Principles | 1~5 |
Chapter I. General Considerations, Guiding Principles,
and Definitions
Botany cannot make satisfactory progress without
a precise system of
nomenclature which is used
by the great majority of botanists in all countries.
The precepts on which this precise
system of botanical nomenclature
is
based are divided into
principles, rules and
recommendations.
The principles (Art. 1~9
and
11~22)
*) form the basis
of the rules and
recommendations.
The object of the rules (Art.
22~83)
is to put the nomenclature of
the past into order
and to provide for that of the future.
They are always
retroactive
except when expressly limited:
names or forms of nomenclature
contrary to a rule cannot be maintained.
The recommendations
deal with subsidiary points,
their object being to
bring about greater uniformity and
clearness especially in future nomen~
clature;
names or forms contrary to a recommendation
cannot on that account
be rejected,
but they are not examples to be followed.
The
Code of nomenclature
should be simple and founded on conside~
rations
sufficiently clear and forcible for everyone to comprehend
and be
disposed to accept.
The essential points in nomenclature are:
(1) to aim at fixity of names;
(2)
to avoid or to reject the use of forms
and names
which may cause error or ambiguity or throw science
into
confusion.
Next in importance is the avoidance of all 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.
In the absence of a relevant rule,
or where the consequences of rules are
doubtful,
established custom must be followed.
————————–
*) Art. 22 is both a principle and a rule.
13 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 01 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
6~11 | Definitions |
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological
nomenclature in the
sense
that the name of a plant
must
not be rejected
merely because
it is
identical with the name of an animal.
If, however, an organism is transferred
from the animal to the plant kingdom,
its validly published names are to be
accepted
as botanical nomenclature in the form prescribed
by the rules of
botanical nomenclature, and
if an organism is transferred
from the plant to
the animal kingdom,
its names retain their status in botanical nomenclature.
Scientific names of all
taxonomic groups
are usually taken from Latin
or Greek.
When taken from any language other than Latin,
or formed in an
arbitrary manner,
they are treated as if they were Latin.
Latin
terminations
should be used
as
far as possible for new names.
Botanical nomenclature deals with:
(1)
the
terms which denote the
categories of taxonomic groups
or units,
and the relative
ranks of these categories (Art.
12~15);
(2)
the
names
which are applied to the individual
taxonomic groups
(Art.
16~83).
Taxonomic groups of any category will,
in this Code, be referred to as
taxa (singular:
taxon).
The purpose of giving a name to a
taxon is not to indicate
its characters
or history, but to supply
a means of referring to it.
A legitimate name or epithet is one that is in accordance with the rules.
An illegitimate name or epithet is one that is contrary to the rules.
The
correct name of a taxon with a particular
circumscription, position
and rank is the name
which must be adopted for it under the rules.
Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 39.
Valid publication is publication in accordance with Art. 42~54.
Note.
In this Code, unless otherwise indicated,
the word “name” means a name
which
has been validly published,
whether it is legitimate or illegitimate.
The rules and recommendations
of botanical nomenclature apply
throughout
the plant kingdom,
recent and fossil,
with certain distinctly
specified exceptions.
14 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 02 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Categories | 12~14 |
Chapter II. Categories of Taxa, and the
terms denoting them
Every plant
is treated as belonging to a number
of categories
of conse~
cutive rank and
consecutively subordinate
of which the species
(species)
is
the basic one.
The principal categories
above species
in ascending sequence
are:
genus
(genus), family
(familia), order
(ordo), class
(classis), division
(divisio),
which means that every species
belongs
(is to be assigned) to a genus, every
genus to a family
(certain artificial groups of fossil
plants excepted), etc.
In many genera sections
(sectiones), and in many families tribes
(tribus)
are
recognized.
Finally, if a greater number of intermediate categories
is required,
the
terms for these subdivisions
are made by adding the prefix sub
(sub)
to the
terms denoting the categories.
Thus subfamily
(subfamilia)
denotes a category
between a family and a tribe,
subtribe
(subtribus)
a category between a tribe
and a genus, etc.
A plant may therefore
be classified in subordinated categories
in the following order: Regnum vegetabile, Divisio, Subdivisio, Classis, Sub~
classis, Ordo, Subordo, Familia, Subfamilia, Tribus, Subtribus, Genus, Sub~
genus, Sectio, Subsectio, Species.
If this list of categories is insufficient it may be augmented
by the inter~
calation of supplementary categories,
provided that this does not introduce
confusion or error.
Examples:
Series and
subseries are categories which may be intercalated
between
subsection and species.
For special categories resulting from
genetic analysis of taxa see
Appendix II.
Similarly
species
may be subdivided on the same principles, the most
generally used categories being,
in descending sequence:
subspecies
(sub~
species),
variety
(varietas) and
form
(forma).
In
classifying parasites,
especially parasitic fungi,
authors who do not give specific
value to
taxa characterized
from a biological standpoint but scarcely or not at all
from a
morphological standpoint should distinguish
within the species special forms
(formae speciales)
characterized by
their adaption to different hosts.
15 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 03 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
15 | misplaced terms |
The relative order
of
the
categories
specified above
in Art.
12~14
must
not be altered.
Names
given to taxa which are
at the same time denoted
by misplaced
terms
are treated as not validly published,
examples of such misplacement
being
a form divided into varieties,
a species containing genera,
a genus
containing families or tribes.
An exception is made
for names of subdivisions of genera in Fries’
Systema Mycologicum,
which are treated as validly published
although he
termed them “tribes”
(tribus).
Example:
The names
Delphinium
tribus
Involuta
Huth (Bot. Jahrb.
20:
365.
1895),
tribus
Brevipedunculata
Huth (Bot. Jahrb.
20:
368.
1895), etc. are treated
as not validly
published,
since
Huth
misapplied the term
“tribus” to a category of lower rank
than a
section.
16 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 04 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Priority, Type method | 16~18 |
Each
order or taxon
of lower rank
with a given circumscription, position,
and rank can bear only one
correct name,
special exceptions
being made
for
9 families
in which alternative names
are permitted (see Art.
28).
For any taxon from order
to
genus inclusive, the
correct
name is the
earliest
legitimate one
validly
published with
the same rank.
For any taxon below the rank
of
genus the
correct
name is the
combination
of
the generic name
with
the earliest
available legitimate
epithet
or epithets
validly
published with
the same rank.
No one may change a name (or combination of names)
without serious
motives, based either on more profound
knowledge of facts or on the necessity
of giving up
a nomenclature that is contrary to the
rules
of this Code.
Changes in nomenclature should be made only after adequate taxonomic study.
The application of names of
taxa
is determined by means of
nomenclatural
types.
A nomenclatural type
(typus)
is that constituent element of a
taxon
to which the name of the
taxon
is permanently attached,
whether as an
accepted name or as a synonym.
It follows that the name of a
taxon
must
be changed
if the type of the name is excluded.
Note
1.
The nomenclatural type
is not necessarily the most typical or representative
element of a
taxon; it is merely
that element with which the name is permanently associated.
Note 2.
A holotype (“type”) is the one specimen or other element
used by the author
or designated by him as the nomenclatural type.
For so long as a holotype is extant it
automatically
fixes the application of the name concerned.
Note 3.
If no holotype has been indicated by the author
who described a taxon, or
when the holotype is lost
or destroyed, a substitute for it must be chosen.
The author who
makes this choice must be followed
unless his choice is cancelled
under the provisions of
Art. 19.
The substitute may be either a lectotype or a neotype.
A lectotype always takes
precedence over a neotype.
A lectotype is a specimen or other element selected
from the original material to serve
as nomenclatural type
when the holotype was not designated at the time of publication
or
for so long as it is missing.
17 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 05 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
19~22 | Type method |
When two or more specimens have been designated
as types by the author of a
name
(e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.)
one of them must be chosen as
lectotype.
A
neotype is a specimen selected to serve
as nomenclatural type for so long as all
of the material
on which the name of the taxon was based is missing.
The choice of a lectotype or neotype is cancelled
if the original material
is rediscovered,
or if it can be shown that the choice was based
on a mis~
interpretation of the original description.
For other specimens of special interest the following terms are recommended:
A paratype is a specimen other than the holotype cited with the original description.
An isotype is a duplicate of the holotype.
A
syntype is one of two or more specimens
or elements used by the author
when no
holotype was designated,
or one of two or more specimens
simultaneously designated as type.
It cannot be too strongly recommended that
the original
material,
especially the holo~
type, of a taxon be deposited
in a permanent responsible institution and
that it be scru~
pulously conserved.
When living material has been designated as a type,
appropriate parts
of it
should be immediately
preserved.
The
nomenclatural type
of an order or
of any taxon of a rank
between
order
and family is
the family
whose name is based
on the same generic
name, that of a family
or of any taxon
between family
and genus is
the genus
on whose present
or former name
that of the taxon
concerned is based (see
also Art.
28), and that of a genus or of any taxon
between genus and
species
is a species.
Note.
It is felt that the type method cannot at present
be applied profitably to the
nomenclature of taxa
above the rank of order.
The
nomenclatural
type
(holotype,
lectotype or
neotype)
of a species
or
taxon below
the rank
of species is a
single specimen or
other element
except
in the following case:
for small herbaceous plants
and for most non~vascular
plants
the type may consist
of more than one individual,
which ought to be
conserved permanently
and assembled
on one herbarium sheet
or preparation.
If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet
or preparation
contains parts belonging to more than
one taxon, the name must remain
attached to that part
(lectotype) which corresponds
most nearly with the
original description.
Note 1.
For plants of which it
is impossible to
preserve a type
specimen, the type
may be
a figure and/or a description.
Note 2. For a species without a type specimen, the type may be a description or figure.
Section 3. Limitation of the principle of priority; publication, starting
points, conservation of names.
A name of a
taxon
has no status under
this Code,
and no claim
to
recognition by botanists,
unless it is validly published
(see Section 6, Art.
42).
18 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 06 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Starting points | 23~24 |
Valid publication is
treated as beginning
for the different groups
of plants at the following dates
(for each group a work
is mentioned which is
treated
as having been published
on the date given for
that group):
a.
SPERMATOPHYTA
and
PTERIDOPHYTA,
1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species
Plantarum ed. 1).
b.
MUSCI
(the
SPHAGNACEAE
excepted),
31 Dec. 1801 (Hedwig,
Species
Muscorum).
c.
SPHAGNACEAE
and
HEPATICAE,
1 May 1753
(Linnaeus,
Species
Plantarum ed. 1).
d. LICHENES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
e.
FUNGI:
UREDINALES,
USTILANALES and
GASTROMYCETES, 31 Dec. 1801
(Persoon,
Synopsis
Methodica
Fungorum).
f.
FUNGI CAETERI, 1 Jan. 1821 (Fries,
Systema
Mycologicum
Vol.1).
Vol.
1 of the
Systema
is treated as having appeared
on 1 Jan. 1821, and the
Elenchus
Fungorum (1828)
is treated as a part of the
Systema.
Names of
FUNGI CAETERI,
published in other
works between the
dates of the first
(Vol. 1) and last
(Vol. 3 part 2 and index) parts of the
Systema which are synonyms
or homo~
nyms of names
of any of the
FUNGI CAETERI,
included in the
Systema do not
affect
the nomenclatural status of
names used by Fries in this
work.
g.
ALGAE,
1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species Plantarum ed. 1).
Exceptions:
NOSTOCACEAE
HOMOCYSTEAE,
1892~93 (Gomont,
Monographie des
Oscillariées, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.
VII.
6: 91;
7: 263).
NOSTOCACEAE
HETEROCYSTEAE, 1886~88 (Bornet
& Flah.,
Revision des Nosto~
cacées heterocystées, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.
VII.
3: 323;
4: 344;
5: 51;
7: 177).
DESMIDIACEAE, 1848
(Ralfs,
British Desmidieae).
OEDOGONIACEAE,
1900 (Hirn,
Monographie und Iconographie der Oedogonia~
ceen,
Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn.
27 (1).
h. MYXOMYCETES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
The nomenclature of fossil plants of all groups begins with the year 1820.* )
It is agreed to associate
generic names which appear
in Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum
ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762~63)
with the first subsequent
description given under
those names in Linnaeus’
Genera Plantarum ed. 5
(1754)
and ed. 6 (1764).
The two volumes of Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753),
which
appeared in May and August, 1753,
respectively, are treated as if they had
been published simultaneously on the former date
(1 May 1753).
Example:
The generic names
Thea L. Sp. Pl. 515 (May 1753) and
Camellia L. Sp.
Pl. 698 (Aug. 1753), Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 311 (1754),
are treated as if they had been
published simultaneously
in May 1753. Under Art.
67
the combined genus bears the name
Camellia, since Sweet (Hort. Suburb. Lond.
157.
1818), who was the first
to unite the two
genera, chose that name, citing
Thea as a synonym.
However,
in order
to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature
of genera,
families,
orders, and
intermediate taxa
entailed
by the strict
application of the
rules, and especially
of the principle of priority in starting
————————–
* )
The Special Committee for Paleobotany has decided,
by postal vote, to postpone
the decision on
the starting point of paleobotanical nomenclature
until the 8th International
Botanical Congress.
19 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 07 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
25~26 | Conserved names |
from the dates given in Art.
23,
this Code provides lists of names which must
be retained as exceptions.
These names are
preferably
such as have come
into general use in the fifty years
following their publication, or which have
been used in monographs and important floristic works
up to the year 1890.
Note 1.
These lists of conserved names will remain permanently
open for additions. Any
proposal of an additional name
must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases
both for and against
its conservation. Such proposals must be submitted to the
General Com~
mittee,
who will refer them for examination to the Special Committees
for the various
taxonomic groups. *)
Note 2.
The application of
both conserved
and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types.
Note 3.
A conserved name is conserved
against all other names for the
taxon
whether
these are cited
in the corresponding list of rejected names or not,
so long as the
taxon
concerned is not united with another one
bearing a legitimate name. In the event of union with
another
taxon, the earlier
of the two competing names is adopted in accordance with Art.
67.
Note 4. A conserved name is conserved against all earlier homonyms.
