
given under those names in Linnaeus’s
Genera
plantarum,
ed. 5 (1754)
and
ed. 6 (1764).
The spelling of the generic names included in
Species
planta-
rum, ed. 1, is not to be altered
because a different spelling has been used in
Genera
plantarum, ed. 5.
13.5.
The two volumes of Linnaeus’s
Species
plantarum, ed. 1 (1753),
which
appeared in May and August, 1753,
respectively, are treated as having been
published simultaneously on 1 May 1753.
Ex. 3.
The generic names
Thea L. (Sp. Pl.: 515.
24 Mai 1753), and
Camellia L. (Sp. Pl.: 698.
16 Aug
1753;
Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 311. 1754),
are treated as having been published simultaneously
on 1 May 1753.
Under Art.
11.5
the combined genus bears the name
Camellia, since Sweet
(Hort. Suburb. Lond.: 157.
1818),
who was the first to unite the two genera,
chose that name, and cited
Thea as a synonym.
13.6.
Names of anamorphs of fungi with a pleomorphic
life cycle do not,
irrespective of priority,
affect the nomenclatural status of the names
of the
correlated holomorphs (see Art.
59.4).
14.1.
In order to avoid disadvantageous changes
in the nomenclature of
families, genera,
and species entailed by the strict application
of the rules, and
especially of the principle
of priority in starting from the dates given in Art.
13,
this
Code
provides, in
App. II and
III,
lists of names that are conserved
(nomina conservanda)
and must be retained as useful exceptions.
Conserved
names
are legitimate
even
though initially they may have
been
illegitimate.
20 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 20 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Conservation | 14 |
14.2.
Conservation aims at retention of those names
which best serve stability
of nomenclature (see Rec.
50E).
14.3.
The application of both conserved
and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types.
The
type of the specific name
cited as the type of a
conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in
App. IIIA.
14.4.
A conserved name of a family or genus
is conserved against all other
names
in the same rank based on the same type
(nomenclatural 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 (taxo-
nomic synonyms)
that are cited in that list¹.
A conserved name of a species is
conserved
against all names listed as rejected, and
against all combinations
based on the rejected names.
Note 1.
The
Code does not provide for conservation
of a name against itself, i.e. against the
same name
with the same type but with a different place
and date of valid publication
than is
given in the relevant entry in
App. II or
III,
and perhaps with a different authorship²
(but see
Art. 14.9).
Note 2.
A species name
listed
as conserved or rejected in
App. IIIB
may have been
pub-
lished
as the name of
a new taxon,
or as a combination
based on
an earlier name.
Rejection
of a name based on an earlier name
does not in itself
preclude the use of
the earlier name
since that name
is not “a combination
based on a rejected name”
(Art. 14.4).
Ex. 1.
Rejection of
Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) H. Karst.
in favour of
L. esculentum Mill.
does not
preclude the use of the homotypic
Solanum lycopersicum L.
14.5.
When a conserved name competes with one or more names
based on
different types
and against which it is not explicitly conserved,
the earliest of
the competing names is adopted
in accordance with Art.
11, except for some
conserved family names
(App. IIB),
which are conserved against unlisted
names.
Ex.
2.
If
Weihea Spreng. (1825) is united with
Cassipourea Aubl. (1775),
the combined genus will
bear the prior name
Cassipourea, although
Weihea is conserved and
Cassipourea is not.
Ex.
3.
If
Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is united with
Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the
prior name
Berberis, although
Mahonia is conserved and
Berberis is not.
Ex.
4.
Nasturtium R. Br. (1812)
was conserved only against the homonym
Nasturtium Mill. (1754)
and
the nomenclatural synonym
Cardaminum Moench (1794);
consequently if reunited with
Rorippa Scop.
(1760) it must bear the name
Rorippa.
14.6.
When a name of a taxon has been conserved against
an earlier name
based on a different type,
the latter is to be restored, subject to Art.
11,
if it is
______________
¹
The
International
code of
zoological
nomenclature and the
International
code of
nomenclature of
bacteria
use the terms “objective synonym”
and “subjective synonym”
for nomenclatural and taxo-
nomic synonym, respectively.
²
As a temporary exception, the Tokyo Congress
has authorized maintenance of the current entries in
App. IIB,
even though, for many of the listed family names,
places of earlier valid publication, by
different authors, have come to light.
21 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 21 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
14 | Conservation |
considered the name of a taxon at the same rank
distinct from that of the
nomen
conservandum,
except when the earlier rejected name
is a homonym of the
conserved name.
Ex.
5.
The generic name
Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802)
is conserved against the earlier names
Enargea
Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and
Callixene Comm. ex
Juss. (1789).
If, however,
Enargea
is considered to
be a separate genus, the name
Enargea is retained for it.
14.7.
A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name,
may not be
restored for a taxon which includes the type
of the corresponding conserved
name.
Ex.
6.
Enallagma Baill. (1888) is conserved against
Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against
Amphi-
tecna Miers (1868); if
Enallagma and
Amphitecna are united,
the combined genus must bear the name
Amphitecna,
although the latter is not explicitly conserved against
Dendrosicus.
14.8.
The listed type
of a conserved name
may not be
changed except by
the
procedure
outlined in Art. 14.12.
Ex. 7.
Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957)
published a proposal that the
listed type of
Plectran-
thus L’Hér. be changed from
P. punctatus (L. f.) L’Hér. to
P. fruticosus L’Hér.
This proposal was
approved by the appropriate Committees
and by an International Botanical Congress.
14.9.
A name may be conserved with a different type from that
designated by
the author or determined by application of the
Code (see
also Art.
10.4).
Such
a
name may be
conserved
either from its place
of valid publication
(even though
the
type may not then
have been included
in the named taxon)
or from a later
publication by an
author who did include
the type as conserved.
In the latter
case the original name
and the
name as conserved
are treated as if they were
homonyms
(Art.
53),
whether or not the
name as conserved
was accompanied
by a description
or diagnosis of the taxon
named.
Ex. 8.
Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved
from its place of valid publication
even though its
conserved type,
a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932,
was not originally included in
Linnaeus’s species.
Ex. 9.
Protea L. (1753)
did not include the conserved type of the generic name,
P. cynaroides (L.) L.
(1771),
which in 1753 was placed in the genus
Leucadendron.
Protea was therefore conserved
from the
1771 publication, and
Protea L. (1771), although not designed to be a new
generic name and still
including the original type elements,
is treated as if it were a validly published homonym of
Protea L.
(1753).
14.10.
A conserved name, with its corresponding autonyms,
is conserved
against all earlier homonyms.
An earlier homonym of a conserved name is not
made illegitimate by that conservation
but is unavailable for use; if legitimate,
it may serve as basionym of another name
or combination based on the same
type
(see also Art.
55.3).
Ex.
10.
The generic name
Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against
Damapana Adans. (1763), is
thereby
conserved automatically against the earlier homonym
Smithia Scop. (1777).
14.11.
A name may be conserved in order to preserve
a particular orthography
or gender.
A name so conserved is to be attributed
without change of priority to
the author
who validly published it, not to an author who later
introduced the
conserved spelling or gender.
22 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 22 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Conservation – Sanctioning | 14-15 |
Ex.
11.
The spelling
Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839),
has been conserved against the original
spelling
Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830).
The name is to be cited as
Rhodymenia Grev. (1830).
Note
3.
The date of conservation does not affect the
priority
(Art.
11) of
a conserved name,
which is determined
only on the basis of
the date of valid publication
(Art.
32-45).
14.12.
The lists of conserved names will remain
permanently open for addi-
tions and changes.
Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied
by a detailed statement of the cases both for
and against its conservation. Such
proposals
must be submitted to the General Committee (see
Div. III),
which
will refer them for examination
to the committees for the various taxonomic
groups.
14.13. Entries of conserved names may not be deleted.
14.14.
When
a proposal
for the conservation (or rejection under Art.
56)
of a
name has been approved by the General Committee
after study by the Commit-
tee
for the taxonomic group concerned,
retention (or rejection) of that name
is
authorized subject to the decision
of a later International Botanical Congress.
14A.1.
When
a proposal
for the conservation or rejection of a name
has been referred to the
appropriate Committee
for study, authors should follow existing usage
as far as possible
pending the General Committee’s
recommendation on the proposal.
15.1.
Names
sanctioned under Art.
13.1(d)
are treated
as if conserved against
earlier homonyms and
competing synonyms. Such
names,
once sanctioned,
remain sanctioned
even if elsewhere
in the sanctioning works
the sanctioning
author
does not recognize them.
Ex. 1.
Agaricus ericetorum Fr.
was accepted by Fries in
Systema mycologicum (1821),
but later (1828)
regarded by him as a synonym of
A. umbelliferus L. and not included in his
Index (1832) as an accepted
name. Nevertheless
A. ericetorum is a sanctioned name.
15.2.
An earlier
homonym of a
sanctioned name
is not made illegitimate by
that sanctioning but is unavailable
for use; if legitimate, it may serve as a
basionym of another name or combination
based on the same type (see also Art.
55.3).
Ex. 2.
Patellaria Hedw. (1794)
is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned generic name
Patellaria Fr.
(1822).
Hedwig’s name is legitimate but unavailable for use.
Lecanidion Endl. (1830), based on the
same type as
Patellaria Fr. : Fr. non Hedw., is illegitimate.
Ex. 3.
Agaricus cervinus Schaeff. (1774)
is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned
A. cervinus Hoffm.
(1789) : Fr.;
Schaeffer’s name is unavailable for use, but it may serve
as basionym for combinations in
other genera. In
Pluteus Fr. the combination should be cited as
P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm.
and has
priority over the heterotypic synonym
P. atricapillus (Batsch) Fayod, based on
A. atricapillus Batsch
(1786).
23 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 23 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
15 | Sanctioning |
15.3.
When,
for a taxon from family to genus inclusive,
two or more sanc-
tioned names compete, Art.
11.3
governs the choice of the correct name
(see
also Art. 15.5).
15.4.
When, for a taxon below the rank of genus,
two or more sanctioned
names and/or
two or more names with the same final epithet
and type as a
sanctioned name compete, Art.
11.4
governs the choice of the correct name.
Note 1.
The date of
sanctioning
does not affect
the priority (Art.
11)
of
a sanctioned name,
which is determined only on the basis of
valid publication.
In particular,
when two or more
homonyms are sanctioned
only the earliest of them
can be used, the later
being illegitimate
under Art.
53.2.
Ex. 4.
Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821) accepted
Agaricus flavovirens Pers. (1801), treating
A. equestris
L. (1753) as a synonym.
Later (Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828) he stated
“Nomen prius et aptius arte
restituendum” and accepted
A. equestris. Both names are sanctioned,
but when they are considered
synonyms
A. equestris, having priority, is to be used.
15.5.
A name which neither is sanctioned
nor has the same type and final
epithet
as a sanctioned name in the same rank
may not be applied to a taxon
which includes the type of a sanctioned name
in that rank the final epithet of
which
is available for the required combination (see Art.
11.4(b)).
15.6.
Conservation (Art.
14)
and explicit rejection (Art.
56.1)
override sanc-
tioning.
24 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 24 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Higher taxa | 16-16A |
CHAPTER III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR
RANK
SECTION 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
16.1.
Names of taxa above the rank of family
are automatically typified
if they
are based on generic names (see Art.
10.7);
for such automatically typified
names,
the name of a subdivision
or subphylum
which includes the type of the
adopted name
of a division
or phylum,
the name of a subclass which includes
the type of the adopted name of a class,
and the name of a suborder which
includes
the type of the adopted name of an order,
are to be based on the
generic name
equivalent to that type.
Note 1.
The terms “divisio” and “phylum”,
and their equivalents in modern languages, are
treated as referring to one and the same rank.
When “divisio” and “phylum” are used
simultaneously to denote different ranks,
this usage is contrary to Art.
5,
and the corre-
sponding names
are not validly published (Art.
33.5).
16.2.
Where one of the word elements
-monado-, -cocco-, -nemato-, or
-clado-
as the second part of a generic name
has been omitted before the termination
-phyceae or -phyta, the shortened class
name or division
or phylum name
is
regarded as based on the generic name
in question if such derivation is obvious
or is indicated at establishment of the group name.
Ex. 1.
Raphidophyceae Chadef. ex P. C. Silva (1980)
was indicated by its author to be based on
Raphidomonas F. Stein (1878).
Note
2.
The principle of priority is not mandatory
for names of taxa above the rank of
family (Art.
11.9).
16A.1.
The name of a division
or phylum
is taken either from distinctive characters
of the
division
or phylum
(in descriptive names)
or from a name of an included genus;
it should
end in
-phyta, unless it is a division
or phylum of fungi,
in which case it should end in
-mycota.
25 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 25 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
16A-17A | Higher taxa |
16A.2.
The name of a subdivision
or subphylum
is formed in a similar manner;
it is
distinguished from a divisional
name by an appropriate prefix or suffix
or by the termination
-phytina, unless it is a subdivision
or subphylum 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);
(c) In other groups of plants: -opsida (class) and -idae (subclass).
16A.4.
When a name has been published
with a Latin termination not agreeing
with this
recommendation, the termination
may be changed to accord with it, without change of
author’s name or date of publication.
16B.1.
In choosing among typified names for a taxon
above the rank of family, authors
should generally follow the principle of priority.
17.1.
The name of an order or suborder is taken either
from distinctive charac-
ters of the taxon
(descriptive name) or from
a legitimate name of an included
family
based on a generic name (automatically typified name).
An ordinal
name of the second category is
formed by replacing the termination
-aceae by
-ales.
A subordinal name of the second category
is similarly formed, with the
termination
-ineae.
Ex. 1.
Descriptive names of orders:
Centrospermae, Parietales,
Farinosae; of a suborder:
Enantio-
blastae.
Ex. 2. Automatically typified names: Fucales, Polygonales, Ustilaginales; 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
“order”,
are treated as having been published as names of orders.
17.3.
When the name of an order or suborder
based on a name of a genus has
been published
with an improper Latin termination, this termination
must be
changed to accord with the rule,
without change of the author’s name
or date of
publication.
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.
26 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 26 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Families | 18 |
SECTION 2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
18.1.
The name of a family is a plural adjective
used as a substantive; it is
formed
from the genitive singular of a legitimate name
of an included genus by
replacing
the genitive singular inflection (Latin
-ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated
Greek
-ou, -os, -es, -as, or
-ous, including the latter’s equivalent
-eos) with the
termination
-aceae.
For generic names of non-classical origin,
when analogy
with classical names is insufficient
to determine the genitive singular,
-aceae is
added to the full word.
For generic names with alternative genitives
the one
implicitly used
by the original author must be maintained.
Ex. 1.
Family names based on
a generic name of classical origin:
Rosaceae (from
Rosa, Rosae),
Salicaceae (from
Salix, Salicis),
Plumbaginaceae (from
Plumbago, Plumbaginis),
Rhodophyllaceae
from
Rhodophyllus, Rhodophylli),
Rhodophyllidaceae (from
Rhodophyllis, Rhodophyllidos),
Scle-
rodermataceae (from
Scleroderma, Sclerodermatos),
Aextoxicaceae (from
Aextoxicon, Aextoxicou),
Potamogetonaceae (from
Potamogeton, Potamogetonos).
Ex. 2.
Family names based on a generic name
of non-classical origin:
Nelumbonaceae (from
Nelumbo,
Nelumbonis, declined by analogy with
umbo, umbonis),
Ginkgoaceae (from
Ginkgo, indeclinable).
18.2.
Names intended as names of families, but published
with their rank
denoted by one of the terms “order”
(ordo) or “natural order”
(ordo naturalis)
instead of “family”,
are treated as having been published as names of families
(see also Art.
19.2).
Ex. 3.
Cyperaceae Juss. (1789) and
Xylomataceae Fr. (1820) were published as “ordo
Cyperoideae”
and “ordo
Xylomaceae”.
18.3.
A name of a family based
on 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.
Ex.
4.
Caryophyllaceae
Juss.,
nom. cons. (from
Caryophyllus Mill. non L.);
Winteraceae
Lindl.,
nom.
cons. (from
Wintera Murray,
an illegitimate synonym of
Drimys
J. R. Forst. &
G. Forst.).
18.4.
When a name of a family has been published
with an improper Latin
termination,
the termination must be changed to conform with the rule,
without
change of the author’s name
or date of publication (see Art.
32.6).
Ex.
5.
“Coscinodisceae”
(Kützing 1844)
is to be accepted as
Coscinodiscaceae Kütz.
and not attributed
to De Toni,
who first used the correct spelling
(in Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).
Ex.
6.
“Atherospermeae”
(Brown 1814)
is to be accepted as
Atherospermataceae R. Br.
and not
attributed to Airy Shaw
(in Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl., ed. 7: 104. 1966),
who first used the correct spelling,
or
to Lindley (Veg. Kingd.: 300. 1846),
who used the spelling
“Atherospermaceae”.
Ex.
7.
However, Tricholomées
(Roze
in
Bull. Soc. Bot. France 23: 49. 1876)
is not to be accepted as
“Tricholomataceae Roze”,
because it has a French rather
than a Latin termination. The name
Tricholo-
mataceae
was later validated by Pouzar (1983; see
App. IIA).
18.5.
The following names,
of long usage,
are treated as validly published:
Palmae
(Arecaceae; type,
Areca L.);
Gramineae
(Poaceae; type,
Poa L.);
Cru-
27 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 27 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
18-19 | Families – Subdivisions of families |
ciferae
(Brassicaceae; type,
Brassica L.);
Leguminosae
(Fabaceae; type,
Faba
Mill. [=
Vicia L.]);
Guttiferae
(Clusiaceae; type,
Clusia L.);
Umbelliferae
(Api-
aceae; type,
Apium L.);
Labiatae
(Lamiaceae; type,
Lamium L.);
Compositae
(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.
18.6.
The use, as alternatives, of the names indicated
in parentheses in Art.
18.5 is authorized.
19.1.
The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used
as a substantive; it is
formed in the same manner
as the name of a family (Art.
18.1)
but by using the
termination
-oideae instead of
-aceae.
19.2.
Names
intended as names of
subfamilies,
but published with their rank
denoted by the term
“suborder”
(subordo) instead of
subfamily,
are treated as
having been published as names of
subfamilies
(see also Art.
18.2).
19.3.
A tribe is designated in a similar manner,
with the termination
-eae,
and
a subtribe similarly with the termination
-inae.
19.4.
The name of any subdivision of a family
that includes the type of the
adopted,
legitimate name of the family to which it is
assigned is to be based on
the generic name
equivalent to that type.
Ex. 1.
The type of the family name
Rosaceae
Juss. is
Rosa L. and hence the subfamily and tribe which
include
Rosa are to be called
Rosoideae
Endl. and
Roseae
DC.
Ex. 2.
The type of the family name
Poaceae Barnhart (nom. alt.,
Gramineae
Juss. – see Art. 18.5) is
Poa L. and hence the subfamily and tribe which include
Poa are to be called
Pooideae
Asch. and
Poëae
R. Br.
Note 1.
This provision applies only to the names
of those subordinate taxa that include the
type
of the adopted name of the family (but see Rec. 19A.2).
Ex. 3.
The subfamily including the type of the family name
Ericaceae
Juss.
(Erica L.),
irrespective of
priority, is
to be called
Ericoideae
Endl.,
and the tribe including this type is called
Ericeae
D. Don.
However, the correct name of the tribe including both
Rhododendron L., the type of the subfamily name
Rhododendroideae Endl., and
Rhodora L. is
Rhodoreae
D. Don
(1834) not
Rhododendreae
Brongn. (1843).
Ex. 4.
The subfamily of the family
Asteraceae Dumort. (nom. alt.,
Compositae Giseke) including
Aster
L., the type of the family name, is
irrespective of priority
to be called
Asteroideae
Asch.,
and the tribe
and subtribe including
Aster are to be called
Astereae
Cass. and
Asterinae
Less., respectively.
However,
the correct name of the tribe including both
Cichorium L., the type of the subfamily name
Cichorioi-
deae
W. D. J. Koch (1837), and
Lactuca L. is
Lactuceae Cass.
(1815), not
Cichorieae
D. Don (1829),
while that of the subtribe including both
Cichorium and
Hyoseris L. is
Hyoseridinae Less.
(1832), not
Cichoriinae
Sch. Bip. (1841)
(unless the
Cichoriaceae
Juss.
are accepted as a family distinct from
Compositae).
28 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 28 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Subdivisions of families – Genera | 19-20 |
19.5.
A
name of a
subdivision
of a family
based on
an illegitimate generic
name
that is not the base of a conserved family name
is illegitimate.
Contrary
to Art.
32.1(b)
such
a name
is validly published
if it complies
with the other
requirements
for valid publication.
Ex. 5.
Caryophylloideae (Juss.) Rabeler & Bittrich,
based on
Caryophyllaceae Juss.,
nom. cons., is
legitimate
although it is derived from the illegitimate
Caryophyllus Mill. non L.
19.6.
When a name of a taxon assigned to one
of the above categories has
been published
with an improper Latin termination, such as
-eae for a subfam-
ily or
-oideae for a tribe,
the termination must be changed to accord with the
rule, without change of the author’s name
or date of publication (see Art.
32.6).
Ex.
6.
The subfamily name
“Climacieae” Grout
(Moss Fl. N. Amer. 3: 4. 1928)
is to be changed to
Climacioideae with rank
and author’s name unchanged.
19.7.
When the
Papilionaceae are included in the family
Leguminosae (nom.
alt.,
Fabaceae; see Art.
18.5)
as a subfamily, the name
Papilionoideae
may be
used as an alternative to
Faboideae.
19A.1.
When a family is changed
to the rank of a
subdivision of a family, or the inverse
change occurs, and no legitimate name
is available in the new rank,
the name should be
retained,
and only its termination
(-aceae, -oideae, -eae, -inae) altered.
Ex. 1.
The subtribe
Drypetinae Pax (1890)
(Euphorbiaceae)
when raised to the rank of tribe was named
Drypeteae (Pax) Hurus. (1954);
the subtribe
Antidesmatinae Pax (1890)
(Euphorbiaceae)
when raised
to the rank of subfamily was named
Antidesmatoideae (Pax) Hurus. (1954).
19A.2.
When
a subdivision of a family
is changed
to another such
rank,
and no
legitimate
name is
available in the new
rank, its
name
should be based on the same generic name
as the
name
in the former rank.
Ex.
2.
Three tribes of the family
Ericaceae,
none of which includes the type of that family name
(Erica
L.), are
Pyroleae D. Don,
Monotropeae D. Don, and
Vaccinieae D. Don. The
later names
Pyroloideae
(D. Don) A. Gray,
Monotropoideae (D. Don) A. Gray, and
Vaccinioideae (D. Don) Endl. are based on
the same generic names.
SECTION 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA
20.1.
The name of a genus is a substantive
in the singular,
or a word treated as
such,
and is written with a capital initial letter (see Art.
60.2).
It may be taken
from any source whatever,
and may even be composed
in an absolutely arbi-
trary manner.
29 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 29 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Genera | 20-20A |
Ex. 1.
Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia,
Liquidambar, Gloriosa, Impatiens, Rhododendron,
Manihot, Ifloga
(an anagram of
Filago).
20.2.
The name of a genus may not coincide
with a technical term currently
used
in morphology unless it was published before 1 January 1912
and accom-
panied by a specific name
published in accordance with the binary system
of
Linnaeus.
Ex. 2.
“Radicula”
(Hill, 1756)
coincides with the technical term “radicula” (radicle)
and was not
accompanied by a specific name
in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.
The name
Radicula
is correctly attributed to Moench (1794),
who first combined it with specific epithets.
Ex. 3.
Tuber
F. H. Wigg. : Fr.,
when published in 1780,
was accompanied by a binary specific name
(Tuber gulosorum
F. H. Wigg.)
and is therefore validly published.
