Preamble | Pre.1–Pre.4 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE
FOR ALGAE, FUNGI, AND PLANTS
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 Recommenda-
tions (Rec.).
Examples (Ex.)² are added to the rules
and recommendations
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 Art. 7 *Ex. 16 footnote.
1 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 01 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Pre.5–Pre.14 | Preamble |
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
is to
achieve
greater uniformity and clarity,
especially in future nomenclature;
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
Chapter H.
9.
Names that have been conserved,
protected,
or rejected, suppressed
works,
and binding decisions are given in
Appendices
I–VII.
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 pre-
pared under the authority of
the International Commission for the
Nomen-
clature 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
Prokaryotes.
Prokaryotic Code
2008 Revision);
DOI: https://doi
.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.000778;
formerly
the
International Code of
Nomenclature of
Bacteria
(Bacteriological Code).
2 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 02 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Principles | I-VI |
PRINCIPLES
The nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants
is independent of zoological
and
prokaryotic
nomenclature.
This
Code applies equally to names of taxo-
nomic groups treated as algae, fungi, or plants,
whether or not these groups
were originally so treated (see Pre. 8).
The application of names of taxonomic groups
is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.
The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.
Each taxonomic group
with a particular circumscription, position, and rank
can bear only one correct name,
the earliest that is in accordance with the
rules, except in specified cases.
Scientific names of taxonomic groups
are treated as Latin regardless of
their derivation.
The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.
3 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 03 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
1 | Taxa and Ranks |
RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TAXA AND THEIR RANKS
1.1.
Taxonomic groups
at 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.
G. Long
(in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 64: 212. 1960)
is a
fossil-genus
that was originally described with a single species,
S. huttonense
A. G.
Long,
comprising anatomically preserved ovules
with completely fused integuments
forming an open collar around the lagenostome.
Rothwell & Scott
(in Rev. Palaeobot.
Palynol. 72: 281. 1992)
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.
4 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 04 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Taxa and Ranks | 2–4 |
2.1.
Every individual organism is treated as belonging
to an indefinite
number of taxa
at
consecutively subordinate ranks,
among which the rank
of species is basic.
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
its
family placement
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 Art.
H.1.1).
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)
5 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 05 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
4–5A | Taxa and Ranks |
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
Chapter H).
Note 2.
Throughout this
Code the phrase
“subdivision of a family” refers only
to taxa
at
a rank between family and genus and
“subdivision of a genus” refers
only to taxa
at 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.
5.1.
The relative order of the ranks
specified in Art. 3 and 4
must not be
altered (see Art.
37.6 and
F.4.1).
5A.1.
For purposes of standardization,
the following abbreviations are recom-
mended:
cl. (class),
ord. (order),
fam. (family),
tr. (tribe),
gen. (genus),
sect. (sec-
tion),
ser. (series),
sp. (species),
var. (variety),
f. (forma).
The abbreviations for
additional ranks created by the addition
of the prefix sub-,
or for nothotaxa with
the prefix notho-,
should be formed by adding the prefixes,
e.g. subsp. (subspe-
cies),
nothosp. (nothospecies),
but subg. (subgenus) not “subgen.”
6 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 06 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Status definitions | 6 |
STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES
STATUS DEFINITIONS
6.1.
Effective publication is publication
in accordance with Art.
29–31.
Except in specified
cases (Art.
8.1,
9.4(a),
9.22, Rec.
9A.3, and Art.
40.7),
text and illustrations¹
must be effectively published
to be taken into account
for the purposes of this
Code.
6.2.
Valid publication of names
is publication in accordance with
the rel-
evant
provisions of Art.
32–45,
F.4,
F.5.1,
F.5.2, and
H.9 (see also Art.
61).
Note 1.
For nomenclatural purposes,
valid publication creates a name, and
sometimes also an autonym (Art.
22.1 and
26.1),
but does not itself imply any
taxonomic circumscription
beyond inclusion of the type of the name (Art.
7.1).
6.3.
In this
Code,
unless otherwise indicated,
the word “name” means a
name that has been validly published,
whether it is legitimate or illegitimate
(see Art.
12;
but see Art.
14.9
and
14.14).
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.
14.14).
————————————
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
drawing,
picture of
a herbarium specimen
or a scanning electron micrograph.
7 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 07 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
6 | Status definitions |
Ex. 1.
Baker
(Summary New Ferns:
9. 1892)
and Christensen
(Index Filic.:
44. 1905)
independently published the name
Alsophila kalbreyeri as a replacement for
A. podo-
phylla Baker
(in J. Bot. 19: 202. 1881)
non Hook.
(in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 9:
334. 1857).
As published by Christensen,
A. kalbreyeri is a later isonym of
A. kalbreyeri
Baker without nomenclatural status
(see also Art. 41
Ex.
24).
Ex. 2.
In publishing
“Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.”,
Leenhouts
(in Blumea 9:
406. 1959)
re-used the illegitimate
C. pimela K. D. Koenig
(in Ann. Bot.
(König &
Sims) 1: 361. 1805),
attributing it to himself
and basing it on the same type.
He thereby
created a later isonym
without nomenclatural status.
Ex. 3.
The name
Dalbergia brownei (Jacq.) Schinz
(in Bull. Herb. Boissier 6: 731. 1898)
was nomenclaturally superfluous when published
because Schinz cited the legitimate
name Hedysarum ecastaphyllum L.
(Syst. Nat., ed. 10:
1169. 1759)
as a synonym.
Be-
cause
D. brownei has a basionym
(Amerimnon brownei Jacq.),
it is nevertheless legiti-
mate (Art.
52.4).
On excluding
H. ecastaphyllum, Urban
(Symb. Antill.
4: 295. 1905)
published
“D. Brownei Urb.” as a replacement name.
This is a later isonym that has no
nomenclatural status.
6.4.
An illegitimate name is one
that is designated as such in Art.
18.3,
19.6,
52–54,
F.3.3,
or
F.6.1
(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;
unless it is con-
served
(Art.
14),
protected (Art.
F.2),
or sanctioned
(Art.
F.3);
or unless the
name is superfluous
under
Art.
52
and its intended basionym
is conserved
or protected.
Ex. 4.
Skeletonemopsis P. A. Sims
(in Diatom Res. 9: 389.1995)
was illegitimate when
published
because it included the original type of
Skeletonema Grev.
(in Trans. Micro-
scop.
Soc. London, n.s.,
13: 43. 1865).
When
Skeletonema was conserved
with a differ-
ent type,
Skeletonemopsis
nevertheless remained illegitimate and
had to be conserved
in order to be available for use
(see
App. III).
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
(in Arch. Jard. Bot.
Rio de Janeiro
3:
140.
1922),
based on the single species
V. micranthera
Ducke,
is legitimate.
The same is true
of the generic name
Dussia Krug & Urb. ex Taub.
(in Engler & Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzen-
fam.
3(3): 193. 1892),
based on the single species
D. martinicensis
Krug & Urb. ex Taub.
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
Dus-
sia in a single genus;
the latter name is the correct one
for the genus with that particular
8 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 08 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Status definitions | 6 |
circumscription.
The legitimate 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
Morley (in Univ. Calif.
Publ. Bot.
26:
280. 1953),
Arytera sect.
Mischarytera
Radlk.
(in Engler,
Pflanzenr. IV.
165 (Heft 98f):
1271. 1933),
Gentiana lutea
L.
(Sp. Pl.:
227. 1753),
Gentiana tenella var.
occidentalis
J. Rousseau & Raymond
(in Naturaliste Canad.
79(2): 77. 1952),
Equisetum palustre
var.
americanum
Vict. (in Contr. Lab.
Bot. Univ. Montréal
9: 51. 1927),
Equisetum
palustre f.
fluitans
Vict.
(l.c.: 60. 1927).
6.8.
Autonyms are names
that are 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
a previously validly published name;
it is not a new combination, a name at
new rank,
or a replacement name.
Ex. 7.
Cannaceae Juss.
(Gen. Pl.:
62. 1789),
Canna L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1. 1753),
Canna indica L.
(l.c. 1753),
Heterotrichum pulchellum Fisch.
(in Mém. Soc. Imp.
Naturalistes Moscou
3: 71. 1812),
Poa sibirica Roshev.
(in Izv. Imp.
S.-Peterburgsk.
Bot. Sada 12: 121. 1912),
Solanum umtuma Voronts. & S. Knapp
(in PhytoKeys
8: 4. 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
does not itself
have a basionym;
it
provides the final epithet¹, 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.
(Sp. Pl., ed. 2:
1296. 1763) is
Cnicus
benedictus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
826. 1753),
the name that provides the epithet.
Ex. 9.
The basionym of
Crupina (Pers.) DC.
(in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.
16: 157. 1810)
is
Centaurea subg.
Crupina Pers.
(Syn. Pl. 2:
488. 1807),
the epithet of which
name
provides the generic name; it is not
Centaurea crupina L.
(Sp. Pl.:
909. 1753)
(see Art.
41.2(b)).
————————————
1
Here and
elsewhere
in this
Code, the phrase “final epithet”
refers to the last epithet in
sequence in any particular
name, whether of a subdivision
of a genus, a species, or an
infraspecific taxon.
9 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 09 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
6 | Status definitions |
Ex. 10.
The basionym of
Anthemis subg.
Ammanthus (Boiss. & Heldr.) R. Fern.
(in Bot.
J. Linn. Soc.
70: 16. 1975) is
Ammanthus Boiss. & Heldr.
(in Boissier, Diagn. Pl. Orient.,
ser. 1, 11: 18. 1849),
the name that provides the epithet.
Ex. 11.
The basionym of
Ricinocarpaceae Hurus.
(in J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo,
Sect. 3,
Bot., 6: 224. 1954) is
Ricinocarpeae Müll.-Arg.
(in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin)
22: 324. 1864),
but not
Ricinocarpos Desf.
(in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat.
3: 459. 1817)
(see Art.
41.2(a);
see
also Art.
49.2),
from which the names of
both family and tribe are formed.
Note 3.
A descriptive name (Art.
16.1(b))
used at a rank different from that at
which it was first validly published
is not a name at new rank because descriptive
names may be used unchanged at different ranks.
Note
4.
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
5.
A new combination can at the same time
be a name at new rank (comb.
& stat. nov.);
a nomenclatural novelty with a basionym
need not be either of these.
Ex. 12.
Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f.
(Fl. Indica: 83. 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.
(Fl. Germ. Excurs.:
213. 1831),
was not a new combination 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
(nomen novum,
nom. nov.) is a new name
published as an
explicit substitute
(avowed substitute)
for
a legitimate or
illegitimate, previously published name,
which is its replaced synonym.
The replaced synonym, when legitimate,
does not provide the final epithet,
name,
or stem of the replacement name (see also Art.
41.2
and
58.1).
Ex. 14.
Gussone
(Fl. Sicul. Syn.
2: 468. 1844)
described plants from the Eolie Islands
near Sicily under the name
Helichrysum litoreum Guss.,
citing in synonymy
Gnapha-
lium angustifolium Lam.
(Encycl. 2: 746. 1788),
but without indication that the existing
H. angustifolium (Lam.) DC.
(in Candolle & Lamarck,
Fl. Franç., ed. 3,
6: 467. 1815)
was an illegitimate later homonym of
H. angustifolium Pers.
(in Syn. Pl.
2: 415. 1807)
that needed replacement.
At the end of the protologue,
Gussone wrote:
“nomen mutavi
confusionis vitendi gratia
[I changed the name to avoid confusion]”.
This makes explicit
Gussone’s intent to propose
H. litoreum as a replacement name based on the type of
G. angustifolium
(from Posillipo near Naples),
not on the material he described and
cited in the protologue.
Ex.
15.
Mycena coccineoides Grgur.
(in Fungal Diversity Res.
Ser. 9: 287. 2003),
was
published as an explicit
substitute (“nom. nov.”)
for
Omphalina coccinea Murrill
(in
Britton, N. Amer. Fl.
9: 350. 1916)
because
M. coccinea (Murrill) Singer
(in Sydowia
10 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 10 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Status definitions | 6 |
15: 65. 1962)
is an illegitimate later homonym of
M. coccinea (Sowerby) Quél.
(in Bull.
Soc. Amis Sci. Nat. Rouen,
ser. 2, 15: 155. 1880).
Ex. 16.
Centaurea chartolepis Greuter
(in Willdenowia 33: 54. 2003),
was published
as an explicit substitute
(“nom. nov.”) for the legitimate
name
Chartolepis intermedia
Boiss.
(Diagn. Pl. Orient.,
ser. 2, 3: 64. 1856),
because the epithet
intermedia
was una-
vailable in
Centaurea
due to
Centaurea intermedia Mutel
(in Rev. Bot. Recueil Mens.
1: 400. 1846).
6.12.
A name not explicitly proposed
as a substitute for an earlier name is
nevertheless a replacement name either
(a) if it is validated solely by refer-
ence to that earlier name or
(b) under the provisions of Art.
7.5.
6.13.
A name not explicitly proposed as a substitute
for an earlier name
and not covered by Art. 6.12
may be treated either as a replacement name
or as the name of a new taxon if in the protologue¹ both
(a) a potential re-
placed synonym is cited and
(b) all requirements for valid publication of the
name of a new taxon are independently met.
Decision on the status of such
a name is to be based on predominant usage
and is to be effected by means
of appropriate type designation (Art.
9 and
10).
Ex. 17.
When describing
Astragalus penduliflorus Lam.
(Fl. Franç.
2: 636. 1779) using
material from the French Alps,
Lamarck also cited in synonymy
Phaca alpina L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
755. 1753) [non
Astragalus alpinus L.,
Sp. Pl.:
760. 1753],
described from Siberia.
It is questionable whether Linnaeus’s and
Lamarck’s plants belong to the same species.
Greuter (in Candollea 23: 265. 1969)
designated different types for the two names, so
that, in conformity with predominant usage,
A. penduliflorus is treated as the name of
a new, European species.
6.14.
A factually incorrect statement of a name’s status,
as defined in Art.
6.9–6.11,
does not preclude valid publication of that name
with a different
status;
it is treated as a correctable error (see also Art.
41.4 and
41.8).
Ex. 18.
Racosperma nelsonii was published by Pedley
(in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 92: 249.
1986)
as a new combination (“comb. nova”) citing
Acacia nelsonii Maslin
(in J. Ade-
laide
Bot. Gard.
2: 314. 1980)
as “basionym”.
However,
A. nelsonii Maslin is illegitimate
under Art.
53.1
because it is a later homonym of
A. nelsonii Saff.
(in J. Wash. Acad. Sci.
4: 363. 1914).
Racosperma nelsonii Pedley
is therefore validly published as a
replace-
ment name (Art. 6.11), with
A. nelsonii Maslin its replaced synonym,
and Pedley’s state-
ment
is treated as a correctable error.
————————————
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.
11 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 11 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
7 | Typification (General provisions) |
TYPIFICATION
7.1.
The application of names of taxa
at the rank
of family or below is
determined by means of nomenclatural types
(types of names of taxa).
The application of names of taxa
at the higher ranks
is also determined by
means of types when the names are
formed from
a generic name (see Art.
10.10).
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.
(in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci.
St.-Pétersbourg, Sér. 6,
Sci.
Math.
2: 163. 1832)
was transferred to the genus
Tsuga by Carrière
(in Traité Gén. Conif.,
ed. 2: 250. 1867),
who,
as is evident from his description,
erroneously applied the new
combination
T. mertensiana to another species of
Tsuga, namely
T. heterophylla (Raf.)
Sarg.
(Silva 12: 73. 1899).
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.
(in Ann. Mus. Natl.
Hist. Nat.
20: 124. 1813)
is a legitimate replacement name for
Fucus palmetta S. G. Gmel.
(Hist. Fuc.:
183.
1768),
the change of epithet
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 Art.
48.1)
have the same type as
F. palmetta
even though the material possessed by
Lamouroux is now assigned to a different spe-
cies,
D. bonnemaisonii C. Agardh
(Spec. Alg.:
186. 1822).
Ex. 3.
The new combination
Cystocoleus ebeneus (Dillwyn) Thwaites
(in Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist., ser. 2,
3: 241. 1849)
is typified by the type of its basionym
Conferva ebenea
Dillwyn
(Brit. Conferv.:
t. 101. 1809)
even though the material illustrated by Thwaites
was of
Racodium rupestre Pers.
(in Neues Mag. Bot.
1: 123. 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).
12 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 12 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (General provisions) | 7 |
Ex. 4.
Myrcia lucida McVaugh
(in Mem. New York Bot.
Gard. 18(2): 100. 1969)
was
published as a replacement name for
M. laevis O. Berg
(in Linnaea
31: 252. 1862),
an illegitimate homonym of
M. laevis G. Don
(Gen. Hist.
2: 845. 1832).
The type of
M. lucida is therefore the type of
M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don).
7.5.
A name that is illegitimate under Art.
52
is a replacement name,
typi-
fied
automatically
by the type of the name
(the replaced synonym) that
itself or the epithet
of which ought
to have been adopted under the rules
(Art. 7.4; but see Art. 7.6),
unless a different type
was designated
or defi-
nitely indicated
in the protologue,
in which case it is either
(a) a replace-
ment name with a different
replaced synonym or
(b) treated as the name
of a new taxon.
Automatic typification does not apply
to names sanctioned
under Art.
F.3.
Ex. 5.
Bauhinia semla Wunderlin
(in Taxon
25: 362. 1976)
is illegitimate under Art.
52
(see Art.
52 Ex.
8),
but its publication as a replacement name for
B. retusa Roxb.
(Fl.
Ind., ed. 1832,
2: 322. 1832)
non Poir.
(in Lamarck, Encycl. Suppl.
1: 599. 1811)
is defi-
nite indication of a different type
(that of
B. retusa) from that of the name
(B. rox-
burghiana Voigt,
Hort. Suburb. Calcutt.:
254. 1845)
that ought to have been adopted.
Ex. 6.
Hewittia bicolor Wight & Arn.
(in Madras J. Lit.
Sci. 5: 22. 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
(Symb. Bot. 3: 25.
1794)
non Desr.
(in Lamarck, Encycl.
3: 564. 1792),
the legitimate
C. bracteatus Vahl
(Symb.
Bot.
3: 25. 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
Hewit-
tia, is the type of
C. bicolor, not that of
C. bracteatus,
the epithet of which ought to have
been adopted.
7.6.
If the type of the name causing illegitimacy (Art.
52.2)
is included in a
subordinate taxon
that does not include the intended type
of the illegitimate
name,
then typification is not automatic (see Art. 7.5).
Ex. 7.
Mason & Grant
(in Madroño 9: 212. 1948),
validly published
the names
Gilia
splendens
and
G. splendens subsp.
grinnellii,
the former without
indicating a
type (be-
cause they believed
the name to be
already validly published) and the latter
for
“a long-
tubed
form of the species”.
Under Art.
52,
G. splendens
was illegitimate
because of the
inclusion of the type
of
G. grinnellii
Brand (in Engler, Pflanzenr.
IV. 250 (Heft 27):
101.
1907),
the
basionym of subsp.
grinnellii.
But, because subsp.
grinnellii was applied to
a subordinate taxon
that did not include
the intended type of
the illegitimate name,
the
type
of
G. grinnellii
is not automatically that of
G.
splendens.
The names
G. splendens
and
G. grinnellii
have since
been conserved
and rejected,
respectively (see
App. IV
and
V).
7.7.
The type of an autonym is the same
as that of the name from which
it is derived.
13 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 13 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
7 | Typification (General provisions) |
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.
(Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.:
191. 1775),
i.e. Herb. Forsskål No. 845 (C).
7.8.
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))
(and
not by a reproduction
of such a description
or diagnosis)
is to be typified by
an element selected from the entire context
of the validating description or
diagnosis,
unless the validating author
has definitely designated a different
type,
but not by an element explicitly excluded by the
validating author (see
also Art. 7.8).
Ex. 9.
Adenanthera bicolor Moon
(Cat. Pl. Ceylon: 34. 1824)
was validly published
solely by reference to the description associated
with an illustration devoid of analysis,
“Rumph. amb. 3: t. 112”, cited by Moon. Because Moon
did not
definitely designate
as type the specimen
collected by
him (in K,
labelled
“Adenanthera bicolor”), that
specimen
is unavailable as type.
In the absence of the
material
on which the validating
description was based,
the lectotype
can only be the
associated illustration
(Rumphius,
Herb. Amboin. 3:
t. 112. 1743).
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 vali-
dating description of
E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin,
and the type must be chosen from
the context of his work.
Consequently the Sherard specimen
in the Morison herbarium
(OXF), selected
by Klotz (in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ.
Halle-Wittenberg, Math.-
Naturwiss.
Reihe 9: 375–376. 1960),
although probably consulted by Ray,
is not eligible
as type.
The first acceptable choice
of lectotype
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
(in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl.
Fenn. 30: 142. 1904)
was validly published
without accompanying descriptive matter
but with reference to
the validating description of
H. saxifragum subsp.
oreinum Dahlst. ex Brenner
(in Med-
deland. Soc.
Fauna Fl. Fenn. 18: 89. 1892).
Because
Brenner definitely excluded
his
earlier
infraspecific name
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.
7.9.
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 anal-
ogous taxa
at or below the rank of genus
does not differ from that indicated above.
14 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 14 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (General provisions) | 7 |
7.10.
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).
7.11.
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. 7.10 and 7.11
apply only to the designation of lectotypes
(and their
equivalents under Art.
10),
neotypes, and epitypes; for holotypes see Art.
9.1.
Ex. 12.
The original material for the name
Quercus acutifolia Née
includes nine speci-
mens in MA.
In 1985, Breedlove labelled one of these
(barcode MA 25953) as “Lecto-
type”,
but, because this was not effectively published,
Breedlove did not achieve a des-
ignation of type (see Art. 7.10).
Valencia-A. & al.
(in Phytotaxa
218: 289–294. 2015)
effectively published a type designation
of the same specimen as “lectotype”,
but did
not include the words “designated here”
or a linguistic equivalent,
as required by Art.
7.11.
Nixon & Barrie
(in Novon 25: 449. 2017)
published an effective lectotypification
statement “TYPE: Mexico. Guerrero,
Née s.n.
(lectotype, designated here, MA [bc]
MA25953 as image!)”
fulfilling all of the requirements of Art. 7.11.
Ex. 13.
The protologue of
Dryopteris hirsutosetosa Hieron.
(in Hedwigia 46: 343–344,
t. 6. 1907)
cited only a locality
(“Aequatoria: crescit in altiplanicie supra Allpayacu
inter
Baños et Jivaría de Píntuc”)
and Stübel collecting number (“n. 903”),
but did not specify
a herbarium,
thus indicating all specimens of that gathering
as syntypes (Art. 40
Note
1).
In citing
“Type from Ecuador: Baños-Pintuc, Stübel nr. 903 (B!)”
Christensen
(in
Kongel. Danske Vidensk.
Selsk. Skr.,
Naturvidensk. Math. Afd.,
ser. 8, 6: 112. 1920)
designated the specimen in B as the lectotype of
D. hirsutosetosa
satisfying the require-
ments of Art. 7.11.
A duplicate specimen in BM is an isolectotype.
Ex. 14.
The absence of any original material (Art.
9.13) for
Ocimum gratissimum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1197. 1753)
means that Cramer’s
(in Dassanayake & Fosberg,
Revis. Handb. Fl.
Ceylon 3: 112. 1981)
citation of
“Type: Hortu Upsalensi,
749.2 (LINN)” as “type”
is to
be accepted as designation (Art. 7.11) of a neotype,
antedating the superfluous neotypi-
fication
by Paton (in Kew Bull. 47: 411. 1992).
Ex.
15.
Chlorosarcina Gerneck
(in Beih. Bot. Centralbl.,
Abt. 2, 21: 224. 1907)
origi-
nally comprised two species,
C. minor Gerneck and
C. elegans Gerneck. Vischer
(in
Beih. Bot. Centralbl.,
Abt. 1, 51: 12. 1933)
transferred
C. minor to
Chlorosphaera G. A.
Klebs and retained
C. elegans in
Chlorosarcina.
He did not, however, use the term
“type” or an equivalent,
so that his action does not constitute typification of
Chloro-
sarcina.
The first to designate a type, as “LT.”,
was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov
1962),
who selected
Chlorosarcina elegans.
15 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 15 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
7–8 | Typification (General provisions – Species and infraspecific taxa) |
*Ex.
16.¹
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.
Ex. 17.
Pfeiffer
(Nomencl. Bot.
1: [Praefatio, p. 2]. 1871)
explained that he cited species
names only
when he intended to indicate the type
of names of genera and sections:
“Species plantarum in libro meo omnino negliguntur,
excepta indicatione illarum, quae
typum generis novi
aut novo modo circumscripti vel sectionis offerunt.
[Species of
plants are entirely disregarded in my book,
except for the indication of those that are
presented
as the type of a new or re-circumscribed genus or of a section.]”
This expla-
nation includes the term type,
and the citation of a species name has therefore been
accepted as designation of a type.
7A.1.
It is strongly recommended that the material
on which the name of a taxon is
based, especially the holotype, be deposited
in a public herbarium or other public
collection
with a policy of giving bona fide researchers
access to deposited mate-
rial,
and that it be scrupulously conserved.
8.1.
The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype)
of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon
is either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium
or other collection or institution, or a
published or unpublished
illustration
(but see Art.
8.5;
see also Art.
40.4,
40.5
and
40
Ex. 6).
8.2.
For the purpose of typification
a specimen is a gathering²,
or part of
a gathering, of a single species
or infraspecific taxon,
disregarding admix-
tures (see Art.
9.14).
It may consist of a single organism,
parts of one or
several organisms,
or of multiple small organisms.
A specimen is usually
mounted
on a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent
preparation, such
as a box, packet, jar,
or microscope slide.
————————————
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.
2
Here
and elsewhere in this
Code, the
term “gathering” is used
for a collection presumed
to be
of a single taxon made
by the same collector(s)
at
the same time
from a single
locality.
The possibility
of a mixed gathering
is always
to be considered, especially
when designating
a type.
16 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 16 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) | 8 |
Ex. 1.
The holotype of
Asparagus kansuensis F. T. Wang & Tang ex S. C. Chen
(in Acta
Phytotax. Sin.
16(1): 94. 1978),
Hao 416 (PE [barcode 00034519])
belongs to a gathering
of a dioecious species
made at one time at a single locality.
It consists of a staminate
branch
and a pistillate branch,
i.e. parts of two individuals,
mounted on a single her-
barium sheet.
Ex. 2.
The diatom species
Tursiocola denysii Frankovich & M. J. Sullivan
(in Phytotaxa
234: 228. 2015)
was described from material collected
from neck skin of four logger-
head turtles
and the type designated as
“Type:—UNITED STATES. Florida: Florida
Bay,
samples removed from the skin in the dorsal neck area
of loggerhead sea turtles
Caretta caretta, 24° 55’ 01” N, 80° 48’ 28” W,
B.A. Stacy, 24 June 2015 (holotype CAS!
223049,
illustrated as Figs 1–4, 6, 12, 15–30,
paratypes ANSP! GC59142, BM! 101 808,
illustrated as Figs 7–10, 14,
BRM! ZU10/31, Figs 5, 11, 13).”
Because the specimens
were collected on the same date, at the same place,
by the same collector they comprise
a single gathering, admixtures excepted,
and the authors’ citation of “paratypes”
is cor-
rectable to isotypes under Art.
9.10.
Ex.
3.
“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.
Because
this material
was collected
at more than
one time, it
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.
Note 1.
Field numbers,
collecting numbers,
accession numbers,
or specimen
identifiers alone
do not necessarily denote different gatherings.
Ex. 4.
Solidago
×snarskisii Gudžinskas & Žalneravičius
(in Phytotaxa
253: 148. 2016)
was validly published (Art.
40.2)
with a single gathering in BILAS indicated as type,
the parts of which were numbered separately in the field,
mounted on separate sheets
and designated as follows:
“Holotype:—LITHUANIA. Trakai district,
Aukštadvaris
Regional Park, environs of Zabarauskai village,
in an abandoned meadow on the
edge of forest
(54.555191° N; 24.512987° E), 13 September 2014,
Z. Gudžinskas &
E. Žalneravičius 76801 (generative shoot) and
76802 (vegetative shoot)
(BILAS, on two
cross-referenced sheets).
Isotypes:—Z. Gudžinskas &
E. Žalneravičius 76803, 76804
(BILAS).”
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, or bear
a single, original label
in common.
Multiple preparations from a single
gathering
that are not clearly labelled
as being part of a single specimen are
duplicates¹,
irrespective of whether the source was one
individual or more
than one.
————————————
1
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.
17 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 17 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
8 | Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) |
Ex.
5.
The holotype specimen of
Delissea eleeleensis H. St. John,
Christensen 261
(BISH),
is mounted as two preparations,
a herbarium sheet (BISH No. 519675
[barcode
BISH1006410])
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
[barcode BISH1006411]),
which is not labelled as
including additional material
preserved in a separate preparation.
Ex.
6.
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.
7.
The holotype of
Cephaelis acanthacea
Standl. ex Steyerm.,
Cuatrecasas 16752
(F),
consists of a single specimen mounted on two herbarium sheets,
labelled “sheet 1”
and “sheet 2”.
Although the two sheets
have separate herbarium accession numbers,
F
No. 1153741 and F
No. 1153742, respectively,
the cross-labelling indicates
that they
constitute a single specimen.
A third sheet of
Cuatrecasas 16572, F
No. 1153740,
is
not cross-labelled and is therefore a duplicate.
(The valid publication
of this name was
discussed by Taylor
in Novon 25: 331–332.
2017.)
Ex.
8.
The holotype specimen of
Eugenia ceibensis Standl.,
Yuncker & al. 8309, is
mounted on a single herbarium sheet
in F.
A fragment was removed from the specimen
subsequent to its designation
as holotype and is now conserved
in LL.
The fragment is
mounted on a herbarium sheet
along with a photograph of the holotype and is labelled
“fragment of type!”.
The fragment is no longer part
of the holotype specimen because
it is not permanently conserved
in the same herbarium as the holotype. It
is a duplicate,
i.e. an isotype.
Ex. 9.
In the Geneva herbaria, a single specimen
is often prepared on two or more
sheets,
which are not therefore duplicates.
Although the individual sheets are usually
not labelled as being part of the same specimen,
they are physically kept together in
their own specimen folder and bear
a single, original label in common.
Ex. 10.
Three specimens collected by Martius
(Brazil, Maranhão, “in sylvis ad fl. Itapi-
curú”,
May 1819,
Martius s.n., M)
are syntypes of
Erythrina falcata Benth.
(in Martius,
Fl. Bras.
15(1): 172. 1859).
Only one of the sheets (barcode M-0213337)
has Martius’s
original blue label,
whereas the other two
(barcodes M-0213336 and M-0213338) have
been labelled with the locality
to identify them as the same gathering.
Because the three
specimens do not bear
a single, original label in common,
and are not cross-labelled,
they are treated as duplicates.
8.4.
Type specimens of names of taxa
must be preserved permanently and
may not be living organisms or cultures.
Nevertheless,
cultures of algae
and fungi,
if preserved in a metabolically inactive state
(e.g. by lyophiliza-
tion or
deep-freezing to remain alive in that inactive state),
are acceptable
as types
(see also Art.
40.8).
Ex.
11.
“Dendrobium sibuyanense“
(Lubag-Arquiza & al.
in Philipp. Agric. Sci.
88: 484–
488. 2005)
was described with the statement
“Type specimen is
a living specimen being
maintained at the Orchid Nursery,
Department of Horticulture, University of the
Philip-
18 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 18 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) | 8–9 |
pines 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.
12.
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.
9.9)
excepted, of the name of a fossil-taxon
at
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).
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.
8A.4.
When a single specimen designated as type is mounted
as multiple prepara-
tions,
this should be stated in the protologue,
and the preparations appropriately
labelled.
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.
9.1.
A holotype of a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon is the one
specimen or illustration (but see Art.
40.4)
either
(a) indicated by the
19 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 19 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
9 | Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) |
author(s)
as the nomenclatural type
or
(b)
used by the author(s)
when no
type was indicated.
As long as the holotype is extant,
it fixes the applica-
tion
of the name concerned (but see Art.
9.15).
Note 1.
Any designation
of the type
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,
9.15,
and
9.16).
If the author used only one specimen
or illustra-
tion,
either cited or uncited,
when preparing the account
of the new taxon,
it must
be accepted as the holotype, but the possibility
that the author used additional,
uncited specimens or illustrations
(which may have been lost or destroyed)
must
always be considered.
If a name of a new taxon is validly published solely by
reference to a previously published description or diagnosis,
the same considera-
tions apply to
specimens or illustrations
used by the author of that description or
diagnosis (see Art.
7.8; but see Art.
7.9).
Ex. 1.
When Tuckerman established
Opegrapha oulocheila Tuck.
(Lich. Calif.:
32.
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
(in PH)
was clearly the one specimen
used by the author
and is
therefore the holotype.
Ex. 2.
In the protologue of
Coronilla argentea L.
(Sp. Pl.:
743. 1753),
Linnaeus cited an
illustration by Alpini
(Pl. Exot.: 16. 1627) and did not designate a type.
Although no
uncited specimens or illustrations are known to exist,
making Alpini’s illustration the
only extant element of original material,
it is not the holotype because it is not certain
that Linnaeus used only this one element
when preparing the account of the new taxon;
he could have possessed a specimen
that has since been lost or destroyed.
Moreover,
citation of the illustration
cannot be accepted as indication of the type
under the second
sentence of Art.
40.3
because that provision applies
only for the purpose of Art.
40.1,
i.e.
indication of type as a requirement
of valid publication of names published
on or after
1 January 1958.
Alpini’s illustration was designated as the lectotype of
C. argentea by
Greuter
(in Ann. Mus. Goulandris 1: 44. 1973).
9.2.
If a designation of holotype made
in the protologue of the name of a
taxon is later found to contain errors
(e.g. in locality, date, collector, collect-
ing number, herbarium code, specimen identifier,
or citation of an illustra-
tion), these errors are to be corrected
provided that the intent of the original
author(s) is not changed.
However, omissions of required information
under
Art.
40.6–40.8
are not correctable.
Ex.
3.
The name
Phoebe calcarea
S. Lee & F. N. Wei
(in Guihaia 3: 7. 1983)
was validly
published with the holotype designated as
Du’an Expedition
“4-10-004” in IBK, but
no specimen with this collecting number exists
in IBK.
However, a specimen
in IBK
annotated with
“Phoebe calcarea
sp. nov.”, “Typus”,
and matching all other details of
the protologue bears the collecting number
Du’an Expedition 4-10-0243.
Therefore, the
original type citation is obviously erroneous
and is to be corrected.
20 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 20 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) | 9 |
9.3.
A lectotype is
one
specimen or illustration
designated from the orig-
inal material
(Art. 9.4)
as the nomenclatural type,
in conformity with Art.
9.11 and
9.12, if
the name was
published
without a
holotype,
or if the holo-
type is
lost or destroyed,
or if a type is found to belong to more than one
taxon (see also Art.
9.14).
For sanctioned names
(Art.
F.3),
a lectotype may
be selected from among elements associated
with either or both the proto-
logue
and the sanctioning treatment (Art.
F.3.9).
Ex. 4.
Adansonia grandidieri Baill.
(in Grandidier, Hist. Phys. Madagascar
34: t. 79B
bis, fig. 2 &
t. 79E,
fig. 1. 1893)
was validly published when accompanied solely by two
illustrations with analysis (see Art.
38.8).
Baum
(in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.
82: 447.
1995)
designated one of the sheets of
Grevé 275 (flowering specimen in P [barcode
P00037169]),
which he presumed to be the very specimen
from which most or all of the
components of
t. 79E, fig. 1
were drawn, as the lectotype of this name.
9.4.
For the purposes of this
Code,
original material comprises
the follow-
ing elements:
(a) those specimens and illustrations
(both unpublished and
published prior to
publication
of the protologue)
that the author
associated
with the taxon,
and that were available
to the author prior to,
or at the time
of, preparation
of the description, diagnosis, or illustration
with analysis
(Art.
38.7 and
38.8)
validating the name;
(b) any illustrations
published as
part of the protologue;
(c)
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
(d)
the isotypes or isosyntypes¹
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.
7.8,
7.9, and
F.3.9).
Note 2.
For names falling under Art.
7.9,
only elements from the context of the
protologue itself are considered
as original material.
Note 3.
For names falling under Art.
7.8,
only elements from the context of the
validating description are considered
as original material,
unless the validating
author has definitely designated a different type.
9.5. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
Note 4.
The term isotype is also used
for a duplicate of the type of the con-
served
name of a species because, under Art.
14.8,
such a type, like a holotype,
may only be changed by the procedure of conservation.
————————————
1
Duplicate specimens of a
syntype, lectotype,
neotype, and epitype
are isosyntypes,
isolectotypes, isoneotypes, and isoepitypes,
respectively.
21 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 21 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
9 | Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) |
9.6.
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.
5.
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.
Therefore,
there must exist at
least two specimens and these are syntypes.
Ex.
6.
In the protologue of
Anemone alpina L.
(Sp. Pl.:
539. 1753),
two specimens are
cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and γ,
as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”.
These
specimens,
held
in the Burser Herbarium (UPS),
are syntypes of
A. alpina.
9.7.
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.
7.
The holotype of the name
Rheedia kappleri Eyma
(in Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb.
Rijks Univ. Utrecht
4: 26. 1932),
which applies to a polygamous species,
is a male speci-
men,
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
because
all the cited specimens will be syntypes.
However, when an
author designated
two or more specimens as types (Art. 9.6),
any remaining cited
specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.
Ex.
8.
In the protologue of
Eurya hebeclados Y. Ling
(in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 1: 208. 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.
9.8.
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
and 9.19(c)).
9.9.
An epitype is a specimen or illustration
selected to serve as an inter-
pretative type when the holotype,
lectotype, or previously designated
neo-
type, 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.
9.
Podlech
(in Taxon 46: 465. 1997)
designated Herb. Linnaeus No. 926.43 (LINN)
as the lectotype of
Astragalus trimestris L.
(Sp. Pl.:
761. 1753).
He simultaneously
designated an epitype
(Egypt. Dünen oberhalb Rosetta am linken Nilufer
bei Schech
22 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 22 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) | 9 |
Mantur, 9 May 1902,
Anonymous
BM),
because the lectotype lacks fruits, “which show
important diagnostic features for this species.”
Ex.
10.
The lectotype of
Salicornia europaea
L. (Herb. Linnaeus
No. 10.1, LINN, desig-
nated by
Jafri
&
Rateeb in Jafri & El-Gadi,
Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1978)
does not show the rel-
evant characters by which it could be identified
for the precise application of this name
in a critical group of taxa
that are best characterized molecularly.
Therefore, Kadereit
& al.
(in Taxon 61: 1234.
2012)
designated as the
epitype a
molecularly tested
specimen
from the type locality
(Sweden, Gotland, W shore of Burgsviken Bay,
Näsudden Cape,
Piirainen & Piirainen 4222,
only the plant numbered G38-1, MJG).
9.10.
The use of a term defined in the
Code (Art. 9.1, 9.3 and 9.5–9.9)
as denoting a type, in a sense other than that
in which it is so defined, is
treated
as an error to be corrected
(for example, the use of the term lecto-
type to denote what is in fact a neotype).
Ex. 11.
Borssum Waalkes
(in Blumea
14: 198. 1966)
cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7
(LINN) as the holotype of
Sida retusa L.
(Sp. Pl., ed. 2:
961. 1763).
However,
illustra-
tions 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. 9.4(a)),
and Borssum Waalkes’s use of holotype
is an error to be corrected to lectotype.
Note 6.
A misused term may be corrected
only if the requirements of Art.
7.11
(for correction to lectotype, neotype,
and epitype) are met and Art.
40.6
(for cor-
rection to holotype) does not apply.
9.11.
If the name
of a species or infraspecific taxon
was published without
a
holotype
(Art. 9.1),
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.
9.8),
a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated
(see also Art. 9.16).
9.12.
In lectotype designation,
an isotype must be chosen if such exists,
or otherwise a syntype
or isosyntype
if such exists.
If no isotype, syntype
or isosyntype is extant,
the lectotype must be chosen from among the para-
types if such exist.
If none of the
above
specimens exists,
the lectotype
must be chosen
from among the uncited specimens
and cited and uncited
illustrations
that comprise the remaining original material,
if such exist.
Ex. 12.
Baumann & al. (in
J. Eur. Orch. 34: 176. 2006)
designated an illustration cited
in the protologue of
Gymnadenia rubra Wettst.
(in Verh. K. K.
Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien
39: 83. 1889)
as “lectotype”.
Because Wettstein also cited syntypes, which
always have
precedence
over illustrations
in lectotype designation,
Baumann’s choice was not in
conformity with Art.
9.12
and must not be followed.
Later, Baumann & Lorenz
(in
Taxon
60: 1775. 2011)
correctly designated
one of the syntypes
as the
lectotype.
23 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 23 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
9 | Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) |
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
and 9.19(c).
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.
13.
The type of the name
Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker
(in Abh. Königl.
Ges. Wiss. Göttingen
24: 334. 1878) is
Lorentz 128 (BM);
the material on this
sheet,
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
the sheet in BM
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
at
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
taxonomically from the lost or destroyed type,
a neotype may be selected
to preserve the usage established
by the previous typification
(see also Art.
9.18).
9.17.
A designation of a lectotype, neotype,
or epitype
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
and 9.20),
but may be further narrowed to
a single one of these specimens by way of a
subsequent lectotypification,
neotypification,
or
epitypification
(see also Art. 9.14).
Ex.
14.
Erigeron plantagineus Greene
(in Pittonia
3: 292. 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 lectotype
[first-step].
Strother & Ferlatte
(in Madroño
35:
85. 1988),
noting that there were two specimens of this gathering
in ND,
designated
one of them, “ND-G, 057228” [barcode NDG57228],
as the [second-step] lectotype.
In
subsequent references,
both lectotypification steps may be cited in sequence.
24 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 24 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) | 9 |
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.
7.10,
7.11,
and
F.5.4)
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
found to exist;
the choice may also be superseded
if
it
can be
shown
that
(b) it is contrary
to Art. 9.14 or
(c)
it is in serious
conflict with the protologue, in which case an
element
that is not in conflict
with the protologue
is to be chosen;
a lectotype may
only be superseded
by
a non-conflicting element
of the original material,
if such exists;
if none
exists it may be
superseded
by a neotype.
Ex. 15.
(b)
Navarro & Rosúa (in Candollea 45: 584. 1990)
designated a sheet in G-DC as
lectotype of
Teucrium gnaphalodes L’Hér.
(Stirp. Nov.:
84. 1788),
but this preparation
contains
more than one gathering
and a heterogeneous mixture of more
than one spe-
cies,
not all of which matched L’Héritier’s diagnosis.
Ferrer-Gallego & al.
(in Candollea
67: 38. 2012)
superseded the previous lectotype
in choosing one of the specimens on the
same preparation that corresponds most nearly
with the original diagnosis.
Ex. 16.
(c)
Fischer (in Feddes Repert. 108: 115. 1997)
designated Herb. Linnaeus
No. 26.58 (LINN)
as lectotype of
Veronica agrestis L.
(Sp. Pl.:
13. 1753).
However,
Martínez-Ortega & al.
(in Taxon
51: 763. 2002)
established that the designated lecto-
type
was in serious conflict with Linnaeus’s diagnosis
and that three sheets of original
material not conflicting with the protologue
were available in the Celsius herbarium.
One of them was designated as the new lectotype of
V. agrestis, superseding the choice
of Fischer.
Note 7.
Only a choice of uncited material as lectotype
may be superseded
under Art. 9.19(c);
cited specimens and illustrations
are part of the protologue and
cannot therefore be in serious conflict with it.
9.20.
The author who first designates (Art.
7.9,
7.10
and
F.5.4)
an epitype
must be followed;
a different epitype may be designated
only if the original
epitype is lost or destroyed
(see also Art. 9.17).
A lectotype or neotype sup-
ported
by an epitype may be superseded in accordance
with Art. 9.19 or, in
the case of a neotype, in accordance
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
8.
An epitype supports only the type
to which it is linked by the typifying
author.
If the supported type is
lost, destroyed, or
superseded, the epitype has no
standing with respect to the replacement type.
25 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 25 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
9–9A | Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) |
9.21.
Designation of an epitype is not effected
unless the herbarium, col-
lection,
or institution in which the epitype is conserved
is specified or,
if
the epitype is a published illustration,
a full and direct bibliographic refer-
ence (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, collection,
or institution
in
which the type is conserved is specified.
9.23.
On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification, neotypification,
or
epitypification
of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon
is not effected
unless indicated
by use of the term “lectotypus” or “neotypus”,
or “epitypus”,
its abbreviation,
or its equivalent in a modern language
(see also Art.
7.11
and
9.10).
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
description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.19(c)).
26 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 26 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa – Above specific rank) | 9B–10 |
9B.1.
In selecting a neotype, particular care
and critical knowledge should be
exercised because there is usually 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.
9B.2.
Authors designating an epitype should state
in what way the holotype,
lectotype, neotype, or all original material
is ambiguous such that epitypification
is necessary.
9C.1.
Specification of the
herbarium,
collection, or
institution of deposition
should
be followed by any available number
permanently and unambiguously identifying
the lectotype, neotype, or epitype specimen
(see also Rec.
40A.3).
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
(see also Rec.
40A.3).
Note 1.
Terms such as “holotype”, “syntype”,
and “lectotype”, as presently
defined in Art.
9,
although not applicable
to the types of names
at ranks higher
than species, have
sometimes
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 indi-
cated (Art.
10.8,
40.1, and
40.3)
or designated by the author of the name; or
(b) the name was sanctioned
(Art.
F.3),
in which case the type may also be
chosen from among the types of species names
included in the sanctioning
treatment.
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 proto-
logue
or the sanctioning treatment.
Ex. 1.
The genus
Anacyclus,
as originally circumscribed by Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl.:
892. 1753),
comprised three validly named species.
Cassini
(in Cuvier,
Dict. Sci. Nat.
34: 104. 1825)
designated
Anthemis valentina L.
(l.c.: 895. 1753)
as type of
Anacyclus, but this was not
27 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 27 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
10 | Typification (Above specific rank) |
an original element of the genus.
Green
(in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.:
182. 1929)
designated
Anacyclus valentinus L.
(l.c.: 892. 1753),
“the only one of the three original
species still retained in the genus”, as the “standard species”
(see Art. 7
*Ex.
16), and
her choice must be followed (Art. 10.5).
Humphries
(in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot.
7: 109. 1979)
designated a specimen in the Clifford Herbarium (BM)
as lectotype of
Anacyclus valentinus,
and that specimen thereby became the type of
Anacyclus.
Ex. 2.
Castanella Spruce ex Benth. & Hook. f.
(Gen. Pl.
1: 394. Aug 1862)
was de-
scribed 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
(in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot.,
ser. 4,
18: 365.
Dec 1862),
based on
Linden 1360.
As long as the Spruce specimen
is considered to be
conspecific with Linden’s material,
Swart’s type designation cannot be superseded,
even though the Spruce specimen
became the type of
Paullinia paullinioides Radlk.
(Monogr.
Paullinia:
173. 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.
(Fam. Pl.
2: 444,
553. 1763)
includes refer-
ences to
“Elodes” of Clusius
(Alt. App. Rar. Pl. Hist.,
App. Alt. Auct.:
[7]. 1611, i.e.
“Ascyrum supinum
ελωδης”),
“Hypericum” of Tournefort
(Inst. Rei Herb.
1: 255. 1700,
i.e.
“Hypericum palustre,
supinum,
tomentosum”),
and
Hypericum aegypticum L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
784. 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.
(Amoen. Acad.
4: 105. 1759)
as the type
(see Robson
in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.),
Bot. 5: 305,
337. 1977).
10.4.
By and only by conservation (Art.
14.9),
the type of a name of a
genus may be a specimen or illustration,
preferably used by the author in
the preparation of the protologue,
other than the type of a name of an in-
cluded species.
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
(in Nova Hedwigia
9: 30. 1965)
was conserved with the speci-
men
“‘Lichen pulverulentus’, Germania, Lipsia in
Tilia, 1767,
Schreber (M)” as the
conserved type.
That specimen is the type of
P. pulverulacea Moberg
(in Mycotaxon 8:
310. 1979),
the name now cited in the type entry in
App. III.
28 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 28 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Above specific rank) | 10 |
Ex. 5.
Pseudolarix Gordon
(Pinetum:
292. 1858)
was conserved with a specimen from
the Gordon herbarium (K No. 3455)
as its conserved type.
Because
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.
7.10,
7.11,
and
F.5.4)
a type
of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus
must be followed,
but the
choice may be superseded if
the author used
a largely mechanical method
of selection
(Art. 10.6).
A type chosen using
a largely mechanical method
of selection
is superseded
by any later choice
of a different type
not made
using such a method,
unless, in the interval,
the supersedable choice has
been affirmed
by its adoption
in a publication
that did not use
a mechanical
method of selection.
Note 3.
The effective date of a typification (cf. Art.
22.2,
48.2 and
52.2(b))
subject to supersession under Art. 10.5
remains that of the original selection, un-
less
the type has been superseded.
10.6.
For the purposes of Art. 10.5,
“a largely mechanical method of selec-
tion”
is defined as one in which the type
is selected following a set of objec-
tive
criteria such as those set out in “Canon 15”
of the so-called “Philadel-
phia Code”
(Arthur & al.
in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
31: 255–257. 1904)
or in
“Canon 15” of the
American Code of Botanical Nomenclature
(Arthur & al.
in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
34: 172–174. 1907).
Ex.
6.
The first type designation for
Delphinium L.
was
by Britton
(in Britton & Brown,
Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2,
2: 93. 1913),
who followed the
American Code and
whose
selection
of
D. consolida L.
is therefore
considered
to have been
largely mechanical.
His
choice
has been superseded under Art. 10.5 by the designation of
D. peregrinum L. by Green
(in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.:
162. 1929).
10.7.
Unless the author(s) specifically state
that they are not using a
mechanical method of type selection,
the following criteria determine
whether a particular publication,
appearing prior to 1 January 1935,
has
adopted a largely mechanical method
of type selection:
(a)
any statement to that effect,
including that the
American Code or the
“Philadelphia Code” was being followed
or that types were determined
in a particular mechanical way
(e.g. the first species in order); or
(b)
adoption of any provision
of the “Philadelphia Code” or the
American
Code that was contrary
to the provisions of the
International Rules of
Botanical Nomenclature in force at that time,
e.g. the inclusion of one
or more tautonyms as species names.
29 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 29 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
10 | Typification (Above specific rank) |
Additionally for publications appearing prior to 1 January 1921:
(c)
if an author of the publication
was a signatory of the
“Philadelphia
Code”¹
(and was therefore also a signatory of the
American Code);
(d)
if an author of the publication
stated publicly (e.g. in another publica-
tion) that in the typification of generic names
the “Philadelphia Code”
or the
American Code was followed;
(e)
if an author of the publication
was an employee or a recognized associ-
ate of the New York Botanical Garden; or
(f)
if an author of the publication
was an employee of the United States
government.
Ex. 7.
(a)
Fink
(in Contr.
U. S. Natl. Herb.
14: 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.
For example, Fink had designated
Biatorina
griffithii (Ach.) A. Massal.
as the type of
Biatorina A. Massal.; but his choice was
superseded when the next subsequent designation,
by Santesson (in Symb. Bot. Upsal.
12: 428. 1952),
stated a different type,
B. atropurpurea (Schaer.) A. Massal.
Ex. 8.