Examples:
Listera
R. Br. (1813) is conserved against
Diphryllum Raf. (1808); it is
also conserved against
Bifolium Petiver, Opera ed. Millan
pl. 70, t. 10, 11, 12 (1764),
as
adduced by Nieuwland, in Am. Midl. Nat.
3: 128 (1913) (if Petiver’s name be regarded
as
validly published), though
Bifolium is not mentioned
among names to be rejected.
The generic name
Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802)
is conserved against the earlier
names
Enargea Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and
Callixene Juss. (1789). If, however,
Enargea
Banks ex Gaertn.
is considered to be a separate genus, the name
Enargea is retained for
this.
In the same way, the genus
Dichromena Michx. (1803) retains its name
if treated as
a separate unit, not included in
Rhynchospora Vahl corr. Willd., although the name
Dichro~
mena is rejected in favour of
Rhynchospora as the designation for the combined genus.
If the genus
Weihea Spreng. (1825) is united with
Cassipourea Aubl. (1775),
the
combined genus will bear the prior name
Cassipourea, although
Weihea is conserved and
Cassipourea is not.
~
If
Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is
united with
Berberis L. (1753)
the com~
bined genus will bear the prior name
Berberis, although
Mahonia is conserved.
~
Nasturtium
R. Br. (1812) was conserved
only in the restricted sense, for a monotypic genus based on
N. officinale R. Br., hence, if it is reunited with
Rorippa Scop. (1760), it must bear the
name
Rorippa.
The generic name
Swartzia Schreb. (1791), conserved against
Tounatea Aubl.,
Pos~
sira Aubl., and
Hoelzelia Neck., is thereby conserved automatically
against the earlier homo~
nym
Swartzia Ehrh. (1787).
When a name proposed for conservation has been
provisionally approved
by the
Advisory Board
and
General Committee,
botanists are authorized
to
retain it
pending the decision of
a later
International Botanical Congress.
Section 4. Nomenclature of taxa according to their categories
Subsection 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF ORDER
The Rules of priority and
typification do not apply
to names of taxa
above the rank of order.
(a)
Names of divisions are
preferably taken from characters
indicating the nature of
the division as closely as possible;
they should end in
~phyta, except those of
FUNGI,
which
should end in
~mycota. Words of
Greek origin
are generally preferable.
————————–
*) See Appendix V.
20 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 08 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Names of higher taxa | 27~29 |
Names of subdivisions
are formed in a similar manner; they are distinguished
from
divisional names by an appropriate prefix or suffix
or by the ending
~phytina, except those
of
FUNGI, which should end in
~mycotina.
(b)
Names of classes
and subclasses
are formed in a similar manner.
Their endings
should be:
1. In the ALGAE: ~phyceae (classes) and ~phycidae (subclasses);
2. In the FUNGI: ~mycetes (classes) and ~mycetidae (subclasses);
3. In the CORMOPHYTA: ~opsida (classes) and ~idae (subclasses).
Subsection 2. NAMES OF ORDERS AND SUBORDERS
The name of
an order
is taken from that of
its type family,
with the
ending
~ales.
Suborders are designated in a similar manner, with the ending ~ineae.
Examples of orders: Fucales, Polygonales, Urticales; suborders: Bromeliineae, Malvineae.
Subsection 3. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
The
name of
a family is a plural adjective
used as a substantive
taken
from the name of
its type genus
or from a synonym, and ending in
~aceae.
Examples:
Rosaceae (from
Rosa),
Salicaceae (from
Salix),
Caryophyllaceae (from
Caryophyllus, a pre~Linnean generic name).
1.
The following names,
sanctioned by long usage,
are treated as
exceptions to the rule:
Palmae,
Gramineae,
Cruciferae,
Leguminosae,
Gutti~
ferae,
Umbelliferae,
Labiatae,
Compositae.
Botanists are authorized, however,
to use as alternatives the appropriate
names ending in
~aceae.
2.
Those who regard the
Papilionaceae as constituting
an independent
family may use that name,
although it is not formed in the prescribed manner.
The
name of
a subfamily is a plural adjective
used as a substantive
taken
from the name of
its type genus or from a synonym,
with the ending
~oideae.
Tribes
are designated in a
similar
manner,
with the ending
~eae, and subtribes
with the ending
~inae.
Examples of subfamilies:
Asphodeloideae (from
Asphodelus),
Rumicoideae (from
Rumex);
tribes:
Asclepiadeae (from
Asclepias),
Phyllantheae (from
Phyllanthus); subtribes:
Meta~
stelmatinae (from
Metastelma),
Madiinae (from
Madia).
Note.
When a name of a taxon belonging
to one of the above categories has been
published
with an improper termination, such as
~eae for a subfamily,
~oideae for a tribe,
the ending must
be changed to accord with the rule,
without change of authority; if, how~
ever,
the rank of the group is changed by a later author,
he is then cited as authority for
the name,
with the appropriate ending, in the usual way.
Example:
The subfamily name
Climacieae Grout, Moss Fl. N. Am.
3: 4 (1928) must
be changed to
Climacioideae, with rank and authority unchanged.
If it is held necessary to
change the rank of
this taxon to a tribe, then the name
Climacieae must be used, with the
name of
the author making the change added as authority.
21 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 09 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
30~32 | Generic names |
Subsection 4. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA *
The
name of
a genus is a substantive, or
an adjective used as
a substantive,
in the singular number.
It
may be taken
from any source whatever, and may even be composed
in an absolutely arbitrary manner.
Examples:
Rosa,
Convolvulus,
Hedysarum,
Bartramia,
Liquidambar,
Gloriosa,
lmpatiens.
Manihot,
Ifloga (an anagram of
Filago).
Botanists who are forming generic names should comply with the following suggestions:
(a) Not to make names very long or difficult to pronounce.
(b)
Not to dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected
with botany or at least with
natural science
nor to persons quite unknown.
(c)
Not to take names from barbarous languages,
unless those names are frequently cited
in books of travel,
and have an agreeable form that is readily adaptable
to the Latin tongue
and to the tongue of civilized countries.
(d)
To indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name
the affinities or ana~
logies of the genus.
(e) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(f)
Not to give to a genus a name whose form is rather that of
a section (e.g.
Eusidero~
xylon, a name given to a genus of Lauraceae.
This, however, being legitimate, cannot be
altered).
(g) Not to make names by combining words from different languages.
(h)
To give a feminine form
to all personal generic names,
whether they commemorate a
man or a woman.
The name of a subdivision of a genus
is a combination of a generic name
and a subdivisional epithet **) connected by a term
(subgenus, section, series,
etc.)
denoting the rank of the subdivision.
For subgenera and sections
such epithets
are usually substantives
resembling the names of genera.
For
subsections and lower subdivisions
the epithets are preferably
plural
adjectives agreeing in gender
with the generic name and written with
a
capital initial
letter,
or their place may be taken
by an ordinal number or a letter.
Epithets of subgenera
and sections
must not repeat
the name of
the genus
to which
they
belong with the ending
~oides or
~opsis.
Examples
of substantives:
Adenoscilla,
Micromelilotus, Pseudinga, Heterodraba,
Gymno~
cimum, Neoplantago. Adjectives:
Fimbriati,
Pleiostylae,
Bibracteolata.
The same subdivisional epithet may be used
in different genera but in
the same genus two subdivisions,
even if they are of different rank, cannot
bear
the same epithet unless they are based on the same type.
Example:
Under
Verbascum the sectional epithets
Aulacosperma and
Bothrosperma are
allowed
although there are also in the genus
Celsia two sections named
Aulacospermae
and
Bothrospermae. These however, are not examples
to be followed, since they are con~
trary to Rec.
32A.
The subgenus containing the type species
of a generic name must bear
that name unaltered.
————————–
*)
Here and elsewhere in the Code the phrase
“subdivision of a genus” refers only
to taxa
between genus and species in rank.
**)
The editorial committee decided unanimously
that for subdivisions of genera,
the
second part of the name should be termed
the subdivisional epithet in accordance
with recent
practice.
22 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 10 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Specific names | 32~33 |
Example:
The subgenus of
Croton L. containing the lectotype of the genus
(C. tiglium
L.) must be called
Croton subg.
Croton and not
Croton subg.
Eluteria Griseb.
Botanists constructing epithets
for subgenera and sections
should
avoid
adopting an
epithet
already used for a taxon of the same
rank in another genus, or which is
identical
with the name of another genus.
They should also
avoid, wherever possible,
in co~ordinated
subdivisions of a genus, the use of
epithets in the form of a
substantive together with
others
in the form of a plural adjective.
If it is desired
to indicate the
resemblance of
a subgenus
(other than the type~subgenus)
or section of one genus
to
another genus, the endings
~oides or
~opsis
may be added to the name of that other genus
to form the
epithet of
the subgenus or
section
concerned.
When it is desired to indicate
the name of a subgenus or section (or other subdivision)
to which a particular species
belongs in connection
with the generic name
and specific
epithet, the
epithet
of the subdivision
is placed in parentheses
between the two; when
necessary,
the rank of the subdivision is also indicated.
Examples:
Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus;
Loranthus (Sect.
Ischnanthus)
gabonensis.
Subsection 5. NAMES OF SPECIES (BINARY NAMES)
The name of
a species
is a binary combination
consisting of the name
of the genus followed
by a single specific epithet.
If an epithet consists of
two words,
these must either be united or
hyphened.
Epithets not so joined
when originally published
are not to be rejected but
when used must be
hyphened
[ see also Art.
79 (4) ].
Examples:
Cornus sanguinea,
Dianthus monspessulanus,
Papaver
rhoeas,
Uromyces
fabae,
Fumaria
gussonei,
Geranium
robertianum,
Embelia
sarasinorum,
Atropa bella~donna,
Impatiens noli~tangere,
Adiantum
capillus~veneris.
Symbols forming
part of specific epithets
proposed by Linnaeus must be
transcribed.
Examples:
Scandix
pecten ♀ L.
must be transcribed as
Scandix
pecten~veneris;
Vero~
nica
anagallis ∇ L.
must be transcribed as
Veronica
anagallis~aquatica.
The specific epithet,
when adjectival in form and not used as a substantive,
agrees in gender with the generic name.
Examples: Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra, Verbascum nigrum.
Binary combinations of a specific epithet with the word
Anonymos (and
similar token words) are illegitimate,
since the word
Anonymos is not a generic
name
[ Art. 78 (1) ].
Such combinations are not taken into consideration for
purposes of priority of the epithet concerned.
Examples:
The binary combination
Anonymos aquatica Walt. (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788)
is illegitimate. The valid name for the species concerned is
Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel.
(1791),
and the date of the epithet
aquatica for purposes of priority, is 1791.
The species
must not be cited as
Planera aquatica (Walt.) J. F. Gmel.
If, however, it is desired to in~
dicate
that the epithet originated with Walter,
the name may be cited as
Planera aquatica
[Walt.] J. F. Gmel.
The specific epithet should
preferably give some
indication of the appearance, the
characters,
the origin, the history or the properties of the species.
If taken from the name
of a person, it usually recalls
the one who discovered or described it, or was in some way
connected with it.
23 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 11 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
33~34 | Ternary names |
Names of men and women and also of countries
and localities used as specific epi~
thets
may be substantives in the genitive
(clusii,
saharae) or adjectives
(clusianus,
dahuricus).
It will be well,
in the future, to avoid the use of the genitive
and the adjectival form
of the same word to designate
two different species of the same genus; for example
Lysimachia
hemsleyana Maxim. (1891) and
L.
hemsleyi Franch. (1895).
In forming specific epithets, botanists should comply also with the following suggestions:
(a) To avoid those which are very long and difficult to pronounce.
(b)
To avoid those which express a character common to
all or nearly all the species of
a genus.
(c)
To avoid using the names of little~known
or very restricted localities,
unless the species
is quite local.
(d)
To avoid in the same genus epithets which are very much alike,
especially those
which differ only in their last letters
or in the arrangement of
two letters.
Example: Carex albata and Carex ablata.
(e)
Not to adopt unpublished names found in traveller’s notes
or in herbaria, attributing
them to their authors,
unless these have approved publication.
(f)
Not to name a species after a person
who has neither discovered, nor described,
nor
figured, nor in any way studied it.
(g) To avoid epithets which have been used before in any closely allied genus.
(h) To avoid specific epithets formed of two or more hyphened words.
(i) To avoid epithets which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).
Subsection 6. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
(TERNARY NAMES)
For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon
below the rank of a
species is regarded
as the sum of its lower taxa, if any.
The description of a subordinated taxon
which does not include the
nomenclatural type
of the higher taxon automatically creates
a second sub~
ordinated taxon of the same rank
which has as its nomenclatural type
the type
of the higher taxon (see Art.
35).
Example:
The publication in 1843 of
Lycopodium inundatum L. var.
bigelovii Tuckerm.
automatically creates
another variety the type of which is the type of
Lycopodium inundatum L.
Epithets of subspecies and varieties are formed
as those of species and
follow them in order, beginning with those of the highest rank.
When
adjectival in form and not used as substantives
they agree in gender
with the generic name.
Similarly for subvarieties, forms and slight or transient
modifications
of wild plants, which receive either epithets or
numbers or letters to facilitate
their arrangement.
The use of a binary nomenclature
for subdivisions of species is not
admissible.
It is permissible to reduce more complicated names
to ternary
combinations.
Examples:
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
macrothrix (not
Andropogon macrothrix or
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
A. macrothrix);
Herniaria hirsuta var.
diandra (not
Herniaria
diandra or
Herniaria hirsuta var.
H. diandra);
Trifolium stellatum forma
nanum (not
nana).
Saxifraga
aizoon subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmsch.
is the correct ternary com~
bination for
Saxifraga
aizoon var.
aizoon subvar.
brevifolia forma
multicaulis subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmsch.
24 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 12 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Ternary names | 35~38 |
If any infraspecific taxon
which includes the
nomenclatural
type of the
epithet of the next
higher taxon
is to be mentioned by a
subdivisional name,
that
name must
repeat the
epithet of the
higher taxon unaltered
but, contrary
to Art.
