Melbourne Code (2012)

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE

PREAMBLE

1. Biology requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature that is
used in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms that denote
the ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the sci-
entific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups. The pur-
pose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is not to indicate its characters
or history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its taxo-
nomic rank. This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming
taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names that may cause
error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is
the avoidance of the useless creation of names. Other considerations, such
as absolute grammatical correctness, regularity or euphony of names, more
or less prevailing custom, regard for persons, etc., notwithstanding their
undeniable importance, are relatively accessory.

2. Algae, fungi, and plants are the organisms¹ covered by this Code.

3. The Principles form the basis of the system of nomenclature governed
by this Code.

4. The detailed provisions are divided into rules, which are set out in
the Articles (Art.) (sometimes with clarification in Notes), and Rec-
ommendations (Rec.). Examples (Ex.)² are added to the rules and recom-
mendations to illustrate them. A Glossary defining terms used in this Code
is included.

———————————

1     In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “organism” applies only to
       the organisms covered by this Code, i.e. those traditionally studied by botanists,
       mycologists, and phycologists (see Pre. 8).

2 See also footnote to Art. 7 *Ex. 13.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 01 –

__________________________________________________________________

5. 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.

6. The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being
to bring about greater uniformity and clarity, especially in future nomen-
clature; names contrary to a Recommendation cannot, on that account, be
rejected, but they are not examples to be followed.

7. The provisions regulating the governance of this Code form its last
Division (Div. III).

8. The provisions of this Code apply to all organisms traditionally treated
as algae, fungi, or plants, whether fossil or non-fossil, including blue-green
algae (Cyanobacteria)¹, chytrids, oomycetes, slime moulds, and photosyn-
thetic protists with their taxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups
(but excluding Microsporidia). Provisions for the names of hybrids appear
in Appendix I.

9. Names that have been conserved or rejected, suppressed works, and
binding decisions are given in Appendices II–VIII.

10. The Appendices form an integral part of this Code, whether published
together with, or separately from, the main text.

11. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants is
prepared under the authority of the International Commission for the
Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants and deals with the use and formation of
names applied to special categories of organisms in agriculture, forestry,
and horticulture.

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

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

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

————————————

1     For the nomenclature of other prokaryotic groups, see the International Code of
       Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code) [Although renamed in 1999 as the
       International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (see Labeda in Int. J. Syst. Evol.
       Microbiol. 50: 2246. 2000), the current edition, published in 1992, retains the previous
       name.]

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 02 –

__________________________________________________________________

DIVISION I.

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLE I

The nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants is independent of zoological
and bacteriological nomenclature. This Code applies equally to names of
taxonomic groups treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether or not these
groups were originally so treated (see Pre. 8).

PRINCIPLE II

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

PRINCIPLE III

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

PRINCIPLE IV

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

PRINCIPLE V

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

PRINCIPLE VI

The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 03 –

__________________________________________________________________

DIVISION II.

RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER I.

TAXA AND THEIR RANKS

ARTICLE 1

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

1.2. A taxon (diatom taxa excepted) the name of which is based on a fossil
type is a fossil-taxon. A fossil-taxon comprises the remains of one or more
parts of the parent organism, or one or more of their life-history stages, in
one or more preservational states, as indicated in the original or any sub-
sequent description or diagnosis of the taxon (see also Art. 11.1 and 13.3).

Ex. 1. Alcicornopteris hallei J. Walton (in Ann. Bot. (Oxford), ser. 2, 13: 450. 1949) is
a fossil-species for which the original description included rachides, sporangia, and
spores of a pteridosperm, preserved in part as compressions and in part as petrifactions.

Ex. 2. Protofagacea allonensis Herend. & al. (in Int. J. Pl. Sci. 56: 94. 1995) is a fossil-
species for which the original description included dichasia of staminate flowers, with
anthers containing pollen grains, fruits, and cupules, and thus comprises more than one
part and more than one life-history stage.

Ex. 3. Stamnostoma A. Long (in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 64: 212. 1960) is a fossil-
genus that was originally described with a single species, S. huttonense, comprising an-
atomically preserved ovules with completely fused integuments forming an open collar
around the lagenostome. Rothwell & Scott (in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 72: 281. 1992)
have subsequently modified the description of the genus, expanding its circumscription
to include also the cupules in which the ovules were borne. The name Stamnostoma can
be applied to a genus with either circumscription or to any other that may involve other
parts, life-history stages, or preservational states, so long as it includes S. huttonense,
but not the type of any earlier legitimate generic name.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 04 –

__________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 2

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

ARTICLE 3

3.1. The principal ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom (reg-
num), division or phylum (divisio or phylum), class (classis), order (ordo),
family (familia), genus (genus), and species (species). Thus, each species is
assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.

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

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

Ex. 2. The fossil-genus Paradinandra Schönenberger & E. M. Friis (in Amer. J. Bot.
88: 478. 2001) was assigned to “Ericales s.l.” but with respect to family placement it was
given as “incertae sedis”.

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

ARTICLE 4

4.1. The secondary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are tribe (tri-
bus) 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. An organism may thus be assigned to taxa of the follow-
ing ranks (in descending sequence): kingdom (regnum), subkingdom (sub-
regnum), division or phylum (divisio or phylum), subdivision or subphylum
(subdivisio or subphylum), class (classis), subclass (subclassis), order (ordo),
suborder (subordo), family (familia), subfamily (subfamilia), tribe (tribus),

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 05 –

__________________________________________________________________

subtribe (subtribus), genus (genus), subgenus (subgenus), section (sectio),
subsection (subsectio), series (series), subseries (subseries), species (spe-
cies), subspecies (subspecies), variety (varietas), subvariety (subvarietas),
form (forma), and subform (subforma).

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

4.3. Further ranks may also be intercalated or added, provided that confu-
sion or error is not thereby introduced.

4.4. The subordinate ranks of nothotaxa are the same as the subordinate
ranks of non-hybrid taxa, except that nothogenus is the highest rank per-
mitted (see App. I).

Note 2. Throughout this Code the phrase “subdivision of a family” refers only
to taxa of a rank between family and genus and “subdivision of a genus” refers
only to taxa of a rank between genus and species.

Note 3. For the designation of special categories of organisms used in agricul-
ture, forestry, and horticulture, see Pre. 11 and Art. 28 Notes 2, 4, and 5.

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

ARTICLE 5

5.1. The relative order of the ranks specified in Art. 3 and 4 must not be
altered (see Art. 37.6 and 37.9).

Recommendation 5A

5A.1. For purposes of standardization, the following abbreviations are recom-
mended: cl. (class), ord. (order), fam. (family), tr. (tribe), gen. (genus), sect. (sec-
tion), ser. (series), sp. (species), var. (variety), f. (forma). The abbreviations for ad-
ditional ranks created by the addition of the prefix sub-, or for nothotaxa with the
prefix notho-, should be formed by adding the prefixes, e.g. subsp. (subspecies),
nothosp. (nothospecies), but subg. (subgenus) not “subgen.”

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 06 –

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER II.

STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES

SECTION 1.

STATUS DEFINITIONS

ARTICLE 6

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

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

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

6.3. In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “name” means a
name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegiti-
mate (see Art. 12; but see Art. 14.15).

Note 2. When the same name, based on the same type, has been published
independently at different times perhaps by different authors, then only the earli-
est of these “isonyms” has nomenclatural status. The name is always to be cited
from its original place of valid publication, and later isonyms may be disregarded
(but see Art. 14.15).

Ex. 1. Baker (Summary New Ferns: 9. 1892) and Christensen (Index Filic.: 44. 1905) in-
dependently published the name Alsophila kalbreyeri as a replacement for A. podophylla
Baker (1881) non Hook. (1857). As published by Christensen, A. kalbreyeri is a later
isonym of A. kalbreyeri Baker without nomenclatural status (see also Art. 41 Ex. 19).

Ex. 2. In publishing “Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.”, Leenhouts (in Blumea 9:
406. 1959) re-used the illegitimate C. pimela K. D. Koenig (1805), attributing it to him-
self and basing it on the same type. He thereby created a later isonym without nomen-
clatural status.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 07 –

__________________________________________________________________

6.4. An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in Art. 18.3,
19.6, or 52–54 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 2). A name that
according to this Code was illegitimate when published cannot become
legitimate later unless Art. 18.3 or 19.6 so provide or unless it is conserved
or sanctioned.

Ex. 3. Anisothecium Mitt. (1869) when published included the previously designated
type of Dicranella (Müll. Hal.) Schimp. (1856). When Dicranella was conserved with a
different type, Anisothecium did not thereby become legitimate.

Ex. 4. Skeletonemopsis P. A. Sims (1995) was illegitimate when published because it
included the original type of Skeletonema Grev. (1865). When Skeletonema was con-
served with a different type, Skeletonemopsis nevertheless remained illegitimate and
had to be conserved in order to be available for use.

6.5. A legitimate name is one that is in accordance with the rules, i.e. one
that is not illegitimate as defined in Art. 6.4.

6.6. At the rank of family or below, the correct name of a taxon with a
particular circumscription, position, and rank is the legitimate name that
must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 11).

Ex. 5. The generic name Vexillifera Ducke (1922), based on the single species V. mi-
cranthera, is legitimate. The same is true of the generic name Dussia Krug & Urb.
ex Taub. (1892), based on the single species D. martinicensis. Both generic names are
correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni
Veg. 19: 291. 1924), however, united Vexillifera and Dussia in a single genus; the lat-
ter name is the correct one for the genus with that particular circumscription. The le-
gitimate name Vexillifera may therefore be correct or incorrect according to different
taxonomic concepts.

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

Ex. 6. Combinations: Mouriri subg. Pericrene, Arytera sect. Mischarytera, Gentiana
lutea, Gentiana tenella var. occidentalis, Equisetum palustre var. americanum, Equi-
setum palustre f. fluitans.

6.8. Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under
Art. 22.3 and 26.3, whether or not they actually appear in the publication in
which they are created (see Art. 32.3, Rec. 22B.1 and 26B.1).

6.9. The name of a new taxon (e.g. genus novum, gen. nov., species nova,
sp. nov.) is a name validly published in its own right, i.e. one not based on

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 08 –

__________________________________________________________________

a previously validly published name; it is not a new combination, a name at
new rank, or a replacement name.

Ex. 7. Cannaceae Juss. (1789), Canna L. (1753), Canna indica L. (1753), Heterotrichum
pulchellum Fisch. (1812), Poa sibirica Roshev. (1912), Solanum umtuma Voronts. &
S. Knapp (2012).

6.10. A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or name at new
rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate, previ-
ously published name, which is its basionym. The basionym provides the
final epithet, name, or stem of the new combination or name at new rank.
(see also Art. 41.2).

Ex. 8. The basionym of Centaurea benedicta (L.) L. (1763) is Cnicus benedictus L.
(1753), the name that provides the epithet.

Ex. 9. The basionym of Crupina (Pers.) DC. (1810) is Centaurea subg. Crupina Pers.
(Syn. Pl. 2: 488. 1807), the name of which the epithet provides the generic name; it is not
Centaurea crupina L. (1753) (see Art. 41.2(b)).

Ex. 10. The basionym of Anthemis subg. Ammanthus (Boiss. & Heldr.) R. Fern. (1975)
is Ammanthus Boiss. & Heldr. (1849), the name that provides the epithet.

Ex. 11. The basionym of Ricinocarpaceae Hurus. (in J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, ser. 3, Bot.,
6: 224. 1954) is Ricinocarpeae Müll.-Arg. (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 22: 324. 1864), but not
Ricinocarpos Desf. (1817) (see Art. 41.2(a); see also Art. 49.2), from which the names of
both family and tribe are formed.

Note 3. The phrase “nomenclatural novelty”, as used in this Code, refers to any
or all of the categories: name of a new taxon, new combination, name at new rank,
and replacement name.

Note 4. A new combination can at the same time be a name at new rank (comb.
& stat. nov.); a nomenclatural novelty with a basionym may be neither of these.

Ex. 12. Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. (1768), based on A. perfoliata var. vera L. (Sp. Pl.: 320.
1753), is both a new combination and a name at new rank.

Ex. 13. Centaurea jacea subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Greuter, “comb. in stat. nov.” (in
Willdenowia 33: 55. 2002), based on C. weldeniana Rchb. (1831), was not a new com-
bination because C. jacea var. weldeniana (Rchb.) Briq. (Monogr. Centaurées Alpes
Marit.: 69. 1902) had been published previously; nor was it a name at new rank, due
to the existence of C. amara subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Kušan (in Prir. Istraž. Kral.
Jugoslavije 20: 29. 1936); it was nevertheless a nomenclatural novelty.

6.11. A replacement name (avowed substitute, nomen novum, nom.
nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate or illegitimate, previously pub-
lished name, which is its replaced synonym. The replaced synonym, when

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 09 –

__________________________________________________________________

legitimate, does not provide the final epithet, name, or stem of the replace-
ment name (see also Art. 58.1).

Ex. 14. Caulerpa pinnata C. Agardh (1817), based on the illegitimate Fucus pinna-
tus L. f. (1782), a later homonym of F. pinnatus Huds. (1762). – Centaurea chartolepis
Greuter (2003), based on Chartolepis intermedia Boiss. (1856), the epithet interme-
dia being unavailable in Centaurea because of Centaurea intermedia Mutel (1846).
– Cyanus segetum Hill (1762), based on Centaurea cyanus L. (1753), the epithet cyanus
being unavailable in combination with Cyanus (Art. 23.4). – Mycena coccineoides
Grgur. (2003), based on Omphalina coccinea Murrill (1916), as M. coccinea (Murrill)
Singer (1962) is an illegitimate later homonym of M. coccinea (Sowerby) Quél. (1880).

SECTION 2.

TYPIFICATION

ARTICLE 7

7.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is de-
termined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The ap-
plication 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 the correct name or as a syno-
nym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or repre-
sentative element of a taxon.

7.3. A new combination or a name at new rank (Art. 6.10) is 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).

Ex. 1. 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 T. mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière must not be applied to T. heterophylla but
must be retained for P. mertensiana when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation
in parentheses (under Art. 49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the
basionym, and hence the type, of the name.

Ex. 2. Delesseria gmelinii J. V. Lamour. (1813) is a legitimate replacement name for
Fucus palmetta S. G. Gmel. (1768), the change of epithet being necessitated by the
simultaneous publication of D. palmetta (Stackh.) J. V. Lamour. (see Art. 11 Note 2).
All combinations based on D. gmelinii (and not excluding the type of F. palmetta; see

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 10 –

__________________________________________________________________

Art. 48.1) have the same type as F. palmetta even though the material possessed by
Lamouroux is now assigned to a different species, D. bonnemaisonii C. Agardh (1822).

Ex. 3. The new combination Cystocoleus ebeneus (Dillwyn) Thwaites (1849) is typi-
fied by the type of its basionym Conferva ebenea Dillwyn (1809) even though the mate-
rial illustrated by Thwaites was of Racodium rupestre Pers. (1794).

7.4. A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typified by the type of the replaced
synonym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now
considered not to include that type (but see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).

Ex. 4. Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a replacement name for M. lae-
vis O. Berg (1862), an illegitimate homonym of M. laevis G. Don (1832). The type of
M. lucida is therefore the type of M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely, Spruce 3502
(BR).

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

Ex. 5. Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (1976) is illegitimate under Art. 52 (see Art. 52 Ex. 9),
but its publication as a replacement name for B. retusa Roxb. (1832) non Poir. (1811) is
definite indication of a different type (that of B. retusa) from that of the name (B. rox-
burghiana Voigt, 1845) that ought to have been adopted.

Ex. 6. Hewittia bicolor Wight & Arn. (1837), which provides the type of Hewittia
Wight & Arn., is illegitimate under Art. 52 because, in addition to the illegitimate
intended basionym Convolvulus bicolor Vahl (1794) non Desr. (1792), the legitimate
C. bracteatus Vahl (1794) was cited as a synonym. Wight & Arnott’s adoption of the
epithet “bicolor” is definite indication that the type of H. bicolor, and therefore the
type of Hewittia, is the type of C. bicolor, not that of C. bracteatus, the epithet of which
ought to have been adopted.

Ex. 7. Gilia splendens, when validly published by Mason & Grant (in Madroño 9: 212.
1948), included, as “a long-tubed form of the species”, G. splendens subsp. grinnellii,
based on G. grinnellii Brand (1907), and is therefore illegitimate under Art. 52. Mason
& Grant, who believed that G. splendens was already validly published, did not indicate
its type, which is not automatically that of G. grinnellii; the specimen that has since
been adopted as the conserved type could have been selected as lectotype.

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 11 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 8. The type of Caulerpa racemosa (Forssk.) J. Agardh var. racemosa is that of
C. racemosa; the type of C. racemosa is that of its basionym, Fucus racemosus Forssk.
(1775), i.e. Herb. Forsskål No. 845 (C).

7.7. A name of a new taxon validly published solely by reference to a pre-
viously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)) is to
be typified by an element selected from the entire context of the validating
description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely des-
ignated a different type, but not by an element explicitly excluded by the
validating author (see also Art. 7.8).

Ex. 9. Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by refer-
ence to the description associated with an illustration devoid of analysis, “Rumph. amb.
3: t. 112”, cited by Moon, the lectotype of the name, in the absence of the specimen(s)
on which the validating description was based, is the illustration associated with that
description, i.e. t. 112 (in Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 3. 1743). It is not the specimen, at
Kew, collected by Moon and labelled “Adenanthera bicolor”, since Moon did not defi-
nitely designate the latter as the type.

Ex. 10. 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 descrip-
tion of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen from the context of
his work. Consequently the Sherard specimen in the Morison herbarium (OXF), selected
by Klotz (in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Math.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9:
375–376. 1960), although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The first ac-
ceptable 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).

Ex. 11. Hieracium oribates Brenner (1904) was validly published without accompany-
ing descriptive matter but with reference to the validating description of H. saxifragum
subsp. oreinum Dahlst. ex Brenner (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 18: 89. 1892).
As Brenner definitely excluded the earlier name itself and part of its original material,
H. oribates is the name of a new taxon, not a replacement name, and may not be typified
by an excluded element.

7.8. A name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-
point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be typified by an element
selected from the context of its valid publication (Art. 32–45).

Note 1. The typification of names of fossil-taxa (Art. 1.2 ) and of any other
analogous taxa at or below the rank of genus does not differ from that indicated
above.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 12 –

__________________________________________________________________

7.9. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a
type is achieved only by effective publication (Art. 29–31).

7.10. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a
type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typi-
fying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation in-
cluding the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or after 1 January
2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here”
(hic designatus) or an equivalent.

Note 2. Art. 7.9 and 7.10 apply only to the designation of lectotypes (and their
equivalents under Art. 10), neotypes, and epitypes; for the indication of a holotype
see Art. 40.

Ex. 12. Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907) originally comprised two species, C. minor and
C. elegans. Vischer (1933) transferred the former to Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and
retained the latter in Chlorosarcina. He did not, however, use the term “type” or an
equivalent, so that his action does not constitute typification of Chlorosarcina. The
first to designate a type, as “LT.”, was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov 1962), who
selected Chlorosarcina elegans.

*Ex. 13.¹ The phrase “standard species” as used by Hitchcock & Green (in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 110–199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to “type”, and hence
type designations in that work are acceptable.

Recommendation 7A

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

ARTICLE 8

8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon is either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium

————————————

1     Here and elsewhere in the Code, a prefixed asterisk denotes a “voted Example”,
       accepted by an International Botanical Congress in order to govern nomenclatural
       practice when the corresponding Article of the Code is open to divergent interpretation
       or does not adequately cover the matter. A voted Example is therefore comparable to a
       rule, as contrasted with other Examples provided by the Editorial Committee solely for
       illustrative purposes.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 13 –

__________________________________________________________________

or other collection or institution, or an illustration¹ (but see Art. 8.5; see
also Art. 40.4 and 40.5).

8.2. For the purpose of typification a specimen is a gathering, or part of
a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon made at one time,
disregarding admixtures (see Art. 9.14). It may consist of a single organism,
parts of one or several organisms, or of multiple small organisms. A speci-
men is usually mounted on a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent
preparation, such as a box, packet, jar, or microscope slide.

Ex. 1. “Echinocereus sanpedroensis” (Raudonat & Rischer in Echinocereenfreund
8(4): 91–92. 1995) was based on a “holotype” consisting of a complete plant with roots,
a detached branch, an entire flower, a flower cut in halves, and two fruits that, accord-
ing to the label, were taken from the same cultivated individual at different times and
preserved, in alcohol, in a single jar. This material belongs to more than one gathering
and cannot be accepted as a type. Raudonat & Rischer’s name is not validly published
under Art. 40.2.

8.3. A specimen may be mounted as more than one preparation, as long as
the parts are clearly labelled as being part of that same specimen. Multiple
preparations from a single gathering that are not clearly labelled as being
part of a single specimen are duplicates², irrespective of whether the source
was one organism or more than one (but see Art. 8.5).

Ex. 2. The holotype specimen of Delissea eleeleensis H. St. John, Christensen 261
(BISH), is mounted as two preparations, a herbarium sheet (BISH No. 519675) bearing
the annotation “fl. bottled” and an inflorescence preserved in alcohol in a jar labelled
“Cyanea, Christensen 261”. The annotation indicates that the inflorescence is part of
the holotype specimen and not a duplicate, nor is it part of the isotype specimen (BISH
No. 519676), which is not labelled as including additional material preserved in a sepa-
rate preparation.

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

Ex. 4. The holotype of Cephaelis acanthacea Steyerm., Cuatrecasas 16752 (F), consists
of a single specimen mounted on two herbarium sheets, labelled “sheet 1” and “sheet 2”.

————————————

1     Here and elsewhere in this Code, the term “illustration” designates a work of art or a
       photograph depicting a feature or features of an organism, e.g. a picture of a herbarium
       specimen or a scanning electron micrograph.

2     Here and elsewhere in this Code, the word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning
       in curatorial practice. A duplicate is part of a single gathering of a single species or
       infraspecific taxon made by the same collector(s) at one time. The possibility of a
       mixed gathering must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype, and
       corresponding caution used.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 14 –

__________________________________________________________________

Although the two sheets have separate herbarium accession numbers, F-1153741 and
F-1153742, respectively, the cross-labelling indicates that they constitute a single speci-
men. A third sheet of Cuatrecasas 16572, F-1153740, is not cross-labelled and is there-
fore a duplicate.

Ex. 5. The holotype specimen of Eugenia ceibensis Standl., Yuncker & al. 8309, is
mounted on a single herbarium sheet at F. A fragment was removed from the specimen
subsequent to its designation as holotype and is now conserved at LL. The fragment is
mounted on a herbarium sheet along with a photograph of the holotype and is labelled
“fragment of type!”. The fragment is no longer part of the holotype specimen because
it is not permanently conserved in the same herbarium as the holotype. It has the status
of a duplicate, i.e. an isotype.

8.4. Type specimens of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and
may not be living organisms or cultures. However, cultures of algae and
fungi, if preserved in a metabolically inactive state (e.g. by lyophilization or
deep-freezing to remain alive in that inactive state), are acceptable as types.

Ex. 6. “Dendrobium sibuyanense“ (Lubag-Arquiza & al. in Philipp. Agric. Sci. 88:
484–488. 2005) was described with the statement “Type specimen is living specimen
being maintained at the Orchid Nursery, Department of Horticulture, University of the
Philippines Los Baños (UPLB). Collectors: Orville C. Baldos & Ramil R. Marasigan,
April 5, 2004”. However, this is a living collection and, as such, is not acceptable as a type.
Consequently no type was indicated and the name was not validly published (Art. 40.1).

Ex. 7. The strain CBS 7351 is acceptable as the type of the name Candida populi Hagler
& al. (in Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39: 98. 1989) because it is permanently preserved in a
metabolically inactive state by lyophilization (see also Rec. 8B.2).

8.5. The type, epitypes (Art. 9.8) excepted, of the name of a fossil-taxon of
the rank of species or below is always a specimen (see Art. 9.15). One whole
specimen is to be considered as the nomenclatural type (see Rec. 8A.3).

Recommendation 8A

8A.1. When a holotype, a lectotype, or a neotype is an illustration, the specimen
or specimens upon which that illustration is based should be used to help deter-
mine the application of the name (see also Art. 9.15).

8A.2. When an illustration is designated as the type of a name under Art. 40.5,
the collection data of the illustrated material should be given (see also Rec. 38D.2).

8A.3. If the type specimen of a name of a fossil-taxon is cut into pieces (sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coalball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in establish-
ing the diagnosis should be clearly marked.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 15 –

__________________________________________________________________

8A.4. When a single specimen designated as type is mounted as multiple prepara-
tions, this should be stated in the protologue¹, and the preparations appropriately
labelled.

Recommendation 8B

8B.1. Whenever practicable a living culture should be prepared from the holotype
material of the name of a newly described taxon of algae or fungi and deposited in
at least two institutional culture or genetic resource collections. (Such action does
not obviate the requirement for a holotype specimen under Art. 8.4.)

8B.2. In cases where the type of a name is a culture permanently preserved in
a metabolically inactive state (see Art. 8.4), any living isolates obtained from it
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.

8B.3. When a culture is designated as a type, the status of the culture should be
indicated, including the phrase “permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive
state” or an equivalent.

ARTICLE 9

9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one
specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) used by the author, or desig-
nated by the author as the nomenclatural type. As long as the holotype is
extant, it fixes the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).

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.
9.11 and 9.15). If the author used only one element, it must be accepted as the holo-
type. If a name of a new taxon is validly published solely by reference to a previ-
ously published description or diagnosis, the same considerations apply to material
used by the author of that description or diagnosis (see Art. 7.7; but see Art. 7.8).

Ex. 1. When Tuckerman established Opegrapha oulocheila Tuck. (1866) he referred to
“the single specimen, from Schweinitz’s herbarium (Herb. Acad. Sci. Philad.) before
me”. Even though the term “type” or its equivalent was not used in the protologue, that
specimen (PH) is the holotype.

Ex. 2. The name Phoebe calcarea S. K. Lee & F. N. Wei (1983) was validly published
with the holotype designation “Du’an Expedition 4-10-004, IBK”, but no specimen with
this collection number exists at IBK. However, a specimen at IBK annotated with this

————————————

1     Protologue (from Greek πρώτος, protos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything
       associated with a name at its valid publication, e.g. description, diagnosis, illustrations,
       references, synonymy, geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and
       comments.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 16 –

__________________________________________________________________

name, “sp. nov.”, “Typus”, and matching all other details of the protologue bears the
collection number “Duan Exped. 4-10-243”. Therefore the original type citation is ob-
viously erroneous and is to be corrected.

9.2. A lectotype is a specimen or illustration designated from the original
material as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art. 9.11 and 9.12,
if no holotype was indicated at the time of publication, or if the holotype
is missing, or if a type is found to belong to more than one taxon (see also
Art. 9.14). For sanctioned names, a lectotype may be selected from among
elements associated with either or both the protologue and the sanctioning
treatment (Art. 9.10).

9.3. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises the follow-
ing elements: (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 iso-
types or isosyntypes of the name irrespective of whether such specimens
were seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or
the author of the name (but see Art. 7.7, 7.8, and 9.10).

Note 2. For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from the context of the
protologue itself are considered as original material.

Note 3. For names falling under Art. 7.7, only elements from the context of the
validating description are considered as original material, unless the validating
author has definitely designated a different type.