(a)
Underwood
(in Mem. Torrey Bot. Club
6: 247–283. 1899)
wrote
(p. 251):
“For
each genus established
the first named species
will be regarded as
type”.
Therefore, his
designation
(p. 276) of
Caenopteris furcata Bergius as type of
Caenopteris Bergius
(in
Acta Acad.
Sci. Imp. Petrop.
1782(2): 249. 1786)
is supersedable; this has been effected
by Copeland (Gen. Filicum: 166. 1947),
who designated
C. rutifolia Bergius as type.
Ex. 9.
(a)
Murrill
(in J. Mycol. 9: 87. 1903),
referring to generic types, wrote:
“The
principles by which I have been chiefly guided
are also quite well known having
been stated and explained by Underwood” [see Ex. 8].
Consequently Murrill
(l.c.: 95,
98. 1903)
listed the first-named species treated by Quélet
(Enchir. Fung.: 175. 1886),
Coriolus lutescens (Pers.) Quél., as type of
Coriolus Quél.
(l.c.), and later
(in Bull.
Torrey Bot. Club
32: 640. 1906) listed
Polyporus zonatus Nees as type because it was
“the first species accompanied
by a correct citation of a figure”.
Both lectotypifica-
tions
are considered to be mechanical
and were superseded by the choice of
Polyporus
versicolor (L.) Fr.
by Donk
(Revis. Niederl.
Homobasidiomyc.:
180. 1933).
Ex. 10.
(b)
Britton & Wilson
(Bot. Porto Rico 6: 262. 1925) designated
Cucurbita
lagenaria L. as type of
Cucurbita L.
(Sp. Pl.: 1010. 1753).
However, because they were
evidently following the
American Code
(they included many tautonyms
in their publi-
cation, e.g.
“Abrus Abrus (L.) W. Wight”,
“Acisanthera Acisanthera (L.) Britton”, and
“Ananas Ananas (L.) Voss”),
their type selections used a largely mechanical method.
Their selection of
C. lagenaria (currently treated as
Lagenaria siceraria (Molina)
Standl.) has been superseded by the selection of
C. pepo L. by Green
(in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.:
190. 1929).
————————————
1
A list of the 23 signatories of the
“Philadelphia Code” was published in
Taxon 65: 1448.
2016,
as well as in
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
31: 250. 1904.
30 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 30 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Typification (Above specific rank) | 10 |
Ex. 11.
(d)
In considering the typification of
Achyranthes L. in a preliminary to his
account of
Amaranthaceae in the
North American Flora,
Paul C. Standley
(in J. Wash.
Acad. Sci.
5: 72. 1915)
selected
A. repens L. as type stating that
“there seems, moreo-
ver,
no doubt as to the type of the genus
Achyranthes under the
American Code of
nomenclature”,
noting that, as a result, “the name
Achyranthes must be used in a sense
other than that in which it has generally
been employed in recent years”.
As a result of
this published statement
of acceptance of the
American Code,
not only is Standley’s
selection of
A. repens superseded by that of
A. aspera L. by Hitchcock
(in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.:
135. 1929),
but types cited in Standley’s other publications (e.g.
in Britton,
N. Amer. Fl.
21: 1–254. 1916–1918)
are supersedable under Art. 10.5.
There-
fore, Standley’s statement
(l.c.: 134. 1917) that
A. repens was the type of
Achyranthes
does not constitute affirmation of his earlier selection;
similarly his publication of type
designations previously made by Britton & Brown, such as
Chenopodium rubrum L.
(l.c.: 9. 1916) and
Amaranthus caudatus L.
(l.c.: 102. 1917),
does not constitute affirma-
tion
of their selection; the typification of
Chenopodium L. has been superseded by the
selection of
C. album L. by Hitchcock
(in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.:
137. 1929)
and
that of
Amaranthus L. was first affirmed by Green
(in Sprague, l.c.: 188. 1929).
10.8.
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. 12.
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. 13.
The type of
Cassia [unranked]
Chamaecrista L.
(Sp. Pl.:
379. 1753)
is the type
of
C. chamaecrista L., nom. rej.
(App. V),
one of the five species names included by
Linnaeus.
10.9.
The type of a name of a family
or of any subdivision of a family is
the same as that of the generic name
from which it is
formed (see Art.
18.1).
For purposes of designation or citation of a type,
the generic name alone
suffices.
The type of a name of a family or subfamily not
formed from a
generic name is the same as
that of the corresponding alternative name
(Art.
18.5 and
19.8).
10.10.
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
formed from
generic names (see Art.
16(a)),
the type of which is the
same as that of the generic name.
31 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 31 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
10A–11 | Typification (Above specific rank) – Priority |
10A.1.
When a combination
at a rank of
a 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.
10A.2.
In citing a type chosen
using a largely mechanical method of selection
that has since been affirmed by an author
not using such a method,
both the place
of original selection
and that of affirmation should be cited, e.g.
“Quercus L. …
Type:
Q. robur L. designated by Britton & Brown
(Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2,
1: 616
1913);
affirmed by Green
(in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.:
189. 1929)”.
PRIORITY
11.1.
Each family or lower-ranked
taxon
with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can bear only one correct name.
Special exceptions
are
made for nine families
and one subfamily for which alternative names
are
permitted (see Art.
18.5 and
19.8).
The use
of separate names is allowed
for fossil-taxa that represent different parts,
life-history stages, or preser-
vational 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
Bull. Sci.
Soc. Philom. Paris
1822: 26.
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
at
which it is published (but
see Art.
53.3).
Ex. 2.
When
Campanula sect.
Campanopsis R. Br.
(Prodr.: 561. 1810)
is treated as
a genus, it is called
Wahlenbergia Roth
(Nov. Pl. Sp.: 399. 1821),
a name conserved
against the heterotypic (taxonomic) synonym
Cervicina Delile
(Descr. Egypte, Hist.
Nat.:
150. 1813),
and not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) Kuntze
(Revis. Gen. Pl.
2: 378. 1891).
32 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 32 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Priority | 11 |
Ex. 3.
Solanum subg.
Leptostemonum Bitter
(in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
55: 69. 1919)
is the
correct name of the subgenus
that includes its type,
S. mammosum L.,
because it is the
earliest available name
at that rank.
The homotypic
S. sect.
Acanthophora Dunal
(Hist.
Nat. Solanum:
131,
218. 1813),
the inclusion of which caused the illegitimacy 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.
(Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2,
1: 738. 1840),
based on
Gnaphalium conglobatum Viv.
(Fl. Libyc. Spec.:
55. 1824),
and not
H. barrelieri (Ten.) Greuter
(in Boissiera
13: 138. 1967), based on
G. barrelieri
Ten.
(Fl. Napol.
5: 220. 1835–1838).
Ex. 5.
Magnolia virginiana var.
foetida L.
(Sp. Pl.:
536. 1753)
when raised to specific
rank is called
M. grandiflora L.
(Syst. Nat., ed. 10:
1082. 1759),
not
M. foetida (L.) Sarg.
(in Gard. & Forest
2: 615. 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
or protection (see Art.
14
and
F.2)
or where Art.
11.7,
11.8,
19.4,
56,
57,
F.3,
or
F.7 apply.
Ex. 6.
When
Aesculus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
344. 1753),
Pavia Mill.
(Gard. Dict. Abr.,
ed. 4:
Pavia.
1754),
Macrothyrsus Spach
(in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2,
2: 61. 1834), and
Calothyrsus
Spach
(l.c.: 62.
1834)
are referred to a single genus, its correct name is
Aesculus.
11.4.
For any taxon below the rank of genus,
the correct name is the com-
bination of the final epithet
of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon
at
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,
56,
57,
F.2,
F.3,
or
F.7, or
(b) if Art. 11.7,
11.8,
22.1, or
26.1
rules that a different
combination be used,
or
(c)
if the resulting combination
could not be val-
idly published under Art.
32.1(c)
or would be illegitimate under Art.
53.
If
(c) applies,
the final epithet
of the next earliest
legitimate name
at the same
rank is to be used instead or,
if there is no final epithet
available, a replace-
ment name
or the name
of a new taxon
may be published.
Ex. 7.
Primula sect.
Dionysiopsis Pax
(in Jahresber. Schles.
Ges. Vaterländ.
Kul-
tur
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.
(Sp. Pl.:
613. 1753)
when transferred to
Linaria Mill. is
called
L. spuria (L.) Mill.
(Gard. Dict., ed. 8:
Linaria
No. 15. 1768).
33 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 33 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
11 | Priority |
Ex. 9.
When transferring
Serratula chamaepeuce L.
(Sp. Pl.:
819. 1753) to
Ptilostemon
Cass.,
Cassini illegitimately (Art.
52.1)
named the species
P. muticus Cass.
(in Cuvier,
Dict. Sci. Nat.
44: 59. 1826). In
Ptilostemon, the correct name is
P. chamaepeuce (L.)
Less.
(Gen. Cynaroceph.:
5. 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.
tai-
toensis because
R. taitoensis Hayata
(in J. Coll. Sci. Imp.
Univ. Tokyo
30(1): 96. 1911)
has priority over
R. aculeatiflorus Hayata
(Icon. Pl. Formosan.
5: 39. 1915).
Ex. 11.
When transferring
Spartium biflorum Desf.
(Fl. Atlant.
2: 133. 1798) to
Cytisus
Desf.,
Ball correctly proposed the replacement name
C. fontanesii Spach ex Ball
(in
J. Linn. Soc., Bot.
16: 405. 1878)
because of the previously and validly published
C. bi-
florus L’Hér.
(Stirp. Nov.:
184. 1791);
the combination
C. biflorus based on
S. biflorum
would be illegitimate under Art.
53.1.
Ex. 12.
Spergula stricta Sw.
(in Kongl. Vetensk. Acad.
Nya Handl.
20: 235. 1799)
when
transferred to
Arenaria L. is called
A. uliginosa Schleich. ex Schltdl.
(in Mag. Neuesten
Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk.
Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin
7: 207.
1808)
because of the
existence of the name
A. stricta Michx.
(Fl. Bor.-Amer.
1: 274. 1803),
based on a dif-
ferent 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
(in J. Bot.
37: 320. 1899).
Ex. 13.
Arum dracunculus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
964. 1753)
when transferred to
Dracunculus Mill.
is named
D. vulgaris Schott
(Melet. Bot.
1: 17. 1832).
The use of the Linnaean epithet
in Dracunculus would result in a tautonym (Art.
23.4), which would not be validly
published (Art.
32.1(c)).
Ex. 14.
Cucubalus behen L.
(Sp. Pl.:
414. 1753)
when transferred to
Behen Moench was
legitimately renamed
B. vulgaris Moench
(Methodus:
709. 1794)
to avoid the tautonym
“B. behen”. In
Silene L., the epithet
behen
is unavailable because of the existence of
S. behen L.
(Sp. Pl.:
418. 1753).
Therefore, the replacement name
S. cucubalus Wibel
(Prim. Fl. Werth.:
241. 1799)
was proposed.
This, however, is illegitimate (Art.
52.1)
because
the specific epithet
vulgaris was available.
In
Silene,
the correct name of the
species is
S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke
(Fl. N. Mitt.-Deutschland,
ed. 9: 64. 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 vari-
etal 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. Årsskr. 1945(7): 276. 1945).
However, if
T. britannicus Ronniger
(in Repert. Spec. Nov.
Regni Veg.
20: 330. 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”).
34 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 34 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Priority | 11 |
Ex. 17.
Transfer of
Polypodium tenerum Roxb.
(in Calcutta J. Nat. Hist.
4: 490. 1844) to
Cyclosorus Link
(Hort. Berol.
2: 128. 1833)
would result in a later homonym due to the
existence of
C. tener (Fée) Christenh.
(in Bot. J. Linn. Soc.
161: 250. 2009), based on
Goniopteris tenera Fée
(Mém. Foug.
11: 60. 1866).
The correct name is a heterotypic
synonym,
C. ciliatus (Wall. ex Benth.) Panigrahi
(in Res. J. Pl. Environm. 9: 66. 1993),
based on the next earliest legitimate name
of the taxon at the same rank,
Aspidium cili-
atum
Wall. ex Benth.
(Fl. Hongkong.:
455. 1861).
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.
18.
Tausch included two species in his new genus
Alkanna: A. tinctoria Tausch
(in Flora 7:
234. 1824),
a new species based on
“Anchusa tinctoria” in the sense of
Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl.,
ed. 2: 192. 1762), and
A. matthioli Tausch
(l.c.
1824),
a replacement
name based on
Lithospermum tinctorium L.
(Sp. Pl.:
132. 1753).
Both names are legiti-
mate
and take priority from 1824.
Ex.
19.
Raymond-Hamet transferred to the genus
Sedum both
Cotyledon sedoides DC.
(in Mém. Agric. Econ.
Soc. Agric. Seine
11: 11. 1808) and
Sempervivum sedoides Decne.
(in Jacquemont,
Voy. Inde 4(Bot.):
63. 1844).
He combined the epithet of the later name,
Sempervivum sedoides, under
Sedum, as
S. sedoides (Decne.) Raym.-Hamet
(in Can-
dollea
4: 26. 1929),
and published a replacement name,
S. candollei Raym.-Hamet
(l.c.
1929),
for the earlier name.
Both of Raymond-Hamet’s names are legitimate.
11.5.
When, for any taxon
at
the rank of family or below,
a choice is pos-
sible
between legitimate names of equal priority
at the corresponding rank,
or between available final epithets of names
of equal priority
at 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.
F.5A.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
their
homotypic (nomen-
clatural) synonyms.
Ex.
20.
When
Dentaria L.
(Sp. Pl.:
653. 1753) and
Cardamine L.
(l.c.:
654. 1753) are
united, the resulting genus is called
Cardamine because that name was chosen by
Crantz
(Cl. Crucif. Emend.:
126. 1769),
who first united them.
Ex.
21.
When
Claudopus Gillet
(Hyménomycètes:
426. 1876),
Eccilia (Fr. : Fr.)
P. Kumm.
(Führer Pilzk.:
23. 1871),
Entoloma (Fr. ex Rabenh.) P. Kumm.
(l.c.: 23. 1871),
Leptonia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm.
(l.c.: 24. 1871), and
Nolanea (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm.
(l.c.: 24.
1871)
are united, one of the
four generic names
simultaneously published by Kummer
must be used for the combined genus.
Donk (in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg, ser. 3,
35 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 35 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
11 | Priority |
18(1): 157. 1949) selected
Entoloma, which is therefore treated
as having priority over
the other names.
Ex.
22.
Brown
(in Tuckey, Narr. Exped. Zaire:
484. 1818)
was the first to unite
Walthe-
ria americana L.
(Sp. Pl.: 673. 1753)
and
W. indica L.
(l.c. 1753).
He adopted the name
W. indica for the combined species,
and this name is accordingly treated as having
priority over
W. americana.
Ex.
23.
Baillon
(in Adansonia 3: 162. 1863),
when uniting for the first time
Sclerocro-
ton integerrimus Hochst.
(in Flora
28: 85. 1845)
and
S. reticulatus Hochst.
(l.c. 1845),
adopted the name
Stillingia integerrima (Hochst.) Baill.
for the combined taxon. Con-
sequently
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.
24.
Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl.: 902. 1753)
simultaneously published the names
Verbesina
alba and
V. prostrata.
Later
(Mant. Pl.: 286. 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.
25.
Donia speciosa and
D. formosa,
which were simultaneously published by Don
(Gen. Hist.
2: 468. 1832),
were illegitimately renamed
Clianthus oxleyi and
C. dampieri,
respectively, by Lindley
(in Trans. Hort. Soc. London,
ser. 2, 1: 522. 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.
(Syn. Mitteleur. Fl.
6(2): 725. 1909),
published with
D. speciosa and
C. dam-
pieri listed as synonyms,
is an illegitimate later homonym of
C. speciosus (Endl.) Steud.
(Nomencl. Bot.,
ed. 2, 1: 384. 1840);
again, conditions for a choice under Art. 11.5 were
not satisfied. Ford & Vickery
(in Contr. New South Wales
Natl. Herb. 1: 303. 1950)
published the legitimate combination
C. formosus (G. Don) Ford & Vickery and cited
D. formosa and
D. speciosa as synonyms, but
because
the epithet of the latter was
unavailable in
Clianthus
Sol. ex Lindl.
a choice was not possible and again Art. 11.5
does not apply.
Thompson
(in Telopea 4: 4. 1990)
was the first to effect an acceptable
choice when publishing the combination
Swainsona formosa (G. Don) Joy Thomps. and
indicating that
D. speciosa was a synonym of it.
11.6.
An autonym is treated as having priority
over the name(s) of the
same date and rank that
upon their valid
publication established
the auto-
nym (see Art.
22.3 and
26.3).
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.
26.
The publication of
Synthyris subg.
Plagiocarpus Pennell (in Proc. Acad. Nat.
Sci. Philadelphia 85: 86. 1933)
simultaneously established the autonym
Synthyris
Benth.
(in Candolle,
Prodr.
10: 454. 1846)
subg.
Synthyris. If
Synthyris, including subg.
36 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 36 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Priority | 11 |
Plagiocarpus, is recognized as a subgenus of
Veronica L.
(Sp. Pl.:
9. 1753),
the correct
name is
V. subg.
Synthyris (Benth.) M. M. Mart. Ort. & al.
(in Taxon
53: 440. 2004),
which has precedence over a combination in
Veronica based on
S. subg.
Plagiocarpus.
Ex.
27.
Heracleum sibiricum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
249. 1753)
includes
H. sibiricum subsp.
lecokii
(Godr. & Gren.) Nyman
(Consp. Fl. Eur.:
290. 1879) and
H. sibiricum subsp.
sibiricum
automatically established at the same time. When
H. sibiricum, so circumscribed, is
included in
H. sphondylium L.
(l.c. 1753) as a
single 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.
28.
The publication of
Salix tristis var.
microphylla Andersson
(Salices Bor.-Amer.:
21. 1858)
simultaneously
established the autonym
S. tristis Aiton
(in Hort. Kew.
3: 393.
1789)
var.
tristis. If
S. tristis, including var.
microphylla, is recognized as a variety of
S. humilis Marshall
(Arbust. Amer.:
140. 1785),
the correct name is
S. humilis var.
tristis
(Aiton) Griggs
(in Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci.
4: 301. 1905).
However, if both
these 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 used.
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
Polysphaeridium zoharyi
(M. Rossignol) J. P. Bujak & al. (in Special
Pap. Palaeontol. 24: 34. 1980), based on
Hystrichosphaeridium zoharyi M. Rossignol
(in Pollen & Spores 4: 132. 1962),
may be retained for a fossil-species of cysts even
though cysts of the same kind are known
to be part of the life cycle of the non-fossil
species
Pyrodinium bahamense L. Plate
(in Arch. Protistenk. 7: 427. 1906).
Ex. 30.
Reid (in Nova Hedwigia 29: 429–462. 1977)
indicated that his new fossil-spe-
cies
Votadinium calvum was the resting cyst
of the non-fossil dinoflagellate
Peridinium
oblongum (Auriv.) Cleve
(in Kongl. Svenska
Vetensk. Acad. Handl.,
n.s., 32(8): 20.
1900).
Votadinium calvum can be used as the correct name
for the cyst fossil-species be-
cause it has a fossil type
and therefore does not compete for priority with
P. oblongum.
11.8.
Names of organisms (diatoms excepted)
based on a non-fossil type
are treated as having priority over names
at the same rank
based on a fos-
sil type
where these names
are treated
as synonyms for
a non-fossil taxon.
Ex. 31.
If
Platycarya Siebold & Zucc.
(in Abh. Math.-Phys.
Cl. Königl. Bayer. Akad.
Wiss. 3: 741. 1843),
based on a non-fossil
type, and
Petrophiloides Bowerb.
(Hist. Fruits
London Clay:
43. 1840),
based on a fossil
type, are
treated as
heterotypic synonyms
for a non-fossil
genus,
the name
Platycarya is correct
even
though it is antedated by
Petrophiloides.
Ex. 32.
The generic name
Metasequoia Miki
(in Jap. J. Bot.
11: 261. 1941)
was based
on the fossil type of
M. disticha (Heer) Miki.
After discovery of the non-fossil spe-
cies
M. glyptostroboides Hu & W. C. Cheng, conservation of
Metasequoia Hu & W. C.
Cheng
(in Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol.,
Bot., ser. 2,
1: 154. 1948)
as based on the non-fossil
type was approved.
Otherwise, any new generic name based on
M. glyptostroboides
would have
been
treated as having priority over
Metasequoia Miki.
37 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 37 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
11 | Priority |
Ex. 33.
Hyalodiscus Ehrenb.
(in Ber. Bekanntm. Verh.
Königl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.
Ber-
lin
1845: 71. 1845),
based on the fossil type of
H. laevis Ehrenb.
(l.c.: 78. 1845),
is the
name of a diatom genus
that includes non-fossil species.
If later synonymous generic
names based on a non-fossil type exist,
they are not treated as having priority over
Hyalodiscus
because Art. 11.8
excepts diatoms.
Ex. 34.
Boalch & Guy-Ohlson
(in Taxon
41: 529–531. 1992)
synonymized
the two non-
diatom algal generic names
Pachysphaera Ostenf.
(in Knudsen & Ostenfeld, Iagtt.
Overfladevand. Temp. Salth.
Plankt.
1898: 52. 1899) and
Tasmanites E. J. Newton
(in
Geol. Mag.
12: 341. 1875).
Pachysphaera is based on a non-fossil type and
Tasmanites
on a fossil type. Under the
Code in effect in 1992,
Tasmanites had priority
and was
therefore adopted.
Under the current Art. 11.8,
which excepts only diatoms and not
algae in general,
Pachysphaera is
the
correct name
for a non-fossil
genus
for which both
of these names are treated
as heterotypic synonyms.
Ex. 35.
The non-fossil species
Gonyaulax ellegaardiae K. N. Mertens & al. (in
J. Phycol. 51: 563. 2015) was indicated in the protologue
to produce a cyst correspond-
ing
to the fossil-species
Spiniferites pachydermus (M. Rossignol) P. C. Reid
(in Nova
Hedwigia 25: 607. 1974).
Both names were correct because Mertens & al. did not treat
them as synonyms.
However, if these names are treated
as synonyms for the non-fossil
species,
G. ellegaardiae
is treated as having priority
even though it is antedated by
S. pachydermus.
Note 5.
In accordance with Art.
53,
later homonyms are illegitimate whether
the type is fossil or non-fossil.
Ex.
36.
Endolepis Torr.
(in Pacif. Railr. Rep.
12(2, 2): 47.
1860–1861),
based on a
non-fossil type,
is an illegitimate later homonym of
Endolepis Schleid.
(in Schmid &
Schleiden, Geognos. Verhältnisse
Saalthales Jena: 72. 1846),
based on a fossil type.
Ex.
37.
Cornus paucinervis Hance
(in J. Bot.
19: 216. 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.
38.
Ficus crassipes F. M. Bailey
(Rep. Pl. Prelim.
Gen. Rep. Bot.
Meston’s Exped.
Bellenden-Ker Range:
2. 1889),
F. tiliifolia Baker
(in J. Linn. Soc., Bot.
21: 443. 1885),
and
F. tremula Warb.
(in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
20: 171. 1894),
each based on a non-fossil
type, were illegitimate later homonyms of, respectively,
F. crassipes (Heer) Heer
(Fl.
Foss. Arct.
6(2): 70. 1882),
F. tiliifolia (A. Braun) Heer
(Fl. Tert. Helv.
2: 68. 1856),
and
F. tremula Heer
(in Abh. Schweiz.
Paläontol. Ges.
1: 11. 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
(see
App. V).
11.9.
For purposes of priority, names given to hybrids
are subject to the
same rules
as are those of non-hybrid taxa
at equivalent rank
(but see Art.
H.8).
Ex.
39.
The name
×Solidaster H. R. Wehrh.
(in Bonstedt,
Pareys Blumengärtn.
2: 525.
1932)
has priority over
×Asterago Everett
(in Gard. Chron., ser. 3,
101: 6. 1937)
for the
hybrids between
Aster L. and
Solidago L.
38 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 38 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Priority – Starting-points | 11–13 |
Ex.
40.
Anemone
×hybrida Paxton
(in Paxton’s Mag. Bot.
15: 239. 1849)
has priority
over
A.
×elegans Decne. (pro sp.)
(Rev. Hort. (Paris)
1852: 41. 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.
41.
Camus
(in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927)
published the name
×Agroe-
lymus
E. G. Camus ex A. Camus without a description or diagnosis,
mentioning only
the names of the parent genera
(Agropyron Gaertn. and
Elymus L.).
Because 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 valid publication of
×Agroelymus is 1927, not 1952,
and
therefore it
has priority over
the name
×Elymopyrum Cugnac
(in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat.
Ardennes
33: 14. 1938).
11.10.
The principle of priority
does not apply above the rank of family
(but see Rec.
16A).
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.
14.9
and
14.15).
LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
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 mentioned
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 musco-
rum).
(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).
39 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 39 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
13 | Starting-points |
(d) Fungi (Pre. 8), see Art. F.1.1.
(e) Algae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1). Exceptions:
Nostocaceae homocysteae,
1 January 1892 (Gomont, “Monogra-
phie des Oscillariées”,
in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7,
15: 263–368;
16:
91–264).
The two parts of Gomont’s “Monographie”,
which appeared
in 1892 and 1893, respectively,
are treated as having been published
simultaneously on 1 January 1892.
Nostocaceae heterocysteae,
1 January 1886 (Bornet & Flahault,
“Révision des Nostocacées hétérocystées”,
in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser.
7,
3: 323–381;
4: 343–373;
5: 51–129;
7: 177–262).
The four parts of the
“Révision”,
which appeared in 1886, 1886, 1887, and 1888,
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
and
F.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
(Sp. Pl.:
1106. 1753)
to the
Musci;
because
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.
(Sp. Pl.:
1100. 1753)
is
L. clavatum L.
(l.c.:
1101. 1753),
the type specimen of which
is currently accepted as a pteridophyte.
Accord-
ingly,
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.
40 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 40 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Starting-points – Conservation | 13–14 |
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
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,
because 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.
(Sp. Pl.:
192. 1753)
is not to be altered because Linnaeus spelled it
‘Sideroxylum’ in
Genera plantarum, ed. 5
(p. 89. 1754);
usage of
Brunfelsia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
191. 1753,
orth. cons.,
‘Brunsfelsia’),
which Linnaeus adopted in 1754, has been made
possible only through conservation (see
App. III).
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
and
F.1, this
Code provides,
in
App. II–IV,
lists of names of families, genera, and species
that are con-
served (nomina conservanda) (see Rec.
50E.1).
Conserved names are legiti-
mate even though initially
they may have been illegitimate.
The name of a
subdivision 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
or replaced synonym
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. IV.
Application of conserved
and rejected names
of nothogenera is
determined by a statement
of parentage
(Art.
H.9.1).
41 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 41 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
14 | Conservation |
14.4.
A conserved name of a family or genus
is conserved against all other
names
at the same rank
with the same type
(homotypic, i.e. nomenclatural,
synonyms, which are to be rejected)
whether or not these are cited in the
corresponding list as rejected names,
and against those names
with
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
because that name
is not “a combination based on a
rejected name” (Art. 14.4).
Ex. 1.
Rejection of
Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) H. Karst.
(Deut. Fl.:
966. 1882) in
favour of
L. esculentum Mill.
(Gard. Dict., ed. 8:
Lycopersicon
No.
1.
1768)
does not
preclude the use of the homotypic
Solanum lycopersicum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
185. 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.
(Gen. N. Amer. Pl.
1: 211. 1818)
is united with
Berberis L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
330. 1753),
the combined genus will bear the prior name
Berberis, although
Maho-
nia is conserved and
Berberis is not.
Ex. 3.
Nasturtium
W. T. Aiton
(Hort. Kew.,
ed. 2, 4:
109. 1812)
was conserved only
against the homonym
Nasturtium Mill.
(Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4:
Nasturtium. 1754) and
the homotypic (nomenclatural) synonym
Cardaminum Moench
(Methodus: 262. 1794);
consequently if reunited with
Rorippa Scop.
(Fl. Carniol.:
520. 1760)
it must bear the
name
Rorippa.
Ex. 4.
Combretaceae R. Br.
(Prodr.:
351. 1810)
is conserved against the unlisted earlier
heterotypic name
Terminaliaceae J. St.-Hil.
(Expos. Fam. Nat.
1: 178. 1805).
————————————
1
The
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature uses the terms “objective
synonym” and “subjective synonym”
for homotypic and heterotypic synonym,
respectively.
42 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 42 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Conservation | 14 |
14.6.
When a name of a taxon has been conserved
against an earlier
heterotypic 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.
Ex. 5.
The generic name
Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav.
(Fl. Peruv.
3: 65. 1802)
is conserved
against the earlier names
Enargea Banks ex Gaertn.
(Fruct. Sem. Pl.
1: 283. 1788)
and
Callixene Comm. ex Juss.
(Gen. Pl.:
41. 1789).
If, however,
Enargea is considered to be
a separate genus, the name
Enargea is retained for it.
Ex. 6.
To preserve the name
Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook
(in Science, n.s.,
12:
479. 1900),
its basionym
Oreodoxa regia Kunth
(in Humboldt & al.,
Nov. Gen. Sp. 1,
ed. qu.: 305; ed. fol.:
244. 1816)
is conserved against
Palma elata W. Bartram
(Trav-
els Carolina:
iv,
115–116. 1791).
However, the name
R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper
(in Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington
59: 29. 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
(Miers) Baill.
(Hist. Pl.
10: 54. 1888)
is conserved against
Dendro-
sicus Raf.
(Sylva Tellur.:
80. 1838),
but not against
Amphitecna Miers
(in Trans. Linn.
Soc. London 26:
163. 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. fruticosus
L’Hér.
This proposal was approved by the appropriate
committees
and by an Interna-
tional Botanical Congress
(see
App. III).
14.9.
A name may be conserved with a different type
from that desig-
nated by the author
or determined by application of the
Code (see also
Art.
10.4).
Such a name may be conserved either
(a)
from its place of
valid publication
(even though the type may not then have been included
in the named taxon) or
(b)
from a later publication by an author who did
include the type as conserved. In the
second case the name as conserved
is treated as validly published
in the later publication,
whether or not the
name as conserved
was accompanied by a description
or diagnosis of the
taxon named; the original name
and the name as conserved
are treated as
homonyms (see Art.
14.10).
43 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 43 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
14 | Conservation |
Ex. 9.
Bromus sterilis L.
(Sp. Pl.:
77. 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.
(Sp. Pl.:
94. 1753)
did not include the conserved type of the generic
name,
P. cynaroides (L.) L.
(Mant. Pl.:
190. 1771),
which in 1753 was placed in the
genus
Leucadendron.
Protea was therefore conserved
from the 1771 publication, and
Protea L.
(Mant. Pl.:
187. 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
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
(Hort. Kew.
3: 496. 1789),
conserved against
Damapana Adans.
(Fam. Pl.
2: 323,
548. 1763),
is conserved automatically against
the earlier, listed homonym
Smithia Scop.
(Intr. Hist. Nat.:
322. 1777). –
Blumea DC.
(in Arch. Bot. (Paris)
2: 514. 1833)
is conserved automatically against
Blumea Rchb.
(Consp. Regn. Veg.:
209. 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
(in Ann. Sci. Nat.,
Bot., ser. 2,
12: 44. 1839),
has been conserved against the original spelling
‘Rhodomenia’,
used by
Greville
(Alg. Brit.:
xlviii,
84. 1830).
The name is 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;
see also Art.
F.4,
F.5.1,
F.5.2, and
H.9;
but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14).
14.12.
The lists of conserved names
will remain permanently open for
additions and changes.
Any proposal of an additional name must be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the cases
both for and against conserva-
tion.
Such proposals must be submitted
to the General Committee which
will refer them for examination to the
specialist committees
for the various
taxonomic groups
(see Rec. 14A, Div. III Prov.
2.2,
7.9, and
7.10;
see also
Art.
34.1 and
56.2).
44 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 44 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Conservation | 14 |
14.13. Entries of conserved names may not be deleted.
Ex. 13.
In the
Seattle
Code
of 1972
(p. 254),
“Alternaria
C. G. Nees ex Wallroth,
Fl.
Crypt. Germ.
148. 1833” was
listed as conserved against
“Macrosporium
E. M. Fries,
Syst. Mycol. 3: 373.
1832” because
Macrosporium Fr.
antedated
Alternaria
“C. G.
Nees ex Wallroth”
in relation to
the then starting-point work for fungi
(Fries,
Systema
mycologicum, vol. 1,
1 January 1821).
Conservation
became unnecessary
following the
abolition of later starting-point dates for fungi
at the Sydney Congress of 1981 and
in the
Sydney
Code
of 1983, which resulted in
Alternaria
being recognized
as hav-
ing
been validly published
by Nees
(Syst. Pilze:
72. 1816).
In addition,
it was realized
that
Alternaria
had been adopted by Fries
in the introduction to the sanctioning work
(Syst. Mycol.
1: xlvi. 1821; Art.
F.3.1).
Because
the entry cannot be deleted,
Alternaria
Nees
: Fr.
continues to be listed in
App. III,
but without a corresponding rejected name.
14.14.
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
otherwise such a name
would not be validly published
or when it is a later
isonym.
14.15.
When a proposal for the conservation
(Art. 14)
or protection (Art.
F.2)
of a name has been approved by the General Committee
after study
by the
specialist committee
for the taxonomic group concerned, retention
of that name
as approved
is authorized subject to the decision of a later
International Botanical Congress (see also Art.
34.2 and
56.3).
Before 1
January 1954,
conservation takes effect
on the date of decision
by the rel-
evant
International Botanical Congress.
On or after that date,
conservation
or protection
takes effect on the date
of effective publication
(Art. 29–31) of
the General Committee’s
approval.
Note 4.
The effective dates for
International Botanical Congress (IBC) deci-
sions on conservation of names made
before 1954 are as follows:
(a) Conservation of names
in the 1906
Vienna
Rules
became effective on
17 June 1905 at the II IBC in Vienna
(see Verh. Int. Bot. Kongr. Wien
1905: 135–137. 1906).
(b) Conservation of names in the
1912
Brussels
Rules became effective
on 18 May 1910 at the III IBC in Brussels
(see Actes
Congr. Int. Bot.
Bruxelles 1910:
67–83. 1912).
(c) Conservation of names
in the 1952
Stockholm
Code include:
(1) those
of the Special Committee for Phanerogamae
and Pteridophyta, which
became effective on 1 June 1940
under the authority of the VI IBC held
in Amsterdam in 1935
(see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew
1940: 81–134);
45 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 45 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
14–14A | Conservation |
(2) those of the Special Committee for Fungi,
which became effective
on 20 July 1950 at the VII IBC in Stockholm
(see Regnum Veg.
1:
549–550. 1953).
The date, from 1954 onward,
of the General Committee’s approval of a
particular conservation or protection proposal
can be determined by con-
sulting the
International Code of Nomenclature
for algae, fungi, and plants
Appendices database
(http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/index
.cfm).
14A.1.
When a proposal for the conservation
(Art. 14)
or protection (Art.
F.2) of a
name has been referred to the appropriate
specialist committee
for study, authors
should follow existing usage of names
as far as possible pending the General
Committee’s recommendation on the proposal
(see also Rec.
34A and
56A).
(SANCTIONED NAMES)
46 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 46 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Higher taxa | 16 |
NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK
NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
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.
10.10),
formed from
a
generic
name
in the same way as family names (Art.
18.1;
but see Art. 16.4) by add-
ing 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 dif-
ferent ranks
(see also Art.
6
Note 3).
Ex. 1.
Automatically typified names
above the rank of family:
Lycopodiophyta,
formed
from
Lycopodium;
Magnoliophyta,
from
Magnolia;
Gnetophytina,
from
Gnetum;
Pinopsida,
from
Pinus;
Marattiidae,
from
Marattia;
Caryophyllidae and
Caryophyl-
lales,
from
Caryophyllus;
Fucales,
from
Fucus;
Bromeliineae,
from
Bromelia.
Ex. 2.
Descriptive names above the rank of family:
Angiospermae,
Anthophyta,
Asco-
mycetes,
Ascomycota, Ascomycotina,
Centrospermae,
Chlorophyta,
Coniferae, Enan-
tioblastae, Gymnospermae,
Lycophyta, Parietales.
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
formed from
the same generic name (see also
Art. 16.4)
as the corresponding higher-ranked name.
47 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 47 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
16 | Higher taxa |
Ex. 3.
Pteridophyta
Schimp.
(in Zittel, Handb. Palaeont.,
Palaeophyt.: 1. 1879) and
Pteridophytina B. Boivin
(in Bull. Soc. Bot. France
103: 493. 1956);
Gnetopsida
Prantl
(Lehrb. Bot.,
ed. 5: 194. 1883) and
Gnetidae
Pax
(in Prantl, Lehrb. Bot.,
ed. 9: 210.
1894);
Liliales Perleb
(Lehrb. Naturgesch.
Pflanzenr.: 129. 1826) and
Liliineae Rchb.
(Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch:
xxxvii. 1841).
16.3.
Automatically typified names end as follows:
the name of a division
or phylum ends in
-phyta, unless it is referable to the fungi
in which case it
ends in
-mycota;
the name of a subdivision
or subphylum ends in
-phytina,
unless it is referable to the fungi
in which case it ends in
-mycotina; the
name of a class in the algae ends in
-phyceae, and of a subclass in
-phyci-
dae;
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
with
a
termination
not in accordance with this rule or Art. 17.1
are to be corrected,
without change of authorship
or date of publication (see Art.
32.2).
How-
ever, if such names are published
with a non-Latin termination they are not
validly published.
Ex. 4.
‘Cacteae’
Juss. ex Bercht. & J. Presl
(Přir. Rostlin: 238. 1820,
formed from
Cac-
tus
L.) and
‘Coriales’ Lindl.
(Nix. Pl.: 11. 1833,
formed from
Coriaria
L.),
both pub-
lished for taxa
at the rank of order,
are to be corrected to
Cactales
Juss. ex Bercht. &
J. Presl
(1820) and
Coriariales Lindl. (1833), respectively.
Ex. 5.
Ptéridées
(Kirschleger, Fl. Alsace 2:
379.
1853–Jul 1857),
published for a taxon
at
the rank of order, is not to be accepted as
“Pteridales
Kirschl.”
because it has a French
rather than a Latin termination.
The name
Pteridales
was later validly published by
Doweld
(Prosyll. Tracheophyt.,
Tent. Syst. Pl. Vasc.:
xi. 2001).
Note 1.
The terms “divisio” and “phylum”,
and their equivalents in modern
languages,
are treated as referring to one and the same rank
(Art.
3.1).
When “divi-
sio” 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.
37.8;
see also 37
Note
1).
16.4.
At ranks
higher than order, the word elements
-clad-, -cocc-, -cyst-,
-monad-, -mycet-,
-nemat-, or
-phyt-,
which are
genitive singular stems 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
(in Regnum Veg.
103: 78. 1980)
was indicated by its author to be
formed from
Raphidomonas F. Stein
(Organismus
Infus. 3(1): x,
69,
152, 153. 1878).
The name
Saccharomycetes G. Winter
(Rabenh.
Krypt.-Fl., ed. 2,
1(1): 32. 1880)
is regarded as being
formed from
Saccharomyces
Meyen
(in Arch. Naturgesch.
4: 100. 1838).
The name
Trimerophytina H. P. Banks (in
48 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 48 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Higher taxa – Families | 16–18 |
Taxon 24:
409. 1975)
was indicated by its author to be
formed from
Trimerophyton
Hopping
(in Proc. Roy. Soc.
Edinburgh, B, Biol.
66: 25. 1956).
Note 2.
The principle of priority
does not apply above the rank of family (Art.
11.10;
but see Rec.
16A).
16A.1.
In choosing among typified names
for a taxon above the rank of family,
authors should generally
follow the principle of priority.
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.
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 family.
NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
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 anal-
ogy with classical names
is insufficient to determine the genitive singular,
-aceae is added to the full word.
Likewise, when formation from the geni-
tive singular of a generic name
results in a homonym,
-aceae may be added
to the nominative singular.
For generic names with alternative genitives the
49 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 49 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
18 | Families |
one implicitly used by the original author
must be maintained, except that
the genitive of names ending in
-opsis is always
-opsidis.
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,
genitive singular:
Rosae),
Salicaceae (from
Salix, Salicis),
Plumbaginaceae
(from
Plumbago, Plumbaginis),
Rhodophyllaceae (from
Rhodophyllus, Rhodophylli),
Rhodophyllidaceae (from
Rhodophyllis, Rhodophyllidos),
Sclerodermataceae (from
Scleroderma, Sclerodermatos),
Aextoxicaceae (from
Aextoxicon, Aextoxicou),
Potamo-
getonaceae (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),
Gink-
goaceae (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.
(Gen. Pl.:
310. 1789)
formed from
Cactus L.
(Sp. Pl.: 466. 1753),
a generic name now rejected in favour of
Mammillaria Haw.
(Syn. Pl. Succ.:
177. 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.
(Gen. Pl.:
26. 1789),
Lobeliaceae Juss.
(in Bonpland, Descr. Pl.
Malmaison:
[19]. 1813),
and
Xylomataceae Fr.
(Scleromyceti Sveciae 2:
p. post titulum.
1820) were published as “ordo
Cyperoideae”, “ordo naturalis
Lobeliaceae”, and “ordo
Xylomaceae”, 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 přirozenosti
rostlin ... 1820)
are not to be treated as having been published
at the rank of family,
because
the term family (“čeled”)
was sometimes used to denote a rank below order.
18.3.
A name of a family
formed from
an illegitimate generic name
is
illegitimate unless
and until it or the generic name
from
which it is
formed
is conserved.
50 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 50 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Families | 18 |
Ex. 6.
Caryophyllaceae Juss.
(Gen. Pl.: 299. 1789),
nom. cons., formed from
Caryophyl-
lus Mill. non
L.;
Winteraceae R. Br. ex Lindl.
(Intr. Nat. Syst.
Bot.: 26. 1830),
nom.
cons., formed from
Wintera Murray,
an illegitimate replacement name for
Drimys J. R.
Forst. & G. Forst.
Ex. 7.
Nartheciaceae Fr. ex Bjurzon
(Skand. Vaxtfam.:
64. 1846),
formed from
Narthe-
cium Huds., nom. cons.
(Fl. Angl.:
127. 1762),
became legitimate when the generic
name was conserved
against
its earlier homonym
Narthecium Gérard
(Fl. Gallo-Prov.:
142. 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 authorship 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’
Kütz.
(Kieselschal. Bacill.:
130. 1844),
published to designate
a family,
is to be accepted as
Coscinodiscaceae Kütz.
(1844) and not attributed to De
Toni, who first used the correct termination
(in Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).
Ex. 9.
‘Atherospermeae’
R. Br.
(in Flinders,
Voy. Terr. Austral.
2: 553. 1814),
pub-
lished
to designate a family, is to be accepted as
Atherospermataceae R. Br.
(1814) and
not attributed to Airy Shaw
(in Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl., ed. 7: 104. 1966),
who first used
the correct spelling,
nor to Lindley
(Veg. Kingd.:
300. 1846),
who used the spelling
‘Atherospermaceae’.
Ex. 10.
Tricholomées
(Roze in
Bull. Soc. Bot. France
23: 49. 1876),
published to desig-
nate a family, is not to be accepted as
“Tricholomataceae Roze”
because
it has a French
rather than a Latin termination. The name
Tricholomataceae was validly published by
Pouzar
(in Česká Mykol.
37: 175. 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
Papilion-
aceae 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.
51 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 51 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
19 | Subdivisions of families |
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.
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.
The name of
a tribe
or
subtribe is
formed in
the same manner
as the
name of a subfamily
(Art. 19.1),
except that
the termination
is
-eae
for a
tribe and
-inae (but not
-virinae)
for a subtribe.
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
formed
from
the generic name equivalent to that type (Art.
10.9; 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 subfamily
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 notwithstand-
ing.
The subfamily that includes
Rhododendron L. is called
Rhododendroideae Endl.
However, the correct name of the tribe
of
Ericaceae
that includes both
Rhododendron
and
Rhodora L. is
Rhodoreae D. Don
(in Edinburgh New Philos.
J. 17: 152. 1834),
not
Rhododendreae Brongn.
(Énum. Pl. Mus. Paris:
127. 1843).
52 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 52 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Subdivisions of families | 19 |
Note 3.
A name of a subdivision of a family
that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the family
to which it is assigned, but is not formed
from the generic name equivalent to that type,
is incorrect but may nevertheless be
validly published
and may become correct in a different context.
Ex. 5.
When published, the name
Lippieae Endl.
(Gen. Pl.:
633. 1838)
was applied to a
tribe of
Verbenaceae J. St.-Hil. that included
Verbena L., the type of the family name,
as well as
Lippia L. Although originally incorrect,
Lippieae may become correct if used
for a tribe of
Verbenaceae that includes
Lippia but excludes
Verbena.
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
formed from
the generic name equiva-
lent to that type
(Art.
10.9),
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 de-
termined by precedence in
App. IIB
of the corresponding family names.
Ex.
6.
A subfamily assigned to
Rosaceae Juss. that includes
Malus Mill., the type
of
Malaceae Small
(Fl. S.E. U.S.:
495,
529. 1903)
listed in
App. IIB,
is to be called
Maloideae C. Weber
(in J. Arnold Arbor.
45: 164. 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 prec-
edence over
Malaceae.
This is so even if the subfamily also includes
Spiraea L. and/or
Pyrus L. because, although
Spiraeoideae Arn.
(in Hooker & Arnott,
Bot. Beechey Voy.:
107. 1832)
and
Pyroideae Burnett
(Outlines Bot.:
695,
1137. 1835)
were published ear-
lier 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.
(in Hooker & Arnott,
Bot. Beechey Voy.:
107. 1832)
takes precedence
because
Amygdalaceae Marquis
(Esq. Règne Vég.:
49. 1820)
is listed in
App. IIB
with priority
over
Malaceae.
Ex.
7.
Monotropaceae Nutt.
(Gen. N. Amer. Pl.
1: 272. 1818)
and
Pyrolaceae Lindl.
(Syn. Brit. Fl.:
175. 1829)
are both listed in
App. IIB, but
Pyrolaceae is conserved against
Monotropaceae.
Therefore, a subfamily including both
Monotropa L. and
Pyrola L. is
called
Pyroloideae
Beilschm.
(in Flora 16(Beibl. 1):
72,
109. 1833).
19.6.
A name of a subdivision of a family
formed from
an illegitimate
generic name
is illegitimate unless and until that generic name
or the cor-
responding family name is conserved.
Ex.
8.
The name
Caryophylloideae Arn.
(in Hooker & Arnott,
Bot. Beechey Voy.:
99.
1832),
formed from
the illegitimate
Caryophyllus Mill. non L.,
is legitimate because the
corresponding family name,
Caryophyllaceae Juss.,
is conserved.
Ex.
9.
Thunbergioideae T. Anderson
(in Thwaites, Enum.
Pl. Zeyl.:
223. 1860),
formed
from
Thunbergia Retz., nom. cons.
(in Physiogr.
Sälsk. Handl.
1(3): 163. 1780),
became
legitimate when the generic name
was conserved against its earlier homonym
Thunber-
gia Montin
(in Kongl. Vetensk.
Acad. Handl.
34: 288. 1773)
(see
App. III).
53 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 53 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
19–20 | Subdivisions of families – Genera |
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 authorship or date
(see Art.
32.2).
However, if such a
name is published
with a non-Latin termination
it is not validly published.
Ex.
10.
“Climacieae”
(Grout,
Moss Fl. N. Amer.
3: 4. 1928),
published to designate a
subfamily, is to be changed to
Climacioideae Grout (1928).
Ex.
11.
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.”,
be-
cause
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
Papilion-
oideae
may be used as an alternative to
Faboideae.
19A.1.
When a family is changed to the rank
of a subdivision of a family, or the in-
verse change occurs, and no legitimate name
is available
at
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
at the new rank,
its name, Art. 19.5 permitting,
should
be
formed from
the same generic name as the name
at the former rank.
Ex. 1.
The subtribe
Drypetinae Griseb.
(Fl. Brit.
W. I.: 31. 1859)
when raised to the rank of
tribe was named
Drypeteae
Small
(Man. S.E. Fl.:
775. 1933);
the subtribe
Antidesmatinae
Müll. Arg.
(in Linnaea
34: 64. 1865)
when raised to the rank of subfamily was named
Antidesmatoideae Hurus.
(in J. Fac. Sci.
Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 3,
Bot. 6: 322, 340. 1954).
NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA
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.
54 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 54 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Genera | 20 |
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 be-
fore 1 January 1912 and
was accompanied by a species name published in
accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.
Ex. 2.
“Radicula”
(Hill,
Brit. Herb.:
264. 1756)
coincides with the Latin technical term
“radicula” (radicle)
and was not accompanied by a species name
in accordance with
the binary system of Linnaeus.
The name
Radicula is correctly attributed to Moench
(Methodus: 262. 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., Prim. Fl. Holsat.:
109. 1780)
and is there-
fore validly published
even though it coincides with a Latin technical term.
Ex. 4.
The intended generic names
“Lanceolatus” (Plumstead
in Trans. Geol. Soc.
South Africa
55: 299. 1952)
and
“Lobata”
(Chapman
in Trans. Roy. Soc.
New Zea-
land
80: 48. 1952)
coincide with Latin technical terms
and are not therefore validly
published.
Ex. 5.
Cleistogenes Keng
(in Sinensia
5: 147. 1934)
coincides with “cleistogenes”, the
English plural of a technical term in use
at the time of publication.
Keng’s name is
validly published
because the technical term is not Latin.
Kengia Packer
(in Bot. Not.
113: 291. 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
(but see
Art.
60.12
for names of
fossil-genera).
Ex. 7.
“Uva ursi”,
as originally published by Miller
(Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4:
Uva ursi.
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
(Traité
Arbr. Arbust.
2: 371. 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.
55 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 55 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
20–20A | Genera |
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
(see Sprague in Bull.
Misc. Inform. Kew
7: 318–319,
331–334. 1939).
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.
(Descr. Icon. Rar.
Pl.: 12. 1773), nom.
cons., and
Fuirena Rottb.
(l.c.: 70. 1773),
respectively.
(b) Unitary designations of species.
Note 2.
Examples such as
“Leptostachys” and
“Anthopogon”, listed in
edi-
tions of the
Code
prior to the
Tokyo
Code
of 1994
were from publications that are
now suppressed
(see
App.
I).
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.
(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).
56 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 56 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Subdivisions of genera | 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,
series, 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.
53.3),
because
the rank-denoting term
is not
part of the name.
21.2.
The epithet
in the name of a subdivision
of a genus
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
(see Art.
32.2),
but not
a noun in the genitive singular.
It is written with an initial capital letter
(see
Art. 60.2).
Ex. 1.
Euphorbia sect.
Tithymalus,
Ricinocarpos sect.
Anomodiscus;
Pleione subg.
Scopulorum;
Arenaria ser.
Anomalae,
Euphorbia subsect.
Tenellae, Sapium
subsect.
Patentinervia.
Ex. 2.
In
“Vaccinium sect.
Vitis idaea”
(Koch,
Syn. Fl. Germ. Helv.:
474. 1837), the
intended epithet consisted of two separate words
unconnected by a hyphen; this is not
therefore a validly published name (Art.
20.3 and
32.1(c);
“Vitis idæa” is a pre-Linnaean,
binary generic name).
The name is correctly attributed to Gray
(in Mem. Acad. Arts
Sci.,
n.s., 3: 53. 1846) as
Vaccinium sect.