Ex. 4.
The
intended generic names
“Lanceolatus”
(Plumstead, 1952) and
“Lobata”
(Chapman, 1952)
coincide with technical terms
and are therefore not validly published.
Ex. 5.
Words such as
“radix”,
“caulis”,
“folium”,
“spina”, etc.,
cannot now be validly published as
generic names.
20.3.
The name of a genus may not consist of two words,
unless these words
are joined by a hyphen.
Ex. 6.
“Uva ursi”,
as originally published
by
Miller (1754),
consisted of two separate words
uncon-
nected by a hyphen, and is therefore
not validly published
(Art.
32.1(b)); the name
is correctly attributed
to Duhamel (1755) as
Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).
Ex. 7.
However, names such as
Quisqualis
L.
(formed by combining two words into one
when origin-
ally published),
Sebastiano-schaueria
Nees, and
Neves-armondia
K. Schum.
(both hyphenated when
originally published)
are validly published.
Note 1.
The names of intergeneric hybrids
are formed according to the provisions of
Art.
H.6.
20.4. The following are not to be regarded as generic names:
(a) Words not intended as names.
Ex. 8.
The designation
“Anonymos” was applied
by Walter (Fl. Carol.:
2, 4, 9, etc. 1788)
to 28
different genera to indicate
that they were without names.
Ex. 9.
“Schaenoides” and
“Scirpoides”, as used by Rottbøll
(Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr.: 14, 27. 1772)
to
indicate unnamed genera resembling
Schoenus and
Scirpus which he stated (on
p. 7) he intended
to
name later, are token words and not generic names.
They were later
legitimately
named
Kyllinga Rottb.
and
Fuirena Rottb.
(b) Unitary designations of species.
Note 2.
Examples such as
“Leptostachys” and
“Anthopogon”,
listed in earlier editions of
the
Code, were from publications now listed in
App. V.
20A.1. Authors 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.
(c) Not to make names which are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(d) Not to make names by combining words from different languages.
30 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 30 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Genera – Subdivisions of genera | 20A-21A |
(e)
To indicate, if possible, by the formation
or ending of the name the affinities or anal-
ogies of the genus.
(f) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(g)
Not to use a name similar to or derived
from the epithet in the name of one of
the species of the genus.
(h)
Not to dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected
with botany or at least with natural
science.
(i)
To give a feminine form to all personal generic names,
whether they commemorate a
man or a woman (see Rec.
60B).
(j)
Not to form generic names by combining parts
of two existing generic names, because
such names are likely to be confused
with nothogeneric names (see Art.
H.6).
Ex. 1.
Hordelymus (K. Jess.) K. Jess.
derives from a subgeneric epithet
that was formed by combining
parts of the generic names
Hordeum L. and
Elymus L. (see also Art. H.3
Ex. 2).
21.1.
The name of a subdivision of a genus
is a combination of a generic name
and a subdivisional epithet connected
by a term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.)
denoting its rank.
21.2.
The epithet is either of the same form
as a generic name, or a plural
adjective
agreeing in gender with the generic name
and written with a capital
initial letter (see Art.
32.6
and
60.2).
21.3.
The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus
is not to be formed
from the name of the genus
to which it belongs by adding the prefix
Eu-.
Ex. 1.
Costus subg.
Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect.
Anomodiscus;
Valeriana sect.
Valerianopsis; Eu-
phorbia sect.
Tithymalus; Euphorbia subsect.
Tenellae;
Sapium subsect.
Patentinervia;
Arenaria ser.
Anomalae; but not
Carex sect.
Eucarex.
Note 1.
The use within the same genus of the same epithet
in names of subdivisions of the
genus,
even in different ranks,
based on different types is illegitimate under Art.
53.
Note 2.
The names of hybrids with the rank of a subdivision
of a genus are formed accord-
ing
to the provisions of Art.
H.7.
21A.1.
When it is desired to indicate the name
of a subdivision of the genus to which a
particular species belongs in connection
with the generic name and specific epithet,
the
subdivisional epithet
should be placed in parentheses between the two;
when desirable,
the
subdivisional rank
may also be indicated.
Ex. 1.
Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus;
A. (Phaca) umbellatus;
Loranthus (sect.
Ischnanthus)
gabonensis.
31 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 31 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
21B-22 | Subdivisions of genera |
21B.1.
The epithet in the name 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.
Authors, when proposing new epithets
for names of 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 name of a subdivision
of a genus, one already used for a
subdivision
of a closely related genus, or one which is identical
with the name of such a
genus.
21B.3.
When a section
or a subgenus is raised
to
the rank
of genus,
or the inverse change
occurs,
the original name or epithet should be retained
unless the resulting name would be
contrary to this
Code.
22.1.
The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes
the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the genus
to which it is assigned is to repeat that
generic name
unaltered as its epithet,
but not followed by an author’s name
(see Art.
46).
Such names are termed autonyms (Art.
6.8; see also Art.
7.6).
Note 1.
This provision applies only to the names
of those subordinate taxa that include
the
type of the adopted name of the genus
(but see Rec. 22A).
22.2.
A name of a subdivision of a genus that includes the type
(i.e. the
original type or all elements eligible
as type or the previously designated type)
of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus
is not validly published unless its
epithet
repeats the generic name unaltered.
For the purposes of this provision,
explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical
element of the genus is
included is considered
as equivalent to inclusion of the type,
whether or not it
has been previously designated
(see also Art.
21.3).
Ex. 1.
“Dodecatheon sect.
Etubulosa” (Knuth in Engler, Pflanzenr. 22: 234. 1905)
was not validly
published since it was proposed
for a section that included
D. meadia L.,
the original type of the generic
name
Dodecatheon L.
Ex. 2.
Cactus [unranked]
Melocactus L. (Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 210. 1754)
was proposed for one of four
unranked (Art.
35.2),
named subdivisions of the genus
Cactus, comprising
C. melocactus L. (its type
under Art.
22.5) and
C. mammillaris L.
It is validly published, even though
C. melocactus was sub-
sequently designated as the type of
Cactus L. (by Britton & Millspaugh,
Bahama Fl.: 294. 1920) and,
later still,
C. mammillaris became the conserved type
of the generic name
(by the way in which the
family name
Cactaceae Juss. was conserved).
22.3.
The first
instance of valid
publication of a name of a subdivision of a
genus
that does not include the type of the adopted,
legitimate name of the
genus automatically
establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Art.
11.6
and
32.7).
Ex.
3.
The subgenus of
Malpighia L.
that includes
the lectotype of the generic name
(M. glabra L.) is
called
M. subg.
Malpighia, not
M. subg.
Homoiostylis Nied.;
and the section of
Malpighia including the
lectotype of the generic name is called
M. sect.
Malpighia, not
M. sect.
Apyrae DC.
32 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 32 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Subdivisions of genera – Species | 22-23 |
Ex.
4.
However, the correct name of the section of the genus
Rhododendron L.
that includes
R.
luteum
Sweet, the type of
R. subg.
Anthodendron
(Rchb.) Rehder, is
R. sect.
Pentanthera G. Don, the oldest
legitimate name
for the section, and not
R. sect.
Anthodendron.
22.4.
The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus
may not repeat
unchanged the correct name of the genus,
unless
the two names have the same
type.
22.5.
When the epithet
in the name
of a subdivision of a genus is identical
with
or derived from the epithet of one of its constituent species,
the type of
the name of the subdivision of the genus
is the same as that of the species name,
unless the original author of the subdivisional name
designated another type.
Ex.
5.
The type of
Euphorbia subg.
Esula Pers. is
E. esula L.; the designation of
E. peplus L. as
lectotype by Croizat
(in
Revista Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13. 1939)
has no standing.
22.6.
When the epithet
in the name
of a subdivision of a genus is identical
with
or derived from the epithet in a specific name
that is a later homonym,
its
type is the type
of that later homonym, whose correct name
necessarily has a
different epithet.
22A.1.
A section including the type of the correct name
of a subgenus, but not including the
type
of the correct name of the genus, should,
where there is no obstacle under the rules,
be
given a name with the same epithet and type
as the subgeneric name.
22A.2.
A subgenus not including the type of the correct name
of the genus should, where
there is no obstacle
under the rules,
be given a name with the same epithet and type as
the
correct name
of one of its subordinate sections.
Ex. 1.
Instead of using a new
epithet
at the subgeneric level, Brizicky raised
Rhamnus sect.
Pseudofran-
gula Grubov
to the rank of subgenus as
R. subg.
Pseudofrangula (Grubov) Brizicky.
The type of both
names is the same,
R. alnifolia L’Hér.
23.1.
The name of a species is a binary combination
consisting of the name of
the genus followed by
a single specific epithet in the form of an adjective,
a
noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition,
or several words,
but not a phrase
name of one or more
descriptive substantives
and associated adjectives
in the
ablative (see Art. 23.6(a)),
nor certain other
irregularly formed
designations
(see Art. 23.6(c)).
If an epithet consists of two or more words,
these are to be
united or hyphenated.
An epithet not so joined when originally
published is not
to be rejected but, when used,
is to be united or hyphenated, as specified in Art.
60.9.
33 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 33 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
23 | Species |
23.2.
The epithet in the name of a species may be taken
from any source
whatever,
and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art.
60.1).
Ex. 1.
Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus,
Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces fabae, Fumaria gusso-
nei,
Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasiniorum,
Atropa bella-donna, Impatiens noli-tangere,
Adian-
tum capillus-veneris,
Spondias mombin
(an indeclinable epithet).
23.3.
Symbols forming part of specific epithets
proposed by Linnaeus do not
invalidate
the relevant names but must be transcribed.
Ex. 2.
Scandix pecten ♀ L.
is to be transcribed as
Scandix pecten-veneris;
Veronica anagallis ∇ L.
is to be
transcribed as
Veronica anagallis-aquatica.
23.4.
The specific epithet may not exactly repeat
the generic name with or
without the addition
of a transcribed symbol (tautonym).
Ex. 3.
“Linaria linaria” and
“Nasturtium
nasturtium-aquaticum”
are contrary to this rule
and cannot
be validly
published.
23.5.
The specific epithet, when adjectival in form
and not used as a substan-
tive,
agrees grammatically with the generic name (see Art.
32.6).
Ex. 4.
Helleborus niger
L.,
Brassica nigra
(L.) W. D. J. Koch,
Verbascum nigrum
L.;
Vinca major
L.,
Tropaeolum majus
L.;
Rubus amnicola
Blanch.
(“amnicolus”),
the specific epithet being a Latin sub-
stantive;
Peridermium balsameum Peck, but also
Gloeosporium balsameae
Davis,
both derived from
the epithet of
Abies balsamea
(L.) Mill., treated
as a substantive in the second example.
23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as specific names:
(a)
Descriptive designations consisting
of a generic name followed by a
phrase name (Linnaean
nomen specificum legitimum) of one or more de-
scriptive substantives
and associated adjectives in the ablative.
Ex. 5.
Smilax “caule inermi”
(Aublet, Hist. Pl. Guiane 2, Tabl.: 27. 1775)
is an abbreviated descriptive
reference
to an imperfectly known species which is not given
a binomial in the text but referred to
merely
by a phrase name cited from Burman.
(b)
Other
designations of species
consisting of a generic name
followed by
one or more
words not intended as
specific epithets.
Ex.
6.
Viola
“qualis”
(Krocker,
Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790);
Urtica
“dubia?”
(Forsskål,
Fl. Aegypt.-
Arab.: cxxi. 1775),
the word “dubia?” being repeatedly used in
Forsskål’s work
for species which could
not be reliably identified.
Ex.
7.
Atriplex
“nova”
(Winterl,
Index Hort. Bot. Univ. Hung.:
fol. A [8] recto et verso. 1788),
the
word “nova”
(new) being here used
in connection with four different species of
Atriplex.
However, in
Artemisia nova A. Nelson
(in
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274. 1900),
nova was intended as a specific
epithet,
the species having been newly distinguished from others.
Ex. 8.
Cornus “gharaf”
(Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xci, xcvi. 1775)
is an interim designation not
intended as a species name.
An interim designation in Forsskål’s work
is an original designation (for an
accepted taxon
and thus not a “provisional name” as defined in Art.
34.1(b))
with an epithet-like
vernacular which is not used
as an epithet in the “Centuriae” part of the work.
Elcaja “roka”
(Forsskål,
Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xcv. 1775)
is another example of such an interim designation;
in other parts of the
work (p. c, cxvi, 127)
this species is not named.
Ex.
9.
In
Agaricus
“octogesimus nonus” and
Boletus
“vicesimus sextus”
(Schaeffer, Fung. Bavar.
Palat. Nasc. 1: t. 100. 1762;
2: t. 137. 1763), the generic names are followed by
ordinal adjectives used
for enumeration.
The corresponding species were given valid names,
A. cinereus Schaeff. and
B.
ungulatus Schaeff.,
in the final volume of the same work (1774).
34 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 34 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Species | 23-23A |
(c)
Designations of species consisting of a generic name
followed by two or
more adjectival words in the nominative case.
Ex. 10.
Salvia “africana coerulea”
(Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 26. 1753) and
Gnaphalium “fruticosum flavum”
(Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: cxix. 1775) are generic names
followed by two adjectival words in the
nominative case.
They are not to be regarded as species names.
Ex. 11.
However,
Rhamnus “vitis idaea” Burm. f. (Fl. Ind.: 61. 1768)
is to be regarded as a species
name,
since the generic name is followed by a substantive
and an adjective, both in the nominative case;
these words are to be hyphenated
(R. vitis-idaea)
under the provisions of Art. 23.1 and Art.
60.9. In
Anthyllis “Barba jovis” L. (Sp. Pl.: 720. 1753)
the generic name is followed by substantives
in the
nominative and in the genitive case
respectively, and they are to be hyphenated
(A. barba-jovis).
Likewise,
Hyacinthus “non scriptus” L. (Sp. Pl.: 316. 1753),
where the generic name is followed by a
negative particle
and a past participle used as an adjective,
is corrected to
H. non-scriptus, and
Impa-
tiens “noli tangere” L. (Sp. Pl.: 938. 1753),
where the generic name is followed by two verbs,
is
corrected to
I. noli-tangere.
Ex. 12.
Similarly, in
Narcissus “Pseudo Narcissus” L. (Sp. Pl.: 289. 1753)
the generic name is fol-
lowed
by an independent prefix
and a substantive in the nominative case,
and the name is to be
corrected to
N. pseudonarcissus under the provisions of Art.
23.1 and Art.
60.9.
(d) Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H.10.3).
23.7.
Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets
(nomina trivialia)
are to be treated
as orthographical errors to be corrected in accordance
with
later usage by Linnaeus himself.
Ex. 13.
Apocynum “fol. [foliis]
androsaemi” L. is to be cited as
A. androsaemifolium L.
(Sp. Pl.: 213.
1753
[corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 946. 1759]); and
Mussaenda “fr. [fructu] frondoso” L., as
M.
frondosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 177. 1753
[corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 931. 1759]).
23.8.
Where the status of a designation of a species
is uncertain under Art.
23.6, established custom is to be followed
(Pre. 10).
*Ex. 14.
Polypodium “F. mas”,
P. “F. femina”, and
P. “F. fragile” (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 1090-1091.
1753)
are, in accordance with established custom, to be treated as
P. filix-mas L.,
P. filix-femina L., and
P. fragile L., respectively. Likewise,
Cambogia “G. gutta” is to be treated as
C. gummi-gutta L. (Gen.
Pl.: [522]. 1754).
The intercalations
“Trich.“ [Trichomanes] and
“M.” [Melilotus] in the names of
Linnaean species of
Asplenium and
Trifolium, respectively, are to be deleted,
so that names in the form
Asplenium “Trich. dentatum” and
Trifolium “M. indica”, for example, are treated as
A. dentatum L.
and
T. indicum L. (Sp. Pl.: 765, 1080. 1753).
23A.1.
Names of persons and also of countries
and localities used in specific epithets
should take the form of substantives in the genitive
(clusii, porsildiorum, saharae) or of
adjectives
(clusianus, dahuricus) (see also Art.
60, Rec.
60C and
D).
23A.2.
The use of the genitive and the adjectival form
of the same word to designate two
different species
of the same genus should be avoided (e.g.
Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliv.
and
L. hemsleyi Franch.).
23A.3.
In forming specific epithets, authors should comply
also with the following sugges-
tions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(c) Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.
35 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 35 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
23A-24 | Species – Infraspecific taxa |
(d) To avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words.
(e) To avoid those which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).
(f)
To avoid those which express a character
common to all or nearly all the species of a
genus.
(g)
To avoid in the same genus those
which are very much alike, especially those which
differ only in their last letters
or in the arrangement of two letters.
(h) To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus.
(i)
Not to adopt epithets from unpublished names
found in correspondence, travellers’
notes, herbarium labels, or similar sources,
attributing them to their authors, unless
these authors have approved publication
(see Rec.
34A).
(j)
To avoid using the names of little-known
or very restricted localities, unless the species
is quite local.
SECTION 5. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)
24.1.
The name of an infraspecific taxon
is a combination of the name of a
species
and an infraspecific epithet connected by a term denoting its rank.
Ex. 1.
Saxifraga aizoon subf.
surculosa Engl. & Irmsch. This can also be cited as
Saxifraga aizoon var.
aizoon subvar.
brevifolia f.
multicaulis subf.
surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.; in this way
a full classification
of the subforma
within the species is given.
24.2.
Infraspecific epithets are formed
like specific epithets
and, when adjecti-
val in form
and not used as substantives, they agree grammatically
with the
generic name (see Art.
32.6).
Ex. 2. Solanum melongena var. insanum Prain (Bengal Pl.: 746. 1903, “insana”).
24.3.
Infraspecific
names with final
epithets such as
typicus, originalis, origi-
narius,
genuinus, verus, and
veridicus, purporting to indicate
the taxon contain-
ing
the type of the name of the next higher taxon,
are not validly published
unless
are
autonyms (Art.
26).
Ex. 3.
Lobelia spicata
“var.
originalis”
(McVaugh
in Rhodora 38: 308. 1936) was not validly published
(see Art. 26
Ex. 1).
24.4.
The use of a binary combination instead
of an infraspecific epithet is not
admissible.
Contrary to Art.
32.1(b),
names so constructed are validly pub-
lished
but are to be altered to the proper form
without change of the author’s
name
or date of publication.
Ex.
4.
Salvia grandiflora subsp.
“S. willeana”
(Holmboe
in Bergens Mus. Skr.,
ser. 2, 1(2): 157. 1914)
is to be cited as
S. grandiflora subsp.
willeana Holmboe.
Ex.
5.
Phyllerpa prolifera var.
“Ph. firma”
(Kützing, Sp. Alg.: 495. 1849)
is to be altered to
P.
prolifera var.
firma Kütz.
36 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 36 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Infraspecific taxa | 24-26 |
Note 1.
Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear
names with the same
final
epithet;
those within one species may bear
names with the same
final epithet as
the names
of
other species
(but see Rec. 24B.1).
Ex.
6.
Rosa glutinosa var.
leioclada
H. Christ (in Boissier,
Fl. Orient. Suppl.: 222.
1888) and
Rosa
jundzillii
f.
leioclada
Borbás (in Math. Term. Közlem.
16: 376, 383. 1880)
are both permissible,
as is
Viola tricolor var.
hirta
Ging. (in Candolle,
Prodr. 1: 304. 1824),
in spite of the previous existence of
a
species named
Viola hirta
L.
Note
2.
Infraspecific
taxa within the same species, even if they differ
in rank,
may not bear
names with
the same
final
epithet
but different types
(Art.
53.5).
24A.1.
Recommendations made
for forming specific epithets (Rec.
23A)
apply equally for
infraspecific epithets.
24B.1.
Authors proposing new infraspecific
names should avoid
epithets previously used
as
specific
epithets in the same genus.
24B.2.
When an
infraspecific taxon
is raised
to
the rank
of species,
or the inverse change
occurs, the
final epithet
of its name
should be retained unless the resulting combination
would be contrary to this
Code.
25.1.
For nomenclatural purposes,
a species or any taxon below the rank of
species
is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, if any.
In fungi, a
holomorph
also includes its correlated form-taxa
(see
Art.
59).
Ex. 1.
When
Montia parvifolia (DC.) Greene
is treated as
comprising two subspecies, one must write
M. parvifolia subsp.
parvifolia
for that part of
the species that includes
the nomenclatural type
and
excludes the type of the name
of the other subspecies,
M. parvifolia subsp.
flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris.
The name
M. parvifolia
applies to the
species
in its entirety.
26.1.
The name of any infraspecific taxon
that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name
of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat
the
specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet,
but not followed by an author’s
name (see Art.
46).
Such names are termed autonyms (Art.
6.8; see also Art.
7.6).
Ex. 1.
The
variety
which includes the type of the name
Lobelia spicata Lam. is to be
named
Lobelia
spicata Lam. var.
spicata
(see also Art. 24
Ex. 3).
Note 1.
This provision applies only to the names
of those subordinate taxa that include the
type
of the adopted name of the species (but see Rec. 26A).
37 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 37 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
26-26A | Infraspecific taxa |
26.2.
A name of an infraspecific taxon that includes
the type (i.e. the holotype
or all syntypes
or the previously designated type) of the adopted,
legitimate
name of the species to which it is assigned
is not validly published unless its
final epithet
repeats the specific epithet unaltered.
For the purpose of this
provision,
explicit indication that the nomenclaturally
typical element of the
species is included
is considered as equivalent to inclusion of the type,
whether
or not it has been previously designated
(see also Art.
24.3).
Ex. 2.
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 779-781. 1753)
included 13 named varieties under
Medicago polymorpha.
Since
M. polymorpha L. has no holotype
and since no syntypes are cited, all varietal names
are validly
published irrespective of the fact
that the lectotype subsequently chosen
(by Heyn in Bull. Res. Council
Israel,
Sect. D, Bot., 7: 163. 1959) can be attributed to
M. polymorpha var.
hispida L.
Ex. 3.
The intended combination
“Vulpia myuros subsp.
pseudomyuros (Soy.-Will.) Maire & Weiller”
was not validly published
in Maire (Fl. Afrique N. 3: 177. 1955) because it included
“F. myuros L., Sp.
1, p. 74 (1753) sensu stricto” in synonymy,
Festuca myuros L. being the basionym of
Vulpia myuros
(L.) C. C. Gmel.
26.3.
The first
instance of valid publication
of a name of an infraspecific taxon
that does not include
the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species
automatically establishes the corresponding autonym
(see also Art.
32.7 and
11.6).
Ex.
4.
The publication of the name
Lycopodium inundatum var.
bigelovii Tuck.
(in Amer. J. Sci. Arts
45: 47. 1843)
automatically established
the name of another variety,
L. inundatum L. var.
inundatum,
the type of which is that of the name
L. inundatum L.
Ex.
5.
Utricularia stellaris L. f. (1781) includes
U. stellaris var.
coromandeliana A. DC. (Prodr. 8: 3.
1844) and
U. stellaris L. f. var.
stellaris (1844) automatically established
at the same time. When
U.
stellaris is included in
U. inflexa Forssk. (1775)
as a variety,
the correct name of that variety, under Art.
11.6, is
U. inflexa var.
stellaris (L. f.) P. Taylor (1961).
26A.1.
A variety including the type of the correct name
of a subspecies, but not including
the type
of the correct name of the species, should, where there is
no obstacle under the
rules, be given a name with the same
final epithet and type
as the subspecies name.
26A.2.
A subspecies not including the type of the correct name
of the species should, where
there is no obstacle
under the rules, be given a name with the same
final epithet
and type as
a name of one of its subordinate varieties.
26A.3.