55,
without citation of an author’s name. This epithet can no longer
be used when that of the next higher taxon is changed.
Examples:
The binary combination
Lobelia spicata Lam. var.
originalis McVaugh,
which includes the type of
Lobelia spicata Lam., must be altered to
Lobelia spicata Lam.
var.
spicata.
Since under
Lobelia siphilitica L. there is also described var.
ludoviciana A. DC one
must write
Lobelia siphilitica L. var.
siphilitica if only that part of
L. siphilitica L. which
includes the type is meant.
Since under
Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafl. there is also described
a var.
fulva Stafl. one must write
Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafl. var.
sericea if only that part of the subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafl. which includes the type is meant.
The same epithet may be used for subdivisions of
different species, and
the subdivisions of one species
may bear the same epithets as other species.
Examples:
Rosa
jundzillii var.
leioclada and
Rosa glutinosa var.
leioclada; Viola
tricolor var.
hirta in spite of the existence
already of a different species named
Viola hirta.
Two subdivisions of the same species,
even if they are of different rank,
cannot bear the same subdivisional epithet,
unless their names are based on
the same type.
If the earlier subdivisional name (ternary combination)
was
validly published,
the later one is illegitimate and must be rejected.
Examples:
The following is incorrect:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum and
E. hieraciifolium subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum
~
a form of
nomenclature which allows two varieties
bearing the same name in the same species.
The name
Andropogon
sorghum subsp.
halepensis Hack. var.
halepensis is
legitimate,
since the subspecies and
the variety
have the same type
and the epithet must be repeated
under Art. 35.
Recommendations made for specific epithets
(see Rec. 33A. B, C)
apply equally to
epithets of subdivisions of species.
Special forms
(formae speciales) are preferably named
after the host species; if desired,
epithets formed of two words
joined by a hyphen may be used.
Examples: Puccinia hieracii f. sp. villosi; Pucciniastrum epilobii f. sp. abieti~chamaenerii.
Botanists proposing new epithets for subdivisions
of species should avoid such as have
been used previously
for species in the same genus.
Subsection 7. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION
Plants brought
into cultivation from
the wild and which
differ in no
fundamental way from the parent stocks
bear the same names as are applied
to the same species
and subdivisions of species in nature.
25 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 13 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
39~40 | Effective publication |
Plants
arising
in cultivation through
hybridization,
mutation
or other
processes which
tend to
establish
recognizable
differences
from the parent
stocks receive epithets,
preferably in common language
(i.e.
fancy epithets),
markedly different
from the Latin epithets of species or varieties.
Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants
in cultivation appear
in
Appendix III.
Section 5. Conditions and dates of effective publication
Publication is effected, under this Code,
only
by
distribution
(sale,
exchange, or gift) of printed matter.
It is not effected by
communication of
new names
at a public meeting, by
the placing of names
in collections or
gardens open to the public, or by the issue
of microfilm
made from
manuscripts.
Up to and including 31 Dec. 1952 publication by
indelible autograph is
accepted.
Offer for sale of material that does not exist
does not constitute
effective publication.
On and from 1 Jan. 1953 the publication
of a new name in tradesmen’s
catalogues or in newspapers,
even if accompanied by a Latin diagnosis,
does
not constitute effective publication.
Note.
For purposes of this Article holographic material,
even though reproduced by
some mechanical or graphic process
(such as lithography, offset, metallic etching or micro~
film)
is still considered as autographic.
Examples:
Effective publication without printed matter:
Salvia oxyodon Webb
& Heldr.
was published in July 1850 in an autograph catalogue
placed on sale (Webb
& Heldreich,
Catalogus Plantarum Hispanicarum
.. ab.
A. Blanco lectarum. Paris, July 1850. folio).
Non~effective publication
at a public meeting:
Cusson announced his establishment of
the genus
Physospermum in a memoir read at
the Société des Sciences de Montpellier in
1770,
and later in 1782 or 1783 at the Société de Médecine de Paris,
but its effective
publication dates from 1787 in the
Mémoires de la Société Royale de Médecine de Paris
5(1): 279.
Effective publication in separates issued in advance: the
Selaginella species published
by Hieronymus in Hedwigia
51: 241~272 (1912), were effectively published
on 15 Oct. 1911
since the volume
in which the paper appeared states (p. II)
that the separate appeared on
that date.
Effective publication
in reproduced holographic material:
H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy
Tchéou (1914~15),
a work lithographed from the hand~written manuscript.
Botanists and others are urged scrupulously
to avoid the publication of new species
names
or combinations in ephemeral publications
such as popular periodicals, in any
publication
unlikely to reach the general botanical public,
or in those produced by such
methods
that their permanence is unlikely.
The
date of
effective publication is the time
that the printed matter
became available as defined in Art. 39.
In the absence of proof
establishing
some other date the one appearing in
the printed matter
must be accepted
as correct.
When separates from periodicals or other works placed
on sale are issued
in advance, the date on the separate
is accepted as the date of effective
publication
unless there is evidence
that it is erroneous.
26 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 14 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 41~42 |
On and after 1 Jan. 1953, the distribution
of an exsiccatum relative to
any new taxon,
accompanied by an original diagnosis, even if this is printed,
does not constitute effective publication.
Note.
The printing and distribution of the schedae
of a set of dried plants in form
of a special publication
(e.g., Schedae operis ...
Plantae Finlandiae Exsiccatae etc., Hel~
singfors
1. 1906,
2. 1916,
3. 1933, 1944 or Lundell
[1 Nannfeldt, Fungi Exsiccati Suecici
etc., Uppsala
1~ ...... 1934~ ......)
will even after that date constitute effective publication.
Section 6. Conditions and dates of valid publication
A name of a
taxon of recent plants
is not validly published unless it is
both
(1) effectively published (see Art.
39) and
(2) accompanied by a
description of the
taxon or by a reference
(direct or indirect)
to a previously
and effectively published description of it.
On and after 1 Jan. 1953,
new transfers or new combinations,
however,
will be considered validly published only when the
basonym
(name~bringing
or epithet~bringing synonym)
is clearly indicated with its author
and the
place and date of publication.
No combination is validly published unless the author
definitely indicates
that the epithet or epithets
concerned are to be combined with the generic
name
in a particular way.
Note 1.
In certain circumstances a plate or figure with analyses
is accepted as equi~
valent to a description (see Art.
50,
52).
Note 2.
Bibliographic errors of citation do not invalidate
the publication of a new
combination.
Examples of
names not validly published:
Egeria Néraud (Bot. Voy. Freycinet 28.
1826) published
without a description or a reference to a former description.
The name
Loranthus macrosolen Steud. originally appeared
without a description on
the printed tickets
issued about the year 1843, with Sect. II. nos. 529, 1288
of Schimper’s
herbarium specimens of Abyssinian plants;
it was not validly published, however, until
A.
Richard (Tent. Fl. Abys.
1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.
Examples of
combinations definitely indicated:
In Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum the
placing of the epithet
in the margins opposite the name of the genus
clearly indicates the
combination intended.
The same result is attained in Miller’s
Gardeners Dictionary, ed. 8,
by the inclusion of the epithet in parentheses
immediately after the name of the genus, in
Steudel’s
Nomenclator Botanicus by the arrangement of the epithets
in a list headed by
the name of the genus,
and in general by any typographical device
which indicates that an
epithet is
associated with a particular generic or other name.
Examples of
combinations not definitely indicated:
Rafinesque’s statement that
“Monar~
da ciliata must form a new genus, which we will call
Blephilia” does not constitute publi~
cation of the combination
Blephilia ciliata, since he did not indicate that
that combination
was to be used. Similarly the combination
Eulophus peucedanoides must not be ascribed
to Bentham and Hooker f. on the basis of the listing of
Cnidium peucedanoides H. B. K.
under
Eulophus in the
Genera Plantarum.
Example of
validation of a combination by indirect reference:
The publication of the
new combination
Cymbopogon martini by W. Watson, Atk. Gaz. NW. Provo India
10: 392
(1882)
is validated by the addition of the number “309” which,
as explained at the top of
the same page,
is the running~number of the species
(Andropogon martini Roxb.)
in Steud.
Syn. Pl. Glum.
1: 388 (1854). Although the reference to the synonym,
Andropogon mar~
tini, is indirect,
it is perfectly unambiguous.
From 1 Jan. 1953 onward, botanists are recommended
to discontinue the practice of
validating new binomials
solely by reference to descriptions
or plates published before 1753.
27 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 15 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
43~46 | Latin description |
A name
(1)
which is not accepted by the author who published it,
or
(2)
which
is merely proposed in anticipation of the
future acceptance of the
group concerned, or of a particular circumscription,
position or rank of the
group
(so~called provisional name), or
(3)
a name merely
mentioned inci~
dentally, is not validly published.
On and from 1 Jan. 1953 when two or more different
names (so~called
alternative names) are proposed
simultaneously for the same taxon by the
same author
none of them is validly published.
Provision no. 1 does not apply to names or epithets
published with a
question mark or other indication
of taxonomic doubt, yet published and
accepted by the author.
By “incidental mention” of a new name or combination
is meant mention by an author who does not intend to introduce
the new
name or combination concerned.
Examples:
The generic name
Conophyton Haw. suggested by Haworth (Rev.
Pl. Succ.
82. 1821) for
Mesembryanthemum sect.
Minima Haw.
(Rev. Pl. Succ. 81. 1821)
in the
following words:
“If this section proves to be a genus, the name of
Conophyton would be
apt” ~
was not validly published since Haworth did not adopt
that generic name nor
accept that genus:
the correct name for the genus is
Conophytum N. E. Brown
(Gard.
Chron.
III.
71: 198. 1922).
In 1891, Baillon (Hist. Pl.
10: 49)
suggested that
Tecoma spiralis Wright might per~
haps
represent a new genus intermediate between
Radermachera and
Tecoma, or a new
section. Three years later
K. Schumann suggested independently (Engler & Prantl, Nat.
Pfl. fam.
4 (3b): 238) that
Tecoma spiralis Wright might be treated
as the type of an
independent genus
Neurotecoma, but stated that the material available
was insufficient for
a thorough investigation
of the question. Neither
Spirotecoma Baill. nor
Neurotecoma K.
Schum.
was validly published by its author. The name
Spirotecoma Baill.
was, however,
validly published by Dalla Torre
& Harms (Gen. Siphonog. 467. 1904)
as a generic name,
with a reference
to the previously published diagnosis in Engler & Prantl
(Nat. Pfl. fam.
4 (3b): 238).
Cotema
Britt. & Wils. (Mem. Torrey Bot. Club
16: 107. 1920) being also based on
Tecoma spiralis, is a
nomenclatural synonym
of
Spirotecoma.
The species of
Brosimum described by Ducke (Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio
3: 23~29. 1922)
were published together
with the alternative names under
Piratinera added in a footnote
(p. 23~24).
The publication of these names, being effected
before 1 Jan. 1953, is valid.
On and
from
1 Jan. 1935, names of new
taxa of recent plants, the
bacteria
excepted,
are considered as validly published only when they are
accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis.
Note.
This article validates the publication of names of new
taxa effectively published
from 1908 to 1934 inclusive with diagnoses in modern languages.
On and from
1 Jan. 1912, names of new
taxa of fossil plants
are not
considered
as validly published unless
they are accompanied
by illustrations
or figures showing the essential
characters, in addition to the description,
or
by a reference to a previously and effectively
published illustration or figure.
A name of a
taxon
is not validly published
when it is merely cited as
a synonym.
Examples:
Acosmus Desv.,
cited as a synonym of the generic name
Aspicarpa L. C.
Rich.,
was not validly published thereby.
~
Ornithogalum undulatum Hort.
Bouch. ex
28 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 16 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Genus, valid publication | 47~50 |
Kunth (Enum. Pl.
4: 348. 1843) cited as a synonym under
Myogalum boucheanum Kunth,
was not validly published thereby; when transferred to
Ornithogalum this species must be
called
Ornithogalum
boucheanum (Kunth) Asch.
(Oest. Bot. Zeitschr.
16: 192. 1866).
Similarly
Erythrina micropteryx Poepp.
was not validly published
by being cited as a
synonym of
Micropteryx
poeppigiana Walp.
(Linnaea
23: 740. 1850);
the species concerned,
when placed under
Erythrina, must be called
Erythrina
poeppigiana (Walp.) O.F. Cook
(U.S. Dep. Agr. Bull.
25: 57. 1901).
The name
of a taxon is not validly
published by
the
mere mention of the
subordinated taxa included in it.
Examples:
The family name
Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre (Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris
2: 1296.
May 1897),
which was accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera,
Brazzeia,
Scytopetalum and
Rhaptopetalum, was not validly published,
as Pierre gave no description;
the family bears the later name
Scytopetalaceae Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pfl. fam.
Nachtr.
1: 242. 1897, serius),
which was accompanied by a description.
~
The generic name
Ibidium Salisb. (Trans. Hort. Soc.
1: 291. 1812) was published
merely with the mention of
four included species. As Salisbury supplied
no generic description,
his publication of
lbi~
diun
is invalid.
A name of a genus
of recent plants
is not validly published unless it is
accompanied
(1) by a description of the genus,
(2) by citation
of a
previously and effectively published description
of the genus, or
(3) by
reference to a previously and
effectively published description of the genus
as a subgenus, section or other subdivision of a genus.
An exception
is made
for the generic names published by Linnaeus in
Species Plantarum ed. 1
(1753),
and ed. 2 (1762~63), which are treated
as having been validly published
on those dates (see Art.
23).
Note.
In certain circumstances, a plate with analyses
is accepted as equivalent to a
generic description
(see Art.
50).
Examples of
validly published generic names:
Carphalea Juss. (Gen. Plant. 198. 1789),
accompanied by a generic description;
Thuspeinanta Th. Dur. (Ind. Gen. Phan.
x. 1888),
accompanied by a reference to the previously described genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non
Herb.);
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (Hort. Dendrol. 242. 1853),
based on a previously
described section,
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.
The publication
of the generic name
Epipogium R. Br.
(Prodr. 330. 331. 1810)
is validated by Robert Brown’s
implicit reference
to the excellent description of
Epipogum in T. G, Gmelin, Fl. Sibir.