Vitis-idaea (hyphenated when published).
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.
3.
Costus subg.
Metacostus; Valeriana sect.
Valerianopsis; but not
“Carex sect.
Eucarex”.
21.4.
A name with
a binary combination
instead of a subdivisional epithet,
but otherwise
in accordance with this
Code, is
treated as validly published
in the form
determined by Art. 21.1
without change of authorship or date.
Ex. 4.
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.
Names of hybrids
at
the rank of a subdivision of a genus are formed
according to the provisions of Art.
H.7.
57 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 57 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
21A–22 | Subdivisions of genera |
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.
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.
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.
7.7).
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).
58 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 58 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Subdivisions of genera | 22 |
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
because
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.
10.8) 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.
Publica-
tion of
Pseudoyoungia sect.
Simulatrices (Sennikov) D. Maity & Maiti
(in Compositae
Newslett.
48: 31. 2010)
automatically established the autonym
Pseudoyoungia 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.
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
(Suppl. Meth.:
47. 1802),
a later homonym of
Caulinia Willd.
(in Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci. Hist.
(Berlin)
1798: 87.
1801),
he did not establish the autonym
“Caulinia sect.
Caulinia”.
59 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 59 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
22A–23 | Subdivisions of genera – Species |
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.
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.
NAMES OF SPECIES
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 adjec-
tive,
a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition (see
also Art. 23.6).
If
an epithet consisted
originally
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.
60 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 60 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Species | 23 |
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.
(Sp. Pl.:
281. 1753)
when transferred to
Radiola Hill may
not be named
“Radiola
radiola”, as was done by Karsten
(Deut. Fl.:
606. 1882),
be-
cause
that combination is a tautonym
and cannot be validly published.
The next earli-
est name,
L. multiflorum Lam.
(Fl. Franç.
3: 70. 1779), is
an illegitimate superfluous
name for
L. radiola.
Under
Radiola,
the species has been given the legitimate name
R. linoides Roth
(Tent. Fl. Germ.
1: 71. 1788).
23.5.
The specific epithet,
when adjectival in form and not used as a noun,
agrees
with the gender of
the generic name; when
the epithet
is a noun in
apposition
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)
to the proper form
of the termi-
nation
(Latin or transcribed Greek)
of the original author(s).
In particular,
the usage of the word element
-cola as an adjective
is a correctable error.
Ex. 5.
Names with
Latin adjectival epithets:
Helleborus niger L.,
Brassica nigra (L.)
W. D. J. Koch,
Verbascum nigrum L.;
Rumex cantabricus Rech. f.,
Daboecia canta-
brica (Huds.) K. Koch
(Vaccinium cantabricum Huds.);
Vinca major L.,
Tropaeolum
majus L.;
Bromus mollis L.,
Geranium molle L.;
Peridermium balsameum Peck,
de-
rived from the epithet of
Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.
treated as an adjective.
Ex. 6.
Names with transcribed Greek adjectival epithets:
Brachypodium distachyon (L.)
P. Beauv.
(Bromus distachyos L.);
Oxycoccus macrocarpos (Aiton) Pursh
(Vaccinium
macrocarpon Aiton).
Ex.
7.
Names with a noun for an epithet:
Convolvulus cantabrica L.,
Gentiana pneu-
monanthe L.,
Liriodendron tulipifera 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. 8.
Correctable errors in Latin adjectival epithets:
Zanthoxylum trifoliatum L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
270. 1753)
upon transfer to
Acanthopanax (Decne. & Planch.) Miq.
(m, see Art.
62.2(a))
is correctly
A. trifoliatus (L.) Voss
(Vilm. Blumengärtn., ed. 3:
1: 406. 1894,
‘trifoliatum’);
Mimosa latisiliqua L.
(Sp. Pl.:
519. 1753)
upon transfer to
Lysiloma
Benth. (n) is correctly
L. latisiliquum (L.) Benth.
(in Trans. Linn. Soc. London
30: 534.
1875,
‘latisiliqua’);
Corydalis chaerophylla DC.
(Prodr.
1: 128. 1824)
upon transfer to
61 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 61 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
23 | Species |
Capnoides Mill. (f, see Art.
62.4)
is correctly
Capnoides chaerophylla (DC.) Kuntze
(Revis. Gen. Pl.
1: 14. 1891,
‘chaerophyllum’).
Ex. 9.
Correctable errors in transcribed Greek adjectival epithets:
Andropogon dis-
tachyos L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1046. 1753,
‘distachyon’), nom. cons.;
Bromus distachyos L.
(Fl. Pa-
laest.:
13. 1756)
upon transfer to
Brachypodium P. Beauv. (n) is correctly
B. distachyon (L.)
P. Beauv.
(Ess. Agrostogr.:
155. 1812,
‘distachyum’) or to
Trachynia Link (f) is correctly
T. distachyos (L.) Link
(Hort. Berol.
1: 43. 1827,
‘distachya’);
Vaccinium macrocarpon
Aiton
(Hort. Kew.
2: 13. 1789)
upon transfer to
Oxycoccus Hill (m) is correctly
O. macro-
carpos (Aiton) Pursh
(Fl. Amer. Sept.
1: 263. 1813,
‘macrocarpus’) or to
Schollera Roth
(f) is correctly
S. macrocarpos (Aiton) Steud.
(Nomencl. Bot.
746. 1821,
‘macrocarpa’).
Ex.
10.
Correctable errors
in epithets
that are nouns:
the epithet of
Polygonum segetum
Kunth
(in Humboldt & al.,
Nov. Gen. Sp. 2, ed. qu.:
177. 1817)
is a genitive plural noun
(of the corn fields); when Small
(Fl. S.E. U.S.:
378. 1903)
proposed the new combination
Persicaria
‘segeta’,
it was a correctable error for
Persicaria segetum (Kunth) Small.
In
Masdevallia echidna Rchb. f.
(in Bonplandia
3: 69. 1855),
the epithet corresponds
to the generic name of an animal;
when Garay
(in Svensk Bot. Tidskr.
47: 201. 1953)
proposed the new combination
Porroglossum
‘echidnum’,
it was a correctable error for
P. echidna (Rchb. f.) Garay.
Ex.
11.
Correctable error
in the usage of
-cola
as an adjective:
when Blanchard
(in Rho-
dora
8: 170. 1906)
proposed
Rubus
‘amnicolus’,
it was a correctable error for
R. amni-
cola Blanch.
23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as species names:
(a)
Designations consisting of a generic name
followed by a phrase name
(Linnaean “nomen specificum legitimum”)
commonly of one or more
nouns and associated adjectives
in the ablative
case,
but also including
any single-word phrase names
in works in which
phrase names of two
or more words predominate.
Ex.
12.
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.
Ex. 13.
In Miller,
The gardeners dictionary
… abridged, ed. 4 (1754),
phrase names
of two or more words largely predominate
over those that consist of a single word and
that are thereby similar to Linnaean nomina trivialia
(specific epithets) but are not dis-
tinguished
typographically or in any other way from other phrase names.
Therefore,
designations in that work such as
“Alkekengi officinarum”,
“Leucanthemum vulgare”,
“Oenanthe aquatica”, and
“Sanguisorba minor”
are not validly published names.
(b)
Other designations of species consisting
of a generic name followed by
one or more words not intended as a specific epithet.
Ex.
14.
Viola “qualis”
[of what sort]
(Krocker, Fl. Siles.
2: 512,
517. 1790).
Urtica
“dubia?”
[doubtful]
(Forsskål,
Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.:
cxxi. 1775);
the word “dubia?”
was
repeatedly used in Forsskål’s work
for species that could not be reliably identified.
62 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 62 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Species | 23 |
Ex.
15.
Atriplex “nova”
(Winterl,
Index Hort. Bot. Univ. Hung.:
fol. A [8] recto et verso.
1788);
the word “nova” (new)
was here used
in connection with four different species
of
Atriplex.
However, in
Artemisia nova A. Nelson
(in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
27: 274.
1900),
the species
was
newly distinguished
from others
and
nova was intended as a
specific epithet.
Ex.
16.
Cornus “gharaf”
(Forsskål,
Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.:
xci,
xcvi. 1775)
is an interim
designation not intended as a species name.
An interim designation in Forsskål’s work
is an original designation
(for an accepted taxon and not
therefore
a “provisional name”
as defined in Art.
36.1(a)
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
(pp.
c,
cxvi,
127)
this species is not named.
Ex.
17.
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.
: Fr. and
B. ungulatus Schaeff., in the final
volume of the same work
(l.c. 4: 100, 88. 1774).
Ex.
18.
Honckeny (1782; see Art. 46
Ex.
47)
used species designations such as, in
Agros-
tis, “A. Reygeri I.”,
“A. Reyg. II.”, “A. Reyg. III.”
(all referring to species described but
not named in
Reyger,
Tent. Fl. Gedan.:
36–37. 1763),
and also
“A. alpina. II” for a newly
described species following after
A. alpina Scop.
These are informal designations used
for enumeration, not validly published binomials;
they may not be expanded into, e.g.,
“Agrostis reygeri-prima”.
(c)
Designations of species consisting
of a generic name followed by two
or more adjectival words in the nominative case.
Ex.
19.
“Salvia
africana caerulea”
(Linnaeus,
Sp. Pl.:
26. 1753) and
“Gnaphalium
fru-
ticosum 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.
20.
Rhamnus
‘vitis idaea’ Burm. f.
(Fl. Ind.:
61. 1768)
is to be regarded as a species
name
because
the generic name is followed by a noun and an adjective,
both in the nomi-
native case;
these words are to be hyphenated
(R. vitis-idaea)
under the provisions of Art.
23.1 and
60.11.
In
Anthyllis
‘Barba jovis’ L.
(Sp. Pl.:
720. 1753)
the generic name is fol-
lowed
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 scriptus’ L.
(Sp. Pl.:
316. 1753),
where the generic name is followed by a negative particle
and a past participle used as an
adjective,
is corrected to
H. non-scriptus, and
Impatiens
‘noli tangere’ L.
(Sp. Pl.:
938.
1753),
where the generic name is followed by two verbs,
is corrected to
I. noli-tangere.
Ex.
21.
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
60.11.
(d) Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H.10.2).
63 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 63 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
23–23A | Species |
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.
22.
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]
fron-
doso’ L., as
M.
frondosa L.
(Sp. Pl.:
177. 1753
[corr. L.,
Syst. Nat., ed. 10:
931. 1759]).
23.8.
Where the status of a designation of a species
is uncertain under Art.
23.6,
established custom is to be followed
(Pre.13).
*Ex.
23.
Polypodium
‘F. mas’, P.
‘F. femina’, and
P.
‘F. fragile’
(Linnaeus,
Sp. Pl.:
1090–
1091. 1753) are,
in accordance with established custom,
to be treated as
P. filix-mas L.,
P. filix-femina L., and
P. fragile L., respectively.
Likewise,
Cambogia
‘G. gutta’
is to
be treated as
C. gummi-gutta L.
(Gen. Pl.:
[522]. 1754).
The intercalations
“Trich.”
[Trichomanes] and
“M.”
[Melilotus] in the names of Linnaean species of
Asplenium and
Trifolium, respectively,
are to be deleted, so that names in the form
Asplenium
‘Trich.
dentatum’ and
Trifolium
‘M. indica’,
for example, are treated as
A. dentatum L. and
T. indicum L.
Sp. Pl.:
765,
1080. 1753).
23A.1.
Names of persons and also of countries and localities
used in specific 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 desig-
nate
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
that
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,
64 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 64 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Species – Infraspecific taxa | 23A–24 |
travellers’ 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.
NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)
24.1.
The name of an infraspecific taxon
is a combination of the name of
a species and an infraspecific epithet.
A connecting term is used to denote
the rank.
Ex. 1.
Saxifraga aizoon subf.
surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.
This taxon may also be referred
to as
Saxifraga aizoon var.
aizoon subvar.
brevifolia f.
multicaulis subf.
surculosa Engl.
& Irmsch.;
in this way a full classification of the subforma
within the species is given,
not only its name.
24.2.
Infraspecific epithets are formed
like specific epithets and, when
adjectival in form and not used as nouns,
they agree grammatically with
the generic name (see Art.
23.5
and
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,
or with the prefix
eu-, when
pur-
porting to indicate the taxon
containing the type of the name of the next
higher-ranked taxon,
are not validly published unless they
have the same
final epithet
as the name
of the corresponding
higher-ranked taxon
(see
Art.
26.2,
Rec. 26A.1, and
26A.3).
Ex. 3.
“Hieracium piliferum var.
genuinum”
(Rouy,
Fl. France
9: 270. 1905)
was based
on
“H. armerioides var.
genuinum” of Arvet-Touvet
(Hieracium Alpes Franç.:
37. 1888),
a designation not validly published under Art.
26.2.
As circumscribed by Rouy, the taxon
does not include the type of
H. piliferum Hoppe,
but it does include the type of the name
of the next
higher-ranked taxon,
H. piliferum subsp.
armerioides (Arv.-Touv.) Rouy.
Therefore,
“H. piliferum var.
genuinum” is not a validly published name
of a new variety.
Ex. 4.
“Narcissus bulbocodium var.
eu-praecox” and
“N. bulbocodium var.
eu-albidus”
were not validly published by Emberger & Maire
(in Jahandiez & Maire,
Cat. Pl. Maroc:
65 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 65 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
24–24B | Infraspecific taxa |
961. 1941)
because they were placed, respectively, in
N. bulbocodium subsp.
praecox
Gattef. & Maire
(in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat.
Afrique N.
28: 540. 1937)
and
N. bulbocodium
subsp.
albidus (Emb. & Maire) Maire
(in Jahandiez & Maire,
Cat. Pl. Maroc:
138. 1931)
and their epithet purports inclusion of the type
of the higher-ranked name in the sub-
ordinate
variety.
Ex.
5.
“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.
6.
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.
(l.c. 1753).
24.4.
A name with
a binary combination
instead of an infraspecific epithet,
but otherwise
in accordance with this
Code, is
treated
as validly published
in the form
determined
by Art. 24.1
without change of authorship or date.
Ex.
7.
Salvia grandiflora subsp.
“S. willeana”
(Holmboe in
Bergens Mus. Skr., ser. 2,
1(2): 157. 1914)
is to be
altered
to
S. grandiflora subsp.
willeana Holmboe.
Ex.
8.
Phyllerpa prolifera var.
“Ph. firma”
(Kützing,
Sp. Alg.:
495. 1849)
is to be altered
to
P. prolifera var.
firma Kütz.
Ex. 9.
Cynoglossum cheirifolium “β. Anchusa
(lanata)”
(Lehmann,
Pl. Asperif. Nucif.:
141. 1818),
a new combination based on
Anchusa lanata L.
(Syst. Nat.,
ed. 10, 2: 914.
1759),
is to be altered to
C. cheirifolium var.
lanatum (L.) Lehm.
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.
10.
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.
(Sp. Pl.:
934. 1753).
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.
53.3),
because
the rank-denoting term
is not part of the name.
24A.1.
Recommendations made
for forming specific epithets (Rec.
23A)
apply
equally for infraspecific epithets.
24B.1.
Authors proposing new infraspecific names
should avoid final epithets
previously used
as specific epithets in the same genus.
66 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 66 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Infraspecific taxa | 24B–26 |
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.
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.
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.
7.7).
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.
5).
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, legit-
imate 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)
because it included
in synonymy
“F. myuros L.,
Sp. 1, p. 74 (1753)
sensu stricto”,
i.e.
Festuca myuros
L. the basionym of
Vulpia myuros (L.) C. C. Gmel.
Ex. 3.
Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl.:
3. 1753)
recognized two named varieties under
Salicornia eu-
ropaea.
Because
S. europaea has
neither a holotype
nor syntypes,
both varietal names
are validly published
even though
the lectotype of
S. europaea
(designated by Jafri
67 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 67 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
26–26A | Infraspecific taxa |
&
Rateeb
in Jafri & El-Gadi,
Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1979)
can be attributed to
S. europaea
var.
herbacea L.
(l.c. 1753)
and the
varietal name
was subsequently lectotypified
(by
Piirainen
in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 28: 82. 1991)
with
the same specimen as the species name.
Ex. 4.
Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl.:
779–781. 1753)
recognized 13 named varieties under
Medicago
polymorpha.
Because
M. polymorpha L. has neither a holotype nor syntypes,
all vari-
etal names are validly published,
and the lectotype subsequently designated
for the spe-
cies name
(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 vari-
ety,
L. inundatum L. var.
inundatum, the autonym,
the type of which is that of the
name
L. inundatum L. (Art.
7.7).
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.
Because neither
a holotype nor any
syntypes were indicated for
C. mixta,
both varietal names were validly published
(see
Art.
26.2).
Merrick & Bates
(in Baileya 23: 96, 101. 1989),
in the absence of known
type material,
neotypified
C. mixta by an element that can be attributed to
C. mixta var.
stenosperma.
As long as their choice of neotype is followed,
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. argyro-
sperma Huber
(Cat. Graines: 8. 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.
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
at a 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
68 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 68 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Infraspecific taxa | 26A–27 |
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)
because there
was no legitimate
varietal name available.
Ex. 2.
Because
there
was no legitimate
name available at the rank of subspecies,
Bona-
parte made the combination
Pteridium aquilinum subsp.
caudatum (L.) Bonap.
(Notes
Ptérid.
1: 62. 1915),
using the same final epithet that Sadebeck
had used earlier in the
combination
P. aquilinum var.
caudatum (L.) Sadeb.
(in Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst.
Beih. 14(3): 5. 1897)
with both combinations based on
Pteris caudata L.
Each name is
legitimate, and both can be used, as
was done by Tryon
(in Rhodora
43: 52–54. 1941),
who treated
P. aquilinum var.
caudatum as one of four varieties under subsp.
cauda-
tum (see also Art.
36.3).
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.
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
(l.c.: 384.
1927),
which is a later homonym of
A. japonicum (Miq.) P. Candargy
(in Arch. Biol.
Vég. Pure Appl.
1: 42. 1901),
he did not validly publish an autonym
“A. japonicum var.
japonicum” (see also Art. 55
Ex. 3).
69 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 69 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
28 | Cultivated organisms |
NAMES OF ORGANISMS IN CULTIVATION
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
Chapter H
(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
Culti-
vated 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.
(Syst. Nat.
2: 22. 1821)
may be treated as a cultivar,
which
is then designated as
Mahonia ‘Japonica’;
Taxus baccata var.
variegata Weston
(Bot.
Univ.
1: 292, 347. 1770),
when treated as a cultivar, is designated as
Taxus baccata
‘Variegata’.
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
in Folia Dendrol. 10:
292. 1998)
was established
for a tetraploid cultivar presumed to result
from the original
cross between
J. chinensis L. and
J. sabina L.
70 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 70 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Effective publication (Conditions) | 29 |
EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
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
Piromy-
ces polycephalus Y. C. Chen & al.
(in Nova Hedwigia
75: 411. 2002),
was effectively
published when it was issued online
in Portable Document Format with an ISSN on 1
January 2012.
Ex. 2.
Intended nomenclatural novelties by Ruck & al.
(in Molec. Phylogen. Evol.
103:
155–171. 22 Jul 2016)
appeared only in supplementary material
published online in
Microsoft Word document format
and were not therefore effectively published.
These
novelties were effectively published
when they appeared in Portable Document Format
(Ruck & al.
in Notul. Alg.
10: 1–4. 17 Aug 2016),
meeting the requirements of Art. 29.1.
Note 1.
The distribution before 1 January 2012
of electronic material does not
constitute effective publication.
Ex.
3.
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
they were not
effectively published.
Effective publication occurred
when the printed version of the
same volume became available on 11 November 2011.
71 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 71 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
29–29A | Effective publication (Conditions) |
Ex.
4.
The paper in which the diatom
“Tursiocola podocnemicola” was first described
was distributed online on 14 December 2011
as an “iFirst” PDF document (DOI:
https://
doi.org/10.1080/0269249X.2011.642498)
available through the
Diatom Research web-
site
(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 effectively published
on 1 January 2012 merely by remaining available online.
Effective publication occurred on 28 February 2012
upon
distribution of
the printed
version of the journal
in which the name
T. podocnemicola
C. E. Wetzel
(in Diatom Res.
27: 2. 2012) was
validly published.
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 Prov.
7.9)
is acceptable.
Note 2.
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 result in effective 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 was no mention of a journal or ISSN
in the document it-
self, but,
because
it was made accessible through the homepage of
OrchideenJournal
(ISSN 1864-9459), it
could be argued
that it qualified as an “online publication with an
International Standard Serial Number” (Art. 29.1).
However,
the content
of the paper
was 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, trans-
lated 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
because no Latin
or English description or diagnosis was provided.
(The name
was later validated as
D. trigonopetala
Gary Mey. & Baquero
ex A. Doucette in
Phyto-
taxa
74: 59. 9 December 2012.)
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):
72 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 72 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Effective publication (Conditions) | 29A–30 |
(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.
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 its content is
merely
preliminary
and was,
or is to be, replaced by
content
that the publisher
considers final,
in which case only
the
version
with that final
content
is
effectively published.
Ex. 2.
“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 had a header stating
“In Press”,
and on the journal website it
was qualified as
“Preliminary version”, which is clear
evidence
that it was not considered by the publisher as final.
Because
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 104 (print and online):
785. 11
Jun 2012.
Ex. 3.
“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 Jour-
nal of Botany
(ISSN 0002-9122, print; ISSN 1537-2197, online).
Because
the journal
website stated (May 2012)
“AJB Advance Access articles …
have not yet been printed
or posted online by issue” and
“minor corrections may be made before
the issue is re-
leased”, this
was
evidently not considered
the final version by the publisher.
The name
Lycopinae B. T. Drew & Sytsma
was validly published in
Amer. J. Bot.
99: 945. 1 May
2012,
when the printed volume
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
appeared was effectively published online as a PDF
document on 30 March 2012 in its
“final and fully citable” form,
prior to publication
73 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 73 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
30 | Effective publication (Conditions) |
of the printed version (May 2012).
Papers
that appeared
online in the same journal
under the heading “In Press Corrected Proof”
are not effectively published
because
the journal website clearly
stated
“Corrected proofs:
articles that contain the authors’
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.
An electronic publication
may be a final version even if details, e.g.
volume, issue, article, or page numbers,
are to be added or changed, provided that
those details are not part of the content
(see Art. 30.3).
30.3.
Content
of an electronic publication
includes
that which is visible on
the page, e.g.
text,
tables, illustrations, etc.,
but it excludes volume, issue,
article, and
page numbers;
it also excludes
external sources accessed via a
hyperlink or URL (Uniform Resource Locator).
Ex.
5.
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
published together
with 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 just
“… 168 (online): 230. 1 Feb 2012”.
Ex.
6.
The new combination
Rhododendron aureodorsale was made in a paper in
Nor-
dic Journal of Botany
(ISSN 1756-1051, online; ISSN 0107-055X, print),
first effectively
published online
on 13 March 2012 in “Early View”,
the “Online Version of Record pub-
lished
before inclusion in an issue”,
with a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) but
with preliminary pagination (1-EV to 3-EV).
When the printed version
was
published
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
Rhododen-
dron aureodorsale
(W. P. Fang ex J. Q. Fu) Y. P. Ma & J. Nielsen
in Nordic J. Bot. 30
(online): 184. 13 Mar 2012
(DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01438.x).
Ex.
7.
Two new
Echinops species, including
E. antalyensis, were described in
Annales
Botanici Fennici
(ISSN 1797-2442, online; ISSN 0003-3847, print)
in a paper effectively
published in its definitive form on 13 March 2012
as an online PDF document, still with
preliminary pagination ([1]–4)
and the watermark “preprint”.
When the printed version
was
published
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.
The content
of a
particular electronic publication must not be altered
after it is effectively published.
Any such alterations are not themselves
effectively published. Corrections or revisions
must be issued separately to
be effectively published.
74 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 74 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Effective publication (Conditions) | 30 |
30.5.
Publication by indelible autograph
before 1 January 1953 is effective.
Indelible autograph produced at a later date
is not effectively published.
30.6.
For the purpose of Art. 30.5,
indelible autograph is handwritten mate-
rial reproduced by some mechanical
or graphic process (such as lithography,
offset, or metallic etching).
Ex.
8.
Léveillé,
Flore du Kouy Tchéou
(1914–1915), is a work lithographed from a hand-
written text.
Ex.
9.
Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum ...
ab A. Blanco lectarum,
(Webb & Heldreich,
Paris, Jul 1850, folio)
was effectively published
as
an indelible autograph
catalogue.
Ex.
10.
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
are not effectively
pub-
lished
because
they are
indelible autograph
published after 1 January 1953.
Intended
new combinations (e.g.
“Abies koreana var.
yuanbaoshanensis”, p. 53)
for which the
basionym reference is handwritten
are not validly published.
The entirely handwritten
account of a new taxon
(p. 61: name, Latin description, statement of type)
is treated as
not effectively published.
Ex.
11.
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 hartwegi-
anae
(p.
84. 1841)
to replace the struck-out name
Siphonia Benth., which he had discov-
ered was a later homonym of
Siphonia Rich. ex Schreb.
(Gen. Pl.:
656. 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.
30.7.
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.
30.8.
The distribution on or after 1 January 1953
of printed matter accom-
panying specimens does not constitute
effective publication.
Note
2.
If the printed matter
is also distributed independently of the
speci-
mens, it is effectively published.
Ex.
12.
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.
13.
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.
30.9.
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
75 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 75 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
30 | Effective publication (Conditions) |
education for the purpose of obtaining a degree
does not constitute effec-
tive publication unless
the work includes an explicit statement
(referring
to the requirements of the
Code for effective publication)
or other inter-
nal evidence
that it is regarded as an effective publication
by its author or
publisher.
Note
3.
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.
14.
“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.
Ex.
15.
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.
16.
The dissertation “Die Gattung
Mycena s.l.” by Rexer,
submitted to the Eber-
hard-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.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
The dissertation
“Revision der südafrikanischen Astereengattungen
Mairia und
Zyrphelis” submitted in 1990
by Ursula Zinnecker-Wiegand to the Ludwig-Maximil-
ians-Universität München (University of Munich)
is not effectively published
because
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
76 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 76 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Effective publication (Conditions) | 30–30A |
about 50 copies were distributed
to other public libraries
and all the other formalities
for the publication of new taxa were met.
The
designations
in the thesis
became
validly
published
names
in the effectively published paper
by Ortiz & Zinnecker-Wiegand
(in
Taxon
60: 1194–1198. 2011).
30A.1.
Preliminary and final versions
of the same electronic publication should
be clearly indicated as such when they are first issued.
The phrase “Version of
Record” should only be used
to indicate a final version
in which the content will
not change.
30A.2.
To facilitate citation,
final versions of electronic publications
should con-
tain final pagination.
30A.3.
Authors and editors are strongly recommended
to include page numbers
on the actual pages of publications,
such that if electronic publications are printed,
these page numbers are visible.
30A.4.
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
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, which is
not effectively published under
Art. 30.1).
This insert, which is effectively published
under Art. 29–31,
is the place of
valid publication of 41 new combinations,
which also appear on the disk,
in an item
authored by Kartesz:
“A synonymized checklist and atlas
with biological attributes for
the vascular flora of the United States,
Canada, and Greenland” (e.g.
Dichanthelium
hirstii
(Swallen) Kartesz in Kartesz & Meacham,
Synth. N. Amer. Fl., Nomencl. Innov.:
[1]. Aug 1999).
Kartesz’s procedure is not to be recommended,
as the insert is unlikely
to be permanently stored and catalogued in
libraries and so reach the general public.
30A.5.
To aid availability through time and place,
authors publishing nomencla-
tural novelties should give preference
to periodicals that regularly publish taxo-
nomic
work,
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.6.
Authors and editors are encouraged
to mention nomenclatural novelties in
the summary or abstract,
or list them in an index in the publication.
77 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 77 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
31 | Effective publication (Dates) |
DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
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.
Nevertheless,
Williams &
Round,
the authors of a paper in that issue,
stated in a subsequent paper
(in Diatom Res.
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
effectively 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
because
it in-
cludes
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.
78 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 78 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Effective publication (Dates) | 31–31C |
Ex. 6.
The names of the
Selaginella species published
by Hieronymus
(in Hedwigia
51:
241–272)
were effectively published on 15 October 1911,
because the volume in
which the paper appeared, though dated 1912, states
(p. ii) that the separate
appeared
on that date.
31A.1.
The date on which the publisher or 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.
31B.1.
The date of
effective publication
should be clearly
indicated as
precisely
as possible
within a publication.
When a publication
is issued in parts, this date
should
be indicated in each part.
31B.2.
In electronic material, the precise dates
(year, month, and day) of effective
publication should be included.
31C.1.
On reprints of papers published in a periodical,
the name of the periodical,
volume and part number,
original pagination, and date (year, month, and day)
of
publication
should be indicated.
79 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 79 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
32 | Valid publication (General provisions) |
VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
GENERAL PROVISIONS
32.1.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a taxon
(autonyms ex-
cepted) must:
(a)
be effectively published
(Art.
29–31)
on or after the start-
ing-point date of the respective group (Art.
13.1
and
F.1.1);
(b) be composed
only of letters of the Latin alphabet,
except as provided in Art.
23.3,
60.4,
60.7,
and
60.11–14, 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
and
H.7 (see also Art.
61).
Note 1.
The use of typographic signs,
numerals, or letters of a non-Latin
alphabet 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,
be-
cause
rank-denoting terms and devices are not part of the name.
32.2.
Names
above the rank of species
are
validly published
even when
they or their epithets
were published
with an improper Latin termina-
tion
but otherwise in accordance with this
Code;
they are to be changed
to accord with Art.
16–19
and
21.
without change of authorship or date.
Names of species
or infraspecific taxa are
validly published
even when
their
epithets were
published
with an improper Latin
or transcribed Greek
termination but otherwise
in accordance with this
Code; they are to be
changed to accord with
Art.
23 and
24,
without change
of authorship
or
date
(see also Art.
60.8).
Ex. 1.
The epithet in
Cassia “*”
‘Chamaecristae’ L.
(Sp. Pl.:
379. 1753),
the name of a
subdivision of a genus,
is a noun in the nominative plural, derived from
“Chamaecrista”,
80 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 80 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (General provisions) | 32–32A |
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.
Note 2.
Improper terminations
of otherwise correctly formed names
or epi-
thets may result
from the use of an inflectional form
other than that required by
Art. 32.2.
Ex. 2.
Senecio sect.
Synotii Benth.
(in Bentham & Hooker,
Gen. Pl.
2: 448. 1873)
was
validly published
with reference to certain species
that constituted a section (“in spe-
ciebus … sectionem subdistinctam
(Synotios) constituentibus”).
Although the sectional
epithet was written
as an adjective in the accusative plural
(because it was a direct ob-
ject),
it is to be cited in the nominative plural,
S. sect.
Synotii, as required by Art.
21.2.
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.
32.4.
In order to be validly published,
names of hybrids
at specific or
lower rank with Latin epithets must comply
with the same rules as names
of non-hybrid taxa
at the same rank.
Ex.
description in Dutch;
Lawrence in Gentes Herb. 8: 64. 1949,
with a diagnosis in Eng-
lish)
is not validly published,
not being accompanied by
or associated with a Latin
description
or diagnosis
(Art.
39.1).
The name
Nepeta
×faassenii Bergmans ex Stearn
(in J. Roy. Hort. Soc.
75: 405. 1950)
is validly published
because
it is accompanied by
a Latin description.
Ex.
nomen nudum
and is not
therefore validly published
(Art.
38.1(a)).
Ex.
38.1(a))
because
only the presumed parentage
(F.
densiflora ×
F. officinalis) was stated.
Note
3.
For names of hybrids
at the rank of genus or
of a
subdivision of a
genus, see Art.
H.9.
Note
group not covered by this
Code, see Art.
45.
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).
81 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 81 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
33 | Valid publication (General provisions) |
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 ex-
plicitly accepted
in the place of its valid publication.
A name published on
or after 1 January 1973
for which the various conditions for valid publica-
tion are not simultaneously fulfilled
is not validly published
unless a full and
direct reference (Art.
41.5)
is given to the place(s) where these requirements
were previously fulfilled (but see Art.
41.7).
Ex. 1.
“Clypeola minor”
first appeared in the Linnaean thesis
Flora monspeliensis
(p. 21, 1756),
in a list of names preceded
by numerals but without an explanation of the
meaning of these numerals and
without any other descriptive matter;
when the thesis
was reprinted in
vol. 4 of the
Amoenitates academicae
(1759),
a statement was added
(p. 475)
explaining that the numbers referred
to earlier descriptions published in Mag-
nol’s
Botanicum monspeliense
(1676).
However,
“Clypeola minor”
was absent from the
reprint
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
type.
Graphis meridionalis M. Nakan.
was validly published
only 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.
Ex. 3.
“Passiflora salpoense”
(Leiva & Tantalean
in Arnaldoa
22: 39. 2015)
was not
validly published because,
although a single gathering,
S. Leiva & M. Leiva 5806, was
designated as “tipo”,
it was specified as being conserved in five herbaria,
contrary to
Art.
40.7.
The name
P. salpoensis S. Leiva & Tantalean (again as
‘salpoense’, but cor-
rectable to
salpoensis under Art.
23.5 and
32.2)
was validly published only when the
same authors
(in Arnaldoa
23: 628. 2016)
designated the same gathering as “lectotipo”
in a single herbarium, HAO,
with “isolectotipos” in CORD, F, MO, and HUT
(correct-
able, respectively,
to holotype and isotypes under Art.
9.10),
while providing a full and
direct reference to their previously published
(l.c. 2015)
validating English diagnosis of
the species.
33.2.
A correction of the original spelling of a name
(see Art.
32.2 and
60)
does not affect its date.
Ex.
4.
The correction of the erroneous spelling of
Gluta
‘benghas’
L.
(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).
82 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 82 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (General provisions) | 34–35 |
34.1.
New names
at specified ranks
included in publications listed as sup-
pressed works (opera utique oppressa;
App.
I)
are not validly published
and no nomenclatural act¹
within the work associated
with any name at
the specified ranks
is effective.
Proposals for the addition of publications
to
App.
I
must be submitted to the General Committee,
which will refer
them for examination to the
specialist
committees for the various taxo-
nomic groups (see Rec. 34A,
Div. III Prov.
2.2,
7.9,
and
7.10;
see also Art.
14.12 and
56.2).
Ex. 1.
In the suppressed work (see
App. I)
of Motyka,
Porosty, Lecanoraceae (3: 97.
1996),
one of three specimens of
Lecanora dissipata Nyl.
(in Bull. Soc. Bot. France
13:
368. 1866)
in Nylander’s herbarium in H was designated
as the lectotype for that name.
This designation is not effective
and therefore has no nomenclatural status.
34.2.
When a proposal
for the suppression of a publication has been
approved by the General Committee after study by the
specialist commit-
tees for the taxonomic groups concerned,
suppression of that publication
is authorized subject to the decision
of a later International Botanical Con-
gress (see also Art.
14.15 and
56.3)
and takes
retroactive effect.
34A.1.
When a proposal for the suppression
of a publication under Art. 34.1 has
been referred to the appropriate
specialist committees
for study,
authors should
follow existing usage of names
as far as possible pending the General Committee’s
recommendation on the proposal (see also Rec.
14A and
56A).
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
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.
————————————
1
A nomenclatural act is an act
requiring effective publication that results in a
nomenclatural novelty (Art. 6
Note 4)
or affects aspects of names such as typification
(Art.
7.10,
7.11, and
F.5.4), priority (Art.
11.5 and
53.5), orthography (Art.
61.3), or
gender (Art.
62.3).
83 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 83 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
35 | Valid publication (General provisions) |
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.).
However,
the intended new binomials were
not
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
because
the genus was not monotypic
(see
Art.
38.6).
Valid publication of the name
Phlyctidia was by Müller
(in Hedwigia
34: 141.
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.
(Syst. Nat.
2: 150. 1791).
This name is not
to be
cited as
P. aquatica “(Walter) J. F. Gmel.”
Ex. 4.
Despite the existence of the generic name
Scirpoides Ség.
(Pl. Veron.
Suppl.:
73.
1754),
the binary designation
“S. paradoxus”
(Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.:
27. 1772)
is not
validly published
because
“Scirpoides” in Rottbøll’s context
was a word not intended
as a generic name
(see Art. 20
Ex. 10).
The first validly published name for this species
is
Fuirena umbellata Rottb.
(Descr. Icon. Rar.
Pl. 70. 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.
60.14).
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
The
gardeners
dic-
tionary,
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,
be-
cause
Rafinesque did not definitely associate the epithet
ciliata with the generic name
Blephilia.
Similarly, the combination
Eulophus peucedanoides
is not to be attributed
to Bentham & Hooker
(Gen. Pl.
1: 885. 1867)
on the basis of their listing of
“Cnidium
peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under
Eulophus.
84 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 84 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (General provisions) | 35–36 |
Ex. 7.
Erioderma polycarpum subsp.
verruculosum Vain.
(in Acta Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn.
7(1): 202. 1890)
is validly published
because Vainio
clearly linked the subspecific epi-
thet 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”.
36.1.
A name is not validly published
when it is not accepted by
its author
in the original publication, for example
(a)
when it is merely proposed in
anticipation of the future acceptance
of the taxon concerned, or of a par-
ticular circumscription, position,
or rank of the taxon
(so-called provisional
name)
or
(b)
when it is merely cited as a synonym.
These provisions do not
apply to names published
with a question mark or other indication of taxo-
nomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.
Ex. 1.
“Sebertia”, proposed by Pierre (ms.)
for a unispecific genus,
was not validly pub-
lished by Baillon
(in Bull. Mens. Soc.
Linn. Paris
2: 945. 1891)
because he did not accept
the genus.
Although he gave a description of it,
he referred its only species
“Sebertia
acuminata Pierre (ms.)”
to the genus
Sersalisia R. Br., as
“Sersalisia ?
acuminata”,
which he thereby validly published
under the provision of Art. 36.1 last sentence.
The
name
Sebertia was validly published by Engler
(in Engler & Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam.,
Nachtr.
1: 280. 1897).
Ex. 2.
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.
Coralloides gorgonina Bory
was validly published in a paper by Flörke
(in Mag.
Neuesten Entdeck.
Gesammten Naturk. Ges.
Naturf. Freunde Berlin
3: 125. 1809) even
though Flörke did not accept it as a new species.
At Bory’s request, Flörke included
Bory’s diagnosis (and name) making Bory
the 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)
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
because Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus.
The name was validly published as
Conophytum N. E. Br.
(in Gard. Chron.,
ser. 3,
71:
198.
1922).
Ex. 5.
(a)
“Pteridospermaexylon” and
“P. theresiae” were published by Greguss
(in
Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952)
for a genus and species of fossil wood.
Because Greguss
85 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 85 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
36 | Valid publication (General provisions) |
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.
(a)
The designation
“Stereocaulon subdenudatum”
proposed by Havaas (in
Ber-
gens Mus.
Årbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954)
is not validly published, even though it was
pre-
sented as a new species
with a Latin diagnosis,
because
on both pages it was indicated
to be “ad int.”
[ad interim, for the time being].
Ex. 7.
(b)
“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
correct combination under
Ornithogalum L. was validly published later:
O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch.
(in Verh. Bot. Vereins
Prov. Brandenburg
8: 165. 1866).
Ex. 8.
Besenna
A. Rich. and
B. anthelmintica A. Rich.
(Tent. Fl. Abyss.
1: 253. 1847)
were simultaneously published by Richard,
both with a question mark
(“Besenna ?”
and
“Besenna anthelmintica ? 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.
A
name is not
validly published
by the mere mention
of the subordi-
nate taxa included
in the taxon concerned.
Ex.
9.
The family designation
“Rhaptopetalaceae”
was not validly published by Pierre
(in Bull. Mens. Soc.
Linn. Paris
2: 1296. May 1897),
who merely mentioned the con-
stituent genera,
Brazzeia Baill.,
Rhaptopetalum Oliv., and
“Scytopetalum”,
but gave no
description or diagnosis;
a
description
of the family
was published
under the name
Scy-
topetalaceae Engl.
(in Engler & Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam.,
Nachtr. 1: 242. Oct 1897).
Ex.
10.
The generic designation
“Ganymedes”
was not validly published by Salisbury
(in Trans. Hort.
Soc. London 1:
353–355. 1812),
who merely mentioned
three
included
species
but supplied no generic description or diagnosis.
36.3.
When, on or after 1 January 1953,
two or more different names
based on the same type are
accepted
simultaneously for the same taxon
by the same author
and accepted
as alternatives
by that author
in the same
publication
(so-called alternative names),
none of them, if new,
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
or for subdivisions of a genus (see Rec.
22A.1,
22A.2, and
26A.1–3), nor to
names provided for in Art.
F.8.1.
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), in which Ducke
indicated acceptability
of these names
under the competing
(alternative)
American Code.
The publication of both sets of names
is valid
because it was
effected before 1 January 1953.
Ex. 12.
“Euphorbia jaroslavii”
(Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb.
Bot. Inst. Komarova
Akad. Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953)
was published with an alternative designation,
86 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 86 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (General provisions) | 36–37 |
“Tithymalus jaroslavii”.
Neither was validly published.
However, one name,
Euphor-
bia yaroslavii
(with a differently transcribed initial letter),
was validly published by
Poljakov
(in Bot. Mater. Gerb.
Bot. Inst. Komarova
Akad. Nauk SSSR
21: 484. 1961),
who provided a full and direct reference
to the earlier publication and rejected the
assignment to
Tithymalus.
Ex.
13.
Freytag (in Sida Bot. Misc. 23: 211. 2002) published
Phaseolus leptostachyus
“var.
pinnatifolius Freytag forma
purpureus Freytag, var. et forma nov.”,
using a single
diagnosis
and designating a single intended holotype.
The diagnosis refers to
P. leptos-
tachyus f.
purpureus, not to
“P. leptostachyus var.
pinnatifolius”
under which Freytag
recognized a second forma
in the same paper.
The varietal designation
“pinnatifolius”
is therefore a nomen nudum,
not validly published.
Ex.
14.
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.
(in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
15: 9.
1888).
Within that subspecies,
he recognized varieties, one of which he named
B. iner-
mis var.
pumpellianus
(without an author citation
but clearly based on the same basio-
nym and type).
In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of
B. inermis
var.
pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.
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 prec-
edence),
(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
used
the present termination for tribe
(-eae), that
name is unranked
because it was
published prior to 1887.
Zanthoxyleae Dumort.
(Anal.
Fam. Pl.:
45. 1829),
however, is the name of a tribe
because
Dumortier specified its rank.
————————————
1
The terminations specified in Art.
16.3,
17.1,
18.1,
19.1, and
19.3 are:
-phyta (division
or phylum in algae and plants),
-mycota
(division or phylum in fungi),
-phytina
(subdivision or subphylum in algae and plants),
-mycotina (subdivision or subphylum
in fungi),
-phyceae (class in algae),
-mycetes (class in fungi),
-opsida (class in plants),
-phycidae (subclass in algae),
-mycetidae (subclass in fungi),
-idae (subclass in plants),
-ales (order),
-ineae (suborder),
-aceae (family),
-oideae (subfamily),
-eae (tribe), and
-inae (subtribe).
87 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 87 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
37 | Valid publication (General provisions) |
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
use 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.
53.3).
If it is the name of a new taxon, it may
serve as a basionym or replaced synonym
for subsequent new combina-
tions,
names at new ranks,
or replacement names
at
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.
53.3.
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
(in Engler, Pflanzenr.
IV. 129 (Heft 53):
171. 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 vari-
ety
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
issued at different times
(but not different editions of the same work),
must
be considered as a whole,
and any statement made therein designating the
rank of taxa included in the work must be considered
as if it had been 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 published
as names of families (Art.
18.2)
because
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).
88 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 88 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (General provisions) | 37 |
37.6.
A name is not validly published
if it is given to a taxon of which the
rank is at the same time
denoted by a misplaced term, contrary to Art.
5.
Such misplacements include, e.g.,
forms divided into varieties, species con-
taining genera, and genera containing families or tribes
(but see Art.
F.4.1).
37.7.
Only those names published with
rank-denoting terms that must be
removed so as to achieve a proper sequence
are to be regarded as not val-
idly 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
because
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
because
Huth misapplied the term “tri-
bus” to a rank lower than section within the genus
Delphinium.
Note 1.
Consecutive
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
or equivalent
rank-denoting term is used
at more than one non-consecutive position
in the taxonomic sequence rep-
resent informal usage of rank-denoting terms.
Names published with such
rank-denoting terms are treated as unranked
(see Art. 37.1 and 37.3; see
also Art. 16
Note 1).
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 hi-
erarchical positions
in the taxonomic sequence.
Therefore, the sequence in
Rhyncho-
spora
(3: 1058–1060. 1883)
of genus-“series”-section
does not contain a misplaced
rank-denoting term.
89 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 89 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
38 | Valid publication (New taxa) |
NAMES OF NEW TAXA
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
(see also
Art. 38.7 and 38.8)
or, if none is provided in the protologue,
by a reference
(see Art.
38.13)
to a previously and effectively published description
or diag-
nosis (except as provided in Art.
13.4 and
H.9; see also Art.
14.9 and
14.14);
and
(b)
comply with the relevant provisions of Art.
32–45
and
F.4–F.5.
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”
originally appeared without a description or diagnosis
on the printed labels issued about the year 1843
with Sect. II, No. 529, 1288, of
the
herbarium specimens
from
Schimper’s
“Abyssinische Reise”.
The name
L. macrosolen
Steud.
ex A. Rich.
(Tent. Fl. Abyss.
1: 340. 1848)
was validly published
when
Richard
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 published
by means of the key character “parasitic
on lichens” (contrasting with “saprophytic” for
90 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 90 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New taxa) | 38 |
Karschia) and the Latin diagnosis
“Karschia lichenicola”,
referring to the 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.
Ex. 6.
The protologue of
Iresine borschii Zumaya & Flores Olv.
(in Willdenowia 46:
166. 2016)
includes both a morphological and a molecular diagnosis.
Both are diagnoses
because they indicate
how the features of the new species,
in the opinion of the authors,
differ from those of other taxa.
Note 2.
Whereas a diagnosis must comprise
one or more descriptive statements
(Art. 38.2 and 38.3),
a validating description (Art. 38.1)
need not be diagnostic.
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.
7.
“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,
because
there is no descriptive information on
the “leaves”, the only char-
acter
mentioned, it does not satisfy
the requirement of Art. 38.1(a)
for a “description
or diagnosis”.
Musa basjoo Siebold & Zucc. ex Iinuma
was later validly published
by
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, which will refer it
for examination to the
specialist committee
for the appropriate taxonomic
group
(see Div. III
Prov.
2.2,
7.9, and
7.10).
A
Committee recommendation
as to whether or not the name concerned
is validly published may then be
put forward to an International Botanical Congress
and, if ratified, will
become a binding decision
with retroactive effect.
These binding decisions
are listed in
App.
VI.
Ex.
8.
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”.
Because
Cavalier-Smith (l.c.) did not provide a full
and direct refer-
ence
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 re-
quirements 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
91 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 91 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
38 | Valid publication (New taxa) |
the requirements of Art. 38.1(a)
were minimally fulfilled and recommended
a bind-
ing
decision that
Ascomycota
is 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
(see
App. VI).
Ex. 9.
Brugmansia aurea Harrison
(Floric. Cab. &
Florist’s Mag.
5: 144. 1837)
was de-
scribed
in an account of a garden visit as comprising
“plants about two feet high” with
flowers
“about the size of the
B. sanguinea,
but of fine rich golden yellow colour”,
and
was compared with
“an inferior kind … the flowers of which
are of a dull buff colour”.
A binding decision has been made that the name
is validly published (see
App. VI).
38.5.
The names of a genus and a species
may be validly published
simultaneously by provision
of a single description (descriptio generico-
specifica) or diagnosis,
even though this may have been intended as only
generic or specific,
if all of the following conditions 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.
A descriptio
generico-specifica
must accompany the
names of the taxa described;
reference
instead
to an earlier description or
diagnosis is not acceptable.
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.
10.
Nylander
(in Flora
62: 353. 1879)
described the new species
“Anema nummulari-
ellum”
in a new genus
“Anema” without providing
a generic description or diagnosis.
Because
in the same
publication (l.c.: 354. 1879) he
wrote
“Affine
Anemati nummulario
(DR.) Nyl., …”,
which was an attempted
new combination in
“Anema”
based on
Col-
lema
nummularium
Dufour ex Durieu & Mont.
(Expl. Sci. Algérie
1: 200. 1846–1847),
none of his
designations
was validly published.
The
names
were later validly published
by Forssell
(Beitr. Gloeolich.:
40, 91, 93. 1885).
Ex.
11.
The names
Kedarnatha P. K. Mukh. & Constance
(in Brittonia
38: 147. 1986)
and
K. sanctuarii P. K. Mukh. & Constance,
the latter designating the single, new spe-
cies of the new genus,
are both validly published
although a Latin description was pro-
vided only under the generic name.
Ex.
12.
Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth.
(Pl. Hartw.:
29. 1840)
was a new species assigned
to the monotypic new genus
Piptolepis.
Both names were validly published with a com-
bined generic and specific description.
Ex.
13.
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.
92 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 92 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New taxa) | 38 |
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.
14.
The generic name
Philgamia Baill.
(in Grandidier, Hist.
Phys. Madagascar 35:
t. 265. 1894)
was validly published
because
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.
15.
When
“Polypodium subulatum”
(Vellozo,
Fl. Flumin. Icon.
11: ad t. 67. 1831)
was published,
only an illustration of part of a frond
was presented,
without analysis,
hence
this drawing
does not fulfil the provisions of Art. 38.8
and the designation was
not validly published there.
The
name
P. subulatum
Vell.
was validly published when
Vellozo’s
fern species descriptions appeared
(in Arch. Mus. Nac.
Rio de Janeiro
5: 447.
1881).
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.
16.
Panax nossibiensis Drake
(in Grandidier,
Hist. Phys.
Madagascar
35: t. 406.
1897)
was validly published on a plate with analysis
that includes details
of flower
structure.
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.
17.
Eunotia gibbosa Grunow
(in Van Heurck,
Syn. Diatom Belgique:
t. 35,
fig. 13.
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).
93 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 93 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
38 | Valid publication (New taxa) |
Ex.
18.
“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 spe-
cies (see Art.
36.2), 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.
19.
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.
20.
Because
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.
(in Hooker’s Icon. Pl.
20: ad
t. 1950.
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
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.
21.
Trilepisium Thouars
(Gen. Nov. Madagasc.:
22. 1806)
was validated by a generic
description but without mention of a name of a species.
Trilepisium madagascariense
DC.
(Prodr.
2: 639. 1825)
was subsequently 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.
22.
“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
was not
therefore
validly published under Art.
36.1.
Kratzmannia Opiz
(Seznam:
56.
1852),
lacking description or diagnosis,
is however definitely accepted,
and its citation
as
“Kratzmannia O.”
constitutes an indirect reference to
Opiz’s
diagnosis published in
1836.
94 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 94 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New taxa) | 38A–A39 |
38A.1.
A name of a new taxon should not be validated
solely by a reference to a
description or diagnosis published before 1753.
38B.1.
When a description is provided
for valid publication of the name of a new
taxon,
a separate diagnosis should also be presented.
38B.2.
Where no separate
diagnosis
is provided,
the description of
any new taxon
should mention the points
that distinguish the taxon from
others.
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.
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.
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.
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).
95 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 95 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
39–40 | Valid publication (New taxa) |
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 diag-
nosis
(in Bull. Soc.
Hist.