A taxon of rank lower than variety which includes
the type of the correct name of a
subspecies or variety,
but not the type of the correct name of the species,
should, where
there is no obstacle under the rules,
be given a name with the same
final epithet and type
as
the name of the subspecies or variety. On the other hand,
a subspecies or variety which does
not include
the type of the correct name of the species
should not be given a name with the
same
final epithet
as a name of one of its subordinate taxa
below the rank of variety.
Ex. 1.
Fernald treated
Stachys palustris subsp.
pilosa (Nutt.) Epling
(in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg.
Beih. 8: 63. 1934)
as composed of five varieties, for one of which
(that including the type of
S. palustris
subsp.
pilosa) he made the combination
S. palustris var.
pilosa (Nutt.) Fernald (in Rhodora 45: 474.
1943),
there being no legitimate varietal name available.
Ex. 2.
There being no legitimate name available at the rank
of subspecies, Bonaparte made the combi-
nation
Pteridium aquilinum subsp.
caudatum (L.) Bonap.
(Notes Ptérid. 1: 62. 1915),
using the same
38 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 38 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Infraspecific taxa – Cultivated plants | 26A-28 |
final epithet
that Sadebeck had used earlier in the combination
P. aquilinum var.
caudatum (L.) Sadeb.
(in Jahrb. Hamburg.
Wiss. Anst. Beih.
14(3): 5. 1897), both
combinations being based on
Pteris
caudata L.
Each name is legitimate, and both can be used, as by Tryon
(in Rhodora 43: 52-54.
1941),
who treated
P. aquilinum var.
caudatum as one of four varieties under subsp.
caudatum
(see Art.
34.2).
27.1.
The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon
may not repeat
unchanged the epithet of the correct name
of the species to which the taxon is
assigned
unless the two names have the same type.
SECTION 6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION
28.1.
Plants brought from the wild into cultivation
retain the names that are
applied to the same taxa
growing in nature.
28.2.
Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation,
may receive names as
provided in
App. I
(see also Art.
11.8,
40, and
50).
Note 1.
Additional, independent designations for plants used
in agriculture, forestry, and
horticulture
(and arising either in nature or cultivation)
are dealt with in the
International
code of
nomenclature for
cultivated
plants,
where regulations are provided for their forma-
tion and use.
However, nothing precludes the use
for cultivated plants of names published in
accordance with the requirements of the
present
Code.
Note 2.
Epithets in names published in conformity with
this
Code
may be used as cultivar
epithets under the rules of the
International
code of
nomenclature for
cultivated
plants-
1980,
when this is considered to be the appropriate status
for the groups concerned.
The
International
code of
nomenclature for
cultivated
plants-1980,
in its
Art. 27, requires new
cultivar epithets published
on or after 1 January 1959
to be fancy names
markedly different
from epithets of names
in Latin form governed by the
present
Code.
Ex. 1.
Cultivar names:
Taxus baccata ‘Variegata’ or
Taxus baccata cv. Variegata (based on
T. baccata var.
variegata Weston, Bot. Univ.
1: 292, 347. 1770),
Phlox drummondii ‘Ster-
nenzauber’,
Viburnum
×bodnantense
‘Dawn’.
39 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 39 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
29-30 | Effective publication |
CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
SECTION 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
29.1.
Publication is effected, under this
Code,
only by distribution of printed
matter (through sale,
exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to
botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists
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.
Ex. 1.
Cusson announced his establishment of the genus
Physospermum in a memoir read at
the Société
des Sciences de Montpellier in 1770,
and later in 1782 or 1783 at
the Société de Médecine de Paris,
but
its effective publication dates from 1787
(in Hist. Soc. Roy. Méd. 5(1): 279).
30.1. Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is effective.
Ex. 1.
Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr.
was effectively published in a
printed autograph catalogue
placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich,
Catalogus plantarum
hispanicarum ...
ab A. Blanco
lectarum, Paris,
Jul 1850, folio).
30.2.
For the purpose of this Article,
indelible
autograph
is
handwritten ma-
terial reproduced
by some mechanical or graphic process
(such as lithography,
offset,
or metallic etching).
Ex. 2. H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914-1915), is a work lithographed from a handwritten text.
30.3.
Publication on or after 1 January 1953 in trade catalogues
or non-scienti-
fic newspapers,
and on or after 1 January 1973
in seed-exchange lists,
does not
constitute effective publication.
30.4.
The distribution
on or after 1 January 1953
of printed matter accompa-
nying exsiccata
does not constitute effective publication.
Note 1.
If the printed matter is also distributed independently
of the exsiccata,
it is effect-
ively published.
40 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 40 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Effective publication | 30-31A |
Ex. 3.
Works such
as Lundell & Nannfeldt,
Fungi exsiccati suecici
..., Uppsala 1-..., 1934-...,
dis-
tributed independently of the exsiccata,
whether published before or after 1 January 1953,
are effec-
tively published.
30A.1.
It is strongly recommended that authors
avoid publishing new names and descrip-
tions
or diagnoses
of new taxa in ephemeral printed matter of any kind,
in particular that
which is multiplied in restricted
and uncertain numbers, where the permanence of the text
may be limited, where the effective publication in terms
of number of copies is not obvious,
or where the printed matter
is unlikely to reach the general public. Authors should also
avoid publishing new names and descriptions
or diagnoses in popular periodicals,
in ab-
stracting journals,
or on correction slips.
31.1.
The date of effective publication
is the date on which the printed matter
became available as defined in Art.
29
and
30.
In the absence of proof estab-
lishing
some other date, the one appearing in the printed matter
must be ac-
cepted as correct.
Ex. 1.
Individual parts of Willdenow’s
Species
plantarum
were published as follows: 1(1),
Jun 1797;
1(2),
Jul 1798; 2(1),
Mar 1799; 2(2),
Dec 1799; 3(1), 1800; 3(2),
Nov 1802; 3(3),
Apr-Dec 1803
(and
later than Michaux’s
Flora
boreali-americana); 4(1), 1805; 4(2), 1806;
these dates, which are partly in
disagreement
with the years on the title-pages of the volumes, are
presently accepted
as the correct
dates of effective publication.
Ex. 2.
T. M. Fries, “Lichenes arctoi”, was first published
as an independently paginated preprint in
1860,
which predates the identical version published in a journal
(Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Upsal. 3(3):
103-398. 1861).
31.2.
When separates from periodicals or other works
placed on sale are issued
in advance,
the date on the separate is accepted
as the date of effective publica-
tion
unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.
Ex. 3.
Publication in separates issued in advance:
the names of the
Selaginella species published by
Hieronymus
(in Hedwigia 51: 241-272)
were effectively published on 15 October 1911,
since the
volume in which the paper appeared, though dated
1912, states (p. ii)
that the separate appeared on that
date.
31A.1.
The date on which the publisher or his agent delivers
printed matter to one of the
usual carriers for distribution
to the public should be accepted as its date of effective
publication.
41 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 41 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
32 | Valid publication |
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
32.1.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted)
must:
(a) be effectively published (see Art.
29-31)
on or after the starting-point
date
of the respective group (Art.
13.1);
(b) have a form which complies
with
the provisions of Art.
16-27
(but see Art.
18.3
and
19.6), and Art.
H.6
and
H.7;
(c) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis
or by a reference to a pre-
viously
and effectively published description or diagnosis
(except as provided
in Art.
42.3, 44.1, and
H.9); and
(d) comply with the special provisions of Art.
33-45
(see also Art. 61).
In addition,
subject to the approval
of the XVI Inter-
national Botanical
Congress, names
(autonyms excepted)
published on or after
1 January 2000
must be registered.
Ex. 1.
“Egeria”
(Néraud in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie,
Bot.: 25, 28. 1826), published without a descrip-
tion
or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one,
was not validly published.
Ex. 2.
“Loranthus
macrosolen Steud.” originally appeared
without a description or diagnosis on the
printed labels
issued about the year 1843 with Sect. II, No. 529, 1288,
of Schimper’s herbarium
specimens of Abyssinian plants;
the name was not validly published, however,
until Richard (Tent. Fl.
Abyss. 1: 340. 1847)
supplied a description.
*Ex. 3.
In
Don,
Sweet’s Hortus
britannicus, ed. 3 (1839),
for each listed species the flower colour,
the
duration of the plant, and a translation into English
of the specific epithet are given in tabular form.
In
many genera the flower colour and duration
may be identical for all species and clearly their mention
is
not intended as a validating description
or diagnosis.
New names appearing in that work are therefore
not validly published, except in some cases where reference
is made to earlier descriptions
or diagnoses
or to
validly published basionyms.
32.2.
Registration is effected by sending the printed matter
that includes the
protologue(s), with the name(s)
to be registered clearly identified,
to any regis-
tering office designated by
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
32.3.
A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement
of that which in the opinion of its
author
distinguishes the taxon from others.
32.4.
For the purpose of valid publication of a name,
reference to a previously
and effectively published
description or diagnosis may be direct or indirect
(Art. 32.5).
For names published on or after 1 January 1953 it must,
however,
be full and direct as specified in Art.
33.2.
32.5.
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.
Ex. 4.
“Kratzmannia”
(Opiz in Berchtold & Opiz,
Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398. 1836)
was
pub-
lished with a diagnosis but
was not definitely accepted by the author and therefore
was not validly
published.
Kratzmannia Opiz
(Seznam: 56. 1852), lacking
description or diagnosis,
is
however
defi-
nitely
accepted, and its citation
as
“Kratzmannia O.”
constitutes
indirect reference to the diagnosis
published in 1836.
42 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 42 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 32-32A |
Ex. 5.
Opiz published the name of the genus
Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz (1852)
without a description or
diagnosis, but as he wrote
“Hemisphace Benth.” he indirectly referred
to the previously effectively
published description
by Bentham (Labiat. Gen. Spec.: 193. 1833) of
Salvia sect.
Hemisphace.
Ex. 6.
The new combination
Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) W. Watson (1882)
is validated by the
addition of the number “309”,
which, as explained at the top of the same page,
is the running-number of
the species
(Andropogon martini Roxb.)
in Steudel (Syn. Pl. Glumac. 1: 388. 1854).
Although the
reference to the basionym
Andropogon martini is indirect, it is unambiguous
(see also Rec.
60C.2).
Ex. 7.
Miller (1768), in the preface to
The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, stated that he had
“now applied
Linnaeus’s method entirely except in such particulars ...”,
of which he gave examples. In the main text,
he often referred
to Linnaean genera under his own generic headings, e.g., to
Cactus L. [pro parte]
under
Opuntia Mill.
Therefore an implicit reference to a Linnaean binomial
may be assumed when this
is appropriate,
and Miller’s binomials accepted as new combinations (e.g.,
Opuntia ficus-indica (L.)
Mill., based on
Cactus ficus-indica L.) or avowed substitutes (e.g.,
Opuntia vulgaris Mill., based on
Cactus opuntia L., where both names have the reference to
“Opuntia vulgo herbariorum”
of Bauhin &
Cherler in common).
Ex. 8.
In Kummer’s
Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871)
the statement that the author intended to adopt
at
generic rank the subdivisions of
Agaricus then in use,
which at the time were those of Fries,
and the
general arrangement of the work,
which faithfully follows that of Fries,
provide indirect reference to
Fries’s earlier names of “tribes”.
Therefore, names such as
Hypholoma (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. are
accepted
as being based on the corresponding Friesian names (here:
A. “tribus”
Hypholoma Fr. : Fr.)
although Kummer did not explicitly refer to Fries.
32.6.
Names published with an incorrect Latin termination
but otherwise in
accordance with this
Code are regarded
as validly published; they are to be
changed
to accord with Art.
17-19,
21,
23, and
24,
without change of the
author’s name
or date of publication (see also Art.
60.11).
32.7.
Autonyms (Art.
6.8)
are accepted as validly published names,
dating
from the publication
in which they were established (see Art.
22.3 and
26.3),
whether or not they appear in print
in that publication.
32.8.
Names in specified ranks included
in publications listed as suppressed
works
(opera utique oppressa;
App. V)
are not validly published.
Proposals for
the addition of publications to
App. V
must be submitted to the General Com-
mittee (see
Div. III),
which will refer them for examination to the committees
for the various taxonomic groups
(see Rec. 32F; see also Art.
14.14 and
Rec.
14A).
32.9.
When a proposal for the suppression of a publication
has been approved
by the General Committee
after study by the committees for the taxonomic
groups concerned, treating that publication
as suppressed is authorized subject
to the decision
of a later International Botanical Congress.
Note
1.
For
valid publication
of names
of plant taxa that were originally not treated
as
plants, see Art.
45.5.
32A.1.
A name should not be validated solely by a reference
to a description or diagnosis
published before 1753.
43 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 43 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
32B-33 | Valid publication |
32B.1.
The description or diagnosis of any new taxon
should mention the points in which
the taxon
differs from its allies.
32C.1.
Authors should avoid adoption of a name
which has been previously but not validly
published
for a different taxon.
32D.1.
In describing
or diagnosing new taxa,
authors should, when possible, supply figures
with details of structure as an aid to identification.
32D.2.
In the explanation of the figures,
authors should indicate
the specimen(s) on which
they are based
(see also Rec.
8A.2).
32D.1.
Authors should indicate clearly and precisely
the scale of the figures which they
publish.
32E.1.
Descriptions or diagnoses of parasitic plants
should always be followed by 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.
32F.1.
When
a proposal for
the suppression
of a publication
under Art. 32.8
has been
referred
to the appropriate
committees for study,
authors should follow
existing usage as far
as possible pending
the General Committee’s
recommendation
on the proposal.
33.1.
A combination (autonyms excepted)
is not validly published unless the
author
definitely associates the final epithet
with the name of the genus or
species,
or with its abbreviation.
Ex. 1.
Combinations validly published: In Linnaeus’s
Species
plantarum
the placing of the epithet in
the margin
opposite the name of the genus
clearly associates the epithet
with the name of the genus.
The
same result is attained in Miller’s
Gardeners
dictionary, ed. 8,
by the inclusion of the epithet in
parentheses
immediately after the name of the genus,
in Steudel’s
Nomenclator
botanicus
by the
arrangement of the epithets in a list
headed by the name of the genus,
and in general by any typo-
graphical device
which associates an epithet with a particular generic
or specific name.
Ex. 2.
Combinations not validly published:
Rafinesque’s statement under
Blephilia that “Le type de ce
genre est la
Monarda ciliata Linn.”
(in
J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819)
does not constitute
valid publication
of the combination
Blephilia ciliata,
since Rafinesque did not definitely associate the
44 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 44 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 33 |
epithet
ciliata with the generic name
Blephilia. Similarly, the combination
Eulophus peucedanoides is
not to be
attributed to Bentham
& Hooker
(Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867)
on the basis of their listing of
“Cnidium peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under
Eulophus.
33.2.
A new combination, or an avowed substitute
(nomen novum),
published
on or after 1 January 1953,
for a previously and validly published name
is not
validly published unless its basionym
(name-bringing or epithet-bringing syn-
onym)
or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed)
is clearly
indicated and a full and direct reference
given to its author and place of valid
publication
with page or plate reference and date.
Ex. 3.
In transferring
Ectocarpus mucronatus
D. A. Saunders to
Giffordia, Kjeldsen & Phinney
(in
Madroño 22: 90. 27 Apr 1973)
cited the basionym and its author
but without reference to its place of
valid publication. They later
(in
Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul 1973) validated the binomial
G. mucronata
(D.
A. Saunders) Kjeldsen & Phinney
by giving a full and direct reference to
the place of valid publication
of the basionym.
Note 1.
For the purpose of this
Code,
a page reference
(for publications with a consecutive
pagination) is a reference
to the page or pages on which the basionym
was validly published
or on which the protologue
is printed, but not to the pagination
of the whole publication
unless
it is coextensive with that of the protologue.
Ex. 4.
When proposing
“Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally
(in Mycotaxon 40: 337. 1991) cited the
basionym as
“Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesw.,
Can. J. Bot. 60: 2288-2294. 1982”.
As this refers to
the pagination of Boeswinkel’s entire paper,
not of the protologue of the intended basionym alone,
the
combination was not validly published by Peerally.
33.3.
Errors of bibliographic
citation and incorrect forms of author citation
(see Art.
46)
do not invalidate publication of a new combination or
avowed
substitute.
Ex.
5.
Aronia arbutifolia var.
nigra (Willd.)
F. Seym.
(Fl. New England: 308. 1969)
was published as a
new combination
“Based on
Mespilus arbutifolia L. var.
nigra Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800.”
Willdenow treated these plants in the genus
Pyrus, not
Mespilus, and publication was in 1799, not 1800;
these errors are treated as bibliographic errors of citation
and do not invalidate the new combination.
Ex.
6.
The combination
Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon
(in
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 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
T. kalbreyeri (Baker)
R. M. Tryon.
Ex.
7.
The combination
Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed
by Raitviir (1980) with a full and direct
reference to
Peziza corticalis
in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822).
This, however, was not the place of
valid publication
of the basionym, which, under the
Code operating in 1980,
was in Mérat (Nouv. Fl.
Env. Paris, ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821),
and under the present
Code is in Persoon
(Observ. Mycol. 1: 28. 1796).
Raitviir’s bibliographic error of citation
does not invalidate the new combination,
which is to be cited as
L.
corticale (Pers.) Raitv.
33.4.
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.
Ex.
8.
Ciferri
(in Mycopathol. Mycol.
Appl. 7: 86-89. 1954),
in proposing 142 new combinations in
Meliola, omitted references to places
of publication of basionyms,
stating that they could be found in
Petrak’s lists or in the
Index of
fungi;
none of these combinations was validly published.
Similarly,
Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ.: 18. 1963)
introduced a new combination in the form
Lecanora campe-
stris f.
“pseudistera (Nyl.) Grumm. c.n. —
L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521”,
in which “Z 5” referred to Zahlbruckner
45 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 45 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
33-34 | Valid publication |
(Cat. Lich. Univ. 5: 521. 1928),
who gave the full citation of the basionym,
Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.;
Grummann’s combination was not validly published.
Note
2.
The publication of a name for a taxon previously known
under a misapplied name
must be valid under Art.
32-45.
This procedure is not the same as publishing
an avowed
substitute (nomen novum)
for a validly published but illegitimate name (Art.
58.1(b)),
the
type of which is necessarily the same
as that of the name which it replaced (Art.
7.3).
Ex.
9.
Sadleria hillebrandii Rob. (1913)
was introduced as a “nom. nov.” for
“Sadleria pallida Hilleb.
Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888.
Not Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. 75. 1832.”
Since the requirements of Art.
32-45
were satisfied (for valid publication, prior to 1935,
simple reference to a previous description
or
diagnosis
in any language was sufficient), the name is validly
published. It is, however, to be considered
the name
of a new species, validated by
Hillebrand’s description of the taxon
to which he
misapplied
the name
S. pallida Hook. & Arn., and not a
nomen novum as stated
by Robinson; hence, Art.
7.3
does
not apply.
Ex.
10.
Juncus bufonius
“var.
occidentalis” (Hermann
in U.S. Forest Serv., Techn. Rep. RM-18: 14.
1975)
was published as a “nom. et stat. nov.” for
J. sphaerocarpus “auct. Am., non Nees”.
Since there is
no Latin diagnosis,
designation of type, or reference to any previous
publication providing these re-
quirements,
the name is not validly published.
33.5.
A name given to a taxon
whose rank is at the same time,
contrary to Art.
5,
denoted by a misplaced term
is not validly published.
Such misplacements
include forms divided into varieties,
species containing genera, and genera
containing families
or tribes.
Ex.
11.
“Sectio
Orontiaceae” was not validly published by
Brown (Prodr.: 337. 1810)
since he misap-
plied the term “sectio”
to taxa of a rank higher than genus.
Ex.
12.
“Tribus
Involuta” and
”tribus
Brevipedunculata”
(Huth
in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
20: 365, 368. 1895)
are not validly published names,
since Huth misapplied the term “tribus”
to a taxon of a rank lower than
section, within the genus
Delphinium.
33.6.
An exception to Art. 33.5 is made for names
of the subdivisions of
genera termed tribes
(tribus) in Fries’s
Systema
mycologicum,
which are
treated as validly published names
of subdivisions of genera.
Ex. 13.
Agaricus
“tribus”
Pholiota Fr.
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 240. 1821), sanctioned
in the same work, is
the
validly published basionym
of the generic name
Pholiota (Fr.
: Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871)
(see Art. 32
Ex.
8).
33A.1.
The full and direct reference to the place
of publication of the basionym or replaced
synonym
should immediately follow a proposed new combination
or nomen novum. It
should not be provided
by mere cross-reference to a bibliography
at the end of the publica-
tion or to
other parts of the same publication,
e.g. by use of the abbreviations
“loc. cit.” or
“op. cit.”
34.1.
A name is not validly published
(a) when it is not accepted by the author
in the original publication;
(b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation
of the
future acceptance of the group concerned,
or of a particular circumscription,
46 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 46 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 34 |
position, or rank of the group (so-called provisional name), except as provided
for in Art.
59;
(c) when it is merely cited as a synonym;
(d) by the mere
mention
of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned.
Art. 34.1(a)
does not apply to names
published with a question mark or other indication
of
taxonomic doubt, yet published
and accepted by the author.
Ex. 1.
(a)
“Sebertia”,
proposed by Pierre (ms.)
for a
monotypic genus,
was not validly published by
Baillon
(in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn.
Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept
the genus.
Although he
gave a description of
it,
he referred its only species
“Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)” to the genus
Sersalisia R. Br. as
Sersalisia ?
acuminata,
which he thereby
validly published
under the provision of
Art. 34.1, last sentence. The name
Sebertia was validly published
by Engler (1897).
Ex. 2.
(a)
The
designations
listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis
Herbarium amboinense
defended by Stickman (1754)
were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication
and are not
validly published.
Ex. 3.
(a) (b)
The
designation
“Conophyton”,
suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82. 1821) for
Mesembryanthemum sect.
Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words
“If this section proves
to be a genus, the name of
Conophyton would be apt”, was not
a validly published
generic name
since
Haworth did not adopt
it or accept
the genus. The
name was validly published
as
Conophytum N. E. Br.
(1922).
Ex. 4.
(c)
“Acosmus Desv.”,
cited
by Desfontaines (Cat. Pl. Hort. Paris.: 233. 1829)
as a synonym of
the generic name
Aspicarpa Rich., was not validly published thereby.
Ex. 5.
(c)
“Ornithogalum
undulatum hort. Bouch.”
(in Kunth, Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843),
cited as a
synonym under
Myogalum boucheanum Kunth,
was not validly published thereby;
when transferred to
Ornithogalum
L.,
this species is to be called
O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).
Ex. 6.
(c)
“Erythrina
micropteryx Poepp.” was not validly published
by being cited as a synonym of
Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (1850);
the species concerned, when placed under
Erythrina
L., is to be
called
E. poeppigiana (Walp.)
O. F. Cook (1901).
Ex. 7.
(d)
The family
designation
“Rhaptopetalaceae”
(Pierre
in
Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296.
Mai 1897),
which was accompanied merely
by mention of constituent genera,
Brazzeia
Baill.,
“Scyto-
petalum”, and
Rhaptopetalum
Oliv., was not validly published,
as Pierre gave no description or dia-
gnosis;
the family bears the name
Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897),
accompanied by a description.
Ex. 8.
(d)
The generic
designation
“Ibidium”
(Salisbury in Trans. Hort. Soc.
London 1: 291. 1812) was
published merely
with the mention of four included species.
As Salisbury supplied no generic descrip-
tion or diagnosis,
it is not
a validly published
name.
34.2.
When, on or after 1 January 1953,
two or more different names are
proposed
simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author
(so-called
alternative names),
none of them is validly published. This rule does not apply
in those cases where the same combination
is simultaneously used at different
ranks,
either for infraspecific taxa within a species
or for subdivisions of a
genus within a genus (see Rec.