1: 11 (1747):
he at~
ributed the name
Epipogium to Gmelin.
For purposes of valid publication
names
in Latin form given to
hybrids,
including nothomorphs, are
subject to the same rules
as are those of non~hybrid
taxa of corresponding ranks.
Note 1. The parentage, so far as it is known, should be indicated.
Note 2. A nothomorph is any hybrid form, whether F ı, segregate or backcross.
The publication of the name of a monotypic new genus based on a new
species is validated: either
(1) by the provision of a combined generic and
specific description
(descriptio generico~specifica); or
(2) by the provision of
a plate with analyses
showing essential characters; but the latter alternative
29 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 17 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
51~52 | Species, valid publ. |
applies only to plates and generic names published before 1 Jan. 1908.
Note.
A description of a new species assigned
to a monotypic new genus is treated
also as
a generic description if the genus is not described.
Similarly, a description of a monotypic new genus
based on a new species is treated
also as a specific description if the generic name
and specific epithet are published together
and the species is not described.
Examples:
The generic name
Philgamia Baill.
(in Grandidier. Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas
3:
pl.
265. 1894) was validly
published, as it appeared on a plate with analyses of
P. hib~
bertioides Baill. published before
1 Jan. 1908.
~
Strophioblachia fimbricalyx Boerl.
(Handl.
Fl. Ned. Ind.
3 (1): 235. 1900)
is a new species assigned
to the monotypic new genus
Strophioblachia
published with a combined generic
and specific description.
A combined generic and specific description should mention
the points in which the
new genus differs from its allies.
Epithets of subdivisions of genera and of species
are not validly published
unless the generic and specific names
to which they are attached are validly
published
at the same time or were published previously.
Examples:
The specific names
Eragrostis minor and
E. major were published in 1809
by Host (Gram. Austr. 4: 15, 14) as substitutes for
Poa eragrostis L. and
Briza eragrostis
L. respectively; these two names
were cited as synonyms. As, however, the generic name
Eragrostis was not validly published until 1812
(Beauv. Agrost. 70), the names given by
Host
cannot be considered validly published.
In 1880, Müller Argoviensis (Flora
63: 286) published the new genus
Phlyctidia with
the species
Ph. hampeana n. sp.,
Ph. boliviensis (=
Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.),
Ph. soredii~
formis (=
Phlyctis sorediiformis Krempelh.),
Ph. brasiliensis (=
Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.)
and
Ph. andensis (=
Phlyctis andensis Nyl.).
These specific names are, however, not
validly
published in this place, because the generic name
Phlyctida is here a nomen
nudum:
Müller gave no generic diagnosis but only a description
of the new species,
Ph.
hampeana.
This description cannot validate the generic name as
a descriptio generico~
specifica in accordance with
Art. 50, since the new genus was not monotypic.
The first
valid publication of the name
Phlyctidia was made by Müller in 1895 (Hedwigia
34: 141),
where a short generic diagnosis was given.
The only species mentioned here were
Ph. ludo~
viciensis n. sp. and
Ph. boliviensis (Nyl.)
The latter combination was validly published in
1895
by the reference to the
basonym.
The name of a species or
of a subdivision of a species
of recent plants
is not validly published
unless it is accompanied: either by
(1) a description
of the
taxon or
a citation of a previously
and effectively published description
of
it;
or by (2) a plate or figure with analyses
showing essential characters;
but the latter alternative applies only
to plates or figures and specific or
subdivisional names published before
1 Jan. 1908.
Examples of
validly published names of species.
Onobrychis eubrichidea Boiss. (Fl.
Or.
2: 546. 1872),
published with a description.
~
Hieracium
flahaultianum Arv.~Touv.
&
Gaut.,
published on a label with a printed diagnosis in
a set of dried plants
(Hieraciotheca
gallica 935~942. 1903).
[N.B. This method of publication
is not effective after 31 Dec. 1952.
See Art.
41].
~
Cynanchum nivale Nyman
(Syll. Fl. Eur. 108. 1854~55),
published with
a reference to
Vincetoxicum nivale Boiss.
& Heldr.
previously described.
~
Panax nossibiensis
Drake
(in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas
3:
pl.
406. 1894),
published on a plate with analyses.
Examples of names of species not validly published are given under Art. 42 and 46.
30 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 18 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Date of a name | 53~54 |
The date of a name or of an epithet is that of its valid publication.
For purposes of priority,
however, only legitimate names and epithets
published in legitimate combinations
are taken into consideration (see Art.
10,
73
and the exception
to this rule mentioned
in Art.
74).
In the absence of proof
to the contrary,
the date given in the work containing the name or epithet
must be treated as correct.
On and after
1 Jan. 1935 *)
only the date of publication of the Latin
diagnosis
can be taken into account for new
taxa of recent plants.
For new
taxa of fossil plants, on and after
1 Jan. 1912 the date is that of simultaneous
publication
of the description and figure (or if these are published
at different
dates, the later of the two dates).
Examples:
Specimens of
Mentha foliicoma Opiz were distributed by Opiz
in 1832, but
the name dates from 1882,
when it was validly published by Déséglise
(Bull. Soc.
Etud.
Sci. Angers
1881~82: 210).
~
There is some reason for supposing that
the first volume of
Adanson’s
Familles des Plantes was published in 1762,
but in the absence of certainty the
date 1763
on the title~page is assumed to be correct.
~
Individual parts of Willdenow’s
Species Plantarum were published as follows:
1
(1), 1797; (2), 1798;
2 (1), 1799;
2 (2),
1800;
3 (1)
(to page 850), 1800;
3 (2)
(to page 1470), 1802;
3 (3)
(to page 2409), 1803
(and later than Michaux’
Flora Boreali~Americana);
4 (2), 1806;
these dates, which are
partly in disagreement with
those on the title~pages of the volumes, are the dates of
publication
(see: Rhodora
44: 147~150.
1942).
A new name
published on or
after 1 Jan. 1953
without a clear indication
of
the rank of the
taxon concerned
is not validly published.
The name of a new
taxon should
not
be
published without indication of its type
and,
if possible,
the place where
the type is preserved
(see Recommendation
19B).
Authors should
avoid publishing or mentioning in their publications
unpublished names
which they do not accept,
especially if the persons responsible for these names
have not
formally authorized their publication
(see Recommendation
33C, e).
Authors should avoid adoption of an epithet
which has been previously published in
an illegitimate combination (see Art.
81).
Authors should avoid adoption of a name or an epithet
which has been previously
published as a
nomen nudum.
Authors publishing names of new
taxa of
recent plants
(bacteria excepted)
in works
written in a modern language
(floras, catalogues, etc.)
should publish simultaneously the
Latin diagnoses
required to validate
the publication of these names.
Those
publishing names
and descriptions of
new
taxa of
fossil plants
should
publish
simultaneously the figures
required to complete the
validation
of the names
concerned.
In describing new
taxa authors should,
when possible,
supply
figures with details of
structure
as an aid to identification.
In the explanation of the figures,
it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s)
on which
they are based.
The scale of the figures
should be indicated in accordance with Rec.
83F.
————————–
*) See note to Art. 44.
31 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 19 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
54~57 | Citation author |
The description of parasitic plants should always
be followed by the indication of the
hosts,
especially those of parasitic fungi. The hosts should be
designated by their Latin
scientific names and
not by popular names in modern languages,
the significance of which
is often doubtful.
The etymology of new generic names
should be
given and also
that of new epithets
when the meaning of these is not obvious.
Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In a work
appearing in parts the last~published sheet of the volume
should indicate the precise dates
at which
the different fascicles or parts of the volume
were published as well as the number
of pages in each.
On separately printed and issued copies
of works published in
a periodical the date
(so far as possible
year, month and day) and the
name of the periodical
(and its volume
part)
should be indicated.
Separate copies
extracted from a periodical
should bear the pagination of the periodical
of which they form a part; if it
is desired
they may also bear a special pagination.
Section 7. Citation of authors’ names and of literature for
purposes of precision.
For the indication of the name
(unitary, binary, or ternary) of a
taxon
to be accurate and complete, and in order that the date
may be readily verified,
it is necessary to cite
the author who first published the name concerned.
Examples:
Rosaceae Juss.,
Rosa L.,
Rosa gallica L.,
Rosa gallica L. var.
eriostyla R.
Keller.
An alteration of the diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of
a
taxon does not warrant
the citation of an author other than the one
who
first published its name.
When the
alteration mentioned
in Art. 56 has been considerable,
the
nature of the
change
and the author responsible
should be
indicated
by
adding suitably
abbreviated words
such as
mutatis charact., pro parte, excl. gen., excl. spec., excl. var.,
etc.
Examples:
Phyllanthus L. emend. (emendavit) Müll. Arg.;
Myosotis L. pro parte, R.
Br.;
Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).
Retention of a name in a sense which excludes the type
can be effected
only by conservation. When a name is conserved
so as to exclude its type,
it must not be ascribed
to the original author with such expressions as
emend.,
32 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 20 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Citation author | 58~60 |
mutatis charact., etc.;
but the name of the author whose concept is conserved
must be cited as authority.
Examples:
Protea R. Br.:
Protea R. Br., nom. conserv. (non
Protea L. 1753). This
must not be cited as
Protea L. emend. R. Br.,
since Brown’s concept excluded the Linnaean
type.
When a name has been proposed
but not validly published by one author,
and is subsequently validly published
and ascribed to him (or her) by another
author who
supplied the description,
the name of the latter author
must be
appended to the citation
with the connecting word
ex. The same holds for
names of garden origin
cited as “Hort.”
If it is
desirable
or necessary to
abbreviate such a citation,
the name of the publishing author,
being the more
important, must be retained.
Examples:
Havetia flexilis Spruce ex Planch.
& Triana.
~
Capparis lasiantha R. Br.
ex DC.
~
Gesneria donklarii Hort. ex Hook., or
Gesneria donklarii Hook.
When a name
with a description
or reference to a
description by one author
is
published
in a work by another author, the word
in
should be
used to connect the names
of the two authors.
Examples:
Viburnum ternatum
Rehder in Sargent (Trees
& Shrubs
2: 37. 1907);
Teu~
crium charidemi Sandwith
in Lacaita (Cavanillesia
3: 38. 1930).
When a genus or a
taxon of lower rank
is altered in rank
but retains its
name or epithet, the author
who first published this
as a legitimate name or
epithet
must be cited in parentheses, followed by the name
of the author who
effected the alteration.
The same holds
when a subdivision of a genus, a
species, or a
taxon of lower rank,
is transferred to another genus or species
with or without alteration of rank.
Examples:
Medicago polymorpha L. var.
orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of
species becomes
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All.
~
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC. raised
to generic rank,
retaining the name
Aspalathoides, is cited as
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch.
~
Sorbus sect.
Aria Pers., on transference to
Pyrus, is cited as
Pyrus sect.
Aria (Pers.)
DC.
~
Cheiranthus tristis L. transferred to the genus
Matthiola becomes
Matthiola tristis
(L.) R. Br.
The correct name for
Jambosa lineata DC., on transference to
Syzygium, is
Syzygium
lineatum (DC.) Merr. & Perry; the earlier
Myrtus lineata Blume, non Swartz, is illegitimate.
~ Lithocarpus polystachya (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehd. or L. polystachya (A. DC.) Rehd.
When the status of a taxon bearing a binary name
is altered from species
to hybrid or vice versa,
the original author must be cited, followed by an
indication of the original status in parentheses.
Examples:
Stachys ambigua J. E. Smith. (Engl. Bot.
30:
pl. 2089. 1810) was published
as a species.
If regarded as a hybrid, it must be cited as
Stachys ×
ambigua J. E. Smith
(pro sp.).
~
The binary name
Salix ×
glaucops Anderss. in DC. (Prodr.
16
(2): 281.
1868)
was published as the name of a hybrid.
Later, Rydberg (Bull. N.Y. Bot. Gard.
1:
270. 1899) altered the status of the group to that of
a species. If this view is accepted, the
name must be cited as
Salix glaucops Anderss. (pro hybr.).
33 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 21 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
58~60 | Abbreviation |
Authors’ names put after names of plants
should be abbreviated,
unless they are very
short.
For this purpose
preliminary particles or letters that, strictly speaking,
do not form
part of the name, are suppressed,
and the first letters are given without any omission.
(F. Muell. for Baron
Ferdinand von Mueller,
not F. v. M. or F. v. Muell.).
If a name of
one syllable is long enough to make it worth while to abridge it,
the
first consonants only are given
(Fr. for Elias Magnus Fries);
if the name has two or more
syllables, the first syllable and
the first letter of the following one are taken,
or the two
first when both are consonants
(Juss. for Jussieu,
Rich. for Richard).
When it is necessary
to give more of a name to avoid confusion between names
begin~
ning with the same syllable the same system
is to be followed. For instance two syllables
are given
together with the one or two first consonants of the third;
or one of the last
characteristic consonants of the name
is added
(Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish
it from
Bertero;
Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish
it from Micheli).
Christian names or accessory designations serving
to distinguish two botanists of the
same name
are abridged in the same way
(Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu,
Gaertn. f. for
Gaertner filius,
R.
Br. for Robert
Brown,
A. Br. for
Alexander Braun).
When it is a well~established custom to abridge a name
in another manner, it is best
to conform to it
(L. for Linnaeus,
DC. for De Candolle.
St.~Hil. for Saint~Hilaire).
In the citation
of a name
published as a synonym,
the words “as synonym” or
pro
syn. should be added.
When an author published as a synonym
a manuscript name of another author, the
word
ex should be used to connect the names of the two authors.
Example:
Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steudel, Nomencl. 321 (1821) pro syn.,
a
manuscript name of Koenig’s
published by Steudel as a synonym of
Eugenia laurina Willd.
In the citation of a nomen nudum, its status
should be indicated by adding
nomen
nudum (nom. nud.).
The citation of
an author
who published the name
before the starting point of
the
group
concerned is indicated, when considered useful
or desirable, preferably between
square
brackets
or by the use of the word
“ex”.