Nat. Maroc
15: 199. 1936),
was validly published posthumously
when a Latin translation of Emberger’s
original French description was provided (in
Willdenowia 15: 62–63. 1985).
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 de-
scription 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).
39A.1.
Authors publishing names of new taxa
should give or cite a full description
in Latin or English
in addition to the diagnosis.
40.1.
Publication on or after 1 January 1958
of the name of a new taxon
at
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.
9.6).
96 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 96 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New taxa) | 40 |
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, and
Art. 40.7
does not apply.
Ex. 3.
Radcliffe-Smith
(in Gen. Croton. Madag. Comoro: 169. 2016)
indicated the type
of
Croton nitidulus var.
acuminatus Radcl.-Sm. as
“Cours 4871 (holotypus P)”.
In the
herbarium P there are four duplicates of
Cours 4871.
The name is validly published be-
cause a single gathering in a single herbarium
was indicated as type.
These specimens
are syntypes,
and one of them was subsequently designated
as the lectotype by Berry &
al.
(in Phytokeys
90: 69. 2017).
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.
10.8;
but see Art. 40.6).
For the purpose
of Art. 40.1,
mention of a single specimen or gathering
(Art. 40.2) or illus-
tration,
even if that element is not explicitly designated as type,
is accept-
able as indication
of
the type of the name
of a new species
or infraspecific
taxon
(but see Art. 40.6).
Ex.
4.
“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.
Because the author failed to designate
one of them as the type,
the designation
was
not validly published.
Valid publication
of
the name
B. pininsularis
Guillaumin
was
effected when McPherson & Tirel
(Fl. Nouv.-Calédonie & Dépend. 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.
22);
McPherson & Tirel’s use of
“lectotype” is correctable to
“holotype” under Art.
9.10.
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
is required,
such as the collector’s name,
collecting number or date,
or unique
specimen identifier.
Note 3.
Cultures of algae and fungi preserved
in a metabolically inactive state
are acceptable as types (Art.
8.4;
see also Rec.
8B
and Art. 40.8).
40.4.
For the purpose of Art. 40.1,
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.
5.
“Dendrobium sibuyanense”
(see Art. 8
Ex.
11)
was described with a living col-
lection indicated as holotype
and was not therefore validly published.
It was not validly
97 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 97 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
40 | Valid publication (New taxa) |
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 Janu-
ary 2007 their indication of this drawing
as holotype was precluded by Art. 40.4.
40.5.
For the purpose of Art. 40.1,
the type of a name of a new species or
infraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi
(fossils excepted:
see Art.
8.5)
may be an effectively published illustration
if there are techni-
cal difficulties of
specimen 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.
Ex. 6.
Lücking & Moncada
(in Fungal Diversity
84: 119–138. 2017)
introduced
“Law-
reymyces”
and seven intended microfungal species names
using representations of
diagnostic sequences of bases of DNA
from the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS)
region as intended types.
These representations are not illustrations
under Art. 6.1
foot-
note
because they are not depictions of features
of the organisms, and consequently the
intended names were not validly published.
40.6.
For the name of a new taxon
at 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.4).
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.
Ex. 7.
When Stephenson described
“Sedum mucizonia (Ortega) Raym.-Hamet subsp.
urceolatum”
(in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 64: 234. 1992)
the name
was not validly
published because
the protologue lacked the indication
“typus” or
“holotypus”,
or its
abbreviation,
or its
equivalent
in a modern language,
a requirement for names published
on or after 1 January 1990.
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.5 and 40A.6).
Ex.
8.
In the protologue of
Setaria excurrens var.
leviflora Keng ex S. L. Chen (in
Bull. Nanjing Bot. Gard. 1988–1989: 3. 1990)
the gathering
Guangxi Team 4088
was
indicated as “模式”
[“type”] and the herbarium where the type
is conserved was speci-
fied 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.
98 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 98 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New taxa) | 40–40A |
Note 4.
Specification of the herbarium, collection,
or institution may be made
in an abbreviated form,
e.g. as given in
Index Herbariorum
(http://sweetgum.nybg
.org/science/ih/) or in the
World directory of collections
of cultures of micro-
organisms.
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,
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).
40.8.
For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon
published on
or after 1 January 2019
of which the type is a culture,
the protologue must
include a statement
that the culture is preserved
in a metabolically inactive
state.
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.
Authors proposing names of new families
or subdivisions of families are
urged to ensure that the generic name
from which the new name is formed is itself
effectively typified (see Art.
7 and
10),
if necessary by designating a type for that
generic name under the relevant provisions of Art.
7 and
10
(see also Rec.
40A.3).
40A.3.
For the name of a new genus
or subdivision of a genus, authors should cite
the type of the species name
(see Art.
7–9)
that provides the type (Art.
10.1)
of the
new name and, if necessary,
designate the type for that species name under the
relevant provisions of Art.
7 and
9.
40A.4.
Details of the type specimen of the name
of a new species or infraspecific
taxon should be published in
the Latin alphabet.
40A.5.
Specification of the herbarium, collection, or
institution of deposition
should be followed
by any available number permanently
and unambiguously
identifying the holotype specimen.
Ex. 1.
The type of
Sladenia integrifolia Y. M. Shui & W. H. Chen
(in Novon
12: 539.
2002)
was designated as
“Mo Ming-Zhong, Mao Rong-Hua & Yu Zhi-Yong 05
(holotype,
KUN 0735701; isotypes, MO, PE)”,
where
KUN No. 0735701
is the unique identifier of
the holotype sheet in the herbarium
of the Kunming Institute of Botany (KUN).
40A.6.
Citation of the herbarium, collection,
or institution of deposition should
use one of the standards mentioned
in Art. 40 Note 4
or, when those
standards give
no abbreviated form,
should be given in full
with the location.
99 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 99 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
41 | Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) |
NEW COMBINATIONS, NAMES AT NEW RANKS,
REPLACEMENT NAMES
41.1.
In order to be validly published,
a new combination, name at new
rank,
or replacement name must be accompanied
by a reference to the
basionym or replaced synonym.
(See
Art.
6.10 and
6.11).
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
(Index Gen. Phan.:
703. 1888)
is a replacement name for
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth.
(in Candolle,
Prodr.
12: 436. 1848)
non Herb.
(Amaryl-
lidaceae: 190. 1837);
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch
(Hort. Dendrol.:
242. 1853)
is based
on
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.
(Prodr.
2: 169. 1825).
Ex. 2.
Presl did not
validly publish
“Cuscuteae”
(in Presl & Presl,
Delic. Prag.:
87. 1822)
as the name of a family (see
“Praemonenda”,
pp. [3–4])
based on
Cuscutales Bercht. &
J. Presl
(Přir. Rostlin:
247. 1820,
‘Cuscuteae’)
because the latter is the name of an order
(see Art. 18
*Ex. 5).
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.
Therefore, 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.
3.
In a list of names
by Masamune
(in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)
51: 234. 1937),
Persi-
caria runcinata
was attributed to
“(Hamilt.)”
but no further information
was given.
Earlier,
the name
Polygonum runcinatum
had been
validly published by Don
(Prodr. Fl.
Nepal.: 73. 1825)
and ascribed there to “Hamilton
MSS.”
The mention by Masamune of
“Hamilt.”
is regarded as an indirect reference
to the basionym published by Don, and
thus the new combination
Persicaria runcinata (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Masam.
was
validly published.
100 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 100 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) | 41 |
Ex.
4.
Opiz validly published the name at new rank
Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz
(Seznam:
50. 1852)
by writing
“Hemisphace Benth.”,
which is regarded as an indirect reference to
the basionym
Salvia sect.
Hemisphace Benth.
(Labiat. Gen. Spec.:
193. 1833).
Ex.
5.
The new combination
Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson
(in Gaz. N.-W.
Prov. India
10: 392. 1882)
is validly 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
(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.
6.
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 appropri-
ate,
and Miller’s binomials
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).
Ex. 7.
When Haines
(Forest Fl. Chota Nagpur:
530. 1910)
published the name
Dioscorea
belophylla,
he attributed the name to “Voight”.
Previously, Prain
(Bengal Pl. 2: 1065,
1067. 1903)
had validly published
D. nummularia var.
belophylla Prain, citing “Voigt
(sp.)”,
an apparent reference to the nomen nudum
“Dioscorea belophylla”
(Voigt,
Hort.
Suburb. Calcutt.:
653. 1845).
The mention by Haines of “Voight” is regarded as an
indirect reference to Prain’s varietal name,
and thus
D. belophylla (Prain) Haines was
validly published as a new combination
and name at new rank.
Ex. 8.
Cortinarius collinitus var.
trivialis (J. E. Lange) A. H. Sm.
(in Lloydia 7: 175.
1944) was validly published
as a new combination based on
C. trivialis J. E. Lange
(Fl.
Agaric. Danic. 5(Taxon. Consp.): iii 1940),
even though Smith referred to the basionym
as
“C. trivialis Lange ‘Studies,’ pt. 10: 24. 1935”,
where that name was not validly pub-
lished
because Lange failed to provide
a Latin description or diagnosis.
41.4.
If, for a name of a genus or
lower-ranked taxon
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.
9.
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
faithfully follows that of Fries,
have been considered to
provide indirect reference to
Fries’s earlier names of “tribes” as basionyms
(see Art.
F.4.1).
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.
Nevertheless, even when
101 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 101 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
41 | Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) |
Art. 41.3 is not considered to apply,
because Kummer provided diagnoses in a key
and thus
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” [unranked]
Hypholoma Fr. : Fr. and
A. fascicularis Huds. : Fr.).
Ex.
10.
Scaevola taccada was validly published by Roxburgh
(Hort. Bengal.:
15. 1814)
solely
by reference to an illustration in Rheede
(Hort. Malab.
4: t. 59. 1683) that
is asso-
ciated with a description
of a species.
Because the same illustration
was cited in the pro-
tologue of the earlier name
Lobelia taccada Gaertn.
(Fruct. Sem. Pl.
1: 119. 1788)
and
the
two names apply to the
same species,
S. taccada
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.
11.
When Moench
(Methodus: 272. 1794) described
Chamaecrista, he did not refer
to
Cassia [unranked]
Chamaecrista L.
(Sp. Pl.:
379. 1753; see Art. 32
Ex. 1)
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.
12.
Cololejeunea
was published by Stephani
(in Hedwigia
30:
208. 1891) for a taxon
that had previously been described as
Lejeunea subg.
Cololejeunea Spruce
(in Trans.
& Proc. Bot. Soc.
Edinburgh
15: 79,
291. 1884)
but without even an indirect reference
to Spruce’s earlier publication.
Because Stephani
provided a description of
C.
elegans
Steph.
that under Art. 38.5 is acceptable
as a descriptio generico-specifica, he fulfilled
the requirements for valid publication
of
Cololejeunea
as the name of a new
monotypic
genus.
Under Art. 41.4,
Cololejeunea
is therefore to be treated
as a name at new rank,
Cololejeunea
(Spruce) Steph.,
based on Spruce’s subgeneric name.
Ex.
13.
When Sampaio published
“Psoroma murale Samp.”
(in Bol. Real Soc. Esp.
Hist. Nat.
27: 142. 1927),
he adopted the epithet of
Lichen muralis Schreb.
(Spic. Fl.
Lips.: 130. 1771),
a name applied to the same taxon,
without referring to that name
either directly or indirectly.
He cited
in synonymy
Lecanora saxicola
(Pollich) Ach.
(Lichenogr. Universalis:
431. 1810),
which is based on
Lichen saxicola
Pollich (Hist.
Pl. Palat.
3: 225. 1777).
Under Art. 41.4,
Psoroma murale
(Schreb.) Samp.
is treated as
a new combination based on
Lichen muralis;
otherwise it would be a validly published
but illegitimate replacement name for
Lichen 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.
14.
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
102 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 102 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) | 41 |
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.
Ex.
15.
When proposing
“Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally
(in Mycotaxon 40:
337. 1991) cited the basionym as
“Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesew.,
Can. J. Bot. 60:
2288-2294. 1982”.
Because this refers
to the pagination of Boesewinkel’s entire paper,
not of the protologue of the intended basionym alone,
the combination was not validly
published by Peerally.
Ex.
16.
The new combination
Conophytum marginatum subsp.
littlewoodii (L. Bolus)
S. A. Hammer
(Dumpling & His Wife:
New Views Gen. Conophytum: 181. 2002),
be-
cause it was
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
(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.
17.
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 pub-
lication of the new combination.
Ex.
18.
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.
Ex. 19.
Nekemias grossedentata
(Hand.-Mazz.) J. Wen & Z. L. Nie
(in PhytoKeys
42:
16. 2014)
was published as a new combination,
with the basionym cited as
“Ampelop-
sis cantoniensis var.
grossedentata Hand.-Mazz.,
Sitzungsber. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss.,
Math.-Naturwiss. Cl., Abt. 1,
59: 105. 1877”.
The actual place of publication
of the cited
basionym was
in Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien,
Math.-Naturwiss. Kl.
59: 105. 1922.
These
errors of citation
(name of the journal and date)
do not prevent valid publication of the
new combination.
103 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 103 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
41 | Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) |
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).
Ex. 20.
“Leptosiphon croceus (Eastw.) J. M. Porter &
L. A. Johnson, comb. nov.”
(in
Aliso
19: 80. 2000)
was published with the basionym citation
“Linanthus croceus
Eastw.,
Pl. hartw.
p. 325. 1849.”
Because the actual place of publication of
Linanthus
croceus was
in Bot. Gaz.
37: 442–443. 1904,
Porter & Johnson’s combination was not
validly published.
Ex.
21.
Ciferri
(in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl.
7: 86–89. 1954),
in proposing 142 in-
tended 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 2.
For the
purposes
of Art. 41.7 an unpaginated
or independently pagi-
nated electronic publication
and a later version with definitive pagination are not
considered to be different publications (Art. 30
Note
1).
Note 3.
A new name published for a taxon
previously known under a misap-
plied name
is always the name of a new taxon and must
therefore meet all relevant
requirements of Art.
32–45
and
F.4–F.5
for valid publication of such a name.
This
procedure is not the same as publishing
a replacement name for a validly pub-
lished but illegitimate name (Art.
58.1),
the type of which is necessarily that of the
replaced synonym (Art.
7.4).
Ex.
22.
Sadleria hillebrandii Rob.
(in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
40: 226. 1913)
was intro-
duced as a “nom. nov.” for
“Sadleria pallida Hilleb.
Fl. Haw. Is.
582. 1888.
Not Hook.
& Arn.
Bot. Beech. 75. 1832.”
Because
the requirements for valid publication were
satisfied (prior to 1935,
simple reference to a previous description or diagnosis
in any
language was sufficient),
S. hillebrandii is
the name of a new species
validated by Hille-
brand’s description
of the taxon to which he misapplied the name
S. pallida Hook. &
Arn.,
not a replacement name as stated by Robinson
(see Art.
6.14).
Ex.
23.
“Juncus
bufonius var.
occidentalis”
(Hermann in U.S. Forest Serv., Techn. Rep.
RM-18: 14. 1975)
was published as a “nom. et stat. nov.” for
J. sphaerocarpus “auct.
Am., non Nees”.
Because
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
104 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 104 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) | 41 |
affecting the valid publication of a new combination,
name at new rank, or
replacement name:
(a)
when the
actual basionym
or replaced synonym was validly published
earlier than
the name or later isonym
cited
as such, but in the cited publi-
cation, in which all conditions for valid publication
of the name as cited
are fulfilled,
there is no reference, in association
with that name, to the
place of valid publication
of the
actual basionym
or replaced synonym;
(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
(Art.
13.1),
or by the backward shift of
the starting date for some fungi;
(c)
when
the resulting
new combination or name
at new rank would other-
wise be validly published
as a (legitimate or illegitimate) replacement
name; or
(d)
when
the resulting
new combination,
name at new rank,
or replacement
name would otherwise be
the validly published name of a new taxon.
Ex.
24.
(a)
The new combination
Trichipteris kalbreyeri
was proposed by Tryon
(in
Contr. Gray Herb.
200: 45. 1970)
with a full and direct reference to
“Alsophila Kalbrey-
eri
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).
Because
Christensen provided no reference to Baker’s earlier
publication, Tryon’s error of citation does not affect
the valid publication of his new
combination, which is cited as
T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M. Tryon.
Ex.
25.
(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
(Voy. Îles Afrique 2:
94. 1804).
Because
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.
26.
(b)
The combination
Lasiobelonium corticale
was proposed by Raitviir
(in
Scripta Mycol.
9: 106. 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
is
partly explained by the backward shift of the
starting date for
some fungi
and partly by the absence of a reference
to Mérat in Fries’s
work,
and does not
therefore
prevent valid publication
of the new combination, which is
cited as
L. corticale (Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.
Ex. 27.
(b).
Malvidae
C. Y. Wu
(in Acta Phytotax. Sin.
40: 306. 2002)
was validly pub-
lished
as a name at new rank based on
Malvaceae Juss.
(Gen. Pl.:
271. 1789),
even
though Wu cited
as the basionym
“Malvaceae”
(Adanson,
Fam. Pl.
2: 390. 1763). Wu’s
105 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 105 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
41–41A | Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) |
error of citation,
explained
by the later nomenclatural
starting-point
for suprageneric
names of
Spermatophyta and
Pteridophyta (Art.
13.1(a)),
does not prevent
valid publica-
tion
of the name at new rank.
Ex.
28.
(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
(Revis. Gen. Pl.
3: 265. 1898);
it is also the replaced synonym of
Hespero-
nia glutinosa Standl.
(in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb.
12: 365. 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.
29.
(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
provided a full and direct reference to
T. lateritia André
(“BASIONYM:
Tillandsia
lateritia Andre,
Enum. Bromel.
6. 13 Dec
1888;
Revue Hort. 60: 566.
16 Dec 1888”),
which is the replaced synonym of
V. barclayana var.
minor.
Under Art. 41.8(c),
T. bar-
clayana 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. 30.
(d)
When Koyama published the new combination
Carex henryi (C. B. Clarke)
T. Koyama (in Jap. J. Bot. 15: 175. 1956),
he cited the basionym,
C. longicruris var.
henryi C. B. Clarke
(in J. Linn. Soc., Bot.
36: 295. 1903),
with a full and direct reference
not to the work in which that name was validly published,
but to a later work (Kükenthal
in Engler,
Pflanzenr. IV. 20
(Heft 38): 603. 1909),
in which the name was accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis.
Koyama’s reference to Kükenthal
is treated as an error to be cor-
rected,
not affecting the valid publication
of the new combination
C. henryi,
because
otherwise that name
would be
validly published as
the name of a
new species by direct
reference to Kükenthal’s Latin diagnosis (Art.
38.1(a)).
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.”
41A.2.
In the absence of established tradition,
if publications are not paginated,
page numbers should be referenced with square brackets.
Ex. 1.
The name
Crocus antalyensioides Rukšāns
was published electronically in
Inter-
national Rock Gardener
(ISSN 2053-7557), Volume 64, April 2015,
in Portable Docu-
ment Format (PDF),
without page numbers included
on the actual pages of the publica-
tion.
The reference should be cited as
Int. Rock Gard.
64: [6]. 2015.
106 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 106 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (Particular groups) | 42–43 |
NAMES IN PARTICULAR GROUPS
42.1.
Interested institutions,
in particular those with expertise
in nomen-
clatural indexing,
may apply for recognition
as nomenclatural repositories
under this
Code.
A nomenclatural repository takes charge,
for specified
categories of organisms,
of registering nomenclatural novelties (Art. 6
Note
4)
and/or any nomenclatural act (Art. 34.1
footnote).
42.2.
Applications for recognition as nomenclatural repositories for
organisms other than fungi (for fungi see Art.
F.5.3)
are to be addressed to
the General Committee,
which will refer the applications to the Registra-
tion
Committee (see Div. III Prov.
7.13)
and act upon its recommendation.
Prior to such a recommendation,
mechanisms and modalities of registra-
tion,
and definition of coverage,
will be developed in consultations among
the applicant(s), the Registration Committee,
and the Permanent Nomen-
clature
Committee(s) for the group(s) concerned,
and be widely publicized
in the taxonomic community;
a public trial run of at least one year must
have shown that the procedure works efficiently and sustainably.
The Gen-
eral Committee has the power to suspend
or revoke a granted recognition.
42.3.
Registration may be proactive and/or synchronous
and/or retrospec-
tive;
that is, it may occur before
and/or simultaneously with and/or after the
valid publication of a nomenclatural novelty (Art. 6
Note 4)
or the effective
publication of any nomenclatural act (Art. 34.1
footnote).
Note 1.
For ways in which proactive registration
of nomenclatural novelties
functions, see Art.
F.5.1 and
F.5.2,
relevant for names of organisms treated as
fungi, including fossil fungi and lichen-forming fungi.
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 Eng-
lish description or diagnosis or by a reference
(see Art.
38.13)
to a previ-
ously and effectively published Latin
or English description or diagnosis.
107 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 107 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
43–44 | Valid publication (Particular groups) |
Note 1.
Because Art.
39.1
does not apply to names of fossil-taxa,
a validating
description 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
published
on or after 1 January 1912
is not validly published
unless it is accompanied
by an illustration or figure
showing the essential characters
or by a refer-
ence to a previously
and effectively published such illustration 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
is validly published
(albeit as an
illegitimate later homonym of
the non-fossil
generic name
Batodendron Nutt.
in Trans.
Amer. Philos. Soc., ser. 2,
8: 261. 1842).
43.3.
A name of a new fossil-species
or infraspecific fossil-taxon pub-
lished
on or after 1 January 2001 is not validly published
unless at least one
of the validating illustrations
is identified as representing the type speci-
men
(see also Art.
9.15).
Note 2.
A nomenclatural novelty applied to a fungal fossil-taxon
and published
on or after 1 January 2013
must comply with Art.
F.5.1 and
F.5.2
in order to be
validly published.
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,
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.
Because Art.
39.1
does not apply to names of algal taxa,
a validating
description or diagnosis (see Art.
38)
in any language is acceptable for them prior
to 1958.
108 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 108 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Valid publication (Particular groups) | 44–45 |
Ex. 1.
Although
Neoptilota Kylin
(Gatt. Rhodophyc.: 392. 1956) was accompanied only
by a description in German,
it is a validly published name
because
it applies to an alga
and was published before 1958.
44.2.
A name of a new
species
or infraspecific
taxon of non-fossil algae
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.
44A.1.
The illustration or figure required by Art. 44.2
should be prepared from
actual specimens,
preferably including the holotype.
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
and
F.6.1,
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.
(in Abh. Königl. Akad. Wiss.
Berlin 1841: 401, t. II(VI),
fig.
28. 1843),
available¹ under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the
name of a genus of animals,
was first treated as belonging to the algae by Kützing
(Kie-
selschal.
Bacill.: 107. 1844).
Under the
International Code of Nomenclature for algae,
fungi, and plants,
Amphiprora is validly published
and dates from 1843, not 1844.
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).
————————————
1
The word “available”
(when applied to a name)
in the
International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature is equivalent to
“validly published” in this
Code.
109 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 109 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
45 | Valid publication (Particular groups) |
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
Prokaryotes.
When the taxon is treated as an alga,
its name is validly published and re-
tains 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 expressing
doubt as to its generic status,
“Si celui-ci doit constituer un genre nouveau,
nous propo-
sons de lui donner le nom de
Pneumocystis Carinii”.
Under Art.
36.1(a)
Pneumocystis
would not be validly published, but
Art. 11.5.1 of the
International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature
allows for such qualified publication
before 1961.
Therefore,
Pneumo-
cystis,
because it is
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 the
former condition
is
no obstacle to availability
under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
(see
Rec. 13B)
and
the latter
was no obstacle
under that
Code
until after 1999 (Art. 72.3).
Therefore,
when consid-
ered the name of a fungus,
P. jirovecii, with
corrected termination (Art.
60.8), is validly
published under Art.
45.1.
Subsequent publication of a Latin diagnosis
and indication of
type by Frenkel
(J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 46: 91S. 1999),
who treated the species as a
fungus,
was necessary
for valid
publication
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.
F.1.1) 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.
110 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 110 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46 |
CITATION
AUTHOR CITATIONS
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.
(Gen. Pl.: 334. 1789),
Rosa L.
(Sp. Pl.: 491. 1753),
Rosa gallica L.
(l.c.: 492. 1753),
Rosa gallica var.
versicolor L.
(Sp. Pl., ed. 2:
704. 1762),
Rosa gal-
lica L. var.
gallica.
Note 1.
A name of a taxon is attributed
to the author(s) of the publication in
which it appears (see Art. 46.5)
unless one or more of the provisions of Art. 46
rules otherwise.
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
Pinus longaeva was published in a paper by Bailey
(in Ann. Missouri
Bot. Gard.
57: 243. 1971)
and was ascribed to “D. K. Bailey”.
The validating description
111 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 111 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
46 | Author citations |
is unequivocally associated with Bailey
because he is the author of the publication (see
Note 5). The name is therefore cited as
P. longaeva D. K. Bailey (see also Note 1).
Ex. 3.
Wallich
(Pl. Asiat. Rar.
3: 66. 15 Aug 1832)
ascribed the name
Aikinia brunonis
to himself (“Wall.”) and,
although he ascribed both the diagnosis and description to
“Brown”, the correct attribution is
A. brunonis Wall.
because Wallich is the author of
the publication
and the name is not ascribed to anyone else (see Note 1).
Ex.
4.
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.
5.
In a paper by Hilliard & Burtt
(in Notes Roy. Bot.
Gard. Edinburgh
43: 365.
1986)
names of new species of
Schoenoxiphium, including
S. altum, were ascribed to
Kukkonen, preceded by a statement
“The following diagnostic descriptions
of new spe-
cies have been supplied
by Dr. I. Kukkonen
in order to make the names available for
use.” The name is therefore cited as
S. altum Kukkonen.
Ex.
6.
In Torrey & Gray
(Fl. N. Amer.
1: 198. 1838)
the names
Calyptridium and
C. monandrum were ascribed to “Nutt. mss.”,
and the descriptions were enclosed in
double quotes indicating that Nuttall wrote them,
as acknowledged in the preface. The
names are therefore cited as
Calyptridium Nutt. and
C. monandrum Nutt.
Ex.
7.
When publishing
Eucryphiaceae
(in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin)
6: 130. 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, an-
gesehen”,
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.
8.
When Candolle
(Essai Propr. Méd. Pl.,
ed. 2: 87. 1816)
wrote
“Elaeocarpeae.
Juss., Ann. Mus. 11, p. 233”
he ascribed 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.,
nom. cons. (see
App. IIB), not
Elaeocarpaceae “Juss. ex DC.”
Ex.
9.
Green
(Census Vasc. Pl.
W. Australia,
ed. 2: 6. 1985)
ascribed the new combina-
tion
Neotysonia phyllostegia to Wilson
and elsewhere in the same publication acknowl-
edged his assistance. The name is therefore cited as
N. phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul
G. Wilson.
Ex.
10.
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.
11.
The name and original description of
Verrucaria aethiobola Wahlenb.
(in
Acharius, Methodus,
Suppl.:
17. 1803) were published
in a single paragraph ascribed to
112 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 112 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46 |
“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), regard-
less
of the accompanying description
provided by Acharius.
Ex.
12.
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.
13.
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”.
Because
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.
Note 3.
The authorship of a descriptive name (Art.
16.1(b))
is not changed if the
name is used
at a rank different from that at which
it was first validly published
because it is not a name at new rank (see Art. 6
Note 3;
see also Art.
49.2).
Ex. 14.
Streptophyta Caval.-Sm.
(in Lewin, Origins of Plastids: 340. 1993)
was origi-
nally published as a name
at the rank of infrakingdom
(used as a rank between sub-
kingdom and phylum).
When the name is used at the rank of phylum,
it is still cited as
Streptophyta Caval.-Sm. (1993).
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 associated
with a synonym
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.
Ex.
15.
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. sideroxy-
loides
“Roem. & Schult.” nor
A. sideroxyloides “Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.”
Ex.
16.
Sicyos triqueter Moc. & Sessé ex Ser.
(in Candolle,
Prodr.
3: 309. 1830) was
ascribed to Mociño and Sessé by Seringe’s writing
“S. triqueter (Moc. & Sessé, fl. mex.
mss.)”.
However,
Malpighia emarginata DC.
(Prodr.
1: 578. 1824)
was not ascribed to
these authors by Candolle’s writing
“M. emarginata (fl. mex. ic. ined.)”.
Ex.
17.
Lichen debilis Sm.
(in Smith & Sowerby,
Engl. Bot.
35: t. 2462. 1812)
was not
ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s citing
“Calicium debile. Turn. and Borr. Mss.”
as a synonym.
113 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 113 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
46 | Author citations |
Ex.
18.
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.
Hemi-
sphace Benth. (see Art. 41
Ex.
4).
Ex.
19.
When Brotherus
(in Engler & Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam.
1(3): 875. 1907)
pub-
lished
“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, ascribe to them the simultane-
ously
published name of his new genus,
Dichelodontium
Hook. f. &
Wilson ex Broth.
Ex.
20.
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
provided a full and direct reference to the basionym,
B. tenue var.
paucefulcrans C. Y.
Wu
ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li.
Ex.
21.
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.
Note
4.
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.
Ex.
22.
The appropriate author citation for
Baloghia pininsularis (see Art. 40
Ex.
4)
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.
23.
“Pancheria humboldtiana”
was published by Guillaumin
(in Mém. Mus. Natl.
Hist. Nat., Ser. B,
Bot. 15: 47. 1964),
but not validly
so because
no type was indicated.
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 as-
sociated 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
5.
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.
24.
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
114 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 114 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46 |
the name must be cited as
A. pusillus Carmich.
However, the paragraph containing the
name
and diagnosis
of
A. castaneus,
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 cor-
rectly cited as
A. castaneus Hook.,
the author of the publication,
even though the de-
scription
is ascribed to Carmichael.
Ex.
25.
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.
(Prodr.:
122. 1788),
is cited as
O. tri-
quetrum (Sw.) R. Br.
(in Aiton, Hort. Kew., ed. 2,
5: 216. 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 a validly published name
or its final
epithet is taken up from
and attributed to the author of a different
“name”
that has not been validly
published,
or one
at a different rank
likewise not validly
published,
only
the author of the validly published name
is cited
(except as provided
in Art.
46.7).
Ex. 26.
When publishing the new generic name
Anoplon, Reichenbach
(Consp. Regn.
Veg.:
212b. 1828–1829)
attributed the name to Wallroth
and referred to the designation
published by Wallroth
(Orobanches Gen. Diask.: 25, 66. 1825) as
Orobanche “Tribus
III.
Anoplon”,
which was not validly published under Art.
37.6
because its rank was
denoted by a misplaced term
(tribe between genus and species).
The generic name is
cited as
Anoplon Rchb., not
Anoplon “Wallr. ex Rchb.”
Ex.
27.
When publishing
Andropogon drummondii, Steudel
(Syn. Pl. Glumac.
1: 393.
1854)
attributed the name to
“Nees. (mpt. sub:
Sorghum.)”.
This reference to the unpub-
lished binary designation
“Sorghum drummondii Nees” is not ascription of
A. drum-
mondii to Nees,
and the name is cited as
A. drummondii Steud., not
A. drummondii
“Nees ex Steud.”
Ex. 28.
“Porphyra yezoensis f.
narawaensis” was published by Miura
(in J. Tokyo Univ.
Fish. 71: 6. 1984),
but two gatherings
(from the same place but on different dates)
were
cited as “holotype”
and the designation was not therefore validly published.
Kikuchi
& al.
(in J. Jap. Bot.
90: 381. 2015),
using Miura’s description and designating a single
specimen as the holotype, validly published the name
Pyropia yezoensis f.
narawaensis
N. Kikuchi & al.,
which is not to be cited as
P. yezoensis f.
narawaensis “A. Miura ex
N. Kikuchi & al.”
46.5.
A name of a new taxon is
attributed to the author(s) of the pub-
lication in which it appears when the name
was ascribed to a different
115 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 115 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
46 | Author citations |
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 ascribed 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. 29.
Henry
(in Bull. Trimestriel Soc. Mycol. France 74: 303. 1958)
published the
designation
“Cortinarius balteatotomentosus”
with a Latin description and a locality
citation but without indicating a type (Art. 40
Note 2).
He later (in Bull. Trimestriel Soc.
Mycol. France 101: 4. 1985)
validated the name by designating a holotype and providing
a full and direct reference to his earlier description (see Art.
33.1).
The description is
therefore unequivocally associated with Henry
(Art. 46 Note 4) and the name,
although
not explicitly ascribed,
is treated as ascribed to Henry because he was the author of the
publication (Note 5).
Liimatainen & al.
(in Persoonia
33: 118. 2014)
cited the authorship
as
C. balteatotomentosus “Rob. Henry ex Rob. Henry”,
but Art. 46.5 does not apply
because Henry did not ascribe the name to a different author.
Under Art. 46.2 the name
is correctly cited as
C. balteatotomentosus Rob. Henry.
Ex.
30.
Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov
(in Grubov & Egorova,
Rast.
Tsent. Azii,
Mater. Bot. Inst. Komarova
7: 70. 1977)
as a new species, with its name
ascribed to Ivanova;
because
there is no indication
that Ivanova provided the validat-
ing
description, the name is cited as either
L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov
or
L. tianschanicum Grubov.
Ex.
31.
In a paper by Boufford, Tsi & Wang
(in J. Arnold Arbor.
71: 123. 1990)
the name
Rubus fanjingshanensis was ascribed to Lu
with no indication that Lu provided the
description; the name is attributed
to either L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al.
or Boufford & al.
Ex.
32.
Seemann
(Fl. Vit.:
22. 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.
33.
Rudolphi published
Pinaceae
(Syst. Orb. Veg.:
35. 1830) as
“Pineae. Spreng.”,
followed by a validating diagnosis not ascribed to Sprengel;
the name is cited as either
Pinaceae Spreng. ex F. Rudolphi or
Pinaceae F. Rudolphi.
Ex.
34.
Green
(Census Vasc. Pl.
W. Australia, ed. 2:
6. 1985)
ascribed the new combi-
nation
Tersonia cyathiflora to “(Fenzl) A. S. George”;
because
Green nowhere men-
tioned
that George had contributed in any way, the
name is cited as either
T. cyathiflora
(Fenzl)
A. S. George ex J. W. Green or
T. cyathiflora
(Fenzl) 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.
116 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 116 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46 |
Ex.
35.
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”.
Ex.
36.
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.
37.
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”.
Because
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.
38.
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.
39.
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
parentheses, followed by “ex”.
Ex.
40.
Linnaeus
(Gen. Pl.,
ed 5: 322. 1754)
ascribed the name
Lupinus to the pre-start-
ing-point author Tournefort; the name is cited as either
Lupinus Tourn. ex L.
(Sp. Pl.:
751. 1753) or
Lupinus L. (see Art.
13.4).
Ex.
41.
“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
is
cited as either
H. glutinosum (C. Agardh) ex Gomont or
H. glutinosum Gomont.
117 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 117 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
46 | Author citations |
Ex. 42.
Designations of desmids published
prior to their starting-point (see Art.
13.1(e))
may be cited according to their validation in Ralfs
(Brit. Desmid. 1848) as follows:
“Closterium dianae”
(Ehrenberg,
Infusionsthierchen:
92. 1838),
cited as
C. dianae
Ehrenb. ex Ralfs
(Brit. Desmid.:
168. 1848);
“Euastrum pinnatifidum”
(Kützing,
Phy-
col. Germ.:
134. 1845), cited as
Micrasterias pinnatifida (Kütz.) ex Ralfs
(Brit. Des-
mid.:
77. 1848).
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.
Ex.
43.
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.
44.
The name
Andreaea angustata
was published in a work of Limpricht
(Laubm.
Deutschl.
1: 144. 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
for which there is no internal
evidence of authorship.
Ex. 45.
If no internal or external evidence of authorship
of effectively and validly pub-
lished names
can be determined,
the standard form “Anon.” (for Anonymous)
may be
used, e.g.
Ficus cooperi Anon.
(in Proc. Roy. Hort. Soc. London
2: 374. 1862) or
Nym-
phaea gigantea f.
hudsonii (Anon.) K. C. Landon
(in Phytologia
40: 439. 1978).
Ex.
46.
No authorship appears anywhere
in the work known as “Cat. Pl. Upper
Louisi-
ana. 1813”, a catalogue of plants
available from the Fraser Brothers Nursery.
Based on
external evidence
(cf. Stafleu & Cowan
in Regnum Veg.
105: 785. 1981),
authorship of
the document, and of
included nomenclatural novelties such as
Oenothera macrocarpa,
is
attributed to Thomas Nuttall.
Ex.
47.
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.
18),
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 author citation may adopt
the “ex” citation in the protologue.
118 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 118 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 46–46A |
Ex.
48.
In validly publishing the name
Nothotsuga, Page
(in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard.
Edinburgh 45: 390. 1989)
ascribed it
to
“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.
49.
Atwood
(in Selbyana
5: 302. 1981)
ascribed the name of a new species,
Maxil-
laria 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.
46A.1.
For the purpose of author citation,
prefixes indicating ennoblement (see
Rec.
60C.4(d)
and
(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
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
standard forms,
updated as neces-
sary from the
International Plant Names Index
(http://www.ipni.org) and
Index
Fungorum
(http://www.indexfungorum.org),
have been used for author citations
throughout this
Code, albeit with
additional spacing.
119 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 119 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
46B–47 | Author citations |
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
the
Latin alphabet
should romanize their names, preferably
(but not necessarily) in
accordance
with an internationally recognized standard and,
as a matter of typo-
graphical convenience, 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 romaniza-
tion of their personal names.
46C.1.
After a name published jointly by two authors,
both authors should be
cited, linked
by an ampersand (&)
or by the word “et”.
Ex. 1. Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et P. Wilson or D. gleasonii Britton & P. Wilson.
46C.2.
After a name published
jointly by more
than two authors,
the citation
should be restricted to the first author
followed by
“& al.” or
“et 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.
or
L. erythrantha var.
welwitschii (Baker)
Geerinck et al.
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.).
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
(in Proc. Amer. Acad.
Arts 22: 467. 1887)
is attributed to two different species, as by Munz
(in Bull. S. Calif.
120 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 120 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 47–48 |
Acad. Sci.
31: 62. 1932),
the species not including the lectotype
must bear a different
name
(A. shockleyi Munz)
but the other species is still named
A. beckwithii S. Watson.
Ex. 2.
Myosotis as revised by Brown
differs from the genus as originally circumscribed
by Linnaeus, but the generic name remains
Myosotis L.
because
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.
(Sp. Pl.:
914. 1753),
C. amara L.
(Sp. Pl., ed. 2:
1292. 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).
47A.1.
When an alteration
as mentioned in Art. 47.1
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
speciebus” (excl. sp.),
“exclusa varietate” or
“exclusis varietatibus” (excl. var.),
“sensu amplo” (s. ampl.),
“sensu lato” (s. l.),
“sensu stricto” (s. str.), etc.
Ex. 1.
Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.;
Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend.
Lam.).
48.1.
When an author adopts an existing name
but definitely excludes
its type,
a later homonym that must be attributed
solely to that author is
considered to have been published.
Similarly, when an author who adopts
a name refers to an apparent basionym or replaced synonym
but explic-
itly 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 simultaneous explicit inclusion of the type
in a different taxon
by the same author.
Ex. 1.
Sirodot
included
Lemanea corallina
Bory, the type of
Lemanea Bory
(in Ann.
Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.
12: 178. 1808), in
his new genus
Sacheria Sirodot
(in Ann. Sci.
Nat., Bot., ser. 5,
16: 69. 1872);
hence
Lemanea, as treated by Sirodot
(l.c.), is cited as
Lemanea Sirodot non Bory, and not as
Lemanea “Bory emend. Sirodot”.
Ex. 2.
The name
Amorphophallus campanulatus Decne.
(in Nouv. Ann. Mus. Hist.
Nat.
3: 366. 1834)
was apparently based on the illegitimate
Arum campanulatum Roxb.
(Hort. Bengal.:
65. 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.
121 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 121 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
48–49 | Author citations |
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
G. grise-
bachii and explicitly excluded
M. integrifolia from the genus.
Gyminda Sarg.
(in Gard.
& Forest
4: 4. 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.
9.6
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.
49.1.
Author citation
for a name at the
rank of genus
or below
that has
a basionym
(Art.
6.10)
comprises
the author(s) of
the basionym
cited in
parentheses followed by the author(s) of the name itself
(see also Art.
46.7).
Ex. 1.
Medicago polymorpha var.
orbicularis L.
(Sp. Pl.:
779. 1753)
when raised to the
rank of species
is cited as
M. orbicularis (L.) Bartal.
(Cat. Piante Siena:
60. 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
(Hort. Dendrol.:
242. 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.
(Sp. Pl.:
527. 1753)
when transferred to
Helianthemum
Mill. is cited as
H. aegyptiacum (L.) Mill.
(Gard. Dict., ed. 8:
Helianthemum
No. 23.
1768).
Ex. 5.
Fumaria bulbosa var.
solida L.
(Sp. Pl.:
699. 1753)
was raised to specific rank as
F. solida (L.) Mill.
(Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 6:
Fumaria No. 8. 1771).
The name of this spec-
ies when transferred to
Corydalis DC. is cited as
C. solida (L.) Clairv.
(Man. Herbor.
Suisse:
371. 1811),
not
C. solida “(Mill.) Clairv.”
122 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 122 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Author citations | 49–50 |
Ex. 6.
Pulsatilla
montana var.
serbica W. Zimm.
(in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni
Veg.
61: 95. 1958),
originally placed under
P. montana subsp.
australis (Heuff.) Zäme-
lis,
retains its authorship when placed under
P. montana subsp.
dacica Rummelsp. (see
Art.
24.1)
and is not
to be 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 authorship
when
placed under
S. sect.
Glaucae Pax
(see Art.
21.1)
and is not
to be 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
(in J. Arnold Arbor.
1:
130. 1919)
was based on
Quercus polystachya A. DC.
(Prodr.
16(2): 107. 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).
Note 1.
Author citation for a replacement name (Art.
6.11)
comprises only the
author(s) of the name itself,
not those of the replaced synonym.
Ex. 9.
Mycena coccineoides, a replacement name for
Omphalina coccinea Murrill
(see Art. 6
Ex. 15),
is cited as
M. coccineoides Grgur., not
M. coccineoides “(Murrill)
Grgur.”
(see also Art. 58
Ex. 1,
3 and
4).
Note 2.
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.
49.2. Parenthetical author citations are not used for suprageneric names.
Ex.
10.
Even though
Illiciaceae A. C. Sm.
(in Sargentia
7: 8. 1947)
was validly pub-
lished by reference to
Illicieae DC.
(Prodr. 1: 77. 1824)
it is not
to be cited as
Illiciaceae
“(DC.) A. C. Sm.”
50.1.
When a taxon
at the rank
of species or below
is transferred from
the non-hybrid category to the hybrid category
at
the same rank (Art. H.10
Note 1),
or vice versa,
the authorship
remains unchanged but may be fol-
lowed by an indication in parentheses
of the original category.
Ex. 1.
Stachys ambigua Sm.
(in Smith & Sowerby,
Engl. Bot.
30: t. 2089. 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
(in Candolle, Prodr.
16(2): 281. 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.).
123 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 123 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
50A–50E | Citation |
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION
50A.1.
In the citation of a
designation
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.
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 de-
scription or diagnosis,
should be cited as
Carex bebbii Olney,
nomen nudum (or nom.
nud.).
50C.1.
The citation of a later homonym
should be followed by the name of the
author of the earlier homonym preceded
by the word “non”, preferably with the
date of publication added.
In some instances it will be advisable
to cite also any
other homonyms,
preceded by the word “nec”.
Ex. 1. Ulmus racemosa Thomas in Amer. J. Sci. Arts 19: 170. 1831, non Borkh. 1800.
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.
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.
Ém. Laurent: 26. 1905;
Durand & Durand,
Syll. Fl. Congol.:
505. 1909.
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.
124 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 124 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Citation | 50E–50G |
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.
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. cari-
baeum 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’.
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)).
125 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 125 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
51–52 | Maintenance – Superfluity |
REJECTION OF NAMES
51.1.
A legitimate name must not be rejected
merely because it, or its epi-
thet,
is inappropriate or disagreeable,
or because another is preferable or
better known (but see Art.
56.1
and
F.7.1),
or because it has lost its original
meaning.
Ex. 1.
Changes
such as
the following
are contrary to
Art. 51.1:
Mentha to
Minthe,
Staphylea to
Staphylis, Tamus to
Tamnus, Thamnos, or
Thamnus, Tillaea to
Tillia, Vince-
toxicum to
Alexitoxicon; and
Orobanche artemisiae to
O. artemisiepiphyta,
O. colum-
bariae to
O. columbarihaerens, O. rapum-genistae to
O. rapum or
O. sarothamnophyta.
Ex. 2.
Ardisia quinquegona Blume
(Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.
13: 689. 1825)
is not to be re-
jected in favour of
A. pentagona A. DC.
(in Trans. Linn. Soc. London
17: 124. 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.
(Sp. Pl.:
309. 1753)
is not to be rejected merely
because the species does not grow in Peru.
Ex. 4.
The name
Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.) Litv.
(Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross.
7: 13.
1911),
based on
Polycnemum oppositifolium Pall.
(Reise Russ. Reich.
1: 484. 1771),
is
not to be rejected merely because the species
has leaves only partly opposite, and partly
alternate, although there is another closely related species,
Petrosimonia brachiata
(Pall.) Bunge,
that has all its leaves opposite.
Ex. 5.
Richardia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
330. 1753)
is not to be rejected in favour of
Richardsonia,
as was done by Kunth
(in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat.
4: 430. 1818),
merely because the name
was originally dedicated to Richardson.
52.1.
A name,
unless conserved (Art.
14),
protected (Art.
F.2),
or sanctioned
(Art.
F.3),
is illegitimate and is to be rejected
if it was nomenclaturally
126 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 126 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Superfluity | 52 |
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 that ought to have been adopted,
or of which the epithet
ought to have been adopted,
under the rules (but see Art. 52.4 and
F.8.1).
52.2.
For the purpose of Art. 52.1,
definite inclusion of the type of a name
is effected by citation
of
(a)
the
holotype under Art.
9.1
or the original type
under Art.
10
or all syntypes under Art.
9.6
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; or
(d)
the
illus-
trations 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.
(Fam. Pl.
2: 166. 1763)
is illegitimate because
it was a superfluous name for
Chrysophyllum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
192. 1753),
which Adanson
cited as a synonym.
Ex. 2.
Picea excelsa Link
(in Linnaea
15: 517. 1841)
is illegitimate because it is based
on
Pinus excelsa Lam.
(Fl. Franç.
2: 202. 1779),
a superfluous name for
Pinus abies L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1002. 1753).
Under
Picea the correct name is
Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.
(Deut.
Fl.:
324. 1881).
Ex. 3.
Salix myrsinifolia Salisb.
(Prodr. Stirp. Chap. Allerton:
394. 1796)
is legitimate
because it is
explicitly based on
“S. myrsinites” of Hoffmann
(Hist. Salic. Ill.:
71. 1787),
a misapplication of
S. myrsinites L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1018. 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.
Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill. are not illegitimate names,
although Miller’s species are now united
with the species previously named
C. behen L.
(Sp. Pl.:
414. 1753):
C. latifolius and
C. angustifolius as circumscribed by Miller
(Gard.
Dict., ed. 8:
Cucubalus
No. 2, 3. 1768)
did not include the type of
C. behen L., a name
that he adopted for another species.
Ex.
5.
Explicit exclusion of type.
When publishing the name
Galium tricornutum,
Dandy
(in Watsonia
4: 47. 1957)
cited
G. tricorne Stokes
(Bot. Arr. Brit. Pl., ed. 2,
1:
153. 1787)
pro parte as a synonym while explicitly excluding its type.
Ex.
6.
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.
7.
Under
Persicaria maculosa Gray
(Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl.
2: 269. 1821),
the name
Poly-
gonum persicaria L.
(Sp. Pl.:
361. 1753)
was cited as the replaced synonym, and hence
the type of
Polygonum persicaria
was definitely included.
However,
because
Persicaria
127 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 127 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
52 | Superfluity |
mitis Delarbre
(Fl. Auvergne ed. 2:
518.
1806)
is an
earlier legitimate replacement name
for
Polygonum persicaria
and is
thereby homotypic
(Art.
7.4),
Persicaria maculosa
when published was an illegitimate superfluous name for
Persicaria mitis.
Its contin-
ued use
has been made possible by conservation
(see
App. IV).
Ex.
8.
Under
Bauhinia semla Wunderlin
(in Taxon
25: 362. 1976),
the name
B. retusa
Roxb.
(Fl. Ind., ed. 1832,
2: 322. 1832)
non Poir.
(in Lamarck, Encycl. Suppl.
1: 599.
1811),
was cited as the replaced synonym while
B. emarginata Roxb. ex G. Don
(Gen.
Syst.
2: 462. 1832)
non Mill.
(Gard. Dict., ed. 8:
Bauhinia No. 5. 1768),
was also cited
in synonymy,
and hence the types of the two synonyms
were definitely included.
How-
ever,
B. roxburghiana Voigt
(Hort. Suburb. Calcutt.:
254. 1845),
which was published
as a replacement name for
B. emarginata
Roxb. ex G. Don,
is necessarily homotypic
with it
(Art.
7.4),
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.
9.
Both
Apios americana Medik.
(Vorles. Churpfälz.
Phys.-Ökon. Ges.
2: 355. 1787)
and
A. tuberosa Moench
(Methodus:
165. 1794)
are replacement names for the legitimate
Glycine apios L.
(Sp. Pl.:
753. 1753),
the epithet of which in combination with
Apios would
form a tautonym
(Art.
23.4)
and would not therefore be validly published
(Art.
32.1(c)).
Apios tuberosa
was nomenclaturally superfluous when published,
and is therefore ille-
gitimate,
because Moench cited in synonymy
G. apios, which was then, as now,
homo-
typic with
A. americana, the name that has priority
and that Moench should have adopted.
Ex. 10.
Welwitschia Rchb.
(Handb. Nat. Pfl.-Syst.:
194. 1837)
was based on
Hugelia
Benth.
(Edwards’s Bot. Reg.
19: t. 1622. 1833), non
Huegelia Rchb.
(in Mitth. Geb. Fl.
Pomona
1829(13): 50. 1829).
Welwitschia Hook. f.
(in Gard. Chron.
1862: 71. 1862)
was
conserved against
Welwitschia Rchb.,
becoming effective on 18 May 1910
(see Art. 14
Note 4(b)).
Eriastrum Wooton & Standl.
(in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb.
16: 160. 1913),
also
based on
Hugelia Benth.,
was not therefore nomenclaturally superfluous
when pub-
lished because
Welwitschia Rchb. was no longer available for use.
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,
or in a sense
that excludes
one or more of
its potential type
elements,
does not make the name of the new
taxon nomenclaturally superfluous.
Ex.
11.
The protologue of
Blandfordia grandiflora R. Br.
(Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.:
296.
1810)
includes, in synonymy,
“Aletris punicea. Labill. nov. holl.
1. p. 85. t. 111 ?”,
indi-
cating that the new species
might be the same as
A. punicea Labill.
(Nov. Holl. Pl.
1: 85.
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.
12.
Leccinum Gray
(Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl.
1: 646. 1821)
does not include all potential
types
(in fact, none) of
Boletus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1176. 1753) : Fr.
and is not
therefore
illegiti-
mate even though it included,
as
L. edule (Bull. : Fr.) Gray,
the subsequently conserved
type of
Boletus,
B. edulis Bull. : Fr.
128 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 128 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Superfluity | 52 |
52.3.