Note 4. For names falling under Art. 9.10, elements from the context of the
protologue are original material and those from the context of the sanctioning
work are considered as equivalent to original material.

9.4. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

9.5. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no
holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated
in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire
gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.

Ex. 3. In the protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (see Art. 40 Ex. 2) a sin-
gle gathering in two herbaria was designated as the type. There must exist, therefore, at
least two specimens and these are syntypes.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 17 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 4. In the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (1753), two specimens are cited under
the (unnamed) varieties β and γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These specimens,
which are extant in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.

9.6. A paratype is any specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the
holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if in the protologue two or
more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.

Ex. 5. The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma (1932), which applies to a
polygamous species, is a male specimen, Kappler 593a (U). The author designated a
hermaphroditic specimen, Forestry Service of Surinam B. W. 1618 (U), as a paratype.

Note 5. 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. 9.5), any remaining cited
specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.

Ex. 6. In the protologue of Eurya hebeclados Y. Ling (1951) the author simultaneously
designated two specimens as types, Y. Ling 5014 as “typus, ♂” and Y. Y. Tung 315 as
“typus, ♀”, which are therefore syntypes. Ling also cited the specimen Y. Ling 5366 but
without designating it as a type; it is therefore a paratype.

9.7. A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomen-
clatural type if no original material is extant, or as long as it is missing (see
also Art. 9.16).

9.8. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an in-
terpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated
neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name,
is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes
of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Designation of an epitype
is not effected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype
supports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).

Ex. 7. The holotype of the name Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn. (1807) is a seed of
unknown provenance (P). It shows the characters of the species but cannot be assigned
to either of its two currently recognized subspecies, which differ in characters of foliage
and inflorescence. Hall & Hindle (in Taxon 44: 410. 1995) designated the type of Bassia
parkii G. Don (1838), Park (BM), as the epitype of V. paradoxa. Bassia parkii thus be-
comes a synonym of V. paradoxa subsp. paradoxa, and the second subspecies retains
the name V. paradoxa subsp. nilotica (Kotschy) A. N. Henry & al. (1983).

Ex. 8. Podlech (in Taxon 46: 465. 1997) designated Herb. Linnaeus No. 926.43 (LINN)
as the lectotype of Astragalus trimestris L. (1753). He simultaneously designated an
epitype (Egypt. Dünen oberhalb Rosetta am linken Nilufer bei Schech Mantur, 9 May
1902, Anonymous (BM)), because the lectotype lacks fruits, “which show important
diagnostic features for this species.”

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 18 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 9. The lectotype of Lichen saxatilis L. (1753), designated by Galloway & Elix (in
New Zealand J. Bot. 21: 405. 1983), is a specimen from Sweden: Herb. Linnaeus No.
1273.62, second individual from bottom (LINN). No molecular sequence data could be
obtained from the lectotype in order to ascertain whether it agrees with current usage of
the name Parmelia saxatilis (L.) Ach. (1803) or is referable to the morphologically indis-
tinguishable P. serrana A. Crespo & al. (2004). Therefore, Molina & al. (in Lichenologist
36: 47. 2004) designated an epitype, supporting that lectotype: a Swedish specimen
of P. saxatilis, collected in 1998 (MAF 6882), for which sequence data were available.

9.9. The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1–9.2 and 9.4–9.8) as de-
noting 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. 10. Borssum Waalkes (in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7
(LINN) as the holotype of Sida retusa L. (1763). However, illustrations in Plukenet
(Phytographia: t. 9, fig. 2. 1691) and Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 19. 1750) were cited
by Linnaeus in the protologue. Therefore the original material of S. retusa comprises
three elements (Art. 9.3), and Borssum Waalkes’s use of holotype is an error to be cor-
rected to lectotype.

Note 6. A misused term may be corrected only if the requirements of Art. 7.10
(for correction to lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for cor-
rection to holotype) does not apply.

9.10. The type of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon adopted in
one of the works specified in Art. 13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned (Art. 15),
may be selected from among the elements associated with the name in the
protologue and/or the sanctioning treatment.

9.11. If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon, or when the holotype or previously designated lecto-
type 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.
9.7), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated.

9.12. In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists,
or otherwise a syntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype
(duplicate of syntype) is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among
the paratypes if such exist. If no cited specimens exist, the lectotype must
be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illus-
trations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 19 –

__________________________________________________________________

9.13. If no original material is extant or as long as it is missing, a neotype
may be selected. A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype, ex-
cept as provided by Art. 9.16.

9.14. When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains
parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the name must re-
main attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art. 8.2) that corresponds
most nearly with the original description or diagnosis.

Ex. 11. The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is Lorentz 128
(BM); this specimen, however, proved to be mixed. Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts
70: 192. 1935) acted in accordance with Art. 9.14 in designating one part of Lorentz’s
specimen as the lectotype.

9.15. The holotype (or lectotype) of a name of a fossil-species or infraspe-
cific fossil-taxon (Art. 8.5) is the specimen (or one of the specimens) on
which the validating illustrations (Art. 43.2) are based. When, prior to
1 January 2001 (see Art. 43.3), in the protologue of a name of a new fossil-
taxon of the rank of species or below, a type specimen is indicated (Art.
40.1) but not identified among the validating illustrations, a lectotype must
be designated from among the specimens illustrated in the protologue. This
choice is superseded if it can be demonstrated that the original type speci-
men corresponds to another validating illustration.

9.16. 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 lost or destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to pre-
serve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art. 9.18).

9.17. A designation of a lectotype or neotype that later is found to refer
to a single gathering but to more than one specimen must nevertheless
be accepted (subject to Art. 9.19), but may be further narrowed to a sin-
gle one of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypification or
neotypification.

Ex. 12. Erigeron plantagineus Greene (1898) was described from material collected by
R. M. Austin in California. Cronquist (in Brittonia 6: 173. 1947) wrote “Type: Austin
s.n., Modoc County, California (ND)”, thereby designating the Austin material in ND
as the [first-step] lectotype. Strother & Ferlatte (in Madroño 35: 85. 1988), noting that
there were two specimens of this gathering at ND, designated one of them (ND-G No.
057228) as the [second-step] lectotype. In subsequent references, both lectotypification
steps may be cited in sequence.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 20 –

__________________________________________________________________

9.18. A neotype selected under Art. 9.16 may be superseded if it can be
shown to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.

9.19. The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) a lectotype or a
neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–9.13 must be followed, but that choice
is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the
original material is rediscovered; the choice may also be superseded if one
can show that (b) it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another
element is available that is not in conflict with the protologue, or that (c) it
is contrary to Art. 9.14.

Ex. 13. Baumann & al. (in J. Eur. Orch. 34: 176. 2006) designated an illustration cited in
the protologue of Gymnadenia rubra Wettst. (1889) as “lectotype”. Because Wettstein
also cited syntypes, which should have taken precedence, this designation was not in
conformity with Art. 9.12 and must not be followed. The name was correctly lectotypi-
fied, designating one of the syntypes, by Baumann & Lorenz (in Taxon 60: 1775. 2011).

9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) an epitype must
be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original epi-
type is lost or destroyed. A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype
may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.19, or in the case of a neotype
with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports
differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name
may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also
Art. 57).

Note 7. An epitype supports only the type to which it is linked by the typifying
author. If the supported type is superseded, the epitype has no standing with re-
spect to the replacement type.

9.21. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the herbarium or
institution in which the epitype is conserved is specified or, if the epitype
is a published illustration, a full and direct bibliographic reference (Art.
41.5) to it is provided.

9.22. On or after 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of
a name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished
illustration is not effected unless the herbarium or institution in which the
type is conserved is specified.

9.23. On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification or neotypification of a
name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless indicated by

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 21 –

__________________________________________________________________

use of the term “lectotypus” or “neotypus”, its abbreviation, or its equiva-
lent in a modern language (see also Art. 7.10 and 9.9).

Recommendation 9A

9A.1. Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be
carried out with an understanding of the author’s method of working; in particular
it should be realized that some of the material used by the author in describing the
taxon may not be in the author’s herbarium or may not even have survived, and
conversely, that not all the material surviving in the author’s herbarium was neces-
sarily used in describing the taxon.

9A.2. Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an
understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of
the protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as
the automatic selection of the first element cited or of a specimen collected by the
person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and lead-
ing to possible future confusion and further changes.

9A.3. In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name
should be given preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue.
Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recog-
nizable figures, and epithets such as typicus, genuinus, etc.

9A.4. When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with
the original description or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected as to pre-
serve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or
more elements as other taxa, one of the remaining elements should be designated
as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original de-
scription or diagnosis (see Art. 9.19).

Recommendation 9B

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

Recommendation 9C

9C.1. Duplicate specimens of a lectotype, neotype, and epitype should be referred
to as isolectotypes, isoneotypes, and isoepitypes, respectively.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 22 –

__________________________________________________________________

Recommendation 9D

9D.1. Specification of the institution of deposition (see Art. 40 Note 4) should be
followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying
the lectotype, neotype, or epitype specimen (see also Rec. 40A.3).

ARTICLE 10

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

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

10.2. If in the protologue of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of
a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or more previously or simultane-
ously published species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. 10.3), the
type must be chosen from among these types, unless (a) the type was in-
dicated (Art. 22.6, 40.1, and 40.3) or designated by the author of the name;
or (b) the name was sanctioned, in which case the type may also be chosen
from among the types of species names included in the sanctioning treat-
ment. If no type of a previously or simultaneously published species name
was definitely included, a type must be otherwise chosen, but the choice
is to be superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type is not
conspecific with any of the material associated with either the protologue
or the sanctioning treatment.

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) desig-
nated Anthemis valentina L. (1753) as type of Anacyclus, but this was not an original
element of the genus. Green (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 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. 13), and her choice must be fol-
lowed (Art. 10.5). Humphries (in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 7: 109. 1979) desig-
nated 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. (Aug 1862) was described on the basis
of a single specimen collected by Spruce and without mention of a species name. Swart
(in ING Card No. 2143. 1957) was the first to designate a type (as “T.”): C. granatensis
Planch. & Linden (Dec 1862), based on Linden 1360. As long as the Spruce specimen

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 23 –

__________________________________________________________________

is considered to be conspecific with Linden’s material, Swart’s type designation can-
not 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 species name, whether accepted or synonymized
by the author, or by citation of the holotype or lectotype of a previously or
simultaneously published species name.

Ex. 3. The protologue of Elodes Adans. (1763) includes references to “Elodes” of
Clusius (1601), “Hypericum” of Tournefort (1700), and Hypericum aegypticum L.
(1753). The last is the only reference to a validly published species name, and neither of
the other elements is the type of a species name. 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 prepa-
ration of the protologue, other than the type of a name of an included species.

Note 2. If the element designated under Art. 10.4 is the type of a species name,
that name may be cited as the type of the generic name. If the element is not the
type of a species name, a parenthetical reference to the correct name of the type
element may be added.

Ex. 4. Physconia Poelt (1965) was conserved with the specimen “‘Lichen pulverulen-
tus’, Germania, Lipsia in Tilia, 1767, Schreber (M)” as the conserved type. That speci-
men is the type of P. pulverulacea Moberg (1979), the name now cited in the type entry
in App. III.

Ex. 5. Pseudolarix Gordon (1858) was conserved with a specimen from the Gordon
herbarium (K No. 3455) as its conserved type. As this specimen is not the type of any
species name, its accepted identity “[= P. amabilis (J. Nelson) Rehder ...]” has been
added to the corresponding entry in App. III.

10.5. The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) a type of a name
of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the choice may
be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the
protologue (or with the sanctioning treatment in the case of names typi-
fied from the sanctioning work, Art. 10.2(b)), or (b) that it was based on a
largely mechanical method of selection.

Ex. 6. Fink (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 14(1): 2. 1910) specified that he was “stating the
types of the genera according to the ‘first species’ rule”. His type designations may
therefore be superseded under Art. 10.5(b). For example, Fink had designated Biatorina

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 24 –

__________________________________________________________________

griffithii (Ach.) A. Massal. as the type of Biatorina A. Massal.; but his choice was
superseded when the next subsequent designation, by Santesson (in Symb. Bot. Upsal.
12(1): 428. 1952), stated a different type, B. atropurpurea (Schaer.) A. Massal.

*Ex. 7. Authors following the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Canon 15 (in
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 172. 1907), designated as the type “the first binomial species
in order” eligible under certain provisions. This method of selection is to be considered
as largely mechanical. Thus the first type designation for Delphinium L., by Britton (in
Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 93. 1913), who followed the American Code
and chose D. consolida L., has been superseded under Art. 10.5(b) by the designation of
D. peregrinum L. by Green (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot,: 162. 1929).

10.6. The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is
the same as that of the generic name on which it is based (see Art. 18.1). For
purposes of designation or citation of a type, the generic name alone suf-
fices. The type of a name of a family or subfamily not based on a generic
name is the same as that of the corresponding alternative name (Art. 18.5
and 19.8).

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 which is the same
as that of the generic name.

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

Recommendation 10A

10A.1. When a combination in a rank of subdivision of a genus has been pub-
lished 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.

SECTION 3.

PRIORITY

ARTICLE 11

11.1. Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being
made for nine families and one subfamily for which alternative names are

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 25 –

__________________________________________________________________

permitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.8). However, the use of separate names is
allowed for fossil-taxa that represent different parts, life-history stages, or
preservational states of what may have been a single organismal taxon or
even a single individual (Art. 1.2).

Ex. 1. The generic name Sigillaria Brongn. (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 8: 222. 1822) was
established for fossils of “bark” fragments, but Brongniart (in Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. 1:
405. 1839) subsequently included stems with preserved anatomy within his concept of
Sigillaria. Cones with preserved anatomy that may in part represent the same biological
taxon are referred to as Mazocarpon M. J. Benson (in Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 32: 569. 1918),
whereas such cones preserved as adpressions are known as Sigillariostrobus Schimp.
(Traité Paléont. Vég. 2: 105. 1870). All these generic names can be used concurrently in
spite of the fact that they may, at least in part, apply to the same organism.

11.2. A name has no priority outside the rank in which it is published (but
see Art. 53.4).

Ex. 2. Campanula sect. Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr.: 561. 1810) when treated as a
genus is called Wahlenbergia Roth (1821), a name conserved against the heterotypic
(taxonomic) synonym Cervicina Delile (1813), and not Campanopsis (R. Br.) Kuntze
(1891).

Ex. 3. Solanum subg. Leptostemonum Bitter (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 55: 69. 1919) is the
correct name of the subgenus of Solanum L. that includes its type, S. mammosum L., be-
cause it is the earliest available name in that rank. The homotypic S. sect. Acanthophora
Dunal (Hist. Nat. Solanum: 131, 218. 1813), the inclusion of which caused the illegiti-
macy of S. sect. Leptostemonum Dunal (in Candolle, Prodr. 13(1): 29, 183. 1852), has no
priority outside its own rank.

Ex. 4. Helichrysum stoechas subsp. barrelieri (Ten.) Nyman (Consp. Fl. Eur.: 381.
1879) when treated at specific rank is called H. conglobatum (Viv.) Steud. (1840), based
on Gnaphalium conglobatum Viv. (1824), and not H. barrelieri (Ten.) Greuter (1967),
based on G. barrelieri Ten. (1835–1838).

Ex. 5. Magnolia virginiana var. foetida L. (1753) when raised to specific rank is called
M. grandiflora L. (1759), not M. foetida (L.) Sarg. (1889).

Note 1. The provisions of Art. 11 determine priority between different names
applicable to the same taxon; they do not concern homonymy.

11.3. For any taxon from family to genus, inclusive, the correct name is
the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation
of priority by conservation (see Art. 14) or where Art. 11.7, 15, 19.4, 56, or
57 apply.

Ex. 6. When Aesculus L. (1753), Pavia Mill. (1754), Macrothyrsus Spach (1834), and
Calothyrsus Spach (1834) are referred to a single genus, its correct name is Aesculus.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 26 –

__________________________________________________________________

11.4. For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the com-
bination of the final epithet¹ of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon in
the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it
is assigned, except (a) in cases of limitation of priority under Art. 14, 15,
56, or 57, or (b) if the resulting combination could not be validly published
under Art. 32.1(c) or would be illegitimate under Art. 53, or (c) if Art. 11.7,
22.1 or 26.1 rules that a different combination be used.

Ex. 7. 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 replacement name
D. sect. Ariadna Wendelbo (in Bot. Not. 112: 496. 1959) is illegitimate under Art. 52.1.

Ex. 8. Antirrhinum spurium L. (1753) when transferred to Linaria Mill. is called L. spu-
ria (L.) Mill. (1768).

Ex. 9. When transferring Serratula chamaepeuce L. (1753) to Ptilostemon Cass.,
Cassini illegitimately (Art. 52.1) named the species P. muticus Cass. (1826). In that
genus, the correct name is P. chamaepeuce (L.) Less. (1832).

Ex. 10. The correct name for Rubus aculeatiflorus var. taitoensis (Hayata) T. S. Liu &
T. Y. Yang (in Annual Taiwan Prov. Mus. 12: 12. 1969) is R. taitoensis Hayata var. taitoen-
sis, because R. taitoensis Hayata (1911) has priority over R. aculeatiflorus Hayata (1915).

Ex. 11. When transferring Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798) to Cytisus Desf., Ball cor-
rectly proposed the replacement name C. fontanesii Spach ex Ball (1878) because of the
previously and validly published C. biflorus L’Hér. (1791); the combination C. biflorus
based on S. biflorum would be illegitimate under Art. 53.1.

Ex. 12. Spergula stricta Sw. (1799) when transferred to Arenaria L. is called A. uligi-
nosa Schleich. ex Schltdl. (1808) because of the existence of the name A. stricta Michx.
(1803), based on a different type; but on further transfer to the genus Minuartia L. the
epithet stricta is again available and the species is called M. stricta (Sw.) Hiern (1899).

Ex. 13. Arum dracunculus L. (1753) when transferred to Dracunculus Mill. is named
D. vulgaris Schott (1832), as use of the Linnaean epithet would result in a tautonym
(Art. 23.4).

Ex. 14. Cucubalus behen L. (1753) when transferred to Behen Moench was legitimately
renamed B. vulgaris Moench (1794) to avoid the tautonym “B. behen”. In Silene L., the
epithet behen is unavailable because of the existence of S. behen L. (1753). Therefore,
the replacement name S. cucubalus Wibel (1799) was proposed. This, however, is il-
legitimate (Art. 52.1) since the specific epithet vulgaris was available. In Silene, the
correct name of the species is S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke (1869).

Ex. 15. Helianthemum italicum var. micranthum Gren. & Godr. (Fl. France 1: 171.
1847) when transferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal retains its

————————————

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 27 –

__________________________________________________________________

varietal epithet and is named H. penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser
(in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 193 (Heft 14): 115. 1903).

Ex. 16. The final epithet in the combination Thymus praecox subsp. arcticus (Durand)
Jalas (in Veröff. Geobot. Inst. ETH Stiftung Rübel Zürich 43: 190. 1970), based on
T. serpyllum var. arcticus Durand (Pl. Kaneanae Groenl.: 196. 1856), was first used at
the rank of subspecies in the combination T. serpyllum subsp. arcticus (Durand) Hyl. (in
Uppsala Univ. Arsskr. 1945(7): 276. 1945). However, if T. britannicus Ronniger (1924)
is included in this taxon, the correct name at subspecific rank is T. praecox subsp.
britannicus (Ronniger) Holub (in Preslia 45: 359. 1973), for which the final epithet was
first used at this rank in the combination T. serpyllum subsp. britannicus (Ronniger)
P. Fourn. (Quatre Fl. France: 841. 1938, “S.-E. [Sous-Espèce] Th. Britannicus”).

Note 2. The valid publication of a name at a rank lower than genus precludes
any simultaneous homonymous combination (Art. 53), irrespective of the priority
of other names with the same final epithet that may require transfer to the same
genus or species.

Ex. 17. Tausch included two species in his new genus Alkanna: A. tinctoria Tausch
(1824), a new species based on “Anchusa tinctoria” in the sense of Linnaeus (1762), and
A. matthioli Tausch (1824), a replacement name based on Lithospermum tinctorium L.
(1753). Both names are legitimate and take priority from 1824.

Ex. 18. Raymond-Hamet transferred to the genus Sedum both Cotyledon sedoides DC.
(1808) and Sempervivum sedoides Decne. (1844). He combined the epithet of the later
name, Sempervivum sedoides, under Sedum, as S. sedoides (Decne.) Raym.-Hamet
(1929), and published a replacement name, S. candollei Raym.-Hamet (1929), for the
earlier name. Both of Raymond-Hamet’s names are legitimate.

11.5. When, for any taxon of the rank of family or below, a choice is pos-
sible between legitimate names of equal priority in the corresponding rank,
or between available final epithets of names of equal priority in the corre-
sponding rank, the first such choice to be effectively published (Art. 29–31)
establishes the priority of the chosen name, and of any legitimate combina-
tion with the same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other com-
peting name(s) (but see Art. 11.6; see also Rec. 42A.2).

Note 3. 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 simultane-
ously rejecting or relegating to synonymy the other(s), or homotypic (nomenclatu-
ral) synonyms thereof.

Ex. 19. When Dentaria L. (1753) and Cardamine L. (1753) are united, the result-
ing genus is called Cardamine because that name was chosen by Crantz (Cl. Crucif.
Emend.: 126. 1769), who first united them.

Ex. 20. When Claudopus Gillet (1876), Eccilia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), Entoloma (Fr.
ex Rabenh.) P. Kumm. (1871), Leptonia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871), and Nolanea (Fr. : Fr.)
P. Kumm. (1871) are united, one of the generic names simultaneously published by

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 28 –

__________________________________________________________________

Kummer must be used for the combined genus. Donk (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. 21. Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exped. Zaire: 484. 1818) was the first to unite Waltheria
americana L. (1753) and W. indica L. (1753). He adopted the name W. indica for the com-
bined species, and this name is accordingly treated as having priority over W. americana.

Ex. 22. Baillon (in Adansonia 3: 162. 1863), when uniting for the first time Sclero-
croton 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, or any other) to which the species is assigned.

Ex. 23. Linnaeus (1753) simultaneously published the names Verbesina alba and V. pros-
trata. Later (1771), he published Eclipta erecta, an illegitimate name because V. alba was
cited in synonymy, and E. prostrata, based on V. prostrata. The first author to unite these
taxa was Roxburgh (Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 3: 438. 1832), who adopted the name E. prostrata
(L.) L. Therefore V. prostrata is treated as having priority over V. alba.

Ex. 24. Donia speciosa and D. formosa, which were simultaneously published by Don
(1832), were illegitimately renamed Clianthus oxleyi and C. dampieri, respectively, by
Lindley (1835). Brown (in Sturt, Narr. Exped. C. Australia 2: 71. 1849) united both in a
single species, adopting the illegitimate name C. dampieri and citing D. speciosa and
C. oxleyi as synonyms; his choice is not of the kind provided for by Art. 11.5. Clianthus
speciosus (G. Don) Asch. & Graebn. (1909), published with D. speciosa and C. damp-
ieri listed as synonyms, is an illegitimate later homonym of C. speciosus (Endl.) Steud.
(1840); again, conditions for a choice under Art. 11.5 were not satisfied. Ford & Vickery
(1950) published the legitimate combination C. formosus (G. Don) Ford & Vickery and
cited D. formosa and D. speciosa as synonyms, but since the epithet of the latter was
unavailable in Clianthus a choice was not possible and again Art. 11.5 does not apply.
Thompson (1990) was the first to effect an acceptable choice when publishing the com-
bination Swainsona formosa (G. Don) Joy Thomps. and indicating that D. speciosa was
a synonym of it.

11.6. An autonym is treated as having priority over the name or names of
the same date and rank that established it.

Note 4. 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. 25. The publication of Synthyris subg. Plagiocarpus Pennell (in Proc. Acad. Nat.
Sci. Philadelphia 85: 86. 1933) simultaneously established the autonym Synthyris
Benth. (1846) subg. Synthyris. If Synthyris, including subg. Plagiocarpus, is recognized
as a subgenus of Veronica L. (1753), the correct name is V. subg. Synthyris (Benth.)
M. M. Mart. Ort. & al. (in Taxon 53: 440. 2004), which has precedence over a com-
bination in Veronica based on S. subg. Plagiocarpus.

Ex. 26. Heracleum sibiricum L. (1753) includes H. sibiricum subsp. lecokii (Godr. &
Gren.) Nyman (Consp. Fl. Eur.: 290. 1879) and H. sibiricum subsp. sibiricum automati-

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 29 –

__________________________________________________________________

cally established at the same time. When H. sibiricum, so circumscribed, is included
in H. sphondylium L. (1753) as a subspecies, the correct name of that subspecies is
H. sphondylium subsp. sibiricum (L.) Simonk. (Enum. Fl. Transsilv.: 266. 1887), not
“H. sphondylium subsp. lecokii”.

Ex. 27. The publication of Salix tristis var. microphylla Andersson (Salices Bor.-Amer.:
21. 1858) established the autonym S. tristis Aiton (1789) var. tristis, dating from 1858.
If S. tristis, including var. microphylla, is recognized as a variety of S. humilis Marshall
(1785), the correct name is S. humilis var. tristis (Aiton) Griggs (in Proc. Ohio Acad.
Sci. 4: 301. 1905). However, if both varieties of S. tristis are recognized as varieties
of S. humilis, then the names S. humilis var. tristis and S. humilis var. microphylla
(Andersson) Fernald (in Rhodora 48: 46. 1946) are both used.

Ex. 28. 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 that 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. ber-
landieri A. Gray var. berlandieri, which, at varietal rank, is treated as having priority
over var. hispida.

11.7. For purposes of priority, names of fossil-taxa (diatom taxa excepted)
compete only with names based on a fossil type.

Ex. 29. The name Tuberculodinium D. Wall (1967) may be retained for a fossil-genus
of cysts even though cysts of the same kind are known to be part of the life cycle of the
non-fossil genus Pyrophacus F. Stein (1883).

Ex. 30. A common Jurassic leaf-compression fossil is referred to as either Ginkgo hut-
tonii (Sternb.) Heer or Ginkgoites huttonii (Sternb.) M. Black. Both names are in ac-
cordance with the Code, and either name can be correct, depending on whether this
Jurassic fossil-species is regarded as rightly assigned to the non-fossil genus Ginkgo L.
or whether it is more appropriate to assign it to the fossil-genus Ginkgoites Seward
(type, G. obovata (Nath.) Seward, a Triassic leaf compression).

11.8. Names of organisms (diatoms excepted) based on a non-fossil type
are treated as having priority over names of the same rank based on a fossil
type.

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

Ex. 32. 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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 30 –

__________________________________________________________________

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.

Ex. 33. Hyalodiscus Ehrenb. (1845), based on the fossil type of H. laevis Ehrenb. (1845),
is the name of a diatom genus that includes non-fossil species. If later synonymous ge-
neric names based on a non-fossil type exist, they are not treated as having priority over
Hyalodiscus.

Ex. 34. Boalch and Guy-Ohlson (in Taxon 41: 529–531. 1992) united the two non-
diatom algal genera Pachysphaera Ostenf. (1899) and Tasmanites E. J. Newton (1875)
(Prasinophyta). Pachysphaera is based on a non-fossil type and Tasmanites on a fos-
sil type. Under the Code in effect in 1992, Tasmanites had priority and was therefore
adopted. Under the current Art. 11.8, which excepts only diatoms and not algae in gen-
eral, Pachysphaera is correct for the combined genus.