22A.1
and
22A.2,
26A.1-3).
Ex. 9.
The species of
Brosimum
Sw. described by Ducke
(in
Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23-29.
1922)
were published with alternative names under
Piratinera
Aubl. added in a footnote (pp. 23-24).
The publication of
both sets of names,
being effected before 1 January 1953, is valid.
Ex. 10.
“Euphorbia jaroslavii”
(Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb.
Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR
15: 155. 1953)
was published with an alternative
designation,
“Tithymalus jaroslavii”.
Neither
was
validly published.
However, one name,
Euphorbia yaroslavii
(with a different transliteration of the
initial letter),
was validly published by Poljakov (1961),
who effectively published it
with a new
reference to the earlier publication
and simultaneously rejected the other name.
47 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 47 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
34-35 | Valid publication |
Ex. 11.
Description of
“Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp.
tumidum S. R. Hill var.
tumidum, subsp. et
var. nov.”
(in Brittonia 32: 474. 1980)
simultaneously validated both
M. bicuspidatum subsp.
tumidum
S. R. Hill and
M. bicuspidatum var.
tumidum S. R. Hill.
Ex. 12.
Hitchcock (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol.
17(1): 507-508. 1969) used the name
Bromus inermis
subsp.
pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon
and provided a full and direct reference to its basionym,
B.
pumpellianus Scribn.
Within that subspecies,
he recognized varieties one of which he named
B. inermis
var.
pumpellianus (without author citation
but clearly based on the same basionym and type).
In so
doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of
B. inermis var.
pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L.
Hitchc.
Note 1.
The name of a fungal holomorph
and that of a correlated anamorph (see Art.
59),
even if validated simultaneously,
are not alternative names in the sense of Art. 34.2.
They
have different types,
and the circumscription
of the holomorph is considered to include the
anamorph,
but not vice versa.
Ex. 13.
Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929),
the name of a fungal holomorph,
and the simultaneously
published name
of a correlated anamorph,
Helicosporium elinorae Linder,
are both valid, and both can
be used under Art.
59.5.
34A.1.
Authors should avoid mentioning in their publications
previously unpublished
names which they do not accept, especially if the persons
responsible for these unpublished
names have not formally
authorized their publication (see Rec.
23A.3(i)).
35.1.
A new name or combination published
on or after 1 January 1953
with-
out a clear indication
of the rank of the taxon concerned
is not validly publish-
ed.
35.2.
A new name or combination published before 1 January
1953 without a
clear indication of rank
is validly published provided
that all other require-
ments
for valid publication are fulfilled; it is, however,
inoperative in questions
of priority
except for homonymy (see Art.
53.5).
If it is a new name, it may
serve as a basionym
or replaced synonym for subsequent combinations or
avowed substitutes in definite ranks.
Ex. 1.
The groups
“Soldanellae”,
“Sepincoli”,
“Occidentales”, etc.,
were published without any indi-
cation of rank under
Convolvulus
L. by House
(in
Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908). The names
C. [unranked]
Soldanellae, etc.,
are validly published but they are not in any definite rank
and have no status in
questions of priority
except that they may act as homonyms.
Ex. 2.
In
Carex
L., the epithet
Scirpinae was
used in the name of
an infrageneric taxon of no stated rank
by Tuckerman (Enum.
Meth. Caric.: 8. 1843);
this was assigned sectional rank by Kükenthal
(in Engler,
Pflanzenr. 38: 81. 1909) and
may be cited as
Carex sect.
Scirpinae (Tuck.) Kük.
(C. [unranked]
Scirpinae Tuck.).
35.3.
If in a given publication prior to 1 January
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.
48 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 48 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 35-36A |
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 con-
sidered as a whole,
and any statement made therein designating the rank of
taxa included in the work must be considered
as if it had been published
together
with the first instalment.
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 January 1935 must be
accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by a
reference to a pre-
viously and effectively
published Latin description or diagnosis (but see Art.
H.9).
Ex. 1.
Arabis “Sekt.
Brassicoturritis O. E. Schulz” and “Sekt.
Brassicarabis O. E. Schulz” (in Engler &
Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 17b: 543-544. 1936), published
with German but no Latin descriptions
or diagnoses,
are not validly published names.
Ex.
2.
“Schiedea gregoriana”
(Degener, Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119.
9 Apr 1936)
was
not accompanied
by a Latin
description or diagnosis, and
is
accordingly
not
a
validly published
name.
S. kealiae Caum &
Hosaka
(in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi
Bishop Mus. 11(23): 3.
10 Apr 1936), the type of
which
is part
of the material
used by Degener,
is provided with
a Latin description
and
is validly published.
Ex. 3.
Alyssum flahaultianum Emb.,
first published without a Latin description or diagnosis
(in Bull.
Soc. Hist. Nat. Maroc 15: 199. 1936),
was validly published posthumously
when a Latin translation of
Emberger’s
original French description was provided
(in Willdenowia 15: 62-63. 1985).
36.2.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae
published on or after 1 January 1958
must be accompanied by a Latin
description
or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously
and effectively pub-
lished Latin
description or diagnosis.
Ex. 4.
Although
Neoptilota Kylin (Gatt. Rhodophyc.: 392. 1956)
was accompanied by only a German
description,
it is a validly published name since it applies
to an alga and was published before 1958.
36.3.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of fossil plants
published
on or after 1 Jan 1996 must be accompanied by a Latin
or English
description or diagnosis or by a reference to
a previously and effectively pub-
lished
Latin or English description or diagnosis.
36A.1.
Authors publishing names of new taxa
of non-fossil plants should give or cite
a full
description in Latin
in addition to the diagnosis.
49 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 49 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
37-38 | Valid publication |
37.1.
Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name
of a new taxon of the
rank of genus or below
is valid only when the
type
of the name is indicated
(see Art.
7-10 but see Art. H.9
Note 1
for the names of certain hybrids).
37.2.
For the name of a new genus
or subdivision of a genus, reference
(direct
or indirect) to
one
species name only,
or the citation
of the holotype
or lecto-
type of one
previously or simultaneously
published species name only,
con-
stitutes
indication of the
type
(Art. 10
Note 1; see also Art.
22.5;
but see Art.
37.4).
37.3.
For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon,
citation of a single
element is acceptable
as indication of the holotype (but see Art. 37.4).
Mere
citation of a locality without concrete reference
to a specimen does not how-
ever
constitute indication of a holotype.
Citation of the collector’s name and/or
collecting number and/or date of collection
and/or reference to any other detail
of the type specimen or illustration is required.
37.4.
For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below
published on
or after 1 January 1990,
indication of the type must include one of the words
“typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation,
or its equivalent in a modern lan-
guage.
37.5.
For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon
published on or
after 1 January 1990
whose type is a specimen or unpublished illustration,
the
herbarium or institution in which the type
is conserved must be specified.
Note 1.
Specification of the herbarium or institution
may be made in an abbreviated form,
e.g. as given in
Index
herbariorum,
part I (Regnum Veg. 120).
37A.1.
The indication of the nomenclatural type
should immediately follow the description
or diagnosis
and should use the Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.
38.1.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of fossil plants of
specific
or lower rank published on or after 1 January 1912 must be
accompa-
nied 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
published illustration
or figure.
50 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 50 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 39-41 |
39.1.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae
of specific or lower rank published
on or after 1 January 1958
must be
accompanied by an illustration or figure
showing the distinctive morphological
features,
in addition to the Latin description or diagnosis,
or by a reference to a
previously
and effectively published illustration or figure.
39A.1.
The illustration or figure required by Art. 39
should be prepared from actual speci-
mens,
preferably including the holotype.
40.1.
In order to be validly published, names of hybrids
of specific or lower
rank with Latin epithets
must comply with the same rules as names of non-hy-
brid taxa of the same rank.
Ex. 1.
“Nepeta
×faassenii”
(Bergmans, Vaste Pl.
Rotsheesters,
ed. 2: 544. 1939,
with a description in
Dutch; Lawrence in Gentes Herb. 8: 64. 1949, with a diagnosis in English) is not validly published,
not
being accompanied by or associated
with a Latin description or diagnosis. The name
Nepeta
×faassenii
Bergmans ex Stearn (1950)
is validly published,
being accompanied by a Latin description.
Ex. 2.
“Rheum
×cultorum”
(Thorsrud & Reisaeter,
Norske Plantenavr.: 95. 1948),
being there a nomen
nudum,
is not validly published.
Ex. 3.
“Fumaria salmonii”
(Druce, List Brit. Pl.: 4. 1908)
is not validly published, because only
the
presumed parentage
F. densiflora ×
F. officinalis is stated.
Note 1. For names of hybrids of the rank of genus or subdivision of a genus, see Art. H.9.
41.1.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a family
or subdivision of a
family
must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis of the taxon, or
(b) by a reference (direct or indirect)
to a previously and effectively published
description
or diagnosis of a family or subdivision of a family.
Ex. 1.
“Pseudoditrichaceae fam. nov.” (Steere
& Iwatsuki
in Canad. J. Bot. 52: 701. 1974)
was not
a
validly published
name of a family as there was no Latin
description
or diagnosis
nor reference to
either, but only mention of the single included genus
and species (see Art.
34.1(d)),
“Pseudoditrichum
mirabile gen. et sp. nov.”,
for both of which the name was validated under Art.
42
by a single Latin
diagnosis.
41.2.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a genus
or subdivision of a
genus
must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis
of the taxon (but
see Art.
42), or
(b) by a reference (direct or indirect)
to a previously and
effectively published description
or diagnosis of a genus or subdivision of a
genus.
51 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 51 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
41-42 | Valid publication |
Ex. 2.
Validly published generic names:
Carphalea
Juss.,
accompanied by a generic description;
Thus-
peinanta T. Durand,
replacing the name of
the previously described genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss.
ex
Benth. (non Herb.);
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch, based on
the name of
a previously described section,
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.;
Scirpoides
Ség.
(Pl. Veron. Suppl.: 73. 1754), accepted there but
without a generic description
or diagnosis,
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. 41.2 is made
for the generic names first published
by Linnaeus
in
Species
plantarum, ed. 1 (1753)
and ed. 2 (1762-1763),
which are treated as having been
validly published on those dates (see Art.
13.4).
Note 2.
In certain circumstances,
an illustration with analysis is accepted
as equivalent to a
generic description
or diagnosis (see Art.
42.3).
41.3.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a species
or infraspecific
taxon must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis of the
taxon (but
see Art.
42 and
44), or
(b) by a reference to a previously
and effectively
published description
or diagnosis of a species or infraspecific taxon. A name
of a species
may also be validly
published
(c), under certain circumstances,
by
reference to a genus whose name was previously
and validly published simul-
taneously
with its description or diagnosis.
A reference as mentioned under (c)
is acceptable only
if neither the author of the name of the genus
nor the author
of the name of the species
indicate that more than one species belongs
to the
genus in question.
Ex. 3.
Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated
by a generic description but without mention of a
name of a species.
T. madagascariense DC. (1828)
was subsequently proposed without a description
or
diagnosis of the species.
Neither author gave any indication that there was more
than one species in the
genus.
Candolle’s specific name
is therefore validly published.
42.1.
The names of a genus and a species
may be simultaneously validated
by
provision of a single description
(descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis,
even though this may have been intended
as only generic or specific,
if all of
the following conditions obtain:
(a) the genus is at that time monotypic;
(b) no
other names (at any rank)
have previously been validly published
based on the
same type; and
(c) the names of the genus and species
otherwise fulfil the
requirements for valid publication.
Reference to an earlier description or diag-
nosis is not accepted as provision
of such a description or diagnosis.
Ex. 1.
Nylander (1879) described the new species
“Anema nummulariellum” in a new genus
“Anema”
without providing a generic description
or diagnosis. Since at the same time he also transferred
Ompha-
laria nummularia Durieu & Mont. to
“Anema”, none of his names were validly published.
They were
later validated by Forsell (1885).
42.2.
For
the purpose of Art. 42,
a monotypic genus is one for which a single
binomial
is validly published, even though the author may indicate
that other
species are attributable to the genus.
52 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 52 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 42-43 |
Ex.
2.
The names
Kedarnatha
P. K. Mukh. & Constance
(1986) and
K. sanctuarii
P. K. Mukh. &
Constance,
the latter designating the only species in the new genus,
are both validly published although
a Latin description
is provided only under the generic name.
Ex.
3.
Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth. (1840)
was a new species
assigned to the monotypic new genus
Piptolepis published
with a combined generic and specific description, and both names are
validly
published.
Ex.
4.
In publishing
“Phaelypea”
without a generic description
or diagnosis,
P. Browne (Civ. Nat.
Hist. Jamaica: 269. 1756)
included and described a single species,
but he gave the species a phrase-
name
and did not provide a valid binomial.
Art. 42 does not therefore apply and
“Phaelypea”
is not a
validly published name.
42.3.
Prior to 1 January 1908
an illustration with analysis,
or for non-vascular
plants a single figure
showing details aiding identification, is acceptable,
for
the purpose of this Article,
in place of a written description or diagnosis.
42.4.
For the purpose of
Art. 42, an analysis is a figure
or group of figures,
commonly separate
from the main illustration of the plant
(though usually on
the same page or plate),
showing details aiding identification,
with or without a
separate caption.
Ex.
5.
The generic name
Philgamia Baill. (1894)
was validly published,
as it appeared on a plate with
analysis
of the only included species,
P. hibbertioides Baill.,
and was published before 1 January 1908.
43.1.
A name of a taxon below the rank of genus
is not validly published
unless the name of the genus or species
to which it is assigned is validly
published
at the same time or was validly published previously.
Ex. 1.
Binary designations for six species of
“Suaeda”, including
“S. baccata” and
“S. vera”,
were
published with descriptions and diagnoses
by Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 69-71. 1775),
but he pro-
vided no description
or diagnosis for the genus: these were
not therefore validly published
names.
Ex. 2.
Müller
(in Flora 63: 286. 1880)
published the new genus
“Phlyctidia” with the species
“P.
hampeana n. sp.”,
“P. boliviensis”
(= Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.),
“P. sorediiformis”
(= Phlyctis sore-
diiformis Kremp.),
“P. brasiliensis”
(= Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and
“P. andensis”
(= Phlyctis an-
densis Nyl.). These
were
not,
however, validly published
specific names in this place,
because the
intended generic name
“Phlyctidia” was not validly published;
Müller gave no generic description or
diagnosis
but only a description and a diagnosis of the new species
“P. hampeana”.
This description
and diagnosis
did not validate
the generic name as a descriptio generico-specifica
under Art.
42
since
the new genus was not monotypic.
Valid publication of the name
Phlyctidia was by Müller (1895),
who
provided a short generic diagnosis
and explicitly included
only
two
species,
P. ludoviciensis
Müll. Arg.
and
P. boliviensis (Nyl.)
Müll. Arg. The latter
names were
validly published in 1895.
Note 1.
This Article applies also when specific
and other epithets are published under words
not to be regarded as generic names (see Art.
20.4).
Ex. 3.
The binary
designation
“Anonymos aquatica”
(Walter, Fl. Carol.: 230. 1788)
is not a validly
published
name.
The correct name for the species concerned is
Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel. (1791),
and the date of the name, for purposes of priority, is 1791.
The name must not be cited as
“P.
aquatica
(Walter) J. F. Gmel.”
Ex. 4.
Despite the existence
of the generic name
Scirpoides Ség.
(1754),
the binary
designation
“S.
paradoxus”
(Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.: 27. 1772)
is not validly published since
“Scirpoides” in
Rott-
bøll’s context
was a word
not intended as a generic name.
The first validly published name
for this
species is
Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).
53 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 53 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
44-45 | Valid publication |
44.1.
The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon
published before 1
January 1908
is validly published if it is accompanied
only by an illustration
with analysis
(as defined in Art.
42.4).
Ex. 1. Panax nossibiensis Drake (1896) was validly published on a plate with analysis.
44.2.
Single figures of non-vascular plants
showing details aiding identifica-
tion
are considered as illustrations with analysis
(see also Art.
42.4).
Ex. 2.
Eunotia gibbosa Grunow (1881),
a name of a diatom, was validly published
by provision of a
figure of a single valve.
45.1.
The date of a name is that of its valid publication.
When the various
conditions for valid publication
are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is that
on which the last is fulfilled.
However, the name must always be explicitly
accepted in the place of its validation.
A name published on or after 1 January
1973
for which the various conditions for valid publication
are not simulta-
neously fulfilled
is not validly published unless a full
and direct reference (Art.
33.2)
is given to the places where these requirements
were previously fulfilled.
Ex. 1.
“Clypeola minor” first appeared
in the Linnaean thesis
Flora
monspeliensis (1756),
in a list of
names preceded by numerals
but without an explanation of the meaning
of these numerals and without
any other descriptive matter;
when the thesis was reprinted in vol. 4 of the
Amoenitates
academicae
(1759),
a statement was added explaining
that the numbers referred to earlier descriptions
published in
Magnol’s
Botanicon
monspeliense.
However,
“Clypeola minor” was absent
from the reprint, being no
longer accepted
by Linnaeus, and the name
was not therefore
validly published.
Ex. 2.
When proposing
“Graphis meridionalis” as a new species,
Nakanishi
(in
J. Sci. Hiroshima
Univ., ser. B(2), 11: 75.
1966) provided a Latin
description but failed to designate a holotype.
G.
meridionalis Nakan. was validly published in 1967
(in J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ.,
ser. B(2), 11: 265) when
he designated
the holotype of the name and provided a full
and direct reference to the previous
publication.
45.2.
After 1 January 2000,
when one or more of the other conditions
for valid
publication
have not been met prior to registration,
the name must be resub-
mitted for registration
after these conditions have been met.
45.3.
A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art.
32.6
and
60)
does not affect its date of valid publication.
Ex. 3.
The correction of the orthographical error in
Gluta
“benghas”
(Linnaeus, Mant.: 293. 1771) to
Gluta renghas L. does not affect
the date of publication of the name
even though the correction dates
only from 1883
(Engler in
Candolle &
Candolle,
Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).
45.4.
For purposes of priority only legitimate names
are taken into consider-
ation (see Art.
11,
52-54).
However, validly published earlier homonyms,
whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection
of their later homonyms, unless
the latter
are conserved or sanctioned (but see Art.
15
Note 1).
54 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 54 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 45-45C |
45.5.
If a taxon originally assigned to a group
not covered by this
Code
is
treated as belonging to
a group of plants other than algae,
the authorship and
date of any of its names
are determined by the first publication that satisfies
the
requirements for valid publication under this
Code.
If the taxon is treated as
belonging to the algae,
any of its names need satisfy only the requirements
of
the pertinent non-botanical
Code for status
equivalent to valid publication
under the present
Code
(but see Art.
54,
regarding homonymy).
Ex. 4.
Amphiprora Ehrenb. (1843) is an available¹ name
for a genus of animals first treated as belong-
ing
to the algae by Kützing (1844).
Amphiprora has priority in botanical nomenclature from 1843,
not
1844.
Ex. 5.
Petalodinium
Cachon &
Cachon-Enj.
(in
Protistologia 5: 16. 1969) is available under the
Inter-
national
code of
zoological
nomenclature
as the name of a genus of dinoflagellates.
When the taxon is
treated as belonging to the algae,
its name retains its original authorship and date
even though the
original publication
lacked a Latin diagnosis.
Ex. 6.
Labyrinthodyction Valkanov
(in
Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969),
although available under the
International
code of
zoological
nomenclature as the name
of a genus of rhizopods, is not valid when
the taxon
is treated as belonging to the fungi because the original
publication lacked a Latin diagnosis.
Ex. 7.
Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy
(in
Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921,
“Protodiniferidae”),
available under the
International
code of
zoological
nomenclature,
is validly published as a name of a
family of algae with its original authorship
and date but with the
original termination
changed
in
accordance with Art.
18.4 and
32.6.
45A.1.
Authors using new names in works
(floras, catalogues,
etc.)
written in a modern
language
should simultaneously comply
with the requirements of valid publication.
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.
45C.1.
On separately printed and issued copies of works
published in a periodical, the name
of the periodical,
the number of its volume or parts, the original pagination,
and the date
(year, month, and day) should be indicated.
______________
¹
The word “available” in the
International
code of
zoological
nomenclature
is equivalent to “validly
published” in the
present
Code.
55 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 55 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
46 | Citation |
SECTION 3. CITATION OF AUTHORS’ NAMES FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION
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 validly published the name concerned
unless the
provisions for autonyms apply (Art.
22.1 and
26.1).
Ex. 1.
Rosaceae
Juss.,
Rosa L.,
Rosa gallica L.,
Rosa gallica var.
eriostyla R. Keller,
Rosa gallica L.
var.
gallica.
46.2.
A
name of a
new
taxon
must be attributed to the
author or authors to
whom both the name and
the validating
description or diagnosis
were ascribed,
even when authorship of the publication is different.
A new combination or a
nomen novum
must be attributed
to the author or authors
to whom it was
ascribed when,
in the publication
in which it appears,
it is explicitly stated
that
they contributed in some way
to that publication.
Art. 46.4 notwithstanding,
authorship of a new name
or combination
must always be accepted
as ascribed,
even when it differs
from authorship
of the publication,
when at least one
author is common
to both.
Ex. 2.
The name
Viburnum ternatum
was published in Sargent
(Trees
& Shrubs 2: 37. 1907). It was
ascribed to “Rehd.”,
and the whole account of the species
was signed “Alfred Rehder”
at the foot of the
article. The name is
therefore cited as
V. ternatum Rehder.
Ex. 3.
In a paper by Hilliard & Burtt (1986)
names of new species of
Schoenoxiphium,
including
S.
altum,
were ascribed to Kukkonen, preceded by a statement
“The following diagnostic descriptions of
new species
have been supplied by Dr. I. Kukkonen
in order to make the names available for use”.
The
name is therefore cited as
S. altum Kukkonen.
Ex. 4.
In Torrey & Gray (1838) the names
Calyptridium and
C. monandrum were ascribed to “Nutt.
mss.”,
and the descriptions were enclosed in double quotes
indicating that Nuttall wrote them,
as
acknowledged in the preface.
The names are therefore cited as
Calyptridium Nutt. and
C. monandrum
Nutt.
Ex. 5.
The name
Brachystelma was published by Sims (1822)
who by implication ascribed it to Brown
and added “Brown, Mscr.” at the end of the generic
diagnosis, indicating that Brown wrote it.
The name
is therefore cited as
Brachystelma R. Br.
Ex. 6.
Green (1985) ascribed the new combination
Neotysonia phyllostegia to Paul G. Wilson
and
elsewhere in the same publication acknowledged
his assistance. The name is therefore cited as
N.
phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul G. Wilson.
Ex. 7.
The authorship of
Steyerbromelia discolor L. B. Sm. & H. Rob. (1984)
is accepted as originally
ascribed,
although the new species was described
in a paper authored by Smith alone.
The same applies
to the new combination
Sophora tomentosa subsp.
occidentalis (L.) Brummitt
(in Kirkia 5: 265. 1966),
thus ascribed,
published in a paper authored
jointly by Brummitt & Gillett.
Note 1.
When
authorship of a name
differs from
authorship of the
publication in which
it
was validly published,
both are sometimes
cited, connected by the word “in”. In such a case,
“in” and what follows
are part of a bibliographic citation
and are better omitted
unless the
place of publication
is being cited.
56 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 56 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Citation | 46 |
46.3.
For the purposes of this Article,
ascription is the direct association of the
name of a person or persons with a new name
or description or diagnosis of a
taxon.
Mention of an author’s name in a list of synonyms
is not ascription, nor
is reference to a basionym
or a replaced synonym, including bibliographic
errors,
nor is reference to a homonym, nor is a formal error.
Ex. 8.
Hypnum crassinervium Wilson (1833)
was not ascribed to Taylor by Wilson’s citing
“Hypnum
crassinervium Dr. Taylor’s MS”
in the list of synonyms.