For the purpose of Art. 52.2(e),
citation of a name can be effected
by a direct and unambiguous reference to it,
e.g. by citation of its orig-
inal
sequential number or exact diagnostic phrase name
(Linnaean “nomen
specificum legitimum”)
rather than its epithet.
Ex. 13.
In publishing
the name
Matricaria suaveolens
(Fl. Suec.,
ed. 2: 297. 1755),
Lin-
naeus adopted the phrase name
and included all the synonyms of
M. recutita L.
(Sp. Pl.:
891. 1753), but did
not explicitly
cite
M. recutita.
Because in 1755
M. recutita had no
holotype, no syntypes,
and no designated lectotype or conserved type,
the
provisions
of Art. 52.2
alone do not make
M. suaveolens
illegitimate.
However,
because the exact
diagnostic phrase name
(nomen specificum legitimum) of
M. recutita
was that provided
for
M. suaveolens,
the latter name is
illegitimate
under Art. 52.3.
Note 3.
For the purpose of Art. 52.2(e),
citation of a later isonym is equivalent
to citation of the name itself
if the citing author does not normally cite the primary
source, or if the name is usually not cited
from its primary source in contemporary
literature.
However, if it is possible to imply that the isonym
is cited “in the sense
of” the later author
or “as used in” the later source,
its inclusion does not by itself
cause illegitimacy.
52.4.
A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published is
not illegitimate on account
of its superfluity if it has a basionym
(which is
necessarily legitimate; see Art.
6.10),
or if it is
formed
from a legitimate
generic name.
When published it is incorrect,
but it may become correct
later.
Ex.
14.
Chloris radiata (L.) Sw.
(Prodr.:
26. 1788)
was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published
because
Swartz cited the legitimate
Andropogon fasciculatus L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
1047. 1753)
as a synonym.
However, it is not illegitimate
because
it has a basionym,
Agrostis radiata L.
(Syst. Nat.,
ed. 10: 873. 1759).
Chloris radiata is the correct name
in the genus
Chloris for
Agrostis radiata when
Andropogon fasciculatus
is treated as
a different species,
as was done by Hackel
(in Candolle & Candolle,
Monogr. Phan.
6:
177. 1889).
Ex.
15.
Juglans major (Torr.) A. Heller
(in Muhlenbergia
1: 50. 1904),
based on
J. rupes-
tris var.
major Torr.
(in Rep. Exped. Zuni
and Colorado Rivers:
171. 1853),
was nomen-
claturally superfluous when published
because Heller cited the legitimate
J. califor-
nica S. Watson
(in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts
10: 349. 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.
16.
The generic name
Hordelymus (Jess.) Harz
(Landw. Samenk.:
1147. 1885)
was
nomenclaturally superfluous when published
because its type,
Elymus europaeus L.,
is also the type of
Cuviera Koeler
(Descr. Gram.:
328. 1802).
However, it is not ille-
gitimate
because it has a basionym,
Hordeum [unranked]
Hordelymus Jess.
(Deutschl.
Gräser:
202. 1863).
Cuviera Koeler has since been rejected
in favour of its later homo-
nym
Cuviera DC., and
Hordelymus can now be used as the correct name
for a segregate
genus containing
E. europaeus L.
129 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 129 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
52–53 | Superfluity – Homonymy |
Ex.
17.
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.
(Elém. Physiol. Vég. Bot.
2: 905. 1815).
However,
it is not illegitimate because it
is
formed from
a legitimate generic name,
Carpinus L.
Ex. 18.
Wormia suffruticosa Griff. ex Hook. f. & Thomson
(in Hooker,
Fl. Brit. India
1:
35. 1872),
nom. cons.,
was nomenclaturally superfluous when published
because of the
inclusion of
W. subsessilis Miq.
(Fl. Ned. Ind.,
Eerste Bijv.:
619. 1861),
nom. rej.
With
conservation,
the previously illegitimate
W. suffruticosa
became available to serve as
basionym of
Dillenia suffruticosa
(Griff. ex Hook. f. & Thomson) Martelli
(in Malesia
3: 163. 1886),
which thereby also became legitimate
(see Art.
6.4),
although it too was
nomenclaturally superfluous
when published because of the inclusion of
W. subsessilis.
Note
4.
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
and
H.5).
Ex. 19.
The name
Polypodium
×shivasiae Rothm.
(in Kulturpflanze, Beih.
3: 245. 1962)
was proposed for hybrids between
P. australe Fée and
P. vulgare subsp.
prionodes
(Asch.) Rothm., while
in the same
publication (l.c.)
the author accepted
P.
×font-queri
Rothm.
(in Cadevall y Diars
& Font Quer,
Fl. Catalun.
6: 353. 1937)
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.
53.1.
A name of a family, genus, or species,
unless conserved (Art.
14),
protected (Art.
F.2),
or sanctioned (Art.
F.3),
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 at the same rank
(see also Art. 53.3
and
F.3.3).
Note 1.
Simultaneously published homonyms
are not illegitimate on account
of their homonymy unless an earlier homonym exists.
Ex. 1.
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth.
(in Candolle,
Prodr.
12: 436. 1848),
given to a
genus of
Labiatae, is a later homonym of
Tapeinanthus Herb.
(Amaryllidaceae:
190.
1837),
a name previously and validly published for a genus of
Amaryllidaceae.
Tapein-
anthus Boiss. ex Benth.
is therefore illegitimate and unavailable for use;
it was replaced
by
Thuspeinanta T. Durand
(Index Gen. Phan.:
703. 1888).
Ex. 2.
Torreya Arn.
(in Ann. Nat. Hist.
1: 130. 1838)
is a nomen conservandum and is
therefore available for use
in spite of the existence of the earlier homonym
Torreya Raf.
(in Amer. Monthly Mag. &
Crit. Rev.
3: 356. 1818).
Ex. 3.
Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss.
(Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 1,
2: 83. 1843)
is a later
homonym of the validly published name
A. rhizanthus Royle
ex Benth.
(in Royle, Ill.
Bot. Himal. Mts.:
200. 1835)
and is therefore illegitimate; it was replaced
by
A. carien-
sis Boiss.
(Diagn. Pl. Orient.,
ser. 1, 9: 56. 1849).
130 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 130 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Homonymy | 53 |
Ex. 4.
Molina racemosa Ruiz & Pav.
(Syst. Veg. Fl. Peruv. Chil.
1: 209. 1798)
(Com-
positae)
is an illegitimate later homonym of
Molina racemosa Cav.
(Diss.
9: 435. 1790)
(Malpighiaceae).
Ex. 5.
Moreae Britton & Rose
(in
Britton, N. Amer. Fl.
23: 201,
217. 1930),
formed from
Mora Benth.
(in Trans. Linn. Soc. London
18: 210. 1839),
although a later homonym of
Moreae Dumort.
(Anal. Fam. Pl.:
17. 1829),
formed from
Morus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
986. 1753),
is not illegitimate
because
the provisions on homonymy
do not apply to subdivisions
of families.
Note
2.
A validly published earlier homonym,
even if illegitimate, rejected
under Art.
56 or
F.7,
or otherwise generally treated as a synonym,
causes rejection
of any later homonym
that is not conserved,
protected,
or sanctioned (but see Art.
F.3.3).
Ex. 6.
Zingiber truncatum S. Q. Tong
(in Acta Phytotax. Sin.
25: 147. 1987)
is illegiti-
mate
because it is
a later homonym of the validly published
Z. truncatum Stokes
(Bot.
Mat. Med.
1: 68. 1812),
even though the latter name
is itself illegitimate under Art.
52.1;
Z. truncatum S. Q. Tong was replaced
by
Z. neotruncatum T. L. Wu & al.
(in Novon
10: 91. 2000).
Ex. 7.
Amblyanthera Müll. Arg.
(in Martius,
Fl. Bras.
6(1): 141. 1860)
is a later homo-
nym of the validly published
Amblyanthera Blume
(Mus. Bot.
1: 50. 1849)
and is there-
fore illegitimate, although
Amblyanthera Blume
is now considered to be a synonym of
Osbeckia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
345. 1753).
53.2.
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.
(in Ann. Sci. Nat.,
Bot., ser.
2,
9: 271. 1838)
and
Astrostemma Benth.
(in Hooker’s Icon. Pl.
14: 7. 1880);
Pleuropeta-
lum Hook. f.
(in London J. Bot.
5: 108. 1846)
and
Pleuripetalum T. Durand
(Index Gen.
Phan.: 493. 1888);
Eschweilera DC.
(Prodr. 3: 293. 1828)
and
Eschweileria Boerl.
(in
Ann. Jard. Bot.
Buitenzorg
6: 106, 112. 1887);
Skytanthus Meyen
(Reise 1: 376. 1834)
and
Scytanthus Hook.
(in Icon. Pl. 7:
ad t. 605–606. 1844).
*Ex. 9.
Bradlea Adans.
(Fam. Pl.
2: 324,
527. 1763),
Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn.
(Fruct.
Sem. Pl.
2: 127. 1790),
and
Braddleya Vell.
(Fl. Flumin.: 93. 1829),
all commemorating
Richard Bradley,
are treated as homonyms because only one can be used
without seri-
ous risk of confusion.
*Ex. 10.
Acanthoica Lohmann
(in Wiss. Meeresuntersuch.,
Abt. Kiel
7: 68. 1902)
and
Acanthoeca W. N. Ellis
(in Ann. Soc. Roy. Zool.
Belgique
60: 77. 1930),
both
applied
to
flagellates,
are sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms
(Taxon 22: 313. 1973).
131 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 131 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
53 | Homonymy |
*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
sinen-
sis; heteropodus and
heteropus; macrocarpon and
macrocarpum; macrostachys and
macrostachyus;
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
(in Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist.,
ser. 2,
9: 399. 1852)
and
Desmostachya (Stapf) Stapf
(in Thiselton-Dyer,
Fl. Cap.
7: 316.
1898);
Euphorbia peplis L.
(Sp. Pl.:
455. 1753)
and
E. peplus L.
(l.c.:
456. 1753);
Gerrar-
dina Oliv.
(in Hooker’s Icon. Pl.
11: 60. 1870)
and
Gerardiina Engl.
(in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
23: 507. 1897);
Iris L.
(Sp. Pl.:
38. 1753)
and
Iria (Pers.)
R. Hedw.
(Gen. Pl.:
360. 1806);
Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliv.
(in Hooker’s Icon. Pl.
20: ad t. 1980. 1891)
and
L. hemsleyi
Franch.
(in J. Bot. (Morot)
9: 461. 1895)
(see, however, Rec.
23A.2);
Monochaetum (DC.)
Naudin
(in Ann. Sci. Nat.,
Bot., ser. 3,
4: 48. 1845)
and
Monochaete Döll
(in Martius, Fl.
Bras.
2(3): 78. 1875);
Peltophorus Desv.
(in Nouv. Bull.
Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris
2: 188.
1810) and
Peltophorum (Vogel) Benth.
(in J. Bot. (Hooker)
2: 75. 1840);
Peponia Grev.
(in Trans. Microscop. Soc.
London, n.s.,
11: 75. 1863)
and
Peponium Engl.
(in Engler
& Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam.,
Nachtr.
1: 318. 1897);
Rubia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
109. 1753) and
Rubus L.
(l.c.:
492. 1753);
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip.
(in Flora
28: 498. 1845,
‘napeaefolius’; see Art. 60
Ex.
37)
and
S. napifolius MacOwan
(in J. Linn. Soc., Bot.
25:
388. 1890;
the epithets
derived, respectively, from
Napaea
L.
and
Brassica napus
L.);
Symphyostemon Miers
(in Proc. Linn. Soc. London
1: 123. 1841)
and
Symphostemon
Hiern
(Cat. Afr. Pl.
1: 867. 1900);
Urvillea Kunth
(in Humboldt & al.,
Nov. Gen. Sp. 5,
ed. qu.: 105;
ed. fol.: 81. 1821)
and
Durvillaea Bory
(Dict. Class. Hist. Nat.
9: 192. 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.).
53.3.
The names of two subdivisions of the same genus,
or of two infra-
specific taxa
within the same species,
even if they are
at different ranks, 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.
14.
Andropogon sorghum subsp.
halepensis (L.) Hack.
(in Candolle & Candolle,
Monogr. Phan. 6: 501. 1889)
and
A. sorghum var.
halepensis (L.) Hack.
(l.c.: 502. 1889)
are legitimate
because
both have the same type (see also Rec.
26A.1).
Ex.
15.
Anagallis arvensis subsp.
caerulea Hartm.
(Sv. Norsk Exc.-Fl.:
32. 1846),
based
on the later homonym
A. caerulea Schreb.
(Spic. Fl. Lips.:
5. 1771),
is illegitimate be-
cause
it is itself a later homonym of
A. arvensis var.
caerulea (L.) Gouan
(Fl. Monsp.:
30. 1765),
based on
A. caerulea L.
(Amoen. Acad.
4: 479. 1759).
Ex.
16.
Scenedesmus armatus var.
brevicaudatus (Hortob.) Pankow
(in Arch. Protis-
tenk. 132: 153. 1986), based on
S. carinatus var.
brevicaudatus Hortob.
(in Acta Bot.
132 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 132 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Homonymy | 53 |
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
at
different infraspecific ranks.
However,
S.
armatus var.
brevicaudatus (L. S. Péterfi) E. H. Hegew.
(in Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 60: 393. 1982)
is not a later homonym
because
it is based on the same type as
S. armatus f.
brevicau-
datus L. S. Péterfi.
Note
3.
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.
17.
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,
because
it is con-
trary to Rec.
21B.3
second sentence.
53.4.
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,
which will refer it for examination to the
specialist
committee(s) for the appropriate taxonomic group(s)
(see Div. III
Prov.
2.2,
7.9,
and
7.10).
A recommendation
whether or not to treat the names con-
cerned
as homonyms
may then be put forward to an International Botanical
Congress and, if ratified,
will become a binding decision
with retroactive
effect.
These binding decisions are listed in
App.
VII.
Ex. 18.
Gilmania Coville
(in J. Wash. Acad. Sci.
26: 210. 1936)
was published as a
replacement name for
Phyllogonum Coville
(in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb.
4: 190. 1893)
because the author considered the latter
to be a later homonym of
Phyllogonium Brid.
(Bryol. Univ.
2: 671. 1827).
Although
treating
Phyllogonum Coville
and
Phyllogonium
Brid. as homonyms had become accepted,
e.g. in
Index Nominum Genericorum,
a bind-
ing decision
was requested under Art. 53.4.
The Nomenclature Committee
for Sper-
matophyta
concluded (in Taxon
54: 536. 2005)
that the two names
should be treated as
homonyms, and this was endorsed
by the General Committee
(later reported
in Taxon
55: 799. 2006)
and ratified by the XVII
International Botanical Congress
in Vienna in
2005 (see
App. VII).
The name
Gilmania
is
therefore
to be
accepted as legitimate.
53.5.
When two or more
legitimate
homonyms have equal priority
(see
Note 1),
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 hav-
ing 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.
F.5A.2).
Ex. 19.
Linnaeus simultaneously published “10.”
Mimosa cinerea
(Sp. Pl.:
517. 1753)
and “25.”
M. cinerea
(Sp. Pl.:
520. 1753).
In 1759
(Syst. Nat.,
ed. 10: 1311),
he renamed
species 10 as
M. cineraria L. and retained the name
M. cinerea for species 25,
so that
the latter
is treated as having priority over its homonym.
133 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 133 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
53–54 | Homonymy |
Ex. 20.
Rouy & Foucaud
(Fl. France
2: 30. 1895)
published the name
Erysimum hie-
raciifolium var.
longisiliquum, with two different types,
for two different taxa under
different subspecies.
Only one of these names can be maintained.
Note
4.
A homonym renamed or rejected under Art. 53.6
remains legitimate
and has priority
over a later synonym
at the same rank
should it be transferred to
another genus or species.
Ex. 21.
Mimosa cineraria L.
(Syst. Nat.,
ed. 10: 1311.
1759),
based on
M. cinerea L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
517 [non 520]. 1753;
see Art. 53
Ex. 19),
was transferred to
Prosopis
L. by Druce
(in
Bot. Exch. Club Brit. Isles
Rep. 3: 422. 1914)
as
P. cineraria (L.) Druce.
However, the
correct name in
Prosopis would have been a combination based on
M. cinerea
(l.c.)
had
not that name been
successfully
proposed for rejection (see
App. V).
54.1.
Consideration of homonymy
does not extend to the names of taxa
not treated
under this
Code,
except as stated below
(see also Art.
F.6.1):
(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
applied to an organism
covered by
this
Code and
validly pub-
lished under it
(Art.
32–45),
but
originally published for a taxon other
than an alga, fungus, or plant,
i.e. under another
Code,
is illegitimate
if it
(1) is unavailable for use
under the provisions
of the other
Code¹,
usually because
of homonymy, or
(2)
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).
(c)
A name of a genus is treated
as an illegitimate later homonym if it
is spelled identically
with a previously published intergeneric graft
hybrid “name” established² under the provisions of the
International
Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.
Ex. 1.
(b)(1)
Cribrosphaerella Deflandre ex Góka
(in Acta Palaeontol. Polon.
2: 239,
260,
280. 5 Sep 1957)
was published under the provisions of the
International Code
of Zoological Nomenclature
for the Cretaceous coccolith algae previously known as
————————————
1
Such names are termed “objectively invalid” in the
International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature and “illegitimate” in the
International Code of Nomenclature of
Prokaryotes.
2
The term “established” is used by the
International Code of Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants
for the concept of validly published in the
International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
134 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 134 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Homonymy – Limitation of illegitimacy | 54–55 |
Cribrosphaera Arkhang.
(in Mater. Geol. Rossii 25: 411. 1912),
an objectively inva-
lid
(equivalent to illegitimate) name under that
Code because it is a later homonym
of
Cribrosphaera Popofsky
(in Ergebn. Plankton-Exped.
3(L.f.β): 22,
32,
63. 1906),
a
radiolarian genus.
Although
Cribrosphaera Arkhang.
is not a later homonym under this
Code, it is illegitimate
because it is not available for use
according to the provisions of
the
Code under which it was published; consequently
Cribrosphaerella is the correct
name for the coccolith genus under both
Codes.
Note 1.
The
International Code of Nomenclature of
Prokaryotes
provides that
a
prokaryotic
name is illegitimate if it is
a later homonym of a name of a taxon of
prokaryotes,
fungi, algae, protozoa, or viruses.
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
prokaryotic taxa
(see
also Art.
F.6.1).
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
(in Mus. Bot.
1: 340. 1851)
is legitimate even
though
Agathophyllum Juss.
(Gen. Pl.:
431. 1789)
is illegitimate
(it is a superfluous
replacement name for
Ravensara Sonn., Voy. Indes Orient.
3: 248. 1782).
Because
Meisner
(in Candolle, Prodr.
15(1): 104. 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. 1893)
is legitimate even though it was published under
Calycothrix Meisn.
(Pl. Vasc. Gen.:
107. 1838),
a superfluous replacement name for
Calytrix Labill.
(Nov.
Holl. Pl.
2: 8. 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).
Ex. 3.
Agropyron japonicum var.
hackelianum Honda
(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).
Note 1.
A name falling under the provisions
of Art. 55.1 or 55.2 is unavailable
for use, but may serve as a replaced synonym or,
if not itself illegitimate, basio-
nym of another name or combination.
135 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 135 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
55–56 | Limitation of illegitimacy – Rejection |
55.3.
The names of species and of subdivisions
of genera assigned to gen-
era the names of which are conserved,
protected,
or sanctioned later homo-
nyms, and that had earlier been assigned to the genera
under the rejected
homonyms,
are legitimate under the conserved,
protected,
or sanctioned
names without change of
authorship or date if there is no other
obstacle
under the rules.
Ex. 4.
When published,
Alpinia languas J. F. Gmel.
(Syst. Nat.
2: 7. 1791) and
A. galanga
(L.) Willd.
(Sp. Pl. 1: 12. 1797)
were assigned to
Alpinia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1753.
1753).
When
the name
Alpinia
was
conserved from a
later publication
(Art.
14.9), as
Alpinia Roxb.
(in Asiat. Res.
11: 350. 1810),
these two species
were included in
the newly
named genus
and their names
are to be
accepted without any change
in status under this
Code.
55.4.
The epithet of the name of a species
or subdivision of a genus that
was originally placed under a generic name
that is a later homonym, or the
final epithet of the name of an infraspecific taxon
that was originally placed
under a species name that is a later homonym,
may be placed under the re-
spective
legitimate earlier homonym
without change of authorship and date.
Ex. 5.
The epithet of
Haplanthus hygrophiloides T. Anderson
(in J. Linn. Soc., Bot.
9: 503. 1867)
was originally placed
under the illegitimate generic name
Haplanthus
T. Anderson
(l.c. 1867),
a later homonym of
Haplanthus Nees
(in Wallich, Pl. Asiat.
Rar.
3: 77,
115. 1832).
When
H. hygrophiloides
is considered to belong instead to
Hap-
lanthus Nees,
it is so accepted without change of authorship
and date.
Ex. 6.
When the homonyms
Acidosasa B. M. Yang
(in J. Hunan Teachers’ Coll., Nat.
Sci. Ed., 1981(2): 54. 1981) and
Acidosasa C. D. Chu & C. S. Chao
(in J. Bamboo Res.
1: 165. 1982)
are considered to apply to the same genus,
A. chinensis C. D. Chu & C. S.
Chao
(in J. Bamboo Res. 1: 165. 1982)
is so accepted even though its epithet
was origi-
nally placed under the illegitimate
Acidosasa C. D. Chu & C. S. Chao (1982).
56.1.
Any name that would cause
a disadvantageous nomenclatural change
(Art.
14.1)
may be proposed for rejection.
A name thus rejected,
or its basio-
nym if it has one,
is placed on a list of nomina utique rejicienda
(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).
Note 1.
A name rejected under Art. 56.1
does not become illegitimate on
account of its rejection
and can continue to provide the type of a name
at higher
rank.
Similarly, a combination under a rejected name,
although unavailable for use
because of the inclusion of the rejected name,
may be legitimate, and may serve as
basionym for another combination.
136 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 136 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 56–57 |
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
proposals must be submitted
to the General Committee,
which will refer
them for examination to the
specialist committees
for the various taxo-
nomic groups
(see Rec. 56A,
Div. III Prov.
2.2,
7.9,
and
7.10;
see also Art.
14.12
and
34.1).
56.3.
When a proposal for the rejection of a name under Art. 56
or
F.7 has
been approved by the General Committee
after study by the
specialist com-
mittee for the taxonomic group concerned,
rejection of that name is author-
ized
subject to the decision of a later International
Botanical Congress (see
also Art.
14.15 and
34.2).
Rejection takes effect
on the date of
effective
publication
(Art.
29–31)
of the General Committee’s
approval.
Note 2.
The date of the General Committee decision
on a particular rejection
proposal
can be determined by consulting the
International Code of Nomenclature
for algae, fungi, and plants Appendices database
(http://botany.si.edu/references
/codes/props/index.cfm).
56A.1.
When a proposal for the rejection of a name
under Art. 56
or
F.7
has been
referred to the appropriate
specialist committee
for study,
authors should follow
existing usage of names
as far as possible pending the General Committee’s rec-
ommendation on the proposal (see also Rec.
14A and
34A).
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.
(Syn. Meth. Fung.:
138.
1801)
: Pers.,
based on
Lycoperdon pusillum Batsch (Elench. Fung. Cont.
Secunda: 123.
1789),
is typified by a plate
(Batsch,
l.c.: t. 41, fig. 228. 1789)
that represents the species
currently known as
B. limosa Rostr.
(in Meddel. Grønland
18: 52. 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
Pers. : 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.
137 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 137 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
58 | Re-use |
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
and
11.4).
Ex. 1.
The name
Talinum polyandrum Hook.
(in Bot. Mag.:
ad t. 4833. 1855)
is illegiti-
mate under Art.
53.1
because it is
a later homonym of
T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav.
(Fl.
Peruv. Prodr.:
65. 1794).
When Bentham
(Fl. Austral.
1: 172. 1863) transferred
T. poly-
andrum Hook. to
Calandrinia
Kunth,
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.
Cymbella subalpina Hust.
(in Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 42: 98.
1942) is illegitimate under Art.
53.1
because it is a later homonym of
C. subalpina
F. Meister
(Kieselalg. Schweiz: 182, 236. 1912).
When Mann
(in Round & al., Diatoms:
667. 1990)
transferred
C. subalpina Hust. to
Encyonema Kütz., he called it
E. subalpi-
num D. G. Mann.
This name is a replacement name with priority from 1990
and as such
is illegitimate under Art.
52.1
because
C. mendosa VanLand.
(Cat. Fossil Recent Gen.
Sp. Diatoms Syn.
3: 1211, 1236. 1969)
had already been published as a replacement
name for
C. subalpina Hust.
Ex.
3.
Hibiscus ricinifolius E. Mey. ex Harv.
(Fl. Cap.
1: 171. 1860)
is illegitimate under
Art.
52.1 because
H. ricinoides Garcke
(in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin)
7: 834. 1849)
was cited
in synonymy.
When the epithet
ricinifolius was combined at varietal rank under
H. viti-
folius
by Hochreutiner
(in Annuaire Conserv.
Jard. Bot. Genève
4: 170. 1900)
his name
was legitimate
and is treated as a replacement name,
typified (Art.
7.4)
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. 4.
Geiseleria Klotzsch
(in Arch. Naturgesch.
7: 254. 1841)
is illegitimate under Art.
52.1
because Klotzsch’s
circumscription included
Croton glandulosus L.,
the original
type of
Decarinium Raf.
(Neogenyton:
1. 1825).
Later, Gray
(Manual, ed. 2:
391. 1856)
published
Croton subg.
Geiseleria,
which has priority from that date and is cited as
C. subg.
Geiseleria A. Gray, not
C. subg.
Geiseleria “(Klotzsch) A. Gray”.
Because the
subgeneric name
is a replacement name,
its type is
C. glandulosus, the type
(Art.
7.4) of
Decarinium and automatic type (Art.
7.5) of
Geiseleria.
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.
(Encycl. 4: 97. 1797)
is illegitimate under Art.
52.1
because
M. hirsutum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
341. 1753)
was cited in synonymy. The name
Cocculus
villosus DC.
(Syst. Nat.
1: 525. 1817),
based on
M. villosum, is also illegitimate
because
138 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 138 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-use | 58 |
the type of
M. hirsutum was not excluded and the epithet
hirsutus was available for use
in
Cocculus.
Ex. 6.
Cenomyce ecmocyna Ach.
(Lichenogr. Universalis:
549. 1810)
is an illegitimate
renaming of
Lichen gracilis L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1152. 1753).
Scyphophorus ecmocynus Gray
(Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl.
1: 421. 1821),
based on
C. ecmocyna, is also illegitimate
because the
type of
L. gracilis was not excluded and the epithet
gracilis was available for use.
When
proposing the combination
Cladonia ecmocyna, Leighton
(in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser.
3, 18: 406. 1866)
explicitly excluded
L. gracilis
and thereby published the legitimate
name of a new species,
Cladonia ecmocyna Leight.
Ex. 7.
Ferreola ellipticifolia Stokes
(in Bot. Mat. Med. 4: 556.
1812)
is illegitimate under
Art.
52.1 because
Maba elliptica J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.
(Char. Gen. Pl., ed. 2:
122.
1776)
was cited in synonymy.
Bakhuizen van den Brink published
Diospyros ellip-
ticifolia Bakh.
(in Gard. Bull. Straits Settlem.
7: 162. 1933)
as a replacement name for
F. ellipticifolia and did not exclude the type of
M. elliptica.
Diospyros ellipticifolia is
nevertheless a legitimate name
because in 1933 the epithet
elliptica was not available
for use in
Diospyros due to the existence of
D. elliptica Knowlt.
(in Bull. U. S. Geol.
Surv.
204: 83. 1902),
of which
D. elliptica (J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.) P. S. Green
(in Kew
Bull. 23: 340. 1969)
is an illegitimate later homonym (Art.
53.1).
(NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE)
139 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 139 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
ORTHOGRAPHY
60.1.
The original spelling of a name or epithet
is to be retained, except
for the correction of typographical
or orthographical errors
and the stand-
ardizations imposed by Art. 60.4
(letters and ligatures foreign to classical
Latin),
60.5
and 60.6
(interchange
between
u/v, i/j,
or
eu/ev), 60.7
(diacriti-
cal signs and ligatures),
60.8
(terminations; see also Art.
32.2),
60.9
(inten-
tional latinizations), 60.10
(compounding forms), 60.11
and 60.12 (hyphens),
60.13
(apostrophes and full stops), 60.14
(abbreviations), and
F.9.1
(epithets
of fungal names)
(see also Art.
14.8,
14.11,
and
F.3.2).
Ex. 1.
Retention of original spelling: The generic names
Mesembryanthemum L.
(Sp.
Pl.:
480. 1753) and
Amaranthus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
989. 1753)
were deliberately so spelled by
Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be altered to
‘Mesembrianthemum’ and
‘Amaran-
tus’,
respectively,
although these latter forms are
linguistically
correct
(see Bull. Misc.
Inform. Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928).
–
Phoradendron Nutt.
(in J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila-
delphia, ser. 2,
1: 185. 1848)
is not to be altered to
‘Phoradendrum’.
–
Triaspis mozam-
bica A. Juss.
(in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2,
13: 268. 1840)
is not to be altered to
‘T. mos-
sambica’,
as in Engler
(Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas
C: 232. 1895).
–
Alyxia ceylanica Wight
(Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient.
4: t. 1293. 1848)
is not to be altered to
‘A. zeylanica’, as in Trimen
(Handb. Fl. Ceylon
3: 127. 1895). –
Fagus sylvatica L.
(Sp. Pl.:
998. 1753)
is not to be
altered to
‘F. silvatica’.
Although the classical spelling is
silvatica, the mediaeval spell-
ing
sylvatica is not an orthographical error (see also Rec.
60E). –
Scirpus cespitosus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
48. 1753)
is not to be altered to
‘S. caespitosus’.
*Ex. 2.
The epithet of
Agaricus rhacodes Vittad.
(Descr. Fung. Mang.:
158. 1833)
is to
be so spelled,
even though it was originally spelled
‘rachodes’ (see
Wilson in Taxon
66: 189. 2017).
140 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 140 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
*Ex.
3.
Typographical errors:
Globba
‘brachycarpa’ Baker
(in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India
6: 205. 1890)
and
Hetaeria
‘alba’ Ridl.
(J. Linn. Soc., Bot.
32: 404. 1896)
are typo-
graphical errors for
Globba trachycarpa Baker and
Hetaeria alta Ridl., respectively
(see
Sprague in J. Bot.
59: 349. 1921).
Ex.
4.
‘Torilis’ taihasenzanensis Masam.
(in J. Soc. Trop. Agric. 6: 570. 1934) was a
typographical error for
Trollius taihasenzanensis,
as noted on the errata slip inserted
between pages 4 and 5 of the same volume.
Ex.
5.
The misspelled
Indigofera
‘longipednnculata’ Y. Y. Fang & C. Z. Zheng
(in Acta
Phytotax. Sin.
21: 331. 1983)
is presumably a typographical error
and is to be corrected
to
I. longipedunculata.
*Ex.
6.
Orthographical error:
Gluta
‘benghas’ L.
(Mant. Pl.:
293. 1771),
which is
an
orthographical error for
G. renghas, is cited as
G. renghas L.
(see Engler
in Candolle &
Candolle, Monogr. Phan.
4: 225. 1883);
the vernacular name used as a specific epithet
by Linnaeus is “renghas”, not “benghas”.
Ex. 7.
The original spelling of the generic name
‘Nilsonia’ Brongn.
(in Ann. Sci. Nat.
(Paris)
4: 210. 1825)
is an orthographical error correctable under Art. 60.1 to
Nilsso-
nia,
the conservation of which is not therefore required.
Brongniart named the genus
after Sven Nilsson,
whose name he consistently misspelled as “Nilson”
in his 1825
publication.
Note 1.
Art.
14.11
provides for the conservation of a particular
spelling of a
name of a family, genus,
or species (see Art.
14.8).
Ex. 8. Bougainvillea Comm. ex Juss. (‘Buginvillaea’), orth. cons. (see App. III).
Ex.
9.
Wisteria
Nutt., nom. cons.
is not to be altered to
‘Wistaria’,
although the genus
was named
in honour of Caspar Wistar,
because
Wisteria is the spelling used in
App.
III
(see Art.
14.8).
60.2.
The words “original spelling”
mean the spelling
used when a name
of a new taxon or a replacement name
was validly published.
They do not
refer to the use
of an initial capital or lower-case letter,
which is
a matter of
typography (see Art.
20.1,
21.2,
and Rec.
60F).
60.3.
The liberty of correcting a name
is to be used with reserve, espe-
cially if the change affects the first syllable
and, above all, the first letter
of the name
(but see *Ex. 6).
*Ex.
10.
The spelling of the generic name
Lespedeza Michx.
(Fl. Bor.-Amer.
2: 70.
1803)
is not to be altered,
although it commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see
Rhodora
36: 130–132,
390–392. 1934). –
Cereus jamacaru DC.
(Prodr.
3: 467. 1828)
may not be altered to
C.
‘mandacaru’, even if
jamacaru is believed to be a corruption
of the vernacular name “mandacaru”.
141 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 141 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
60.4.
The letters
w and
y, foreign to classical Latin, and
k, rare in that lan-
guage,
are permissible in scientific names
(see Art.
32.1(b)).
Other letters
and ligatures foreign to classical Latin
that may appear in scientific names,
such as the German
ß
(ſs,
or double
s),
are to be transcribed.
60.5.
When a name has been published
in a work where the letters
u, v or
i, j are used interchangeably
or in any other way
incompatible with modern
typographical
practices
(e.g. one letter of a pair not being used in capitals,
or not at all), those letters are to be transcribed
in conformity with modern
nomenclatural usage.
Ex.
11.
Curculigo Gaertn.
(Fruct. Sem. Pl.
1: 63. 1788),
not
‘Cvrcvligo’; Taraxacum Zinn
(Cat. Pl. Hort. Gott.:
425. 1757),
not
‘Taraxacvm’; Uffenbachia Fabr.
(Enum., ed. 2:
21.
1763), not
‘Vffenbachia’.
Ex.
12.
‘Geastrvm hygrometricvm’ and
‘Vredo pvstvlata’ of Persoon
(in Syn. Meth.
Fung.:
135,
219 1801)
are spelled, respectively,
Geastrum hygrometricum Pers.
: Pers.
and
Uredo pustulata Pers.
: Pers.
60.6.
When the original publication of a name
adopted a use of
the letters
u, v or
i, j
in any way incompatible
with modern nomenclatural
practices,
those letters
are to be transcribed
in conformity
with modern nomenclat-
ural usage.
When names or epithets
are derived from Greek words
that
include the diphthong
ey (ευ),
its transcription as
ev is treated
as an error
correctable to
eu.
When names or epithets
of Latin
but not Greek origin
include the letter
i used as a semi-vowel
(followed by another vowel),
it is
treated as an error
correctable to
j.
Ex. 13.
The generic name
‘Mezonevron’ Desf.
is correctable to
Mezoneuron Desf., and
the basionym of
Neuropteris (Brongn.) Sternb.
(nom. & orth. cons.),
Filicites sect.
‘Nevropteris’ Brongn.,
is correctable to
Filicites sect.
Neuropteris.
Similarly,
‘Evony-
mus’ L.
is correctable to
Euonymus L. (nom. & orth. cons.).
Ex. 14.
Jatropha L.,
Jondraba Medik., and
Clypeola
jonthlaspi L.,
because they are of
Greek origin,
are not to be altered to
‘Iatropha’,
‘Iondraba’, and
Clypeola
‘ionthlaspi’;
nor are
Ionopsidium Rchb. and
Ionthlaspi Adans. to be altered to
‘Jonopsidium’ and
‘Jonthlaspi’, respectively.
Ex.
15.
Brachypodium
‘iaponicum’
Miq. is
correctable to
Brachypodium japonicum
because the epithet
is Latin and, in Latin,
an initial
i followed by a vowel
is a semi-
vowel.
Meiandra ‘maior’ Markgr.
is correctable to
Meiandra major
because the epithet
is Latin and, in Latin, an
i between two vowels
is a semi-vowel,
but the generic name is
of Greek origin,
and so the spelling
“Meiandra” is correct.
60.7.
Diacritical signs are not used in scientific names.
When names
(either new or old)
are drawn from words in which such signs appear,
the
142 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 142 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
signs are to be suppressed
with the necessary transcription of the letters so
modified; for example
ä, ö, ü become, respectively,
ae, oe, ue
(not
æ or
œ,
see below);
é, è, ê become
e; ñ becomes
n; ø becomes
oe
(not
œ);
å becomes
ao.
The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel
is to be pronounced separately
from the preceding vowel (as in
Cephaëlis, Isoëtes), is a phonetic device
that is not considered to alter the spelling;
as such, its use is optional.
The
ligatures
æ and
œ,
indicating that the letters
are pronounced together, are to
be replaced by the separate letters
ae and
oe.
Ex.
16.
Transcription
(e.g.
umlaut):
‘Lühea’,
dedicated to Carl Emil von der Lühe,
is
spelled
Luehea Willd.
(in Neue Schriften Ges.
Naturf. Freunde Berlin
3: 410. 1801);
suppression (e.g. tilde):
Vochysia ‘kosñipatae’,
named after the valley
of Kosñipata, is
spelled
V. kosnipatae
Huamantupa (in Arnaldoa
12: 82. 2005).
60.8.
The
termination
of specific
or infraspecific epithets
derived from
personal names
that are not
already in Greek or Latin
and do not
pos-
sess a well-established
latinized form
(see Rec.
60C.1)
is as follows:
(a)
If the personal name ends with a vowel or
-er, substantival epithets
are formed by adding the genitive inflection
appropriate to the
gender
and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g.
scopoli-i for Scopoli (m),
fedtschenko-i for Fedtschenko (m),
fedtschenko-ae for Fedtschenko (f),
glaziou-i for Glaziou (m),
lace-ae for Lace (f),
gray-i for Gray (m),
hooker-orum for the Hookers (m)),
except when the name ends with
-a,
in which case adding
-e (singular) or
-rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g.
triana-e for Triana (m),
pojarkova-e for Pojarkova (f),
orlovskaja-e for
Orlovskaja (f)).
(b)
If the personal name ends with a consonant (but not in
-er), substanti-
val epithets are formed by adding
-i- (stem augmentation) plus the gen-
itive inflection appropriate to the
gender
and number of the person(s)
honoured (e.g.
lecard-ii for Lecard (m),
wilson-iae for Wilson (f),
verlot-iorum for the Verlot brothers,
braun-iarum for the Braun sisters,
mason-iorum for Mason, father and daughter).
(c)
If the personal name ends with a vowel,
adjectival epithets are formed
by adding
-an- plus the nominative singular inflection
appropriate to
the gender of the generic name (e.g.
Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne,
Vanda lindley-ana for Lindley,
Aspidium bertero-anum for Bertero),
except when the personal name ends with
-a in which case
-n- plus the
appropriate inflection is added (e.g.
balansa-nus (m),
balansa-na (f),
and
balansa-num (n) for Balansa).
143 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 143 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
(d)
If the personal name ends with a consonant,
adjectival epithets are
formed by adding
-i- (stem augmentation) plus
-an- (stem of adjectival
suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection
appropriate to the gen-
der of the generic name (e.g.
Rosa webb-iana for Webb,
Desmodium
griffith-ianum for Griffith,
Verbena hassler-iana for Hassler).
Terminations contrary to
the above standards
are treated as errors to be
corrected
to
-[i]i, -[i]ae,
-[i]ana, -[i]anus,
-[i]anum, -[i]arum, or
-[i]orum,
as appropriate
(see also Art.
32.2).
However,
epithets formed in accordance
with Rec.
60C.1 are not correctable
(see also Art. 60.9).
Note 2. The hyphens in Art. 60.8 are used only to set off the termination.
Note 3.
Art. 60.8 does not preclude the use,
as epithets, of names of genera
commemorating persons,
or feminine nouns formed by analogy
(see Rec.
20A.1(i)),
placed in apposition (Art.
23.1).
Ex. 17.
In
Rhododendron
‘potanini’ Batalin
(in Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk.
Bot. Sada
11:
489. 1892),
commemorating G. N. Potanin,
the epithet is to be spelled
potaninii under
Art. 60.8(b).
However, in
Phoenix theophrasti Greuter
(in Bauhinia
3: 243. 1967),
com-
memorating Theophrastus,
it is not spelled
‘theophrastii’
because Rec. 60C.1 applies.
Ex. 18.
Rosa
‘pissarti’ Carrière
(in Rev. Hort.
(Paris)
1880: 314. 1880)
is a typographi-
cal error for
R.
‘pissardi’
(see Rev. Hort.
(Paris)
1881: 190. 1881),
which is to be spelled
R. pissardii under
Art. 60.8(b).
Ex. 19.
In
Caulokaempferia ‘dinabandhuensis’
Biseshwori & Bipin
(in J. Jap. Bot. 92:
84. 2017),
commemorating Prof. Dinabandhu Sahoo,
the adjectival epithet was wrongly
given the geographical termination
-ensis (see Rec. 60D.1),
but is to be spelled
C. dina-
bandhuana
under Art. 60.8(c).
Ex. 20.
In
Uladendron codesuri Marc.-Berti
(in Pittieria
3: 10. 1971)
the epithet derives
from an acronym
(CODESUR, Comisión para el Desarrollo del Sur de Venezuela),
not
a personal name, and is not to be changed to
‘codesurii’
(as in Brenan, Index Kew.,
Suppl. 16: 296. 1981).
Ex. 21.
In
Asparagus tamaboki Yatabe
(in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)
7: 61. 1893) and
Agropyron
kamoji Ohwi
(in Acta Phytotax. Geobot.
11: 179. 1942)
the epithets correspond, respec-
tively,
to a Japanese vernacular designation,
“tamaboki”,
or to part of such a designa-
tion,
“kamojigusa”,
and are not therefore spelled
‘tamabokii’ and
‘kamojii’.
Note
4.
If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet
derived from a
personal name is inappropriate for the
gender
and/or number of the person(s)
whom the name commemorates,
the termination is to be corrected in conformity
with
Art. 60.8.
Ex. 22.
Rosa
בtoddii’ Wolley-Dod
(in J. Bot. 69, Suppl.: 106. 1931) was named for
“Miss E. S. Todd”; the epithet is to be spelled
toddiae.
Ex. 23.
Astragalus
‘matthewsii’ Podlech & Kirchhoff
(in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml.
Mün-
chen
11: 432. 1974)
commemorates Victoria A. Matthews;
the epithet is to be spelled
144 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 144 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
matthewsiae
and the name is not
to be treated as
a later homonym of
A. matthewsii
S. Watson
(in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts
18: 192. 1883)
commemorating Washington
Matthews (see
App. VII).
Ex. 24.
Codium
‘geppii’
(Schmidt in Biblioth. Bot. 91: 50. 1923),
which commemorates
A. Gepp and E. S. Gepp, is to be corrected to
C. geppiorum O. C. Schmidt.
Ex. 25.
Acacia
‘Bancrofti’ Maiden
(in Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland
30: 26. 1918)
“com-
memorates
the Bancrofts, father and son,
the former the late Dr. Joseph Bancroft, and
the latter Dr. Thomas Lane Bancroft”;
the epithet is to be spelled
bancroftiorum.
Ex. 26.
Chamaecrista leonardiae Britton
(N. Amer. Fl.
23: 281. 1930,
‘Leonardae’),
Scolosanthus leonardii Alain
(in Brittonia
20: 160. 1968),
and
Frankenia leonardiorum
Alain
(l.c.: 155. 1968,
‘leonardorum’)
were all based on type material collected by
Emery C. Leonard and Genevieve M. Leonard.
Because
there is no explicit contradict-
ing
statement,
these names are to be accepted as dedicated
to either or both, as indicated
by the termination of the epithet.
60.9.
When changes in spelling by authors
who adopt personal, geograph-
ical,
or vernacular names in nomenclature
are intentional latinizations,
they
are to be preserved,
except, in epithets
formed from personal names,
when
they concern
(a) only a termination to which Art. 60.8 applies, or
(b) per-
sonal
names in which the changes involve
only
(1) omission of the
terminal
vowel or
terminal consonant or
(2) conversion of the
terminal vowel to a
different vowel, for which the omitted
or converted
letter is to be restored.
Ex.
27.
Clutia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1042. 1753),
Gleditsia
J. Clayton
(in
Linnaeus, l.c.:
1056. 1753),
and
Valantia L.
(l.c.:
1051. 1753),
commemorating Cluyt, Gleditsch, and Vaillant,
re-
spectively,
are not to be altered to
‘Cluytia’,
‘Gleditschia’, and
‘Vaillantia’;
these per-
sonal names
were
deliberately latinized
as Clutius, Gleditsius, and Valantius.
Ex.
28.
Abies alcoquiana Veitch ex Lindl.
(in Gard. Chron.
1861: 23. 1861),
commemo-
rating
“Rutherford Alcock Esq.”,
implies an intentional latinization
of his family name
to Alcoquius.
In transferring the epithet to
Picea, Carrière
(Traité Gén. Conif., ed. 2:
343. 1867)
deliberately changed the spelling to
‘alcockiana’.
The resulting combination
is nevertheless correctly cited as
P. alcoquiana (Veitch ex Lindl.) Carrière (see Art.
61.4).
Ex.
29.
Abutilon glaziovii K. Schum.
(in Martius, Fl. Bras.
12(3): 408. 1891),
Desmo-
dium bigelovii A. Gray
(in Smithsonian Contr. Knowl.
5(6): 47.
1843),
and
Rhodo-
dendron bureavii Franch.
(in Bull. Soc. Bot. France
34: 281. 1887),
commemorating
A. F. M. Glaziou, J. Bigelow, and L. E. Bureau,
respectively, are not to be changed to
A.
‘glazioui’, D.
‘bigelowii’, or
R.
‘bureaui’.
In these three cases, the implicit latinizations
Glaziovius, Bigelovius, and Bureavius
result from conversion of the terminal vowel or
consonant to a consonant and do not affect
merely the termination of the names.
Ex.
30.
Arnica chamissonis Less.
(in Linnaea
6: 238. 1831) and
Tragus berteronianus
Schult.
(Mant.
2: 205. 1824),
commemorating L. K. A. von Chamisso and C. L. G.
Bertero, are not to be changed to
A.
‘chamissoi’ or
T.
‘berteroanus’.
The derivation
of these epithets
from the third declension genitive (Rec. 60C
Ex. 1(b)),
a practice
145 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 145 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
normally discouraged (see Rec.
60C.1),
involves the addition of letters to the personal
name and does not affect merely the termination.
Ex.
31.
Acacia
‘brandegeana’, Blandfordia
‘backhousii’, Cephalotaxus
‘fortuni’, Cheno-
podium
‘loureirei’, Convolvulus
‘loureiri’, Glochidion
‘melvilliorum’, Hypericum
‘buck-
leii’, Solanum
‘rantonnei’, and
Zygophyllum
‘billardierii’
were published to commem-
orate
T. S. Brandegee, J. Backhouse, R. Fortune,
J. de Loureiro, R. Melville and E. F.
Melville, S. B. Buckley, V. Rantonnet,
and J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la Billardière).
The
implicit latinizations are Brandegeus, Backhousius,
Fortunus, Loureireus or Loureirus,
Melvillius, Buckleius, Rantonneus, and Billardierius,
but these are not acceptable under
Art. 60.9.
The names are correctly cited as
A. brandegeeana I. M. Johnst.
(in Contr. Gray
Herb.
75: 27. 1925),
B. backhousei Gunn & Lindl.
(in Edwards’s Bot. Reg.
31: t. 18. 1845),
Cephalotaxus fortunei Hook.
(in Bot. Mag.:
ad t. 4499. 1850),
Chenopodium loureiroi
Steud.
(Nomencl. Bot.,
ed. 2. 1: 348. 1840),
Convolvulus loureiroi G. Don
(Gen Hist.
10:
290. 1836),
G. melvilleorum Airy Shaw
(in Kew Bull.
25: 487. 1971),
H. buckleyi M. A.
Curtis
(in Amer. J. Sci. Arts
44: 80. 1843),
S. rantonnetii Carrière
(in Rev. Hort.
32:
135.
1859),
and
Z. billardierei DC.
(Prodr.
1: 705. 1824).
Ex.
32.
Mycena seynii Quél.
(in Bull. Soc. Bot. France
23: 351. 1877),
commemorating
Jules de Seynes, is not to be altered to
M.
‘seynesii’.
The implicit latinization of that
name to Seynius results from omission
of more than the
terminal letter.
Note
5.
The provisions of Art. 60.8, 60.9, and Rec.
60C
deal with the latiniza-
tion
of names through their modification.
Latinization is not the same as transla-
tion
of a name (e.g. Tabernaemontanus,
Latin for Bergzabern; Nobilis, Latin for
Noble).
Epithets derived from such Latin translations
fall under Rec.
60C.1 and
are not subject to standardization under Art. 60.8.
Ex.
33.
In
Wollemia nobilis W. G. Jones & al.
(in Telopea
6: 174. 1995),
nobilis,
an adjec-
tive with genitive
nobilis, is the translation into Latin
of the family name of the discov-
erer
David Noble.
Cladonia abbatiana S. Stenroos
(in Ann. Bot. Fenn.
28: 107. 1991)
honours the French lichenologist H. des Abbayes,
where Abbayes can be translated to
Abbatiae (abbeys). Neither epithet may be altered.
60.10.
Adjectival epithets
that combine elements derived from two or
more Greek or Latin words are to be compounded
as follows:
A noun or adjective
in a non-final position
appears
as a compounding form
generally obtained by
(a)
removing the case ending of the genitive singular
(Latin
-ae, -i, -us, -is;
transcribed Greek
-ou, -os, -es, -as, -ous and its equivalent
-eos) and
(b)
before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel
(-i- for Latin elements,
-o- for Greek elements).
Adjectival epithets
not formed in accordance
with this provision
are to be
corrected to conform with it, unless Rec.
60G.1(a) or
(b) applies.
In particu-
lar, the use
of the genitive singular
case ending
of Latin first-declension
146 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 146 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60 |
nouns instead of a
connecting vowel
is treated as an error to be corrected
unless it serves to make a
semantic distinction.
Ex.
34.
The epithet meaning
“having leaves like those of
Quercus” is
quercifolia
(Querc-, connecting vowel
-i-, and ending
-folia).
Ex.
35.
The epithet
‘aquilegifolia’,
derived from the name
Aquilegia must be changed to
aquilegiifolia (Aquilegi-, connecting vowel
-i-, and ending
-folia).
Ex.
36.
The epithet of
Pereskia
‘opuntiaeflora’ DC.
(in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat.
17: 76.
1828)
is to be spelled
opuntiiflora, and that of
Myrosma
‘cannaefolia’ L. f.
(Suppl. Pl.
80. 1782),
cannifolia.
Ex.
37.
The epithet of
Cacalia
‘napeaefolia’ DC.
(Prodr.
6: 328. 1838)
and
Senecio
‘napeaefolius’ (DC.) Sch. Bip.
(in Flora
28: 498. 1845)
is to be spelled
napaeifolia (-us);
it refers to the resemblance of the leaves
to those found in
Napaea L. (not
‘Napea’), and
the connecting vowel
-i- should have been used
instead of the genitive singular inflection
-ae-.
Ex.
38.
In
Andromeda polifolia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
393. 1753),
the epithet is taken from a pre-
Linnaean generic designation
(“Polifolia” of Buxbaum)
and is a noun used in apposi-
tion,
not an adjective; it is not to be altered to
‘poliifolia’
(Polium-leaved).