Note 5. In accordance with Art. 53, later homonyms are illegitimate whether
the type is fossil or non-fossil.

Ex. 35. Endolepis Torr. (1861), based on a non-fossil type, is an illegitimate later homo-
nym of Endolepis Schleid. (1846), based on a fossil type.

Ex. 36. Cornus paucinervis Hance (1881), based on a non-fossil type, is an illegitimate
later homonym of C. paucinervis Heer (Fl. Tert. Helv. 3: 289. 1859), based on a fossil
type.

Ex. 37. Ficus crassipes F. M. Bailey (1889), F. tiliifolia Baker (1885), and F. tremula
Warb. (1894), each based on a non-fossil type, were illegitimate later homonyms of,
respectively, F. crassipes (Heer) Heer (1882), F. tiliifolia (A. Braun) Heer (1856), and
F. tremula Heer (1874), each based on a fossil type. The three names with non-fossil
types have been conserved against their earlier homonyms in order to maintain their use.

11.9. For purposes of priority, names given to hybrids are subject to the
same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa of equivalent rank (but see Art.
H.8).

Ex. 38. The name ×Solidaster H. R. Wehrh. (1932) has priority over ×Asterago Everett
(1937) for the hybrids between Aster L. and Solidago L.

Ex. 39. Anemone ×hybrida Paxton (1848) has priority over A. ×elegans Decne. (pro
sp.) (1852). The former is correct when both are considered to apply to the same hybrid,
A. hupehensis (Lemoine & É. Lemoine) Lemoine & É. Lemoine × A. vitifolia Buch.-
Ham. ex DC. (Art. H.4.1).

Ex. 40. Camus (in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927) published the name
×Agroelymus E. G. Camus ex A. Camus without a description or diagnosis, mention-
ing only the names of the parent genera (Agropyron Gaertn. and Elymus L.). Since this
name was not validly published under the Code then in force, Rousseau (in Mém. Jard.
Bot. Montréal 29: 10–11. 1952) published a Latin diagnosis. However, under the present
Code (Art. H.9) the date of ×Agroelymus is 1927, not 1952, so it antedates the name
×Elymopyrum Cugnac (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 31 –

__________________________________________________________________

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

ARTICLE 12

12.1. A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly
published (see Art. 6.3; but see Art. 14.15).

SECTION 4.

LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

ARTICLE 13

13.1. Valid publication of names for organisms of different groups is
treated as beginning at the following dates (for each group a work is men-
tioned that is treated as having been published on the date given for that
group):

Non-fossil organisms:

(a)   Spermatophyta and Pteridophyta, names at ranks of genus and
       below, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1); suprageneric
       names, 4 August 1789 (Jussieu, Genera plantarum).

(b) Musci (except Sphagnaceae), 1 January 1801 (Hedwig, Species mus-
corum).

(c)   Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, (including Anthocerotae), names at
       ranks of genus and below, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum,
       ed. 1); suprageneric names, 4 August 1789 (Jussieu, Genera plantarum).

(d)   Fungi (Pre. 8), 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1).
       Names in Uredinales, Ustilaginales, and Gasteromycetes (s. l.) adopted
       by Persoon (Synopsis methodica fungorum, 31 December 1801) and
       names of other fungi (excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries
       (Systema mycologicum, vol. 1 (1 January 1821) to 3, with additional
       Index (1832); and Elenchus fungorum, vol. 1–2), are sanctioned (see
       Art. 15). For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens apply to
       their fungal component. Names of Microsporidia are governed by the
       International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see Pre. 8).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 32 –

__________________________________________________________________

(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 simul-
       taneously on 1 January 1892.

       Nostocaceae heterocysteae, 1 January 1886 (Bornet & Flahault,
       “Révision des Nostocacées hétérocystées”, in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser.
       7, 3: 323–381; 4: 343–373; 5: 51–129; 7: 177–262). The four parts of the
       “Révision”, which appeared in 1886, 1886, 1887, and 1888, 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 Iconogra-
phie der Oedogoniaceen”, in Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).

Fossil organisms (diatoms excepted):

(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 Art. 13.1
is determined by the accepted taxonomic position of the type of the name.

Ex. 1. The genus Porella and its single species, P. pinnata, were referred by Linnaeus
(1753) to the Musci; since the type specimen of P. pinnata is now accepted as belonging
to the Hepaticae, the names were validly published in 1753.

Ex. 2. The designated type of Lycopodium L. (1753) is L. clavatum L. (1753), the type
specimen of which is currently accepted as a pteridophyte. Accordingly, although the
genus is listed by Linnaeus among the Musci, the generic name and the names of the
pteridophyte species included by Linnaeus under it were validly published in 1753.

13.3. For nomenclatural purposes, a name is treated as pertaining to a
non-fossil taxon unless its type is fossil in origin (Art. 1.2). Fossil material
is distinguished from non-fossil material by stratigraphic relations at the
site of original occurrence. In cases of doubtful stratigraphic relations, and
for all diatoms, provisions for non-fossil taxa apply.

13.4. Generic names that appear in Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762–1763), are associated with the first subsequent

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 33 –

__________________________________________________________________

description given under those names in Linnaeus’s Genera plantarum,
ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6 (1764). The spelling of the generic names included in
Species plantarum, ed. 1, is not to be altered because a different spelling
has been used in Genera plantarum, ed. 5.

Note 1. The two volumes of Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, ed. 1 (1753), which
appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively, are treated as having been pub-
lished simultaneously on 1 May 1753 (Art. 13.1).

Ex. 3. The generic names Thea L. (Sp. Pl.: 515. 24 Mai 1753; Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 232. 1754),
and Camellia L. (Sp. Pl.: 698. 16 Aug 1753; Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 311. 1754), are treated as hav-
ing 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.

Ex. 4. Sideroxylon L. (1753) is not to be altered because Linnaeus spelled it
“Sideroxylum” in Genera plantarum, ed. 5 (1754); usage of Brunfelsia L. (1753, orth.
cons., ‘Brunsfelsia’), which Linnaeus adopted in 1754, has been made possible only
through conservation (see App. III).

ARTICLE 14

14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed
by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of prior-
ity in starting from the dates given in Art. 13, this Code provides, in App.
II–IV, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved
(nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E.1). Conserved names are legitimate
even though initially they may have been illegitimate. The name of a sub-
division of a genus or of an infraspecific taxon may be conserved with a
conserved type and listed in App. III and IV, respectively, when it is the
basionym of a name of a genus or species that could not continue to be used
in its current sense without conservation.

14.2. Conservation aims at retention of those names that best serve stabil-
ity of nomenclature.

14.3. The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined
by nomenclatural types. The type of the species name cited as the type
of a conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in
App. III.

14.4. A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other
names in the same rank based on the same type (homotypic, i.e. nomen-

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 34 –

__________________________________________________________________

clatural, synonyms, which are to be rejected) whether or not these are cited
in the corresponding list as rejected names, and against those names based
on different types (heterotypic, i.e. taxonomic, synonyms) that are listed
as rejected.¹ 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. Except as by Art. 14.15 (see also Art. 14.9), the Code does not provide
for conservation of a name against itself, i.e. against an “isonym” (Art. 6 Note 2:
the same name with the same type but with a different place and date of valid
publication and perhaps with a different author). Only the earliest known isonyms
are listed in App. IIA, III, and IV.

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

Ex. 1. Rejection of Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) H. Karst. (1882) in favour of L. es-
culentum Mill. (1768) does not preclude the use of the homotypic Solanum lycopersi-
cum L. (1753).

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 earli-
est of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11, except
for the conserved family names listed in App. IIB, which are conserved
against unlisted names.

Ex. 2. 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. 3. Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nastur-
tium Mill. (1754) and the homotypic (nomenclatural) synonym Cardaminum Moench
(1794); consequently if reunited with Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name Rorippa.

Ex. 4. Combretaceae R. Br. (1810) is conserved against the unlisted earlier heterotypic
name Terminaliaceae J. St.-Hil. (Expos. Fam. Nat. 1: 178. 1805).

14.6. When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier het-
erotypic synonym, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art. 11, if it is
considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the
conserved name.

————————————

1     The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code
       of Nomenclature of Bacteria use the terms “objective synonym” and “subjective
       synonym” for homotypic and heterotypic synonym, respectively.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 35 –

__________________________________________________________________

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, how-
ever, Enargea is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea is retained for it.

Ex. 6. To preserve the name Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook (1900), its basio-
nym Oreodoxa regia Kunth (1816) is conserved against Palma elata W. Bartram (1791).
However, the name R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper (1946) can be used for a species
distinct from R. regia.

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

Ex. 7. Enallagma Baill. (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not
against Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma, Dendrosicus, 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 and spelling of a conserved name (evident misspell-
ings excepted) may only be changed by the procedure outlined in Art. 14.12.

Ex. 8. Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the listed
type of Plectranthus L’Hér. be changed from P. punctatus (L. f.) L’Hér. to P. fruti-
cosus L’Hér. This proposal was approved by the appropriate committees and by an
International Botanical Congress.

14.9. A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated
by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 10.4).
Such a name may be conserved either from its place of valid publication
(even though the type may not then have been included in the named taxon)
or from a later publication by an author who did include the type as con-
served. In the latter case the original name and the name as conserved are
treated as if they were homonyms (Art. 53), whether or not the name as con-
served was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named.

Ex. 9. Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved from its place of valid publication
even though its conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932, was
not originally included in Linnaeus’s species.

Ex. 10. Protea L. (1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic name, P. cy-
naroides (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
intended to be a new generic name and still including the original type elements, is
treated as if it were a validly published homonym of Protea L. (1753).

14.10. A conserved name, with any corresponding autonym, is conserved
against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name is

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 36 –

__________________________________________________________________

not made illegitimate by that conservation but is unavailable for use; if not
otherwise illegitimate, it may serve as basionym of another name or com-
bination based on the same type (see also Art. 55.3).

Ex. 11. The generic name Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against Damapana Adans.
(1763), is conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777)
– Blumea DC. (1833) is conserved automatically against Blumea Rchb. (1828–1829),
although the latter name is not listed alongside the former in App. III.

14.11. A name may be conserved in order to preserve a particular spelling
or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of date
to the author who validly published it, not to an author who later introduced
the conserved spelling or gender.

Ex. 12. The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved
against the original spelling Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be
cited as Rhodymenia Grev. (1830).

Note 3. The date upon which a name was conserved does not affect its priority
(Art. 11), which is determined only on the basis of the date of its valid publication
(Art. 32–45; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.15).

14.12. The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for ad-
ditions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accompa-
nied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against 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 (see also Art. 34.1 and 56.2).

14.13. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, for organisms treated
as fungi (including lichenicolous fungi, but excluding lichen-forming
fungi and those fungi traditionally associated with them taxonomically,
e.g. Mycocaliciaceae), lists of names may be submitted to the General
Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee for
Fungi (see Div. III) for examination by subcommittees established by
that Committee in consultation with the General Committee and appro-
priate international bodies. Accepted names on these lists, which become
Appendices of the Code once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature
Committee for Fungi and the General Committee, are to be listed with
their types together with those competing synonyms (including sanctioned
names) against which they are treated as conserved (see also Art. 56.3).

14.14. Entries of conserved names may not be deleted.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 37 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 13. Alternaria “Nees ex Wallr. (1833)” was conserved against Macrosporium Fr.
(1832) in the Seattle Code (1972), as Fries’s name had been used in the then starting-
point work for fungi. Following the abolition of later-starting point dates for fungi at
the Sydney Congress in 1981 and in the Sydney Code (1983), and the recognition that
Nees’s name had been accepted by Fries in the introduction to the sanctioning work
(Syst. Mycol. 1: xlvi. 1821), conservation became unnecessary. As the entry cannot be
deleted, Alternaria Nees (1816–1817) continues to be listed in App. III, but without a
corresponding rejected name.

14.15. The places of publication cited for conserved names of families in
App. IIB are treated as correct in all circumstances and consequently are not
to be changed, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12, even when other-
wise such a name would not be validly published or when it is a later isonym.

14.16. When a proposal for the conservation of a name has been approved
by the General Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic
group concerned, retention of that name is authorized subject to the decision
of a later International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 34.2 and 56.4).

Recommendation 14A

14A.1. When a proposal for the conservation of a name has been referred to the
appropriate Committee for study, authors should follow existing usage of names
as far as possible pending the General Committee’s recommendation on the pro-
posal (see also Rec. 34A and 56A).

ARTICLE 15

15.1. Names sanctioned under Art. 13.1(d) are treated as if conserved
against earlier homonyms and competing synonyms. Such names, once
sanctioned, remain sanctioned even if elsewhere in the sanctioning works
the sanctioning author does not recognize them. The spelling used by a
sanctioning author is treated as conserved, except for changes mandated
by Art. 60.

Ex. 1. Agaricus ericetorum Pers. (1796) was accepted by Fries in Systema mycologi-
cum (1821), but later (1828) regarded by him as a synonym of A. umbelliferus L. (1753)
and not included in his Index (1832) as an accepted name. Nevertheless A. ericetorum
Pers. : Fr. is a sanctioned name.

Ex. 2. The spelling used in the sanctioned name Merulius lacrimans (Wulfen : Fr.)
Schum. (1803) is maintained even though the basionym was originally published as
Boletus “lacrymans” Wulfen (1781).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 38 –

__________________________________________________________________

15.2. An earlier homonym of a sanctioned name is not made illegitimate
by that sanctioning but is unavailable for use; if not otherwise illegitimate,
it may serve as a basionym of another name or combination based on the
same type (see also Art. 55.3).

Ex. 3. Patellaria Hoffm. (1789) is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned generic
name Patellaria Fr. (1822) : Fr. Hoffmann’s name is legitimate but unavailable for use.
Lecanidion Endl. (1830), based on the same type as Patellaria Fr. : Fr., is illegitimate
under Art. 52.1.

Ex. 4. Agaricus cervinus Schaeff. (1774) is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned
A. cervinus Hoffm. (1789) : Fr.; Schaeffer’s name is unavailable for use, but it is legiti-
mate and may serve as basionym for combinations in other genera. In Pluteus Fr. the
combination is cited as P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm. and has priority over the het-
erotypic (taxonomic) synonym P. atricapillus (Batsch) Fayod, based on A. atricapillus
Batsch (1786).

15.3. When, for a taxon in a rank from family to genus, inclusive, two or
more sanctioned names compete, Art. 11.3 governs the choice of the correct
name (see also Art. 15.5).

15.4. When, for a taxon in a rank lower than genus, two or more sanc-
tioned 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 date of valid publication,
and thus priority (Art. 11), of a sanctioned name. In particular, when two or more
homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of them may be used, the later being
illegitimate under Art. 53.2.

Ex. 5. Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821) accepted Agaricus flavovirens Pers. (1793), treat-
ing 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 that neither is sanctioned nor has the same type and final
epithet as a sanctioned name in the same rank may not be used for a taxon
that includes the type of a sanctioned name in that rank with a final epithet
that is available for the required combination (see Art. 11.4(b)).

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 39 –

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER III.

NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK

SECTION 1.

NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY

ARTICLE 16

16.1. The name of a taxon above the rank of family is treated as a noun in
the plural and is written with an initial capital letter. Such names may be
either (a) automatically typified names (Art. 10.7), formed from the name
of an included genus in the same way as family names (Art. 18.1; but see
Art. 16.4) by adding the appropriate rank-denoting termination (Art. 16.3
and 17.1), preceded by the connecting vowel -o- if the termination begins
with a consonant; or (b) descriptive names, not so formed, which may be
used unchanged at different ranks.

Ex. 1. Automatically typified names above the rank of family: Lycopodiophyta, based
on Lycopodium; Magnoliophyta, based on Magnolia; Gnetophytina, based on Gnetum;
Pinopsida, based on Pinus; Marattiidae, based on Marattia; Caryophyllidae and
Caryophyllales, based on Caryophyllus; Fucales, based on Fucus; Bromeliineae, based
on Bromelia.

Ex. 2. Descriptive names above the rank of family: Anthophyta, Chlorophyta, Lycophyta,
Parietales; Ascomycota, Ascomycotina, Ascomycetes; Angiospermae, Centrospermae,
Coniferae, Enantioblastae, Gymnospermae.

16.2. For automatically typified names, the name of the subdivision or
subphylum that includes the type of the adopted name of a division or phy-
lum, the name of the subclass that includes the type of the adopted name of
a class, and the name of the suborder that includes the type of the adopted
name of an order are to be based on the same generic name (see also Art.
16.4) as the corresponding higher-ranked name.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 40 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 3. Pteridophyta Bergen & B. M. Davis (1906) and Pteridophytina B. Boivin (1956);
Gnetopsida Engl. (1898) and Gnetidae Cronquist & al. (1966); Liliales Perleb (1826)
and Liliineae Rchb. (1841).

16.3. Automatically typified names end as follows: the name of a divi-
sion or phylum ends in -phyta, unless it is referable to the algae or fungi
in which case it ends in -phycota or -mycota, respectively; the name of
a subdivision or subphylum ends in -phytina, unless it is referable to the
algae or fungi in which case it ends in -phycotina or -mycotina, respec-
tively; the name of a class in the algae ends in -phyceae, and of a subclass
in -phycidae; the name of a class in the fungi ends in -mycetes, and of a
subclass in -mycetidae; the name of a class in the plants ends in -opsida,
and of a subclass in -idae (but not -viridae). Automatically typified names
not in accordance with these terminations or those in Art. 17.1 are to be
corrected, without change of the author citation or date of publication (see
Art. 32.2). However, if such names are published with a non-Latin termina-
tion they are not validly published.

Ex. 4. “Cactarieae” (Dumortier, 1829, based on Cactus) and “Coriales“ (Lindley,
1833, based on Coriaria), both published for taxa of the rank of order, are to be cor-
rected to Cactales Dumort. (1829) and Coriariales Lindl. (1833), respectively.

Ex. 5. However, Acoroidées (Kirschleger, Fl. Alsace 2: 103. 1853–Jul 1857), published
for a taxon of the rank of order, is not to be accepted as “Acorales Kirschl.”, as it has a
French rather than a Latin termination. The name Acorales was later validly published
by Reveal (in Phytologia 79: 72. 1996).

Note 1. The terms “divisio” and “phylum”, and their equivalents in modern
languages, are treated as referring to one and the same rank. When “divisio” and
“phylum” are used simultaneously to denote different non-consecutive ranks, this
is to be treated as informal usage of rank-denoting terms (see Art. 37 Note 1 and
37.8).

16.4. In ranks higher than order, the word elements -clad-, -cocc-, -cyst-,
-monad-, -mycet-, -nemat-, or -phyt-, being the genitive singular stem of
the second part of a name of an included genus, may be omitted before the
rank-denoting termination. Such names are automatically typified when
their derivation is obvious or is indicated in the protologue.

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 41 –

__________________________________________________________________

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

Recommendation 16A

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

ARTICLE 17

17.1. Automatically typified names of orders or suborders are to end in
-ales (but not -virales) and -ineae, respectively (see Art. 16.3 and 32.2).

17.2. Names intended as names of orders, but published with their rank
denoted by a term such as “cohors”, “nixus”, “alliance”, or “Reihe” instead
of “order”, are treated as having been published as names of orders.

Recommendation 17A

17A.1. A new name should not be published for an order for which a name already
exists that is based on the same type as the name of an included a family.

SECTION 2.

NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES

ARTICLE 18

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 42 –

__________________________________________________________________

Note 1. The generic name from which the name of a family is formed provides
the type of the family name (Art. 10.6) but is not a basionym of that name (Art.
6.10; see Art. 41.2(a)).

Ex. 1. Family names formed from 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), Sclerodermataceae (from Scleroderma, Sclero-
dermatos), Aextoxicaceae (from Aextoxicon, Aextoxicou), Potamogetonaceae (from
Potamogeton, Potamogetonos).

Ex. 2. Family names formed from a generic name of non-classical origin: Nelumbon-
aceae (from Nelumbo, Nelumbonis, declined by analogy with umbo, umbonis), Ginkgo-
aceae (from Ginkgo, indeclinable).

Note 2. The name of a family may be formed from any validly published name
of an included genus, even one that is unavailable for use, although the provisions
of Art. 18.3 apply if the generic name is illegitimate.

Ex. 3. Cactaceae Juss. (1789) formed from Cactus L. (1753), now rejected in favour of
Mammillaria Haw. (1812).

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 natura-
lis) instead of “family”, are treated as having been published as names of
families (see also Art. 19.2), unless this treatment would result in a taxo-
nomic sequence with a misplaced rank-denoting term.

Ex. 4. Cyperaceae Juss. (1789), Lobeliaceae Juss. (1813), and Xylomataceae Fr. (1820)
were published as “ordo Cyperoideae”, “ordo naturalis Lobeliaceae”, and “ordo Xylom-
aceae”, respectively.

Note 3. If the term “family” is simultaneously used to denote a rank different
from “order” or “natural order”, a name published for a taxon at the latter rank
cannot be considered to have been published as the name of a family.

*Ex. 5. Names published at the rank of order (“řad”) by Berchtold & Presl (O přiro-
zenosti rostlin ... 1820) are not to be treated as having been published at the rank of
family, since the term family (“čeled”) was sometimes used to denote a rank below
order.

18.3. A name of a family based on an illegitimate generic name is ille-
gitimate unless and until it or the generic name upon which it is based is
conserved.

Ex. 6. Caryophyllaceae Juss., nom. cons. (from Caryophyllus Mill. non L.); Winteraceae
R. Br. ex Lindl., nom. cons. (from Wintera Murray, an illegitimate replacement name
for Drimys J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 43 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 7. Nartheciaceae Fr. ex Bjurzon (1846), based on Narthecium Huds., nom. cons.
(1762), became legitimate when the generic name was conserved over its earlier homo-
nym Narthecium Gérard (1761) (see App. III).

18.4. When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin
termination, the termination must be changed to conform with Art. 18.1,
without change of the author citation or date (see Art. 32.2). However, if
such a name is published with a non-Latin termination, it is not validly
published.

Ex. 8. “Coscinodisceae” (Kützing 1844), published to designate a family, is to be ac-
cepted as Coscinodiscaceae Kütz. 1844 and not attributed to De Toni, who first used
the correct termination (in Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).

Ex. 9. “Atherospermeae” (Brown 1814), published to designate a family, is to be ac-
cepted 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. 10. However, Tricholomées (Roze in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 23: 49. 1876), published
to designate a family, is not to be accepted as “Tricholomataceae Roze”, as it has a
French rather than a Latin termination. The name Tricholomataceae was validly pub-
lished by Pouzar (1983; see App. IIA).

18.5. The following names, of long usage, are treated as validly published:
Compositae (nom. alt.: Asteraceae; type: Aster L.); Cruciferae (nom. alt.:
Brassicaceae; type: Brassica L.); Gramineae (nom. alt.: Poaceae; type:
Poa L.); Guttiferae (nom. alt.: Clusiaceae; type: Clusia L.); Labiatae (nom.
alt.: Lamiaceae; type: Lamium L.); Leguminosae (nom. alt.: Fabaceae; type:
Faba Mill. [= Vicia L.]); Palmae (nom. alt.: Arecaceae; type: Areca L.);
Papilionaceae (nom. alt.: Fabaceae; type: Faba Mill.); Umbelliferae (nom.
alt.: Apiaceae; type: Apium L.). When the Papilionaceae 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 eight family names indicated as
“nom. alt.” (nomen alternativum) in Art. 18.5 is authorized.

ARTICLE 19

19.1. The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is
formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by add-
ing the termination -oideae instead of -aceae.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 44 –

__________________________________________________________________

19.2. Names intended as names of subfamilies, but published with their
rank denoted by the term “suborder” (subordo) instead of subfamily, are
treated as having been published as names of subfamilies (see also Art.
18.2), unless this would result in a taxonomic sequence with a misplaced
rank-denoting term.

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

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

19.3. A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination -eae,
and a subtribe similarly with the termination -inae (but not -virinae).

19.4. The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the family to which it is assigned is to be based
on the generic name equivalent to that type (Art. 10.6; but see Art. 19.8).

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

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

Note 2. Art. 19.4 applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that in-
clude the type of the adopted name of the family (but see Rec. 19A.2).

Ex. 4. The type of the family name Ericaceae Juss. is Erica L. and hence the sub-
family and tribe assigned to Ericaceae that include Erica are to be called Ericoideae
Endl. and Ericeae D. Don, respectively, the priority of any competing names not-
withstanding. The subfamily assigned to Ericaceae that includes Rhododendron L. is
called Rhododendroideae Endl. However, the correct name of the tribe assigned to
Rhododendroideae that includes both Rhododendron and Rhodora L. is Rhodoreae
D. Don (1834), not Rhododendreae Brongn. (1843).

19.5. The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of a
name listed in App. IIB (i.e. a name of a family conserved against all un-
listed names, see Art. 14.5) is to be based on the generic name equivalent
to that type (Art. 10.6), unless this is contrary to Art. 19.4 (see also Art. 19.8).
If more than one such type is included, the correct name is determined by
precedence in App. IIB of the corresponding family names.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 45 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 5. A subfamily assigned to Rosaceae Juss. that includes Malus Mill., the type
of Malaceae Small (1903), listed in App. IIB, is to be called Maloideae C. Weber
(1964) unless it also includes Rosa L., i.e. the type of Rosaceae, or the type of another
name listed in App. IIB that takes precedence over Malaceae. This is so even if the
subfamily also includes Spiraea L. and/or Pyrus L., because, although Spiraeoideae
Arn. (1832) and Pyroideae Burnett (1835) were published earlier than Maloideae,
neither Spiraeaceae nor Pyraceae is listed in App. IIB. However, if Amygdalus L. is
included in the same subfamily as Malus, the name Amygdaloideae Arn. (1832) takes
precedence as Amygdalaceae Marquis (1820) is listed in App. IIB with priority over
Malaceae.

Ex. 6. Monotropaceae Nutt. (1818) and Pyrolaceae Link (1829) are both listed in App.
IIB, but Pyrolaceae is conserved against Monotropaceae. Therefore, a subfamily in-
cluding both Monotropa L. and Pyrola L. is called Pyroloideae Kostel. (1834).

19.6. A name of a subdivision of a family based on an illegitimate generic
name is illegitimate unless and until that generic name or the correspond-
ing family name is conserved.

Ex. 7. The name Caryophylloideae Arn. (1832), based on the illegitimate Caryophyllus
Mill. non L., is legitimate because the corresponding family name, Caryophyllaceae
Juss., is conserved.

Ex. 8. Thunbergioideae T. Anderson (1860), based on Thunbergia Retz., nom. cons.
(1780), became legitimate when the generic name was conserved over its earlier homo-
nym Thunbergia Montin (1773) (see App. III).

19.7. When a name of a subdivision of a family has been published with
an improper Latin termination, such as -eae for a subfamily or -oideae
for a tribe, the termination must be changed to accord with Art. 19.1 and
19.3, without change of the author citation or date (see Art. 32.2). However,
if such a name is published with a non-Latin termination it is not validly
published.

Ex. 9. “Climacieae” (Grout, Moss Fl. N. Amer. 3: 4. 1928), published to designate a
subfamily, is to be changed to Climacioideae Grout (1928).