This method is especially applicable in mycology
when reference is made to authors
earlier than Fries or Persoon.
Examples:
Lupinus [Tourn. Inst. 392.
pl.
213. 1719] L. Sp. Pl. 721. 1753; Gen. Pl.
ed. 5. 322, or
Lupinus Tourn. ex. L.
~
Boletus piperatus [Bull. Hist. Champ. Fr. 318.
pl.
451, f. 2. 1791~1812] Fr. Syst. Myc.
1: 388. 1821, or
Boletus piperatus Bull. ex Fr.
When a name
invalidated by an earlier homonym
is
cited
in synonymy,
the citation
should be followed by the name of
the author of the earlier homonym preceded by the word
“non”, preferably with the date of publication added.
In some instances it will be advisable
to cite also any later homonym or homonyms.
Examples:
Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Am. Jour. Sci.
19: 170
(1831) non Bork. 1800.
~
Lindera Thunb. Nov. Gen.
3: 44
(1773) non Adans.
1763.
~
Bartlingia Brongn. Ann. Sci.
Nat. I.
10: 373
(1827) non Reichb. 1824, nec F. Muell.
1877.
Misidentifications
should not be included in
the synonymy
but added after it. A
mis~
applied name
should be indicated by the words
“auct. non” followed
by the name of the
original author
and the bibliographical references.
Examples:
F i c u s
s t o r t o p h y l l a
Warb. in Warb. & De Wild. Ann. Mus. Congo
Belge Bot. VI.
1: 32 (1904).
F. irumuensis De Wild. Pl. Bequaert.
1: 341 (1922).
F. exas~
perata auct. non Vahl, De Wild. & Th. Dur.
Ann. Mus. Congo Belge Bot. II.
1: 54. 1899;
De Wild. Plant Laur. 27 (1903);
Th. & H. Dur. Syll. Fl. Congol. 505 (1909).
If a generic name antedated by one of its synonyms
or by a homonym is valid on
account of being
a nomen conservandum, the words
“nom. conserv.”
should be added to the
citation.
34 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 22 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Remodelling of taxa | 60~62 |
Examples:
Protea R. Br. Trans. Linn. Soc.
10: 74
(1810),
nom. conserv., non L. 1753.
~
Combretum L. nom. conserv. (syn. prius
Grislea L.).
~
Schouwia DC.
nom. conserv.
(homonym. prius
Schouwia Schrad.).
Names
cited in synonymy should be
spelt exactly as published by their author.
If
any explanatory words are required, these should be inserted
in brackets. If a name is
adopted as valid with alterations
from the form as originally published, it is desirable that
in full citations the exact original form should be appended.
Examples:
P y r u s
c
a l l e r y a n a Decne.
(Pirus
mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov.
12: 189. 1913) or
(P.
mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov.
12: 189. 1913,
“Pirus”). Not
Pyrus
mairei.
E v o n y m u s
a l a t a Regel, Fl. Ussur.
40. 1861,
“alatus” (Euonymus
loesensri
Ma~
kino in Bot. Mag. Tokyo
25: 229. 1911). Not
Evonymus
loesneri.
Z a n t h o x y l u m
c r i b r o s u m
Spreng. Syst.
1: 946. 1825,
“Xanthoxylon”
(Xan~
thoxylon
caribaeum var.
floridanum A. Gray, Proc. Am. Acad.
II.
23: 225. 1888). Not
Z.
caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray.
Q u e r c u s
b i c o l o r Willd.
(Q.
prinus discolor Michx. Hist. Arb. For.
2: 46. 1812).
Not
Q.
prinus var.
discolor Michx.
S p i r a e a
l a t i f o l i a
(Ait.) Borkh.
(Spiraea salicifolia γ latifolia Ait. Hort. Kew.
2: 198. 1789). Not
S. salicifolia latifolia Ait. or
S. salicifolia var.
latifolia Ait.
J u n i p e r u s
c o m m u n i s
var.
m o n t a n a
Ait.
(J. communis [var.] 3
nana Lou~
don, Arb. Brit.
4: 2489. 1838). In this case
“var.” may be added in brackets,
since Loudon
classes this combination under
“varieties”.
R i b e s
t r i c u s p i s
Nakai, Bot. Mag. Tokyo
30: 142. 1916,
“tricuspe”.
Section 8. Retention of names or epithets of taxa
which are remodelled or divided.
An alteration of the diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of
a
taxon
does not warrant a change in its name,
except as this may be
necessitated
(1) by transference of the
taxon (Art.
64~66), or
(2) by its
union with another
taxon of the same rank (Art.
67~69), or
(3) by a change
of its rank (Art.
70).
Examples:
The genus
Myosotis as revised by R. Brown differs from
the original genus
of Linnaeus,
but the generic name has not been changed,
nor is a change allowable, since
the type of
Myosotis L. remains in the genus.
~
Various authors have united with
Centaurea
jacea L.
one or two species which Linnaeus had kept distinct; the
taxon
so constituted must
be called
Centaurea
jacea L. sensu amplo or
Centaurea
jacea L. emend. Cosson
& Ger~
main, emend. Visiani. or emend. Godr., etc.:
the creation of a new name such as
Centaurea
vulgaris Godr. is superfluous.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera,
the generic name must
be retained for one of them,
or (if it has not been retained), must be reinstated.
When a particular species was originally designated as the type,
the generic
name must be retained
for the genus including that species.
When no type
was designated, a type must be chosen
(see
Appendix I).
Examples:
The genus
Glycine L.
(Sp. Pl. 753. 1753)
was divided by Adanson (Fam.
2: 324. 327. 562. 1763) into the two genera
Bradlea and
Abrus; this procedure is
inadmis~
35 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 23 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
63~64 | Transference |
sible: the name
Glycine must be kept for one of the genera,
and it is now retained for part
of
Glycine L. (1753).
~
The genus
Aesculus L. contains the sections
Euaesculus, Pavia
(Poir.),
Macrothyrsus (Spach) and
Calothyrsus (Spach), the last three of which were
regarded as distinct genera by the authors cited in parentheses;
in the event of these four
sections
being treated as genera, the name
Aesculus must be kept for the first of these.
which includes the species
Aesculus
hippocastanum L.,
as this species is the type of
the
genus founded by Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. 344. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 1754); Tournefort’s name
Hippocastanum must not be used
as was done by Gaertner (Fruct.
2: 135. 1791).
When a species is divided into two or more species,
the specific epithet
must be retained for one or them,
or (if it has not been retained) must be
reinstated.
When a particular specimen was originally designated as the type,
the specific epithet must be retained for the species
including that specimen.
When no type was designated,
a type must be chosen
(see
Appendix I).
The same rule applies to subdivisions of species,
for example, to a sub~
species divided into
two or more subspecies, or to a variety divided
into two
or more varieties.
Examples:
Lychnis dioica L.
(Sp. Pl. 437.
1753) was divided by Miller (Gard. Dict.
ed. 8. nos. 3, 4. 1768) into two species,
L. dioica L. emend. Mill. and
L. alba Mill.
~
Hoff~
mann (Deutschl. Fl.
1: 166. 1800) divided
Juncus articulatus L. (1753) into two species,
J. lamprocarpus Ehrh. and
J. acutiflorus Ehrh. The name
J. articulatus L. ought, however,
to have been retained for one of the segregate species,
and has been reinstated in the sense
of
J. lamprocarpus
Ehrh. (see Briq. Prodr. Fl. Corse
1: 264. 1910).
~
Genista horrida DC.
(Fl. franç.
4: 500. 1805)
was divided by Spach (Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.
III.
2: 253. 1844)
into three species,
G. horrida (Vahl) DC.,
G.
boissieri Spach, and
G.
webbii Spach; the
name
G. horrida was rightly kept for the species
including the plant from Jaca in Aragon
originally described by Vahl (Symb.
1: 51. 1790) as
Spartium horridum.
~
Two species
(Primula cashmiriana Munro,
P. erosa Wall.) have been separated from
Primula denticulata
J.
E. Smith (Exot. Bot. 109,
pl.
114. 1805) but the name
P. denticulata has been rightly
kept
for the form which Smith described and figured under this name.
Section 9. Retention of epithets of taxa below the rank of genus on trans~
ference to another genus or species.
When a subdivision of a genus
*) is transferred to another genus
(or
placed under another generic name for the same genus)
without change of
rank, its subdivisional
epithet must be retained, or
(if it has not been
retained) must be reinstated
unless one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
that the resulting
combination has been previously
and
validly published
for a different subdivision;
(2)
that there is available
an earlier and validly published subdivisional
epithet of the same rank;
(3) that the resulting combination falls under the provisions of Art. 32.
Example:
Saponaria sect.
Vaccaria DC., transferred to
Gypsophila, becomes
Gypsophila
sect.
Vaccaria (DC.) Godr.
————————
*)
Here and elsewhere in this Code the phrase
“subdivision of a genus” refers only
to taxa
between genus and species in rank.
36 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 24 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Transference | 65~66 |
When a species is transferred to another genus
(or placed under another
generic name for the same genus),
without change of rank, the specific epithet
must be retained
or (if it has not been retained) must be reinstated, unless
one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
that the resulting binary name
is a later homonym (Art.
74)
or a
tautonym [ Art.
79 (3) ];
(2) that there is available an earlier validly published specific epithet.
When, on transference to another genus,
the specific epithet has been
applied erroneously
in its new position to a different plant,
the new combination
must be retained for the plant
on which the epithet was originally based,
and
must be attributed to the author who first published it.
Examples:
Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl. 613. 1753)
when transferred to the genus
Linaria, must be called
Linaria spuria (L.) Mill.
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8. no. 15. 1768).
~
Chailletia hispida Oliv. (Fl. Trop. Afr.
1: 343. 1868)
when placed under the generic name
Dichapetalum (an older name for the same genus)
must be called
Dichapetalum hispidum
(Oliv.) Baill. (Hist. Pl.
5: 140. 1874).
~
Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798~1800)
when trans~
ferred to the genus
Cytisus by Spach in 1849, could not be called
Cytisus biflorus, because
this name
had been previously and validly published for
a different species by l’Héritier in
1789; the name
Cytisus
fontanesii
given by Spach is therefore legitimate.
~
Santolina sua~
veolens Pursh (1814) when transferred to the genus
Matricaria must be called
Matricaria
matricarioides (Less.) Porter (1894); the epithet
suaveolens cannot be used for this species
in the genus
Matricaria owing to the existence of
Matricaria suaveolens L. (Fl. Suec. ed.
2. 297. 1755),
an earlier validly published name.
~
The specific epithet of
Pinus
merten~
siana Bong.
was transferred to
Tsuga by Carrière, who, however,
erroneously applied
the new combination
Tsuga
mertensiana to another species of
Tsuga, namely
T. heterophylla
(Raf.) Sargent,
as is evident from his description: the combination
Tsuga
mertensiana
(Bong.) Carr.
must be retained for
Pinus
mertensiana Bong.
when that species is placed in
Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art.
59)
of the name of the original author,
Bongard, indicates the type of the epithet.
When an infraspecific taxon
is transferred, without change of rank, to
another genus
or species (or placed under another name), the original sub~
divisional epithet must be retained
or (if it has not been retained) must be
reinstated,
unless one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
that the resulting
ternary combination has been previously and validly
published for a subdivision based on a different type,
even if that subdivision
is of different rank;
(2) that there is an earlier validly published subdivisional epithet available.
When, on transference to another genus or species,
the epithet of a
subdivision of a species has
been applied erroneously in its new position
to
a different subdivision of the same rank,
the new combination must be retained
for the plant on which
the former combination was based, and must be
attributed to
the author who first published it.
Examples:
The variety
micranthum Gren.
& Godr. (Fl. France
1: 171. 1847) of
Helian~
themum italicum Pers.,
when transferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thib.,
retains its
varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var.
micranthum (Gren.
& Godr.) Grosser
(Pflan~
zenreich
14: 115. 1903).
~
The variety
subcarnosa Hook.
f. (Bot. Antarct. Voy.
1: 5. 1847)
of
Cardamine hirsuta L., when transferred as a variety to
C. glacialis DC., becomes
C.
glacialis var.
subcarnosa (Hook. f.) O. E. Schulz
(Bot. Jahrb.
32: 542. 1903); the existance
of an earlier synonym
of different rank
(C. propinqua Carm. Trans. Linn. Soc.
12: 507.
1818)
does not affect the nomenclature of the variety
(see Art.
70).
In each of these cases
it is the earliest
varietal epithet which is retained.
37 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 25 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
67~68 | Union of taxa |
Section 10. Choice of names when taxa of the same rank are united.
When two or more
taxa of the same rank
are united the oldest legitimate
name or
(for subdivisions of genera,
and for species
and their subdivisions)
the oldest legitimate epithet is retained, unless a later name or epithet
must be
accepted
under the provisions of
Art.
68. The author who
first unites taxa
bearing
names or epithets of the same
date has the right
to choose one of them,
and his choice
must be followed.
Examples:
K. Schumann (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pfl. fam.
3 (6): 5. 1890)
uniting
the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753),
Echinocarpus Blume (1825) and
Phoenicosperma Miq.
(1865~1866)
rightly adopted the oldest of these three generic names,
Sloanea L., for the
resulting genus.
~
If the two genera
Dentaria L. (Sp. Pl. 653. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295.
1754) and
Cardamine L. (Sp. Pl. 654. 1753;
Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295. 1754) are united, the
resulting genus must be called
Cardamine because the name was chosen
by Crantz (Class.
Crucif. 126. 1769),
who was the first to unite the two genera.
~
When H. Hallier (Bot.
Jahrb.
18: 123. 1893)
united three species of
Ipomoea, namely
I. verticillata Forsk. (1775).
I. rumicifolia Choisy (1834) and
I.
perrottetii Choisy (1845),
he rightly retained the name
I. verticillata Forsk. for the resulting species because
verticillata
is the oldest of the three
specific epithets.
~
Robert Brown (in Tuckey Narr. Exp. Congo App.
5. 484. 1818)
ap~
pears to have been the first to unite
Waltheria americana L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753) and
W. indica L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753). He adopted the name
Waltheria indica
for the combined
species, and this
name must
accordingly
be retained.