Ex.
39.
Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze
(Revis. Gen. Pl.
1: 264. 1891)
was based
on
Demidovia tetragonoides Pall.
(Enum. Hort. Demidof:
150. 1781),
the specific epi-
thet
of which was derived from the generic name
Tetragonia and the suffix
-oides.
Because
this is a compound epithet
derived from a noun and a suffix,
not two Greek or
Latin words,
it is not to be altered to
‘tetragonioides’.
60.11.
The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet
is treated as an error to
be corrected by deletion of the hyphen.
A hyphen is permitted only when
the epithet is formed of words
that usually stand independently, or when the
letters before and after the hyphen
are the same (see also Art.
23.1 and
23.3).
Ex.
40.
Hyphen to be
deleted:
Acer pseudoplatanus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1024.
1753,
‘pseudo-
platanus’);
Croton ciliatoglandulifer Ortega
(Nov. Pl. Descr. Dec.:
51. 1797,
‘ciliato-
glandulifer’);
Eugenia costaricensis O. Berg
(in Linnaea
27: 213. 1856,
‘costa-ricensis’);
Eunotia rolandschmidtii
Metzeltin & Lange-Bert.
(Iconogr. Diatomol. 18: 117. 2007,
‘roland-schmidtii’),
in which the given name
and surname
do not stand independently
because the former
is not separately latinized;
Ficus neoebudarum Summerh.
(in
J. Arnold Arbor.
13: 97. 1932,
‘neo-ebudarum’);
Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vittad.
(Monogr. Lycoperd.:
42. 1842,
‘atro-purpureum’);
Mesospora vanbosseae
Børgesen
(in Skottsberg, Nat. Hist.
Juan Fernandez
2: 258. 1924,
‘van-bosseae’);
Peperomia
lasierrana
Trel. & Yunck.
(Piperac. N. South Amer.:
530. 1950,
‘la-sierrana’);
Scirpus
sect.
Pseudoeriophorum Jurtzev
(in Byull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol.
70(1): 132. 1965,
‘Pseudo-eriophorum’).
Ex.
41.
Hyphen to be maintained:
Athyrium austro-occidentale Ching
(in Acta Bot.
Boreal.-Occid. Sin.
6: 152. 1986);
Enteromorpha roberti-lamii
H. Parriaud
(in Bota-
niste
44: 247. 1961),
in which the given name
and surname
stand independently because
they are separately latinized;
Piper pseudo-oblongum McKown
(in Bot. Gaz.
85: 57.
147 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 147 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60 | Orthography |
1928);
Ribes non-scriptum (Berger) Standl.
(in Publ. Field Mus.
Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 8:
140. 1930);
Solanum fructu-tecto Cav.
(Icon. 4: 5. 1797);
Vitis novae-angliae Fernald
(in
Rhodora
19: 146. 1917).
Ex.
42.
Hyphen to be inserted:
Arctostaphylos
uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.
(Syst. Veg.
2: 287.
1825,
‘uva ursi’);
Aster
novae-angliae L.
(Sp. Pl.:
875. 1753,
‘novae angliae’);
Coix
lacryma-jobi L.
(l.c.: 972. 1753,
‘lacryma jobi’);
Marattia
rolandi-principis Rosenst.
(in
Repert. Spec.
Nov. Regni Veg.
10: 162. 1911,
‘rolandi principis’);
Veronica
anagallis-
aquatica L.
(Sp. Pl.: 12. 1753, ‘anagallis ∇’), (see Art.
23.3);
Veronica argute-serrata
Regel & Schmalh. (in Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk.
Bot. Sada
5: 626. 1878,
‘argute
serrata’).
Ex. 43.
Hyphen not to be inserted:
Synsepalum letestui Aubrév. & Pellegr.
(in Notul.
Syst. (Paris)
16: 263. 1961,
‘Le Testui’), not
‘le-testui’.
Note
6.
Art. 60.11 refers only
to epithets (in combinations),
not to names of
genera
(for names of fossil-genera
see Art. 60.12) or taxa
at higher ranks; a
non-
fossil generic name
published with a hyphen can be changed
only by conservation
(Art.
14.11;
see also Art.
20.3; but see
Art.
H.6.2).
Ex.
44.
Pseudo-fumaria
Medik.
(Philos. Bot. 1: 110.
1789)
may not be changed to
‘Pseudofumaria’;
whereas by conservation
‘Pseudo-elephantopus’ was changed to
Pseudelephantopus Rohr
(in Skr. Naturhist.-Selsk.
2: 214. 1792).
60.12.
The use of a hyphen in the name of a fossil-genus
is in all cases
treated as an error to be corrected
by deletion of the hyphen.
Ex. 45.
‘Cicatricosi-sporites’ R. Potonié & Gelletich
(in Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf.
Freunde Berlin 1932: 522. 1932) and
‘Pseudo-Araucaria’ Fliche
(in Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy
14: 181. 1896)
are names of fossil-genera.
They are treated as errors to be corrected by
deletion of the hyphen to
Cicatricosisporites and
Pseudoaraucaria, respectively.
60.13.
The use of an apostrophe
or quotation mark
in an epithet is treated
as an error to be corrected by deletion of the apostrophe
or quotation mark
unless it follows
m
to represent the patronymic
prefix Mc (or
M°),
in which
case it is replaced
by the letter
c.
The use of a full stop (period) in an epithet
that is derived from a personal or geographical name
that contains this full
stop is treated as an error to be corrected by
expansion or,
when nomen-
clatural
tradition does not
support expansion
(Art. 60.14),
deletion of the
full stop.
Ex.
46.
In
Cymbidium
‘i’ansoni’ Rolfe
(in Orchid Rev.
8: 191. 1900),
Lycium
‘o’donellii’
F. A. Barkley
(in Lilloa 26: 202. 1953), and
Solanum tuberosum var.
‘muru’kewillu’
Ochoa
(in Phytologia
65: 112. 1988),
the final epithet is to be spelled
iansonii, odonellii,
and
murukewillu, respectively.
Ex.
47.
In
Nesoluma
‘St.-Johnianum’ Lam & Meeuse
(in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi
Bishop Mus.
14: 153. 1938),
derived from St. John,
the family name of one of the collec-
tors,
the epithet is to be spelled
st-johnianum.
148 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 148 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60–60B |
Ex. 48.
Harvey
(Fl. Cap.
3: 494. 1865)
published
Stobaea ‘M‘Kenii’.
The name com-
memorates
one of the collectors of the type specimen,
Mark Johnston McKen (1823–
1872). The spelling has been changed to
S. ‘mkenii’, but must be corrected to
S. mckenii.
60.14.
Abbreviated names and epithets
are to be expanded in conformity
with nomenclatural tradition
(see also Art. 23
*Ex. 23
and Rec.
60C.4(d)).
Ex.
49.
In
Allium ‘a.-bolosii’ P. Palau
(in Anales Inst. Bot. Cavanilles
11: 485. 1953),
dedicated to Antonio de Bolòs y Vayreda, the epithet is spelled
antonii-bolosii.
60A.1.
When a name of a new taxon or a replacement name,
or its epithet, is to be
derived from Greek,
the transcription to Latin should conform to classical usage.
Ex. 1.
The Greek spiritus asper
(an inverted apostrophe)
in words transcribed to Latin
should be replaced by the letter h, as in
Hyacinthus (from
ὑάκινθος)
and
Rhododendron
(from
ῥοδόδενδρον).
60B.1.
When a new generic name,
or epithet in a new name of a subdivision of
a genus, is taken from the name of a person,
it should be formed as follows (see
Rec.
20A.1(i); but see Rec.
21B.2):
(a)
When the name of the person ends with a vowel,
the letter
-a is added
(e.g.
Ottoa after Otto;
Sloanea after Sloane),
except when the name ends with
-a,
when
-ea is added (e.g.
Collaea after Colla), or with
-ea, when nothing is
added
(e.g.
Correa).
(b)
When the name of the person
ends with a consonant, the letters
-ia are added,
but when the name ends with
-er, either of the terminations
-ia and
-a is
appropriate (e.g.
Sesleria after Sesler and
Kernera after Kerner).
(c)
In latinized personal names
ending with
-us
this termination is dropped
before applying the procedure described
under (a) and (b) (e.g.
Dillenia after
Dillenius).
Note 1.
The syllables not modified
by these endings are unaffected
unless they
contain letters, ligatures,
or diacritical signs that must be transcribed under Art.
60.4 and
60.7.
Note 2.
More than one generic name,
or epithet of a subdivision of a genus, may
be based on the same personal name,
e.g. by adding a prefix or suffix to that per-
sonal name or by using an anagram
or abbreviation of it
(but see Art.
53.2 and
53.3).
Ex. 1.
Bouchea Cham.
(in Linnaea
7: 252. 1832) and
Ubochea Baill.
(Hist. Pl.
11: 103.
1891);
Engleria O. Hoffm.
(in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
10: 273. 1888),
Englerella Pierre
(Not.
149 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 149 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60B–60C | Orthography |
Bot.: 46. 1891),
and
Englerastrum Briq.
(in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
19: 178. 1894);
Gerardia L.
(Sp. Pl.:
610. 1753)
and
Graderia Benth.
(in Candolle, Prodr.
10: 521. 1846);
Lapei-
rousia Pourr.
(in Hist. & Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci.
Toulouse 3: 79. 1788)
and
Peyrousea
DC.
(Prodr.
6: 76. 1838);
Martia Spreng.
(Anleit. Kenntn. Gew., ed. 2,
2: 788. 1818)
and
Martiusia Schult.
(Mant. 1: 69,
226. 1822);
Orcuttia Vasey
(in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
13: 219. 1886) and
Tuctoria Reeder (in Amer. J. Bot.
69: 1090. 1982);
Urvillea Kunth
(in
Humboldt & al.,
Nov. Gen. Sp. 5,
ed. qu.: 105; ed. fol.: 81.
1821) and
Durvillaea Bory
(Dict. Class. Hist.
Nat. 9: 192.
1826)
(see Art. 53
*Ex. 12).
60C.1.
When forming specific
and infraspecific epithets
from
personal names
already in Greek or Latin, or
that possess
a well-established latinized form,
the
epithets, when
substantival, should
(Art.
60.8
notwithstanding)
be given the
appropriate Latin genitive form (e.g.
alexandri from Alexander or Alexandre,
alberti from Albert,
arnoldi from Arnold,
augusti from Augustus or August or
Auguste,
ferdinandi
from Ferdinand
or Fernando
or Fernand,
martini from Martinus
or Martin,
linnaei from Linnaeus,
martii from Martius,
wislizeni from Wislizenus,
edithae from Editha or Edith,
elisabethae from Elisabetha or Elisabeth,
murielae
from Muriela or Muriel,
conceptionis from Conceptio or Concepción,
beatricis
from Beatrix or Béatrice,
hectoris from Hector; but not
‘cami’
from Edmond
Gustave Camus or Aimée Camus).
Treating modern family names, i.e. ones that
do not have a well-established latinized form,
as if they were in third declension
should be avoided (e.g.
munronis from Munro,
richardsonis from Richardson).
60C.2.
New epithets based on personal names
that have a well-established
latinized form should maintain the traditional use
of that latinized form.
Ex. 1.
In addition to the epithets in Rec.
60C.1,
the following epithets commemorate
personal names already in Latin
or possessing a well-established latinized form:
(a)
second declension:
afzelii based on Afzelius;
allemanii based on Allemanius (Freire
Allemão);
bauhini based on Bauhinus (Bauhin);
clusii based on Clusius;
rumphii based
on Rumphius (Rumpf);
solandri based on Solandrus (Solander);
(b) third declension
(otherwise discouraged,
see Rec. 60C.1):
bellonis based on Bello;
brunonis based on
Bruno (Robert Brown);
chamissonis based on Chamisso;
(c) adjectives (see Art.
23.5):
afzelianus, clusianus, linnaeanus, martianus,
rumphianus, brunonianus, and
chamissonianus.
60C.3.
In forming new epithets based
on personal names the customary spelling
of the personal name should not be modified
unless it contains letters, ligatures,
or
diacritical signs that must be transcribed
under Art.
60.4 and
60.7.
60C.4.
In forming new epithets based on personal names
prefixes and particles
should be treated as follows:
(a)
The Scottish
and Irish
patronymic prefix
Mac,
Mc,
M°, or
M‘,
meaning “son
of”, should
either all
be spelled
as
mac
or the latter three
as mc
and united
with the rest of the name (e.g.
macfadyenii after Macfadyen,
macgillivrayi
150 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 150 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 60C–60F |
after MacGillivray,
macnabii
or
mcnabii
after McNab,
macclellandii or
mcclellandii
after M‘Clelland).
(b)
The Irish patronymic prefix
O
should be united with the rest of the name
(Art.
60.13)
or omitted (e.g.
obrienii, brienianus after O’Brien,
okellyi after
O’Kelly).
(c)
A prefix consisting of an article
(e.g. le, la, l’, les, el, il, lo), or containing
an article (e.g. du, de la, des, del, della),
should be united to the name (e.g.
leclercii after Le Clerc,
dubuyssonii after Du Buysson,
lafarinae after La
Farina,
logatoi after Lo Gato).
See Art.
23.1
and Art. 60
Ex. 43
for cases
where such epithets
were originally spelled
in two words.
(d)
A prefix to a
person’s family name
indicating ennoblement or canonization
should be omitted (e.g.
candollei after de Candolle,
jussieui after de Jussieu,
hilairei after Saint-Hilaire,
remyi after St Rémy);
in geographical epithets,
however, “St” should be rendered as
sanctus (m) or
sancta (f) (e.g.
sancti-
johannis, of St John,
sanctae-helenae, of St Helena).
(e)
A German or Dutch prefix should be omitted (e.g.
iheringii after von Ihering,
martii after von Martius,
steenisii after van Steenis,
strassenii after zu
Strassen,
vechtii after van der Vecht),
but when it is normally treated as part
of the family name it should be included in the epithet (e.g.
vonhausenii after
Vonhausen,
vanderhoekii after Vanderhoek,
vanbruntiae after Van Brunt).
60D.1.
An epithet derived from a geographical name
is preferably an adjective
and usually takes the termination
-ensis, -(a)nus, -inus, or
-icus.
Ex. 1.
Rubus quebecensis L. H. Bailey (from Quebec),
Ostrya virginiana (Mill.)
K. Koch (from Virginia),
Eryngium amorginum Rech. f. (from Amorgos),
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Marshall (from Pennsylvania).
60E.1.
The epithet in a name of a new taxon
or replacement name should be writ-
ten in conformity
with the customary spelling of the word
or words from which
it is derived and in accordance
with the accepted usage of Latin and latinization
(see also Art.
23.5).
Ex. 1. sinensis (not chinensis).
60F.1.
All specific and infraspecific epithets
should be written with an initial
lower-case letter.
151 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 151 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
60G–60H | Orthography |
60G.1.
A name or epithet that
combines elements derived from two or more Greek
or Latin words should be formed,
as far as practicable, in accordance
with classi-
cal usage, subject to the
provisions of Art.
60.10.
(a)
Exceptions to the procedure outlined in
Art.
60.10
are common, and one
should review earlier usages
of a particular compounding form.
In forming
apparently irregular compounds,
classical usage is commonly followed.
Ex.
1.
The compounding forms
hydro- and
hydr- (Hydro-phyllum) stem from water
(hydor, hydatos);
calli- (Calli-stemon) derives
from the adjective beautiful
(kalos); and
meli- (Meli-osma, Meli-lotus) stems from honey
(meli, melitos).
(b)
In
pseudocompounds,
a noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as
a word with a case ending,
not as a modified stem.
Examples are:
nidus-avis
(nest of bird, nominative),
Myos-otis (mouse ear, genitive),
albo-marginatus
(white-margined, ablative), etc.
In epithets where tingeing is expressed, the
modifying colour
is often
in the ablative because the preposition
e
or
ex
is implicit, e.g.
atropurpureus (blackish purple)
from “ex atro purpureus”
(purple tinged with black).
Pseudocompounds, in particular those using the
genitive singular of
Latin first-declension nouns,
are considered as correct-
able errors under
Art.
60.10,
except
when they
serve to reveal
semantic dif-
ferences
between identically
spelled regular compounds formed from
differ-
ent elements.
Ex.
2.
The Latin words for tube
(tubus, tubi)
and for trumpet
(tuba, tubae)
in regular
compounds result in identical epithets (e.g.
tubiformis), whereas the pseudocompound
tubaeformis can only mean trumpet-formed, as in
Cantharellus tubaeformis Fr.
(Syst.
Mycol. 1: 319.
1821) : Fr.
Ex.
3.
Regular compounds derived from papaya
(Carica, Caricae) and sedge
(Carex,
Caricis) are identical,
whereas the pseudocompound
caricaefolius can only mean
papaya-leaved, as in
Solanum
caricaefolium Rusby (in Bull. New York
Bot. Gard. 8:
118. 1912).
Note
1.
The hyphens in the above examples
are given solely for explanatory
reasons.
For the use of hyphens in generic names
and in epithets see Art.
20.3,
23.1,
60.11,
and
60.12.
60H.1.
When
naming new genera or
lower-ranked taxa
or providing replacement
names, authors should explicitly state
the etymology of the
names and
epithets,
especially when their
meaning is not obvious.
152 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 152 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Orthographical variants | 61 |
61.1.
Only one orthographical variant of any one name
is treated as validly
published:
the form that appears in the original publication
(but see Art.
6.10),
except as provided in Art.
60
and
F.9
(typographical or orthographi-
cal
errors and standardizations), Art.
14.8
and
14.11
(spelling
of conserved
names),
Art.
F.3.2
(spelling of sanctioned
names), and Art.
18.4,
19.7,
and
32.2
(improper Latin terminations).
61.2.
For the purpose of this
Code, orthographical variants
are the various
spelling, compounding,
and inflectional forms of a name or its final epithet
(including typographical errors)
when
only one nomenclatural type
is
involved.
Ex. 1.
Nelumbo Adans.
(Fam. Pl.
2: 76. 1763)
and
‘Nelumbium’
(Jussieu, Gen. Pl.:
68.
1789)
are spelling forms of a generic name based on
Nymphaea nelumbo L., and are
treated as orthographical variants.
Similarly
‘Musenium’
(Nuttall
in Torrey & Gray,
Fl. N. Amer.
1: 642. 1840),
for which Pfeiffer
(Nomencl. Bot.
2: 377. 1873) designated
Seseli divaricatum Pursh as type,
is an orthographical variant
of
Musineon Raf. (in
J. Phys. Chim. Hist.
Nat. Arts
91: 71. 1820), of which
S. divaricatum
is the original
type.
Ex. 2.
The epithet of
Selaginella apus Spring
(in Martius, Fl. Bras.
1(2): 119. 1840)
is a
noun in apposition, so that
apus cannot be treated as an
orthographical variant of the
adjective
apodus, used in
Lycopodium apodum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1105. 1753).
Spring cited
L.
apodum as a synonym of
S. apus,
but instead he should have adopted
the former epi-
thet and published
“S. apoda”; consequently
S. apus was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published and is illegitimate under Art.
52.1.
61.3.
If orthographical variants of a name
of a new taxon or replacement
name appear in the original publication,
the one that conforms to the rules
and best suits the recommendations of Art.
60
is to be retained.
If the vari-
ants conform and suit equally well,
the first author who, in an effectively
published text (Art.
29–31),
explicitly adopts one of the variants and rejects
the other(s) must be followed
(see also Rec.
F.5A.2).
61.4.
The orthographical variants of a name
are to be corrected to the
validly published form of that name.
Whenever such a variant appears in a
publication,
it is to be treated as if it appeared
in its corrected form.
Note 1.
In full citations it is desirable
that the original form of a corrected
orthographical variant of a name be added (Rec.
50F).
153 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 153 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
61–62 | Orthographical variants – Gender |
61.5.
Confusingly similar names
based on the same type are treated as
orthographical variants.
(For confusingly similar names
based on different
types, see Art.
53.2–53.4.)
Ex. 3.
‘Geaster’
(Fries, Syst. Mycol.
3: 8. 1829) and
Geastrum Pers.
(in Neues Mag. Bot.
1: 85. 1794) : Pers.
(Syn. Meth. Fung.:
131. 1801)
are similar names with the same type
(see Taxon
33: 498. 1984);
they are treated as orthographical variants
despite the fact
that they are derived from two different nouns,
aster (asteris) and
astrum (astri).
GENDER
62.1.
A generic name retains the gender assigned by
nomenclatural tradi-
tion,
irrespective of classical usage
or the author’s original usage.
A generic
name without a
nomenclatural tradition retains the gender
assigned by its
author (but see Art. 62.4).
Note 1.
Tradition for generic names
usually maintains the classical gender of
the corresponding Greek or Latin word,
if such exists, but may differ.
*Ex. 1.
In accordance with tradition,
Adonis L.,
Atriplex L.,
Diospyros L.,
Eucalyptus
L’Hér.,
Hemerocallis L.,
Orchis L.,
Stachys L., and
Strychnos L.
must be treated as
feminine while
Lotus L. and
Melilotus Mill. must be treated as masculine.
Although
their ending suggests masculine gender,
Cedrus Trew and
Fagus L., like most other
classical tree names,
were traditionally treated as feminine
and thus retain that gender;
similarly,
Rhamnus L. is feminine,
despite the fact that Linnaeus
assigned it masculine
gender.
Erigeron L. (m, not n),
Phyteuma L. (n, not f), and
Sicyos L. (m, not f)
are other
names for which tradition
has reestablished the classical gender
despite another choice
by Linnaeus.
62.2.
Compound generic names take the gender
of the last word in the
nominative case in the compound
(but see Art.
14.11).
If the termination is
altered, however,
the gender is altered accordingly.
Ex. 2.
Irrespective of the fact that the name
Parasitaxus de Laub.
(Fl. Nouv.-Calédonie
& Dépend. 4: 44. 1972)
was treated as masculine when published,
its gender is femi-
nine:
it is a compound of which the last part
coincides with the generic name
Taxus L.,
which is feminine by tradition (Art.
62.1).
Ex. 3.
Compound generic names
in which the termination of the last word is altered:
Dipterocarpus C. F. Gaertn.,
Stenocarpus R. Br.,
and all other compounds ending in the
Greek masculine
-carpos (or
-carpus), e.g.
Hymenocarpos Savi,
are masculine; those in
154 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 154 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Gender | 62 |
-carpa or
-carpaea, however, are feminine, e.g.
Callicarpa L. and
Polycarpaea Lam.;
and those in
-carpon,
-carpum, or
-carpium are neuter, e.g.
Polycarpon L.,
Ormocar-
pum P. Beauv., and
Pisocarpium Link.
(a)
Compounds ending in
-botrys, -codon, -myces, -odon, -panax, -pogon,
-stemon,
and other masculine words, are masculine.
Ex. 4.
Irrespective of the fact that the generic names
Andropogon L. and
Oplopanax
(Torr. & A. Gray) Miq.
were originally treated as neuter by their authors,
they are
masculine.
(b)
Compounds ending in
-achne, -chlamys, -daphne, -glochin, -mecon,
-osma
(the modern transcription of the feminine Greek word
οσμή,
osmē), and other feminine words, are feminine.
An exception is made
in the case of names ending in
-gaster,
which strictly speaking ought to
be feminine but are treated
as masculine in accordance with tradition.
Ex. 5.
Irrespective of the fact that
Tetraglochin Poepp.,
Triglochin L.,
Dendromecon
Benth., and
Hesperomecon Greene
were originally treated as neuter,
they are feminine.
(c)
Compounds ending in
-ceras, -dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma, and
other neuter words, are neuter.
An exception is made for names ending
in
-anthos (or
-anthus),
-chilos (-chilus or
-cheilos), and
-phykos
(-phy-
cos or
-phycus), which ought to be neuter,
because
that is the gender of
the Greek words
άνθος,
anthos,
χείλος,
cheilos, and
φύκος,
phykos, but
are treated as masculine
in accordance with tradition.
Ex. 6.
Irrespective of the fact that
Aceras R. Br. and
Xanthoceras Bunge were treated
as feminine when first published,
they are neuter.
Note 2.
Art.
14.11
provides
for the conservation of
a generic name
in order to
preserve
a particular gender.
Ex. 7.
As an exception to Art. 62.2,
the generic name
Bidens L., formed from the Latin
masculine noun dens (tooth),
has been assigned feminine gender by conservation (see
App. III).
62.3.
Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names
or adjectives
used as generic names,
of which the gender is not apparent,
take the gender
assigned to them by their authors.
If the original author failed to indicate the
gender,
a subsequent author
may choose a gender, and the first such choice,
if effectively published (Art.
29–31),
is to be accepted (see also Rec.
F.5A.2).
Ex.
8.
Taonabo Aubl.
(Hist. Pl. Guiane
1: 569. 1775)
is feminine because Aublet’s two
species were
T. dentata and
T. punctata.
Ex.
9.
Agati Adans.
(Fam. Pl.
2: 326. 1763)
was published without indication of gender;
feminine gender was assigned to it by Desvaux
(in J. Bot. Agric.
1: 120. 1813),
who was
155 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 155 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
62–62A | Gender |
the first subsequent author
to adopt the name in an effectively published text,
and his
choice is to be accepted.
Ex.
10.
The original gender of
Manihot Mill.
(Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4:
Manihot. 1754),
as
apparent from some of the species polynomials,
was feminine, and
Manihot is therefore
to be treated as feminine.
62.4.
Generic names ending in
-anthes, -oides, or
-odes are treated as
feminine and those ending in
-ites as masculine, irrespective of the gender
assigned to them by the original author.
62A.1.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera,
the gender of the new
generic name or names
should, if there is
no obstacle
under the rules,
be that of the
generic name that is retained (see also Rec.
20A.1(i) and
60B).
Ex. 1.
When
Boletus L. : Fr.
(masculine)
was divided, the segregated
new genera
were
usually given masculine names:
Xerocomus Quél.
(in Mougeot & Ferry,
Fl. Vosges,
Champ.: 477. 1887),
Boletellus Murrill
(in Mycologia
1: 9. 1909), etc.
156 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 156 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi |
NAMES OF ORGANISMS TREATED AS FUNGI
This Chapter brings together the provisions of this
Code that deal solely
with names of organisms treated as fungi.
Content in this Chapter may be modified
by action of the Nomenclature
Session of an International Mycological Congress (IMC) (see
Div. III
Prov. 8).
Results of the IMC Nomenclature Sessions for 2018 and 2022 will
not be available until after print publication of this
Code, and therefore
mycologists should always consult
the online version of this
Code in
case of subsequent changes
(http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php).
Mycologists should note that the content of this
Code outside of Chapter
F pertains to all organisms covered by this
Code, including fungi,
unless
expressly limited.
This content includes rules about effective publication,
valid publication, typification, legitimacy,
and priority of names; citation
and orthography; and names of hybrids.
Some provisions in the Preamble, Principles, Articles,
and Recommenda-
tions elsewhere in this
Code,
such as those listed below,
while not restricted
to fungi,
are of particular relevance to mycologists.
The full wording of
these and all other relevant provisions of this
Code should be consulted
in all cases.
Pre. 8.
The provisions of this
Code apply to all organisms traditionally
treated as fungi, whether fossil or non-fossil,
including chytrids, oomy-
cetes, and slime moulds (but excluding
Microsporidia).
Principle I.
This
Code applies to names of taxonomic groups
treated as
fungi, whether or not these groups
were originally so treated.
Art. 4 Note 4.
In classifying parasites, especially fungi,
authors may distin-
guish within the species special forms (formae speciales)
characterized
157 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 157 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi |
by their adaptation to different hosts,
but the nomenclature of special
forms is not governed by the provisions of this
Code.
Art. 8.4
(see also
Art. 8 Ex. 12,
Rec. 8B,
Art. 40 Note 3,
and
Art. 40.8).
Cultures of fungi are acceptable
as types if preserved in a metaboli-
cally inactive state,
and this must be stated in the protologue.
Art. 14.15 and
Art. 14 Note 4(c)(2).
Before 1 January 1954, decisions on
conservation of names made by the Special Committee for Fungi,
became effective on 20 July 1950
at the VII International Botanical
Congress in Stockholm.
Art. 16.3.
Automatically typified suprafamilial names of fungi
end as fol-
lows: division or phylum in
-mycota, subdivision or subphylum in
-mycotina, class in
-mycetes, and subclass in
-mycetidae.
Automatically
typified names not in accordance
with these terminations are to be
corrected.
Rec. 38E.1.
The hosts should be indicated in descriptions
or diagnoses of
new taxa of parasitic organisms, especially fungi.
Art. 40.5.
The type of a name of a new species
or infraspecific taxon of non-
fossil microfungi may be an effectively
published illustration if there
are technical difficulties of specimen 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
(but see
Art. 40 Ex. 6,
which treats
representations of DNA sequences
as falling outside of the definition
of illustrations in
Art. 6.1 footnote).
Art. 41.8(b)
(see also
Art. 41 Ex. 26).
Failure to cite the place of valid pub-
lication of a basionym or replaced synonym,
when explained by the
backward shift of the starting date for some fungi,
is a correctable error.
Art. 45.1
(see also
Art. 45 Ex. 6 and
7 and
Note 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 equiva-
lent to valid publication under this
Code.
Note especially that names of
Microsporidia are not covered by this
Code even when
Microsporidia
are considered as fungi.
158 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 158 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Starting-point – Protection – Sanctioning) | F.1–F.3 |
LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
NOMENCLATURAL STARTING-POINT
F.1.1.
Valid publication
of names
for
non-fossil fungi
(Pre. 8)
is treated
as beginning at
1 May 1753
(Linnaeus,
Species plantarum, ed. 1,
treated
as having been published
on
that date;
see Art.
13.1).
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).
Note 1. For fossil fungi, see Art. 13.1(f).
PROTECTED NAMES
F.2.1.
In the interest
of nomenclatural stability,
for organisms treated as
fungi,
lists of names
proposed for protection
may be submitted to the Gen-
eral Committee,
which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi (see Div. III
Prov.
2.2,
7.9, and
7.10)
for examination by subcom-
mittees established by that Committee
in consultation with the General
Committee and appropriate international bodies.
Protected names
on these
lists, which become
part of
the Appendices of the
Code
(see
App. IIA,
III, and
IV)
once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Commit-
tee for Fungi and the General Committee
(see Art.
14.15 and Rec.
14A.1),
are to be listed with their types
and
are treated as conserved
against any
competing listed or unlisted
synonyms or homonyms
(including sanctioned
names), although conservation
under
Art.
14
overrides this protection.
The
lists of
protected names
remain open
for revision
through the procedures
described in this
Article
(see also Art.
F.7.1).
SANCTIONED NAMES
F.3.1.
Names in
Uredinales,
Ustilaginales, and
Gasteromycetes (s. l.)
adopted by Persoon
(Synopsis methodica
fungorum, 1801)
and names
of other fungi
(excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries
(Systema
159 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 159 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.3 | Fungi (Sanctioning) |
mycologicum, vol. 1–3.
1821–1832,
with additional
Index,
1832; and
Elen-
chus fungorum,
vol. 1–2. 1828),
are sanctioned.
F.3.2.
Names sanctioned are treated
as if conserved against earlier homo-
nyms
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
when the name was
sanctioned
is treated as conserved,
except for changes mandated by Art.
60
and
F.9.
Ex. 1.
Agaricus ericetorum Pers.
(Observ. Mycol.
1: 50. 1796)
was accepted by Fries
in
Systema mycologicum
(1: 165. 1821),
but later
(Elench. Fung.
1: 22. 1828)
regarded
by him as a synonym of
A. umbelliferus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1175. 1753)
and not included in his
Index
(p. 18. 1832)
as an accepted name.
Nevertheless
A. ericetorum Pers. : Fr. is a
sanctioned name.
Ex. 2.
The spelling used
when the name
Merulius lacrimans (Wulfen : Fr.) Schu-
mach. : Fr. was sanctioned (Fries, Syst. Mycol.
1: 328. 1821) is
to be maintained,
even
though
the epithet was spelled
‘lacrymans’
by Schumacher (Enum. Pl.
2: 371. 1803)
and
the basionym was originally published as
Boletus ‘lacrymans’ Wulfen
(in Jacquin,
Misc. Austriac.
2: 111. 1781).
F.3.3.
A
sanctioned name
is illegitimate
if it is a later homonym of another
sanctioned name (see also Art.
53).
F.3.4.
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.
(Descr. Pl. Cl. Crypt. 1: 33, 54, 55. 1789)
is an earlier homonym
of the sanctioned generic name
Patellaria Fr.
(Syst. Mycol.
2: 158. 1822) : Fr.
Hoff-
mann’s name
is legitimate but unavailable for use.
Lecanidion Endl.
(Fl. Poson.:
46.
1830),
based on the same type as
Patellaria Fr. : Fr.,
is illegitimate under Art.
52.1.
Ex. 4.
Agaricus cervinus Schaeff.
(Fung. Bavar. Palat. Nasc.
4: 6. 1774)
is an ear-
lier homonym of the sanctioned
A. cervinus Hoffm.
(Nomencl. Fung.
1: t. 2, fig. 2.
1789) : Fr.;
Schaeffer’s name is unavailable for use,
but it is legitimate and may serve as
basionym for combinations in other genera.
In
Pluteus Fr. the combination is cited as
P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm.
and has priority over the heterotypic
(taxonomic) syno-
nym
P. atricapillus (Batsch) Fayod, based on
A. atricapillus Batsch
(Elench. Fung.:
77.
1786).
F.3.5.
When, for a taxon
at
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.
F.3.7).
160 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 160 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Sanctioning) | F.3 |
F.3.6.
When, for a taxon
at
a rank lower than genus,
two or more sanctioned
names
and/or two or more names with the same final epithet
and type as a
sanctioned name compete, Art.
11.4
governs the choice of the correct name.
Note 1.
The date of sanctioning
does not affect the date of valid publication,
and therefore priority (Art.
11),
of a sanctioned name.
In particular, when two or
more homonyms are sanctioned
only the earliest of them may be used
because the
later
one(s) are
illegitimate under Art.
F.3.3.
Ex. 5.
Fries
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 41. 1821)
accepted
Agaricus flavovirens Pers.
(in Hoff-
mann,
Abbild. Schwämme
3: t. 24. 1793)
: Fr. and treated
A. equestris L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1173.
1753)
as a synonym.
He
later
(Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828)
accepted
A. equestris, stating
“Nomen prius et aptius
certe restituendum
[The prior and
more apt name
is certainly
to be restored]”.
Both names are sanctioned, but, when they are
treated
as synonyms,
A. equestris
L. : Fr.
is to be used
because it
has
priority.
F.3.7.
A name that neither is sanctioned
nor has the same type and final
epithet as a sanctioned name
at the same rank
may not be used for a taxon
that includes the type of a sanctioned name
at
that rank with a final epithet
that is available for the required combination (see Art.
11.4(c)).
F.3.8.
Conservation (Art.
14),
protection
(Art.
F.2),
and explicit rejection
(Art.
56
and
F.7)
override sanctioning.
F.3.9.
The type of
a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon adopted in
one of the works specified in Art.
F.3.1,
and thereby sanctioned,
may be
selected from among the elements associated
with the name in the proto-
logue
and/or the sanctioning treatment.
Note 2.
For names falling
under Art.
F.3.9,
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.
F.3.10.
When a sanctioning
author accepted an earlier name but did not
include, 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
(see also Art.
48).
Note 3.
For typification of sanctioned generic names,
see Art.
10.2.
Note that
automatic typification under Art.
7.5
does not apply to sanctioned names.
For
legitimacy of sanctioned names
(or names based on them), see also Art.
6.4,
52.1,
53.1, and
55.3.
161 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 161 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.3A–F.4 | Fungi (Sanctioning – Rank-denoting terms) |
F.3A.1.
After a
sanctioned
name (Art.
F.3.1), either
“: Fr.” or
“: Pers.”
(to indicate
the sanctioning author
Fries or Persoon)
or the abbreviation
“nom. sanct.”
(nomen
sanctionatum)
should be added in a formal citation, together with the citation of
the place of sanctioning
if considered desirable.
In a
formal citation
of a new com-
bination based either
on
a sanctioned name or
on the basionym
of
a
sanctioned
name,
“: Fr.” or “: Pers.”
should be added
within the parentheses
after the author(s)
of the
basionym (Art.
49.1).¹
Ex. 1.
Boletus piperatus Bull.
(Herb. France: t. 451,
fig. 2. 1790)
was adopted in Fries
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 388. 1821)
and was thereby sanctioned.
It
can be cited as
either
B. pipe-
ratus Bull. : Fr.
or
B. piperatus Bull.,
nom. sanct.
Ex. 2.
Agaricus compactus [unranked]
sarcocephalus (Fr.) Fr.
was sanctioned
when
adopted by Fries
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 290. 1821).
That status can be indicated
by citing it as
either
A. compactus [unranked]
sarcocephalus
(Fr. : Fr.) Fr.
: Fr.
or
A. compactus [un-
ranked]
sarcocephalus (Fr.) Fr.,
nom. sanct.
The designation “: Fr.”
is not to be added
when citing its basionym
A. sarcocephalus Fr.
(Observ. Mycol. 1: 51.
1815),
but it can be
added when citing
subsequent
combinations
such as
Psathyrella sarcocephala (Fr. : Fr.)
Singer
(in Lilloa 22: 468. 1949).
VALID PUBLICATION AND TYPIFICATION OF NAMES
MISPLACED RANK-DENOTING TERMS
F.4.1.
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
(Art.
37.6),
but
an exception
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. 1.
Agaricus “tribus”
[unranked]
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.
(Führer Pilzk.:
22. 1871)
(see Art. 41
Ex.
9).
————————————
1 In this Code and its Appendices, sanctioning is indicated by “: Fr.” or “: Pers.”
162 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 162 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Registration) | F.5 |
REGISTRATION OF NAMES AND NOMENCLATURAL ACTS
F.5.1.
In order to be
validly
published,
nomenclatural novelties (Art. 6
Note 4)
applied to organisms
treated as fungi
under this
Code
(Pre. 8;
in-
cluding
fossil fungi and lichen-forming fungi)
and published on or after
1 January 2013
must, in the protologue,
include
citation
of the identifier
issued
for the name
by a recognized repository (Art.
F.5.3).
Ex. 1.
The
protologue of
Albugo arenosa Mirzaee & Thines
(in Mycol. Prog. 12: 50.
2013)
complies with Art. F.5.1 because it
includes
citation of
“MB 564515”,
an identifier
issued by MycoBank,
one of three recognized
repositories.
The decision
by the Nomen-
clature Committee
for Fungi to
appoint (Art. F.5.3)
Fungal Names, Index Fungorum,
and MycoBank as repositories
(Redhead & Norvell
in Taxon 62: 173–174.
2013) was
ratified (Art. F.5.3)
by the 10th International Mycological Congress
(May in Taxon
66:
484. 2017).
F.5.2.
For an identifier to be issued
by a recognized repository as required
by Art.
F.5.1,
the minimum elements of information that must be acces-
sioned by author(s) of scientific names are the
proposed name itself and
those elements 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
Art.
41.5
(reference to the basionym or replaced synonym).
When
the acces-
sioned and subsequently published information
for a name with a given
identifier differ,
the published 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,
F.5.1,
and F.5.2)
but does not in itself constitute
or guarantee valid publication.
Note 2.
The words
“name” and
“names” are used in Art. F.5.1 and F.5.2 for
names that may not yet be validly published,
in which case the definition in Art.
6.3
does not apply.
F.5.3.
The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
(see Div. III
Prov.
7)
has
the power to
(a)
appoint one or more localized or decentralized,
open and
accessible electronic repositories
to accession the information required by
Art.
F.5.2
and F.5.5
and issue the identifiers required by Art.
F.5.1
and F.5.4;
(b)
cancel such appointment at its discretion; and
(c)
set aside the require-
ments of Art.
F.5.1, F.5.2, F.5.4,
and
F.5.5,
should the repository mecha-
nism,
or essential parts thereof, cease to function.
Decisions made by this
Committee under these powers
are subject to ratification by a subsequent
International Mycological Congress.
163 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 163 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.5–F.6 | Fungi (Registration – Rejection) |
F.5.4.
For purposes of priority (Art.
9.19,
9.20, and
10.5),
designation of a
type, on or after 1 January 2019,
of the name of an organism treated as a
fungus under this
Code
(Pre. 8),
is achieved only if an identifier issued by
a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3) is cited.
Note 3.
Art. F.5.4 applies only to the designation of lectotypes
(and their equiv-
alents under Art.
10),
neotypes, and epitypes;
it does not apply to the designation
of a holotype when publishing the name of a new taxon,
for which see Art. F.5.2.
F.5.5.
For an identifier to be issued
by a recognized repository as required
by Art. F.5.4,
the minimum elements of information
that must be accessioned
by author(s) of type designations
are the name being typified,
the author des-
ignating the type,
and those elements required by Art.
9.21,
9.22, and
9.23.
Note 4.
Issuance of an identifier by a recognized repository
presumes subse-
quent fulfilment of the requirements
for effective type designation (Art.
7.8–7.11
and F.5.4)
but does not in itself constitute a type designation.
F.5A.1.
Authors of names of organisms
treated as fungi are encouraged to
(a)
deposit the required elements of information
for any nomenclatural novelty in a
recognized 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 bibliographic 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.
F.5A.2.
In addition to meeting the requirements
for effective publication of choices
of name
(Art.
11.5 and
53.5), orthography (Art.
61.3), or gender (Art.
62.3),
those
publishing such choices
for names of organisms treated as fungi
are encouraged
to record the choice
in a recognized repository (Art.
F.5.3)
and cite the accession
identifier in the place of publication.
REJECTION OF NAMES
F.6.1.
The name of a taxon treated as a fungus
published on or after 1
January 2019
is illegitimate if it is a later homonym
of a prokaryotic or
protozoan name
(see also Art.
54 and Rec.
54A).
164 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 164 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Rejection – Pleomorphic fungi) | F.7–F.8 |
F.7.1.
In the interest
of nomenclatural stability,
for organisms treated as
fungi,
lists of names
proposed
for rejection
may be submitted to the General
Committee,
which will refer them
to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
(see Div. III
Prov.
2.2,
7.9, and
7.10)
for examination by subcommittees estab-
lished by that Committee in consultation
with the General Committee and
appropriate international bodies.
Names on these lists, which become
part
of the
Appendices of the
Code once reviewed
and approved by the Nomen-
clature Committee for Fungi
and the General Committee
(see Art.
56.3 and
Rec.
56A.1),
are to be treated as rejected under Art.
56.1,
except
that they may
become eligible for use
by conservation under Art.
14
(see also Art.
F.2.1).
NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE
F.8.1.
A name published
prior to 1 January 2013
for a taxon of non-lichen-
forming
Ascomycota and
Basidiomycota,
with the intent or implied intent
of applying to or being typified
by one particular morph
(e.g. anamorph or
teleomorph; see Note 2),
may be legitimate even if it otherwise would be
illegitimate under Art.
52
on account of the protologue including a type (as
defined in Art.
52.2)
referable to a different morph.
If the name is otherwise
legitimate, it competes for priority (Art.
11.3 and
11.4).
Ex. 1.
Penicillium brefeldianum B. O. Dodge
(in Mycologia
25: 92. 1933)
was described
and based on a type
with both the anamorph and teleomorph
(and therefore necessar-
ily typified by the teleomorph element alone
under editions of the
Code
prior to the
Melbourne Code
of 2012).
The combination
Eupenicillium brefeldianum (B. O. Dodge)
Stolk & D. B. Scott
(in Persoonia
4: 400. 1967)
for the teleomorph is legitimate.
Peni-
cillium dodgei Pitt
(Gen. Penicillium:
117. 1980),
typified by the anamorph in a dried
culture “derived from Dodge’s type”,
did not include the teleomorphic type of
P. bre-
feldianum
and therefore it too is legitimate.
However, when considered a species of
Penicillium,
the correct name for all its states is
P. brefeldianum.
Note 1.
Except as provided in Art.
F.8.1,
names of fungi with mitotic asexual
morphs (anamorphs) as well as a
meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph) must con-
form to the same provisions of this
Code as all other fungi.
Note 2.
Editions of the
Code
prior to the
Melbourne Code
of 2012
provided for
separate names
for mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs)
of certain pleomorphic
fungi
and required that the name applicable
to the whole fungus be typified by a
165 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 165 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.8–F.9 | Fungi (Pleomorphic fungi – Orthography) |
meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph).
Under the current
Code, however, all legiti-
mate
fungal names are treated equally
for the purposes of establishing priority,
regardless of the life-history stage of the type
(see also Art.
F.2.1).
Ex. 2.
Mycosphaerella aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou
(in Sinensia
11: 183. 1940), when
published as a new combination,
was accompanied by a Latin diagnosis of the newly
discovered teleomorph
corresponding to the anamorph on which the basionym
Cerco-
spora aleuritidis Miyake
(in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)
26: 66. 1912)
was typified.
Under edi-
tions of the
Code
prior to the
Melbourne Code
of 2012,
M. aleuritidis was considered
to be the name of a new species
with a teleomorph type,
dating from 1940, and with
authorship attributed solely to Ou.
Under the current
Code, the name is cited
as origi-
nally published,
M. aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou,
and is typified by the type of the
basionym.
Ex. 3.
In the protologue of the teleomorph-typified
Venturia acerina Plakidas ex M. E.
Barr
(in Canad. J. Bot.
46: 814. 1968)
the anamorph-typified
Cladosporium humile
Davis
(in Trans. Wisconsin
Acad. Sci.
19: 702. 1919)
was included as a synonym.
Be-
cause
it was published prior to 1 January 2013,
the name
V. acerina is not
illegitimate,
but
C. humile is the earliest legitimate name
at the rank of species.
Note 3.
Names proposed simultaneously
for separate morphs
(e.g. anamorph
and teleomorph)
of a taxon of non-lichen-forming
Ascomycota and
Basidiomycota
are necessarily heterotypic
and are not therefore alternative names
as defined by
Art.
36.3.
Ex. 4.
Hypocrea dorotheae Samuels & Dodd and
Trichoderma dorotheae Samuels &
Dodd
were simultaneously validly published
(in Stud. Mycol. 56: 112. 2006) for what
the authors considered a single species with
Samuels & Dodd 8657
(PDD 83839) as the
holotype.
Because
these names were published before 1 January 2013
(see Art.
F.8.1
and Note 2),
and
because
the authors explicitly indicated that the name
T. dorotheae was
typified by the anamorphic element of
PDD 83839,
both names are validly published
and legitimate.
They are not alternative names as defined in Art.
36.3.
ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES
F.9.1.
Epithets of fungal
names derived from the generic name of an asso-
ciated organism are to be spelled in accordance
with the accepted spelling
of the name
of that organism;
other spellings are regarded as orthographi-
cal variants to be corrected (see Art.
61).
Ex. 1.
Phyllachora
‘anonicola’ Chardón
(in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940)
is to be
cor-
rected to
P. annonicola
in accordance with the
accepted spelling
of
Annona
L.;
Meli-
ola
‘albizziae’ Hansf. & Deighton
(in Mycol. Pap.
23: 26. 1948)
is to be
corrected to
M. albiziae
in accordance with the
accepted spelling
of
Albizia
Durazz.
166 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 166 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Orthography) | F.9 |
Ex. 2.
Dimeromyces ‘corynitis’ Thaxter
(in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts
48: 157. 1912)
was
stated to occur
“On the elytra of
Corynites ruficollis Fabr.”,
but the name of the host, a
species of beetle, is correctly spelled
Corynetes ruficollis.
The fungal name is therefore
to be spelled
D. corynetis.
167 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 167 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
H.1–H.2A | Hybrids |
NAMES OF HYBRIDS
H.1.1.
Hybridity is indicated by use
of the multiplication sign × or by addi-
tion of the prefix “notho-”¹
to the term denoting the rank of the taxon.
H.2.1.
A hybrid between named taxa may be indicated
by placing the mul-
tiplication sign
×
between the names of the taxa;
the whole expression is
then called a hybrid formula.
Ex. 1.
Agrostis L. ×
Polypogon Desf.;
Agrostis stolonifera L. ×
Polypogon monspelien-
sis (L.) Desf.;
Melampsora medusae Thüm. ×
M. occidentalis H. S. Jacks.;
Mentha
aquatica L. ×
M. arvensis L. ×
M. spicata L.;
Polypodium vulgare subsp.
prionodes
(Asch.) Rothm. ×
P. vulgare L. subsp.
vulgare;
Salix aurita L. ×
S. caprea L.;
Tilletia
caries (DC.) Tul. & C. Tul. ×
T. foetida (Wallr.) Liro.
Ex. 2.
Kunzea linearis (Kirk) de Lange ×
Kunzea robusta de Lange & Toelken or
Kunzea linearis (Kirk) de Lange ×
K. robusta de Lange & Toelken, but not
“Kunzea
linearis (Kirk) de Lange ×
robusta de Lange & Toelken”,
which omits the generic name
or its abbreviation from the second species name
contrary to Art.
23.1.
H.2A.1.
It is usually preferable to place the names
or epithets in a formula in
alphabetical order.
The direction of a cross may be indicated
by including the
gender-denoting symbols
(♀: female; ♂: male) in the formula,
or by placing the
female parent first.
If a non-alphabetical sequence is used,
its basis should be
clearly indicated.
————————————
1 From the Greek νόθος, nothos, meaning hybrid.
168 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 168 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.3–H.3A |
H.3.1.
Hybrids between representatives of two
or more taxa may receive
a name.
For nomenclatural purposes,
the hybrid nature of a taxon is indi-
cated by placing the multiplication sign ×
before the name of an intergeneric
hybrid
or before the epithet
in the name of an interspecific hybrid,
or by
prefixing the term “notho-”
(optionally abbreviated “n-”)
to the term denot-
ing the rank of the taxon (see Art.
3.2 and
4.4).
All such taxa are designated
nothotaxa.
Ex. 1.
×Agropogon P. Fourn.
(Quatre Fl. France:
50. 1934);
×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.)
C. E. Hubb.
(in J. Ecol.
33: 333. 1946);
Melampsora
×columbiana G. Newc.
(in Mycol.
Res.
104: 271. 2000);
Mentha
×smithiana R. A. Graham
(in Watsonia
1: 89. 1949);
Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. [or nsubsp.]
mantoniae (Rothm.) Schidlay
(in Futák,
Fl. Slov. 2: 225. 1966);
Salix
×capreola Andersson
(in Kongl. Svenska Vetensk. Acad.
Handl., n.s.,
6(1): 71. 1867).
(The putative or known parentage
of these nothotaxa is
found in Art. H.2 Ex. 1.)
H.3.2.
A nothotaxon cannot be designated
unless at least one parental
taxon is known or can be postulated.
H.3.3.
For purposes of homonymy and synonymy
the multiplication sign
and the prefix “notho-” are disregarded.
Ex. 2.
×Hordelymus Bachteev & Darevsk.
(in Bot. Zhurn.
(Moscow & Leningrad)
35:
191. 1950)
(Elymus L. ×
Hordeum L.) is a later homonym of
Hordelymus (Jess.) Harz
(Landw. Samenk.:
1147. 1885).
Note 1.
Taxa that are believed to be of hybrid origin
need not be designated as
nothotaxa.
Ex. 3.
The true-breeding tetraploid
raised from the artificial cross
Digitalis grandi-
flora L. ×
D. purpurea L. may, if desired, be referred to as
D. mertonensis B. H. Buxton
& C. D. Darl.
(in Nature 77: 94. 1931);
Triticum aestivum L.