Ex. 10. However, Melantheen (Kittel in Richard, Nouv. Elém. Bot., ed. 3, Germ. Transl.:
727. 1840), published to designate a tribe, is not to be accepted as “Melanthieae Kitt.”,
as it has a German rather than a Latin termination. The name Melanthieae was validly
published by Grisebach (Spic. Fl. Rumel. 2: 377. 1846).

19.8. 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.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 46 –

__________________________________________________________________

Recommendation 19A

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, with only the termination (-aceae, -oideae, -eae, -inae)
altered.

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, Art. 19.5 permitting, should
be based on the same generic name as the name in the former rank.

Ex. 1. The subtribe Drypetinae Griseb. (1859) when raised to the rank of tribe was
named Drypeteae Hurus. (1954); the subtribe Antidesmatinae Müll. Arg. (1865) when
raised to the rank of subfamily was named Antidesmatoideae Hurus. (1954).

SECTION 3.

NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA

ARTICLE 20

20.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, or a word
treated as such, and is written with an initial capital letter (see Art. 60.2). It
may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an
absolutely arbitrary manner, but it must not end in -virus.

Ex. 1. Bartramia, Convolvulus, Gloriosa, Hedysarum, Ifloga (an anagram of Filago),
Impatiens, Liquidambar, Manihot, Rhododendron, Rosa.

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

Ex. 2. “Radicula” (Hill, 1756) coincides with the Latin technical term “radicula” (radi-
cle) and was not accompanied by a species 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
species name (Tuber gulosorum F. H. Wigg.) and is therefore validly published even
though it coincides with a Latin technical term.

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 47 –

__________________________________________________________________

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

Ex. 6. Words such as “caulis”, “folium”, “radix”, “spina”, etc., cannot now be validly
published as generic names.

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

Ex. 7. “Uva ursi”, as originally published by Miller (1754), consisted of two separate
words unconnected by a hyphen, and is not therefore validly published (Art. 32.1(c)); the
name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).

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

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

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

(a) Words not intended as names.

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

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

(b) Unitary designations of species.

Note 2. Examples such as “Leptostachys” and “Anthopogon”, listed in pre-Tokyo
editions of the Code, were from publications that are now suppressed (App. VI).

Recommendation 20A

20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the following:

(a) Use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

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

(c) Not make names that are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.

(d) Not make names by combining words from different languages.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 48 –

__________________________________________________________________

(e) Indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or
analogies of the genus.

(f) Avoid adjectives used as nouns.

(g) Not use a name similar to or derived from the epithet in the name of one of the
species of the genus.

(h) Not dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected with botany, mycology,
phycology, or natural science in general.

(i) Give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemo-
rate a man or a woman (see Rec. 60B; see also Rec. 62A.1).

(j)   Not 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).

ARTICLE 21

21.1. The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic
name and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term (subgenus, sectio, se-
ries, etc.) is used to denote the rank.

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

21.2. The epithet is either of the same form as a generic name, or a noun in
the genitive plural, or a plural adjective agreeing in gender with the generic
name, but not a noun in the genitive singular. It is written with an initial
capital letter (see Art. 32.2 and 60.2).

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 49 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 2. Sphagnum “b. Sph. rigida” (Lindberg in Öfvers. Förh. Kongl. Svenska Vetensk.-
Akad. 19: 135. 1862) and S. sect. “Sphagna rigida” (Limpricht, Laubm. Deutschl. 1:
116. 1885) are to be cited as Sphagnum [unranked] Rigida Lindb. and S. sect. Rigida
(Lindb.) Limpr., respectively.

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

Recommendation 21A

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

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

Recommendation 21B

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

21B.2. The epithet in the name of a subgenus or section is preferably a noun; that
in the name of a subsection or lower-ranked subdivision of a genus is preferably a
plural adjective.

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

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

ARTICLE 22

22.1. The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat
that generic name unaltered as its epithet, not followed by an author citation
(see Art. 46). Such names are autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.6).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 50 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 1. The subgenus that includes the type of the name Rhododendron L. is to be named
Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron.

Ex. 2. The subgenus that includes the type of Malpighia L. (M. glabra L.) is to be called
M. subg. Malpighia, not M. subg. Homoiostylis Nied.; and the section that includes the
type of Malpighia is to be called M. sect. Malpighia, not M. sect. Apyrae DC.

Note 1. Art. 22.1 applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that in-
clude the type of the adopted name of the genus (but see Rec. 22A).

Ex. 3. The correct name of the subgenus of the genus Solanum L. that includes S. pseu-
docapsicum L., the type of S. sect. Pseudocapsicum (Medik.) Roem. & Schult. (Syst.
Veg. 4: 569 (‘Pseudocapsica’), 584 (‘Pseudo-Capsica’). 1819), if considered distinct
from S. subg. Solanum, is S. subg. Minon Raf. (Autikon Bot.: 108. 1840), the earliest
legitimate name at that rank, and not “S. subg. Pseudocapsicum”.

22.2. A name of a subdivision of a genus that includes the type (i.e. the
original type or all elements eligible as type or the previously designated
type) of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus is not validly published
unless its epithet repeats the generic name unaltered. For the purposes of
this provision, explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical element
is included is considered as equivalent to inclusion of the type, whether or
not it has been previously designated (see also Art. 21.3).

Ex. 4. “Dodecatheon sect. Etubulosa” (Knuth in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 237 (Heft 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. 5. Cactus [unranked] Melocactus L. (Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 210. 1754) was proposed for
one of four unranked (Art. 37.3), named subdivisions of the genus Cactus, comprising
C. melocactus L. (its type under Art. 22.6) and C. mammillaris L. It is validly published
even though C. mammillaris was subsequently designated as the type of Cactus L. (by
Coulter in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 3: 95. 1894).

22.3. The first instance of valid publication of a name of a subdivision of
a genus under a legitimate generic name automatically establishes the cor-
responding autonym (see also Art. 11.6 and 32.3).

Ex. 6. Publication of Tibetoseris sect. Simulatrices Sennikov (in Komarovia 5: 91.
2008) automatically established the autonym Tibetoseris Sennikov sect. Tibetoseris.
Publication of Pseudoyoungia sect. Simulatrices (Sennikov) D. Maity & Maiti (in
Compositae Newslett. 48: 31. 2010) automatically established the autonym Pseudo-
youngia D. Maity & Maiti sect. Pseudoyoungia.

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.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 51 –

__________________________________________________________________

22.5. The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat
the generic name unaltered if the latter is illegitimate.

Ex. 7. When Kuntze (in Post & Kuntze, Lex. Gen. Phan.: 106. 1903) published Caulinia
sect. Hardenbergia (Benth.) Kuntze under Caulinia Moench (1802), a later homonym
of Caulinia Willd. (1801), he did not establish the autonym “Caulinia sect. Caulinia”.

22.6. When the epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is identical
with or derived from the epithet in one of the originally included species
names, the type of the higher-ranking name is the same as that of the spe-
cies name, unless the original author of the higher-ranking name desig-
nated another type.

Ex. 8. The type of Euphorbia subg. Esula Pers. (Syn. Pl. 2: 14. 1806) is the type of
E. esula L., one of the species names included by Persoon; the designation of E. pep-
lus L. (also included by Persoon) as type by Croizat (in Revista Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13.
1939) has no standing.

Ex. 9. The type of Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753) is the type
of C. chamaecrista L., nom. rej., one of the five species names included by Linnaeus.

Note 2. When the epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is identical
with or derived from the epithet in an included species name that is a later homo-
nym, the nomenclatural type is that of the later homonym.

Recommendation 22A

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

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

Ex. 1. When Brizicky raised Rhamnus sect. Pseudofrangula Grubov to the rank of sub-
genus, instead of using a new epithet he named the taxon R. subg. Pseudofrangula
(Grubov) Brizicky so that the type of both names is the same.

Recommendation 22B

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 52 –

__________________________________________________________________

SECTION 4.

NAMES OF SPECIES

ARTICLE 23

23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the
name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an
adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, or several words,
but not a phrase name of one or more descriptive nouns and associated ad-
jectives in the ablative (see Art. 23.6(a)), nor any of certain other irregularly
formed designations (see Art. 23.6(b-d)). If an epithet consists of two or
more words, these are to be united or hyphenated. An epithet not so joined
when originally published is not to be rejected but, when used, is to be
united or hyphenated, as specified in Art. 60.9.

23.2. The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source
whatever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art. 60.1).

Ex. 1. Adiantum capillus-veneris, Atropa bella-donna, Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus
monspessulanus, Embelia sarasiniorum, Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum,
Impatiens noli-tangere, Papaver rhoeas, Spondias mombin (an indeclinable epithet),
Uromyces fabae.

23.3. Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus do
not prevent valid publication of the relevant names but must be transcribed.

Ex. 2. Scandix “pecten ♀” L. is to be transcribed as Scandix pecten-veneris; Veronica
“anagallis ∇” L. is to be transcribed as Veronica anagallis-aquatica.

23.4. The specific epithet, with or without the addition of a transcribed
symbol, may not exactly repeat the generic name (a designation formed by
such repetition is a tautonym).

Ex. 3. “Linaria linaria” and “Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum” are tautonyms and
cannot be validly published.

Ex. 4. 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 a tautonym
and cannot be validly published. The next earliest 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).

23.5. The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun,
agrees grammatically with the generic name; when it is a noun in apposition

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 53 –

__________________________________________________________________

or a genitive noun, it retains its own gender and termination irrespective
of the gender of the generic name. Epithets not conforming to this rule are
to be corrected (see Art. 32.2). In particular, the usage of the word element
-cola as an adjective is a correctable error.

Ex. 5. Names with adjectival epithets: Helleborus niger L., Brassica nigra (L.) W. D. J.
Koch, Verbascum nigrum L.; Rumex cantabricus Rech. f., Daboecia cantabrica (Huds.)
K. Koch (Vaccinium cantabricum Huds.); Vinca major L., Tropaeolum majus L.;
Bromus mollis L., Geranium molle L.; Peridermium balsameum Peck, derived from the
epithet of Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. treated as an adjective.

Ex. 6. Names with a noun for an epithet: Convolvulus cantabrica L., Gentiana pneu-
monanthe L., Lythrum salicaria L., Schinus molle L., all with epithets featuring pre-
Linnaean generic names. Gloeosporium balsameae Davis, derived from the epithet of
Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. treated as a noun.

Ex. 7. Correctable errors: the epithet of Polygonum segetum Kunth (1817) is a genitive
plural noun (of the corn fields); when Small proposed the new combination Persicaria
“segeta”, it was a correctable error for Persicaria segetum (Kunth) Small (1903). In
Masdevallia echidna Rchb. f. (1855), the epithet corresponds to the generic name of an
animal; when Garay proposed the new combination Porroglossum “echidnum”, it was
a correctable error for P. echidna (Rchb. f.) Garay (1953).

Ex. 8. When Blanchard proposed Rubus “amnicolus”, it was a correctable error for
R. amnicola Blanch. (1906).

23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as species names:

(a) Descriptive designations consisting of a generic name followed by
a phrase name (Linnaean “nomen specificum legitimum”) of one or
more descriptive nouns and associated adjectives in the ablative.

Ex. 9. Smilax “caule inermi” (Aublet, Hist. Pl. Guiane 2, Tabl.: 27. 1775) is an abbrevi-
ated descriptive reference to an imperfectly known species, which is not given a bino-
mial in the text but referred to merely by a phrase name cited from Burman.

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

Ex. 10. Viola “qualis” (Krocker, Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790); Urtica “dubia?” (Forsskål,
Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: cxxi. 1775), the word “dubia?” (doubtful) being repeatedly used in
Forsskål’s work for species that could not be reliably identified.

Ex. 11. Atriplex “nova” (Winterl, Index Hort. Bot. Univ. Hung.: fol. A [8] recto et verso.
1788), the word “nova” (new) being here used in connection with four different species
of Atriplex. However, in Artemisia nova A. Nelson (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274.
1900), nova was intended as a specific epithet, the species having been newly distin-
guished from others.

Ex. 12. 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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 54 –

__________________________________________________________________

is an original designation (for an accepted taxon and thus not a “provisional name” as
defined in Art. 36.1(b)) with an epithet-like vernacular that 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. 13. In Agaricus “octogesimus nonus” and Boletus “vicesimus sextus” (Schaeffer,
Fung. Bavar. Palat. Nasc. 1: t. 100. 1762; 2: t. 137. 1763), the generic names are followed
by ordinal adjectives used for enumeration. The corresponding species were given val-
idly published names, A. cinereus Schaeff. and B. ungulatus Schaeff., in the final vol-
ume of the same work (1774).

Ex. 14. Honckeny (1782; see Art. 46 Ex. 40) used species designations such as, in
Agrostis, “A. Reygeri I.”, “A. Reyg. II.”, “A. Reyg. III.” (all referring to species de-
scribed but not named in Reyger, Tent. Fl. Gedan.: 36–37. 1763), and also “A. alpina.
II” for a newly described species following after A. alpina Scop. These are informal
designations used for enumeration, not validly published binomials; they may not be
expanded into, e.g., “Agrostis reygeri-prima”.

(c) Designations of species consisting of a generic name followed by two
or more adjectival words in the nominative case.

Ex. 15. Salvia “africana coerulea” (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 26. 1753) and Gnaphalium “fruti-
cosum flavum” (Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: cxix. 1775) are generic names followed by
two adjectival words in the nominative case. They are not to be regarded as species names.

Ex. 16. However, Rhamnus “vitis idaea” Burm. f. (Fl. Ind.: 61. 1768) is to be regarded
as a species name, since the generic name is followed by a noun and an adjective, both
in the nominative case; these words are to be hyphenated (R. vitis-idaea) under the
provisions of Art. 23.1 and 60.9. In Anthyllis “Barba jovis” L. (Sp. Pl.: 720. 1753) the
generic name is followed by a noun in the nominative case and a noun in the genitive
case, and they are to be hyphenated (A. barba-jovis). Likewise, Hyacinthus “non scrip-
tus” L. (Sp. Pl.: 316. 1753), where the generic name is followed by a negative particle
and a past participle used as an adjective, is corrected to H. non-scriptus, and Impatiens
“noli tangere” L. (Sp. Pl.: 938. 1753), where the generic name is followed by two verbs,
is corrected to I. noli-tangere.

Ex. 17. In Narcissus “Pseudo Narcissus” L. (Sp. Pl.: 289. 1753) the generic name is fol-
lowed by a prefix (a word that cannot stand independently) and a noun in the nominative
case, and the name is to be corrected to N. pseudonarcissus under the provisions of Art.
23.1 and 60.9.

(d) Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H.10.2).

23.7. Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets (“nomina triv-
ialia”) are to be corrected in accordance with later usage by Linnaeus him-
self (but see Art. 23.6(c)).

Ex. 18. Apocynum “fol. [foliis] androsaemi” L. is to be cited as A. androsaemifolium L.
(Sp. Pl.: 213. 1753 [corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 946. 1759]); and Mussaenda “fr. [fructu]
frondoso” L., as M. frondosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 177. 1753 [corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 931. 1759]).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 55 –

__________________________________________________________________

23.8. Where the status of a designation of a species is uncertain under
Art. 23.6, established custom is to be followed (Pre.13).

*Ex. 19. Polypodium “F. mas”, P. “F. femina”, and P. “F. fragile” (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.:
1090–1091. 1753) are, in accordance with established custom, to be treated as P. filix-
mas L., P. filix-femina L., and P. fragile L., respectively. Likewise, Cambogia “G. gutta”
is to be treated as C. gummi-gutta L. (Gen. Pl.: [522]. 1754). The intercalations “Trich.”
[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).

Recommendation 23A

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

23A.2. The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to des-
ignate 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:

(a) Use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

(b) Avoid epithets that are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.

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

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

(e) Avoid those that have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).

(f) Avoid those that express a character common to all or nearly all the species of
a genus.

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

(h) Avoid those that have been used before in any closely allied genus.

(i)   Not adopt epithets from unpublished names found in correspondence, trav-
       ellers’ notes, herbarium labels, or similar sources, attributing them to their
       authors, unless these authors have approved publication (see Rec. 50G).

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 56 –

__________________________________________________________________

SECTION 5.

NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES

(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)

ARTICLE 24

24.1. The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of
a species and an infraspecific epithet. A connecting term is used to denote
the rank.

Ex. 1. Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch. This taxon may also be ref-
erred to as Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surcu-
losa Engl. & Irmsch.; in this way a full classification of the subforma within the species
is given, not only its name.

24.2. Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets and, when
adjectival in form and not used as nouns, they agree grammatically with
the generic name (see Art. 32.2).

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

24.3. Infraspecific names with final epithets such as genuinus, originalis,
originarius, typicus, verus, and veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon
containing the type of the name of the next higher-ranked taxon, are not
validly published unless they are autonyms (Art. 26).

Ex. 3. “Lobelia spicata var. originalis” (McVaugh in Rhodora 38: 308. 1936) was not
validly published (see Art. 26 Ex. 1), whereas the autonyms Galium verum L. subsp.
verum and G. verum var. verum are validly published.

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

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

Ex. 5. Salvia grandiflora subsp. “S. willeana” (Holmboe in Bergens Mus. Skr., ser. 2,
1(2): 157. 1914) is to be cited as S. grandiflora subsp. willeana Holmboe.

Ex. 6. Phyllerpa prolifera var. “Ph. firma” (Kützing, Sp. Alg.: 495. 1849) is to be al-
tered to P. prolifera var. firma Kütz.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 57 –

__________________________________________________________________

Note 1. Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear names with the
same final epithet; those within one species may bear names with the same final
epithet as the names of other species (but see Rec. 24B.1).

Ex. 7. Rosa glutinosa var. leioclada H. Christ (in Boissier, Fl. Orient. Suppl.: 222. 1888)
and Rosa jundzillii f. leioclada Borbás (in Math. Term. Közlem. 16: 376, 383. 1880) are
both permissible, as is Viola tricolor var. hirta Ging. (in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 304. 1824),
in spite of the previous existence of Viola hirta L.

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

Recommendation 24A

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

Recommendation 24B

24B.1. Authors proposing new infraspecific names should avoid final epithets
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 the Code.

ARTICLE 25

25.1. For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon below the rank
of species is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, if any.

Ex. 1. When Montia parvifolia (DC.) Greene is treated as comprising two subspecies,
the name M. parvifolia applies to the species in its entirety, i.e. including both M. parvi-
folia subsp. parvifolia and M. parvifolia subsp. flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris, and its use for
M. parvifolia subsp. parvifolia alone may lead to confusion.

ARTICLE 26

26.1. The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat
the specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet, not followed by an author
citation (see Art. 46). Such names are autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.6).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 58 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 1. The variety that 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. Art. 26.1 applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that in-
clude the type of the adopted name of the species (but see Rec. 26A).

26.2. A name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type (i.e. the holo-
type or all syntypes or the previously designated type) of the adopted, le-
gitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is not validly published
unless its final epithet repeats the specific epithet unaltered. For the pur-
pose 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. The intended combination “Vulpia myuros subsp. pseudomyuros (Soy.-Will.)
Maire & Weiller” was not validly published in Maire (Fl. Afrique N. 3: 177. 1955) be-
cause 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.

Ex. 3. Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 3. 1753) recognized two named varieties under Salicornia eu-
ropaea. Since S. europaea has no holotype and no syntypes are cited, both varietal
names are validly published irrespective of the facts that the lectotype of S. europaea,
designated by Jafri and Rateeb (in Jafri & El-Gadi, Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1979), can be attrib-
uted to S. europaea var. herbacea L. (1753) and that the latter name was subsequently
lectotypified by Piirainen (in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 28: 82. 1991) by the same specimen as
the species name.

Ex. 4. Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 779-781. 1753) recognized 13 named varieties under Medicago
polymorpha. Since M. polymorpha L. has neither a holotype nor syntypes, all vari-
etal names are validly published, and indeed the lectotype subsequently designated (by
Heyn in Bull. Res. Council Israel, Sect. D, Bot., 7: 163. 1959) is not part of the original
material for any of the varietal names of 1753.

26.3. The first instance of valid publication of a name of an infraspecific
taxon under a legitimate species name automatically establishes the cor-
responding autonym (see also Art. 11.6 and 32.3).

Ex. 5. The publication of the name Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii Tuck. (in
Amer. J. Sci. Arts 45: 47. 1843) automatically established the name of another variety,
L. inundatum L. var. inundatum, the autonym, the type of which is that of the name
L. inundatum L. (Art. 7.6).

Ex. 6. Pangalo (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23: 258. 1930) when describing Cucurbita mixta
Pangalo distinguished two varieties, C. mixta var. cyanoperizona Pangalo and var.
stenosperma Pangalo, together encompassing the entire circumscription of the species.
Although Pangalo did not mention the autonym (see 26B.1), C. mixta var. mixta was
automatically established at the same time. Since neither a holotype nor any syntypes

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 59 –

__________________________________________________________________

were indicated for C. mixta, both varietal names were validly published (see Art. 26.2).
Merrick & Bates (in Baileya 23: 96, 101. 1989), in the absence of known type material,
neotypified C. mixta by an element that can be attributed to C. mixta var. stenosperma.
As long as their choice of neotype is followed, under Art. 11.6 the correct name for
that variety recognized under C. mixta is C. mixta var. mixta, dating from 1930, not
C. mixta var. stenosperma. When that variety is recognized under C. argyrosperma
Huber (1867), as was done by Merrick & Bates, its correct name is not C. argyrosperma
var. stenosperma (Pangalo) Merrick & D. M. Bates; a combination based on C. mixta
is required.

Recommendation 26A

26A.1. A variety including the type of the correct name of a subspecies, but not
including the type of the correct name of the species, should, where there is no
obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same final epithet and type as
the subspecific 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 that 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 that 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 combination Pteridium aquilinum subsp. caudatum (L.) Bonap. (Notes Ptérid.
1: 62. 1915), using the same final epithet that Sadebeck had used earlier in the combi-
nation 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 le-
gitimate, 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 also
Art. 36.2).

Recommendation 26B

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 60 –

__________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 27

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

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

Ex. 1. When Honda (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 41: 385. 1927) published Agropyron japoni-
cum var. hackelianum Honda under the illegitimate A. japonicum Honda (1927), which
is a later homonym of A. japonicum (Miq.) P. Candargy (1901), he did not validly pub-
lish an autonym “A. japonicum var. japonicum” (see also Art. 55 Ex. 3).

SECTION 6.

NAMES OF ORGANISMS IN CULTIVATION

ARTICLE 28

28.1. Organisms brought from the wild into cultivation retain the names
that are applied to them when growing in nature.

Note 1. Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as
provided in App. I (see also Art. 11.9, 32.4, and 50).

Note 2. Additional, independent designations for special categories of organ-
isms 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 (ICNCP), which defines the cultivar as its basic category (see
Pre. 11).

Note 3. Nothing precludes the use, for cultivated organisms, of names pub-
lished in accordance with the requirements of this Code.

Note 4. Epithets in names published in conformity with this Code are retained
as cultivar epithets, included in single quotation marks, under the rules of the
ICNCP when it is considered appropriate to treat the taxon concerned under that
Code.

Ex. 1. Mahonia japonica DC. (1821) may be treated as a cultivar, which is then desig-
nated as Mahonia ‘Japonica’; Taxus baccata var. variegata Weston (1770), when treated
as a cultivar, is designated as Taxus baccata ‘Variegata’.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 61 –

__________________________________________________________________

Note 5. The ICNCP also provides for the establishment of epithets differing
markedly from epithets provided for under this Code.

Ex. 2. ×Disophyllum ‘Frühlingsreigen’; Eriobotrya japonica ‘Golden Ziad’ and E. ja-
ponica ‘Maamora Golden Yellow’; Phlox drummondii ‘Sternenzauber’; Quercus
frainetto ‘Hungarian Crown’.

Ex. 3. Juniperus ×pfitzeriana ‘Wilhelm Pfitzer’ (P. A. Schmidt 1998) was established
for a tetraploid cultivar presumed to result from the original cross between J. chinen-
sis L. and J. sabina L.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 62 –

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER IV.

EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

SECTION 1.

CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

ARTICLE 29

29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed
matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to
scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries. Publication is also
effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in
Portable Document Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an
online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or
an International Standard Book Number (ISBN).

Ex. 1. The paper containing the new combination Anaeromyces polycephalus (Y. C.
Chen & al.) Fliegerová & al. (Kirk in Index Fungorum 1: 1. 2012), based on Piromyces
polycephalus Y. C. Chen & al. (2002), was effectively published when it was issued
online in Portable Document Format with an ISSN on 1 January 2012.

Note 1. The distribution before 1 January 2012 of electronic material does not
constitute effective publication.

Ex. 2. Floristic accounts of the Asteraceae in Flora of China 20–21, containing numer-
ous nomenclatural novelties, were published online in Portable Document Format on 25
October 2011. Because they were distributed before 1 January 2012 and lacked either
an ISBN or an ISSN they were not effectively published. Effective publication occurred
when the printed version of the same volume became available on 11 November 2011.

Ex. 3. The paper in which the diatom Tursiocola podocnemicola was first described
was distributed online on 14 December 2011 as an “iFirst” PDF document (DOI:
10.1080/0269249X.2011.642498) available through the Diatom Research website (ISSN
0269-249X, print; ISSN 2159-8347, online). Although the paper appeared online in an
ISSN-bearing electronic publication in Portable Document Format, it was distributed
before 1 January 2012 and was not therefore effectively published. It did not become

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 63 –

__________________________________________________________________

effectively published on 1 January 2012 merely by remaining available online. Effective
publication occurred on 28 February 2012, when the printed version of the journal
(Diatom Res. 27: 2. 2012) was distributed.

29.2. For the purpose of Art. 29.1, “online” is defined as accessible elec-
tronically via the World Wide Web.

29.3. Should Portable Document Format (PDF) be succeeded, a successor
international standard format communicated by the General Committee
(see Div. III) is acceptable.

Recommendation 29A

29A.1. Publication electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF) should
comply with the PDF/A archival standard (ISO 19005).

29A.2. Authors of electronic material should give preference to publications that
are archived and curated, satisfying the following criteria as far as is practical (see
also Rec. 29A.1):

(a) The material should be placed in multiple trusted online digital repositories,
e.g. an ISO-certified repository.

(b) Digital repositories should be in more than one area of the world and prefer-
ably on different continents.

(c) Deposition of printed copies in libraries in more than one area of the world
and preferably on different continents is also advisable (but see Rec. 30A.2).

ARTICLE 30

30.1. Publication is not effected by communication of nomenclatural nov-
elties at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens
open to the public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts or
typescripts or other unpublished material, or by distribution of electronic
material other than as described in Art. 29.

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).

30.2. An electronic publication is not effectively published if there is evi-
dence within or associated with the publication that it is merely a preliminary

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 64 –

__________________________________________________________________

version that was, or is to be, replaced by a version that the publisher consid-
ers final, in which case only that final version is effectively published.

Ex. 2. The name Rodaucea was published in a paper first placed online on 12 January
2012 as a PDF document accessible through the website of the journal Mycologia (ISSN
0027-5514, print; ISSN 1557-2436, online). That document has a header stating “In
Press”, and on the journal website it is qualified as “Preliminary version”, which is
clear evidence that it is not considered by the publisher as final. As the final version of the
document appeared simultaneously online and in print, a correct citation of the name is:
Rodaucea W. Rossi & Santam. in Mycologia (print & online): 785. 11 Jun 2012.