Ex. 9.
Lichen debilis
Sm. (1812)
was
not
ascribed to
Turner
and
Borrer
by Smith’s
citing
“Calicium
debile Turn. and Borr. Mss.”
as a synonym.
Ex. 10.
When
Opiz (1852)
wrote
“Hemisphace Bentham”
he did not ascribe the generic name to
Bentham but provided an
indirect
reference to the basionym,
Salvia sect.
Hemisphace Benth.
(see Art.
32
Ex. 5).
Ex. 11.
When Brotherus (1907) published
“Dichelodontium nitidulum Hooker & Wilson”
he provided
an indirect reference to the basionym,
Leucodon nitidulus Hook. f. & Wilson,
and did not ascribe the
new combination
to Hooker and Wilson. He did, however, ascribe to them
the simultaneously published
name of his new genus,
Dichelodontium.
Ex. 12.
When
Sirodot (1872) wrote
“Lemanea Bory”
he in fact published a later homonym (see Art. 48
Ex. 1).
His reference to Bory
is not therefore ascription of the later homonym,
Lemanea Sirodot, to
Bory.
46.4.
A name
of a new taxon must
be attributed to the author
or authors of the
publication
in which it appears
when only the name
but not the validating
description or diagnosis was
ascribed
to
a different author
or different authors.
A new combination or a
nomen novum
must be attributed
to the author or
authors of the
publication in which
it appears, although
it was ascribed to a
different author
or to different authors,
when no separate statement
was made
that they contributed
in some way to that publication.
However, in both cases
authorship as
ascribed,
followed by “ex”,
may be inserted before the name(s)
of the
publishing author(s).
Ex.
13.
Seemann (1865) published
Gossypium
tomentosum
“Nutt. mss.”,
followed by a validating
description
not ascribed to Nuttall; the name may be cited as
Gossypium tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or
G. tomentosum Seem.
Ex. 14.
The name
Lithocarpus
polystachyus
published by
Rehder (1919)
was based on
Quercus poly-
stachya A. DC. (1864),
ascribed by Candolle to “Wall.! list n. 2789”
but formerly a
nomen nudum;
Rehder’s combination may be cited as
L. polystachyus
(Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder
or
L. polystachyus
(A.
DC.) Rehder.
Ex. 15.
Lilium tianschanicum was described
by Grubov (1977) as a new species
and its name was
ascribed to Ivanova;
since there is no indication
that Ivanova provided the validating description,
the
name may be cited as
L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or
L. tianschanicum Grubov.
Ex. 16.
In a paper by Boufford, Tsi and Wang (1990) the name
Rubus fanjingshanensis was ascribed to
Lu
with no indication that he provided the description;
the name should be attributed to Boufford & al.
or to L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al.
Ex. 17.
Green (1985) ascribed the new combination
Tersonia cyathiflora to “(Fenzl) A. S. George”;
since Green nowhere mentioned that George had contributed
in any way, the combining author must be
cited
as A. S. George ex J. W. Green or just J. W. Green.
46.5.
The citation
of
an author
who published
the name
before
the starting
point of the group
concerned
may be
indicated
by
the use of
the word “ex”. For
groups with
a starting point
later than 1753,
when a pre-starting
point name
57 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 57 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
46-46A | Citation |
was changed in rank
or taxonomic position
by the first author
who validly
published it,
the name of the
pre-starting point
author may be added
in paren-
theses,
followed by “ex”.
Ex.
18.
Linnaeus (1754)
ascribed the name
Lupinus
to the pre-starting-point
author Tournefort; the
name may be cited as
Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (1753)
or
Lupinus L.
Ex. 19.
Lyngbya glutinosa C. Agardh
(Syst. Alg.: 73. 1824)
was taken up by Gomont in the publication
which marks the starting point of the
“Nostocaceae heterocysteae”
(in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15:
339. 1892) as
Hydrocoleum glutinosum. This may be cited as
H. glutinosum (C. Agardh) ex Gomont.
46.6.
In determining the correct author citation,
only internal evidence in the
publication
(as defined in Art.
35.4)
where the name was validly published is to
be accepted, including ascription of the name,
statements in the introduction,
title,
or acknowledgements, and typographical
or stylistic distinctions in the
text.
Ex. 20.
Names first published in Britton & Brown’s
Illustrated flora of the northern United States
(1896-1898; ed. 2, 1913) must,
unless ascribed to Britton alone (see Art. 46.2),
be attributed to “Britton
& A. Br.”,
since the title page attributes the whole work to both,
even though it is generally accepted
that A. Brown
did not participate in writing it.
Ex. 21.
Although the descriptions in Aiton’s
Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally considered
to have
been written by Solander or Dryander,
the names of new taxa published there must be attributed
to
Aiton, the stated author of the work, except
where a name and description were both ascribed
in that
work to somebody else.
Ex. 22.
The name
Andreaea angustata was published
in a work of Limpricht (1885) with the ascription
“nov. sp. Lindb. in litt. ad Breidler 1884”,
but there is no internal evidence that Lindberg
had supplied
the validating description.
Authorship is therefore to be cited
as “Limpr.” or “Lindb. ex Limpr.”
Note 2.
Authors publishing new names and wishing to establish
that other persons’ names
followed by “ex”
may precede theirs in authorship citation
may adopt the “ex” citation in
the protologue.
Ex. 23.
In validating the name
Nothotsuga, Page (1989) cited it as
“Nothotsuga H.-H. Hu ex C. N.
Page”,
noting that in 1951 Hu had published it as a
nomen nudum; the name may be attributed to
Hu ex
C. N. Page or just C. N. Page.
Ex. 24.
Atwood (1981) ascribed the name of a new species,
Maxillaria mombachoënsis,
to “Heller ex
Atwood”, with a note stating
that it was originally named by Heller, then deceased;
the name may be
attributed to
A. H. Heller ex J. T. Atwood
or just J. T. Atwood.
46A.1.
Authors’ names
placed after names of plants
may be abbreviated, unless they are
very short.
For this purpose, particles should be suppressed
unless they are an inseparable
part of the name, and
the first letters should be given without any omission
(Lam. for J. B.
P. A. Monet Chevalier de Lamarck,
but De Wild. for E. De Wildeman).
46A.2.
If a name of one syllable is long enough
to make it worthwhile to abridge it,
the first
consonants only
should be 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 should be 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
beginning with the same syllable,
the same system should be followed. For instance,
two
syllables should be given together
with the one or two first consonants of the third;
or one of
58 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 58 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Citation | 46A-46D |
the last characteristic consonants of the name
be 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
should be abridged in the same way
(A. Juss.
for Adrien de Jussieu,
Burm. f. for
Burman filius,
J. F. Gmel.
for Johann Friedrich Gmelin,
J. G. Gmel.
for Johann Georg
Gmelin,
C. C. Gmel.
for Carl Christian Gmelin,
S. G. Gmel.
for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin,
Müll. Arg. for Jean Müller of Aargau).
46A.5.
When it is a well-established custom to abridge
a name in another manner,
it is
advisable to conform to it
(L. for Linnaeus,
DC. for Augustin Pyramus de Candolle,
St.-Hil.
for Saint-Hilaire,
R. Br. for Robert Brown).
Note 1.
Brummitt & Powell’s
Authors of plant names (1992)
provides unambiguous stand-
ard abbreviations,
in conformity with the present Recommendation,
for a large number of
authors of plant names,
and these abbreviations have been used
for author citations through-
out the present
Code.
46B.1.
In citing the author of the scientific name
of a taxon, the romanization of the
author’s name
given in the original publication should normally
be accepted. Where an
author failed to give a
romanization, or where an author has at different
times used different
romanizations,
then the romanization known to be preferred by the author
or that most
frequently adopted by the author
should be accepted. In the absence of such information
the
author’s name should be romanized
in accordance with
an internationally available standard.
46B.2.
Authors of scientific names whose personal names
are not written in Roman letters
should romanize their names, preferably (but not necessarily)
in accordance with an interna-
tionally available
standard and, as a matter of typographical convenience,
without diacritical
signs. Once authors have selected
the romanization of their personal names,
they should use
it consistently thereafter.
Whenever possible, authors should not permit editors
or publishers
to change the romanization
of their personal names.
46C.1.
After
a name published jointly
by two authors, the names of both
authors
should be
cited, linked by the word “et”
or by an ampersand (&).
Ex. 1. Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et Wilson (or Britton & Wilson).
46C.2.
After
a name published jointly
by more than two authors,
the citation should be
restricted to
the name of the first
author followed by “et al.”
or “& al.”, except in the
original publication.
Ex. 2.
Lapeirousia erythrantha var.
welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck, Lisowski, Malaisse & Symoens
(in
Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot.
Belgique 105: 336. 1972) should be cited as
L. erythrantha var.
welwitschii
(Baker) Geerinck & al.
46D.1.
Authors should cite their own names after each new name
they publish
rather than
refer to themselves
by expressions such as “nobis”
(nob.) or
“mihi”
(m.).
59 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 59 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
47-48 | Citation |
47.1.
An alteration of the diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of a
taxon
without the exclusion of the type
does not warrant
a change of
author
citation
for the
name
of the taxon.
Ex. 1.
When the original material
of
Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (1887)
is attributed to
two
different
species, as by Munz
(1932),
that species
not including
the lectotype must bear
a different
name
(A.
shockleyi Munz) but the
other one
is still named
A. beckwithii
S. Watson.
Ex. 2.
Myosotis
as revised by
Brown differs from the
genus
as
originally circumscribed by Linnaeus,
but the generic name
remains
Myosotis L. since the type of
the name is still
included in the genus
(it
may be cited as
Myosotis L. emend. R. Br.:
see Rec. 47A).
Ex. 3.
The
variously defined
species
that includes the types of
Centaurea jacea L.
(1753),
C. amara L.
(1763)
and a variable number
of other species names
is still called
C. jacea L.
(or
L. emend. Coss. &
Germ.,
L. emend. Vis., or
L. emend. Godr., as the case may be:
see Rec. 47A).
47A.1.
When an alteration as mentioned in Art. 47
has been considerable, the nature of the
change
may be indicated by adding such words,
abbreviated where suitable, as “emendavit”
(emend.)
(followed by the name of the author responsible
for the change), “mutatis charac-
teribus”
(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 lato”
(s. l.), “sensu stricto”
(s.
str.), etc.
Ex. 1. Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.; Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).
48.1.
When an author adopts an existing name but
definitely excludes
its
original type, a later homonym
that must be attributed solely to that author
is
considered to have been published.
Similarly, when an author who adopts a
name
refers to an apparent basionym
but explicitly excludes its type,
a new
name is considered to have been published
that must be attributed solely to that
author.
Exclusion can be effected by simultaneous explicit
inclusion of the type
in a different taxon
by the same author (see also Art.
59.6).
Ex. 1.
Sirodot (1872) placed the type of
Lemanea Bory (1808) in
Sacheria Sirodot (1872); hence
Lemanea, as treated by Sirodot (1872), is to be cited as
Lemanea Sirodot non Bory and not as
Lemanea
Bory emend. Sirodot.
Ex. 2.
The name
Amorphophallus campanulatus
Decne.
(1834)
was apparently based on
the illegitim-
ate
Arum campanulatum Roxb.
(1819).
However, the type of the latter was explicitly
excluded by
Decaisne, and
his name is
therefore a legitimate name
of a new species,
to be attributed solely
to him.
Ex. 3.
Cenomyce ecmocyna Ach. (1810) is a superfluous name for
Lichen gracilis L. (1753), and so is
Scyphophora ecmocyna Gray (1821), the type of
L. gracilis still being included.
However, when
proposing the combination
Cladonia ecmocyna, Leighton (1866)
explicitly excluded that type and
thereby published a new, legitimate name,
Cladonia ecmocyna Leight.
60 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 60 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Citation | 48-50 |
Note 1.
Misapplication of a new combination
to a different taxon, but without explicit
exclusion of the type of the basionym,
is dealt with under Art.
7.4.
Note 2.
Retention of a name in a sense that excludes
its original type, or its type designated
under Art.
7-10,
can be effected only by conservation (see Art.
14.9).
49.1.
When a genus or a taxon of lower rank
is altered in rank but retains its
name or
the final epithet
in its name,
the author of the earlier,
name-
or
epithet-bringing
legitimate name (the author of the basionym)
must be cited in
parentheses, followed by the name
of the author who effected the alteration
(the author of the new name).
The same holds when a taxon of lower rank
than
genus is transferred to another genus or species,
with or without alteration of
rank.
Ex. 1.
Medicago polymorpha var.
orbicularis L.
(1753)
when raised to the rank of species becomes
M.
orbicularis (L.) Bartal.
(1776).
Ex. 2.
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.
(1825)
raised to generic rank,
retaining the epithet
Aspala-
thoides as its name, is cited as
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch
(1853).
Ex. 3.
Cineraria sect.
Eriopappus Dumort. (Fl. Belg.: 65. 1827)
when transferred to
Tephroseris
(Rchb.)
Rchb. is cited as
T. sect.
Eriopappus (Dumort.) Holub
(in
Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 8: 173.
1973).
Ex. 4.
Cistus aegyptiacus L.
(1753) when transferred to
Helianthemum Mill. is cited as
H. aegyptiacum
(L.) Mill. (1768).
Ex. 5.
Fumaria bulbosa var.
solida L. (1753) was elevated to specific rank as
F. solida (L.) Mill.
(1771).
The name of this species when transferred to
Corydalis DC. is to be cited as
C. solida (L.)
Clairv. (1811), not
C. solida (Mill.) Clairv.
Ex. 6.
However,
Pulsatilla montana var.
serbica W. Zimm.
(in Feddes Repert.
Spec. Nov. Regni Veg.
61: 95. 1958),
originally placed under
P. montana subsp.
australis (Heuff.) Zämelis,
retains the same
author citation when placed under
P. montana subsp.
dacica Rummelsp. (see Art.
24.1)
and is not cited
as var.
serbica
“(W. Zimm.) Rummelsp.”
(in Feddes Repert. 71: 29. 1965).
Ex. 7.
Salix subsect.
Myrtilloides C.
K. Schneid.
(Ill. Handb. Laubholzk. 1: 63. 1904),
originally placed
under
S. sect.
Argenteae
W. D. J. Koch,
retains the same author citation when placed under
S. sect.
Glaucae Pax and is not cited as
S. subsect.
Myrtilloides
“(C.
K. Schneid.) Dorn”
(in
Canad. J. Bot. 54:
2777. 1976).
Note 1.
Art.
46.5
provides for the use of parenthetical author citations
preceding the word
“ex”, after some names in groups
with a starting point later than 1753.
50.1.
When a taxon at the rank of species or below
is transferred from the
non-hybrid category
to the hybrid category of the same rank (Art.
H.10.2),
or
vice versa, the author citation remains unchanged
but may be followed by
an indication
in parentheses of the original category.
Ex. 1.
Stachys ambigua Sm. (1809)
was published as the name of a species. If regarded
as applying to a
hybrid, it may be cited as
Stachys
×ambigua Sm. (pro sp.).
61 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 61 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
50-50D | Citation |
Ex. 2.
The binary name
Salix
×glaucops Andersson
(1868) was published
as the name of a hybrid.
Later, Rydberg
(in
Bull. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899)
considered the taxon to be a species.
If this
view is accepted, the name may be cited as
Salix glaucops Andersson (pro hybr.).
SECTION 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION
50A.1.
In the citation of a name invalidly published
as a synonym, the words “as synonym”
or “pro syn.” should be added.
50B.1.
In the citation of a nomen nudum,
its status should be indicated by adding
the words
“nomen nudum” or “nom. nud.”
Ex. 1.
“Carex bebbii”
(Olney, Car. Bor.-Am. 2: 12. 1871),
published without a
description
or diag-
nosis, should be cited as
Carex bebbii Olney, nomen nudum
(or nom. nud.).
50C.1.
The citation of a later homonym should be followed
by the name of the author of the
earlier homonym
preceded by the word “non”, preferably with the date
of publication
added. In some instances it will
be advisable to cite also any other homonyms,
preceded by
the word “nec”.
Ex. 1.
Ulmus racemosa Thomas
in
Amer. J. Sci. Arts 19: 170.
1831, non Borkh. 1800;
Lindera Thunb.,
Nov. Gen. Pl.: 64.
1783, non Adans. 1763;
Bartlingia Brongn.
in
Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 10: 373.
1827,
non
Rchb. 1824
nec F. Muell. 1882.
50D.1.
Misidentifications should not be included
in synonymies but added after them.
A
misapplied name should be indicated
by the words “auct. non” followed by the name of the
original author and the bibliographic reference
of the misidentification.
Ex. 1.
Ficus stortophylla Warb.
in
Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, B, Bot., ser. 4, 1: 32.
1904.
F. irumuënsis
De Wild., Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341.
1922.
F. exasperata auct. non Vahl: De Wildeman &
Durand
in
Ann.
Mus. Congo Belge, B, Bot., ser. 2, 1: 54.
1899; De Wildeman,
Miss. Em. Laurent: 26.
1905;
Durand &
Durand,
Syll. Fl. Congol.: 505.
1909.
62 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 62 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Citation | 50E-50F |
50E.1.
If a generic or specific name is accepted as a
nomen conservandum
(see Art.
14 and
App. III)
the abbreviation
“nom. cons.”
should be added in a full citation.
Ex. 1.
Protea L., Mant. Pl.: 187.
1771,
nom. cons., non L. 1753;
Combretum Loefl. (1758),
nom. cons.
[=
Grislea L. 1753].
50E.2.
If it is desirable to indicate
the sanctioned status of the names of fungi
adopted by
Persoon or Fries (see Art.
13.1(d)),
“: Pers.” or “: Fr.” should be added to the citation.
Ex. 2.
Boletus piperatus Bull.
(Herb. France: t. 451,
f. 2. 1790)
was accepted in Fries
(Syst. Mycol. 1:
388. 1821)
and was thereby sanctioned.
It may thus be cited as
B.
piperatus
Bull. : Fr.
50F.1.
If a name is cited with alterations from the form
as originally published, it is
desirable
that in full citations the exact original form
should be added, preferably between
single
or double quotation marks.
Ex. 1.
Pyrus calleryana Decne.
(P. mairei H. Lév. in
Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12: 189. 1913,
“Pirus”).
Ex. 2.
Zanthoxylum cribrosum Spreng., Syst. Veg. 1: 946.
1825,
“Xanthoxylon”.
(Z. caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray
in
Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 23: 225. 1888,
“Xanthoxylum”).
Ex. 3. Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson in Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496. 1967, “solomonensis”.
63 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 63 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
51-52 | Rejection |
51.1.
A
legitimate name
must not be rejected merely because it,
or
its
epithet,
is inappropriate or disagreeable,
or because another is preferable or better
known
(but see Art.
56.1),
or because it has lost its original meaning, or
(in
pleomorphic fungi with names governed by Art.
59)
because the generic name
does not accord
with the morph represented by its type.
Ex.
1.
The following changes are contrary to the rule:
Staphylea to
Staphylis, Tamus to
Thamnos,
Thamnus, or
Tamnus, Mentha to
Minthe, Tillaea to
Tillia, Vincetoxicum to
Alexitoxicum; and
Oroban-
che rapum to
O. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae to
O. columbarihaerens, O. artemisiae to
O.
artemisiepiphyta.
Ex.
2.
Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825)
is not to be changed to
A. pentagona A. DC. (1834),
although the specific epithet
quinquegona is a hybrid word
(Latin and Greek) (contrary to Rec.
23A.3(c)).
Ex.
3.
The name
Scilla peruviana L.
(1753)
is not to be rejected merely
because the species does not
grow in Peru.
Ex.
4.
The name
Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.) Litv.
(1911), based on
Polycnemum oppositifolium
Pall. (1771),
is not to be rejected merely because the species
has leaves only partly opposite, and partly
alternate,
although there is another closely related species,
Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge,
hav-
ing all its leaves opposite.
Ex.
5.
Richardia L.
(1753) is not to be changed to
Richardsonia, as was done by Kunth
(1818),
although the name was originally dedicated
to the British botanist, Richardson.
52.1.
A name, unless conserved (Art.
14)
or sanctioned
(Art.
15),
is illegiti-
mate and is to be rejected
if it was nomenclaturally superfluous
when pub-
lished,
i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied,
as circumscribed by its author,
definitely included the
type
(as qualified
in Art. 52.2)
of a name which ought to
have been adopted,
or whose epithet ought to have been adopted,
under the
rules (but see Art.
52.3).
52.2.
For the purpose of Art. 52.1,
definite
inclusion of
the
type
of a name
is
effected by
citation
(a) of
the holotype under Art.
9.1
or the original type under
Art.
10
or all syntypes under Art.
9.4
or all elements eligible as types under
Art.
10.2; or
(b) of
the previously designated
type under Art.
9.9 or
10.2; or
(c)
64 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 64 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 52 |
of the illustrations of these.
It is also effected
(d) by citation
of the name itself,
unless the type
is at the same time excluded either explicitly
or by implication.
Ex.
1.
The generic name
Cainito Adans. (1763)
is illegitimate because it was
a superfluous name for
Chrysophyllum L. (1753),
which Adanson cited as a synonym.
Ex.
2.
Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb. (1796)
is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for
C. cainito
L. (1753),
which Salisbury cited as a synonym.
Ex.
3.
On the other hand,
Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (1796)
is legitimate, being explicitly based upon
S.
myrsinites of Hoffmann
(Hist. Salic. Ill.: 71. 1787),
a misapplication of the name
S. myrsinites L.
(1753).
Ex.
4.
Picea excelsa Link
(1841)
is illegitimate because it is based on
Pinus excelsa Lam. (1778),
a
superfluous name for
Pinus abies L. (1753). Under
Picea the correct name is
Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.
(1881).
Ex.
5.
On the other hand,
Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill. are not illegitimate
names, although
Miller’s species are now united
with the species previously named
C. behen L. (1753):
C. latifolius and
C. angustifolius as circumscribed by Miller
(1768)
did not include the type of
C. behen
L.,
which name he adopted for another species.
Ex. 6.
Explicit exclusion of type: When publishing the name
Galium tricornutum, Dandy
(in Watsonia
4: 47. 1957)
cited
G. tricorne Stokes (1787) pro parte
as a synonym, but explicitly excluded
the type of
the latter name.
Ex. 7.
Exclusion of type by implication:
Cedrus Duhamel (1755)
is a legitimate name even though
Juniperus L.
(1753)
was cited as a synonym; only
some of
Linnaeus’s species of
Juniperus were
included in
Cedrus by Duhamel,
and the differences between the two genera were discussed,
Juniperus
(including the type of its name)
being recognized in the same work as an independent genus.
Ex. 8.
Exclusion of type
by implication:
Tmesipteris elongata
P. A. Dang.
(in Botaniste 2: 213. 1891)
was published as a new species but
Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited as a synonym.
However, on the
following page,
T. truncata (R. Br.) Desv.
is recognized as a different species and
two pages later both
are distinguished in a key,
thus showing that the meaning of the cited synonym
was either
“P. trunca-
tum R. Br. pro parte” or
“P. truncatum auct. non R. Br.”
Ex. 9.
Exclusion of type
by implication:
Solanum torvum Sw. (Prodr.: 47. 1788)
was published with a
new diagnosis but
S. indicum L. (1753) was cited as a synonym.
In accord with the practice in his
Prodromus,
Swartz indicated where the species
was to be inserted in the latest edition
[ed. 14,
by
Murray] of
Linnaeus’s
Systema vegetabilium.
S. torvum was to be inserted between species 26
(S.
insanum) and 27
(S. ferox), the number of
S. indicum being 32.
S. torvum is thus a legitimate name.
Note
1.