(Sp. Pl.:
85. 1753),
which
provides the type of
Triticum L.,
is treated as a species although
it is not found in nature
and its genome has been shown to be composed
of those of several wild species; the
taxon known as
Phlox divaricata subsp.
laphamii (A. W. Wood) Wherry
(in Morris
Arbor. Monogr. 3: 41. 1955)
was believed by Levin
(in Evolution
21: 92–108. 1967)
to be a stabilized product of hybridization between
P. divaricata L. subsp.
divaricata
and
P. pilosa subsp.
ozarkana Wherry;
Rosa canina L.
(Sp. Pl.:
492. 1753),
a polyploid
believed to be of ancient hybrid origin,
is treated as a species.
H.3A.1.
In named hybrids,
the multiplication sign ×
belongs with the name or epi-
thet but is not actually part of it,
and its placement should reflect that relation.
The
169 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 169 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
H.3A–H.5 | Hybrids |
exact amount of space, if any,
between the multiplication sign and the initial letter
of the name or epithet should depend on
what best serves readability.
Note 1.
The multiplication sign ×
in a hybrid formula is always placed be-
tween, and separate from, the names of the parents.
H.3A.2.
If the multiplication sign is not available
it should be approximated by
the lower-case letter “x” (not italicized).
H.4.1.
When all the parent taxa
can be postulated or are known, a notho-
taxon is circumscribed so as to include
all individuals recognizably de-
rived from the crossing of representatives
of the stated parent taxa
(i.e.
not only the
Fı
but subsequent filial generations
and also back-crosses
and combinations of these).
There can thus be only one correct name cor-
responding to a particular hybrid formula;
this is the earliest legitimate
name (Art.
6.5)
at
the appropriate rank (Art.
H.5),
and other names cor-
responding to the same hybrid formula
are synonyms of it (but see Art.
52
Note 4).
Ex. 1.
The names
Oenothera
×drawertii Renner ex Rostański
(in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci.
Hung.
12: 341. 1966) and
O.
×wienii Renner ex Rostański
(in Fragm. Florist. Geobot.
23: 289. 1977)
are both considered to apply to the hybrid
O. biennis L. ×
O. villosa
Thunb.;
the types of the two nothospecific names
are known to differ by a whole gene
complex;
nevertheless,
the earlier name is the correct name
and the later name is treated
as a synonym of it.
Note 1.
Variation within nothospecies and
infraspecific nothotaxa may be
treated according to Art.
H.12 or,
if appropriate, according to the
International
Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants.
H.5.1.
The appropriate rank of a nothotaxon
is that of the postulated or
known parent taxa.
H.5.2.
If the postulated or known parent taxa are
at unequal ranks the
appropriate rank of the nothotaxon
is the lowest of these ranks.
Note 1.
When a nothotaxon is designated
by a name
at a rank
inappropriate to
its hybrid formula,
the name is incorrect in relation
to that hybrid formula but may
nevertheless be correct,
or may become correct later (see also Art. 52
Note
4).
170 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 170 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.5A–H.6 |
Ex. 1.
The combination
Elymus
×laxus (Fr.) Melderis & D. C. McClint.
(in Watsonia 14:
394. 1983),
based on
Triticum laxum Fr.
(Novit. Fl. Suec. Mant.
3: 13. 1842),
was pub-
lished for hybrids with the formula
E. farctus subsp.
boreoatlanticus (Simonet & Guin.)
Melderis ×
E. repens (L.) Gould,
so that the combination is at a rank inappropriate to
the hybrid formula.
It is, however, the correct name
applicable to all hybrids between
E. farctus (Viv.) Melderis and
E. repens.
Ex. 2.
Radcliffe-Smith
published the nothospecific name
Euphorbia
×cornubiensis
Radcl.-Sm.
(in Kew Bull.
40: 445. 1985)
for
E. amygdaloides L. ×
E. characias subsp.
wulfenii (W. D. J. Koch) Radcl.-Sm.,
but
the correct nothospecific
name
for all hybrids
between
E. amygdaloides and
E. characias L. is
E.
×martini Rouy
(Ill. Pl. Eur. Rar.:
107. 1900);
later, he published the appropriate combination
E.
×martini nothosubsp.
cornubiensis (Radcl.-Sm.) Radcl.-Sm.
(in Taxon
35: 349. 1986).
However, the name
E.
×cornubiensis
is potentially correct for hybrids with the formula
E. amygdaloides ×
E. wulfenii W. D. J. Koch.
H.5A.1.
When publishing a name of a new nothotaxon
at the rank of species or
below,
authors should provide any available information
on the taxonomic iden-
tity,
at lower ranks, of the known or postulated parents
of the type of the name.
H.6.1.
A nothogeneric name
(i.e. the name at generic rank for a hybrid
between representatives of two or more genera)
is a condensed formula or
is equivalent to a condensed formula (but see Art.
11.9
and
54.1(c)).
H.6.2.
The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid
is a condensed for-
mula
in which the names adopted
for the parental genera
are combined into
a single word,
using the first part or the whole of one,
the last part or the
whole
of the other (but not the whole of both)
and, optionally, a connecting
vowel.
The use of a hyphen
instead of
or in addition
to a connecting vowel
is treated as an error
to be corrected
by deletion of the hyphen.
Ex. 1.
×Agropogon P. Fourn.
(Quatre Fl. France:
50. 1934)
(Agrostis L. ×
Polypogon
Desf.);
×Gymnanacamptis Asch. & Graebn.
(Syn. Mitteleur. Fl.
3: 854. 1907)
(Ana-
camptis Rich. ×
Gymnadenia R. Br.);
×Cupressocyparis Dallim.
(Hand-List Conif.,
Roy. Bot. Gard., Kew,
ed. 4: 37. 1938)
(Chamaecyparis Spach ×
Cupressus L.);
×Sele-
niphyllum G. D. Rowley
(in Backeberg, Cactaceae
6: 3557. 1962)
(Epiphyllum Haw. ×
Selenicereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose).
Ex. 2.
×Amarcrinum Coutts
(in Gard. Chron., ser. 3,
78: 411. 1925)
is correct for
Amaryl-
lis L. ×
Crinum L., not
“×Crindonna”.
The latter formula was proposed by Ragionieri
(in Gard. Chron., ser. 3,
69: 32. 1921)
for the same nothogenus,
but was formed from the
171 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 171 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
H.6 | Hybrids |
generic name adopted for one parent
(Crinum) and a synonym
(Belladonna Sweet) of
the generic name adopted for the other
(Amaryllis).
Because it is
contrary to Art. H.6, it
is not validly published under Art.
32.1(c).
Ex. 3.
The name
×Leucadenia Schltr.
(in Repert. Spec. Nov.
Regni Veg.
16: 290. 1919)
is correct for
Leucorchis E. Mey. ×
Gymnadenia R. Br.,
but if the generic name
Pseud-
orchis Ség. is adopted instead of
Leucorchis,
×Pseudadenia P. F. Hunt
(in Orchid Rev.
79: 141. 1971)
is correct.
Ex. 4.
Boivin
(in Naturaliste Canad.
94: 526. 1967)
published
×Maltea for what he con-
sidered
to be the intergeneric hybrid
Phippsia (Trin.) R. Br. ×
Puccinellia Parl.
Because
this is not a condensed formula,
the name cannot be used for that intergeneric hybrid,
for which the correct name is
×Pucciphippsia Tzvelev
(in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast.
8:
76. 1971).
Maltea B. Boivin is
nevertheless
a validly published generic name, because
Boivin provided
a Latin description
and designated
a type, and
may be correct
if its
type is
not
treated as belonging to a nothogenus.
Ex. 5.
The nothogeneric name
×Anthematricaria Asch.
(in Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.
9:
(99). 1892),
proposed for hybrids with the parentage
Anthemis L. ×
Matricaria L., was
originally published as
‘Anthe-Matricaria’;
the nothogeneric name
×Brassocattleya
Rolfe
(in Gard. Chron., ser. 3,
5: 438. 1889),
proposed for hybrids with the parentage
Brassavola R. Br. ×
Cattleya Lindl.,
was originally published as
‘Brasso-Cattleya’.
H.6.3.
The nothogeneric name of an intergeneric hybrid
derived from four
or more genera is formed
from the name of a person to which is added the
termination
-ara;
no such name may exceed eight syllables.
Such a name is
equivalent to
a condensed formula.
Ex.
6.
×Beallara Moir
(in Orchid Rev. 78(929):
New Orch. Hybr.
[1, 3]. 1970)
(Brassia
R. Br. ×
Cochlioda Lindl. ×
Miltonia Lindl. ×
Odontoglossum Kunth);
×Cogniauxara
Garay & H. R. Sweet
(see Art. H.8 Ex. 3)
(Arachnis Blume ×
Euanthe Schltr. ×
Renan-
thera Lour. ×
Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br.).
H.6.4.
The nothogeneric name of a trigeneric hybrid
is either
(a) a con-
densed formula in which the three names
adopted for the parental genera
are combined into a single word
not exceeding eight syllables, using the
whole or first part of one,
followed by the whole or any part of another,
fol-
lowed by the whole or last part
of the third (but not the whole of all three)
and, optionally, one or two connecting vowels, or
(b) a name formed like
that of a nothogenus
derived from four or more genera,
i.e. from a personal
name to which is added the termination
-ara.
Ex.
7.
×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst
(in J. Roy. Hort. Soc.
21: 468. 1898)
(Cattleya Lindl.
×
Laelia Lindl. ×
Sophronitis Lindl.);
×Rodrettiopsis Moir
(in Orchid Rev.
84: ix. 1976)
(Comparettia Poepp. & Endl. ×
Ionopsis Kunth ×
Rodriguezia Ruiz & Pav.);
×Holt-
tumara
Holttum
(see Art. H.8
Ex. 3)
(Arachnis
Blume ×
Renanthera Lour.
× Vanda
W. Jones ex R. Br.).
172 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 172 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.6A–H.8 |
H.6A.1.
When a nothogeneric name is formed
from the name of a person by add-
ing the termination
-ara,
that person should preferably be a collector,
grower, or
student of the group.
H.7.1.
The name of a nothotaxon
that is a hybrid between subdivisions of a
genus is a combination of an epithet,
which is a condensed formula formed
in the same way as a nothogeneric name
(Art. H.6.2–H.6.4),
with the name
of the genus.
Ex. 1.
Ptilostemon nothosect.
Platon Greuter
(in Boissiera 22: 159. 1973),
compris-
ing hybrids between
P. sect.
Platyrhaphium Greuter and
P.
Cass. sect.
Ptilostemon;
P. nothosect.
Plinia Greuter
(in Boissiera 22: 158. 1973),
comprising hybrids between
P. sect.
Cassinia Greuter and
P. sect.
Platyrhaphium.
H.8.1.
When the name or the epithet in the name of a nothotaxon
is a con-
densed formula (Art. H.6
and H.7),
the parental names used in its formation
must be those
that are correct for the particular circumscription,
position,
and rank accepted for the parental taxa.
Ex. 1.
If the genus
Triticum L. is interpreted
on taxonomic grounds as including
Triticum
(s. str.) and
Agropyron Gaertn., and the genus
Hordeum L. as including
Hordeum (s. str.)
and
Elymus L., then hybrids between
Agropyron and
Elymus as well as between
Triticum
(s. str.) and
Hordeum (s. str.) are placed in the same nothogenus,
×Tritordeum Asch. &
Graebn.
(Syn. Mitteleur. Fl.
2(1): 748. 1902).
If, however,
Agropyron is treated as a genus
separate from
Triticum, hybrids between
Agropyron and
Hordeum (s. str. or s. l.)
are placed
in the nothogenus
×Agrohordeum E. G. Camus ex A. Camus
(in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat.
(Paris)
33: 537. 1927).
Similarly, if
Elymus is treated as a genus separate from
Hordeum,
hybrids between
Elymus and
Triticum (s. str. or s. l.)
are placed in the nothogenus
×Elymo-
triticum P. Fourn.
(Quatre Fl. France:
88. 1935).
If both
Agropyron and
Elymus are given
generic rank,
hybrids between them are placed in the nothogenus
×Agroelymus E. G.
Camus ex A. Camus
(in Bull. Mus.
Hist. Nat.
(Paris)
33: 538. 1927);
×Tritordeum is then
restricted to hybrids between
Hordeum (s. str.) and
Triticum (s. str.), and hybrids between
Elymus and
Hordeum are placed in
×Elyhordeum Mansf. ex Tsitsin & Petrova
(in Züchter
25: 164. 1955),
replacing
×Hordelymus Bachteev & Darevsk.
(in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow
& Leningrad)
35: 191. 1950)
non
Hordelymus (Jess.) Harz
(Landw. Samenk.:
1147. 1885).
Ex. 2.
When
Orchis fuchsii Druce was renamed
Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó,
the
name for its hybrid with
Coeloglossum viride (L.) Hartm.,
×Orchicoeloglossum mixtum
Asch. & Graebn.
(Syn. Mitteleur. Fl.
3: 847. 1907),
had to be changed to
×Dactyloglos-
sum mixtum
(Asch. & Graebn.) Rauschert
(in Feddes Repert.
79: 413. 1969).
173 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 173 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
H.8–H.9 | Hybrids |
H.8.2.
Names ending in
-ara for nothogenera,
which are equivalent to con-
densed formulae
(Art. H.6.3 and H.6.4(b)),
are applicable only to hybrids
that are accepted taxonomically
as derived from the parents named.
Ex. 3.
If
Euanthe Schltr. is recognized as a distinct genus,
hybrids simultaneously in-
volving its only species,
E. sanderiana (Rchb.) Schltr., and the three genera
Arachnis
Blume,
Renanthera Lour., and
Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br. must be placed in
×Cogniau-
xara Garay & H. R. Sweet
(in Bot. Mus. Leafl.
21: 156. 1966);
if, on the other hand,
E. sanderiana is included in
Vanda,
the same hybrids are placed in
×Holttumara
Holttum
(in Malayan Orchid Rev.
5: 75. 1958)
(Arachnis ×
Renanthera ×
Vanda).
H.9.1.
In order to be validly published,
the name of a nothogenus or a
nothotaxon
at
the rank of subdivision of a genus (Art. H.6
and H.7)
must
be effectively published (see Art.
29–31)
with a statement of the names of the
parent genera or subdivisions of genera,
but no description or diagnosis is
necessary, whether in Latin, English,
or any other language.
Ex. 1.
Validly published names:
×Philageria Mast.
(in Gard. Chron.
1872: 358. 1872),
published with a statement of parentage,
Lapageria Ruiz & Pav. ×
Philesia Comm.
ex Juss.;
Eryngium nothosect.
Alpestria Burdet & Miège (pro sect.)
(in Candollea 23:
116. 1968),
published with a statement of parentage,
E. sect.
Alpina H. Wolff ×
E. sect.
Campestria H. Wolff;
×Agrohordeum E. G. Camus ex A. Camus
(in Bull. Mus. Hist.
Nat.
(Paris)
33: 537. 1927),
published with a statement of parentage,
Agropyron Gaertn.
×
Hordeum L.; and its later synonym
×Hordeopyron Simonet
(in Compt. Rend. Hebd.
Séances Acad. Sci.
201: 1212. 1935,
‘Hordeopyrum’; see Art.
32.2),
published with an
identical statement of parentage.
Note 1.
Because
the names of nothogenera and nothotaxa
at
the rank of a sub-
division of a genus
are condensed formulae or
equivalent to such,
they do not have
types.
Ex. 2.
The name
×Ericalluna Krüssm.
(in Deutsche Baumschule
12: 154. 1960)
was
published for plants that were thought
to be the product of the cross
Calluna vulgaris
(L.) Hull ×
Erica cinerea L.
If it is considered that these plants
are not hybrids but
variants of
E. cinerea, the name
×Ericalluna Krüssm. remains available for use
should
known or postulated
hybrids of
Calluna Salisb. ×
Erica L.
be produced.
Ex. 3.
×Arabidobrassica Gleba & Fr. Hoffm.
(in Naturwissenschaften 66: 548. 1979),
a nothogeneric name that was validly published
with a statement of parentage for the
result of somatic hybridization by protoplast fusion of
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh.
with
Brassica campestris L.,
is also available for intergeneric hybrids
resulting from
normal crosses between
Arabidopsis Heynh. and
Brassica L., should any be produced.
Note 2.
Names published merely in anticipation
of the existence of a hybrid are
not validly published under Art.
36.1(a).
174 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 174 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.10 |
H.10.1.
Names of nothotaxa at the rank of species or below
must conform
with the provisions
(a) of the
Code
outside
of Chapter H
applicable to names
at the same ranks
(see Art.
32.4)
and
(b) in Art.
H.3.
Infringements of Art.
H.3.1
are treated as errors to be corrected
(see also Art.
11.9).
Ex. 1.
The nothospecific name
Melampsora
×columbiana G. Newc.
(in Mycol. Res.
104: 271. 2000)
was validly published,
with a Latin description
and designation of a
holotype,
for the hybrid between
M. medusae Thüm. and
M. occidentalis H. S. Jacks.
Note 1.
Taxa previously published as species
or infraspecific taxa that are later
considered to be nothotaxa
may be indicated as such,
without change of rank,
in
conformity with Art.
3 and
4
and by the application of Art.
50
(which also operates
in the reverse direction).
H.10.2.
The following are considered
to be formulae and not true epithets:
designations consisting of the epithets of the names
of the parents com-
bined in unaltered form by a hyphen,
or with only the termination of one
epithet changed, or consisting of the specific epithet
of the name of one par-
ent combined with the generic name of the other
(with or without change
of termination).
Ex. 2.
The designation
“Potentilla
atrosanguinea-pedata”
published by Maund
(in Bot.
Gard.
5: No. 385,
t. 97. 1833)
is considered to be a formula meaning
P. atrosanguinea
Lodd. ex D. Don ×
P. pedata Nestl.
Ex. 3.
“Verbascum nigro-lychnitis”
(Schiede, Pl. Hybr.:
40. 1825)
is considered to be a
formula
meaning
V. lychnitis L. ×
V. nigrum L.;
the correct binary name for this hybrid
is
V.
×schiedeanum W. D. J. Koch
(Syn. Fl. Germ. Helv., ed. 2:
592. 1844).
Ex. 4.
In
Acaena
×anserovina Orchard
(in Trans. Roy. Soc.
South Australia
93: 104.
1969)
(A. anserinifolia (J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.) J. Armstr. ×
A. ovina A. Cunn.) the
epithet (contrary to Rec. H.10A)
combines the first part of the first and the whole of the
second epithet in the names of the parental species;
because more than the termination
of the first epithet is omitted,
anserovina is a true epithet.
Ex. 5.
In
Micromeria
×benthamineolens Svent.
(Index Seminum Hortus Acclim. Pl.
Arautap.:
48. 1969)
(M. benthamii Webb & Berthel. ×
M. pineolens Svent.) the epithet
(contrary to Rec. H.10A)
combines the first part of the first and
the second part of the
second epithet
in the names of the parental species;
because
neither epithet is unaltered,
benthamineolens is a true epithet.
Note 2.
Because
the name of a nothotaxon at the rank
of species or below has
a type,
statements of parentage play a secondary part
in determining the applica-
tion of the name.
Ex. 6.
Quercus
×deamii Trel.
(in Mem. Natl. Acad. Sci. 20: 14. 1924)
when described
was considered as the cross
Q. alba L. ×
Q. muehlenbergii Engelm.
However, progeny
175 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 175 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
H.10–H.12 | Hybrids |
grown from acorns of the tree
from which the type originated
led Bartlett to conclude
that the parents were in fact
Q. macrocarpa Michx. and
Q. muehlenbergii.
If this con-
clusion is accepted,
the name
Q.
×deamii applies to
Q. macrocarpa ×
Q. muehlenber-
gii, and not to
Q. alba ×
Q. muehlenbergii.
H.10A.1.
In forming epithets for names of nothotaxa
at the rank of species and
below,
authors should avoid combining parts
of the epithets of the names of the
parents.
H.10B.1.
When contemplating
the publication of
names for hybrids between
named infraspecific taxa,
authors should carefully consider whether these names
are really needed, bearing in mind that formulae,
though more cumbersome, are
more informative.
H.11.1.
The name of a nothospecies
of which the postulated or known par-
ent species belong to different genera
is a combination of a nothogeneric
name with a nothospecific
epithet.
Ex. 1.
×Heucherella tiarelloides
(Lemoine & É. Lemoine) H. R. Wehrh. is considered
to have originated from the cross
between a garden hybrid of
Heuchera L. and
Tiarella
cordifolia L.
(see Stearn in Bot. Mag. 165: ad t. 31. 1948).
Its basionym,
Heuchera
×tiarelloides Lemoine & É. Lemoine
(in Catalogue (Lemoine)
182: 3. 1912),
is therefore
incorrect.
H.11.2.
The final epithet in the name
of an infraspecific nothotaxon of
which the postulated or known parental taxa
are assigned to different spe-
cies
may be placed
under the correct name of
the corresponding
nothospe-
cies (but see Rec. H.10B).
Ex. 2.
Mentha
×piperita L. nothosubsp.
piperita
(M. aquatica L. ×
M. spicata L. subsp.
spicata);
M.
×piperita nothosubsp.
pyramidalis (Ten.) Harley
(in Kew Bull. 37: 604.
1983)
(M. aquatica L. ×
M. spicata subsp.
tomentosa (Briq.) Harley).
H.12.1.
Subordinate taxa within nothospecies
may be recognized without
an obligation
to specify parent taxa at the subordinate rank.
In this case
non-hybrid infraspecific categories
of the appropriate rank are used.
176 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 176 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H.12 |
Ex. 1.
Mentha
×piperita f.
hirsuta Sole;
Populus
×canadensis var.
serotina (R. Hartig)
Rehder and
P.
×canadensis var.
marilandica (Poir.) Rehder
(see also Art. H.4
Note 1).
Note 1.
When there is no statement of parentage, Art.
H.4
and
H.5,
governing
the circumscription and appropriate rank
of hybrid taxa, do not apply.
Note 2.
Art. H.11.2 and H.12.1
cannot both be applied simultaneously
at the
same infraspecific rank.
H.12.2.
Names published at the rank of nothomorph¹
are treated as having
been published as names of varieties (see Art.
50).
————————————
1
Editions of the
Code prior to
the
Sydney
Code
of 1983
permitted only one rank
of
infraspecific nothotaxa
under provisions equivalent to Art. H.12.
That rank was
equivalent to variety
and the category was termed “nothomorph”.
177 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 177 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 1 | Governance of the Code |
PROVISIONS FOR GOVERNANCE OF THE CODE
GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GOVERNANCE OF THE CODE
1.1.
The
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants
is governed by its users, who are represented by members
of a Nomen-
clature Section of an
International Botanical Congress acting under the
authority of that Congress and, between such Congresses,
by the Perma-
nent Nomenclature Committees
and any Special-purpose Committees.
1.2.
The
Code
may be modified only
by action of a plenary session of an
International Botanical Congress
on a resolution moved by the Nomencla-
ture Section of that Congress.
1.3.
In the event that there should not be another
International Botanical
Congress, authority for the
International Code of Nomenclature for algae,
fungi, and plants shall be transferred to
the International Union of Bio-
logical
Sciences or to an organization at that time
corresponding to it.
The
General Committee is empowered
to define the machinery to achieve this.
1.4.
The
Code is provided with logistical
and financial support by the
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT),
which liaises with
the Permanent Nomenclature Committees
and the Bureau of Nomencla-
ture.
The nomenclatural publications¹ required by Div. III
are published as
————————————
1
The nomenclatural publications required by Div. III
include proposals to conserve,
protect, or reject names or suppress works,
requests for decisions, reports of Permanent
Nomenclature Committees and Special-purpose Committees,
proposals to amend the
178 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 178 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 1–2 |
specified by the General Committee
(currently in the journal
Taxon,
except
for proposals to amend the
Code relating solely
to names of organisms
treated as fungi
and proposals to protect
or reject names
under Art.
F.2 or
F.7,
submitted as lists,
which are published
in the journal
IMA Fungus).
PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CODE
2.1.
Proposals concerning the
Preamble,
Divisions I–III, and the
Glossary
are submitted by publication (see Prov. 1.4)
to the Nomenclature Section of
an International Botanical Congress.
2.2.
Proposals concerning
Appendices I–VII,
i.e. proposals to conserve,
protect, or reject names (Art.
14.12,
F.2.1,
56.2, and
F.7.1),
proposals to sup-
press works (Art.
34.1),
and requests for decisions (Art.
38.4 and
53.4),
are
submitted by publication
(see Prov. 1.4) to the General Committee.
2.3.
At least three years prior to an
International Botanical Congress, the
Rapporteur-général publishes an announcement
that proposals to amend
the
Code may be published between specified dates.
2.4.
Approximately six months prior to an
International Botanical Con-
gress,
a synopsis of proposals to amend the
Code is published.
It is compiled
by the Rapporteur-général and Vice-rapporteur,
includes their comments
on the proposals,
and may include opinions
of the Permanent Nomencla-
ture
Committees on certain proposals.
2.5.
A
guiding vote
on proposals to amend the
Code is organized by the
Bureau of Nomenclature in conjunction
with the International Association
for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) to coincide
with the publication of the synopsis
of proposals.
No accumulation
or transfer of votes
is permissible
in this
vote.
The following persons are entitled to
vote:
(a) individual members of the IAPT;
(b) authors of proposals to amend the Code;
(c) members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees.
————————————
Code and a synopsis of these proposals,
notices of institutional votes,
and the results
of the preliminary guiding vote
and Congress-approved decisions and elections of the
Nomenclature Section
or Fungal Nomenclature
Session.
179 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 179 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 2–4 | Governance of the Code |
2.6.
The purpose of the guiding vote
is to advise the Nomenclature Sec-
tion
of the International Botanical Congress
of the level of support for
proposals to amend the
Code.
The results of the vote and any Permanent
Nomenclature Committee opinions
are provided at the Nomenclature Sec-
tion
(see also Prov.
5.5).
INSTITUTIONAL VOTES
3.1.
Prior to an International Botanical Congress,
the Committee on Insti-
tutional Votes
updates the
list of institutions
from the previous Congress
and allocates to each
institution
one to seven votes
(see Prov.
5.9(b)).
The
list must be approved by the
General Committee
and published (see
Prov.
1.4)
prior to the Congress.
No single institution,
even in the wide sense
of
the term
(e.g. mycological and botanical divisions together),
is entitled to
more than seven votes.
3.2.
Prior to an International
Botanical Congress,
any institution
desiring
to vote in the
Nomenclature Section
and not listed
as having been allo-
cated any votes in the previous
Nomenclature Section
should notify the
Rapporteur-général
of its wish
to be allocated
one or more votes
and provide
relevant information
regarding its level
of taxonomic activity
(e.g. number
of active staff, size of collections,
current publications).
An institution allo-
cated
one or more votes in the previous Nomenclature Section
and desiring
to alter its number of votes
may similarly notify the Rapporteur-général.
3.3.
An institution wishing to exercise its vote(s),
as allocated in the pub-
lished list (Prov. 3.1),
must provide its official written authorization to be
presented at the Nomenclature Section by its delegate Prov.
(5.9(b)).
3.4.
A delegate who is a member of an institution
that has not previously
applied for,
or been allocated,
votes may apply in person
for one institu-
tional vote
at the Nomenclature Section.
NOMENCLATURE SECTION
4.1.
The Nomenclature Section
is part of an International Botanical Con-
gress
and meets prior to a plenary session of the Congress.
180 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 180 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 4 |
4.2.
Registration for the Nomenclature Section
is through the Interna-
tional Botanical Congress.
Only registered members of the Nomenclature
Section are entitled to vote at the Nomenclature Section.
4.3. The Nomenclature Section has the following functions:
(a)
approves the previous
Code as published as a basis for discussion by
the Section;
(b) decides on proposals to amend the Code;
(c)
appoints ad hoc committees
to consider specific questions and report
back to the Section;
(d)
authorizes Special-purpose Committees,
with a specific mandate, to be
appointed by the General Committee
and report back to the Nomencla-
ture Section of the next Congress;
(e)
elects the
ordinary members
of the
Permanent Nomenclature
Committees;
(f) elects the Rapporteur-général for the next Congress;
(g)
receives the reports of
the Permanent Nomenclature Committees and
Special-purpose Committees;
(h) decides on the recommendations of the General Committee.
4.4.
The decisions and appointments of
the Nomenclature Section be-
come
binding upon their acceptance
by a subsequent plenary session of the
same International Botanical Congress
acting on a resolution moved by the
Nomenclature Section (see Prov.
1.2).
4.5.
The
Bureau of Nomenclature of
the International Botanical
Congress
comprises the following
officers:
President of
the Nomenclature Section;
up to five Vice-presidents;
the
Rapporteur-général;
the
Vice-rapporteur;
the
Recorder.
The Bureau of Nomenclature defines the sequence
and timing of
debates;
appoints Tellers to collect and count voting cards
in the event of a
card vote (see Prov. 5.10);
and advises the President on procedural matters.
4.6.
The
President of the
Nomenclature Section
is elected by the
Gen-
eral Committee prior to the Congress.
The President chairs the debates
and is responsible
for their harmony and timely conclusion;
recognizes and
silences speakers;
may end a debate;
decides on procedural matters not
181 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 181 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 4 | Governance of the Code |
covered in Div. III;
and is authorized to move a resolution on behalf of
the Nomenclature Section at a plenary session
of the same International
Botanical Congress
that the decisions and appointments
of the Nomencla-
ture Section be approved.
4.7.
The Vice-presidents are appointed by
the Bureau of Nomenclature,
either in advance of the International Botanical Congress
or from those
present at the Nomenclature Section.
A Vice-president serves in place of
the President if and when requested.
4.8.
The
Rapporteur-général
is elected
by the previous
International
Botanical
Congress.
The Rapporteur-général is responsible for:
presenta-
tion of nomenclature proposals
to the subsequent
Congress;
general duties
in connection
with the editing of the
Code
resulting from that Congress;
and deposition in the IAPT nomenclature archives
of unpublished relevant
material.
4.9.
The
Vice-rapporteur
is appointed by the
Rapporteur-général
and
approved by the General Committee
no later than three years
prior to the
Congress.
The Vice-rapporteur assists and,
if necessary, serves in place of
the Rapporteur-général.
4.10.
The
Recorder
is appointed by the
Organizing
Committee of the
International Botanical Congress
in consultation with the Rapporteur-
général.
The Recorder is responsible for all local facilities
needed by the
Nomenclature Section,
such as the venue and its equipment,
and in par-
ticular
for the detailed recording
of the proceedings of the Section and for
facilitating the voting.
4.11.
The Nominating Committee comprises members
who should prefer-
ably be unavailable to serve
on the Permanent Nomenclature Committees or
as Rapporteur-général.
They are proposed by the President
of the Nomen-
clature Section,
in consultation with the other members
of the Bureau of
Nomenclature,
and are elected by the Nomenclature Section.
4.12.
The Nominating Committee is charged
with preparing lists of can-
didates
to serve on the Permanent Nomenclature Committees
(with the ex-
ception of
the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi;
see Prov. 4.13),
in con-
sultation
with the current secretaries of those committees,
and to propose
the Rapporteur-général
for the next International Botanical Congress.
The
182 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 182 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 4–5 |
nominations of the Nominating Committee are subject
to approval by the
Nomenclature Section.
4.13.
The Nominating Committee of
the Fungal Nomenclature Session
(Prov.
8.1)
is charged with preparing lists of candidates
to serve on the
Nomenclature Committee for Fungi,
in consultation with the current
Secretary of that Committee,
and to propose the Secretary
of the Fungal
Nomenclature Bureau
for the next International Mycological Congress.
The nominations of the Nominating Committee
of the Fungal Nomencla-
ture Session
are subject to approval
by the Fungal Nomenclature Session.
Recommendation 1.
The Nominating Committee of the Nomenclature Section
should represent the different taxonomic groups
covered by the
Code and both Nom-
inating Committees,
so far as is practicable,
should be geographically balanced.
PROCEDURE AND VOTING AT THE NOMENCLATURE SECTION
5.1.
A qualified majority (at least 60%) of votes cast
is required for the
following decisions:
(a) accepting a proposal to amend the Code;
(b) referring items to the Editorial Committee;
(c)
accepting a motion to end discussion
and proceed to a vote (to “call the
question”);
(d) accepting a motion to set a time limit for a debate;
(e)
rejecting a singled-out recommendation
of the General Committee (see
Prov. 5.3);
(f)
rejecting one or more recommendations
of the General Committee on
conservation, protection, or rejection of names,
suppression of works,
or binding decisions.
5.2.
A simple majority (more than 50%) of votes cast
is required for all
other decisions,
including the following:
(a) electing the Nominating Committee for the Nomenclature Section;
(b)
accepting the
Code that arose from
the previous International Botanical
Congress as the basis for discussion
at the Nomenclature Section;
183 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 183 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 5 | Governance of the Code |
(c) choosing between two alternative proposals;
(d) accepting an amendment to a proposal;
(e) establishing an ad hoc committee;
(f) establishing and referring items to a Special-purpose Committee;
(g)
accepting recommendations
of the General Committee not included in
Prov. 5.1(e) or (f);
(h) approving the nominations made by the Nominating Committee.
5.3.
When a report of the General Committee
contains more than one rec-
ommendation,
the Nomenclature Section may vote separately
on an indi-
vidual recommendation
if such a procedure is proposed by a member of the
Section, supported (seconded) by five other members
(see Prov. 5.7), and
approved by a simple majority
(more than 50%) of the Section.
5.4.
When a vote to reject a General Committee
recommendation achieves
the required majority
(Prov. 5.1(e) or (f)),
that recommendation is cancelled
and the matter is referred back to the General Committee.
Retention or
rejection of a name
or suppression of a work
is no longer authorized (Art.
14.15,
56.3, and
34.2).
5.5.
Any proposal to amend the
Code that receives 75% or more “no” votes
in the preliminary guiding vote
is automatically rejected at the Nomencla-
ture Section unless a proposal to discuss it
is moved by a member of the
Section
and supported (seconded) by five other members.
5.6.
Any proposal to amend the
Code that concerns only Examples (ex-
cluding voted Examples) or the Glossary
is automatically referred to the
Editorial Committee unless a proposal
to discuss it is moved by a member
of the Section and supported (seconded)
by five other members (but see
Prov. 5.5).
5.7.
A new proposal to amend the
Code
(i.e. one not previously published)
or an amendment to a proposal to amend the
Code may be introduced at
the Nomenclature Section by a member of the Section
only when supported
(seconded) by five other members.
5.8.
A member of the Nomenclature Section
may propose a friendly
amendment to a proposal to amend the
Code; if accepted by the original
184 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 184 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 5–6 |
proposer(s), such an amendment does not require
the support of other mem-
bers (seconders).
5.9. There are two kinds of votes at the Nomenclature Section:
(a) Personal votes.
Each
member of the Section
has one personal vote.
No
accumulation or transfer
of personal votes
is permissible.
(b)
Institutional votes
(see Prov.
3).
An institution may authorize in writing
any member of the Section
as a delegate to carry its votes.
No single person
will be allowed
more than 15 votes,
including personal
vote
and institutional votes.
5.10.
A card vote requires members
of the Nomenclature Section to deposit
anonymous cards printed to indicate the kind
and number of votes,
which
are counted by the Tellers (see Prov.
4.5).
A card vote may be conducted
when the required majority
cannot be detected by other means or may be
requested in advance of the vote by at least five members.
AFTER AN INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS
6.1.
Certain publications,
which may be electronic or printed or both,
appear as soon as feasible
after an International Botanical Congress, not
necessarily in this sequence:
(a)
the Congress-approved decisions
and elections of the Nomenclature
Section including the results
(if not published prior to the Congress) of
the preliminary guiding vote;
(b)
the announcement of Special-purpose Committees
and their member-
ship;
(c) the new edition of the Code, including the Glossary;
(d) the Appendices of the Code (App. I–VII);
(e)
a transcript of the Nomenclature Section.
185 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 185 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 7 | Governance of the Code |
PERMANENT NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEES
7.1.
There are nine
Permanent
Nomenclature
Committees,
including five
specialist committees
(clauses (e)–(i))
(c) Committee on Institutional Votes;
(d) Registration Committee;
(e) Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants;
(f) Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes;
(g) Nomenclature Committee for Fungi;
(h) Nomenclature Committee for Algae;
(i)
Nomenclature Committee
for Fossils.
Membership
7.2.
Members of the Permanent
Nomenclature Committees
are elected by
an International
Botanical Congress
(except where indicated otherwise).
The committees
have power to elect
officers as
desired, to fill vacancies,
and to establish
temporary subcommittees
in consultation with the General
Committee
7.3.
The General Committee has,
in addition to its ordinary (elected)
mem-
bers,
the following ex-officio members:
the secretaries of
the
five specialist
committees
(Prov. 7.1(e)–(i)),
the
Rapporteur-général,
the Vice-rapporteur,
and
the
President and
Secretary-general
of the International
Association for
Plant Taxonomy.
7.4.
The Editorial Committee
comprises individuals
who should prefer-
ably have been present
at the Nomenclature Section of the relevant
Inter-
national Botanical Congress
and includes at least one specialist in each
of vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, algae,
and fossils and
at least one
individual nominated
by the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi who
attended the Fungal
Nomenclature Session
of the relevant
International
186 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 186 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 7 |
Mycological Congress;
the
Rapporteur-général
and Vice-rapporteur of the
relevant
International Botanical Congress serve as
Chair
and Secretary,
respectively, of the Editorial Committee.
7.5.
The Committee on Institutional Votes
comprises six members,
each
to represent a different continent,
plus the Rapporteur-général, who serves
as its chair.
7.6.
The Registration Committee includes
at least five members appointed
by the Nomenclature Section selected,
in part, to ensure geographical bal-
ance,
and representatives nominated by:
(a) the other Permanent Nomenclature Committees;
(b) prospective or functioning nomenclatural repositories;
(c) the International Association for Plant Taxonomy;
(d) the International Association of Bryologists;
(e) the International Federation of Palynological Societies;
(f) the International Mycological Association;
(g) the International Organisation of Palaeobotany;
(h) the International Phycological Society.
7.7.
Each specialist committee includes
the Rapporteur-général, the Vice-
rapporteur,
and the Secretary of the General Committee
as non-voting ex-
officio members.
7.8.
The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi is elected
by an Interna-
tional Mycological Congress
and includes the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau
(Prov.
8.1)
as non-voting
ex-officio members
if they are not already members of the Nomenclature
Committee for Fungi.
Recommendation 1.
Each committee should,
so far as is practicable,
be geo-
graphically and gender balanced.
187 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 187 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 7 | Governance of the Code |
Functions
7.9.
The General Committee
is charged with receiving proposals
to con-
serve, protect, or reject names,
proposals to suppress works,
and requests
for decisions (Art.
14.12,
F.2.1,
56.2,
F.7.1,
34.1,
38.4, and
53.4)
and for
referring these proposals or requests
to the specialist committee(s) con-
cerned
(receipt and referral of proposals and requests
are automatic upon
their publication).
The General Committee is also charged with consider-
ing
recommendations of the specialist committees
and either approving
or overturning those recommendations
or referring them back to the spe-
cialist
committees for further consideration.
The General Committee may
also communicate
an international standard format in addition to,
or as a
successor to, Portable Document Format (PDF)
for effective publication of
electronic material (Art.
29.3)
and is empowered to ratify a list of institu-
tional
votes drawn up by the Committee on Institutional Votes
(see Prov.
3.1).
7.10.
Each of the five specialist committees examines proposals
to con-
serve or reject names,
proposals to suppress works,
and requests for deci-
sions (Art.
14.12,
56.2,
34.1,
38.4, and
53.4)
referred to them by the Gen-
eral Committee,
to which they then submit their recommendations.
They
may also submit opinions
on proposals to amend the
Code to the Bureau
of Nomenclature.
The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
has a mandate
under Art.
F.2.1 and
F.7.1
with respect to lists of protected or rejected names
proposed for approval and under Art.
F.5.3
with respect to repositories for
fungal names.
7.11.
The
Editorial Committee
is charged
with the preparation
and publica-
tion of the
Code in conformity
with the decisions approved by the
relevant
International Botanical
Congress.
It is empowered to make any editorial
modification
not affecting the meaning of the provisions concerned,
e.g. to
change the wording of any Article,
Note, or Recommendation and to avoid
duplication, to add or remove non-voted Examples,
and to place Articles,
Notes, Recommendations,
and Chapters of the
Code in the most convenient
place,
while retaining the previous numbering
insofar as possible.
7.12.
The Committee on Institutional Votes
maintains a list of institutions
and their allocated votes
for the upcoming International Botanical Congress
(see Prov.
3.1).
188 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 188 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 7 |
7.13.
The Registration Committee is charged
with assisting the design
and implementation of repositories
for nomenclatural novelties and/or any
nomenclatural act,
monitoring the functioning of existing repositories,
and
advising the General Committee on relevant matters.
Procedural rules
7.14.
A specialist committee,
provided that a qualified majority (at least
60%)
of its members supports or opposes a proposal,
may make any of
the following recommendations
to the General Committee:
conserve or not
conserve a name;
reject or not reject a name;
suppress or not suppress a pub-
lication;
and for names of organisms treated as fungi,
protect or not protect
names on a list.
In the case of binding decisions on valid publication (Art.
38.4)
and homonymy (Art.
53.4),
the qualified majority decides whether
or not a binding decision should be recommended,
then a simple majority
(more than 50%)
decides between the two alternatives:
i.e. treat a name as
validly published
or not validly published;
treat names as homonyms or not
homonyms.
If a specialist committee is unable
to make a recommendation
after voting at least twice,
the proposal is referred to the General Commit-
tee
without a recommendation from the specialist committee.
7.15.
The General Committee may approve or overturn
a recommendation
of a specialist committee
provided that a qualified majority (at least 60%)
of the General Committee members
supports or opposes the recommen-
dation.
In either case,
the General Committee makes its own recommen-
dation,
which is subject to the decision of a later
International Botanical
Congress (see also Art.
14.15,
34.2 and
56.3).
If the required majority is not
achieved
after voting at least twice,
the General Committee is considered
to have recommended against the proposal
or against making a binding
decision.
The General Committee may also decide
to refer the matter back
to the specialist committee
for further consideration.
Recommendation 2.
The General Committee and the specialist committees
should publish their recommendations at least annually.
189 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 189 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 8 | Governance of the Code |
PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CODE RELATING SOLELY
TO NAMES OF ORGANISMS TREATED AS FUNGI
8.1.
For proposals relating
to the content of Chapter F,
which brings to-
gether the provisions of this
Code that deal solely with names of organisms
treated as fungi (but excluding any other content),
exactly the same proce-
dures outlined in Prov.
1–7
are to be followed except that in Prov.
1,
2,
4,
and
5
mentions of International Botanical Congress,
Nomenclature Section
[of that Congress],
Bureau of Nomenclature, and Nominating Committee
are to be replaced by International Mycological Congress,
Fungal Nomen-
clature Session [of that Congress],
Fungal Nomenclature Bureau, and Nom-
inating
Committee of the Fungal Nomenclature Session,
respectively; and
officers such as President, Rapporteur-général,
and Vice-rapporteur
(these
specifically renamed Chair,
Secretary, and Deputy Secretary, respectively)
are to be understood as members
of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau
rather than the Bureau of Nomenclature
(specifically in Prov.
1.1,
1.2, 1.4
footnote,
2.1,
2.3,
2.4,
2.6,
4.2,
4.4,
4.5,
4.7,
4.8,
4.10,
4.11,
5.2,
5.5,
5.6,
5.7,
and
5.8;
but not in Prov.
5.3 and
5.4;
and the following clauses do not apply:
Prov.
5.1(e) and (f)
and Prov.
5.2(g)).
8.2.
The General Committee in consultation
with the Nomenclature Com-
mittee for Fungi
is responsible for deciding
which proposals relate solely to
names of organisms treated as fungi.
8.3.
A guiding vote on proposals to amend the
Code relating solely to
names of organisms treated as fungi is organized
by the Fungal Nomencla-
ture Bureau
in conjunction
with the International Mycological Association
(IMA) to coincide with the publication
of the synopsis of proposals.
No
accumulation or transfer of votes
is permissible in this vote. The following
persons are entitled to vote:
(a) individual members of the IMA;
(b) individual members of organizations affiliated with the IMA;
(c)
individual members of other organizations
approved by Fungal Nomen-
clature Bureau;
(d)
authors of proposals to amend the
Code relating solely to names of
organisms treated as fungi;
(e) members of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi.
190 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 190 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Governance of the Code | Prov. 8 |
8.4.
The Fungal Nomenclature Session is part
of an International Myco-
logical Congress
and meets prior to a plenary session of the Congress
at a time and with a duration to be determined
by consultation between
the International Mycological Association
and the Fungal Nomenclature
Bureau.
8.5. The Fungal Nomenclature Session has the following functions:
(a)
approves the previous
Code
if amended at the last International Myco-
logical Congress
(in the circumstance where there has not been an
International Botanical Congress
since the last International Mycologi-
cal Congress) as a basis
for discussion by the Session,
and otherwise
utilizes the most recent published
Code;
(b)
decides on proposals to amend the
Code relating solely to organisms
treated as fungi;
(c)
appoints ad hoc committees
to consider specific questions and report
back to the Session;
(d)
authorizes Special-purpose Committees,
with a specific mandate,
to deal with matters relating solely
to names of organisms treated as
fungi, to be appointed
by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi in
consultation with the General Committee
and report back to the Fungal
Nomenclature Session
of the next International Mycological Congress;
(e) elects the ordinary members of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi;
(f)
elects the Secretary
of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau for the next
International Mycological Congress;
(g)
receives reports of Special-purpose Committees
dealing with matters
relating solely to names of organisms treated as fungi.
8.6.
The Chair of the Fungal Nomenclature Session
is elected by the
Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
in consultation with the General Com-
mittee
prior to the International Mycological Congress.
The Chair chairs
the debates
and is responsible for their harmony
and timely conclusion;
recognizes and silences speakers;
may end a debate;
decides on procedural
matters not covered in Div. III;
and is authorized to move a resolution on
behalf
of the Fungal Nomenclature Session
at a plenary session of the same
International Mycological Congress
that the decisions and appointments of
the Fungal Nomenclature Session
with respect to matters relating solely to
names of organisms treated as fungi be approved.
191 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 191 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Prov. 8 | Governance of the Code |
8.7.
In the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau,
the Deputy Secretary is
appointed by the Secretary
and approved by the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi
in consultation with the General Committee no later than three
years prior to the International Mycological Congress.
The Deputy Secre-
tary assists and,
if necessary, serves in place of the Secretary.
8.8.
The Rapporteur-général elected
for the International Botanical Con-
gress
that follows the International Mycological Congress,
or an alter-
nate appointed
by that Rapporteur-général, is invited
to attend the Fungal
Nomenclature Session
as a non-voting advisor to the Session.
8.9.
When proposals relating solely to names
of organisms treated as fungi
are dealt with
in a Fungal Nomenclature Session,
there are no institutional
votes,
and therefore Prov.
3,
7.5, and
7.12
do not apply.
Each member of
the Session has one personal vote.
No accumulation or transfer of personal
votes
is permissible.
8.10.
The decisions taken at the Fungal Nomenclature Session
of an Inter-
national Mycological Congress
relating solely to names of organisms treated
as fungi,
once accepted by a subsequent plenary session
of the same Con-
gress,
are binding on the Nomenclature Section convened
at the subsequent
International Botanical Congress.
Such decisions will, however, be open for
any editorial adjustments
deemed necessary by the Editorial Committee.
8.11.
Certain publications, which may be electronic
or printed or both,
appear as soon as feasible
after an International Mycological Congress, not
necessarily in this sequence:
(a)
the Congress-approved decisions
and elections of the Fungal Nomen-
clature Session including the results
of the preliminary guiding vote;
(b)
the announcement of Special-purpose Committees
and their member-
ship;
(c) a transcript of the Fungal Nomenclature Session.
8.12.
Where modifications to the
Code have been authorized by a plenary
session of an International Mycological Congress
on a resolution moved
by the Fungal Nomenclature Session of that Congress,
such modifications
should be inserted
into any online version of the
Code in such a manner
that it is clear that the modifications originated
from that International
Mycological Congress.
192 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 192 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS
CODE
The particular usage of a few other words,
not defined in the
Code,
is also
indicated;
these are italicized in
the list below
and are accompanied by
an
editorial explanation of their use.
admixture. [Not defined] –
something mixed in,
especially a minor ingredient;
used
for components of a gathering
that represent a taxon or taxa other than that
intended by the collector and, because
the admixture is
disregarded,
do not
prevent
the gathering, or part thereof,
from
being a type specimen (Art.
8.2).
affirmation.
The adoption in a publication
that did not use a largely mechanical
method of selection of a choice of type
that had been made using such a
method and that had not in the interval been superseded (Art.
10.5).
Choices
of type that have been so affirmed
can no longer be superseded (see also
superseded).
alternative names.
Two or more different names based on the same type
accepted
simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author
and accepted as
alternatives
by that author
in the same publication
(Art.
36.3)
(see also
nomen
alternativum).
analysis.
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 identification,
with or without a separate caption (Art.
38.9; see also Art.
38.10).
anamorph.
A mitotic asexual morph
in pleomorphic fungi (Art.
F.8
Notes 1
and
2).
ascription.
The direct association of the name
of a person or persons with a new
name or description or diagnosis of a taxon (Art.
46.3).
attributed. [Not defined] –
regarded as belonging to or produced by a person or
a taxon, e.g.
a name attributed to its author(s)
as determined by Art.
46, a
193 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 193 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
feature attributed to a taxon (Art.
40.5),
or a specimen attributed to a taxon
(Art. 26
Ex. 3 and
6).
author citation.
A statement of the name(s)
of the author(s) responsible for the
establishment or introduction of a name;
when used, it is appended to that
name (Art.
46–50).
automatic typification.
(1) Typification of a nomenclaturally superfluous and
illegitimate name by the type of the name
(the replaced synonym)
that itself
or the epithet of
which ought to have been adopted
under the rules (Art.
7.5).
(2) Typification of the name of a taxon
above the rank of genus by the type of
the generic name on which it is based (Art.
10.9 and
10.10).
autonym.
The
automatically established name
of a subdivision
of a genus or of
an infraspecific taxon
that includes the type
of the adopted,
legitimate name
of the genus or species,
respectively.
Its
final epithet
repeats
unaltered the
generic name or specific epithet
and
is not followed by an author citation
(Art.
22.1 and
26.1).
Autonyms need not be
effectively published
nor comply
with the provisions
for valid publication (Art.
32.1),
they are automatically
established,
at any given rank,
by the first instance
of valid publication at
that rank of a name
of a subdivision of a genus
under a legitimate generic
name or of a name
of an infraspecific taxon
under a legitimate species name
(Art.
22.3 and
26.3).
[Autonyms
are not allowed under
illegitimate names of
genera or species
(Art.
22.5 and
27.2);
nor do
they
exist above the rank of
genus.]
available. [Not defined] –
applied to an epithet in a name (Art.
11.4,
11.5,
and
F.3.7),
the type of which falls within the circumscription
of the taxon under
consideration and where the use of the epithet
would not be contrary to the
rules (see also
available name).
available name.
A name published under the
International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature with a status
equivalent to that of a validly published name
under the
International Code of Nomenclature
for algae, fungi, and plants
(Art. 45
Ex. 1
footnote).
avowed substitute. See replacement name.
basionym.
The legitimate, previously published name
on which a new combination
or name at new rank is based.
The basionym
does not itself
have a basionym;
it
provides the final epithet, name,
or stem of the new combination or name at
new rank (Art.