Ex. 3. The name Lycopinae appeared in a paper first placed online on 26 April 2012 as
an “Advance Access” PDF document accessible through the website of the American
Journal of Botany (ISSN 0002-9122, print; ISSN 1537-2197, online). As the journal
website stated (May 2012) that “AJB Advance Access articles ... have not yet been
printed or posted online by issue” and that “minor corrections may be made before the
issue is released” this is evidently not considered the final version by the publisher.
Lycopinae B. T. Drew & Sytsma was validly published in Amer. J. Bot. 99: 945. 1 May
2012, when the paper containing it was effectively published.

Ex. 4. The paper (in S. African J. Bot. 80: 63–66; ISSN 0254-6299) in which the name
Nanobubon hypogaeum J. Magee appears was effectively published online as a PDF
document on 30 March 2012 in its “final and fully citable” form, prior to publication of
the printed version (May 2012). However, papers appearing online in the same journal
under the heading “In Press Corrected Proof” are not effectively published, as the jour-
nal website clearly defines that status: “Corrected proofs: articles that contain the au-
thors’ corrections. Final citation details, e.g. volume/issue number, publication year and
page numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.”

Note 1. Citation, for electronic material, of an inappropriate ISSN or ISBN
(e.g. one that does not exist or that refers to a serial publication or book in which
that electronic material is not included, not even as a declared supplement to an
included item) does not effect publication under Art. 29.1.

Ex. 5. The paper by Meyer, Baquero, and Cameron in which “Dracula trigonopetala”
was described as an intended new species was placed online as a PDF/A document on
1 March 2012. There is no mention of a journal or ISSN in the document itself, but as it was
made accessible through the homepage of OrchideenJournal (ISSN 1864-9459), it might
be argued that it qualifies as an “online publication with an International Standard Serial
Number” (Art. 29.1). However, the paper is not presented in a format suited for publication
in the OrchideenJournal and was evidently not intended for inclusion in that journal. A
new version of the paper, translated into German, appeared in print (OrchideenJ. 19: 107–
112) on 15 August 2012. Although this was effectively published, “D. trigonopetala” was
not validly published there as no Latin or English description or diagnosis was provided.

30.3. The content of a particular electronic publication must not be altered
after it is effectively published. Any such alterations are not themselves ef-
fectively published. Corrections or revisions must be issued separately to
be effectively published.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 65 –

__________________________________________________________________

Note 2. Content in external sources accessed via a hyperlink or URL (Uniform
Resource Locator) embedded in text is not part of the publication; nor is associ-
ated information that does not form part of the text itself, such as page numbers (if
preliminary or lacking) or watermarks. Content is that which stands alone as the
version that the publisher considers final (see Art. 30.2).

Ex. 6. A paper describing the new genus Partitatheca and its four constituent species,
accepted for the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society (ISSN 0024-4074, print;
ISSN 1095-8339, online), was placed online on 1 February 2012 as an “Early View”
PDF document with preliminary pagination (1–29). This was evidently the version con-
sidered final by the journal’s publisher because, in the document itself, it was declared
the “Version of Record” (an expression defined by the standard, NISO-RP-8-2008).
Later, in the otherwise identical electronic version issued upon publication of the printed
version on 27 February 2012, the volume pagination (229–257) was added. A correct
citation of the generic name is: Partitatheca D. Edwards & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 168
(online): [2 of 29], 230. 1 Feb 2012, or better just “... 168 (online): 230. 1 Feb 2012.”

Ex. 7. The new combination Rhododendron aureodorsale was made in a paper in
Nordic Journal of Botany (ISSN 1756-1051, online; ISSN 0107-055X, print), first ef-
fectively published online on 13 March 2012 in “Early View”, the “Online Version
of Record published before inclusion in an issue”, with a permanent Digital Object
Identifier (DOI) but with preliminary pagination (1-EV to 3-EV). Upon publication
of the printed version on 20 April 2012, the pagination of the electronic version was
changed to 184–186 and the date of the printed version was added. The combination can
be cited as Rhododendron aureodorsale (W. P. Fang ex J. Q. Fu) Y. P. Ma & J. Nielsen
in Nordic J. Bot. 30 (online): 184. 13 Mar 2012 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01438.x).

Ex. 8. Two new Echinops species, including E. antalyensis, were described in Annales
Botanici Fennici (ISSN 1797-2442, online; ISSN 0003-3847, print) in a paper effec-
tively published in its definitive form on 13 March 2012 as an online PDF document,
still with preliminary pagination ([1]-4) and the watermark “preprint”. Upon publica-
tion of the printed version on 26 April 2012, the online document was repaginated
([95]-98) and the watermark removed. A correct citation of the name is: E. antalyensis
C. Vural in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 49 (online): 95. 13 Mar 2012.

30.4. Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is effective.
Indelible autograph produced at a later date is not effectively published.

30.5. For the purpose of Art. 30.4, indelible autograph is handwritten ma-
terial reproduced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithogra-
phy, offset, or metallic etching).

Ex. 9. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914–1915), is a work lithographed from a hand-
written text.

Ex. 10. Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr. was effectively published in an indelible au-
tograph catalogue (Webb & Heldreich, Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum ... ab
A. Blanco lectarum, Paris, Jul 1850, folio).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 66 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 11. The Journal of the International Conifer Preservation Society, vol. 5[1]. 1997
(“1998”), consists of duplicated sheets of typewritten text with handwritten additions and
corrections in several places. The handwritten portions, being indelible autograph pub-
lished after 1 January 1953, are not effectively published. Intended new combinations (e.g.
“Abies koreana var. yuanbaoshanensis”, p. 53) for which the basionym reference is hand-
written are not validly published. The entirely handwritten account of a new taxon (p. 61:
name, Latin description, statement of type) is treated as unpublished (see also Rec. 50G).

Ex. 12. The generic designation “Lindenia” was handwritten in ink by Bentham in the
margin of copies of a published but not yet distributed fascicle of the Plantae hartwe-
gianae (1841: 84) to replace the struck-out name Siphonia Benth., which he had discov-
ered was a later homonym of Siphonia Rich. ex Schreb. (1791). Although the fascicle
was then distributed, the handwritten portion was not itself reproduced by mechanical
or graphic process and is not therefore effectively published.

30.6. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 in trade catalogues or non-
scientific newspapers, and on or after 1 January 1973 in seed-exchange
lists, does not constitute effective publication.

30.7. The distribution on or after 1 January 1953 of printed matter accom-
panying specimens does not constitute effective publication.

Note 3. If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the speci-
mens, it is effectively published.

Ex. 13. The printed labels of Fuckel’s Fungi rhenani exsiccati (1863–1874) are effec-
tively published even though not independently issued. The labels antedate Fuckel’s
subsequent accounts (e.g. in Jahrb. Nassauischen Vereins Naturk. 23–24. 1870).

Ex. 14. Vězda’s Lichenes selecti exsiccati (1960–1995) were issued with printed labels
that were also distributed as printed fascicles; the latter are effectively published, and
nomenclatural novelties appearing in Vězda’s labels are to be cited from the fascicles.

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

Note 4. The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a
statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed
version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effec-
tively published.

Ex. 15. “Meclatis in Clematis; yellow flowering Clematis species – Systematic studies
in Clematis L. (Ranunculaceae), inclusive of cultonomic aspects” a “Proefschrift ter
verkrijging van de graad van doctor ... van Wageningen Universiteit” by Brandenburg,
was effectively published on 8 June 2000, because it bears the ISBN 90-5808-237-7.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 67 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 16. The thesis “Comparative investigations on the life-histories and reproduc-
tion of some species in the siphoneous green algal genera Bryopsis and Derbesia” by
Rietema, submitted to Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen in 1975, is stated to have been
printed (“Druk”) by Verenigde Reproduktie Bedrijven, Groningen and was therefore
effectively published.

Ex. 17. The dissertation “Die Gattung Mycena s.l.” by Rexer, submitted to the Eberhard-
Karls-Universität Tübingen, was effectively published in 1994 because it bears the
statement “Druck: Zeeb-Druck, Tübingen 7 (Hagelloch)”, referring to a commercial
printer. The generic name Roridomyces Rexer and the names of new species in Mycena,
such as M. taiwanensis Rexer, are therefore validly published.

Ex. 18. The thesis by Demoulin, “Le genre Lycoperdon en Europe et en Amérique du
Nord”, defended in 1971, was not effectively published because it does not contain inter-
nal evidence that it is regarded as such. Even if photocopies of it can be found in some
libraries, names of new species of Lycoperdon, e.g. “L. americanum”, “L. cokeri”, and
“L. estonicum”, introduced there, were validly published in the effectively published
paper “Espèces nouvelles ou méconnues du genre Lycoperdon (Gastéromycètes)”
(Demoulin in Lejeunia, ser. 2, 62: 1–28. 1972).

Ex. 19. The dissertation by Funk, “The Systematics of Montanoa Cerv. (Asteraceae)”,
submitted to the Ohio State University in 1980, was not effectively published because it
does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as such. The same applies to fac-
simile copies of the dissertation printed from microfiche and distributed, on demand,
from 1980 onward, by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. The name Montanoa imbri-
cata V. A. Funk, introduced in the dissertation, was validly published in the effectively
published paper “The systematics of Montanoa (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)” (Funk in
Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 36: 1–133. 1982).

Ex. 20. The dissertation “Revision der südafrikanischen Astereengattungen Mairia
und Zyrphelis” submitted in 1990 by Ursula Zinnecker-Wiegand to the Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universität München (University of Munich) is not effectively published
as it does not include an ISBN, the name of any printer or publisher or distributor, or any
statement that it was intended to be effectively published under the Code, even though
about 50 copies were distributed to other public libraries and all the other formalities
for the publication of new taxa were met. The names intended to be published in the
thesis were validly published in the effectively published paper by Ortiz & Zinnecker-
Wiegand (in Taxon 60: 1194–1198. 2011).

Recommendation 30A

30A.1. Preliminary and final versions of the same electronic publication should
be clearly indicated as such when they are first issued.

30A.2. It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing nomenclatural
novelties in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular printed matter that
is multiplied in restricted and uncertain numbers, in which the permanence of the
text may be limited, for which effective publication in terms of number of copies
is not obvious, or that is unlikely to reach the general public. Authors should also

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 68 –

__________________________________________________________________

avoid publishing nomenclatural novelties in popular periodicals, in abstracting
journals, or on correction slips.

Ex. 1. Kartesz provided an unpaginated printed insert titled “Nomenclatural innova-
tions” to accompany the electronic version (1.0) of the Synthesis of the North American
flora produced on compact disk (CD-ROM; not effectively published under Art. 30.1).
This insert, which is effectively published under Art. 29–31, is the place of valid pub-
lication of 41 new combinations, which also appear on the disk, in an item authored
by Kartesz: “A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vas-
cular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland” (e.g. Dichanthelium hirstii
(Swallen) Kartesz in Kartesz & Meacham, Synth. N. Amer. Fl., Nomencl. Innov.: [1].
Aug 1999). Kartesz’s procedure is not to be recommended, as the insert is unlikely to be
permanently stored and catalogued in libraries and so reach the general public.

30A.3. To aid availability through time and place, authors publishing nomen-
clatural novelties should give preference to periodicals that regularly publish
taxonomic articles, or else they should send a copy of a publication (printed or
electronic) to an indexing centre appropriate to the taxonomic group. When such
publications exist only as printed matter, they should be deposited in at least ten,
but preferably more, generally accessible libraries throughout the world.

30A.4. Authors and editors are encouraged to mention nomenclatural novelties in
the summary or abstract, or list them in an index in the publication.

SECTION 2.

DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

ARTICLE 31

31.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed
matter or electronic material became available as defined in Art. 29 and 30.
In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in
the printed matter or electronic material must be accepted as correct.

Ex. 1. Individual parts of Willdenow’s Species plantarum were published as follows:
1(1), Jun 1797; 1(2), Jul 1798; 2(1), Mar 1799; 2(2), Dec 1799; 3(1), 1800; 3(2), Nov 1802;
3(3), Apr-Dec 1803; 4(1), 1805; 4(2), 1806; these dates are presently accepted as the
dates of effective publication (see Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 116: 303. 1988).

Ex. 2. Fries first published Lichenes arctoi in 1860 as an independently paginated pre-
print, which antedates the identical content published in a journal (Nova Acta Reg. Soc.
Sci. Upsal., ser. 3, 3: 103–398. 1861).

Ex. 3. Diatom Research 2(2) bears the date December 1987. However Williams &
Round, the authors of a paper in that issue, stated in a subsequent paper (in Diatom Res.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 69 –

__________________________________________________________________

3: 265. 1988) that the actual date of publication had been 18 February 1988. Under Art.
31.1 their statement is acceptable as proof establishing another date of publication for
issue 2(2) of the journal.

Ex. 4. The paper in which Ceratocystis omanensis Al-Subhi & al. is described was
available online in final form on Science Direct on 7 November 2005, but was not ef-
fectively published (Art. 29 Note 1). It was distributed in print (in Mycol. Res. 110(2):
237–245) on 7 March 2006, which is the date of effective publication.

31.2. When a publication is issued in parallel as electronic material and
printed matter, both must be treated as effectively published on the same
date unless the dates of the versions are different as determined by Art. 31.1.

Ex. 5. The paper in which Solanum baretiae was validly published was placed online in
final form, as a PDF document, on 3 January 2012 in the journal PhytoKeys (ISSN 1314-
2003). The printed version (ISSN 1314-2011) of the corresponding issue of PhytoKeys,
with identical pagination and content, is undated but demonstrably later, as it includes
a paper dated 6 January 2012. A correct citation of the name is: S. baretiae Tepe in
PhytoKeys 8 (online): 39. 3 Jan 2012.

31.3. 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 effec-
tive publication unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

Ex. 6. The names of the Selaginella species published by Hieronymus (in Hedwigia 51:
241–272) were effectively published on 15 October 1911, since the volume in which the
paper appeared, though dated 1912, states (p. ii) that the separate appeared on that date.

Recommendation 31A

31A.1. The date on which the publisher or publisher’s agent delivers printed mat-
ter to one of the usual carriers for distribution to the public should be accepted as
its date of effective publication.

Recommendation 31B

31B.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 pub-
lished as well as the number of pages and plates in each.

Recommendation 31C

31C.1. On reprints of papers published in a periodical, the name of the periodi-
cal, volume and part number, original pagination, and date (year, month, and day)
should be indicated.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 70 –

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER V.

VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

SECTION 1.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 32

32.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted)
must: (a) be effectively published (see Art. 29–31) on or after the starting-
point date of the respective group (Art. 13.1); (b) be composed only of letters
of the Latin alphabet, except as provided in Art. 23.3 and Art. 60.4, 60.6,
60.9, 60.10, and 60.11; and (c) have a form that complies with the provisions
of Art. 16–27 (but see Art. 21.4 and 24.4) and Art. H.6–7 (see also Art. 61).

Note 1. The use of typographic signs, numerals, or letters of a non-Latin alpha-
bet in the arrangement of taxa (such as Greek letters α, β, γ, etc. in the arrangement
of varieties under a species) does not prevent valid publication, as rank-denoting
terms and devices are not part of the name.

32.2. Names or epithets published with an improper Latin termination but
otherwise in accordance with this Code are regarded as validly published;
they are to be changed to accord with Art. 16–19, 21, 23, and 24, without
change of the author citation or date (see also Art. 60.12).

Ex. 1. The epithet in Cassia “* Chamaecristae” L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753) is a noun in the
nominative plural, derived from “Chamaecrista”, a pre-Linnaean generic designation.
Under Art. 21.2, however, this epithet must have the same form as a generic name, i.e. a
noun in the nominative singular (Art. 20.1). The name is to be changed accordingly and
is cited as Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L.

32.3. Autonyms (Art. 6.8) are accepted as validly published names, dat-
ing from the publication in which they were established (see Art. 22.3 and
26.3), whether or not they actually appear in that publication.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 71 –

__________________________________________________________________

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

Ex. 2. “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. 3. “Rheum ×cultorum” (Thorsrud & Reisaeter, Norske Plantenavn: 95. 1948),
being there a nomen nudum, is not validly published.

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

Note 2. For names of hybrids of the rank of genus or subdivision of a genus,
see Art. H.9.

Note 3. For valid publication of names of organisms originally assigned to a
group not covered by this Code, see Art. 45.

Recommendation 32A

32A.1. When publishing nomenclatural novelties, authors should indicate this by
a phrase including the word “novus” or its abbreviation, e.g. genus novum (gen.
nov., new genus), species nova (sp. nov., new species), combinatio nova (comb.
nov., new combination), nomen novum (nom. nov., replacement name), or status
novus (stat. nov., name at new rank).

ARTICLE 33

33.1. 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 valid publication. A name published
on or after 1 January 1973 for which the various conditions for valid publi-
cation are not simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published unless a full
and direct reference (Art. 41.5) is given to the places where these require-
ments were previously fulfilled (but see Art. 41.7).

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 mean-
ing of these numerals and without any other descriptive matter; when the thesis was re-
printed in vol. 4 of the Amoenitates academicae (1759), a statement was added explain-
ing that the numbers referred to earlier descriptions published in Magnol’s Botanicon

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 72 –

__________________________________________________________________

monspeliense. However, “Clypeola minor” was absent from the reprint, being no longer
accepted by Linnaeus, and was not therefore validly published.

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

33.2. A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 32.2 and 60)
does not affect its date.

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

ARTICLE 34

34.1. Names in specified ranks included in publications listed as sup-
pressed works (opera utique oppressa; App. VI) are not validly published.
Proposals for the addition of publications to App. VI must be submitted to
the General Committee (see Div. III), which will refer them for examina-
tion to the committees for the various taxonomic groups (see Rec. 34A; see
also Art. 14.12 and 56.2).

34.2. When a proposal for the suppression of a publication has been ap-
proved by the General Committee after study by the committees for the
taxonomic groups concerned, suppression of that publication is author-
ized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress
(see also Art. 14.16 and 56.4).

Recommendation 34A

34A.1. When a proposal for the suppression of a publication under Art. 34.1 has
been referred to the appropriate committees for study, authors should follow exist-
ing usage of names as far as possible pending the General Committee’s recom-
mendation on the proposal (see also Rec. 14A and 56A).

ARTICLE 35

35.1. 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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 73 –

__________________________________________________________________

published at the same time or was validly published previously (but see
Art. 13.4).

Ex. 1. Binary designations for six species of “Suaeda”, including “S. baccata” and
“S. vera”, were published with descriptions and diagnoses by Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-
Arab.: 69–71. 1775), but he provided no description or diagnosis for the genus: these
were not 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. soredii-
formis” (Phlyctis sorediiformis Kremp.), “P. brasiliensis” (Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.),
and “P. andensis” (Phlyctis andensis Nyl.). The intended new binomials were not, how-
ever, validly published 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 for one additional species, “P. hampeana”, and so failed to
validly publish “Phlyctidia” under Art. 38.5 since the genus was not monotypic. Valid
publication of the name Phlyctidia was by Müller (1895), who provided a short generic
diagnosis and explicitly included only two species, the names of which, P. ludoviciensis
Müll. Arg. and P. boliviensis (Nyl.) Müll. Arg., were also validly published in 1895.

Note 1. Art. 35.1 applies also when specific and other epithets are published
under words not to be regarded as names of genera or species (see Art. 20.4 and
23.6).

Ex. 3. The binary designation “Anonymos aquatica” (Walter, Fl. Carol.: 230. 1788) is
not a validly published name. The first validly published name for the species con-
cerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel. (1791). This name is not 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 Rottbøll’s context was a word not intended as a generic name. The
first validly published name for this species is Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).

35.2. 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 (see Art. 60.11).

Ex. 5. 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 diction-
ary, ed. 8, by the inclusion of the epithet in parentheses immediately after the name of
the genus, in Steudel’s Nomenclator botanicus by the arrangement of the epithets in a
list headed by the name of the genus, and in general by any typographical device that
associates an epithet with a particular name of a genus or species.

Ex. 6. Combinations not validly published. Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia
that “Le type de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn.” (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat.
Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not constitute valid publication of the combination B. ciliata,
since Rafinesque did not definitely associate the epithet ciliata with the generic name

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 74 –

__________________________________________________________________

Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is not to be attributed
to Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867) on the basis of their listing of “Cnidium
peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under Eulophus.

Ex. 7. Erioderma polycarpum subsp. verruculosum Vain. (in Acta Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn.
7(1): 202. 1890) is validly published since Vainio clearly linked the subspecific epithet
to the specific epithet by an asterisk.

Ex. 8. When Tuckerman (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 168. 1877) described “Erio-
derma velligerum, sub-sp. nov.”, he stated that his new subspecies was very near to
E. chilense, from which he provided distinguishing features. However, because he did
not definitely associate the subspecific epithet with that species name, he did not validly
publish “E. chilense subsp. velligerum”.

ARTICLE 36

36.1. 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 an-
ticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particu-
lar circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional
name); (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; or (d) by the mere mention
of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. Art. 36.1(a) does
not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of
taxonomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.

Ex. 1. (a) “Sebertia”, proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a unispecific genus, was not val-
idly 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 spec-
ies “Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)” to the genus Sersalisia R. Br., as “Sersalisia ?
acuminata”, which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 36.1, 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) Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in
Mag. Neusten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809)
even though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory’s request, Flörke in-
cluded Bory’s diagnosis (and name) making Bory the publishing author as defined in
Art. 46.6. The acceptance or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not, therefore, relevant
for valid publication.

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 75 –

__________________________________________________________________

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

Ex. 6. (b) The designation “Stereocaulon subdenudatum” proposed by Havaas (in
Bergens Mus. Årbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published in spite of it being pre-
sented as a new species with a Latin diagnosis, since on both pages it was indicated to
be “ad int.” [ad interim, for the time being].

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

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

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

Ex. 10. Besenna A. Rich. and B. anthelmintica A. Rich. (1847) were simultaneously
published by Richard, both with a question mark (“Besenna ?” and “Besenna anthel-
mintica ? Nob.”). Richard’s uncertainty was due to the absence of flowers or fruits for
examination, but the names were nonetheless accepted by him, with Besenna listed as
such (i.e. not italicized) in the index (p. [469]).

36.2. When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names
based on the same type are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon
by the same author (so-called alternative names), none of them is validly
published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combina-
tion is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa
within a species or for subdivisions of a genus within a genus (see Rec.
22A.1–2 and 26A.1–3), nor to names provided for in Art. 59.1.

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

Ex. 12. “Euphorbia jaroslavii” (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad.
Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, “Tithymalus
jaroslavii”. Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii
(with a differently transcribed initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961),
who provided a full and direct reference to the earlier publication and rejected the as-
signment to Tithymalus.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 76 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 13. Description of “Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill var. tu-
midum, 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. 14. Freytag (in Sida Bot. Misc. 23: 211. 2002) simultaneously published Phaseolus
leptostachyus “var. pinnatifolius Freytag forma purpureus Freytag, var. et forma nov.”,
using a single diagnosis and designating a single intended holotype. Since the intended
combinations are not the same, neither is validly published.

Ex. 15. Hitchcock (in Univ. Washington 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 recog-
nized 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 re-
quirements for valid publication of B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.

ARTICLE 37

37.1. A name published on or after 1 January 1953 without a clear indica-
tion of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.

37.2. For suprageneric names published on or after 1 January 1887, the
use of one of the terminations specified in Art. 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, and
19.3 is accepted as an indication of the corresponding rank, unless this
(a) would conflict with the explicitly designated rank of the taxon (which
takes precedence), (b) would result in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5
(in which case Art. 37.6 applies), or (c) would result in a rank sequence in
which the same rank-denoting term occurs at more than one hierarchical
position.

Ex. 1. Jussieu (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827) proposed Zanthoxyleae without
specifying the rank. Although he employed the present termination for tribe (-eae), that
name, being published prior to 1887, is unranked. Zanthoxyleae Dumort. (Anal. Fam.
Pl.: 45. 1829), however, is the name of a tribe, as Dumortier specified its rank.

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

37.3. A name published before 1 January 1953 without a clear indication
of its rank is validly published provided that all other requirements for valid
publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative in questions of priority
except for homonymy (see Art. 53.4). If it is the name of a new taxon, it may

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 77 –

__________________________________________________________________

serve as a basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent new combina-
tions, names at new ranks, or replacement names in definite ranks.

Ex. 3. The unranked groups “Soldanellae”, “Sepincoli”, “Occidentales”, etc., were
published under Convolvulus L. by House (in Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908). The names
C. [unranked] Soldanellae House, etc., are validly published names but have no status
in questions of priority except for purposes of homonymy under Art. 53.4.

Ex. 4. In Carex L., the epithet Scirpinae was used in the name of an unranked subdivi-
sion of a genus by Tuckerman (Enum. Meth. Caric.: 8. 1843); this taxon was assigned
sectional rank by Kükenthal (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 20 (Heft 38): 81. 1909) and its
name is then cited as Carex sect. Scirpinae (Tuck.) Kük. (C. [unranked] Scirpinae
Tuck.).

Ex. 5. Loesener published “Geranium andicola var. vel forma longipedicellatum”
(Bull. Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, 3(2): 93. 1903) with an ambiguous indication of infraspe-
cific rank. The name is correctly cited as “G. andicola [unranked] longipedicellatum
Loes.” The epithet was used in a subsequent combination, G. longipedicellatum (Loes.)
R. Knuth (1912).

37.4. If in one whole publication (Art. 37.5), prior to 1 January 1890,
only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that of va-
riety unless this would be contrary to the author’s statements in the same
publication.

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

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

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

37.7. Only those names published with the rank-denoting terms that must
be removed so as to achieve a proper sequence are to be regarded as not

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 78 –

__________________________________________________________________

validly published. In cases where terms are switched, e.g. family-order, and
a proper sequence can be achieved by removing either or both of the rank-
denoting terms, names at neither rank are validly published unless one is a
secondary rank (Art. 4.1) and one is a principal rank (Art. 3.1), e.g. family-
genus-tribe, in which case only names published at the secondary rank are
not validly published.

Ex. 7. “Sectio Orontiaceae” (Brown, Prodr.: 337. 1810) is not a validly published name,
since Brown misapplied the term “sectio” to a rank higher than genus.

Ex. 8. “Tribus Involuta” and “tribus Brevipedunculata” (Huth in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20:
365, 368. 1895) are not validly published names, since Huth misapplied the term “tri-
bus” to a rank lower than section, within the genus Delphinium.

Note 1. Sequential use of the same rank-denoting term in a taxonomic se-
quence does not represent misplaced rank-denoting terms.

Ex. 9. Danser (in Recueil Trav. Bot. Néerl. 18: 125–210. 1921) published ten names of
new subspecies in a treatment of Polygonum in which he recognized subspecies (indi-
cated by Roman numerals) within subspecies (indicated by Arabic numerals). These do
not represent misplaced rank-denoting terms, Art. 37.6 does not apply, and the names
are validly published.

37.8. Situations where the same rank-denoting term is used at more than
one non-successive position in the taxonomic sequence represent informal
usage of rank-denoting terms. Names published with such rank-denoting
terms are treated as unranked (see Art. 37.1 and 37.3).

Ex. 10. Names published with the term “series” by Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1–3.
1862–1883) are treated as unranked because this term was used at seven different hier-
archical positions in the taxonomic sequence. Therefore, the sequence in Rhynchospora
(3: 1058–1060. 1883) of genus-“series”-section does not contain a misplaced rank-
denoting term.

37.9. An exception to Art. 37.6 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 unranked subdivisions of genera.

Ex. 11. 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. 41 Ex. 6).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 79 –

__________________________________________________________________

SECTION 2.