When a taxon of recent plants, algae excepted,
and a taxon, of the same
rank, of fossil or subfossil plants
are united, the correct name or epithet of
the former taxon
must be accepted, even if it is antedated
by that of the
latter.
Example:
If
Sequoia Endl. (1847), a genus of recent plants, and
Steinhauera Presl
(1838),
a genus of fossil plants, are united, the name
Sequoia must be accepted for the
combined genus,
although it is antedated by
Steinhauera.
Authors who have to choose between
two generic names should note the following
suggestions:
(1)
Of two names of the same date to prefer
that which was first accompanied
by the
description of a species.
(2)
Of two names of the same date,
both accompanied by descriptions of species, to prefer
that which,
when the author makes his choice, includes the larger number of species.
(3)
In cases of equality from
these various points of view to
select the more appropriate
name.
When several genera are united under one generic name,
under which they are treated
as
sections, the
section
including the type of the generic name
adopted should bear
that
name unaltered
if no earlier one is
available.
Examples: Anarrhinum sect. Anarrhinum; Hemigenia sect. Hemigenia.
Section 11. Choice of names of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle.
In
Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes with two or more
states in the
life
cycle
(except those which are lichen~fungi),
but not in Phycomycetes, the
38 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 26 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Change of rank | 70~72 |
first valid name or epithet applied to the
perfect
state takes precedence.
The
perfect state
is that which bears
asci
in the
Ascomycetes,
which consists of
the
spores giving rise to
basidia
in the
Uredinales and of the chlamydospores
in the
Ustilaginales, or
which bears
basidia
in the remaining
Basidiomycetes.
The type specimen of a state must bear that state.
However, the provisions
of this article
shall not be construed as preventing the use of names
of im~
perfect states in works referring to such states.
The author who first describes
a perfect state may adopt the specific epithet
of the corresponding imperfect
state, but his binomial for the perfect state
is to be attributed to him alone,
and is not to be regarded as a transfer.
When not already available, binomials
for imperfect states may be
proposed
at the time of publication of a perfect state or later,
and may contain
either the specific epithet
of the perfect state or any other epithet available.
Section 12. Choice of names when the rank of a taxon is changed.
When
the
rank
of a genus
or infrageneric
taxon is
changed, the correct
name or epithet
is the earliest legitimate
one available in
the new rank. In
no case does a name
or an epithet have priority
outside its own rank.
Examples:
The section
Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) of the genus
Camp~
anula was first raised
to generic rank by Schrader,
and as a genus must be called
Wahlenbergia Schrad.
(Cat. Hort. Goett. 1814), not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) O.
Ktze (Rev.
2: 378. 1891).
~
The var.
foetida L. (Sp. Pl. 536. 1753) of
Magnolia virginiana,
when
raised to specific rank, must be called
Magnolia grandiflora L.
(Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 1082.
1759), not
Magnolia foetida (L.) Sarg. (Gard.
& For.
2: 615. 1889).
~
Lythrum inter~
medium Ledeb.
(Ind. Hort. Dorpat 1822)
when treated as a variety of
Lythrum salicaria
L. must be called
L. salicaria var.
glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross.
2: 127. 1844), not
L. salicaria
var.
intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne
(Bot. Jahrb.
1: 327. 1881).
In all these cases the name
or epithet given to the
taxon
in its original rank is replaced by the first
correct
name or
epithet given to it in its new rank.
When a
taxon of a rank higher
than a genus
and not higher
than an
order
is changed in rank,
the stem
of the name
must be retained
and only
the termination altered
(~inae, ~eae, ~oideae, ~aceae,
~ineae, ~ales),
unless
the resulting name
is rejected
under Section 13.
1.
When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus,
or the inverse change occurs,
the original name
or epithet
should be retained unless it is rejected under
the rules.
2.
When a subdivision of a species becomes a species,
or the inverse change occurs,
the original epithet should be retained unless
the resulting combination is rejected under
the rules.
Section
13.
Rejection of names
and epithets.
A
legitimate name or epithet
must not be rejected merely because it is
inappropriate,
or disagreeable, or because another is preferable
or better
known, or because it has lost
its original meaning.
39 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 27 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
73~74 | Rejection |
Examples:
This rule was broken by the change of
Staphylea to
Staphylis, Tamus to
Thamnos, Thamnus or
Tamnus, Mentha to
Minthe, Tillaea to
Tillia, Vincetoxicum to
Alexitoxicum; and by the change of
Orobanche rapum to
O. sarothamnophyta, O.
colum~
bariae to
O. columbarihaerens, O.
artemisiae to
O. artemisiepiphyta.
All these modifications
must be rejected.
~
Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825)
must not be changed to
A. penta~
gona A. DC. (1834)
although the specific epithet
quinquegona is a hybrid word (Latin and
Greek).
A name must be rejected if it is illegitimate (see Art. 2, 10).
The publication of an epithet
in an illegitimate combination must not be
taken
into consideration for purposes of priority
(see Art. 53) except
in the
rejection
of a later homonym (Art.
74).
A specific epithet is not illegitimate merely
because it was originally
published
under an illegitimate generic name, but must be taken
into consider~
ation for purposes of priority if the epithet and
the corresponding combination
are in other respects
in accordance with the rules. In the same way
an infra~
specific epithet may be legitimate even
if originally published under an
illegitimate name
of an infrageneric taxon.
A name is illegitimate in the following cases:
(1)
If it was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published, i.e. if the
taxon
to which it
was applied, as circumscribed by its author,
included the type
of a name or epithet
which ought to have been adopted under one or more
of the
rules.
Examples:
The generic name
Cainito Adans. (Fam.
2: 166. 1763) is illegitimate
be~
cause it was a superfluous name for
Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl. 192. 1753);
the two genera
had precisely the same circumscription.
~
The genus
Unisema Raf. (Med. Repos.
5: 192.
1819)
was so circumscribed as to include
Pontederia cordata L., the type of
Pontederia L.
(1753). Under Art.
61 the name
Pontederia L. ought to have been adopted
for the genus
concerned.
Unisema was therefore nomenclaturally superfluous.
~
Chrysophyllum sericeum
Salisb. (Prodr. 138. 1796) is illegitimate,
being a superfluous name for
C.
cainito L. (1753)
which Salisbury cited as a synonym.
~
On the other hand,
Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill. (Gard. Dict. ed. 8. nos. 3, 4. 1768)
are not illegitimate names,
al~
though these species are now reunited with
C.
behen L. (1753),
from which Miller separated
them:
C. latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill. as circumscribed by Miller
did not in~
clude the type of
C.
behen L.
(2)
If it is a binary or ternary name
published in contravention of Art.
16,
61,
63,
65
or
70,
i.e. if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate
epithet
available for the
taxon
with its particular circumscription, position and rank.
(3) If it is a later homonym (see Art. 74).
(4) If it is a generic name which must be rejected under Art. 78.
(5)
If it is a name of a type subgenus with a subgeneric
epithet which is
not the same as the generic name
(see Art.
32).
(6) If it is a specific name whose epithet must be rejected under Art. 79.
(7) If it is an infraspecific name contravening Art. 79 or 80.
A name of a taxon is illegitimate
and must be rejected if it is a later
homonym,
that is if it duplicates a name previously
and validly published for
a
taxon
of the same rank based on a different type.
Even if the earlier
homonym is illegitimate,
or is generally treated as a synonym on taxonomic
grounds,
the later homonym must be rejected.
40 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 28 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 75~77 |
When the same new name is simultaneously published
for more than one
taxon, the first author
who adopts one of them, rejecting the other,
or sub~
stitutes another name for one of them,
must be followed.
For purposes of homonymy,
validly published names in all taxa must
be considered.
Examples:
The generic name
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848),
given to a genus
of
Labiatae, is a later homonym of
Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837),
a name previously and
validly published for a genus of
Amaryllidaceae;
Tapeinanthus Boiss ex Benth.
must there~
fore be rejected as was done by Th. Durand
(Ind. Gen. Phan. 703. 1888) who renamed it
Thuspeinanta.
~
The generic name
Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym
of the validly published generic name
Amblyanthera Blume (1849)
and must therefore be
rejected, although
Amblyanthera Blume is now reduced to
Osbeckia L. (1753).
~
Astra~
galus rhizanthus Boiss.
(Diagn. Pl. Orient.
2: 83. 1843)
is a later homonym of the validly
published name
Astragalus rhizanthus Royle
(Ill. Bot. Himal. 200. 1835)
and it must there~
fore be rejected,
as was done by Boissier who renamed it
A. cariensis (Diagn.
Pl. Orient.
II.
10: 57. 1849).
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. 1753) published
Aira 1
spicata on p. 63 and
Aira 7
spicata on p. 64,
but in
“errata” (vol.
2, after
“Nomina
trivialia” and
“Addenda” line 9 from base)
sub~
stituted
indica for
spicata of species 1 on p. 63; the name
Aira spicata L. is therefore
legi~
timate
for species 7 on p. 64.
Note.
Mere orthographic variants of the same name
are treated as homonyms
when
they are based on different types
(see Art.
82).
A name of a taxon must be rejected if it is used with different meanings,
and so becomes a
long~persistent source of error.
Examples:
The name
Rosa villosa L.
(Sp. Pl. 491. 1753)
is rejected, because it has
been applied
to several different species, and has
become a source of confusion.
Lavandula
spica L.
(Sp. Pl.
572. 1753)
included the two species subsequently known as
L. officinalis
Chaix and
L. latifolia Vill. The name
Lavandula spica
has been applied almost equally
to these two species,
and, being now completely ambiguous, must be rejected
(see Kew
Bull.
1932: 295).
A name of a taxon must be rejected if
its characters were derived from
two or more entirely discordant elements,
unless it is possible
to select one
of these elements
as a satisfactory type.
For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens
shall be considered
as applying to their fungal components,
but shall be subject to the provisions
of Art.
23 (d).
Examples:
The characters of the genus
Schrebera L. (Sp. Pl. ed 2. 1662, 1763; Gen.
Pl. ed. 6. 124. 1764)
were derived from the genera
Cuscuta and
Myrica (parasite and
host) (see Retz. Obs.
6: 15. 1791)
~
The characters of the genus
Actinotinus Oliv. (Hook.
Ic. Pl.
pl. 1740. 1888)
were derived from the two genera
Viburnum and
Aesculus, owing
to the insertion of the infloresence of a
Viburnum in the terminal bud of an
Aesculus by
a native collector. The names
Schrebera and
Actinotinus must therefore be abandoned.
The name of the genus
Pouteria Aubl. (Pl. Gui. 85. 1775) is based on
a mixture of
a species of
Sloanea (Elaeocarpaceae)
and a sapotaceous species (flowers and leaves);
both elements ean be easily separated,
as has been done by Martius,
and Radlkofer was
right in proposing
(Sitzber. Math.~Phys. Cl. Bayer. Akad. München
12: 299. 1882) to
retain the name
Pouteria as correct for the part of the type belonging to the
Sapotaceae.
A name or epithet
of a taxon
must be rejected
when it is
based on a
monstrosity.
Examples: The generic name Uropedium Lindl. (Orch. Linden 28. 1846) was based
41 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 29 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
78~79 | Illegitimate generic names |
on a monstrosity which is now referred to
Phragmopedilum caudatum Rolfe
(Orchid Rev.
4: 330. 1896);
it must therefore be rejected.
~
The name
Ornithogalum fragiferum Vill.
(Hist. Pl. Dauph.
2: 269. 1787)
was based on a monstrosity,
and must therefore be rejected.
On transference to the genus
Gagea the specific epithet
fragiferum must also be rejected:
the oldest name for the normal plant being
Ornithogalum fistulosum Ram. ex DC. (1805),
the species must be called
Gagea fistulosa (Ram. ex DC.) Ker~Gawl.
Names of genera are illegitimate in the
following special cases and must
be rejected:
(1) When they are merely words not intended as names.
(2)
When they coincide with technical terms currently used in morphology,
unless they were accompanied, when originally published,
by specific names
in accordance with the binary method of Linnaeus.
On and after
1 Jan. 1912,
all new generic names coinciding with such technical terms
are unconditionally
rejected.
(3) When they are unitary designations of species.
(4)
When they consist of two words, unless these words
were from the
first combined into one,
or joined by a hyphen.
Examples:
(1)
Anonymos Walt.
(Fl. Carol. 2, 4, 9, etc. 1788) must be rejected as
being a word applied to 28 different genera
by Walter to indicate that they were without
names.
(2)
The generic name
Radicula Hill (Brit. Herb. 264. 1756)
coincides with the technical
term
radicula (radicle) and, when originally published,
was not accompanied by specific
names
in accordance with the Linnean method.
These were not added until 1794 (by
Moench),
after the publication of the generic name
Rorippa Scop. (1760).
Radicula Hill
must therefore be rejected in favour of
Rorippa.
~
Tuber Micheli ex Fr. (Syst. Myc.
2:
289. 1823)
was accompanied by binary specific names, e.g.
Tuber cibarium, and is therefore
admissible.
~
Names such as
Radix, Caulis, Folium, Spina, etc.
cannot now be validly
published as new generic names.
(3)
F.
Ehrhart (Phytophylacium 1780, and Beitr.
4: 145~150. 1789) proposed unitary
names for various species
known at that time
under binary names, e.g.
Phaecocephalum
for
Schoenus fuscus, and
Leptostachys for
Carex leptostachys. These names, which resemble
generic names, should not be confused with them, and must
be rejected, unless they have
been published as generic
names by a subsequent author: for example the name
Baeothryon,
employed as a unitary name
of a species by Ehrhart, was subsequently published
as a
generic name by A. Dietrich (Sp. Pl.
2: 89. 1833).
(4)
The generic name
Uva ursi Mill. (Abridg. Gard. Dict. ed. 4. 1754)
as originally
published consisted of two separate words
unconnected by a hyphen, and must therefore
be rejected.
On the other hand, names such as
Quisqualis (composed of two words com~
bined
into one when originally published),
Sebastiano~Schalleria and
Neves~Armondia (both
hyphened
when originally published) are admissible.