The inclusion,
with an expression of doubt,
of an element in a new taxon,
e.g. the
citation of a name with a question mark,
does not make the name of the new taxon
nomen-
claturally superfluous.
Ex. 10.
The protologue of
Blandfordia grandiflora R. Br. (1810)
includes, in synonymy, “Aletris
punicea.
Labill. nov. holl. 1.
p. 85.
t. 111 ?”,
indicating that the new species might be the same as
Aletris
punicea Labill. (1805).
B. grandiflora is nevertheless a legitimate name.
Note
2.
The inclusion, in a new taxon, of an element
that was subsequently designated as
the type of a name
which, so typified, ought to have been adopted,
or whose epithet ought to
have been adopted,
does not in itself make the name of the new taxon
illegitimate.
52.3.
A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published is not
illegitimate if its basionym
is legitimate, or if it is based on the stem of a
legitimate generic name. When published it is incorrect,
but it may become
correct later.
Ex.
11.
Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (1788), based on
Agrostis radiata L. (1759),
was nomenclaturally
superfluous
when published, since Swartz also cited
Andropogon fasciculatus L. (1753) as a synonym.
It is, however, the correct name in the genus
Chloris for
Agrostis radiata when
Andropogon fascicu-
65 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 65 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
52-53 | Rejection |
latus is treated as a different species,
as was done by Hackel (in
Candolle &
Candolle,
Monogr. Phan. 6:
177. 1889).
Ex.
12.
The generic name
Hordelymus
(K. Jess.)
K. Jess. (1885),
based on the legitimate
Hordeum
subg.
Hordelymus
K. Jess.
(Deutschl. Gräser: 202. 1863),
was superfluous when published because its
type,
Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of
Cuviera Koeler (1802).
Cuviera Koeler
has since been
rejected
in favour of its later homonym
Cuviera DC., and
Hordelymus
can now be used as a correct
name
for the segregate genus containing
Elymus europaeus L.
Note
3.
In no case does a statement of parentage
accompanying the publication of a name
for a hybrid make the name
illegitimate (see Art.
H.5).
Ex.
13.
The name
Polypodium
×shivasiae Rothm. (1962) was proposed for hybrids between
P. australe
Fée and
P. vulgare subsp.
prionodes
(Asch.) Rothm.,
while at the same time the author accepted
P.
×font-queri Rothm. (1936) for hybrids between
P. australe and
P. vulgare L. subsp.
vulgare. Under Art.
H.4.1,
P.
×shivasiae is a synonym of
P.
×font-queri; nevertheless,
it is not an
illegitimate name.
53.1.
A name
of a family, genus
or species,
unless conserved (Art.
14)
or
sanctioned
(Art.
15),
is illegitimate if it is a later homonym,
that is, if it is
spelled exactly like a name
based on a different type that was previously and
validly published for a taxon of the same rank.
Note
1.
Even if the earlier homonym is illegitimate,
or is generally treated as a synonym on
taxonomic grounds,
the later homonym must be rejected.
Ex.
1.
The name
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848),
given to a genus of
Labiatae, is a later
homonym of
Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837),
a name previously and validly published for a genus of
Amaryllidaceae.
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth.
is therefore rejected. It was renamed
Thuspeinanta T.
Durand (1888).
Ex.
2.
The name
Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860)
is a later homonym of the validly published
Ambly-
anthera Blume (1849)
and is therefore rejected, although
Amblyanthera Blume
is now considered to be
a synonym of
Osbeckia L. (1753).
Ex.
3.
The name
Torreya Arn. (1838) is a
nomen conservandum
and is therefore not to be rejected
because of the existence of the earlier homonym
Torreya Raf. (1818).
Ex.
4.
Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (1843)
is a later homonym of the validly published name
Astra-
galus rhizanthus Royle (1835)
and it is therefore rejected,
as was done by Boissier who renamed it
A.
cariensis Boiss. (1849).
53.2.
A sanctioned name is illegitimate
if it is a later homonym of another
sanctioned name (see also Art.
15
Note
1).
53.3.
When two or more generic, specific,
or infraspecific names based on
different types
are so similar that they are likely to be confused
(because they
are applied to related taxa
or for any other reason)
they are to be treated as
homonyms.
*Ex.
5.
Names treated as homonyms:
Asterostemma Decne.
(1838) and
Astrostemma Benth. (1880);
Pleuropetalum Hook. f.
(1846) and
Pleuripetalum T. Durand
(1888);
Eschweilera DC.
(1828) and
Eschweileria Boerl.
(1887);
Skytanthus Meyen
(1834) and
Scytanthus Hook. (1844).
*Ex.
6.
The three generic names
Bradlea Adans. (1763),
Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn. (1790), and
Braddleya Vell.
(1827),
all commemorating Richard Bradley, are treated
as homonyms because only
one can be used
without serious risk of confusion.
66 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 66 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 53 |
*Ex.
7.
The names
Acanthoica Lohmann
(1902) and
Acanthoeca W.
N. Ellis
(1930), both
designating
flagellates,
are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms
(Taxon 22: 313. 1973).
*Ex.
8.
Epithets so similar that they are likely to be confused
if combined under the same generic or
specific name:
chinensis and
sinensis; ceylanica and
zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis, and
nipalensis;
polyanthemos and
polyanthemus; macrostachys and
macrostachyus; heteropus and
heteropodus; poiki-
lantha and
poikilanthes; pteroides and
pteroideus; trinervis and
trinervius; macrocarpon and
macrocar-
pum; trachycaulum and
trachycaulon.
*Ex.
9.
Names not likely to be confused:
Rubia L.
(1753) and
Rubus L.
(1753);
Monochaetum (DC.)
Naudin
(1845) and
Monochaete Döll
(1875);
Peponia Grev.
(1863) and
Peponium Engl. (1897);
Iris L.
(1753) and
Iria (Pers.) Hedw.
(1806);
Desmostachys Miers
(1852) and
Desmostachya (Stapf) Stapf
(1898);
Symphyostemon Miers
(1841) and
Symphostemon Hiern
(1900);
Gerrardina Oliv. (1870) and
Gerardiina Engl. (1897);
Urvillea Kunth
(1821) and
Durvillaea Bory
(1826);
Peltophorus Desv.
(1810;
Gramineae) and
Peltophorum (Vogel) Benth.
(1840;
Leguminosae);
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch.
Bip.
(1845,
“napeaefolius”;
see Art. 60
Ex. 12) and
S. napifolius MacOwan
(1890;
the epithets being
derived respectively from
Napaea and
Brassica napus);
Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliv. (1891) and
L.
hemsleyi Franch. (1895)
(see, however, Rec.
23A.2);
Euphorbia peplis L.
(1753) and
E. peplus L.
(1753).
Ex. 10.
Names conserved against earlier names
treated as homonyms (see
App. IIIA):
Lyngbya Gomont
(vs.
Lyngbyea Sommerf.);
Columellia Ruiz & Pav. (vs.
Columella Lour.),
both commemorating Colu-
mella,
the Roman writer on agriculture;
Cephalotus Labill. (vs.
Cephalotos Adans.);
Simarouba Aubl.
(vs.
Simaruba Boehm.).
53.4.
When it is doubtful whether names
are sufficiently alike to be confused,
a request for a decision may be submitted
to the General Committee (see
Div.
III)
which will refer it for examination to the committee
or committees for the
appropriate taxonomic group
or groups. A recommendation may then be put
forward
to an International Botanical Congress, and, if ratified,
will become a
binding decision.
Ex. 11.
Names ruled as likely to be confused,
and therefore to be
treated as homonyms:
Ficus gomel-
leira Kunth (1847) and
F. gameleira Standl. (1937) (Taxon 42: 111. 1993);
Solanum saltiense S. Moore
(1895) and
S. saltense (Bitter) C.
V. Morton
(1944)
(Taxon 42: 434
. 1993);
Balardia Cambess. (1829;
Caryophyllaceae) and
Ballardia Montrouz. (1860;
Myrtaceae) (Taxon 42: 434. 1993).
Ex. 12.
Names ruled
as not likely to be confused:
Cathayeia Ohwi (1931;
Flacourtiaceae) and
Cathaya
Chun & Kuang (1962;
fossil
Pinaceae)
(Taxon 36: 429. 1987);
Cristella Pat. (1887;
Fungi) and
Christella H. Lév. (1915;
Pteridophyta)
(Taxon 35: 551. 1986);
Coluria R. Br. (1823;
Rosaceae) and
Colura (Dumort.) Dumort. (1835;
Hepaticae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993);
Acanthococcus
Hook. f. & Harv.
(1845;
Rhodophyta) and
Acanthococos Barb. Rodr.
(1900;
Palmae) (Taxon
42: 433. 1993);
Rauia Nees
& Mart. (1823;
Rutaceae) and
Rauhia Traub (1957;
Amaryllidaceae) (Taxon 42: 433. 1993).
53.5.
The names of two subdivisions of the same genus,
or of two infraspecific
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.
Ex. 13.
The names
Andropogon sorghum subsp.
halepensis (L.) Hack. and
A. sorghum var.
halepensis
(L.) Hack. (in
Candolle &
Candolle,
Monogr. Phan. 6: 502. 1889)
are legitimate, since both have the
same type
and the epithet may be repeated under Rec.
26A.1.
Ex. 14.
Anagallis arvensis var.
caerulea (L.) Gouan (Fl. Monsp.: 30. 1765), based on
A. caerulea L.
(1759), makes illegitimate the name
A. arvensis subsp.
caerulea Hartm.
(Sv. Norsk Exc.-Fl.: 32. 1846),
based on the later homonym
A. caerulea Schreber (1771).
Ex. 15.
Scenedesmus armatus var.
brevicaudatus (Hortob.) Pankow
(in Arch. Protistenk. 132: 153.
1986), based on
S. carinatus var.
brevicaudatus Hortob.
(in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 26: 318. 1981),
is a later homonym of
S. armatus f.
brevicaudatus L. S. Péterfi
(in Stud. Cercet. Biol. (Bucharest), Ser.
Biol. Veg. 15: 25. 1963)
even though the two names apply to taxa
of different infraspecific rank.
67 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 67 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
53-55 | Rejection |
Scenedesmus armatus var.
brevicaudatus (L. S. Péterfi) E. H. Hegew.
(in Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 60:
393. 1982), however,
is not a later homonym since it is based on the same type as
S. armatus f.
brevicaudatus L. S. Péterfi.
Note 2.
The same
final
epithet may be used
in the names of
subdivisions of different
genera, and
of infraspecific taxa
within different species.
Ex. 16.
Verbascum sect.
Aulacosperma Murb.
(Monogr. Verbascum:
34, 593. 1933) is
permissible,
although there
is an earlier
Celsia sect.
Aulacospermae Murb.
(Monogr. Celsia:
34, 56. 1926).
This,
however, is not an example to be followed,
since it is contrary to Rec.
21B.2.
53.6.
When two or more homonyms have equal priority,
the first of them that
is adopted
in an effectively published text (Art.
29-31)
by an author who
simultaneously rejects
the other(s) is treated as having priority.
Likewise, if an
author
in an effectively published text
substitutes other names for all
but one of
these homonyms,
the homonym for the taxon
that is not renamed
is treated as
having priority.
Ex. 17.
Linnaeus simultaneously published
“10.”
Mimosa
cinerea (Sp. Pl.: 517. 1753) and
“25.”
M.
cinerea (Sp. Pl.: 520. 1753).
In 1759, he renamed species 10
M. cineraria L. and retained the name
M.
cinerea for species 25, so that the latter
is treated as having
priority over
its homonym.
Ex. 18.
Rouy & Foucaud (Fl. France 2: 30. 1895)
published the name
Erysimum hieraciifolium var.
longisiliquum, with two different types,
for two different taxa under different subspecies.
Only one of
these names can be maintained.
54.1.
Consideration of homonymy does not extend
to the names of taxa not
treated as plants,
except as stated below:
(a)
Later homonyms of the names of taxa
once treated as plants are illegiti-
mate, even though the taxa have been reassigned
to a different group of
organisms to which this
Code
does not apply.
(b)
A name originally published for a taxon
other than a plant, even if validly
published under Art.
32-45 of this
Code,
is illegitimate if it becomes a
homonym of a plant name
when the taxon to which it applies is first
treated as a plant (see also Art.
45.5).
Note 1.
The
is illegitimate
if it is a later homonym of a name of a taxon of bacteria,
fungi, algae,
protozoa, or viruses.
55.1.
A
name
of a
species or
subdivision of a
genus, autonyms excepted
(Art.
22.1), may be legitimate
even if its epithet
was originally placed
under an
illegitimate generic name.
Ex.
1.
Agathophyllum
Juss. (1789)
is an illegitimate name,
being a superfluous substitute for
Ravensara
Sonn. (1782).
Nevertheless the name
A. neesianum Blume (1851) is legitimate.
Because Meisner (1864)
68 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 68 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 55-58 |
cited
A. neesianum as a synonym of his new
Mespilodaphne mauritiana
but did not adopt the epithet
neesiana, M. mauritiana Meisn.
is a superfluous name and hence illegitimate.
55.2.
An infraspecific name,
autonyms excepted (Art.
26.1),
may be legitimate
even if its final epithet was originally placed
under an illegitimate specific
name.
55.3.
The names of species and of subdivisions of genera
assigned to genera
whose names are conserved
or sanctioned later homonyms, and which had
earlier
been assigned to the genera under the rejected homonyms,
are legiti-
mate under the conserved
or sanctioned names without change of authorship or
date if there is no other obstacle under the rules.
Ex.
2.
Alpinia languas J. F. Gmel. (1791) and
Alpinia galanga (L.) Willd. (1797)
are to be accepted
although
Alpinia L. (1753),
to which they were assigned by their authors,
is rejected and the genus in
which they are now placed
is named
Alpinia Roxb. (1810),
nom. cons.
56.1.
Any name
that would cause
a disadvantageous
nomenclatural change
(Art.
14.1) may be
proposed for rejection.
A name thus rejected, or its basio-
nym
if it has one, is placed on a list of
nomina
utique
rejicienda
(App. IV).
Along with the listed names,
all combinations based on them
are similarly
rejected,
and none is to be used.
56.2.
The list of rejected names will remain permanently open
for additions
and changes. Any proposal
for rejection of
a
name must be accompanied by a
detailed statement
of the cases both for and against its rejection, including
considerations of
typification.
Such proposals must be submitted
to the General
Committee (see
Div.
III),
which will refer them for examination
to the commit-
tees
for the various taxonomic groups (see also Art.
14.14 and Rec.
14A).
57.1.
A name that has been widely and persistently used
for a taxon or taxa not
including its type
is not to be used in a sense
that conflicts with current usage
unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art.
14.1 or
56.1
has been
submitted and rejected.
58.1.
A name rejected
or otherwise unavailable
for use under Art.
52-54 or
56-57
is replaced by the name that has priority (Art.
11)
in the rank concerned.
If none exists in any rank
a new name must be chosen:
(a) the taxon may be
treated as new and another name published for it, or
(b)
if the illegitimate name
is a later homonym,
an avowed substitute
(nomen novum)
based on the same
69 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 69 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
58-58A | Rejection |
type as the rejected name may be published for it.
If a name is available in
another rank,
one of the above alternatives may be chosen, or
(c) a new combi-
nation,
based on the name in the other rank,
may be published.
58.2.
Similar action is to be taken if transfer of an epithet of
a legitimate name
would result in a combination
that cannot be validly published under Art.
21.3,
22.4,
23.4
or
27,
or in a later homonym.
Ex. 1.
Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to
Radiola Hill may not be named
“Radiola radiola”,
as was done by Karsten (1882),
since that combination
is invalid (see Art.
23.4 and
32.1(b)).
The next
oldest name,
L. multiflorum Lam. (1779),
is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for
L. radiola. Under
Radiola, the species has been given the legitimate name
R. linoides Roth (1788).
58.3.
When a new epithet is required, an author may adopt
the epithet
of a
previous illegitimate name
of
the taxon
if there is no obstacle to its employ-
ment
in the new position or sense; the resultant combination
is treated as the
name of a new taxon or as a
nomen novum, as the case may be.
Ex.
2.
The name
Talinum polyandrum Hook. (1855)
is illegitimate, being a later homonym of
T.
polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (1798).
When Bentham, in 1863, transferred
T. polyandrum Hook. to
Caland-
rinia, he called it
C. polyandra.
This name is treated as having priority from 1863, and
is cited as
C.
polyandra Benth., not
C. polyandra (Hook.) Benth.
Ex. 3.
While describing
Collema tremelloides var.
cyanescens,
Acharius (Syn. Meth. Lich.: 326. 1814)
cited
C. tremelloides var.
caesium Ach. (Lichenogr. Universalis: 656. 1810)
in synonymy,
thus render-
ing his new name illegitimate.
The epithet
cyanescens was taken up in the combination
Parmelia
cyanescens Schaer. (1842),
but this is a later homonym of
P. cyanescens (Pers.) Ach. (1803). In
Collema, however, the epithet
cyanescens was available for use, and the name
C. cyanescens Rabenh.
(1845),
based on the same type, is legitimate.
The correct author citation for
Leptogium cyanescens,
validated by Körber (1855) by reference to
C. cyanescens “Schaer.”,
is therefore (Rabenh.) Körb., not
(Ach.) Körb. nor (Schaer.) Körb.
58A.1.
Authors should avoid adoption of the epithet
of an illegitimate name previously
published for the same taxon.
70 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 70 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Pleomorphic fungi | 59 |
CHAPTER VI. NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE
59.1.
In ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi (including
Ustilaginales)
with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as a meiotic
sexual morph
(teleomorph), the correct name covering
the holomorph (i.e., the species in all
its morphs) is
– except for lichen-forming fungi –
the earliest legitimate name
typified by an element
representing the teleomorph, i.e. the morph charac-
terized
by the production of asci/ascospores, basidia/basidiospores,
teliospores,
or other basidium-bearing organs.
59.2.
For a binary name to qualify as a name of a holomorph,
not only must its
type specimen be teleomorphic,
but also the protologue must include a
descrip-
tion
or diagnosis
of this morph (or be so phrased that the possibility
of refer-
ence to the teleomorph
cannot be excluded).
59.3.
If these requirements are not fulfilled,
the name is that of a form-taxon
and is applicable
only to the anamorph represented by its type,
as described or
referred to in the protologue.
The accepted taxonomic disposition of the type of
the name determines the application of the name,
no matter whether the genus
to which a subordinate taxon is assigned by the author(s)
is holomorphic or
anamorphic.
59.4.
The priority of names of holomorphs at any rank
is not affected by the
earlier publication of names of anamorphs
judged to be correlated morphs of
the holomorph.
59.5.
The provisions of this article shall not be construed
as preventing the
publication and use of binary names
for form-taxa when it is thought necessary
or desirable
to refer to anamorphs alone.
Ex. 1.
Because the teleomorph of
Gibberella stilboides W. L. Gordon & C. Booth (1971)
is only
known from strains of the anamorph
Fusarium stilboides Wollenw. (1924)
mating in culture, and has
not been found in nature,
it may be thought desirable to use the name of the anamorph
for the pathogen
of
Coffea.
Ex. 2.
Cummins (1971), in
The rust fungi of cereals, grasses and bamboos,
found it to be neither
necessary
nor desirable to introduce new names of anamorphs under
Aecidium Pers. : Pers. and
Uredo
Pers. : Pers.,
for the aecial and uredinial stages of species of
Puccinia Pers. : Pers. of which the telial
stage
(teleomorph) was known.
71 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 71 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
59-59A | Pleomorphic fungi |
Note. 1.
When not already available, specific
or infraspecific names for anamorphs
may be
proposed at the time of publication
of the name for the holomorphic fungus or later.
The
epithets may, if desired, be identical,
as long as they are not in homonymous combinations.
59.6.
As long as there is direct and unambiguous evidence
for the deliberate
introduction of a new morph judged
by the author(s) to be correlated with the
morph typifying
a purported basionym, and this evidence is strengthened by
fulfilment of all requirements in Art.
32-45
for valid publication of a name of a
new taxon,
any indication such as “comb. nov.” or “nom. nov.”
is regarded as a
formal error, and the name
introduced is treated as that of a new taxon, and
attributed solely to the author(s) thereof.
When only the requirements for valid
publication
of a new combination (Art.
33 and
34)
have been fulfilled, the
name is accepted as such
and based, in accordance with Art.
7.4,
on the type of
the declared or implicit basionym.
Ex.
3.
The name
Penicillium brefeldianum
B. O. Dodge
(1933),
based on teleomorphic and anamorphic
material,
is a valid and legitimate name of a holomorph,
in spite of the attribution of the species to a
form-genus.
It is legitimately combined in a holomorphic genus as
Eupenicillium brefeldianum
(B. O.
Dodge) Stolk &
D. B. Scott
(1967).
P. brefeldianum is not available for use
in a restricted sense for the
anamorph alone.
Ex.
4.
The name
Ravenelia cubensis Arthur &
J. R. Johnst. (1918),
based on a specimen bearing only
uredinia (an anamorph),
is a valid and legitimate name of an anamorph,
in spite of the attribution of the
species
to a holomorphic genus.
It is legitimately combined in a form-genus as
Uredo cubensis (Arthur
&
J. R. Johnst.) Cummins
(1956).
R. cubensis is not available for use inclusive
of the teleomorph.
Ex.
5.
Mycosphaerella aleuritidis
was published as “(Miyake) Ou comb. nov., syn.
Cercospora aleu-
ritidis Miyake”
but with a Latin diagnosis of the teleomorph.
The indication “comb. nov.” is taken as a
formal error, and
M. aleuritidis
S. H. Ou
(1940)
is accepted as a validly published new specific name
for the holomorph, typified by the teleomorphic material
described by Ou.
Ex.
6.
Corticium microsclerotium was
originally published as “(Matz) Weber, comb. nov., syn.
Rhizoc-
tonia microsclerotia Matz”
with a description, only in English,
of the teleomorph. Because of Art.
36,
this may not be considered as the valid publication
of the name of a new species, and so
C. microsclero-
tium (Matz)
G. F. Weber
(1939) must be considered
a validly published and legitimate new combina-
tion
based on the specimen of the anamorph that typifies its basionym.
C. microsclerotium
G. F. Weber
(1951), published with a Latin description
and a teleomorphic type, is an illegitimate later homonym.
Ex.
7.
Hypomyces chrysospermus Tul.
(1860),
presented as the name of a holomorph without the
indication “comb. nov.” but with explicit reference to
Mucor chrysospermus (Bull.) Bull. and
Sepedo-
nium chrysospermum (Bull.) Fr.,
which are names of its anamorph, is not to be considered
as a new
combination but as the name
of a newly described species, with a teleomorphic type.
59A.1.
When a new morph of a fungus is described,
it should be published either as a new
taxon
(e.g., gen. nov., sp. nov., var. nov.) whose name
has a teleomorphic type, or as a new
anamorph
(anam. nov.) whose name has an anamorphic type.
59A.2.
When in naming a new morph of a fungus the epithet of the name
of a different,
earlier described morph of the same fungus is used,
the new name should be designated as
the name of a new taxon
or anamorph, as the case may be, but not as a new combination
based on the earlier name.
72 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 72 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
CHAPTER VII. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS AND
GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES
SECTION 1. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
60.1.
The original spelling of a name or epithet
is to be retained, except for
the correction of typographical or orthographical errors
and the standardizations
imposed by Art.
60.5
(u/v or
i/j used interchangeably),
60.6
(diacritical signs
and ligatures),
60.8 (compounding forms),
60.9 (hyphens),
60.10
(apostro-
phes), and
60.11
(terminations; see also Art.
32.6), as well as Rec. 60H.
Ex. 1.
Retention of original spelling:
The generic names
Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and
Amaran-
thus L. (1753)
were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus
and the spelling is not to be altered to
“Mesembrianthemum” and
“Amarantus” respectively,
although these latter forms are philologically
preferable
(see Bull. Misc. Inform.
Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928).
–
Phoradendron Nutt.
(1848)
is not to
be altered to
“Phoradendrum”.
–
Triaspis mozambica
A. Juss.
(1843) is not to be altered to
“T.
mossambica”,
as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895).
–
Alyxia ceylanica Wight
(1848) is
not to be altered to
“A. zeylanica”, as in Trimen (Handb. Fl. Ceylon 3: 127. 1895).
–
Fagus sylvatica L.
(1753) is not to be altered to
“F. silvatica”. The classical spelling
silvatica is recommended
for
adoption in the case of a new name (Rec.
60E), but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica is not an ortho-
graphical error.
–
Scirpus cespitosus L.
(1753) is not to be altered to
“S. caespitosus”.
*Ex. 2.
Typographical errors:
Globba
“brachycarpa” Baker (1890) and
Hetaeria
“alba” Ridl. (1896)
are typographical errors for
Globba trachycarpa Baker and
Hetaeria alta Ridl. respectively
(see J. Bot.
59: 349. 1921).
*Ex. 3.
Orthographical error:
Gluta
“benghas” L. (1771),
being an orthographical error for
G. renghas,
should be cited as
G. renghas L., as by Engler (in
Candolle &
Candolle,
Monogr. Phan. 4: 225. 1883);
the vernacular name used
as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is
“renghas”, not “benghas”.
Ex. 4.
The misspelled
Indigofera “longipednnculata”
Y. Y. Fang & C. Z. Zheng (1983)
is presumably
a typographical error
and is to be corrected to
I. longipedunculata.
Note 1. Art. 14.11 provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of a generic name.
Ex. 5. Bougainvillea (see App. IIIA, Spermatophyta, No. 2350).
60.2.
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.
20.1 and
21.2, Rec.
60F).
73 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 73 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
60.3.
The liberty of correcting a name is to be used
with reserve, especially if
the change
affects the first syllable and, above all,
the first letter of the name.
*Ex.
6.
The spelling of the generic name
Lespedeza Michx. (1803) is not to be altered,
although it
commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes
(see Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392. 1934). –
Cereus
jamacaru DC. (1828) may not be altered to
C.
“mandacaru”, even if
jamacaru is believed to be a
corruption
of the vernacular name “mandacaru”.
60.4.
The letters
w and
y, foreign to classical Latin, and
k, rare in that lan-
guage,
are permissible in Latin plant names.
Other letters and ligatures foreign
to classical Latin that may appear
in Latin plant names, such as the German
ß
(double
s), are to be transcribed.
60.5.
When a name has been published in a work
where the letters
u, v or
i, j
are used interchangeably
or in any other way incompatible
with modern prac-
tices
(one of those letters is not used or only in capitals),
those letters
are to be
transcribed in conformity with modern botanical usage.
Ex.
7.
Uffenbachia Fabr.
(1763), not
“Vffenbachia”; Taraxacum Zinn
(1757), not
“Taraxacvm”; Cur-
culigo Gaertn.
(1788), not
“Cvrcvligo”.
Ex.
8.
“Geastrvm hygrometricvm” and
“Vredo pvstvlata”
of Persoon (1801)
are written respectively
Geastrum hygrometricum
Pers. and
Uredo pustulata
Pers.
60.6.
Diacritical signs are not used in Latin plant names.
In names (either new
or old) drawn from words
in which such signs appear, the signs are to be
suppressed with the necessary transcription
of the letters so modified; for
example
ä, ö, ü become respectively
ae, oe, ue; é, è, ê become
e, or sometimes
ae; ñ becomes
n; becomes
oe; å becomes
ao. The diaeresis, indicating that a
vowel
is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in
Ce-
phaëlis, Isoëtes),
is
permissible;
the ligatures
-æ- and
-œ-, indicating that the
letters are pronounced together, are to be replaced
by the separate letters
-ae-
and
-oe-.
60.7.
When changes made in orthography by earlier authors
who adopt per-
sonal, geographic, or vernacular names
in nomenclature are intentional latini-
zations,
they are to be preserved,
except for terminations covered by Art.
60.11.
Ex. 9.
Valantia L. (1753),
Gleditsia L. (1753), and
Clutia L. (1753),
commemorating Vaillant, Gle-
ditsch,
and Cluyt respectively, are not to be altered to
“Vaillantia”,
“Gleditschia”, and
“Cluytia”;
Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists
deliberately as
Valantius,
Gleditsius, and
Clutius.
Ex. 10.
Zygophyllum
“billardierii” was named
by Candolle (1824)
for J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la
Billardière).
The intended latinization is “Billardierius” (in nominative),
but that termination is not
acceptable under Art.
60.11
and the name is correctly spelled
Z. billardierei DC.
60.8.
The use of a compounding form contrary to Rec.
60G
in an adjectival
epithet
is treated as an error to be corrected.
Ex. 11. Pereskia “opuntiaeflora” of Candolle (1828) is to be cited as P. opuntiiflora DC. However, in
Andromeda polifolia L.
(1753),
the epithet is a pre-Linnean plant name
(“Polifolia” of Buxbaum) used
in apposition
and not an adjective; it is not to be corrected to
“poliifolia”.
Ex. 12.
Cacalia
“napeaefolia” and
Senecio
“napeaefolius”
are to be cited as
Cacalia napaeifolia DC.
(1838) and
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip.
(1845) respectively;
the specific epithet refers to the
74 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 74 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60-60A |
the resemblance of the leaves to those of the genus
Napaea L. (not
“Napea”),
and the substitute (connect-
ing) vowel
-i should have been used
instead of the genitive singular inflection
-ae.
60.9.
The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet
is treated as an error to be
corrected
by deletion of the hyphen,
except if an epithet is formed of words
that usually stand independently,
or if the letters
before and after
the hyphen
are the same,
when a hyphen is permitted (see Art.
23.1 and
23.3).
Ex. 13.
Hyphen
to be omitted:
Acer pseudoplatanus L.
(1753), not
A.
“pseudo-platanus”; Ficus neoë-
budarum Summerh.
(1932), not
F.
“neo-ebudarum”;
Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vittad.
(1842), not
L.
“atro-purpureum”;
Croton ciliatoglandulifer Ortega
(1797), not
C.
“ciliato-glandulifer”; Scirpus sect.
Pseudoëriophorum Jurtzev (in Bjull. Moskovsk.
Obč. Ips. Prir.,
Otd. Biol. 70(1): 132.
1965), not
S.
sect.
“Pseudo-eriophorum”.
Ex. 14.
Hyphen
to be used:
Aster novae-angliae L.
(1753),
Coix lacryma-jobi L.
(1753),
Peperomia
san-felipensis J. D. Sm. (1894),
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.
(1825),
Veronica anagallis-aqua-
tica L.
(1753; Art.
23.3),
Athyrium austro-occidentale
Ching (1986).
Note 2.
Art.
60.9
refers only to epithets (in combinations),
not to names of genera or taxa in
higher ranks;
a generic name published with a hyphen
can be changed only by conservation.
Ex. 15.
Pseudo-salvinia Piton (1940)
cannot be changed to
“Pseudosalvinia”, but
“Pseudo-elephan-
topus”
was changed by conservation to
Pseudelephantopus Rohr (1792).
60.10.
The use of an apostrophe in an epithet
is treated as an error to be
corrected
by deletion of the apostrophe.
Ex. 16.
Lycium “o’donellii”, Cymbidium “i’ansoni” and
Solanum tuberosum var.
“muru’kewillu” are
to be corrected to
L. odonellii F. A. Barkley (1953),
C. iansonii Rolfe (1900) and
S. tuberosum var.
murukewillu Ochoa (in Phytologia 65: 112. 1988),
respectively.
60.11.
The use of a termination (for example
-i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or
-ianus)
contrary to Rec.
60C.1
(but not
60C.2)
is treated as an error to be corrected
(see
also Art.
32.6).
Ex. 17.
Rosa
“pissarti”
(Carrière in Rev. Hort. 1880: 314. 1880)
is a typographical error for
R.
“pissardi” (see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190. 1881),
which in its turn is treated as an error for
R. pissardii
Carrière (see Rec.
60C.1(b)).
Note 3.
If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet
derived from a personal name
is inappropriate
for the sex and/or number of the person(s)
whom the name commemorates,
the termination
is to be corrected in conformity with Rec.
60C.1.
Ex. 18.
Rosa
דtoddii” was named by Wolley-Dod
(in J. Bot. 69, Suppl.: 106. 1931)
for “Miss E. S.
Todd”; the name is to be corrected to
R.
×toddiae Wolley-Dod.
Ex. 19.
Astragalus
“matthewsii”,
dedicated by Podlech and Kirchhoff
(in
Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml.
München 11: 432. 1974)
to Victoria A. Matthews, is to be corrected to
A. matthewsiae Podlech &
Kirchhoff;
it is not therefore a later homonym of
A. matthewsii S. Watson
(1883) (see Agerer-Kirchhoff
& Podlech in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 12: 375. 1976).
Ex. 20.
Codium
“geppii” of O. C. Schmidt
(in Biblioth. Bot. 91: 50. 1923),
which commemorates “A.
& E. S. Gepp”, is to be corrected to
C. geppiorum O. C. Schmidt.
60A.1.
When a new name or its epithet is to be derived
from Greek, the transliteration to
Latin
should conform to classical usage.
60A.2. The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.
75 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 75 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
60B-60C | Orthography |
60B.1.
When a new generic name, or subgeneric
or sectional epithet, is taken from the
name of a person,
it should be formed as follows:
(a)
When the name of the person ends
with a vowel, the letter
-a is added (thus
Ottoa after
Otto;
Sloanea after Sloane),
except when the name ends
with
-a, when
-ea is added (e.g.
Collaea after Colla), or
with
-ea (as
Correa), when no letter is added.
(b)
When the name of the person ends
with a consonant,
the letters
-ia are added,
but when
the name ends
with
-er,
either
of the terminations
-ia and
-a
is appropriate (e.g.
Sesleria
after Sesler and
Kernera after Kerner).
(c)
In latinized personal names ending
with
-us this termination is dropped (e.g.
Dillenia
after Dillenius) before applying the procedure
described under (a) and (b).
(d)
The syllables not modified by these endings
retain their original spelling, unless they
contain letters foreign to Latin plant names
or diacritical signs (see Art.
60.6).
Note 1.
Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix,
or be modified by anagram or
abbreviation.
In these cases they count as different words
from the original name.
Ex. 1.
Durvillaea
Bory (1826) and
Urvillea
Kunth (1821);
Lapeirousia
Pourr. (1788) and
Peyrousea
DC. (1838);
Engleria
O. Hoffm. (1888),
Englerastrum
Briq. (1894), and
Englerella
Pierre (1891);
Bouchea
Cham. (1832) and
Ubochea
Baill. (1891);
Gerardia
L. (1753) and
Graderia
Benth. (1846);
Martia
Spreng. (1818) and
Martiusia
Schult. & Schult. f.
(1822).
60C.1.
Modern personal names may be given Latin terminations
and used to form specific and
infraspecific epithets
as follows (but see Rec.
60C.2):
(a)
If the personal name ends with a vowel or
-er, substantive epithets are formed by
adding the genitive inflection
appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) hon-
oured (e.g.,
scopoli-i for Scopoli (m),
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 with
-a, in which case adding
-e (singular) or
-rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g.
triana-e for Triana (m)).
(b)
If the personal name ends with a consonant (except
-er), substantive epithets are formed
by adding
-i- (stem augmentation)
plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and
number of the person(s) honoured (e.g.
lecard-ii for Lecard (m),
wilson-iae for Wilson
(f),
verlot-iorum for the Verlot brothers,
braun-iarum for the Braun sisters).
(c)
If the personal name ends with a vowel,
adjectival epithets are formed by adding
-an-
plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the
gender of the generic name
(e.g.,
Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne,
Vanda lindley-ana for Lindley,
Aspidium bertero-
anum for Bertero),
except when the personal name ends with
-a in which case
-n- plus
the appropriate inflection is added (e.g.
balansa-nus (m),
balansa-na (f), and
balansa-
num (n) for Balansa).
(d)
If the personal name ends with a consonant,
adjectival epithets are formed by adding
-i-
(stem augmentation) plus
-an- (stem of adjectival suffix)
plus the nominative singular
inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g.
Rosa webb-iana for Webb,
Desmodium griffith-ianum for Griffith,
Verbena hassler-iana for Hassler).
Note 1.
The hyphens in the above examples are used only
to set off the total appropriate
termination.
76 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 76 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60C-60E |
60C.2.
Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing
a well-established latinized
form, should be given
their appropriate Latin genitive to form substantive epithets (e.g.
alexandri from Alexander or Alexandre,
augusti from Augustus or August or Auguste,
martini from Martinus
or Martin,
linnaei from Linnaeus,
martii from Martius,
beatricis
from Beatrix or Béatrice,
hectoris from Hector).
Treating modern names as if they were in
third
declension
should be avoided (e.g.
munronis from Munro,
richardsonis from Richard-
son).
60C.3.
In forming new epithets based on personal names
the original spelling of the per-
sonal name
should not be modified unless it contains letters foreign
to Latin plant names or
diacritical signs (see Art.
60.4 and
60.6).
60C.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, l’, les, el, il, lo,
or containing an article e.g.
du, de la, des, del, della,
should be united to the name, e.g.
leclercii after Le Clerc,
dubuyssonii after DuBuysson,
lafarinae after La Farina,
logatoi after Lo Gato.
(d)
A prefix to a 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 epithets, however, “St.” is rendered as
sanctus (m) or
sancta (f), e.g.
sancti-johannis, of St. John,
sanctae-helenae, of St. Helena.
(e)
A German or Dutch prefix 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,
vanbrun-
tiae 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.
60D.1.
An epithet derived from a geographical name
is preferably an adjective and usually
takes the termination
-ensis, -(a)nus, -inus, or
-icus.
Ex. 1.
Rubus quebecensis
L. H. Bailey (from Quebec),
Ostrya virginiana
(Mill.) K. Koch
(from Virgi-
nia),
Eryngium amorginum
Rech. f. (from Amorgos),
Polygonum pensylvanicum
L. (from Pennsylva-
nia).
60E.1.
The epithet
in a new name
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 latinization (see
also Art.
23.5).
Ex. 1. sinensis (not chinensis).
77 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 77 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
60F-60H | Orthography |
60F.1.
All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written
with a small initial letter,
although 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.
60G.1.
A compound name or an epithet which combines elements
derived from two or
more Greek or Latin words
should be formed, as far as practicable,
in accordance with
classical usage (see Art.
60.8).
This may be stated as follows:
(a)
In a true compound, a noun or adjective in non-final position
appears as a compounding
form generally obtained by
(1)
removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin
-ae, -i, -us, -is; Greek
-os,
-es, -as, -ous and the latter’s equivalent
-eos) and
(2)
before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel
(-i- for Latin elements,
-o- for
Greek elements).
(3)
Exceptions are common,
and one should review earlier usages of a particular com-
pounding form.
(b)
A pseudocompound is a noun or adjectival phrase
treated as if it were a single com-
pound 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 (mar-
gined with white), etc.
In epithets where tingeing is expressed, the modifying initial
colour often is in the ablative because the preposition
e, ex, is implicit, e.g.,
atropur-
pureus (blackish purple) from
ex atro purpureus (purple tinged with black).
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 the genitive singular of the first declension
for pseudocompounding is treated as an error to be corrected
unless it makes an etymo-
logical 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
their epithets see Art.
20.3,
23.1, and
60.9.
60H.1.
Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name
of the host plant
are
spelled
in accordance with the accepted spelling of this name;
other spellings are regarded
as orthographical variants
to be corrected (see Art.
61).
78 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 78 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60H-61 |
Ex. 1.
Phyllachora
“anonicola”
(Chardon
in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940)
is to be altered to
P. annoni-
cola
Chardon,
since the spelling
Annona is now accepted in preference to
“Anona”.
–
Meliola
“albiz-
ziae”
(Hansford & Deighton
in Mycol. Pap. 23: 26. 1948)
is to be altered to
M. albiziae
Hansf. &
Deighton,
since the spelling
Albizia is now accepted in preference to
“Albizzia”.
60I.1.
The etymology of new names and
their epithets should be given
when the meaning of
these is not obvious.
61.1.
Only one orthographical variant
of any one name is treated as validly
published,
the form which appears in the original publication
except as pro-
vided in Art.
60
(typographical or
orthographical errors
and standardizations),
Art.
14.11
(conserved spellings), and Art.
32.6
(incorrect Latin terminations).
61.2.
For the purpose of this
Code, orthographical variants are the various
spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a name or
its epithet
(includ-
ing typographical errors),
only one type being involved.
61.3.
If orthographical variants of a name
appear in the original publication,
the one that conforms to the rules
and best suits the recommendations of Art.
60
is to be retained; otherwise the first author who,
in an effectively published
text (Art.
29-31),
explicitly adopts one of the variants,
rejecting the other(s),
must be followed.
61.4.
The orthographical variants
of a name are to be corrected
to the validly
published form of that name.
Whenever such a variant appears in print,
it is to
be treated as if it were printed
in its corrected form.
Note
1.
In full citations it is desirable
that the original form of
a
corrected orthographical
variant of a name be added (Rec.
50F).
61.5.
Confusingly similar names based on the same type
are treated as ortho-
graphical variants.
(For confusingly similar names based on different types,
see
Art.
53.3.)
Ex. 1.
Geaster Fr. (1829) and
Geastrum Pers. (1794) : Pers. (1801)
are similar names with the same
type
(see Taxon 33: 498. 1984);
they are treated as orthographical variants
despite the fact that they are
derived
from two different nouns,
aster (asteris) and
astrum (astri).
79 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 79 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
62 | Gender |
SECTION 2. GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES
62.1.
A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition,
irre-
spective of classical usage
or the author’s original usage. A generic name
without
a botanical tradition
retains the gender assigned
by its author.
Note 1.
Botanical tradition usually maintains
the classical gender of a Greek or Latin word,
when this was well established.
*Ex. 1.
In
accordance with botanical
tradition,
Adonis
L.,
Atriplex
L.,
Diospyros
L.,
Hemerocallis
L.,
Orchis
L.,
Stachys
L., and
Strychnos
L.
must be treated
as feminine
while
Lotus
L. and
Melilotus
L.
must be treated
as masculine.
Eucalyptus
L’Hér.,
which lacks a botanical
tradition, retains
the feminine
gender assigned by its author.
Although their ending suggests masculine gender,
Cedrus
Trew and
Fagus
L.,
like most other classical tree names, were traditionally treated as
feminine and thus retain that
gender; similarly,
Rhamnus
L.
is feminine, despite the fact that Linnaeus
assigned it masculine gender.
Phyteuma
L.
(n),
Sicyos
L.
(m), and
Erigeron
L.
(m)
are other names for which botanical tradition
has
reestablished the classical gender
despite another choice by Linnaeus.
62.2.
Compound generic names take the gender
of the last word in the nomi-
native case
in the compound. If the termination is altered,
however, the gender
is altered accordingly.
Ex. 2.
Compound generic names in which the termination
of the last word is altered:
Stenocarpus
R.
Br.,
Dipterocarpus
C. F. Gaertn., and all other compounds
ending in the Greek masculine
-carpos (or
-carpus), e.g.
Hymenocarpos
Savi,
are masculine; those in
-carpa or
-carpaea, however, are feminine,
e.g.
Callicarpa
L. and
Polycarpaea
Lam.; and those in
-carpon, -carpum, or
-carpium are neuter, e.g.
Polycarpon
L.,
Ormocarpum
P. Beauv., and
Pisocarpium
Link.
(a)
Compounds ending in
-codon, -myces, -odon, -panax, -pogon, -stemon,
and other masculine words, are masculine.
Ex. 3.
Irrespective of the fact that the generic names
Andropogon L. and
Oplopanax (Torr. & A. Gray)
Miq.
were originally treated as neuter by their authors, they are masculine.
(b)
Compounds ending in
-achne, -chlamys, -daphne, -mecon, -osma (the
modern transcription of the feminine Greek word
osmê), and other femin-
ine words, are feminine.
An exception is made in the case of names
ending in
-gaster,
which strictly speaking ought to be feminine, but which
are treated as masculine in accordance
with botanical tradition.
Ex. 4.
Irrespective of the fact that
Dendromecon Benth. and
Hesperomecon
Greene were originally
treated as neuter, they are feminine.
(c)
Compounds ending in
-ceras, -dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma, and other
neuter words, are neuter.
An exception is made for names ending in
-anthos (or
-anthus) and
-chilos
(-chilus or
-cheilos), which ought to be
neuter, since that is the gender of the Greek words
anthos and
cheilos, but
are treated as masculine in accordance with botanical tradition.
Ex. 5.
Irrespective of the fact that
Aceras
R. Br. and
Xanthoceras
Bunge
were treated as
feminine
when
first published,
they are
neuter.
80 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 80 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Gender | 62-62A |
62.3.
Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names
or adjectives used
as generic names, whose gender is not apparent,
take the gender assigned to
them by their authors.
If the original author failed to indicate the gender,
the
next subsequent author may choose a gender,
and his choice, if effectively
published (Art.
29-31),
is to be accepted.
Ex. 6. Taonabo Aubl. (1775) is feminine: Aublet’s two species were T. dentata and T. punctata.
Ex.
7.
Agati Adans. (1763) was published without
indication of gender: the feminine gender was
assigned to it by Desvaux
(in J. Bot. Agric. 1: 120. 1813),
who was the first subsequent author to adopt
the name
in an effectively published text, and his choice is to be accepted.
Ex.
8.
The
original gender of
Manihot
Mill. (1754),
as apparent from some of
the species polynomials,
was feminine, and
Manihot is therefore to be treated
as feminine.
62.4.
Generic names ending in
-anthes,
-oides or
-odes are treated as feminine
and those ending in
-ites as masculine, irrespective of the gender
assigned to
them by the original author.
62A.1.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera,
the gender of the new generic
name or names
should be that of the generic name that is retained.
Ex. 1.
When
Boletus
L. : Fr. is divided,
the gender of the new generic names should be masculine:
Xerocomus
Quél. (1887),
Boletellus
Murrill (1909), etc.
81 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 81 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Div.III.1-Div.III.3 | Modification of Code |
DIVISION III. PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
CODE
Div.III.1.
Modification of the
Code. The
Code may be modified
only by action
of a plenary session of
an International Botanical Congress on a resolution
moved
by the Nomenclature Section of that Congress¹.
Div.III.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 As-
sociation for Plant Taxonomy,
and at least 5 members to be appointed
by the
Nomenclature Section.
The rapporteur-général is charged
with the presentation
of nomenclature proposals
to the International Botanical Congress.
(2) Committee for Spermatophyta.
(3) Committee for Pteridophyta.
(4) Committee for Bryophyta.
(5) Committee for Fungi.
(6) Committee for Algae.
(7) Committee for Fossil Plants.
(8)
Editorial Committee,
charged with the preparation and publication of the
Code
in conformity with the decisions adopted by
the International Botanical
Congress. Chairman:
the rapporteur-général of the previous Congress,
who is
charged with the general duties
in connection with the editing of the
Code.
Div.III.3.
The Bureau of Nomenclature of the
International Botanical Con-
gress.
Its officers are:
(1) the president of the Nomenclature Section,
elected by
the organizing committee
of the International Botanical Congress in question;
(2) the recorder,
appointed by the same organizing committee;
(3) the rappor-
______________
¹
In the event that there should not be another
International Botanical Congress, authority for the
International
code of
botanical
nomenclature
shall be transferred to
the International Union of
Biological Sciences or to an organization
at that time corresponding to it.