NAMES OF NEW TAXA

ARTICLE 38

38.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon (see Art.
6.9) must (a) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon
or, if none is provided in the protologue, by a reference to a previously and
effectively published description or diagnosis (except as provided in Art.
38.7, 38.8, and H.9; see also Art. 14.9 and 14.15); and (b) comply with the
relevant provisions of Art. 32–45.

Note 1. An exception to Art. 38.1 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 in those works even though the validat-
ing descriptions were published later in Genera plantarum, ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6
(1764), respectively (see Art. 13.4).

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

Ex. 1. “Egeria” (Néraud in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot.: 25, 28. 1826) was published
without a description or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one (and thus is a nomen
nudum); it was not validly published.

Ex. 2. “Loranthus macrosolen Steud.” originally appeared without a description or di-
agnosis 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 pub-
lished 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. Names of new taxa appearing in that work are not therefore
validly published, except in some cases where reference is made to earlier descriptions
or diagnoses.

Ex. 4. “Crepis praemorsa subsp. tatrensis” (Dvořák & Dadáková in Biológia (Brati-
slava) 32: 755. 1977) appeared with “a subsp. praemorsa karyotypo achaeniorumque
longitudine praecipue differt”. This statement specifies the features in which the two
taxa differ but not how these features differ and so it does not satisfy the requirement of
Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”.

Ex. 5. The generic name Epilichen Clem. (Gen. Fungi: 69, 174. 1909) is validly pub-
lished by means of the key character “parasitic on lichens” (contrasting with “sapro-
phytic” for Karschia) and the Latin diagnosis “Karschia lichenicola”, referring to the

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 80 –

__________________________________________________________________

ability of the included species formerly included in Karschia to grow on lichens. These
statements, in the opinion of Clements, distinguished the genus from others, although
provision of such a meagre diagnosis is not good practice.

38.3. The requirements of Art. 38.1(a) are not met by statements describ-
ing properties such as purely aesthetic features, economic, medicinal or
culinary use, cultural significance, cultivation techniques, geographical
origin, or geological age.

Ex. 6. “Musa basjoo” (Siebold in Verh. Bat. Genootsch. Kunsten 12: 18. 1830) appeared
with “Ex insulis Luikiu introducta, vix asperitati hiemis resistens. Ex foliis linteum,
praesertim in insulis Luikiu ac quibusdam insulis provinciae Satzuma conficitur. Est
haud dubie linteum, quod Philippinis incolis audit Nippis”. This statement gives infor-
mation about the economic use (linen is made from the leaves), hardiness in cultivation
(scarcely survives the winter), and geographical origin (introduced from the Ryukyu
Islands), but since there is no descriptive information on the “leaves”, the only character
mentioned, it does not satisfy the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diag-
nosis”. Musa basjoo Siebold & Zucc. ex Iinuma was later validly published in Iinuma,
Sintei Somoku Dzusetsu [Illustrated Flora of Japan], ed. 2, 3: ad t. 1. 1874, with floral
details and a description in Japanese.

38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the re-
quirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”, a request for a
decision may be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III), which
will refer it for examination to the Committee for the appropriate taxo-
nomic group. A recommendation, whether or not to treat the name con-
cerned as validly published, may then be put forward to an International
Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a binding decision. These
binding decisions are listed in App. VII.

Ex. 7. Ascomycota Caval.-Sm. (in Biol. Rev. 73: 247. 1998, as “Ascomycota Berkeley
1857 stat. nov.”) was published as the name of a phylum, with the diagnosis “sporae
intracellulares”. As Cavalier-Smith (l.c.) did not provide a full and direct reference
to Berkeley’s publication (Intr. Crypt. Bot.: 270. 1857) of the name Ascomycetes [not
Ascomycota], valid publication of Ascomycota is dependent on its meeting the require-
ments of Art. 38.1(a), and a request was made for a binding decision under Art. 38.4.
The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi concluded (in Taxon 59: 292. 2010) that the re-
quirements of Art. 38.1(a) were minimally fulfilled and recommended that Ascomycota
be treated as validly published. This was endorsed by the General Committee (in
Taxon 60: 1212. 2011) and ratified by the XVIII International Botanical Congress in
Melbourne in 2011.

38.5. The names of a genus and a species may be validly published si-
multaneously by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-
specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 81 –

__________________________________________________________________

generic or specific, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the
genus is at that time monotypic (see Art. 38.6); (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 diagnosis is not
acceptable in place of a descriptio generico-specifica.

38.6. For the purpose of Art. 38.5, a monotypic genus is one for which a
single binomial is validly published even though the author may indicate
that other species are attributable to the genus.

Ex. 8. Nylander (1879) described the new species “Anema nummulariellum” in a new
genus “Anema” without providing a generic description or diagnosis. Since at the same
time he also transferred Omphalaria nummularia Durieu & Mont. to “Anema”, none of
his names was validly published. They were later validly published by Forsell (1885).

Ex. 9. The names Kedarnatha P. K. Mukh. & Constance (1986) and K. sanctuarii
P. K. Mukh. & Constance, the latter designating the single, new species of the new
genus, are both validly published although a Latin description was provided only under
the generic name.

Ex. 10. Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth. (1840) was a new species assigned to the mono-
typic new genus Piptolepis. Both names were validly published with a combined ge-
neric and specific description.

Ex. 11. In publishing “Phaelypea” without a generic description or diagnosis, Browne
(Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave
the species a phrase name not a validly published binomial. Art. 38.5 does not therefore
apply and “Phaelypea” is not a validly published name.

38.7. For the purpose of Art. 38.5, prior to 1 January 1908, an illustration
with analysis (see Art. 38.9 and 38.10) is acceptable in place of a written
description or diagnosis.

Ex. 12. 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.

38.8. The name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published before
1 January 1908 may be validly published even if only accompanied by an
illustration with analysis (see Art. 38.9 and 38.10).

Ex. 13. When Velloso (in Fl. Flumin. Icon. 11: ad t. 67. 1831) published “Polypodium
subulatum”, only an illustration of part of a frond, without analysis, was presented.
This drawing does not fulfill the provisions of Art. 38.8, thus this name was not validly
published there, but was validly published when Velloso’s fern species descriptions ap-
peared (in Arch. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro 5: 447. 1881).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 82 –

__________________________________________________________________

38.9. For the purpose of this Code, an analysis is a figure or group of
figures, commonly separate from the main illustration of the organism
(though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding identifi-
cation, with or without a separate caption (see also Art. 38.10).

Ex. 14. Panax nossibiensis Drake (1896) was validly published on a plate with analysis.

38.10. For organisms other than vascular plants, single figures showing
details aiding identification are considered as illustrations with analysis
(see also Art. 38.9).

Ex. 15. Eunotia gibbosa Grunow (1881), a name of a diatom, was validly published by
provision of a figure of a single valve.

38.11. For the purpose of valid publication of a name of a new taxon, refer-
ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis is
restricted as follows: (a) for a name of a family or subdivision of a family,
the earlier description or diagnosis must be that of a family or subdivision
of a family ; (b) for a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus, the earlier
description or diagnosis must be that of a genus or subdivision of a genus ;
and (c) for a name of a species or infraspecific taxon, the earlier description
or diagnosis must be that of a species or infraspecific taxon (but see Art.
38.12).

Ex. 16. “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. 36.1(d)), as “Pseudoditrichum mirabile gen. et sp. nov.”, the names of
which were both validly published under Art. 38.5 by a single Latin diagnosis.

Ex. 17. Presl did not validly publish “Cuscuteae” (in Presl & Presl, Delic. Prag.: 87.
1822) as the name of a family (see “Praemonenda”, pp. [3–4]) by direct reference to the
previously and effectively published description of “Cuscuteae” (Berchtold & Presl,
Přir. Rostlin: 247. 1820) because the latter is the name of an order (see Art. 18 *Ex. 5).

Ex. 18. Scirpoides Ség. (Pl. Veron. Suppl.: 73. 1754) was published without a generic
description or diagnosis. It was validly published by indirect reference (through the title
of the book and a general statement in the preface) to the generic diagnosis and further
direct references in Séguier (Pl. Veron. 1: 117. 1745).

Ex. 19. As Art. 38.11 places no restriction on names at ranks higher than family,
Eucommiales Němejc ex Cronquist (Integr. Syst. Class. Fl. Pl.: 182. 1981) was validly
published by Cronquist, who provided a full and direct reference to the Latin descrip-
tion associated with the genus Eucommia Oliv. (1890).

38.12. A name of a new species may be validly published by reference
(direct or indirect; see Art. 38.13 and 38.14) to a description or diagnosis of

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 83 –

__________________________________________________________________

a genus, if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the name of the genus
was previously and validly published simultaneously with its description or
diagnosis and (b) neither the author of the name of the genus nor the author
of the name of the species indicates that more than one species belongs to
the genus in question.

Ex. 20. Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated by a generic description but without
mention of a name of a species. Trilepisium madagascariense DC. (1825) was subse-
quently proposed without a description or diagnosis of the species and with the generic
name followed by a reference to Thouars. Neither author gave any indication that there
was more than one species in the genus. Candolle’s species name is therefore validly
published.

38.13. For the purpose of valid publication of a name of a new taxon, refer-
ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis may
be direct or indirect (Art. 38.14). For names published on or after 1 January
1953 it must, however, be full and direct as specified in Art. 41.5.

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

Ex. 21. “Kratzmannia” (Opiz in Berchtold & Opiz, Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398.
1836) was published with a diagnosis but was not definitely accepted by the author and
therefore was not validly published under Art. 36.1(a). Kratzmannia Opiz (Seznam: 56.
1852), lacking description or diagnosis, is however definitely accepted, and its citation
as “Kratzmannia O.” constitutes an indirect reference to the diagnosis published in 1836.

Recommendation 38A

38A.1. A name of a new taxon should not be validated solely by a reference to a
description or diagnosis published before 1753.

Recommendation 38B

38B.1. The description of any new taxon should mention the points in which the
taxon differs from its allies.

Recommendation 38C

38C.1. When naming a new taxon, authors should not adopt a name that has been
previously but not validly published for a different taxon.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 84 –

__________________________________________________________________

Recommendation 38D

38D.1. In describing or diagnosing new taxa, authors should, when possible, sup-
ply figures with details of structure as an aid to identification.

38D.2. In the explanation of figures, authors should indicate the specimen(s) on
which they are based (see also Rec. 8A.2).

38D.3. Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures that
they publish.

Recommendation 38E

38E.1. Descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa of parasitic organisms, especially
fungi, should always be followed by indication of the hosts. The hosts should be
designated by their scientific names and not solely by names in modern languages,
the application of which is often doubtful.

ARTICLE 39

39.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon (algae and
fossils excepted) published between 1 January 1935 and 31 December
2011, inclusive, must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis
or by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published
Latin description or diagnosis (but see Art. H.9; for fossils see Art. 43.1;
for algae see Art. 44.1).

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
accompanied by an English but no Latin description and is not therefore a validly pub-
lished name. Schiedea kealiae Caum & Hosaka (in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Mus. 11(23): 3. 10 Apr 1936), the type of which is part of the material used by Degener,
is provided with a Latin description and is validly published.

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

Ex. 4. “Malvidae” was not validly published by Wu (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 40: 308.
2002) by reference to “Malvaceae” (Adanson, Fam. Pl. 2: 390. 1763) because the latter
was associated with a description in French, not a description or diagnosis in Latin as
required by Art. 39.1. Malvidae was later validly published by Thorne & Reveal (in Bot.
Rev. 73: 111. 2007).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 85 –

__________________________________________________________________

39.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon published
on or after 1 January 2012 must be accompanied by a Latin or English
description or diagnosis or by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously
and effectively published Latin or English description or diagnosis (for
fossils see also Art. 43.1).

Recommendation 39A

39A.1. Authors publishing names of new taxa should give or cite a full descrip-
tion in Latin or English in addition to the diagnosis.

ARTICLE 40

40.1. 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).

40.2. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, indication of
the type as required by Art. 40.1 can be achieved by reference to an entire
gathering, or a part thereof, even if it consists of two or more specimens as
defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.7).

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

Note 1. When the type is indicated by reference to an entire gathering, or a part
thereof, that consists of more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes
(see Art. 9.5).

Ex. 2. The protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (in Engler, Pflanzenr.
IV. 276 (Heft 108): 855. 1968) includes the type statement “E. Esterhuysen No. 17070!
Typus – Pret., Bol.” The name is validly published because a single gathering is cited,
despite the mention of duplicate specimens (syntypes) in two different herbaria.

40.3. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference
(direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or
lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name,
even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as
indication of the type (see also Art. 22.6; but see Art. 40.6). Similarly, for
the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, mention of a single speci-
men or gathering (Art. 40.2) or illustration (when permitted by Art. 40.4 or

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 86 –

__________________________________________________________________

40.5), even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable
as indication of the type (but see Art. 40.6).

Ex. 3. “Baloghia pininsularis” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist.
Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann
13823. As the author failed to designate one of them as the type, he did not validly pub-
lish the name. Valid publication was effected when McPherson & Tirel (in Fl. Nouv.-
Caléd. 14: 58. 1987) wrote “Lectotype (désigné ici): Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!;
iso-, Z)” while providing a full and direct reference to Guillaumin’s Latin description
(Art. 33.1; see Art. 46 Ex. 20); McPherson & Tirel’s use of “lectotype” is correctable to
“holotype” under Art. 9.9.

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

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

40.4. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of a name of a new species or
infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration
prior to 1 January 2007; on or after that date, the type must be a specimen
(except as provided in Art. 40.5).

Ex. 4. “Dendrobium sibuyanense” (see Art. 8 Ex. 6) was described with a living col-
lection indicated as holotype and was not therefore validly published. It was not validly
published later, when Lubag-Arquiza & Christenson (in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006)
designated a published drawing as “lectotype”, contrary to Art. 40.6, which does not
permit use of the term “lectotype” in naming a new species starting from 1 January
1990. Nor was valid publication effected when Clements & Cootes (in OrchideenJ.
16: 27–28. 2009) published “Euphlebium sibuyanense” for this taxon, because after 1
January 2007 their indication of this drawing as holotype was precluded by Art. 40.4.

40.5. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of a name of a new species or in-
fraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted: see
Art. 8.5) may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical
difficulties of preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that
would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.

40.6. For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below published
on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the
words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a
modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.2). But in the case of the
name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a
genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication
of the type of the species name is sufficient.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 87 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 5. “Crataegus laurentiana var. dissimilifolia” was not validly published by
Kruschke (in Publ. Bot. Milwaukee Public Mus. 3: 35. 1965), because, contrary to Art.
40, two gatherings were cited as “type”. Phipps (in J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 3: 242. 2009)
made a full and direct reference to Kruschke’s Latin diagnosis (Art. 7.7) but termed
Kruschke K-49-145 as “lectotype”. As he did not use either of the terms “typus” or
“holotypus”, nor one of their abbreviations or equivalents in a modern language, Phipps
did not validly publish the name.

40.7. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or
after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illus-
tration, the single herbarium or collection or institution in which the type is
conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.3 and 40A.4).

Ex. 6. In the protologue of Setaria excurrens var. leviflora Keng ex S. L. Chen (in Bull.
Nanjing Bot. Gard. 1988–1989: 3. 1990) the gathering Guangxi Team 4088 was indi-
cated as “模式” [“type”] and the herbarium where the type is conserved was specified
as “中国科学院植物研究所標本室” [“Herbarium, Institute of Botany, The Chinese
Academy of Sciences”], i.e. PE.

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

Ex. 7. When ’t Hart described “Sedum eriocarpum subsp. spathulifolium” (in Ot Sist.
Bot. Dergisi 2(2): 7. 1995) the name was not validly published because no herbarium or
collection or institution in which the holotype specimen was conserved was specified.
Valid publication was effected when ’t Hart (in Strid & Tan, Fl. Hellen. 2: 325. 2002)
wrote “Type ... ’t Hart HRT-27104 ... (U)” while providing a full and direct reference
to his previously published Latin diagnosis (Art. 33.1).

Recommendation 40A

40A.1. The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the
description or diagnosis and should include the Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.

40A.2. Details of the type specimen of the name of a new species or infraspecific
taxon should be published in Roman script.

40A.3. Specification of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition
(see Art. 40 Note 4) should be followed by any available number permanently
identifying the holotype specimen (see also Rec. 9D.1).

Ex. 1. The type of Sladenia integrifolia Y. M. Shui & W. H. Chen (2002) was desig-
nated as “Mo Ming-Zhong, Mao Rong-Hua & Yu Zhi-Yong 05 (holotype, KUN 0735701;
isotypes, MO, PE)”, where 0735701 is the unique identifier of the holotype sheet in the
herbarium of the Kunming Institute of Botany (KUN).

40A.4. Citation of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition should
use one of the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 88 –

__________________________________________________________________

SECTION 3.

NEW COMBINATIONS, NAMES AT NEW RANKS,

REPLACEMENT NAMES

ARTICLE 41

41.1. In order to be validly published, a new combination, name at new
rank, or replacement name (see Art. 6.10 and 6.11), must be accompanied
by a reference to the basionym or replaced synonym.

41.2. For the purpose of valid publication of a new combination, name at
new rank, or replacement name, the following restrictions apply: (a) for a
name of a family or subdivision of a family, the basionym or replaced syno-
nym must be a name of a family or subdivision of a family; (b) for a name
of a genus or subdivision of a genus, the basionym or replaced synonym
must be a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus; and (c) for a name of a
species or infraspecific taxon, the basionym or replaced synonym must be
a name of a species or infraspecific taxon.

Ex. 1. Thuspeinanta T. Durand (1888) is a replacement name for Tapeinanthus Boiss.
ex Benth. (1848) non Herb. (1837); Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (1853) is based on
Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. (Prodr. 2: 169. 1825).

41.3. Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference (see Art. 38.14) to a
basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new
combination, name at new rank, or replacement name. Thus, errors in the
citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, or in author citation (Art.
46), do not affect valid publication of such names.

Ex. 2. The name “Persicaria runcinata (Hamilt.)” was included in a list of names by
Masamune (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 51: 234. 1937) with no further information. The name
Polygonum runcinatum was validly published by Don (Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 73. 1825)
and ascribed there to “Hamilton mss”. The mention by Masamune of “Hamilt.” is re-
garded as an indirect reference through Buchanan-Hamilton to the basionym published
by Don, and thus the new combination Persicaria runcinata (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don)
Masam. was validly published.

Ex. 3. Opiz validly published the name at new rank Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz (1852)
by writing “Hemisphace Benth.”, which is regarded as an indirect reference to the bas-
ionym Salvia sect. Hemisphace Benth. (Labiat. Gen. Spec.: 193. 1833).

Ex. 4. The new combination Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson (1882) is val-
idly published through the cryptic notation “309”, which, as explained at the top of the
same page, is the running-number of the species (Andropogon martini Roxb.) in Steudel

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 89 –

__________________________________________________________________

(Syn. Pl. Glumac. 1: 388. 1854). Although the reference to the basionym A. martini is
indirect, it is unambiguous (but see Art. 33 Ex. 1; see also Rec. 60C.2).

Ex. 5. 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 binomi-
als are accepted as new combinations (e.g. O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill., based on C. ficus-
indica L.) or replacement names (e.g. O. vulgaris Mill., based on C. opuntia L.: both names
have the reference to “Opuntia vulgo herbariorum” of Bauhin & Cherler in common).

41.4. If, for a name of a genus or taxon of lower rank published before
1 January 1953, no reference to a basionym is given but the conditions for
its valid publication as the name of a new taxon or replacement name are
fulfilled, that name is nevertheless treated as a new combination or name
at new rank when this was the author’s presumed intent and a potential
basionym (Art. 6.10) applying to the same taxon exists.

Ex. 6. In Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871) the note (p. 12) explaining 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 faith-
fully follows that of Fries, have been considered to provide indirect reference to Fries’s
earlier names of “tribes” as basionyms. Even though this was Kummer’s presumed
intent, he did not actually mention Fries, and it is questionable whether he gave any
reference, even indirect, to a basionym. However, even when Art. 41.3 is not consid-
ered to apply, as Kummer by providing diagnoses in a key fulfilled the conditions for
valid publication of names of new taxa, Art. 41.4 rules that names such as Hypholoma
(Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. and H. fasciculare (Huds. : Fr.) P. Kumm. are to be accepted as new
combinations or names at new rank based on the corresponding Friesian names (here:
A. “tribus” Hypholoma Fr. : Fr. and A. fascicularis Huds. : Fr.)

Ex. 7. Scaevola taccada was validly published by Roxburgh (1814) by reference to an
illustration in Rheede (Hort. Malab. 4: t. 59. 1683) that appears to be its sole basis. As
the name applies to the species previously described as Lobelia taccada Gaertn. (1788),
it is treated as a new combination, S. taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb., not as the name of a new
species, even though in Roxburgh’s protologue there is no reference, either direct or
indirect, to L. taccada.

Ex. 8. When Moench (Methodus: 272. 1794) described Chamaecrista, he did not refer
to Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753) but used its epithet as the
generic name and included its type, Cassia chamaecrista L. (cited in synonymy).
Therefore, he published a name at new rank, Chamaecrista (L.) Moench, and not a
name of a new genus.

Ex. 9. Brachiolejeunea was published by Stephani & Spruce (in Hedwigia 28: 167.
1889) for a taxon that had previously been described as Lejeunea subg. Brachiolejeunea
Spruce (in Trans. & Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 15: 75, 129. 1884) but without even an
indirect reference to Spruce’s earlier publication. Because Stephani & Spruce provided

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 90 –

__________________________________________________________________

a description of B. plagiochiloides that under Art. 38.5 is acceptable as a descriptio
generico-specifica of a monotypic genus, Brachiolejeunea fulfils the requirements for
valid publication as the name of a new genus. Under Art. 41.4, it is therefore to be
treated as a name at new rank, Brachiolejeunea (Spruce) Steph. & Spruce, based on
Spruce’s subgeneric name.

Ex. 10. When Sampaio published “Psoroma murale Samp.” (in Bol. Real Soc. Esp. Hist.
Nat. 27: 142. 1927), he adopted the epithet of Lichen muralis Schreb. (1771), a name
applied to the same taxon, without referring to that name either directly or indirectly.
He cited Lecanora saxicola Ach. in synonymy. Under Art. 41.4, Psoroma murale is
treated as a new combination based on Lichen muralis; otherwise it would be a validly
published but illegitimate replacement name for Lecanora saxicola.

41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at new rank, or
replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced
synonym 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
(but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). On or after 1 January 2007, a new combination,
name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its
basionym or replaced synonym is cited.

Ex. 11. In transferring Ectocarpus mucronatus D. A. Saunders to Giffordia, Kjeldsen
& Phinney (in Madroño 22: 90. 27 Apr 1973) cited the basionym and its author but
without reference to its place of valid publication. They later (in Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul
1973) validly published the new combination G. mucronata (D. A. Saunders) Kjeldsen
& H. K. Phinney by giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication
of the basionym.

Note 1. For the purpose of Art. 41.5, a page reference (for publications with a
consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym
or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue appears,
but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that
of the protologue (see also Art. 30 Note 2).

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

Ex. 13. The new combination Conophytum marginatum subsp. littlewoodii (L. Bolus)
S. A. Hammer (Dumpling & His Wife: New Views Gen. Conophytum: 181. 2002),
being made prior to 1 January 2007, was validly published even though Hammer did
not cite the basionym (C. littlewoodii L. Bolus) but only indicated it by giving a full and
direct reference to its place of valid publication.

41.6. For names published on or after 1 January 1953, errors in the citation
of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 91 –

__________________________________________________________________

(Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 41.5), do not preclude valid publication of
a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name.

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

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

41.7. 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 place of publication of a name (but see
Art. 41.8).

Note 2. For the purposes of Art. 41.7 an early version of an unpaginated or
independently paginated electronic publication and a later version with definitive
pagination are not considered to be different publications (Art. 30 Note 2).

Ex. 16. Ciferri (in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86–89. 1954), in proposing 142 intended
new combinations in Meliola, omitted references to places of publication of basionyms,
stating that they could be found in Petrak’s lists or in the Index of fungi; none of these
combinations was validly published. Similarly, Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ.: 18. 1963)
introduced a new combination in the form Lecanora campestris f. “pseudistera (Nyl.)
Grumm. c.n. – L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521”, in which “Z 5” referred to Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich.
Univ. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the basionym, Lecanora pseudistera
Nyl.; Grummann’s combination was not validly published.

Note 3. A new name published for a taxon previously known under a misapplied
name is always the name of a new taxon and must therefore meet all relevant require-
ments of Art. 32–45 for valid publication of such a name. This procedure is not the
same as publishing a replacement name for a validly published but illegitimate name
(Art. 58.1), the type of which is necessarily that of the replaced synonym (Art. 7.4).

Ex. 17. Sadleria hillebrandii Rob. (1913) was introduced as a “nom. nov.” for “Sadleria
pallida Hilleb. Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888. Not Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. 75. 1832.” Since
the requirements for valid publication were satisfied (prior to 1935, simple reference
to a previous description or diagnosis in any language was sufficient), the name is a
validly published name of a new species, validated by Hillebrand’s description of the
taxon to which he misapplied the name S. pallida Hook. & Arn., but not a replacement
name as stated by Robinson.

Ex. 18. “Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis” (Hermann in U.S. Forest Serv., Techn. Rep.
RM-18: 14. 1975) was published as a “nom. et stat. nov.” for J. sphaerocarpus “auct.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 92 –

__________________________________________________________________

Am., non Nees”. Since there is no Latin description or diagnosis, indication of type, or
reference to any previous publication providing these requirements, this is not a validly
published name.

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

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

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

(c) when an intended new combination or name at new rank would other-
wise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegitimate) replacement
name; or

(d) when an intended new combination, name at new rank, or replacement
name would otherwise be the validly published name of a new taxon.

Ex. 19. (a) The new combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (1970)
with a full and direct reference to “Alsophila Kalbreyeri C. Chr. Ind. Fil. 44. 1905”.
This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended basionym, which had
previously been published, with the same type, by Baker (1892; see Art. 6 Ex. 1). As
Christensen provided no reference to Baker’s earlier publication, Tryon’s error of cita-
tion does not affect the valid publication of his new combination, which is to be cited as
T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M. Tryon.

Ex. 20. (a) The intended new combination “Machaerina iridifolia” was proposed by
Koyama (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69: 64. 1956) with a full and direct reference to “Cladium
iridifolium Baker, Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”. However, C. iridifolium had been proposed
by Baker as a new combination based on Scirpus iridifolius Bory (1804). As Baker
provided an explicit reference to Bory, Art. 41.8(a) does not apply and the combination
under Machaerina was not validly published by Koyama.

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 93 –

__________________________________________________________________

by the absence of a reference to Mérat in Fries’s work, does not prevent valid publication
of the new combination, which is to be cited as L. corticale (Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.

Ex. 22. (c) The new combination Mirabilis laevis subsp. glutinosa was proposed by
Murray (in Kalmia 13: 32. 1983) with a full and direct reference to “Mirabilis glutinosa
A. Nels., Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 92 (1904)” as the intended basionym. This, how-
ever, cannot be a basionym because it is an illegitimate later homonym of M. glutinosa
Kuntze (1898); it is also the replaced synonym of Hesperonia glutinosa Standl. (1909).
Under Art. 41.8(c) Murray validly published a new combination based on H. glutinosa
because otherwise he would have published a replacement name for M. glutinosa. The
name is therefore to be cited as M. laevis subsp. glutinosa (Standl.) A. E. Murray.