Specific
and infraspecific epithets
are illegitimate in the following special
cases
and must be rejected:
(1) When they are merely words not intended as names.
(2) When they are merely ordinal adjectives being used for enumeration.
(3)
When they exactly repeat the generic name
with or without the
addition of a transcribed symbol
(tautonym).
(4)
When they were published in works
in which the Linnean system of
binary nomenclature
for species was not consistently employed.
Examples:
(1)
Viola “qualis” Krocker (Fl. Siles.
2: 512, 517. 1790);
Atriplex “nova”
Winterl.
(Ind. Hort. Bot. Univ. Pest. fol. A. 8, recto et verso. 1788), the word
“nova”
being here used in connection
with four different species of
Atriplex.
42 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 30 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 80~82 |
(2) Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.
(3) Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium~aquaticum.
(4)
The name
Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herb. 49. 1756)
is a descriptive phrase reduced
to two words,
not a binary name in accordance with the Linnean method,
and must be
rejected:
Hill’s other species was Abutilon flore flavo.
Linnaeus is regarded
as having used binary nomenclature for species consistently
from
1753 onwards, although there are exceptions, e.g.
Apocynum fol. androsaemi
L. (Sp. Pl. 213.
1753) (see Art.
33).
Infraspecific
epithets such as
typicus, originalis,
originarius, genuinus,
verus, and
veridicus, purporting
to indicate
the subdivision
containing the
nomenclatural
type
of the next higher taxon,
are illegitimate.
In cases foreseen in Art.
73~80
the name or epithet to be rejected is
replaced by the oldest legitimate name,
or (in a combination)
by the oldest
available legitimate epithet.
If none exists, a new name or epithet must be
chosen.
When a new epithet is required, an author may,
if he wishes, adopt
an epithet previously given to the
taxon in an illegitimate
combination, if
there is no obstacle to its employment
in the new position or sense; the
epithet
in the resultant combination
is treated as new.
Examples:
Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genus
Radiola, must not
be called
Radiola
radiola (L.) Karst.,
as that combination is
to be rejected under Art.
79
(3);
the next oldest specific epithet is
multiflorum, but the name
Linum multiflorum Lam.
(1778), is illegitimate,
since it was a superfluous name for
Linum
radiola L.: under
Radiola
the species must be called
R. linoides Roth (1788), since
linoides is the
oldest legitimate
epithet available.
The
name
Talinum polyandrum Hook.
(Bot. Mag.
pl.
4833. 1855)
is illegitimate, being
a later homonym of
T. polyandrum Ruiz
& Pav. (Syst. Fl. Per.
1: 115. 1798):
when Bentham
transferred
T. polyandrum Hook. to
Calandrinia, he called it
Calandrinia polyandra (Fl.
Austr.
1: 172. 1863).
The epithet
polyandra in this
combination is treated
as new, dating
from
1863.
Sturtia gossypioides R. Br. (1853)
when transferred to the genus
Gossypium cannot
be called
Gossypium gossypioides (R. Br.)
as Gardner called it (1931) because of an earlier
Gossypium gossypioides Standley (1923)
based on another type. Both names
Gossypium
sturtii F. Muell. (1862) and
G. australiense Tod. (1863) based on
Sturtia gossypioides R.
Br. are illegitimate,
since at that time the combination
Gossypium gossypioides ought to have
been adopted
for the taxon concerned.
Now, unless we can decide whether J. H. Willis
published
Gossypium sturtianum (Vict. Nat.
64: 9. 1947)
before Hutchinson, Silow & Stephens
published
Gossypium sturtii (Evol. Gossyp. 1947) or vice versa,
the next author who
adopts one of them shall be followed;
Hutchinson, Silow & Stephens
had the right to revive
the epithet
sturtii,
considered as a new epithet and dating from 1947.
Section 14. Orthography of names and epithets.
The original spelling of a name or epithet
must be retained, except
typo~
graphic
or orthographic errors.
When two
or more generic names
are so
————————–
*)
The action taken at Stockholm in adopting
and referring to the Editorial Com~
mittee
the conflicting proposals 6 and 8
(Synopsis Stockholm 198~200. 1950)
was of an
inconsistent nature.
The Editorial Committee decided to present
the following reading (see
also Rec.
82I
which embodies part of prop. 6);
the responsibility for this solution lies wholly
with this Committee.
43 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 31 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
82 | Orthography |
similar, and the plants
so closely related,
as to cause
confusion *),
they are
to be
treated as variants
of the same name.
Note 1.
The words “original spelling” in this article mean
the spelling employed
when the name was validly published.
They do not refer to the use of an initial capital or
small letter, this being a matter of typography, dealt with by Art.
30 and
31
for names of
genera and epithets of subgenera, etc.,
and by Rec.
82G
for specific and
infraspecific
epithets.
Note 2.
The use of a wrong connecting vowel or vowels
(or the omission of a con~
necting vowel) in
a name or an
epithet is treated as an
orthographic error
(see Rec.
82H).
Note 3.
The liberty of correcting a name
must be used with reserve,
especially if the
change affects the first syllable,
and above all the first letter of the name.
Note 4.
When changes made in orthography by earlier authors
who adopt personal
names in nomenclature
are intentional latinizations they must be preserved.
Examples of
retention of original spelling:
The generic names
Mesembryanthemum L.
(1753) and
Amarantus L. (1753)
were deliberately so spelt by Linnaeus and the spelling
must not be altered to
Mesembrianthemum and
Amaranthus
respectively, although these
latter forms
are philologically preferable.
~
Valantia L. (1753) and
Clutia L. (1753), com~
memorating
Vaillant and Cluyt respectively, must not be altered to
Vaillantia and
Cluytia**):
Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists
deliberately as “Valantius” and “Clutius”.
~
Phoradendron Nutt. must not be altered to
Phoradendrum.
~
Triaspis mozambica Adr.
Juss.
must not be altered to
T. mossambica, as in Engler, Pflanzenw. Ostafrika
C: 232 (1895)
~
Alyxia ceylanica Wight
must not be altered to
A. zeylanica, as in Trimen, Handb. Fl.
Ceyl.
3: 127 (1895).
~
Fagus sylvatica L. must not be altered to
F. silvatica. The correct
classical spelling
silvatica is recommended
for adoption in the case of a new name
(Rec.
82F),
but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica deliberately adopted by Linnaeus
must not be
altered.
~
The spelling of the generic name
Lespedeza must not be altered,
although it
commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes
(see Rhodora
36: 130~132, 390~392. 1934).
Examples of
typographic errors:
Globba brachycarpa Baker
(in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind.
6: 205. 1890) and
Hetaeria alba Ridley (Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot.
32: 404. 1896),
being typo~
graphic errors for
G. trachycarpa and
H. alta respectively, should be cited as
Globba trachy~
carpa Baker and
Hetaeria alba Ridley (see Jour. of Bot.
59: 349. 1921).
~
Thevetia nerei~
folia Adr. Juss. ex Steud.
is an obvious typographic error for
T. neriifolia.
~
Rosa
pissarti
Carr. (Rev. Hort.
1880: 314)
is a typographic error for
R.
pissardi (see Rev. Hort.
1881:
190).
Examples of
orthographic errors:
Hexagona Fr. (Epicr. 496. 1836~38) was an ortho~
Examples of
different names:
Rubia and
Rubus, Monochaete and
Monochaetum, Pe~
Examples of
different specific epithets:
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz~Bip. (vide
————————–
*)
When it is
doubtful
whether
names
are sufficiently alike to
be confused, they
**)
In some cases an altered spelling
of a generic name is conserved; e.g.
Bougainvillea
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 —
Stockholm Code – 32 – text: © 1952, IAPT —
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
graphic error for
Hexagonia: Fries had previously (Syst. Myc.
1: 344. 1821) cited
Hexa~
gonia Poll. erroneously as
“Hexagona Poll.”
~
Gluta benghas L. (Mant. 293. 1771)
being an orthographic error for
G. renghas, should be cited as
G. renghas L., as has been
done by Engler (in
C. & A. DC. Monogr.
4: 224. 1883):
the vernacular name used as a specific
epithet
by Linnaeus is “Renghas”, not “Benghas”.
~
Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC. (Mém.
Mus. Paris
17: 76. 1828) should be cited as
P. opuntiiflora DC. (cf. Rec.
82H).
~
Cacalia napeaefolia DC. (in DC. Prodr.
6: 328. 1837) and
Senecio napeaefolius
(DC.) Schultz~Bip. (Flora
28: 498. 1845)
should be cited as
Cacalia napaeifolia DC. and
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz~Bip, respectively:
the specific epithet refers to the resem~
blance
of the leaves to those of the genus
Napaea (not
Napea), and the
reduced stem~ending
“i” should have been used in stead of
“ae”.
~
Dioscorea lecardi De Wild.
may be corrected to
D.
lecardii, and
Berberis wilsonae Hemsl. & Wils.
may be corrected to
B. wilsoniae:
the genitive
forms derived from Lecard (m)
and Wilson (f) prescribed
by Rec. 82C (b) and 82D are
lecardii and
wilsoniae respectively.
ponia and
Peponium, Iria and
Iris, Desmostachys and
Desmastachya, Symphyastemon and
Symphostemon, Gerrardina and
Gerardiina, Durvillea and
Urvillea, Elodes and
Elodea, Pel~
tophorus
(Poaceae) and
Peltophorum (Fabaceae).
supra) and
S. napifolius Macowan are different names; the epithets
napaeifolius and
napi~
folius being derived respectively from
Napaea and
Napus.
~
Lysimachia
hemsleyana and
Lysimachia
hemsleyi.
should be referred
to the General
Committee
of Botanical Nomenclature.
see list of nomina conservanda
no. 2350).
44
Orthography | 82 |
Examples of
orthographic variants.
~
Generic names:
Astrostemma and
Asterostem~
ma, Pleuripetalum and
Pleuropetalum, Columella and
Columellia, both commemorating Colu~
mella,
the Roman writer on agriculture,
Eschweilera and
Eschweileria, Skytanthus and
Scytanthus. The four generic names
Bradlea Adans.,
Bradlaeia Neck.,
Bradleja Banks ex
Gaertn.,
Braddleya Vell.,
all commemorating Richard Bradley (1675~1732),
must be treated
as orthographic variants
because one only can be used
without serious risk of confusion.
Specific epithets:
chinensis and
sinensis; ceylanica and
zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis,
and
nipalensis; polyanthemos and
polyanthemus; macrostachys and
macrostachyus; heteropus and
heteropodus; poikilantha and
poikilanthes; pteroides and
pteroideus; trinervis and
trinervius.
When a new name is derived from a Greek word
containing the
spiritus asper
(rough
breathing),
this should be transcribed as the letter h.
When a new name for a genus, subgenus or section
is taken from the name of a
person,
it should be formed in the following manner.
(a)
When the name of the person ends in a vowel the letter
a is added (thus
Bouteloua after Boutelou;
Ottoa after Otto;
Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name
ends in
a, when
ea is added (e.g.
Collaea after Colla).
(b)
When the name of the person ends
in a consonant, the letters
ia are added,
except when the name ends in
er, when
a is added (e.g.
Kernera after Kerner).
In latinized
names ending in
~us, this termination
is dropped before adding the suffix
(Dillenia).
(c) The syllables which are not modified by these endings retain their original spel~
ling, even with the consonants k and w or with groupings of vowels which were not used
in classical Latin.
Letters foreign to botanical Latin should be transcribed, and
diacritic
signs suppressed. The German
ä, ö, ü become
ae, oe, ue; the French
é, è and
ê become
generally
e,
or sometimes
ae when necessary
in order to retain
the accent in its original
position.
In works in which diphthongs
are not represented by special type,
the diaeresis
sign should be used where required, e.g.
Cephaëlis, not
Cephaelis.
(d)
Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix,
or modified by anagram or
abbreviation.
In these cases they count as different words from
the original name.
Examples:
Durvillea and
Urvillea; Lapeyrousea and
Peyrousea; Englera, Englerastrum
and
Englerella; Bouchea and
Ubochea; Gerardia and
Graderia; Martia and
Martiusia.
When a new specific or
subspecific epithet
is taken from the name of a man it should
be formed
in the following manner.
(a)
When the name of the person ends in a vowel, the letter
i is added (thus
glazioui from Glaziou,
bureaui from Bureau), except when the name ends in
a, when
e is
added (thus
balansae from Balansa).
(b)
When the name ends in a consonant, the letters
ii are added
(ramondii
from
Ramond), except when the name ends in
~er, when
i is added (thus
kerneri from Kerner).
Those who follow this Recommendation may
treat the termination
~i as an orthographic er~
ror and correct it.
(c)
The syllables which are not modified
by these endings retain their original spel~
ling,
even with the consonants
k or
w or with groupings of vowels
which were not used in
classical Latin.
Letters foreign to botanical Latin
should be transcribed and
diacritic signs
suppressed.
The German
ä, ö, ü become
ae, oe, ue, the French
é, è, ê become generally
e.
The
diaeresis sign should be used where required.
(d)
When epithets taken from the name of a man
have an adjectival form
they are
formed in a similar way (e.g.
Geranium
robertianum, Verbena
hasslerana).
If the personal name is already Latin or Greek,
the appropriate Latin genitive should
be used, e.g.
alexandri from Alexander,
francisci from Franciscus,
augusti from Augustus,
linnaei from Linnaeus.
The same provisions apply to epithets formed
from the names of women. When these
have a
substantival form they are given a feminine termination (e.g.
Cypripedium
hoo~
kerae, Rosa
beatricis, Scabiosa
olgae, Omphalodes
luciliae).
45 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 33 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
82 | Orthographic variants |
Epithets taken from geographical names are preferably
adjectives and usually take the
terminations
~ensis, ~(a)nus, or
~icus.
Examples:
Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec),
Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia),
Polygonum pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania.).
New specific (or other) epithets
should be written in conformity with the original
spelling
of the words from which they are derived and in accordance
with the accepted
usage of Latin and latinization.
Examples: silvestris (not sylvestris), sinensis (not chinensis).