6.10)
(see also
name at new rank,
new combination).
binary combination (binomial).
A generic name combined with a specific
epithet to form a species name (Art.
23.1)
(see also
combination).
binary designation. [Not defined] –
an apparent binary combination that has not
been validly published
(see also Art.
6.3)
(see also
designation).
194 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 194 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
binding decision.
A recommendation
made by the General Committee and
ratified by an International Botanical Congress on
(1) whether or not a name
is validly published (Art.
38.4) or
(2) whether or not names are to be treated
as homonyms (Art.
53.4).
Binding decisions are listed in (1)
App.
VI or (2)
VII.
binomial. See binary combination.
combinatio nova (comb. nov.). See new combination.
combination.
A name of a taxon below the rank of genus,
consisting of the name
of a genus combined with one or two epithets (Art.
6.7).
compound.
A name or epithet that combines elements
derived from two or more
Greek or Latin words;
a regular compound
is
one in which a noun or adjective
in a non-final position appears
as a modified stem
(Art.
60.10)
(see also
pseudocompound).
confusingly similar names.
Orthographically similar names
at the rank of genus
or below that are likely to be confused
and are to be treated as homonyms if
heterotypic (Art.
53.2
and
53.3)
or as orthographical variants if homotypic
(Art.
61.5).
Binding decisions may be made on whether or not
the former are
to be treated as homonyms (Art.
53.4 and
App.
VII)
(see also
homonym).
conserved name (nomen conservandum).
(1) A name of a family, genus, or species,
or in certain cases a name of a subdivision
of a genus or of an infraspecific
taxon,
declared legitimate,
even though it may have been illegitimate when
published
and taking precedence
over other specified names
even if it lacks
priority (Art.
14.1–14.7,
14.10,
App. II,
III, and
IV).
(2) A name for which the
type, orthography, or gender
has been fixed by the conservation process (Art.
14.8,
14.9,
14.11,
App. III, and
IV).
correct name.
The name that must be adopted
in accordance with the rules for
a taxon with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank (Art.
6.6,
11.1,
11.3, and
11.4).
cultivar.
The basic independent category used for organisms
in agriculture,
forestry, and horticulture and defined and regulated in the
International Code
of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
(Art. 28
Notes 2,
4, and
5).
date of name. The date of valid publication of a name (Art. 33.1).
descriptio generico-specifica.
A single description
simultaneously validating the
names of a genus and its single species
(Art.
38.5).
description. [Not defined] –
a published statement of a feature
or features of an
individual taxon;
a description (or a diagnosis)
is required for valid publication
of a name
of a new taxon
(Art.
38.1(a) and
38.3);
a validating description
need
not be diagnostic
(Art. 38
Note 2).
195 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 195 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
descriptive name.
A name of a taxon above the rank of family
not formed from a
generic name
(Art.
16.1(b)).
designation. [Not defined] –
the term used for what appears to be a name
but that
(1) has not been validly published
and hence is not a name in the sense of the
Code
(Art.
6.3)
or (2) is not to be regarded as a name
(Art.
20.4 and
23.6)
(see
also
type designation).
diagnosis.
A statement of that which in the opinion
of its author distinguishes a
taxon from other taxa
(Art.
38.2);
a diagnosis (or a description) is required for
valid publication of a name
(Art.
38.1(a)).
duplicate.
Part of a single gathering of a single species
or infraspecific taxon
(Art.
8.3
footnote)
(see also
gathering).
effective publication. Publication in accordance with Art. 29–31 (Art. 6.1).
element (as applied to typification).
[Not defined] –
applied to a specimen or
illustration eligible as a type;
also applied to a species name considered as
the full equivalent of its type for the purposes
of designation or citation of the
type of a name of a genus
or subdivision of a genus
(Art.
10.1).
epithet.
[Not defined] –
used for the words in a combination
other than the generic
name and any rank-denoting term;
hyphenated words are equivalent to a
single word
(Art.
6.7,
11.4,
21.1,
23.1, and
24.1;
see also Art.
H.10.2)
(see also
final epithet).
epitype.
A specimen or illustration selected
to serve as an interpretative type
when the holotype, lectotype,
or previously designated neotype,
or all original
material associated
with a validly published name,
cannot be identified for the
purpose of the precise application of the name
to a taxon
(Art.
9.9).
ex-type (ex typo),
ex-holotype (ex holotypo),
ex-isotype (ex isotypo),
etc.
A living isolate obtained from the type of a name
when this is a culture
permanently preserved
in a metabolically inactive state
(Rec.
8B.2).
final epithet.
The last epithet in sequence
in any particular combination,
whether
at
the rank of a subdivision of a genus,
or of a species, or of an infraspecific
taxon
(Art.
6.10
footnote).
forma specialis. See special form.
fossil-taxon.
A taxon (diatom taxa excepted)
the name of which is based on a
fossil type
(Art.
1.2 and
13.3).
gathering.
A collection
presumed to be of
a single taxon
made by the same
collector(s) at the
same time
from a single
locality
(Art. 8.2
footnote; see also
Art. 8
Note 1).
196 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 196 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
heterotypic synonym (taxonomic synonym).
A name based on a type different
from that of another name referring
to the same taxon
(Art.
14.4);
indicated by
the symbol “=”
in the Appendices of the
Code;
termed a “subjective synonym”
in the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 14.4
footnote).
holotype.
The one specimen or illustration
indicated
as the nomenclatural type
by the author(s) of a name
of a new species
or infraspecific taxon or,
when no
type was indicated,
used by the author(s)
when preparing
the account of the
new taxon
(Art.
9.1
and
Note 1;
see also Art.
9.2).
homonym.
A name spelled exactly like another name
published for a taxon
at the
same rank based on a different type
(Art.
53.1).
Note: names of subdivisions
of the same genus or of infraspecific taxa
within the same species that are
based on different types
and have the same final epithet
are homonyms even
if they differ in rank
(Art.
53.3),
because
the rank-denoting term
is not part
of the name
(Art. 21
Note 1
and Art. 24
Note 2)
(see also
confusingly similar
names).
homotypic synonym (nomenclatural synonym).
A name based on the same
type as that of another name (Art.
14.4);
indicated by the
symbol “≡” in the
Appendices of the
Code;
termed an “objective synonym” in the
International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 14.4
footnote).
hybrid formula.
An expression consisting of the names
of the parent taxa of a
hybrid with a multiplication sign
×
placed between them (Art.
H.2.1).
identifier. [Not defined] –
(1) a unique number
or string of characters issued by
a recognized nomenclatural repository
as required by Art.
F.5.1 and
F.5.4 for
the purpose of registering nomenclatural novelties
and certain nomenclatural
acts.
(2) A unique number or string of characters
applied to a specimen, e.g.
an accession number or a barcode.
illegitimate name.
A validly published name
that is not in accordance with
specified rules
(Art.
6.4),
principally those on superfluity
(Art.
52)
and
homonymy (Art.
53 and
54).
illustration.
A work of art or a photograph
depicting a feature or features of an
organism, e.g.
a drawing,
a picture of a herbarium specimen
or a scanning
electron micrograph (Art.
6.1
footnote).
improper Latin termination.
A termination of a name or epithet not
in accordance
with the termination mandated by the
Code
(Art.
16.3,
18.4,
19.7, and
32.2).
indelible autograph.
Handwritten material
reproduced by some mechanical or
graphic process (such as lithography,
offset, or metallic etching)
(Art.
30.6).
indirect reference.
A clear (if cryptic) indication,
by an author citation or in some
other way,
that a previously and effectively published
description or diagnosis
applies
(Art.
38.14)
or that a basionym or replaced synonym exists
(Art.
41.3).
197 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 197 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
informal usage.
Usage of the same
or equivalent
rank-denoting term at more
than one non-consecutive position
in the taxonomic sequence.
Note: names
involved in such usage
are validly published but unranked
(Art.
37.8).
infraspecific. [Not defined] – below the rank of species.
isoepitype. A duplicate specimen of the epitype (Art. 9.4 footnote).
isolectotype. A duplicate specimen of the lectotype (Art. 9.4 footnote).
isoneotype. A duplicate specimen of the neotype (Art. 9.4 footnote).
isonym.
The same name based on the same type,
published independently at
different times perhaps by different authors.
Note: only the earliest isonym
has nomenclatural status
(Art. 6
Note 2;
but see Art.
14.14).
isosyntype. A duplicate of a syntype (Art. 9.4 footnote).
isotype. A duplicate specimen of the holotype (Art. 9.5).
lectotype.
One
specimen or illustration designated
from the original material as
the nomenclatural type, in conformity
with Art.
9.11 and
9.12,
if
the name
was
published
without a holotype,
or if the holotype is
lost or destroyed,
or if a
type is found to belong to more than one taxon
(Art.
9.3).
legitimate name.
A validly published name
that is in accordance with the rules,
i.e. one that is not illegitimate
(Art.
6.5)
(see also
illegitimate name).
misplaced term.
A rank-denoting term used contrary
to the relative order
specified in the
Code
(Art.
18.2,
19.2,
37.6, and 37
Note 1).
monotypic genus.
A genus for which a single binomial
is validly published
(Art.
38.6)
(see also
unispecific).
name.
A name that has been validly published,
whether it is legitimate or
illegitimate
(Art.
6.3)
(see also
designation).
name at new rank (status novus).
A new name based on a legitimate, previously
published name at a different rank,
which is its basionym and which provides
the final epithet, name,
or stem of the name at new rank
(Art.
6.10 and
7.3)
(see also
basionym,
new combination).
name of a new taxon.
A name validly published in its own right,
i.e. one not based
on a previously validly published name;
it is not a new combination, a name
at new rank (status novus),
or a replacement name
(nomen novum) (Art.
6.9).
neotype.
A specimen or illustration selected to serve
as nomenclatural type if no
original material is extant
or as long as it is missing (Art.
9.8
and
9.13;
see also
Art.
9.16 and
9.19).
new combination
(combinatio nova).
A new name
for a taxon below
the rank
of
genus based on a legitimate,
previously published name,
which is its basionym
198 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 198 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
and which provides the final epithet
of the new combination
(Art.
6.10 and
7.3)
(see also
basionym,
name at new rank).
new name. [Not defined] –
a name as it appears
in the place of its valid publication
(see also
nomenclatural novelty).
nomen alternativum (nom. alt.).
One of eight family names,
each regularly
formed from a generic name
in accordance with Art.
18.1,
allowed as an
alternative
(Art.
18.6)
to one of the family names
of long usage treated as
validly published
under Art.
18.5.
In addition,
one subfamily name of long
usage,
Papilionoideae,
may be used
as an alternative to
Faboideae
(Art.
19.8)
(see
also
alternative names.).
nomen conservandum (nom. cons.). See conserved name.
nomen novum (nom. nov.). See replacement name.
nomen nudum (nom. nud.).
A designation of a new taxon published without a
description or diagnosis
or reference to a description or diagnosis
(Art. 38
Ex. 1, Rec.
50B).
nomen rejiciendum (nom. rej.).
A name rejected in favour of a name conserved
under Art.
14
or a name ruled as rejected under Art.
56
(App. IIA,
III,
IV, and
V)
(see also
rejected name).
nomen sanctionatum (nom. sanct.). See sanctioned name.
nomen utique rejiciendum (suppressed name).
A name ruled as rejected under
Art. 56.
Note: it and all names for which it is a basionym
are not to be used
(see
App. V).
nomenclatural act.
An act requiring effective publication that results in a
nomenclatural novelty or affects aspects of names
such as typification (Art.
7.10,
7.11, and
F.5.4), priority
(Art. 11.5 and
53.5), orthography
(Art. 61.3), or
gender
(Art. 62.3)
(Art. 34.1
footnote)
(see also
nomenclatural novelty).
nomenclatural novelty.
Any or all of the categories:
name of a new taxon, new
combination, name at new rank,
and replacement name
(Art. 6
Note
4;
see
also Art. 6
Note
5)
(see also
new name).
nomenclatural synonym. See homotypic synonym.
nomenclatural type.
The element to which the name of a taxon
is permanently
attached
(Art.
7.2).
non-fossil taxon.
A taxon the name of which is based on a non-fossil type
(Art.
13.3).
nothogenus. A hybrid genus (Art. 3.2).
199 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 199 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
nothomorph.
A term formerly denoting the only
rank
of infraspecific
nothotaxa,
equivalent to variety,
that was permitted
in editions of the
Code prior to the
Sydney
Code of 1983.
Names published as nothomorphs are now treated as
having been published
as names of varieties
(Art.
H.12.2 and
footnote).
nothospecies. A hybrid species (Art. 3.2).
nothotaxon. A hybrid taxon (Art. 3.2 and H.3.1).
objective synonym. See homotypic synonym.
opera utique oppressa. See suppressed works.
organism.
As used in this
Code,
the term is applied
only to organisms traditionally
studied by botanists,
mycologists, and phycologists
(Pre. 2
footnote,
Pre. 8).
original material.
The set of specimens and illustrations
from which a lectotype
may be chosen
(see Art.
9.4,
Notes 2
and
3,
Art.
F.3.9,
and
Note 2
for details),
or the holotype
(see Art.
9.1).
original spelling.
The spelling
used
when a name of a new taxon or a replacement
name was validly published
(Art.
60.2).
orthographical variants.
Various spelling, compounding,
and inflectional forms
of a name or its final epithet
when
only one nomenclatural type
is involved
(Art.
61.2).
page reference.
Citation of the page or pages
on which the basionym or replaced
synonym was validly published
or on which the protologue appears
(Art. 41
Note 1).
paratype.
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
(Art.
9.7).
position. [Not defined] –
used to denote the placement of a taxon
relative to other
taxa in a classification, regardless of rank
(Prin. IV,
Art.
6.6 and
11.1).
priority.
A right
to precedence
established by
the date
of valid
publication of a
legitimate name
(Art.
11)
or of an earlier homonym (Art. 53
Note
2),
or by the
date of designation of a type
(Art.
7.10,
7.11,
and
F.5.4).
pro synonymo (pro syn., as synonym).
A citation indicating that a designation is
not validly published
because it was merely cited as a synonym
(Art.
36.1(b)
and
Rec. 50A).
protected name.
The name of an organism treated as a fungus listed (in
App.
IIA,
III, and
IV)
with its type
and treated as conserved against any competing
listed or unlisted synonyms or homonyms
(including sanctioned names),
although conservation under Art.
14
overrides this protection
(Art.
F.2.1).
200 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 200 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
protologue.
Everything associated with a name
at its valid publication, e.g.
description, diagnosis, illustrations, references,
synonymy, geographical
data, citation of specimens, discussion,
and comments
(Art. 6.13
footnote).
provisional name.
A designation proposed in anticipation
of the future acceptance
of the taxon concerned,
or of a particular circumscription,
position, or rank of
the taxon
(Art.
36.1(a)).
pseudocompound.
A name or epithet
that combines elements derived from two
or more Greek or Latin words
and in which a noun or adjective in a non-final
position appears as a word with a case ending,
not as a modified stem
(Rec.
60G.1(b))
(see also
compound).
rank. [Not defined] –
used for the relative position of a taxon
in the taxonomic
hierarchy (Art.
2.1).
For suprageneric names
published on or after 1 January
1887, the rank is indicated
by the termination
of the name
(see Art.
37.2 and
footnote).
For names published
on or after 1 January 1953,
a clear indication
of the rank is required
for valid publication
(Art.
37.1).
rejected name.
A name
ruled as not to be used,
either by formal action under Art.
14,
56,
or
F.7
overriding other provisions of the
Code
(see
nomen rejiciendum,
nomen utique rejiciendum)
or because it was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published
(Art.
52)
or a later homonym
(Art.
53 and
54).
A name treated
as rejected under Art.
F.7
may become eligible
for use by conservation
under
Art.
14.
replaced synonym.
The legitimate or illegitimate,
previously published name on
which a replacement name
(nomen novum)
is based.
The replaced synonym,
when legitimate,
does not provide the final epithet,
name, or stem of the
replacement name
(Art.
6.11).
replacement name (nomen novum).
A new name
published as an explicit
substitute
(avowed substitute)
for
a legitimate or illegitimate,
previously published name,
which is its replaced synonym and which,
when legitimate, does not provide
the final epithet, name,
or stem of the replacement name
(Art.
6.11 and
7.4; for
names not explicitly
proposed
as substitutes
see Art.
6.12 and
6.13).
sanctioned name
(nomen sanctionatum).
The name of a fungus treated as if
conserved against earlier homonyms
and competing synonyms, through
acceptance in a sanctioning work
(Art.
F.3.1).
special form (forma specialis).
A taxon of parasites,
especially fungi,
characterized from a physiological standpoint
but scarcely or not at all from a
morphological standpoint,
the nomenclature of which is not governed by this
Code
(Art. 4
Note 4).
specimen.
A gathering, or part of a gathering,
of a single species or infraspecific
taxon,
disregarding admixtures,
mounted either as a single preparation or as
201 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 201 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
more than one preparation
with the parts clearly labelled
as being part of the
same specimen
or bearing a single,
original label
in common
(Art.
8.2 and
8.3).
A specimen may not be
a living organism
or an active culture
(Art.
8.4).
status.
(1) Nomenclatural standing with regard
to effective publication, valid
publication, legitimacy, and correctness (Art.
6 and
12.1).
(2) Rank of a taxon
within the taxonomic hierarchy (see
name at new rank).
(3) Category of
nomenclatural novelty
(Art.
6.14).
status novus (stat. nov.). See name at new rank.
subdivision of a family.
Any taxon
at a rank
between family and genus
(Art. 4
Note 2).
subdivision of a genus.
Any taxon
at
a rank between genus and species
(Art. 4
Note 2).
subjective synonym. See heterotypic synonym.
superfluous name.
A name that, when published,
was applied to a taxon that, as
circumscribed by its author,
definitely included the type of a name that ought
to have been adopted,
or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted,
under the rules
(Art.
52.1).
A superfluous name
is illegitimate
except as
provided by
Art.
52.4
or unless conserved
(Art.
14),
protected (Art.
F.2),
or
sanctioned
(Art.
F.3).
superseded. [Not defined] –
used for a designation of a type
that is not followed
but is replaced by a subsequent designation
of a different type under the
provisions of Art.
9.15,
9.18,
9.19,
10.2, or
10.5.
suppressed name. See nomen utique rejiciendum.
suppressed works
(opera utique oppressa).
Works,
ruled as suppressed, in which
new names
at specified ranks
are not validly published
and no nomenclatural
act within the work associated
with any name
at the specified ranks
is effective
(Art.
34.1 and
App.
I).
synonym. [Not defined] –
one of two or more names that apply to the same taxon
(see
heterotypic synonym,
homotypic synonym).
syntype.
Any specimen cited in the protologue
when there is no holotype, or any
of two or more specimens
simultaneously designated in the protologue as
types
(Art.
9.6).
tautonym.
A binary designation in which
the specific epithet exactly repeats the
generic name
(Art.
23.4).
taxon (taxa). A taxonomic group at any rank (Art. 1.1).
taxonomic synonym. See heterotypic synonym.
202 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 202 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Glossary |
teleomorph.
A meiotic sexual morph in pleomorphic fungi
(Art.
F.8
Notes 1
and
2).
type. See nomenclatural type.
type designation. [Not defined] –
an explicit statement that establishes the type of
a name; either
(1) a holotype
(Art.
9.1)
or syntype(s)
(Art.
9.6)
designated in
the protologue or
(2) a lectotype, neotype, or epitype subsequently designated
under the provisions of Art.
9–10
and in accordance with Art.
7.8–7.11
and
F.5.4.
unispecific. [Not defined] – with a single species.
validate. [Not defined] –
to make validly published;
used in the context of a
description or diagnosis, or illustration,
effecting valid publication of a name
(e.g. Art. 38
Ex.
21,
43.3,
and 46
Ex.
7).
validly published.
Effectively published and in accordance with
the relevant
provisions of
32–45,
F.4,
F.5.1,
F.5.2, and
H.9
(Art.
6.2) (see
designation,
name).
voted example.
An Example, denoted by an asterisk in the
Code,
accepted by an
International Botanical Congress in order to
govern nomenclatural practice
when the corresponding Article
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
(Art. 7 *Ex.
16
footnote).
203 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018 — Shenzhen Code
– 203 –
text: © 2018, IAPT — web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
[ Appendix I,
Opera utique oppressa, is not included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix II, listing conserved names of families,
is not included
here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix IIA,
Nomina familiarum algarum, fungorum,
pteridophytorum et fossilium conservanda et rejicienda is not
included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix IIB,
Nomina familiarum bryophytorum et
spermatophytorum conservanda, is not included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix III,
Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda, is not
included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix IV,
Nomina specifica conservanda et rejicienda, is not
included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix V,
Nomina utique rejicienda, is not included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix VI,
Binding decisions on a descriptive statement, is not
included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Appendix VII,
Binding decisions regarding confusability of names,
is not included here, but
there is online access ]
[ Not present in this edition ]
[ supposed to be capital M superscript c ]
Fungi |
NAMES OF ORGANISMS TREATED AS FUNGI
(SAN JUAN VERSION)
This Chapter brings together the provisions of this
Code that deal solely
with names of organisms treated as fungi.
Content in this Chapter may be modified by action of the
Fungal Nomen-
clature Session of an International Mycological Congress (IMC)
(see
Div.
III Prov. 8).
The current version of this Chapter,
the San Juan Chapter F,
embodies the decisions
accepted by the 11th
IMC
in San Juan (Puerto
Rico)
on 21 July
2018.
Always consult
the online version
of this
Code
(http://www.iapt-taxon.
org/nomen/main.php)
in case of changes
resulting from
subsequent
IMCs.
The next IMC will be held
in Amsterdam
(The Netherlands) in
2022.
The following changes were introduced in the San Juan Chapter F:
Art. F.3.7.
The Article was reworded to improve clarity,
and two Exam-
ples were added.
Art. F.3.9. Two Examples were added.
Rec. F.3A.
The option of using a colon to indicate sanctioning was remo-
ved.
If it is desired to indicate sanctioning,
it is recommended that
this be done by using the abbreviation “nom. sanct.”
Art. F.5.
Several new provisions were added concerning aspects of the
registration of names and nomenclatural acts.
Art. F.5.6
allows cor-
rectability of incorrectly cited identifiers;
Art. F.5.7
specifies that, in
order for a designation
that may be associated with an existing iden-
157 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 1 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi |
tifier to become a validly published name,
a new identifier must be
obtained; and
Art. F.5.8
extends correctability to identifiers issued for
type designations.
Rec. F.5A.1
was enlarged to encourage authors of
names to provide electronic versions of their publications to recogni-
zed repositories. A footnote was added to
Art. F.5.2
noting the prac-
tice of assigning new identifiers to names
with corrected orthography.
Note that because
Art. F.5.6
is not date-limited,
it is retroactive
(Prin-
ciple VI),
and consequently validations of names associated with in-
correctly cited identifiers
are later isonyms and may be disregarded
(Art. 6 Note 2).
Art. F.10.
A new Article was added concerning
the use of identifiers in
place of author citations.
Mycologists should note that the content of this
Code outside of Chapter
F pertains to all organisms covered by this
Code, including fungi,
unless
expressly limited.
This content includes rules about effective publication,
valid publication, typification, legitimacy,
and priority of names; citation
and orthography; and names of hybrids.
Some provisions in the Preamble, Principles, Articles,
and Recommenda-
tions elsewhere in this
Code,
such as those listed below,
while not restricted
to fungi,
are of particular relevance to mycologists.
The full wording of
these and all other relevant provisions of this
Code should be consulted
in all cases.
Pre. 8.
The provisions of this
Code apply to all organisms traditionally
treated as fungi, whether fossil or non-fossil,
including chytrids, oomy-
cetes, and slime moulds (but excluding
Microsporidia).
Principle I.
This
Code applies to names of taxonomic groups
treated as
fungi, whether or not these groups
were originally so treated.
Art. 4 Note 4.
In classifying parasites, especially fungi,
authors 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 governed by the provisions of this
Code.
Art. 8.4
(see also
Art. 8 Ex. 12,
Rec. 8B,
Art. 40 Note 3,
and
Art. 40.8).
Cultures of fungi are acceptable
as types if preserved in a metaboli-
cally inactive state,
and
on or after 1 January 2019
this must be stated
in the protologue.
158 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 2 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi |
Art. 14.15 and
Art. 14 Note 4(c)(2).
Before 1 January 1954, decisions on
conservation of names made by the Special Committee for Fungi,
became effective on 20 July 1950
at the VII International Botanical
Congress in Stockholm.
Art. 16.3.
Automatically typified suprafamilial names of fungi
end as fol-
lows: division or phylum in
-mycota, subdivision or subphylum in
-mycotina, class in
-mycetes, and subclass in
-mycetidae.
Automatically
typified names not in accordance
with these terminations are to be
corrected.
Rec. 38E.1.
The hosts should be indicated in descriptions
or diagnoses of
new taxa of parasitic organisms, especially fungi.
Art. 40.5.
The type of a name of a new species
or infraspecific taxon of non-
fossil microfungi may be an effectively
published illustration if there
are technical difficulties of specimen 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
(but see
Art. 40 Ex. 6,
which treats
representations of DNA sequences
as falling outside of the definition
of illustrations in
Art. 6.1 footnote).
Art. 41.8(b)
(see also
Art. 41 Ex. 26).
Failure to cite the place of valid pub-
lication of a basionym or replaced synonym,
when explained by the
backward shift of the starting date for some fungi,
is a correctable error.
Art. 45.1
(see also
Art. 45 Ex. 6 and
7 and
Note 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 equiva-
lent to valid publication under this
Code.
Note especially that names of
Microsporidia are not covered by this
Code even when
Microsporidia
are considered as fungi.
158+1 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 3 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Starting-point – Protection – Sanctioning) | F.1–F.3 |
LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
NOMENCLATURAL STARTING-POINT
F.1.1.
Valid publication of names for non-fossil fungi
(Pre. 8)
is treated
as beginning at 1 May 1753
(Linnaeus,
Species plantarum, ed. 1,
treated
as having been published on that date;
see Art.
13.1).
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).
Note 1. For fossil fungi, see Art. 13.1(f).
PROTECTED NAMES
F.2.1.
In the interest
of nomenclatural stability,
for organisms treated as
fungi,
lists of names proposed for protection
may be submitted to the Gen-
eral Committee,
which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi (see Div. III Prov.
2.2,
7.9, and
7.10)
for examination by subcom-
mittees established by that Committee
in consultation with the General
Committee and appropriate international bodies.
Protected names on these
lists, which become part of the Appendices of the
Code (see
App. IIA,
III, and
IV)
once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Commit-
tee for Fungi and the General Committee
(see Art.
14.15 and Rec.
14A.1),
are to be listed with their types
and are treated as conserved against any
competing listed
or unlisted synonyms or homonyms
(including sanctioned
names), although conservation under Art.
14
overrides this protection.
The
lists of protected names remain open
for revision through the procedures
described in this Article (see also Art.
F.7.1).
SANCTIONED NAMES
F.3.1.
Names in
Uredinales, Ustilaginales, and
Gasteromycetes (s. l.)
adopted by Persoon
(Synopsis methodica
fungorum, 1801)
and names
of other fungi
(excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries
(Systema
159 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 4 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.3 | Fungi (Sanctioning) |
mycologicum, vol. 1–3. 1821–1832,
with additional
Index, 1832; and
Elen-
chus fungorum,
vol. 1–2. 1828),
are sanctioned.
F.3.2.
Names sanctioned are treated
as if conserved against earlier homo-
nyms
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 when the name was
sanctioned is treated as conserved,
except for changes mandated by Art.
60 and
F.9.
Ex. 1.
The name
Strigula smaragdula Fr.
(in Linnaea 5: 550. 1830)
was accepted by
Fries
(Syst. Mycol.,
Index: 184. 1832)
and therefore sanctioned.
It is treated as if
conserved
against the competing earlier synonym
Phyllochoris elegans Fée
(Essai
Crypt. Ecorc: xciv. 1825),
which is the basionym of
Strigula elegans (Fée) Müll. Arg.
(in Linnaea 43: 41. 1880).
Ex.
2.
Agaricus ericetorum Pers.
(Observ. Mycol. 1: 50. 1796)
was accepted by Fries
(Syst. Mycol. 1: 165. 1821),
but later
(Elench. Fung.
1: 22. 1828)
regarded by him as
a synonym of
A. umbelliferus L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1175. 1753)
and not included in his Index
(p. 18. 1832)
as an accepted name.
Nevertheless
A. ericetorum Pers. is a sanctioned
name.
Ex.
3.
The spelling used when the name
Merulius lacrimans (Wulfen) Schumach.
was sanctioned
(Fries, Syst. Mycol.
1: 328. 1821)
is to be maintained, even though
the epithet was spelled
‘lacrymans’ by Schumacher
(Enum. Pl.
2: 371. 1803) and the
basionym was originally published as
Boletus ‘lacrymans’ Wulfen
(in Jacquin, Misc.
Austriac.
2: 111. 1781).
F.3.3.
A sanctioned name is illegitimate
if it is a later homonym of another
sanctioned name (see also Art.
53).
F.3.4.
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.
4.
Patellaria Hoffm.
(Descr. Pl. Cl. Crypt. 1: 33, 54, 55. 1789)
is an earlier homonym
of the sanctioned generic name
Patellaria Fr.
(Syst. Mycol.
2: 158. 1822).
Hoffmann’s
name
is legitimate but unavailable for use.
Lecanidion Endl.
(Fl. Poson.: 46. 1830),
based
on the same type as
Patellaria Fr., nom. sanct.,
is illegitimate under Art.
52.1.
Ex. 5.
Antennaria Gaertn.
(Fruct. Sem. Pl. 2: 410. 1791),
in order to become available
for use,
required conservation against the later homonym
Antennaria Link
(in Neues J.
Bot. 3(1,2): 16. 1809),
nom. sanct.
(Fries, Syst. Mycol.
1: xlvii. 1821).
Ex.
6.
Agaricus cervinus Schaeff.
(Fung. Bavar. Palat. Nasc.
4: 6. 1774)
is an ear-
lier homonym of the sanctioned
name
A. cervinus Hoffm.
(Nomencl. Fung. 1: t. 2,
fig. 2. 1789), nom. sanct.
(Fries, Syst. Mycol. 1: 82. 1821);
Schaeffer’s name is un-
160 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 5 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Sanctioning) | F.3 |
available for use, but it is legitimate
and may serve as basionym for combinations in
other genera. In
Pluteus Fr. the combination is cited as
P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm.
and has priority over the heterotypic
(taxonomic) synonym
P. atricapillus (Batsch)
Fayod, based on
A. atricapillus Batsch
(Elench. Fung.:
77. 1786).
F.3.5.
When, for a taxon at 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. F.3.7).
F.3.6.
When, for a taxon at a rank lower than genus,
two or more sanctioned
names
and/or two or more names with the same final epithet
and type as a
sanctioned name compete, Art.
11.4
governs the choice of the correct name.
Note 1.
The date of sanctioning
does not affect the date of valid publication,
and therefore priority (Art.
11),
of a sanctioned name.
In particular, when two or
more homonyms are sanctioned
only the earliest of them may be used
because the
later one(s) are illegitimate under Art.
F.3.3.
Ex.
7.
Fries
(Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821)
accepted
and thus sanctioned
Agaricus flavo-
virens Pers.
(in Hoffmann,
Abbild. Schwämme 3: t. 24. 1793) and treated
A. equestris
L.
(Sp. Pl.:
1173. 1753)
as a synonym. He later
(Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828)
accepted
A. equestris, stating
“Nomen prius et aptius certe restituendum
[The prior and more
apt name is certainly to be restored]”.
Both names are sanctioned, but, when they are
treated as synonyms,
A. equestris L., nom. sanct.
is to be used because it has priority.
F.3.7.
A name that neither is sanctioned
nor has the same type and final
epithet as a sanctioned name at the same rank
may not be used for a taxon
that includes the type of a sanctioned name
at that rank
unless the final
epithet
of the sanctioned name is
not available
for the required combina-
tion (see Art.
11.4(c)).
Ex. 8.
The name
Agaricus involutus Batsch
(Elench. Fung.: 39. 1786)
was sanctioned
by Fries
(Syst. Mycol. 1: 271. 1821)
and therefore, when treated in
Paxillus Fr. with
the earlier but non-sanctioned name
A. contiguus Bull.
(Herb. Fr. 5: t. 240. 1785)
as
a synonym, the correct name is
P. involutus (Batsch) Fr.
Ex. 9.
The name
Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) Fr.
(Observ. Mycol. 2: 255. 1818),
nom.
sanct. (Fries,
Syst. Mycol. 1: 348. 1821),
based on
Boletus brumalis Pers.
(in Neues
Mag. Bot.
1: 107. 1794),
was treated by Zmitrovich & Kovalenko
(in Int. J. Med.
Mushr. 18: 23–38, suppl. 2: [2]. 2015)
as synonymous with
B. hypocrateriformis
Schrank
(Baier. Fl. 2: 621. 1789)
and placed in
Lentinus Fr., nom. sanct.,
in which
the correct name is
L. brumalis (Pers.) Zmitr.
(in Int. J. Med. Mushr. 12: 88. 2010).
F.3.8.
Conservation (Art.
14),
protection (Art.
F.2),
and explicit rejection
(56 and
F.7)
override sanctioning.
161 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 6 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.3 | Fungi (Sanctioning) |
F.3.9.
The type of a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon adopted in
one of the works specified in Art. F.3.1,
and thereby sanctioned,
may be
selected from among the elements associated
with the name in the proto-
logue
and/or the sanctioning treatment.
Note 2.
For names falling under Art. F.3.9,
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.
Ex. 10.
When Stadler & al.
(in IMA Fungus 5: 61. 2014)
designated the lectotype of
Clavaria hypoxylon L.
(Sp. Pl.: 1182. 1753),
sanctioned by Fries
(Syst. Mycol. 2: 327.
1823) as
Sphaeria hypoxylon (L.) Pers.
(Observ. Mycol. 1: 20. 1796),
they selected
a specimen in K distributed by Fries
(Scler. Suec. No. 181)
and cited by him in the
sanctioning treatment
rather than any of the elements associated
with the protologue.
Ex. 11.
In the absence of any specimens or illustrations
from the context of the proto-
logue
that are original material,
Peterson (in Amer. J. Bot. 63: 313. 1976)
designated
a specimen in L as the neotype of
Clavaria formosa Pers.
(Comm. Fung. Clav.: 41.
1797),
nom. sanct.
However, when sanctioning
C. formosa, Fries
(Syst. Mycol. 1:
466. 1821)
cited several illustrations,
which are therefore considered as equivalent to
original material.
Peterson’s neotypification was not therefore designated
in conformity
with Art.
9.13
and is not to be followed (Art.
9.19).
Instead, Franchi & Marchetti (in
Riv. Micol. 59: 323. 2017) designated as the lectotype of
C. formosa one of the illus-
trations
(Persoon, Icon. Desc. Fung.
Min. Cognit. 1: t. III, fig. 6. 1798)
that was cited
by Fries
(l.c., as “f. 5”).
F.3.10.
When a sanctioning
author accepted an earlier name but did not
include, 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 (see also Art.
48).
Note 3.
For typification of sanctioned generic names,
see Art.
10.2.
Note that
automatic typification under Art.
7.5
does not apply to sanctioned names.
For
legitimacy of sanctioned names
(or names based on them), see also Art.
6.4,
52.1,
53.1, and
55.3.
162 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 7 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Sanctioning – Rank-denoting terms) | F.3A–F4 |
F.3A.1.
When it is considered useful
to indicate the nomenclatural
status of
a
sanctioned name (Art. F.3.1),
the abbreviation
“nom. sanct.” (nomen sanctionatum)
should be added in a formal citation;
the place of sanctioning should
also be added
in full nomenclatural
citations.¹
Ex. 1.
Boletus piperatus Bull.
(Herb. France: t. 451,
fig. 2. 1790)
was adopted in Fries
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 388. 1821)
and was thereby sanctioned.
Depending on the level of
nomenclatural information
being presented,
it
should be cited as
B. piperatus Bull.,
nom. sanct.; or
B. piperatus Bull.
1790, nom. sanct.; or
B. piperatus Bull.,
Herb. France:
t. 451, fig. 2. 1790,
nom. sanct.; or
B. piperatus Bull.,
Herb. France: t. 451,
fig. 2. 1790,
nom. sanct.
(Fries,
Syst. Mycol.
1: 388. 1821).
Ex. 2.
Agaricus compactus [unranked]
sarcocephalus (Fr.) Fr.
was sanctioned when
adopted by Fries
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 290. 1821).
That status
should
be indicated by citing it
as
A. compactus [unranked]
sarcocephalus (Fr.) Fr., nom. sanct. The
abbreviation
“nom.
sanct.”
should not be
added when citing its basionym
A. sarcocephalus Fr.
(Observ.
Mycol.
1: 51. 1815)
or
when citing subsequent combinations such as
Psathyrella sarco-
cephala (Fr.) Singer
(in Lilloa 22: 468. 1949).
VALID PUBLICATION AND TYPIFICATION OF NAMES
MISPLACED RANK-DENOTING TERMS
F.4.1.
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 (Art.
37.6),
but an exception 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. 1.
Agaricus “tribus” [unranked]
Pholiota Fr.
(Syst. Mycol.
1: 240. 1821),
sanctioned
in the same work,
is the validly published basionym of the generic name
Pholiota
(Fr.) P. Kumm.
(Führer Pilzk.:
22. 1871)
(see Art. 41
Ex. 9).
————————————
1
In
Chapter F,
sanctioning is
indicated by
“nom. sanct.”, but elsewhere
in this
Code
sanctioning remains
indicated by “: Fr.” or “: Pers.”, following the wording
of
Rec. F.3A.1 of the
Shenzhen Code of 2018
before it was superseded
by the
current wording
accepted by the San Juan
International Mycological
Congress
on 21 July 2018.
163 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 8 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.5 | Fungi (Registration) |
REGISTRATION OF NAMES AND NOMENCLATURAL ACTS
F.5.1.
In order to be validly published,
nomenclatural novelties (Art. 6
Note 4)
applied to organisms treated as fungi under this
Code
(Pre. 8;
in-
cluding
fossil fungi and lichen-forming fungi)
and published on or after
1 January 2013 must, in the protologue,
include citation of the identifier
issued
for the name by a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3).
Ex. 1.
The protologue of
Albugo arenosa Mirzaee & Thines
(in Mycol. Prog. 12: 50.
2013)
complies with Art. F.5.1
because it includes citation of “MB 564515”,
an identifier
issued by MycoBank,
one of three recognized repositories.
The decision by the Nomen-
clature Committee for Fungi to
appoint (Art. F.5.3) Fungal Names, Index Fungorum,
and MycoBank as repositories
(Redhead & Norvell
in Taxon 62: 173–174.
2013)
was
ratified (Art. F.5.3)
by the 10th International Mycological Congress
(May in Taxon
66:
484. 2017).
Ex. 2.
The designation
“Austropleospora archidendri”
(Ariyawansa & al. in Fungal
Diversity 75: 64. 2015)
is not a validly published new combination based on
Para-
coniothyrium archidendri Verkley & al.
(in Persoonia 32: 37. 2014)
because it was
published without citing an identifier
issued by a recognized repository,
even though
the recognized repository Index Fungorum
had previously issued the identifier “IF
551419”
for the intended new combination.
Ex. 3.
The designation
“Priceomyces fermenticarens”
(Gouliamova & al. in Persoonia
36: 429. 2016),
intended as a new combination,
was published with the identifier “MB
310255”,
which refers to the identifier “IF 310255”
that had been assigned to the
intended basionym,
Candida fermenticarens Van der Walt & P. B. Baker
(in Bothalia
12: 561. 1978)
by Index Fungorum prior to registration becoming mandatory.
The re-
cognized repository MycoBank assigned
the identifier “MB 818676” for the intended
new combination
after its publication, but because no identifier
was issued prior to
its publication
the intended combination was not validly published.
Priceomyces fer-
menticarens
(Van der Walt & P. B. Baker) Gouliam. & al.
(in Persoonia 39: 289. 2017)
was subsequently validly published
with citation of the identifier “MB 818692”,
newly
issued by MycoBank.
F.5.2.
For an identifier to be issued
by a recognized repository as required
by Art. F.5.1,
the minimum elements of information that must be acces-
sioned by author(s) of scientific names are the
proposed name itself and
those elements 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 Art.
41.5
(reference to the basionym or replaced synonym).
When the acces-
164 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 9 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Registration) | F.5 |
sioned and subsequently published information
for a name with a given
identifier differ,
the published information is considered definitive.¹
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,
F.5.1, and F.5.2)
but does not in itself constitute
or guarantee valid publication.
Note 2.
The words “name” and “names” are used
in Art. F.5.1 and F.5.2 for
names that may not yet be validly published,
in which case the definition in Art.
6.3
does not apply.
F.5.3.
The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
(see Div. III Prov.
7)
has
the power to
(a) appoint one or more localized or decentralized,
open and
accessible electronic repositories
to accession the information required by
Art.
F.5.2 and F.5.5 and issue the identifiers
required by Art. F.5.1 and F.5.4;
(b)
cancel such appointment at its discretion; and
(c)
set aside the require-
ments
of Art. F.5.1, F.5.2, F.5.4, and F.5.5,
should the repository mecha-
nism,
or essential parts thereof, cease to function.
Decisions made by this
Committee under these powers
are subject to ratification by a subsequent
International Mycological Congress.
F.5.4.
For purposes of priority (Art.
9.19,
9.20, and
10.5),
designation of a
type, on or after 1 January 2019,
of the name of an organism treated as a
fungus under this
Code
(Pre. 8),
is achieved only if an identifier issued
for
the type designation
by a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3) is cited.
Note 3.
Art. F.5.4 applies only to the designation of lectotypes
(and their equiv-
alents under Art.
10),
neotypes, and epitypes;
it does not apply to the designation
of a holotype when publishing the name of a new taxon,
for which see Art. F.5.2.
F.5.5.
For an identifier to be issued
by a recognized repository as required
by Art. F.5.4,
the minimum elements of information
that must be accessioned
by author(s) of type designations
are the name being typified,
the author des-
ignating the type,
and those elements required by Art.
9.21,
9.22, and
9.23.
Note 4.
Issuance of an identifier by a recognized repository
presumes subse-
quent fulfilment of the requirements
for effective type designation (Art.
7.8–7.11
and F.5.4)
but does not in itself constitute
or guarantee
a type designation.
F.5.6.
When the identifier issued for a name
by a recognized repository
is
cited incorrectly in the protologue,
this is treated as a correctable error
not
preventing valid publication of the name,
provided that the identifier was
issued
prior to the protologue.
————————————
1
It is the practice of repositories
to assign a new identifier when an orthographical
correction is made to a name subsequent to the protologue.
165 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 10 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.5–F.5A | Fungi (Registration) |
Ex. 4.
The identifier “MB 564220” was issued by MycoBank for
Cortinarius peristeris
Soop (in Bresadoliana 1: 22. 2013)
prior to publication of the name.
Even though the
identifier was incorrectly cited
as “MB 564” in the protologue,
the name is validly
published.
F.5.7.
An identifier remains associated with the name
or designation for
which it was issued.
If, when published,
a designation for which an identifier
has been issued
does not meet other requirements for valid publication,
in
order for that designation to become a validly published name,
a new iden-
tifier must be obtained.
Ex. 5.
The designation “Nigelia” (Luangsa-ard & al.
in Mycol. Progr. 16: 378. 2017)
was published without citation of an identifier.
MycoBank assigned the identifier
“MB 823565” for this designation after publication.
The designation was later vali-
dated as
Nigelia Luangsa-ard & al.
(in Index Fungorum 345: 1. 2017)
with citation
of the identifier “IF 553229”
newly issued by Index Fungorum.
F.5.8.
When the identifier issued for a type designation
by a recognized
repository
is cited incorrectly in the typifying publication,
this is treated
as a correctable error
not preventing designation of the type,
provided that
the identifier was issued
prior to the typifying publication.
F.5A.1.
Authors of names of organisms treated as fungi
are encouraged to
(a)
deposit the required elements of information for
any nomenclatural novelty in a
recognized repository
as soon as possible after a work is accepted for publication,
so as to obtain identifiers
for each nomenclatural
novelty;
(b) inform the recogni-
zed repository
that issued
the identifier
of the complete bibliographic 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; and
(c) upon
publication of a name,
supply an electronic version
of the publication
to the recog-
nized repository
that issued the identifier
associated with the name.
F.5A.2.
In addition to meeting the requirements
for effective publication of choices
of name
(Art.
11.5 and
53.5), orthography (Art.
61.3), or gender (Art.
62.3),
those
publishing such choices
for names of organisms treated as fungi
are encouraged
to record the choice
in a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3)
and cite the identifier
in the place of publication.
166 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 11 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Rejection – Pleomorphic fungi) | F.6–F.8 |
REJECTION OF NAMES
F.6.1.
The name of a taxon treated as a fungus
published on or after 1
January 2019
is illegitimate if it is a later homonym
of a prokaryotic or
protozoan name
(see also Art.
54 and Rec.
54A).
F.7.1.
In the interest of nomenclatural stability,
for organisms treated as
fungi,
lists of names proposed for rejection
may be submitted to the General
Committee,
which will refer them
to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
(see Div. III Prov.
2.2,
7.9, and
7.10)
for examination by subcommittees estab-
lished by that Committee in consultation
with the General Committee and
appropriate international bodies.
Names on these lists, which become part
of the Appendices of the
Code once reviewed
and approved by the Nomen-
clature Committee for Fungi
and the General Committee (see Art.
56.3
and
Rec.
56A.1),
are to be treated as rejected under Art.
56.1,
except that they may
become eligible for use by conservation under Art.
14
(see also Art.
F.2.1).
NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE
F.8.1.
A name published prior to 1 January 2013
for a taxon of non-lichen-
forming
Ascomycota and
Basidiomycota,
with the intent or implied intent
of applying to or being typified
by one particular morph
(e.g. anamorph or
teleomorph; see Note 2),
may be legitimate even if it otherwise would be
illegitimate under Art.
52
on account of the protologue including a type (as
defined in Art.
52.2)
referable to a different morph.
If the name is otherwise
legitimate, it competes for priority (Art.
11.3 and
11.4).
Ex. 1.
Penicillium brefeldianum B. O. Dodge
(in Mycologia
25: 92. 1933)
was described
and based on a type with both the anamorph
and teleomorph (and therefore necessar-
ily typified by the teleomorph element alone
under editions of the
Code prior to the
Melbourne Code of 2012).
The combination
Eupenicillium brefeldianum (B. O. Dodge)
Stolk & D. B. Scott
(in Persoonia
4: 400. 1967)
for the teleomorph is legitimate.
Peni-
cillium dodgei Pitt
(Gen. Penicillium: 117. 1980),
typified by the anamorph in a dried
167 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 12 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
F.8 | Fungi (Pleomorphic fungi) |
culture “derived from Dodge’s type”,
did not include the teleomorphic type of
P. bre-
feldianum
and therefore it too is legitimate.
However, when considered a species of
Penicillium,
the correct name for all its states is
P. brefeldianum.
Note 1.
Except as provided in Art. F.8.1,
names of fungi with mitotic asexual
morphs (anamorphs) as well as a
meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph) must con-
form to the same provisions of this
Code as all other fungi.
Note 2.
Editions of the
Code prior to the
Melbourne Code of 2012 provided for
separate names for mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs)
of certain pleomorphic
fungi
and required that the name applicable
to the whole fungus be typified by a
meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph).
Under the current
Code, however, all legiti-
mate
fungal names are treated equally
for the purposes of establishing priority,
regardless of the life-history stage of the type
(see also Art.
F.2.1).
Ex. 2.
Mycosphaerella aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou
(in Sinensia 11: 183. 1940), when
published as a new combination,
was accompanied by a Latin diagnosis of the newly
discovered teleomorph
corresponding to the anamorph on which the basionym
Cerco-
spora aleuritidis Miyake
(in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)
26: 66. 1912)
was typified.
Under edi-
tions of the
Code prior to the
Melbourne Code of 2012,
M. aleuritidis was considered
to be the name of a new species with a teleomorph type,
dating from 1940, and with
authorship attributed solely to Ou.
Under the current
Code, the name is cited as origi-
nally published,
M. aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou,
and is typified by the type of the
basionym.
Ex. 3.
In the protologue of the teleomorph-typified
Venturia acerina Plakidas ex M. E.
Barr
(in Canad. J. Bot. 46: 814. 1968)
the anamorph-typified
Cladosporium humile
Davis
(in Trans. Wisconsin
Acad. Sci.
19: 702. 1919)
was included as a synonym.
Be-
cause it was published prior to 1 January 2013,
the name
V. acerina is not illegitimate,
but
C. humile is the earliest legitimate name
at the rank of species.
Note 3.
Names proposed simultaneously
for separate morphs
(e.g. anamorph
and teleomorph)
of a taxon of non-lichen-forming
Ascomycota and
Basidiomycota
are necessarily heterotypic
and are not therefore alternative names
as defined by
Art.
36.3.
Ex. 4.
Hypocrea dorotheae Samuels & Dodd and
Trichoderma dorotheae Samuels &
Dodd
were simultaneously validly published
(in Stud. Mycol. 56: 112. 2006) for what
the authors considered a single species with
Samuels & Dodd 8657 (PDD 83839)
as the
holotype.
Because these names were published before 1 January 2013
(see Art. F.8.1
and Note 2),
and because the authors explicitly indicated that the name
T. dorotheae was
typified by the anamorphic element of PDD 83839,
both names are validly published
and legitimate.
They are not alternative names as defined in Art.
36.3.
167+1 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 13 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Fungi (Orthography – Author citations) | F.9–F.10 |
ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES
F.9.1.
Epithets of fungal names derived
from the generic name of an asso-
ciated organism are to be spelled in accordance
with the accepted spelling
of the name
of that organism;
other spellings are regarded as orthographi-
cal variants to be corrected (see Art.
61).
Ex. 1.
Phyllachora ‘anonicola’ Chardón
(in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940)
is to be cor-
rected to
P. annonicola in accordance
with the accepted spelling of
Annona L.;
Meli-
ola ‘albizziae’ Hansf. & Deighton
(in Mycol. Pap.
23: 26. 1948)
is to be corrected to
M. albiziae in accordance
with the accepted spelling of
Albizia Durazz.
Ex. 2.
Dimeromyces ‘corynitis’ Thaxter
(in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts
48: 157. 1912)
was
stated to occur
“On the elytra of
Corynites ruficollis Fabr.”,
but the name of the host, a
species of beetle, is correctly spelled
Corynetes ruficollis.
The fungal name is therefore
to be spelled
D. corynetis.
AUTHOR CITATIONS
F.10.1.
For names of organisms treated as fungi,
the identifier issued for
the name
by a recognized repository (Art.
F.5.1)
may be used subsequent
to the protologue
in place of an author citation for the name
but not to
replace the name itself (see also Art.
22.1 and
26.1).
F.10A.1.
An identifier used in place of an author citation
as permitted by Art.
F.10.1 should be presented
with the symbol # preceding the numerical part of
the identifier,
and the resulting string should be enclosed in square brackets.
In
electronic publications,
this string should be provided with a direct and stable
link
to the corresponding record in one of the recognized repositories.
Ex. 1.
Astrothelium meristosporoides [#816706].
The direct and stable link to a record
in a recognized repository
would be either
http://www.mycobank.org/MB/816706 or
http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=816706.
167+2 |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2019 — San Juan Chapter F
– 14 –
text: © 2019, IMA — web-edition: © 2020, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________