The General Committee is
empowered to define the machinery
to achieve this.
82 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 82 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Modification of Code | Div.III.3-Div.III.4 |
teur-général, elected by the previous Congress;
(4) the vice-rapporteur, elected
by the organizing
committee on the proposal of the rapporteur-général.
Div.III.4.
The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds:
(a) a prelimi-
nary guiding mail vote and
(b) a final and binding vote
at the Nomenclature
Section
of the International Botanical Congress.
Qualifications for voting:
(1) The members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
(2) The authors of proposals.
(3) The members of the nomenclature committees.
Note 1. No accumulation or transfer of personal votes is permissible.
(b) Final vote at the sessions of the Nomenclature Section:
(1)
All officially enrolled members of the Section.
No accumulation or
transfer of personal votes is permissible.
(2)
Official delegates or vice-delegates
of the institutes appearing on a
list drawn up by the Bureau of Nomenclature
of the International
Botanical Congress and submitted
to the General Committee for final
approval;
such institutes are entitled to 1-7 votes,
as specified on the
list.
No single institution,
even in the wide sense of the term, is
entitled to more than 7 votes.
Transfer of institutional votes to speci-
fied 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.
83 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 83 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
H.1-H.3 | Hybrids |
NAMES OF HYBRIDS
H.1.1.
Hybridity is indicated by the use of the multiplication sign ×,
or by the
addition of the prefix “notho-”¹
to the term denoting the rank of the taxon.
H.2.1.
A hybrid between named taxa may be indicated
by placing the multipli-
cation sign
between the names of the taxa;
the whole expression is then called
a hybrid formula.
Ex. 1.
Agrostis L. ×
Polypogon Desf.;
Agrostis stolonifera L. ×
Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf.;
Salix aurita L. ×
S. caprea L.;
Mentha aquatica L. ×
M. arvensis L. ×
M. spicata L.;
Polypodium
vulgare subsp.
prionodes (Asch.) Rothm. × subsp.
vulgare.
H.2A.1.
It is usually preferable to place the names
or epithets in a formula in alphabetical
order.
The direction of a cross may be indicated by including
the sexual symbols (♀: female;
♂: male)
in the formula, or by placing the female parent first.
If a non-alphabetical sequence
is used,
its basis should be clearly indicated.
H.3.1.
Hybrids between representatives of two
or more taxa may receive a
name.
For nomenclatural purposes,
the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated
by
placing the multiplication sign ×
before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or
before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid,
or by prefixing the
term “notho-”
(optionally abbreviated “n-”) to the term
denoting the rank of the
taxon (see Art.
3.2 and
4.4).
All such taxa are designated nothotaxa.
______________
¹ From the Greek nothos, meaning hybrid.
84 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 84 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.3-H.4 |
Ex. 1.
(The putative or known parentage is found in Art. H.2
Ex. 1.)
♀
×Agropogon P. Fourn.
(1934);
×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.) C. E. Hubb.
(1946);
Salix
×capreola Andersson
(1867);
Mentha
×smithiana R. A. Graham
(1949);
Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp.
mantoniae (Rothm.) Schidlay
(in
Futák,
Fl. Slov. 2: 225. 1966).
H.3.2.
A nothotaxon cannot be designated
unless at least one parental taxon is
known or can be postulated.
H.3.3. The epithet in the name of a nothospecies is termed a collective epithet.
H.3.4.
For purposes of homonymy and synonymy
the multiplication sign and
the prefix “notho-”
are disregarded.
Ex. 2.
×Hordelymus Bachteev & Darevsk. (1950)
(= Elymus L. ×
Hordeum L.) is a later homonym of
Hordelymus
(K. Jess.)
K. Jess. (1885).
Note 1. Taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa.
Ex. 3.
The true-breeding tetraploid raised
from the artificial cross
Digitalis grandiflora L. ×
D. purpu-
rea L. may, if desired,
be referred to as
D. mertonensis
B. H. Buxton &
C. D. Darl.
(1931);
Triticum
aestivum L.
(1753) is treated
as a species although it is not found in nature
and its genome has been
shown
to be composed of those of
T.
dicoccoides
(Körn.) Körn.,
T. speltoides
(Tausch) Gren.
ex K.
Richt., and
T. tauschii (Coss.) Schmalh.;
the taxon known as
Phlox divaricata subsp.
laphamii
(A. W.
Wood) Wherry
(in Morris Arbor. Monogr.
3: 41. 1955)
is believed by Levin (Evolution 21: 92-108.
1967)
to be a stabilized product of hybridization between
P. divaricata L. subsp.
divaricata and
P.
pilosa subsp.
ozarkana Wherry;
Rosa canina L.
(1753),
a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid
origin, is treated as a species.
Note 2.
The term “collective epithet” is used in the
International
code of
nomenclature for
cultivated
plants-1980
to include also epithets in modern language.
H.3A.1.
The multiplication sign in the name
of a nothotaxon should be placed against
the
initial letter of the name or epithet.
However, if the mathematical symbol
is not available
and the letter
“x” is used instead,
a single letter space may be left between it
and the epithet
if this helps to avoid ambiguity.
The letter
“x” should be in lower case.
H.4.1.
When all the parent taxa can be postulated
or are known, a nothotaxon
is circumscribed
so as to include all individuals (as far as they
can be recog-
nized) derived from
the crossing of representatives of the stated
parent taxa
(i.e. not only the
Fı
but subsequent filial generations
and also back-crosses and
combinations of these).
There can thus be only one correct name corresponding
to a particular hybrid formula;
this is the earliest legitimate name (see Art.
6.3)
in the appropriate rank (Art.
H.5),
and other names to which the same hybrid
formula applies
are synonyms of it.
Ex. 1.
The names
Oenothera
×wienii Renner ex Rostański (1977) and
O.
×hoelscheri Renner ex
Rostański (1968)
are both considered to apply to the hybrid
O. rubricaulis
Kleb. ×
O. depressa
Greene
the types of the two nothospecific names
are known to differ by a whole gene complex;
nevertheless,
the later name is treated
as a synonym of the earlier.
85 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 85 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
H.4-H.6 | Hybrids |
Note 1.
Variation within nothospecies
and nothotaxa of lower rank
may be treated accord-
ing to Art.
H.12
or, if appropriate, according to the
International
code of
nomenclature for
cultivated
plants-1980.
H.5.1.
The appropriate rank of a nothotaxon
is that of the postulated or known
parent taxa.
H.5.2.
If the postulated or known parent taxa
are of unequal rank the appropri-
ate rank
of the nothotaxon is the lowest of these ranks.
Note 1.
When a taxon is designated by a name in a rank
inappropriate to its hybrid formula,
the name is incorrect in relation
to that hybrid formula but may nevertheless be correct,
or
may become correct later (see also Art.
52
Note 3).
Ex. 1.
The combination
Elymus
×laxus (Fr.) Melderis & D.
C. McClint. (1983), based on
Triticum
laxum Fr. (1842),
was published for hybrids with the formula
E. farctus subsp.
boreoatlanticus (Si-
monet & Guin.) Melderis ×
E. repens (L.) Gould,
so that the combination is in a rank inappropriate
to
the hybrid formula. It is, however,
the correct name applicable to all hybrids between
E. farctus (Viv.)
Melderis and E. repens.
Ex. 2.
Radcliffe-Smith incorrectly published
the nothospecific name
Euphorbia
×cornubiensis
Radcl.-
Sm. (1985) for
E. amygdaloides L. ×
E. characias subsp.
wulfenii
(W. D. J. Koch)
Radcl.-Sm.,
although
the correct designation for hybrids between
E. amygdaloides and
E. characias
L. is
E.
×martini Rouy
(1900);
later, he remedied his mistake by publishing
the combination
E.
×martini nothosubsp.
cornu-
biensis
(Radcl.-Sm.)
Radcl.-Sm. (in Taxon 35: 349. 1986).
However, the name
E.
×cornubiensis is
potentially correct
for hybrids with the formula
E. amygdaloides ×
E. wulfenii
W. D. J. Koch.
H.5A.1.
When publishing a name of a new nothotaxon
at the rank of species or below,
authors should provide any available information
on the taxonomic identity, at lower ranks,
of the known or postulated parent plants
of the type of the name.
H.6.1.
A nothogeneric name (i.e. the name at generic rank
for a hybrid be-
tween representatives
of two or more genera) is a condensed formula
or is
equivalent to a condensed formula.
H.6.2.
The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid
is a condensed formula in
which the names adopted
for the parental genera are combined into a single
word,
using the first part or the whole of one,
the last part or the whole of the
other
(but not the whole of both) and,
optionally,
a connecting vowel.
Ex. 1.
×Agropogon P. Fourn.
(1934)
(= Agrostis
L. ×
Polypogon
Desf.);
×Gymnanacamptis Asch. &
Graebn.
(1907) (=
Anacamptis
Rich. ×
Gymnadenia
R. Br.);
×Cupressocyparis Dallim.
(1838)
(= Cha-
maecyparis
Spach ×
Cupressus
L.);
×Seleniphyllum G. D. Rowley
(1962)
(= Epiphyllum
Haw. ×
Sele-
nicereus
(A. Berger) Britton & Rose).
86 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 86 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.6-H.7 |
Ex. 2.
×Amarcrinum Coutts (1925)
is correct for
Amaryllis L. ×
Crinum L., not
“×Crindonna”. The
latter
formula was proposed
by Ragionieri (1921)
for the same nothogenus, but was formed
from the
generic name adopted for one parent
(Crinum) and a synonym
(Belladonna Sweet)
of the generic name
adopted for the other
(Amaryllis). Being contrary to Art. H.6,
it is not validly published under Art.
32.1(b).
Ex. 3.
The name
×Leucadenia Schltr.
(1919)
is correct for
Leucorchis E. Mey. ×
Gymnadenia R. Br.,
but if the generic name
Pseudorchis Ség.
is adopted instead of
Leucorchis, ×
Pseudadenia P.
F. Hunt
(1971) is correct.
Ex. 4.
Boivin (1967) published
×Maltea for what he considered
to be the intergeneric hybrid
Phippsia
(Trin.) R. Br. ×
Puccinellia
Parl.
As this is not a condensed formula,
the name cannot be used
for that
intergeneric hybrid,
for which the correct name is
Pucciphippsia Tzvelev (1971).
Boivin did, however,
provide a Latin description
and designate a type; consequently,
Maltea
B. Boivin
is a validly published
generic name
and is correct if its type is treated as belonging
to a separate genus, not to a nothogenus.
H.6.3.
The nothogeneric name of an intergeneric hybrid derived
from four or
more genera is formed from
the name of a person to which is added the
termination
-ara; no such name may exceed eight syllables.
Such a name is
regarded as a condensed formula.
Ex. 5.
×Potinara Charlesworth & Co. (1922)
(= Brassavola
R. Br. ×
Cattleya
Lindl. ×
Laelia
Lindl. ×
Sophronitis
Lindl.).
H.6.4.
The nothogeneric name of a trigeneric hybrid
is either
(a) a condensed
formula in which
the three names adopted for the parental genera
are combined
into a single word
not exceeding eight syllables,
using the whole or first part of
one,
followed by the whole or any part of another,
followed by the whole or
last part of the third
(but not the whole of all three) and,
optionally,
one or two
connecting vowels, or
(b) a name formed like that of a nothogenus
derived
from four or more genera, i.e.,
from a personal name to which
is added the
termination
-ara.
Ex. 6.
×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst
(1898)
(= Cattleya
Lindl. ×
Laelia
Lindl. ×
Sophronitis
Lindl.);
×Vascostylis Takakura
(1964)
(= Ascocentrum
Schltr. ex J. J. Sm. ×
Rhynchostylis
Blume ×
Vanda
W.
Jones ex R. Br.);
×Rodrettiopsis Moir
(1976)
(= Comparettia
Poepp. & Endl. ×
Ionopsis
Kunth ×
Rodriguezia
Ruiz & Pav.);
×Wilsonara Charlesworth & Co.
(1916)
(= Cochlioda
Lindl. ×
Odontoglos-
sum
Kunth ×
Oncidium
Sw.).
H.6A.1.
When a nothogeneric name is formed
from the name of a person
by adding the
termination
-ara, that person should preferably
be a collector, grower, or student of the
group.
H.7.1.
The name of a nothotaxon which is a hybrid
between subdivisions of a
genus is a combination of
an epithet, which is a condensed formula formed in
the same way as a nothogeneric name (Art.
H.6.2),
with the name of the genus.
Ex. 7.
Ptilostemon nothosect.
Platon Greuter
(in Boissiera 22: 159. 1973),
comprising hybrids between
Ptilostemon sect.
Platyrhaphium Greuter and
Ptilostemon
Cass. sect.
Ptilostemon; Ptilostemon notho-
sect.
Plinia Greuter
(in Boissiera 22: 158. 1973),
comprising hybrids between
Ptilostemon sect.
Platy-
rhaphium and
P. sect.
Cassinia Greuter.
87 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 87 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
H.8-H.9 | Hybrids |
H.8.1.
When the name or the epithet in the name of a nothotaxon
is a con-
densed formula (Art.
H.6 and
H.7),
the parental names used in its formation
must be those
which are correct for the particular circumscription,
position, and
rank accepted for the parental taxa.
Ex. 1.
If the genus
Triticum L.
is interpreted on taxonomic grounds as including
Triticum (s. str.) and
Agropyron Gaertn., and the genus
Hordeum L. as including
Hordeum (s. str.) and
Elymus L., then
hybrids between
Agropyron and
Elymus as well as between
Triticum (s. str.) and
Hordeum (s. str.)
are
placed in the same nothogenus,
×Tritordeum Asch. & Graebn. (1902).
If, however,
Agropyron is
separated generically from
Triticum, hybrids between
Agropyron and
Hordeum (s. str. or s. lat.)
are
placed in the nothogenus
×Agrohordeum A. Camus (1927).
Similarly, if
Elymus is separated generically
from
Hordeum, hybrids between
Elymus and
Triticum (s. str. or s. lat.)
are placed in the nothogenus
×Elymotriticum P. Fourn. (1935).
If both
Agropyron and
Elymus are given generic rank,
hybrids be-
tween them
are placed in the nothogenus
Agroelymus A. Camus (1927);
×Tritordeum is then restricted
to hybrids between
Hordeum (s. str.) and
Triticum (s. str.), and hybrids between
Elymus and
Hordeum
are placed in
×Elyhordeum Mansf. ex Tsitsin & Petrova (1955),
a substitute name for
Hordelymus
Bachteev & Darevsk. (1950) non
Hordelymus
(K. Jess.)
K. Jess. (1885).
H.8.2.
Names ending in
-ara for nothogenera, which are equivalent
to con-
densed formulae (Art.
H.6.3-4),
are applicable only to plants which are ac-
cepted
taxonomically as derived from the parents named.
Ex. 2.
If
Euanthe
Schltr. is recognized
as a distinct genus, hybrids simultaneously
involving its only
species,
E. sanderiana
(Rchb.) Schltr.,
and the three genera
Arachnis
Blume,
Renanthera
Lour., and
Vanda
W. Jones ex R. Br.
must be placed in
×Cogniauxara Garay & H.
R. Sweet
(1966);
if, on the
other hand,
E. sanderiana is included in
Vanda, the same hybrids are placed in
×Holttumara
anon.
(1958)
(Arachnis ×
Renanthera ×
Vanda).
H.9.1.
In order to be validly published,
the name of a nothogenus or of a
nothotaxon
with the rank of subdivision of a genus (Art.
H.6 and
H.7)
must be
effectively published (see Art.
29-31),
with a statement of the names of the
parent
genera or subdivisions of genera,
but no description or diagnosis is
necessary,
whether in Latin or in any other language.
Ex. 1.
Validly published names:
×Philageria Mast. (1872),
published with a statement of parentage,
Lapageria
Ruiz & Pav. ×
Philesia
Comm. ex Juss.;
Eryngium nothosect.
Alpestria Burdet & Miège, pro
sect.
(in Candollea 23: 116. 1968),
published with a statement of its parentage,
E. sect.
Alpina
H. Wolff
×
E. sect.
Campestria
H. Wolff;
×Agrohordeum A. Camus (1927) (=
Agropyron
Gaertn. ×
Hordeum
L.),
of which
×Hordeopyron Simonet (1935,
“Hordeopyrum”) is a later synonym.
Note 1.
Since the names of nothogenera and nothotaxa
with the rank of a subdivision of a
genus
are condensed formulae or treated as such,
they do not have types.
Ex. 2.
The name
×Ericalluna Krüssm. (1960)
was published for plants
(E. bealei Krüssm.)
which
were thought
to be the product of the cross
Calluna vulgaris
(L.) Hull ×
Erica cinerea
L.
If it is
considered that these
are not hybrids, but are variants of
E. cinerea, the name
×Ericalluna Krüssm.
remains available for use if and when
known or postulated plants of
Calluna
Salisb. ×
Erica
L. should
appear.
88 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 88 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.9-H.10A |
Ex. 3.
×Arabidobrassica Gleba & Fr. Hoffm.
(in
Naturwissenschaften 66: 548. 1979), a nothogeneric
name which was validly published with a statement
of parentage for the result of somatic hybridization
by protoplast fusion of
Arabidopsis thaliana
(L.) Heynh. with
Brassica campestris
L.,
is also available
for intergeneric hybrids
resulting from normal crosses between
Arabidopsis
Heynh. and
Brassica
L.,
should any be produced.
Note 2.
However, names published merely in anticipation
of the existence of a hybrid are
not validly published under Art.
34.1(b).
H.10.1.
Names of nothotaxa at the rank of species or below
must conform
with the provisions
(a) in the body of the
Code
applicable to the same ranks
and
(b) in Art.
H.3.
Infringements of Art.
H.3.1.
are treated as errors to be
corrected.
H.10.2.
Taxa previously published as species
or infraspecific taxa which are
later considered
to be nothotaxa may be indicated as such,
without change of
rank, in conformity with Art.
3 and
4
and by the application of Art.
50
(which
also operates in the reverse direction).
H.10.3.
The following are considered to be formulae
and not true epithets:
designations consisting
of the epithets of the names of the parents
combined in
unaltered form by a hyphen,
or with only the termination of one epithet
changed,
or consisting of the specific epithet of the name
of one parent com-
bined with the generic name
of the other (with or without change of termina-
tion).
Ex. 1.
The designation
Potentilla “atrosanguinea-pedata”
published by Maund
(in
Bot. Gard. 5: No.
385, t. 97. 1833)
is considered to be a formula meaning
Potentilla atrosanguinea Lodd. ex D. Don ×
P.
pedata Nestl.
Ex. 2.
Verbascum
“nigro-lychnitis”
(Schiede, Pl. Hybr.: 40. 1825)
is considered to be a formula,
Verbascum lychnitis L. ×
V. nigrum L.;
the correct binary name for this hybrid is
Verbascum schiedea-
num W. D. J. Koch (1844).
Ex. 3.
The following names include true epithets:
Acaena
×anserovina Orchard (1969) (from
A. anse-
rinifolia
(J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.)
Druce and
A. ovina
A. Cunn.);
Micromeria
×benthamineolens Svent.
(1969) (from
M. benthamii
Webb & Berthel. and
M. pineolens
Svent.).
Note 1.
Since the name of a nothotaxon
at the rank of species or below has a type,
state-
ments of parentage play
a secondary part in determining
the application of the name.
Ex. 4.
Quercus
×deamii Trel.
(in Mem. Natl. Acad. Sci.
20: 14. 1924)
when described
was
considered
as
the cross
Q. alba L. ×
Q. muehlenbergii Engelm.
However, progeny grown from acorns from the tree
from which the type
originated
led Bartlett to conclude that the parents were in fact
Q. macrocarpa
Michx. and
Q. muehlenbergii.
If this conclusion is accepted, the name
Q. ×deamii applies to
Q.
macrocarpa ×
Q. muehlenbergii, and not to
Q. alba ×
Q. muehlenbergii.
H.10A.1.
In forming epithets for names of nothotaxa
at the rank of species and below,
authors should avoid combining parts of the epithets
of the names of the parents.
89 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 89 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
H.10B-H.12 | Hybrids |
H.10B.1.
When contemplating the publication of new names
for hybrids between named
infraspecific taxa,
authors should carefully consider whether they are
really needed, bearing
in mind that formulae,
though more cumbersome, are more informative.
H.11.1.
The name of a nothospecies
of which the postulated or known parent
species
belong to different genera is a combination of
a nothospecific (collec-
tive) epithet
with a nothogeneric name.
Ex. 1.
×Heucherella tiarelloides (Lemoine
& E. Lemoine)
H. R. Wehrh.
is considered to
have origin-
ated
from the cross between
a garden hybrid of
Heuchera
L. and
Tiarella cordifolia L.
(see Stearn
in
Bot. Mag. 165:
ad t. 31. 1948).
Its original name,
Heuchera
×tiarelloides Lemoine
& E. Lemoine
(1912), is
therefore incorrect.
Ex. 2.
When
Orchis fuchsii Druce was renamed
Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó the name
for its
hybrid with
Coeloglossum viride
(L.) Hartm.,
×Orchicoeloglossum mixtum Asch. & Graebn. (1907),
became the basis of the necessary new combination
×Dactyloglossum mixtum (Asch. & Graebn.)
Rauschert (1969).
H.11.2.
The
final epithet
in the name
of an infraspecific nothotaxon,
of which
the postulated or known parental taxa
are assigned to different taxa at a higher
rank,
may be placed subordinate to the name of a nothotaxon
at that higher rank
(see Art.
24.1),
e.g to a
nothospecific name (but see Rec.
H.10B).
Ex. 3.
Mentha
×piperita L. nothosubsp.
piperita (=
M. aquatica L. ×
M. spicata L. subsp.
spicata);
Mentha
×piperita nothosubsp.
pyramidalis (Ten.) Harley
(in Kew Bull.
37: 604. 1983)
(= M. aquatica
L. ×
M. spicata subsp.
tomentosa (Briq.) Harley).
H.12.1.
Subordinate taxa within nothotaxa of specific
or infraspecific rank
may be recognized without an obligation
to specify parent taxa at the subordi-
nate rank.
In this case non-hybrid infraspecific categories
of the appropriate
rank are used.
Ex. 1.
Mentha
×piperita
f.
hirsuta Sole;
Populus
×canadensis var.
serotina
(R. Hartig) Rehder and
P.
×canadensis var.
marilandica (Poir.) Rehder
(see also Art. H.4
Note 1).
Note 1.
As there is no statement of parentage
at the rank concerned there is no control of
circumscription at this rank by parentage (compare Art.
H.4).
Note 2.
It is not feasible to treat subdivisions
of nothospecies by the methods of both Art.
H.10
and H.12.1 at the same rank.
H.12.2.
Names published at the rank of nothomorph¹
are treated as having
been published
as names of varieties (see Art.
50).
______________
¹
Previous editions of the
Code (1978, Art.
H.10,
and the corresponding article in earlier editions)
permitted only one rank under provisions equivalent to H.12.
That rank was equivalent to variety and
the category was termed “nothomorph”.
90 |
___________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1994 — Tokyo Code
– 90 –
text: © 1994, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________
[ Appendix II,
listing conserved names of families,
is not included here ]
[ Appendix IIA,
Nomina familiarum algarum, fungorum et pteridophytorum
conservanda et rejicienda is not included here ]
[ Appendix IIB,
Nomina familiarum bryophytorum et spermatophytorum
conservanda, is not included here ]
[ Appendix III,
listing conserved names of genera and species, is not included here ]
[ Appendix IIIA,
Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda, is not included here ]
[ Appendix IIIB,
Nomina specifica conservanda et rejicienda, is not included here ]
[ Appendix IV,
Nomina utique rejicienda, is not included here ]
[ Appendix V,
Opera utique oppressa, is not included here ]