Ex. 23. (c) The new combination Tillandsia barclayana var. minor was proposed by
Butcher (in Bromeliaceae 43(6): 5. 2009) with a reference, but not a full and direct one, to
Vriesea barclayana var. minor Gilmartin (in Phytologia 16: 164. 1968). Butcher also pro-
vided a full and direct reference to T. lateritia André (1888), which is the replaced syno-
nym of V. barclayana var. minor. Under Art. 41.8(c), T. barclayana var. minor (Gilmartin)
Butcher was validly published as a new combination based on V. barclayana var. minor
because it would otherwise have been published as a replacement name for T. lateritia.

Ex. 24. (d) The replacement name Agropyron kengii was proposed by Tzvelev (1968)
with a full and direct reference to “Roegneria hirsuta Keng, Fl. ill. sin., Gram. (1959)
407”. This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended replaced syno-
nym, which was subsequently validly published by Keng (1963). As Tzvelev also pro-
vided a Latin description and indicated a single gathering as the type, the replacement
name was validly published as such because it would otherwise have been the validly
published name of a new taxon.

Recommendation 41A

41A.1. The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym
or replaced synonym should immediately follow a proposed new combination,
name at new rank, or replacement name. It should not be provided by mere cross-
reference to a bibliography at the end of the publication or to other parts of the
same publication, e.g. by use of the abbreviations “loc. cit.” or “op. cit.”

SECTION 4.

NAMES IN PARTICULAR GROUPS

ARTICLE 42

42.1. For names of new taxa, new combinations, names at new ranks, or
replacement names designating organisms treated as fungi (including fos-
sil fungi and lichen-forming fungi) under this Code (Pre. 8) and published

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 94 –

__________________________________________________________________

on or after 1 January 2013, the citation in the protologue of the identifier
issued by a recognized repository for the name (Art. 42.3) is an additional
requirement for valid publication.

Ex. 1. The protologue of Tetramelas thiopolizus (Nyl.) Giralt & Clerc (2011) included
the citation “MycoBank no.: MB561208”. Such citation of an identifier issued by a
repository appointed by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III) will be
necessary for valid publication of new fungal names on or after 1 January 2013.

42.2. For an identifier to be issued by a recognized repository as required
by Art. 42.1, the minimum elements of information that must be acces-
sioned by author(s) of scientific names are the name itself and those ele-
ments required for valid publication under Art. 38.1(a) and 39.2 (validating
description or diagnosis) and Art. 40.1 and 40.7 (type) or 41.5 (reference to
the basionym or replaced synonym). When accessioned and subsequently
published information for a name with a given identifier differ, the pub-
lished information is considered definitive.

Note 1. Issuance of an identifier by a recognized repository presumes subse-
quent fulfilment of the requirements for valid publication of the name (Art. 32–45)
but does not in itself constitute or guarantee valid publication.

42.3. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III) has the power
to (1) appoint one or more localized or decentralized, open and accessible
electronic repositories to accession the information required by Art. 42.2
and issue the identifiers required by Art. 42.1; (2) cancel such appointment
at its discretion; and (3) set aside the requirements of Art. 42.1 and 42.2,
should the repository mechanism, or essential parts thereof, cease to func-
tion. Decisions made by this Committee under these powers are subject to
ratification by a subsequent International Mycological Congress.

Recommendation 42A

42A.1. Authors of names of organisms treated as fungi are encouraged to (a) de-
posit the required elements of information for any nomenclatural novelty in a rec-
ognized repository as soon as possible after a work is accepted for publication, so
as to obtain accession identifiers; and (b) inform the recognized repository of the
complete bibliographical details upon publication of the name, including volume
and part number, page number, date of publication, and (for books) the publisher
and place of publication.

42A.2. In addition to meeting the requirements for effective publication of choices
of name (Art. 11.5 and 53.6), orthography (Art. 61.3), or gender (Art. 62.3), those
publishing such choices for names of organisms treated as fungi are encouraged

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 95 –

__________________________________________________________________

to record the choice in a recognized repository (Art. 42.3) and cite the accession
identifier in the place of publication.

ARTICLE 43

43.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new fossil-taxon pub-
lished on or after 1 January 1996 must be accompanied by a Latin or English
description or diagnosis or by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously
and effectively published Latin or English description or diagnosis.

Note 1. As Art. 39.1 does not apply to names of fossil-taxa, a validating de-
scription or diagnosis (see Art. 38) in any language is acceptable for them prior
to 1996.

43.2. A name of a new fossil-genus or lower ranked fossil-taxon pub-
lished on or after 1 January 1912 is not validly published unless it is ac-
companied by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters
or by a reference to a previously and effectively published such illustra-
tion or figure. For this purpose, in the case of a name of a fossil-genus or
subdivision of a fossil-genus, citation of, or reference (direct or indirect)
to, a name of a fossil-species validly published on or after 1 January 1912
will suffice.

Ex. 1. “Laconiella” when published by Krasser (in Akad. Wiss. Wien Sitzungsber.,
Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. Abt. 1, 129: 16. 1920) included only one species, the intended
name of which, “Laconiella sardinica”, was not validly published as no illustration or
figure or reference to a previously and effectively published illustration or figure was
provided. “Laconiella” is not, therefore, a validly published generic name.

Ex. 2. Batodendron Chachlov (in Izv. Sibirsk. Otd. Geol. Komiteta 2(5): 9, fig. 23–25.
1921) was published with a description and illustrations. Even though the new fossil-
genus did not include any named species, its name (an illegitimate later homonym of
Batodendron Nutt. 1843) is validly published.

43.3. A name of a new fossil-species or infraspecific fossil-taxon published
on or after 1 January 2001 is not validly published unless at least one of the
validating illustrations is identified as representing the type specimen (see
also Art. 9.15).

ARTICLE 44

44.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae published between 1 January 1958 and 31 December 2011, inclusive,

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 96 –

__________________________________________________________________

must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference
(see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published Latin description
or diagnosis.

Note 1. As Art. 39.1 does not apply to names of algal taxa, a validating descrip-
tion or diagnosis (see Art. 38) in any language is acceptable for them prior to 1958.

Ex. 1. Although Neoptilota Kylin (Gatt. Rhodophyc.: 392. 1956) was accompanied only
by a description in German, it is a validly published name since it applies to an alga and
was published before 1958.

44.2. A name of a new taxon of non-fossil algae of specific or lower rank
published on or after 1 January 1958 is not validly published unless it is
accompanied by an illustration or figure showing the distinctive morpho-
logical features, or by a reference to a previously and effectively published
such illustration or figure.

Recommendation 44A

44A.1. The illustration or figure required by Art. 44.2 should be prepared from
actual specimens, preferably including the holotype.

ARTICLE 45

45.1. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code
is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its names need satisfy
only the requirements of the relevant other Code that the author was using
for status equivalent to valid publication under this Code (but see Art. 54,
regarding homonymy). The Code used by the author is determined through
internal evidence, irrespective of any claim by the author as to the group
of organisms to which the taxon is assigned. However, a name generated in
zoological nomenclature in accordance with the Principle of Coordination
is not validly published under this Code unless and until it actually appears
in a publication as the accepted name of a taxon.

Ex. 1. Amphiprora Ehrenb. (1843), available¹ under the International Code of Zoo-
logical Nomenclature as the name of a genus of animals, was first treated as belong-
ing to the algae by Kützing (1844). Under the International Code of Nomenclature for
algae, fungi, and plants, Amphiprora is validly published and dates from 1843, not
1844.

————————————

1 The word “available” in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is
equivalent to “validly published” in this Code.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 97 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 2. Petalodinium Cachon & Cachon-Enj. (in Protistologia 5: 16. 1969) is available
under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the name of a genus of
dinoflagellates. When the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae, its name is validly
published and retains its original authorship and date even though the original publica-
tion lacked a Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 44.1).

Ex. 3. Prochlorothrix hollandica Burger-Wiersma & al. (in Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39:
256. 1989) was published according to the International Code of Nomenclature of
Bacteria. When the taxon is treated as an alga, its name is validly published and retains
its original authorship and date even though it was based on a living culture (Art. 8.4)
and the original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 44.1).

Ex. 4. Labyrinthodictyon Valkanov (in Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969, ‘Labyrintho-
dyction’) is available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the
name of a genus of rhizopods. When the taxon is treated as belonging to the fungi, its
name is validly published and retains its original authorship and date even though the
original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 39.1).

Ex. 5. Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy (in Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921, ‘Protodini-
feridae’), available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, is val-
idly published as a name of a family of algae and retains its original authorship and date
but with the original termination changed in accordance with Art. 18.4 and 32.2.

Ex. 6. Pneumocystis P. Delanoë & Delanoë (in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad.
Sci. 155: 660. 1912) was published for a “protozoan” genus with a description ex-
pressing doubt as to its generic status, “Si celui-ci doit constituer un genre nouveau,
nous proposons de lui donner le nom de Pneumocystis Carinii”. Under Art. 36.1(b)
Pneumocystis would not be validly published, but Art. 11.5.1 of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature allows for such qualified publication at that time.
Therefore Pneumocystis, being an available name under the ICZN, is validly published
under Art. 45.1.

Ex. 7. Pneumocystis jirovecii Frenkel (in Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 43: 16. 1976,
‘jiroveci’), treated as a protozoan, was published with only an English description
and without designation of a type, but these conditions are no obstacle to availability
under Art. 72.3 and Rec. 13B of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Therefore, when considered the name of a fungus, P. jirovecii, with modified termina-
tion (Art. 60.12), is validly published under Art. 45.1. Subsequent publication of a Latin
diagnosis by Frenkel (J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 46: 91S. 1999), who treated the species
as a fungus, was necessary under the edition of the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature in operation at that time, but is no longer so; P. jirovecii dates from 1976,
not 1999.

Note 1. Names of Microsporidia are not covered by this Code (see Pre. 8 and
Art. 13.1(d)) even when Microsporidia are considered as fungi.

Note 2. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to the plants (i.e. not the algae or fungi), the authorship and
date of any of its names are determined by the first publication that satisfies the
relevant requirements of Art. 32–45 for valid publication.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 98 –

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VI.

CITATION

SECTION 1.

AUTHOR CITATIONS

ARTICLE 46

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

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 is attributed to the author(s) to whom the
name was ascribed when the validating description or diagnosis was simul-
taneously ascribed to or unequivocally associated with the same author(s),
even when authorship of the publication is different. A new combination,
name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) to
whom it was ascribed when, in the publication in which it appears, it is ex-
plicitly stated that the same author(s) contributed in some way to that pub-
lication. Art. 46.5 notwithstanding, authorship of a nomenclatural novelty
is always 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 account of the species has “Alfred Rehder” at
the end. 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 follow-
ing diagnostic descriptions of new species have been supplied by Dr. I. Kukkonen in

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 99 –

__________________________________________________________________

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 as-
cribed 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. When publishing Eucryphiaceae (1848) the otherwise unnamed author “W.”, in a
review of Gay’s Flora chilena (1845-1854), wrote “wird die Gattung Eucryphia als Typus
einer neuen Familie, der Eucryphiaceae, angesehen”, thus ascribing both the name and
its validating description to Gay (Fl. Chil. 1: 348. 1846), who had used the designation
“Eucrifiáceas” (see Art. 18.4). The name is therefore cited as Eucryphiaceae Gay.

Ex. 6. When Candolle wrote “Elaeocarpeae. Juss., Ann. Mus. 11, p. 233” he as-
cribed the name to Jussieu and, to validate it, used Jussieu’s diagnosis of an unnamed
family (in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 11: 233. 1808). The name is therefore cited as
Elaeocarpaceae Juss., not Elaeocarpaceae “Juss. ex DC.”

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

Ex. 8. The authorship of Sophora tomentosa subsp. occidentalis (L.) Brummitt (in
Kirkia 5: 265. 1966) is accepted as originally ascribed, although the new combination
was 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.

Ex. 9. The name and original description of Verrucaria aethiobola Wahlenb. (in
Acharius, Methodus, Suppl.: 17. 1803) was in a single paragraph ascribed to “Wahlenb.
Msc.” The name is therefore cited as V. aethiobola Wahlenb., not “Wahlenb. ex Ach.”
nor “Wahlenb. in Ach.” (unless a full bibliographic citation is given).

Ex. 10. The new combination Crepis lyrata was published in Candolle’s Prodromus
systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis (7: 170. 1838), as “C. lyrata (Froel. in litt. 1837)”,
and in a footnote on p. 160 Candolle acknowledged Froelich as having authored the
account of the relevant section of Crepis (“Sectiones generis iv, v et vi, à cl. Froelich
elaboratae sunt”). The name is therefore cited as C. lyrata (L.) Froel. or C. lyrata (L.)
Froel. in Candolle (followed by a bibliographic citation of the place of publication), but
not C. lyrata “(L.) Froel. ex DC.”

Ex. 11. The name Physma arnoldianum was published in a paper authored by Arnold
(in Flora 41: 94. 1858). Arnold introduced the name as “Ph. Arnoldianum Hepp. lit. 12.
Decbr. 1857”, and the description is immediately followed by the phrase “Hepp. in lit.”
The name is therefore cited as P. arnoldianum Hepp, not P. arnoldianum “Hepp ex
Arnold”. As Arnold is the author of the paper, not of the whole work (the journal Flora),
his name is not required even in a full bibliographic citation.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 100 –

__________________________________________________________________

46.3. For the purposes of Art. 46, ascription is the direct association of the
name of a person or persons with a new name or description or diagnosis of
a taxon. An author citation appearing in a list of synonyms does not consti-
tute ascription of the accepted name, nor does reference to a basionym or a
replaced synonym (regardless of bibliographic accuracy) or reference to a
homonym, or a formal error.

Ex. 12. The name Atropa sideroxyloides was published in Roemer & Schultes (Syst.
Veg. 4: 686. 1819), with the name and diagnosis in a single paragraph followed by
“Reliq. Willd. MS.” As this represents direct association of Willdenow with both the
name and the diagnosis, the name is cited as A. sideroxyloides Willd., not A. sidero-
xyloides “Roem. & Schult.” nor A. sideroxyloides “Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.”

Ex. 13. Sicyos triqueter Moc. & Sessé ex Ser. (1830) was ascribed to Mociño and Sessé
by Seringe’s writing “S. triqueter (Moc. & Sessé, fl. mex. mss.)”. However, Malpighia
emarginata DC. (1824) was not ascribed to these authors by Candolle’s writing
“M. emarginata (fl. mex. ic. ined.)”.

Ex. 14. Lichen debilis Sm. (1812) was not ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s cit-
ing “Calicium debile Turn. and Borr. Mss.” as a synonym.

Ex. 15. When Opiz (1852) wrote “Hemisphace Benth.” he did not ascribe the generic
name to Bentham but provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Salvia sect.
Hemisphace Benth. (see Art. 41 Ex. 3).

Ex. 16. When Brotherus (1907) published “Dichelodontium nitidum Hook. fil. et Wils.”
he provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Leucodon nitidus Hook. f. & Wilson,
and did not ascribe the new combination to Hooker and Wilson. He did, however, as-
cribe to them the simultaneously published name of his new genus, Dichelodontium.

Ex. 17. When Sheh & Watson (in Wu & al., Fl. China 14: 72. 2005) wrote “Bupleurum
hamiltonii var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li, Acta Phytotax. Sin.
12: 291. 1974” they did not ascribe the new combination to any of those authors but pro-
vided a full and direct reference to the basionym, B. tenue var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu
ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li.

Ex. 18. When Sirodot (1872) wrote “Lemanea Bory” he in fact published a later homo-
nym (see Art. 48 Ex. 1). His reference to Bory’s earlier homonym is not therefore ascrip-
tion of the later homonym, Lemanea Sirodot, to Bory.

Ex. 19. Following their description of Hosackia [unranked] Drepanolobus, Torrey &
Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 324. 1838) attributed the name as “Drepanolobus, Nutt.” This refer-
ence to Nuttall’s unpublished generic designation is not ascription of Hosackia [unranked]
Drepanolobus to Nuttall, but is considered a formal error because Torrey and Gray (on
p. 322) stated that they disagreed with Nuttall’s view that Drepanolobus formed a distinct
genus. The name is cited as Hosackia [unranked] Drepanolobus Torr. & A. Gray.

Note 2. When the name of a new taxon is validly published by reference to a
previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)), the
name of the author of that description or diagnosis, even if not explicitly men-
tioned, is unequivocally associated with it.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 101 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 20. The appropriate author citation for Baloghia pininsularis (see Art. 40 Ex. 3)
is Guillaumin, and not McPherson & Tirel, because in the protologue the name was
ascribed to Guillaumin and a full and direct reference was given to Guillaumin’s earlier
Latin description. Even though McPherson & Tirel did not explicitly ascribe the vali-
dating description to its author, Guillaumin, he is “unequivocally associated” with it.

Ex. 21. “Pancheria humboldtiana” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl.
Hist. Nat., Ser. B, Bot. 15: 47. 1964), but no type was indicated the name was not val-
idly published. Valid publication was effected by Hopkins & Bradford (in Adansonia
31: 119. 2009), who designated “Baumann-Bodenheim 15515 (P! P00143076)” as the
holotype, ascribed the name to Guillaumin, and by citing “Pancheria humboldtiana
Guillaumin, Mémoires du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, sér. B, botanique 15:
47 (1964), nom. inval.”, provided a full and direct reference to a validating description
that is unequivocally associated with Guillaumin. Art. 46.10 notwithstanding, the name
is therefore attributed to Guillaumin, not “Guillaumin ex H. C. Hopkins & J. Bradford”
as given by Hopkins & Bradford.

Note 3. A name or its validating description or diagnosis is treated as though
ascribed to the author(s) of the publication (as defined in Art. 46.6) when there
is no ascription to or unequivocal association with a different author or different
authors.

Ex. 22. The name Asperococcus pusillus was published in Hooker (Brit. Fl., ed. 4, 2(1):
277. 1833), with the name and diagnosis ascribed simultaneously, at the end of the para-
graph, to “Carm. MSS.” followed by a description ascribed similarly to Carmichael.
Direct association of Carmichael with both the name and the diagnosis is evident, and
the name must be cited as A. pusillus Carmich. However, the paragraph containing the
name A. castaneus and its diagnosis, published by Hooker on the same page of the same
work, ends with “Scytosiphon castaneus, Carm. MSS.” Because Carmichael is directly
associated with “S. castaneus” and not A. castaneus, the latter name is correctly cited
as A. castaneus Hook., the author of the publication, even though the description is
ascribed to Carmichael.

Ex. 23. Brown is accepted as the author of the treatments of genera and species appear-
ing under his name in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis, ed. 2 (1810–1813), even when names
of new taxa or the descriptions validating them are not explicitly ascribed to him. In a
postscript to that work (5: 532. 1813), Aiton wrote: “Much new matter has been added
by [Robert Brown] ... the greater part of his able improvements are distinguished by
the signature Brown mss.” The latter phrase is therefore a statement of authorship not
merely an ascription. For example, the combination Oncidium triquetrum, based by
indirect reference on Epidendrum triquetrum Sw. (1788), is cited as O. triquetrum (Sw.)
R. Br. (1813), and is not attributed to “R. Br. ex W. T. Aiton” nor to Aiton alone, because
in the generic heading Brown is credited with authorship of the treatment of Oncidium.

46.4. When the epithet of a validly published name is taken up from and
attributed to the author of a different binary designation that has not been
validly published, only the author of the validly published name may be
cited.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 102 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 24. When publishing Andropogon drummondii, Steudel (1854) attributed the name
to “Nees. (mpt. sub: Sorghum.)”. This reference to the unpublished binary designation
“Sorghum drummondii Nees” is not ascription of A. drummondii to Nees, and the name
is cited as A. drummondii Steud., not A. drummondii “Nees ex Steud.”

46.5. A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the publica-
tion in which it appears when the name was ascribed to a different author
or different authors but the validating description or diagnosis was neither
ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that author or those authors.
A new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed
to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears, although it was as-
cribed to a different author or different authors, when no separate statement
was made that one or more of those authors 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. 25. Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (1977) as a new species, with
its name ascribed to Ivanova; since there is no indication that Ivanova provided the
validating description, the name is cited as either L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex
Grubov or L. tianschanicum Grubov.

Ex. 26. In a paper by Boufford, Tsi & Wang (1990) the name Rubus fanjingshanensis
was ascribed to Lu with no indication that Lu provided the description; the name is at-
tributed to either L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al. or Boufford & al.

Ex. 27. Seemann (1865) published Gossypium tomentosum “Nutt. mss.”, followed by a
validating description not ascribed to Nuttall; the name is cited as either G. tomentosum
Nutt. ex Seem. or G. tomentosum Seem.

Ex. 28. Rudolphi published Pinaceae (1830) as “Pineae. Spreng.”, followed by a vali-
dating diagnosis not ascribed to Sprengel; the name is cited as either Pinaceae Spreng.
ex F. Rudolphi or Pinaceae F. Rudolphi.

Ex. 29. 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 is cited as either A. S. George ex J. W. Green or J. W. Green.

46.6. For the purposes of Art. 46, the authorship of a publication is the
authorship of that part of a publication in which a name appears regardless
of the authorship or editorship of the publication as a whole.

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 103 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 31. Vicia amurensis f. sanneensis, ascribed to Jiang & Fu, was published in Ma &
al. (ed.), Flora intramongolica, ed. 2, vol. 3 (1989). The author of the account of Vicia
in that flora is Jiang, one of the persons to whom the name was ascribed (see Art. 46.2,
last sentence). The name is therefore cited as V. amurensis f. sanneensis Y. C. Jiang &
S. M. Fu, not V. amurensis f. sanneensis “Y. C. Jiang & S. M. Fu ex Ma & al.”

Ex. 32. Centaurea funkii var. xeranthemoides “Lge. ined.” was described in Prodromus
florae hispanicae, which was authored as a whole by Willkomm & Lange, although the
different family treatments are by individual authors, and Fam. 63 Compositae has a
footnote “Auctore Willkomm”. As the validating description was not ascribed to Lange,
the name is cited as C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. Its full bibliographic
citation is C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. in Willkomm & Lange, Prodr.
Fl. Hispan. 2: 154. 1865.

Ex. 33. The name Solanum dasypus was published in a work of Candolle (Prodr. 13(1):
161. 1852), in which the account of Solanaceae was authored by Dunal. Dunal intro-
duced the name as “S. dasypus (Drège, n. 1933, in h. DC)” thereby ascribing it to Drège.
The name is therefore cited as either S. dasypus Drège ex Dunal or S. dasypus Dunal.

Ex. 34. Schultes & Schultes (Mant. 3: 526. 1827), in a note, published a new classi-
fication of the traditional genera Avena and Trisetum, which they had received from
“Besser in litt.” The publishing author of that text, in which the new genera Acrospelion
Bess., Helictotrichon Bess., and Heterochaeta Bess. were described, is Besser. The
new names are validly published, authored by Besser alone, irrespective of whether or
not the volume authors, Schultes & Schultes, accepted them. (See also Art. 36 Ex. 3).

46.7. When a name has been ascribed by its author to a pre-starting-point
author, the latter may be included in the author citation, followed by “ex”.
For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a taxon of a pre-
starting-point author was changed in rank or taxonomic position upon valid
publication of its name, that pre-starting-point author may be cited in pa-
rentheses, followed by “ex”.

Ex. 35. Linnaeus (1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author
Tournefort; the name is cited as either Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (1753) or Lupinus L. (see
Art. 13.4).

Ex. 36. “Lyngbya glutinosa” (Agardh, Syst. Alg.: 73. 1824) was taken up as Hydro-
coleum glutinosum by Gomont in the publication that marks the starting-point of the
“Nostocaceae homocysteae” (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15: 339. 1892). The name
may be cited as either H. glutinosum (C. Agardh) ex Gomont or H. glutinosum Gomont.

46.8. In determining the correct author citation, only internal evidence
in the publication as a whole (as defined in Art. 37.5) where the name was
validly published is to be accepted, including ascription of the name, state-
ments in the introduction, title, or acknowledgements, and typographical or
stylistic distinctions in the text.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 104 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 37. Although the descriptions in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally con-
sidered to have been written by Solander or Dryander, the names of new taxa published
there are 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. 38. 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
cited as either Limpr. or Lindb. ex Limpr., but not “Lindb.”

46.9. External evidence may be used to determine authorship of nomen-
clatural novelties included in a publication or article for which there is no
internal evidence of authorship.

Ex. 39. No authorship appears anywhere in the work known as “Cat. Pl. Upper
Louisiana. 1813”, a catalogue of plants available from the Fraser Brothers Nursery.
Based on external evidence (cf. Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 105: 785. 1981), au-
thorship of the document, and of included nomenclatural novelties such as Oenothera
macrocarpa, is attributed to Thomas Nuttall.

Ex. 40. The book that appeared under the title Vollständiges systematisches Verzeichniß
aller Gewächse Teutschlandes ... (Leipzig 1782) bears no explicit authorship but is
attributed to “einem Mitgliede der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde”. External
evidence may be used to determine that G. A. Honckeny is the author of the work and of
the nomenclatural novelties that appear in it (e.g. Poa vallesiana Honck., Phleum hirsu-
tum Honck.; see also Art. 23 Ex. 14), as was done by Pritzel (Thes. Lit. Bot.: 123. 1847).

46.10. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties and wishing other per-
sons’ names followed by “ex” to precede theirs in authorship citation may
adopt the “ex” citation in the protologue.

Ex. 41. In validly publishing 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 is attributed to either Hu ex C. N. Page or C. N. Page.

Ex. 42. Atwood (1981) ascribed the name of a new species, Maxillaria mombachoensis,
to “Heller ex Atwood”, with a note stating that it was originally named by Heller, then
deceased; the name is attributed to either A. H. Heller ex J. T. Atwood or J. T. Atwood.

Recommendation 46A

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

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

46A.2. When a name in an author citation is abbreviated, the abbreviation should
be long enough to be distinctive, and should normally end with a consonant that,
in the full name, precedes a vowel. The first letters should be given without any

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 105 –

__________________________________________________________________

omission, but one of the last characteristic consonants of the name may be added
when this is customary.

Ex. 2. L. for Linnaeus; Fr. for Fries; Juss. for Jussieu; Rich. for Richard; Bertol. for
Bertoloni, to be distinct from Bertero; Michx. for Michaux, to be distinct from Micheli.

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

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

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

Ex. 4. DC. for Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle; St.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire; Rchb. for
H. G. L. Reichenbach.

Note 1. Brummitt & Powell’s Authors of plant names (1992) provides unam-
biguous standard forms for a large number of authors of names of organisms in
conformity with this Recommendation. These abbreviations, updated as necessary
from the International Plant Names Index (www.ipni.org) and Index Fungorum
(www.indexfungorum.org), have been used for author citations throughout this
Code.

Recommendation 46B

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

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

Recommendation 46C

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

Ex. 1. Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et P. Wilson or D. gleasonii Britton & P. Wilson.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 106 –

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

Recommendation 46D

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

ARTICLE 47

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

Ex. 1. When the original material of Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (1887) is attributed to
two different species, as by Munz (1932), the species not including the lectotype must
bear a different name (A. shockleyi Munz) but the other species is still named A. beck-
withii 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 C. jacea L. emend. Coss. & Germ., C. jacea L. emend. Vis., or C. jacea L.
emend. Godr., as the case may be: see Rec. 47A).

Recommendation 47A

47A.1. When an alteration as mentioned in Art. 47 has been considerable, the
nature of the change may be indicated by adding such words, abbreviated where
suitable, as “emendavit” (emend.) followed by the name of the author responsible
for the change, “mutatis characteribus” (mut. char.), “pro parte” (p. p.), “excluso
genere” or “exclusis generibus” (excl. gen.), “exclusa specie” or “exclusis specie-
bus” (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.).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 107 –

__________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 48

48.1. When an author adopts an existing name but definitely excludes its
type, a later homonym that must be attributed solely to that author is consid-
ered to have been published. Similarly, when an author who adopts a name
refers to an apparent basionym or replaced synonym but explicitly excludes
its type, the name of a new taxon is considered to have been published that
must be attributed solely to that author. Exclusion can be effected by simul-
taneous explicit inclusion of the type in a different taxon by the same author.

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

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

Ex. 3. The type of Myginda sect. Gyminda Griseb. (Cat. Pl. Cub.: 55. 1866) is M. inte-
grifolia Poir. even though Grisebach misapplied the latter name. When Sargent raised
the section to the rank of genus, he named the species described by Grisebach Gyminda
grisebachii and explicitly excluded M. integrifolia from the genus. Gyminda Sarg.
(1891) is therefore the name of a new genus, typified by G. grisebachii Sarg., not a name
at new rank based on M. sect. Gyminda.

Note 1. Misapplication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replace-
ment name to a different taxon, but without explicit exclusion of the type of the
basionym or replaced synonym, is dealt with under Art. 7.3–7.4.

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).

48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means exclusion
of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type under Art. 10 or all
syntypes under Art. 9.5 or all elements eligible as types under Art. 10.2; or
(b) the type previously designated under Art. 9.11–9.13 or 10.2; or (c) the
type previously conserved under Art. 14.9 (see also Art. 52.2(e), applicable
by analogy).

48.3. When a sanctioning author accepted an earlier name but did not in-
clude, even implicitly, any element associated with its protologue, or when
the protologue did not include the subsequently designated type of the
sanctioned name, the sanctioning author is considered to have created a
later homonym, treated as if conserved (Art. 15.1).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 108 –

__________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 49

49.1. When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank but retains
its name or the final epithet in its name, the author of that earlier name, if
it is legitimate (i.e. if it is the basionym; Art. 6.10), is cited in parentheses,
followed by the name of the author who effected the alteration (the author of
the name). The same provision holds when a taxon of lower rank than genus
is transferred to another genus or species, with or without alteration of rank.

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

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

Ex. 3. Cineraria sect. Eriopappus Dumort. (Fl. Belg.: 65. 1827) when transferred to
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 raised to specific rank as F. solida
(L.) Mill. (1771). The name of this species when transferred to Corydalis DC. is cited as
C. solida (L.) Clairv. (1811), not C. solida “(Mill.) Clairv.”

Ex. 6. On the other hand, 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 its author citation when placed under P. montana subsp. dac-
ica 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 its 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).

Ex. 8. The name Lithocarpus polystachyus published by Rehder (1919) was based
on Quercus polystachya A. DC. (1864), ascribed by Candolle to “Wall.! list n. 2789”
(a nomen nudum); Rehder’s combination is cited as either L. polystachyus (Wall. ex
A. DC.) Rehder or L. polystachyus (A. DC.) Rehder (see Art. 46.5).

49.2. Parenthetical authors are not cited for suprageneric names.

Ex. 9. Even though Illiciaceae A. C. Sm. (1947) was validly published by reference to
Illicieae DC. (1824) it is not cited as Illiciaceae “(DC.) A. C. Sm.”

Note 1. Art. 46.7 provides for the use of parenthetical author citations preced-
ing the word “ex” after some names in groups with a starting-point later than 1753.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 109 –

__________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 50

50.1. When a taxon at the rank of species or below is transferred from
the non-hybrid category to the hybrid category of the same rank (Art. H.10
Note 1), 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 S. ×ambigua Sm. (pro sp.).

Ex. 2. 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 S. glaucops Andersson (pro hybr.).

SECTION 2.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION

Recommendation 50A

50A.1. In the citation of a name that is not validly published because it was merely
cited as a synonym (Art. 36.1(c)), the words “as synonym” or “pro syn.” should be
added.

Recommendation 50B

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

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

Recommendation 50C

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 110 –

__________________________________________________________________

Recommendation 50D

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

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

Recommendation 50E

50E.1. After a conserved name (nomen conservandum; see Art. 14 and App. II–
IV) the abbreviation “nom. cons.” or, in the case of a conserved spelling, “orth.
cons.” (orthographia conservanda) should be added in a formal citation.

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

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

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

50E.2. After a name rejected under Art. 56 (nomen utique rejiciendum, sup-
pressed name; see App. V) the abbreviation “nom. rej.” should be added in a for-
mal citation.

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

Note 1. Rec. 50E.2 also applies to any combination based on a nomen utique
rejiciendum (suppressed name; see Art. 56.1).

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

50E.3. If a name has been adopted by Fries or Persoon, and thereby sanctioned
(see Art. 13.1(d) and 15), “: Fr.” or “: Pers.” should be added in a formal citation.
The same convention should be used for the basionym of the sanctioned name,
if it has one, and for all combinations based on either the sanctioned name or its
basionym.

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 111 –

__________________________________________________________________

Recommendation 50F

50F.1. If a name is cited with alterations from the form as originally published, it
is desirable that in full citations the exact original form should be added, prefer-
ably 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. ca-
ribaeum 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, ‘solomon-
ensis’.

Recommendation 50G

50G.1. Authors should avoid mentioning in their publications previously unpub-
lished names that they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for
these unpublished names have not formally authorized their publication (see Rec.
23A.3(i)).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 112 –

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VII.

REJECTION OF NAMES

ARTICLE 51

51.1. A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its
epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is prefer-
able or better known (but see Art. 56.1), or because it has lost its original
meaning.

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

Ex. 2. Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) is not to be rejected in favour of A. pentagona
A. DC. (1834) merely because 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 spe-
cies 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 spe-
cies, Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge, having all its leaves opposite.

Ex. 5. Richardia L. (1753) is not to be rejected in favour of Richardsonia, as was done
by Kunth (1818), merely because the name was originally dedicated to Richardson.

ARTICLE 52

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 113 –

__________________________________________________________________

that ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been
adopted, under the rules (but see Art. 52.3 and Art. 59.1).

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. 9.5 or all elements eligible as
types under Art. 10.2; or (b) of the previously designated type under Art.
9.11–9.13 or 10.2; or (c) of the previously conserved type under Art. 14.9; or
(d) of the illustrations of these. It is also effected (e) by citation of the name
itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same
time excluded either explicitly or by implication.

Ex. 1. The generic name Cainito Adans. (1763) is illegitimate because it was a superflu-
ous 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 on “S. myrsinites” of Hoffmann (Hist. Salic. Ill.: 71. 1787), a misapplication of
S. myrsinites L. (1753), a name that Salisbury excluded by implication by not citing
Linnaeus as he did under each of the other 14 species of Salix.

Ex. 4. Picea excelsa Link (1841) is illegitimate because it is based on Pinus excelsa
Lam. (1779), 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 previ-
ously named C. behen L. (1753): C. latifolius and C. angustifolius as circumscribed by
Miller (1768) did not include the type of C. behen L., a name that 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
while explicitly excluding its type.

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

Ex. 8. Under Persicaria maculosa Gray (1821), the name Polygonum persicaria L.
(1753) was cited as the replaced synonym, and hence the type of Polygonum persi-
caria was definitely included. However, Persicaria mitis Delarbre (1806), as the ear-
lier legitimate replacement name for Polygonum persicaria, is necessarily homotypic;
hence, Persicaria maculosa when published was an illegitimate superfluous name for
Persicaria mitis. Its continued use has been made possible by conservation.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 114 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 9. Under Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (1976), the name B. retusa Roxb. (1832) non
Poir. (1811), was cited as the replaced synonym while B. emarginata Roxb. ex G. Don
(1832) non Mill. (1768), was also cited in synonymy, and hence the types of the two
synonyms were definitely included. However, B. roxburghiana Voigt (1845), which was
published as a replacement name for B. emarginata, is necessarily homotypic with it
and should have been adopted by Wunderlin. Therefore, B. semla is an illegitimate
superfluous name but is typified by the type of its replaced synonym, B. retusa (see
Art. 7 Ex. 5).

Ex. 10. Both Apios americana Medik. (1787) and A. tuberosa Moench (1794) are re-
placement names for the legitimate Glycine apios L. (1753), the epithet of which in
combination with Apios would form a tautonym and would not therefore be validly pub-
lished (Art. 23.4). Apios tuberosa was nomenclaturally superfluous when published,
and is therefore illegitimate, because Moench cited in synonymy G. apios, which was
then, as now, homotypic with A. americana, the name that has priority and that Moench
should have adopted.

Ex. 11. Erythroxylum suave O. E. Schulz (1907) is illegitimate because Schulz cited
“Erythroxylum brevipes DC. var. spinescens (A. Rich.) Griseb.” (1866) in synonymy,
thereby including the type of E. spinescens A. Rich. (1841), the name that Schulz should
have adopted.

Ex. 12. In publishing the name Matricaria suaveolens (1755), Linnaeus adopted the
phrase name and included all the synonyms of M. recutita L. (1753) and so Applequist
(in Taxon 51: 757. 2002) claimed that “all original elements of M. recutita are found
in the protologue of M. suaveolens, making it illegitimate under Art. 52”. However, in
1755 M. recutita had no holotype, no syntypes, no designated lectotype or conserved
type, nor was the name itself (i.e. M. recutita) cited by Linnaeus; therefore, none of the
criteria of Art. 52.2 is fulfilled and M. suaveolens is 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 nomenclaturally superfluous.

Ex. 13. 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 A. punicea Labill. (1805). Blandfordia grandiflora is nevertheless
a legitimate name.

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

Ex. 14. Leccinum Gray (1821) does not include all potential types (in fact, none) of
Boletus L. (1753) and thus is not illegitimate even though it included, as L. edule
(Bull. : Fr.) Gray, the subsequently conserved type of Boletus, B. edulis Bull. : Fr.

52.3. A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous when published is
not illegitimate on account of its superfluity if it has a basionym (which

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 115 –

__________________________________________________________________

is necessarily legitimate; see Art. 6.10), 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. 15. Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (1788) was nomenclaturally superfluous when pub-
lished, since Swartz cited the legitimate Andropogon fasciculatus L. (1753) as a syno-
nym. However, it is not illegitimate since it has a basionym, Agrostis radiata L. (1759).
Chloris radiata is the correct name in the genus Chloris for Agrostis radiata when
Andropogon fasciculatus is treated as a different species, as was done by Hackel (in
Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6: 177. 1889).

Ex. 16. Juglans major (Torr.) A. Heller (1904), based on J. rupestris var. major Torr. (in
Rep. Exped. Zuni and Colorado Rivers: 171. 1853), was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published because Heller cited the legitimate J. californica S. Watson (1875) as a
synonym. Nevertheless, J. major is legitimate because it has a basionym, and it may be
correct when considered taxonomically distinct from J. californica.

Ex. 17. The generic name Hordelymus (Jess.) Harz (1885) was nomenclaturally su-
perfluous when published because its type, Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of
Cuviera Koeler (1802). However, it is not illegitimate since it has a basionym, Hordeum
[unranked] Hordelymus Jess. (Deutschl. Gräser: 202. 1863). Cuviera Koeler has since
been rejected in favour of its later homonym Cuviera DC., and Hordelymus can now be
used as the correct name for a segregate genus containing E. europaeus L.

Ex. 18. Carpinaceae Vest (Anleit. Stud. Bot.: 265, 280. 1818) was nomenclaturally su-
perfluous when published because of the inclusion of Salix L., the type of Salicaceae
Mirb. (1815). However, it is not illegitimate because it is based on the stem of a legiti-
mate generic name, Carpinus L.

Note 3. In no case does a statement of parentage accompanying the publication
of a name for a hybrid make the name illegitimate (see Art. H.4–5).

Ex. 19. 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 syno-
nym of P. ×font-queri; nevertheless, it is not an illegitimate name.

ARTICLE 53

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

Ex. 1. 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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 116 –

__________________________________________________________________

genus of Amaryllidaceae. Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. is therefore illegitimate and
unavailable for use; it was renamed Thuspeinanta T. Durand (1888).

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

Ex. 3. Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (1843) is a later homonym of the validly published
name A. rhizanthus Royle (1835) and is therefore illegitimate; it was renamed A. carien-
sis Boiss. (1849).

Ex. 4. Molina racemosa Ruiz & Pav. (1798) (Compositae) is an illegitimate later homo-
nym of Molina racemosa Cav. (1790) (Malpighiaceae).

Ex. 5. Moreae Britton & Rose (in N. Amer. Fl. 23: 201, 217. 1930), based on Mora
Benth. (1839), although a later homonym of Moreae Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 17. 1829),
based on Morus L. (1754), is not illegitimate as the provisions on homonymy do not
apply to subdivisions of families.

Note 1. A validly published earlier homonym, even if illegitimate or otherwise
generally treated as a synonym, causes rejection of any later homonym that is not
conserved or sanctioned (but see Art. 53.2).

Ex. 6. Zingiber truncatum S. Q. Tong (1987) is illegitimate, being a later homonym of
the validly published Z. truncatum Stokes (1812), even though the latter name is itself
illegitimate under Art. 52.1; Z. truncatum S. Q. Tong was renamed Z. neotruncatum
T. L. Wu & al. (2000).

Ex. 7. Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym of the validly published
Amblyanthera Blume (1849) and is therefore illegitimate, although Amblyanthera
Blume is now considered to be a synonym of Osbeckia L. (1753).

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

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

*Ex. 8. 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. 9. 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.

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 117 –

__________________________________________________________________

*Ex. 10. Acanthoica Lohmann (1902) and Acanthoeca W. N. Ellis (1930), both designa-
ting flagellates, are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms (Taxon 22: 313. 1973).

*Ex. 11. Epithets so similar that they are likely to be confused if combined under the
same name of a genus or species: ceylanicus and zeylanicus; chinensis and sinensis;
heteropodus and heteropus; macrocarpon and macrocarpum; macrostachys and mac-
rostachyus; napaulensis, nepalensis, and nipalensis; poikilantha and poikilanthes;
polyanthemos and polyanthemus; pteroides and pteroideus; thibetanus and tibetanus;
thibetensis and tibetensis; thibeticus and tibeticus; trachycaulon and trachycaulum;
trinervis and trinervius.

*Ex. 12. Names not likely to be confused: Desmostachys Miers (1852) and Desmostachya
(Stapf) Stapf (1898); Euphorbia peplis L. (1753) and E. peplus L. (1753); Gerrardina
Oliv. (1870) and Gerardiina Engl. (1897); Iris L. (1753) and Iria (Pers.) Hedw. (1806);
Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliv. (1891) and L. hemsleyi Franch. (1895) (see, however, Rec.
23A.2); Monochaetum (DC.) Naudin (1845) and Monochaete Döll (1875); Peltophorus
Desv. (1810; Gramineae) and Peltophorum (Vogel) Benth. (1840; Leguminosae);
Peponia Grev. (1863) and Peponium Engl. (1897); Rubia L. (1753) and Rubus L. (1753);
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip. (1845, ‘napeaefolius’; see Art. 60 Ex. 21) and
S. napifolius MacOwan (1890; the epithets being derived, respectively, from Napaea
and Brassica napus); Symphyostemon Miers (1841) and Symphostemon Hiern (1900);
Urvillea Kunth (1821) and Durvillaea Bory (1826).

Ex. 13. Names conserved against earlier names treated as homonyms (see App. III):
Cephalotus Labill. (vs Cephalotos Adans.); Columellia Ruiz & Pav. (vs Columella
Lour.), both commemorating Columella, the Roman writer on agriculture; Lyngbya
Gomont (vs Lyngbyea Sommerf.); Simarouba Aubl. (vs Simaruba Boehm.).

Ex. 14. Gilmania Coville (1936) was published as a replacement name for Phyllogonum
Coville (1893) because the author considered the latter to be a later homonym of
Phyllogonium Bridel (1827). Treating them as homonyms has become accepted, e.g. in
Index Nominum Genericorum, and the name Gilmania has been accepted as legitimate
ever since. Therefore the names Phyllogonum and Phyllogonium are to continue to be
treated as homonyms.

53.4. The names of two subdivisions of the same genus, or of two in-
fraspecific taxa within the same species, even if they are of different rank,
are homonyms if they are not based on the same type and have the same
final epithet, or are treated as homonyms if they have a confusingly similar
final epithet. The later name is illegitimate.

Ex. 15. Andropogon sorghum subsp. halepensis (L.) Hack. and A. sorghum var. ha-
lepensis (L.) Hack. (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6: 502. 1889) are legitimate
since both have the same type (see also Rec. 26A.1).

Ex. 16. Anagallis arvensis subsp. caerulea Hartm. (Sv. Norsk Exc.-Fl.: 32. 1846), based
on the later homonym A. caerulea Schreb. (1771), is illegitimate because it is itself a
later homonym of A. arvensis var. caerulea (L.) Gouan (Fl. Monsp.: 30. 1765), based on
A. caerulea L. (1759).

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 118 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 17. Scenedesmus armatus var. brevicaudatus (Hortob.) Pankow (in Arch. Proti-
stenk. 132: 153. 1986), based on S. carinatus var. brevicaudatus Hortob. (in Acta Bot.
Acad. Sci. Hung. 26: 318. 1981), is a later homonym of S. armatus f. brevicaudatus
L. S. Péterfi (in Stud. Cercet. Biol. (Bucharest), Ser. Biol. Veg. 15: 25. 1963) even
though the two names apply to taxa of different infraspecific rank. Scenedesmus arma-
tus 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 in the names of infraspecific taxa within different species.

Ex. 18. 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 con-
trary to Rec. 21B.3.

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

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 replaces with other names all but
one of these homonyms, the homonym for the taxon that is not renamed is
treated as having priority (see also Rec. 42A.2).

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

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

Note 3. A homonym renamed or rejected under Art. 53.6 remains legitimate
and has priority over a later synonym of the same rank should it be transferred to
another genus or species.

Ex. 21. Mimosa cineraria L. (1759), based on M. cinerea L. (Sp. Pl.: 517 [non 520].
1753; see Art. 53 Ex. 19), was transferred to Prosopis by Druce (1914) as P. cineraria

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 119 –

__________________________________________________________________

(L.) Druce. However, the correct name in Prosopis would have been a combination
based on M. cinerea had not that name been successfully proposed for rejection (see
App. V).

ARTICLE 54

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

(a) Later homonyms of the names of taxa once treated as algae, fungi, or
plants are illegitimate, even when 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 an alga, fungus, or
       plant, even if validly published under this Code (Art. 32–45), is illegiti-
       mate if it becomes a homonym of an algal, fungal, or plant name when
       the taxon to which it applies is first treated as an alga, fungus, or plant
       (see also Art. 45.1).

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

Recommendation 54A

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

ARTICLE 55

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

Ex. 1. Agathophyllum neesianum Blume (1851) is legitimate even though Agathophyllum
Juss. (1789) is illegitimate, being a superfluous replacement name for Ravensara
Sonn. (1782). Because Meisner (1864) cited A. neesianum as a synonym of his new
Mespilodaphne mauritiana, M. mauritiana Meisn. is illegitimate under Art. 52.

Ex. 2. Calycothrix sect. Brachychaetae Nied. (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam.
3(7): 100. 1892) is legitimate even though it was published under Calycothrix Meisn.
(1838), a superfluous replacement name for Calytrix Labill. (1806).

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

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 120 –

__________________________________________________________________

Ex. 3. Agropyron japonicum var. hackelianum Honda (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 41: 385.
1927) is legitimate even though it was published under the illegitimate A. japonicum
Honda (1927), a later homonym of A. japonicum (Miq.) P. Candargy (1901) (see also
Art. 27 Ex. 1).

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

Ex. 4. Alpinia languas J. F. Gmel. (1791) and A. galanga (L.) Willd. (1797) are so accepted
although Alpinia L. (1753), the name of the genus 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.

ARTICLE 56

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

56.2. The list of nomina utique rejicienda (suppressed 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 pro-
posals must be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III), which
will refer them for examination to the committees for the various taxo-
nomic groups (see also Art. 14.12 and 34.1).

56.3. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, for organisms treated as
fungi (including lichenicolous fungi, but excluding lichen-forming fungi
and those fungi traditionally associated with them taxonomically, e.g.
Mycocaliciaceae), lists of names to be rejected may be submitted to the
General Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi (see Div. III) for examination by subcommittees established by
that Committee in consultation with the General Committee and appropri-
ate international bodies. Names on these lists, which become Appendices
of the Code once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Committee

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 121 –

__________________________________________________________________

for Fungi and the General Committee, are to be treated as rejected under
Art. 56.1 and may become eligible for use only by conservation under Art.
14 (see also Art. 14.13).

56.4. When a proposal for the rejection of a name under Art. 56 has been
approved by the General Committee after study by the Committee for the
taxonomic group concerned, rejection of that name is authorized subject to
the decision of a later International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.16
and 34.2).

Recommendation 56A

56A.1. When a proposal for the rejection of a name under Art. 56 has been re-
ferred to the appropriate Committee for study, authors should follow existing
usage of names as far as possible pending the General Committee’s recommenda-
tion on the proposal (see also Rec. 14A and 34A).

ARTICLE 57

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

Ex. 1. The name Bovista pusilla (Batsch : Pers.) Pers., based on Lycoperdon pusil-
lum Batsch : Pers., is typified by a plate (t. 41, fig. 228 in Batsch, Elench. Fung. Cont.
Secunda. 1789) that represents the species currently known as B. limosa Rostr. (1894)
s. l., but has been widely and persistently used for either or both of two different species,
the correct names of which are B. dermoxantha Vitt. and B. furfuracea (J. F. Gmel.)
Pers. Unless and until a proposal to reject the name B. pusilla or to conserve B. limosa
against it has been submitted and rejected, the name B. pusilla is not to be used.

57.2. In pleomorphic fungi (including lichenicolous fungi, but excluding
lichen-forming fungi and those fungi traditionally associated with them
taxonomically, e.g. Mycocaliciaceae), in cases where, prior to 1 January
2013, both teleomorph-typified and anamorph-typified names were widely
used for a taxon, an anamorph-typified name that has priority is not to
displace the teleomorph name(s) unless and until a proposal to reject the
former under Art. 56.1 or 56.3 or to deal with the latter under Art. 14.1 or
14.13 has been submitted and rejected.

Ex. 2. The anamorph-typified Polychaeton (Pers.) Lév. (1846) was not taken up by
Chomnunti & al. (in Fungal Div. 51: 116. 2011) in preference to the later, widely used
teleomorph-typified Capnodium Mont. (1849). The authors suggested that Capnodium

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 122 –

__________________________________________________________________

be considered for inclusion in the planned lists of accepted names to be approved by the
General Committee under Art. 14.13. Unless and until such a proposal (or a proposal to
conserve Capnodium under Art. 14.1 or to reject Polychaeton under Art. 56.1 or 56.3)
has been submitted and rejected, the name Polychaeton is not to be used in preference
to Capnodium.

Ex. 3. Pending action under Art. 14.1 or 14.13, the anamorph-typified Pyricularia Sacc.
(1880), even though earlier, is not to displace the teleomorph-typified Magnaporthe
R. A. Krause & R. K. Webster (1972), as both names are widely used.

ARTICLE 58

58.1. If there is no obstacle under the rules, the final epithet in an illegiti-
mate name may be re-used in a different name, at either the same or a dif-
ferent rank; or an illegitimate generic name may be re-used as the epithet
in the name of a subdivision of a genus. The resulting name is then treated
either as a replacement name with the same type as the illegitimate name
(Art. 7.4; see also Art. 7.5 and Art. 41 Note 3) or as the name of a new taxon
with a different type. Its priority does not date back to the publication of the
illegitimate name (see Art. 11.3–11.4).

Ex. 1. The name Talinum polyandrum Hook. (1855) is illegitimate under Art. 53.1,
being a later homonym of T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (1798). When Bentham, in 1863,
transferred T. polyandrum Hook. to Calandrinia, he called it C. polyandra. This name
has priority from 1863, and is cited as C. polyandra Benth., not C. polyandra “(Hook.)
Benth.”

Ex. 2. Hibiscus ricinifolius E. Mey. ex Harv. (1860) is illegitimate under Art. 52.1 be-
cause H. ricinoides Garcke (1849) was cited in synonymy. When the epithet ricinifo-
lius was combined at varietal rank under H. vitifolius by Hochreutiner (in Annuaire
Conserv. Jard. Bot. Geneve 4: 170. 1900) his name was legitimate and is treated as a
replacement name, automatically typified (Art. 7.5) by the type of H. ricinoides. The
name is cited as H. vitifolius var. ricinifolius Hochr., not H. vitifolius var. ricinifolius
“(E. Mey. ex Harv.) Hochr.”

Ex. 3. Collema tremelloides var. cyanescens Ach. (Syn. Meth. Lich.: 326. 1814) is il-
legitimate under Art. 52.1 because Acharius cited in synonymy C. tremelloides var.
caesium Ach. (Lichenogr. Universalis: 656. 1810), a legitimate name at the same rank.
Schaerer was the first to raise the variety to specific rank, but Parmelia cyanescens
Schaerer (1842) is illegitimate under Art. 53.1, being a later homonym of P. cyanescens
(Pers.) Ach. (1803). Rabenhorst (1845) transferred the species to Collema, where the
epithet cyanescens was available. Collema cyanescens Rabenh. is a legitimate name
dating from 1845. The subsequent combination in Leptogium is cited as L. cyanescens
(Rabenh.) Körb.

Ex. 4. Geiseleria Klotzsch (1841) is illegitimate under Art. 52.1, being a superflu-
ous replacement name for Decarinium Raf. (1825). In 1856, Gray published Croton

__________________________________________________________________

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code

– 123 –

__________________________________________________________________

subg. Geiseleria, which has priority from that date and is cited as C. subg. Geiseleria
A. Gray, not C. subg. Geiseleria “(Klotzsch) A. Gray”. As it was proposed as a replace-
ment name, its type is C. glandulosus L., the type of Decarinium Raf. and automatic
type (Art. 7.5) of Geiseleria Klotzsch.

Note 1. When the epithet of a name illegitimate under Art. 52.1 is re-used at
the same rank, the resulting name is illegitimate unless either the type of the name
causing illegitimacy is explicitly excluded or its epithet is unavailable for use.

Ex. 5. Menispermum villosum Lam. (1797) is illegitimate under Art. 52.1 because
M. hirsutum L. (1753) was cited in synonymy. The name Cocculus villosus DC. (1817),
based on M. villosum, is also illegitimate since the type of M. hirsutum was not ex-
cluded and the epithet hirsutus was available for use in Cocculus.

Ex. 6. Cenomyce ecmocyna Ach. (1810) is an illegitimate renaming of Lichen graci-
lis L. (1753). Scyphophora ecmocyna Gray (1821), based on C. ecmocyna, is also ille-
gitimate since the type of L. gracilis was not excluded and the epithet gracilis was avail-
able for use. When proposing the combination Cladonia ecmocyna, Leighton (1866)
explicitly excluded