All
specific
and infraspecific epithets
should be written with a small initial letter,
though authors desiring to use
capital initial letters may do so
when the
epithets are
directly
derived from
the names of persons
(whether actual or
mythical), or are vernacular
(or
barbaric) names,
or are former generic names.
Compound names or
epithets combining
elements derived from
two or more
Greek
or
Latin words
should be formed as far as practicable
in accordance with classical usage.
This
may be roughly stated as follows:
(a)
In a true compound
(as distinct from pseudocompounds such as
Myos~otis, nidus~
avis)
a noun or adjective in a non~final position
appears as a bare stem without case~ending.
(b)
Before
a vowel
the final vowel of this stem,
if any, is normally elided
(Chrys~
anthemum, mult~angelus),
with the exception of
Greek
y and
i (Poly~anthus, Meli~osma).
(c)
Before a consonant the final vowel
is normally preserved in Greek
(mono~carpus,
Poly~gonum,
Coryne~phorus, Meli~lotus), except that
a is commonly replaced by
o (Hemero~
callis from
hemera); in Latin the final vowel is reduced to
i
(multi~color,
menthi~folius,
salvii~folius).
(d)
If the stem ends in a consonant,
a connecting vowel,
Greek
o,
Latin
i,
is inserted
before a following consonant
(Odont~o~glossum, cruc~i~formis).
Some irregular forms, however,
have been extensively used through false analogy
(multi~angulus; atro~purpureus,
on the analogy of pseudo~compounds such as
fusco~venatus
in which
o is the ablative case~ending).
Others are used as revealing
etymological distinctions
(caricae~formis from
Carica, as distinct from
carici~formis
from
Carex).
Where such irre~
gularities occur in the original spelling
of existing compounds, this spelling
should normally
be retained.
Note.
The hyphens in the above examples
are given solely for explanatory reasons.
They should all be eliminated
in botanical names and epithets except in
nidus~avis, terrae~
novae and
similar Latin pseudo~compounds.
Names or epithets
differing only
in the following respects can often be treated as
orthographic variants:
1)
ae, oe and e;
ei, i, j and y;
c and k;
c and z;
oe, ö and o; ae,
ä and a;
ue,
ü and u.
2) Presence or absence of an h before a vowel or after a consonant (aspiration).
3) Presence or absence of a c before a t.
4) Single or double writing of a consonant.
5)
Different transcription of a non~Latin or
non~Greek word, especially of the same
personal name.
This does not apply to prefixes or suffixes or
to translations into other
languages.
Epithets may also be
orthographic
variants if they have
the same meaning and
differ
but
slightly in form,
especially if they differ in the ending only.
This does not apply to
the genitive and
adjectival forms
of a personal name
or to a difference in the second part
of a compound word.
————————–
*)
The Editorial Committee
invited Mr. R. E. Latham to suggest a suitable text
which
would be in conformity with classical usage.
The present text is the one presented
by him
with only one or two minor
verbal modifications.
The Editorial Committee is greatly indebted
to Mr. Latham for his new text and
wishes to express
its sincere appreciation for his extremely valuable suggestions.
46 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 34 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Gender | 83 |
When the spelling of a generic name differs in Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum
ed. 1, and
Genera Plantarum ed. 5,
the correct spelling is determined
by the
following regulations:
(1)
If Linnaeus subsequently to 1753~54 consistently adopted
one of the
spellings, that spelling is accepted, e.g.
Thuja (not
Thuya).
(2)
If Linnaeus did not do so, then the spelling
which is more correct
philologically is accepted, e.g.
Agrostemma (not
Agrostema).
(3)
If the two spellings are equally correct philologically,
and there is a
great preponderance of usage
in favour of one of them, that one is accepted,
e.g.
Rhododendron (not
Rhododendrum).
(4)
If the two spellings are equally correct philologically,
and there is not
a great preponderance of usage
in favour of one of them, then the spelling
that is in accordance or more nearly in accordance
with the Recommendations
is accepted, e.g.
Ludwigia (not
Ludvigia),
Ortegia (not
Ortega).
Section 15. Gender of generic names.
The gender of generic names should be determined as follows:
(1)
A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name
should retain its classical
gender.
When the classical gender varies
the author should choose one of the alternative
genders.
In doubtful cases general usage should be followed.
The following names,
how~
ever, whose classical gender is masculine,
should be treated as feminine
in accordance with
historic usage:
Adonis, Orchis, Stachys, Diospyros, Strychnos;
Hemerocallis
(m. in Sp. Pl.;
Lat. and Gr.
hemerocalles, n.) should also be treated
as feminine in order to bring it into
conformity
with all other generic names ending in
~is.
(2)
Generic names which are modern compounds
formed from two or more Greek
or Latin words
should take the gender of the last.
If the ending is altered, however,
the
gender should follow it.
Examples of names formed from Greek
*)
words:
The generic name
Andropogon L.
was treated by Linnaeus as neuter,
but it, like other modern compounds
in which the Greek
masculine word
pogon is the final element (e.g.
Centropogon, Cymbopogon, Bystropogon)
should be treated as masculine.
Similarly all modern compounds ending in
~codon, ~myces,
~odon, ~panax, ~stemon
and other masculine words should be masculine.
The generic names
Dendromecon Benth.,
Eomecon Hance and
Hesperomecon E. L. Greene
should be treated
as feminine,
because they end in the Greek feminine word
mecon, poppy:
the fact that
Bentham and E. L. Greene
respectively ascribed the neuter gender to the names
Dendro~
mecon and
Hesperomecon is immaterial.
Similarly
all modern compounds ending in
~achne, ~carpha, ~cephala, ~chlamys,
~daphne,
and other femine words should be feminine.
The generic names
Aceras R. Br.,
Aegiceras Gaertn. and
Xanthoceras Bunge should be treated as neuter
because they end
in the Greek neuter word
ceras; the fact that Robert Brown and Bunge
respectively made
Aceras and
Xanthoceras feminine is immaterial.
Similarly
all modern compounds ending in
~dendron, ~nema, ~stigma, ~stoma,
and other
neuter words should be neuter.
Names ending in
~anthos (or
~anthus), and those in
~chilos
(or
~chilus) ought strictly speaking to be neuter,
since that is the gender of the Greek
words
anthos and
cheilos.
These names, however, have been with very few exceptions
treated as masculine, hence it is recommended to assign
that gender to them. Similarly
those ending in
~gaster, which should strictly speaking be feminine,
are recommended to be
treated as masculine in accordance
with botanical custom.
Examples of
compound generic names where the termination
of the last word is
altered:
Hymenocarpus, Dipterocarpus
and all other modern compounds
ending in the Greek
masculine
carpos (or
carpus) should be masculine. Those in
~carpa or
~carpaea, however,
should be feminine, e.g.
Callicarpa and
Polycarpaea; and those in
~carpon,
~carpum or
~carpium should be neuter, e.g.
Polycarpon, Ormocarpum and
Pisocarpium.
————————–
*)
Examples of names formed from Latin words
are not given as these offer few
difficulties.
47 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 35 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
83 | Gender |
(3)
Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names
used as generic names
should take the gender
assigned to them by their authors.
Where the original author has
failed to indicate the gender,
the next subsequent author may choose a gender,
and his
choice should be accepted.
Examples:
Taonabo Aubl. (Pl. Gui. 569. 1775)
should be feminine: Aublet’s two
species were
T. dentata and
T. punctata.
~
Agati Adans. (Fam.
2: 326. 1763)
was
published without indication of gender: the feminine
gender was assigned to it by Desvaux
(Jour. de Bot.
1: 120. 1813),
who was the first subsequent author to adopt the name,
and his choise should be accepted.
Boehmer (in Ludwig, Gen. ed. 3. 436. 1760), and Adan~
son (Fam.
2: 356. 1763),
failed to indicate the gender of
Manihot: the first author
to supply
specific epithets
was Crantz (Inst. Rei Herb.
1: 167. 1766)
who proposed the names
Manihot gossypiifolia, etc., and
Manihot should therefore
be treated as feminine.
Section
16.
Various
recommendations.
When writing in modern languages botanists should use
Latin scientific names or
those immediately derived from them,
in preference to names of another kind or origin
(popular names).
They should avoid the use of the latter unless these are very clear
and
in common use.
Every friend of science should oppose the introduction
into a modern language of
names of plants which are not
already there, unless they are derived from Latin botanical
names by means of some slight alteration.
Only the metric system should be used in botany
for reckoning weights and measures.
The foot, inch, line,
pound, ounce, etc. should be rigorously excluded from scientific
language. Altitude, depth, rapidity, etc. should be measured
in metres. Fathoms, knots,
miles, etc. are terms
which should disappear from scientific language.
Very minute dimensions should be reckoned in
μ (micromillimetres, microns, or
thousandths
of a millimetre) and not in fractions of millimetres or of lines,
etc.; fractions
encumbered with ciphers and commas
easily give rise to mistakes.
Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.
Temperatures should be expressed in degrees of the centigrade thermometer of Celsius.
48 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 36 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Determination of types
The following is intended
as a guide to the determination or selection
of
the nomenclatural types
of previously published taxa.
Where the application of a rule is concerned,
reference is made to the
appropriate Article.
1.
The choice of the original author,
if definitely expressed at the time of
the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final.
If he included
only one element,
that one must always be accepted as the
holotype (See
Art.
18,
20).
If a new name is based on a previously published description
of the taxon, the same considerations apply to material cited
by the earlier
author.
2.
When a new name or epithet was published as an avowed substitute
(nomen novum) for an older one which is not available,
the type of the new
name is automatically
that of the old one.
3.
A
lectotype may be chosen only when
an author failed to designate a
holotype,
or when, for species or taxa of lower rank,
the type has been lost
or destroyed (Art. 18
note 3).
4.
Designation of a
lectotype should be undertaken only in
the light of an
understanding of the group concerned.
Mechanical systems such as the auto~
matic selection
of the first species or specimen cited or of a specimen collected
by the person after whom a species is named should be avoided
as unscientific
and productive of possible future confusion
and further change. The original
description of
the taxon concerned should be the basic guide (Art.
19).
a.
In choosing a
lectotype any indication of intent
by the author of a name
should be given preference
unless it is contrary to his description and remarks.
Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on
herbarium sheets,
recognizable figures and epithets such as
typicus, genuinus, vulgaris, communis,
etc.
b.
A
lectotype must be chosen from among elements
that were definitely
studied by the author up to the time
the taxon was published and included in
it
when it was published (Art. 18
note 3).
c.
Other things being equal, a specimen should be given
preference over
pre~Linnean or other cited descriptions
or illustrations when
lectotypes of
species are designated.
d.
In cases when two or more elements
were included in or cited with the
original description
the reviewer should use his own judgment in selection
of a
lectotype, but if another author has already
segregated one or two ele~
ments as other taxa,
the residue or part of it should be designated as the type
if its essential characters correspond with
the original description. If it can
be shown that
the element best fitting the whole published original account
has been removed, it must be restored and treated as
lectotype (Art.
19).
Whenever the type material of a taxon is heterogeneous the
lectotype should
be selected so as to preserve
current usage unless another element agrees
better
with the original description and (or) figure.
49 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 37 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
e.
The first choice of a
lectotype should be followed
by subsequent workers
unless it can be shown that
the choice does not fit the original description as
well
as another of the original elements
(specimens, species, higher taxa, etc.)
(Art.
19).
5.
In selecting a
neotype even more care and
critical knowledge are essential,
as the reviewer
has usually no guide except his own judgment
to what best
fits the original description.
If his selection proves to be faulty it will inevitably
result
in further change. The
neotype may be selected only when
all original
material is believed lost or destroyed
(Art. 18
note 3).
6.
For the name of a fossil species the
lectotype, where one is needed, should,
if possible, be a specimen illustrated at
the time of the first valid publication.
7.
The nomenclatural typification of organ genera,
form genera, of genera
based on plant microfossils
(pollen, spores, etc.), genera of imperfect fungi,
or any other analogous genera, or lower taxa,
does not differ from that
indicated above.
50 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 38 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Names of Hybrids and some special Categories
Hybrids or
putative hybrids between
two species of the same genus
are
designated by a formula and,
whenever it seems useful or necessary,
by a name.
The formula consists of the
specific epithets of the two parents
in alpha~
betical order connected by the
multiplication sign.
When the hybrid is of
known experimental origin,
the formula may be made more precise by
the
addition of the sign ♀
to the epithet of
the parent
producing the female
gamete and
♂
to the epithet of
the parent
producing the male gamete.
The name, which is subject to the same rules as names
of species, is
distinguished from the latter by the
multiplication~sign × before the
(“specific”)
epithet.
Where binary “specific” names of Latin form are used
for hybrids, all
offspring of crosses between individuals
of the same parent species receive the
same binary name.
Examples:
Salix ×
capreola
(= Salix aurita ×
S. caprea);
Digitalis lutea ♀ ×
D.
purpurea
♂.
Note 1.
When polymorphic parental species are involved and
if infraspecific taxa are
recognized in them,
greater precision may be achieved by the use of formulae
than by
giving the hybrids “specific” names.
Note 2.
Designations consisting of the specific epithets of
the parents combined in
unaltered form by a hyphen or
with the ending of only one epithet changed or
consisting
of the specific epithet of one parent
combined with the generic name of the other
with or
without change of ending are considered
as formulae and not as true epithets.
Examples:
The designation
Potentilla atrosanguinea~formosa
published by Maund is
considered as a formula meaning
Potentilla atrosanguinea ×
P. formosa. The designation
Potentilla tormentillo~formosa
published by Maund is considered as a formula
Potentilla
formosa ×
Potentilla reptans. Similarly
Verbascum nigro~lychnitis Schiede, Pl. Hybr. 40.
(1825)
is considered as a formula,
Verbascum lychnitis ×
V. nigrum; the correct binary
name for this hybrid is
Verbascum ×
schiedeanum Koch.
Note 3.
Graft chimaeras (sometimes called “graft hybrids”)
being horticultural objects,
are dealt with in Appendix III (Art.
C. 31).
Hybrids or putative hybrids between
intraspecific taxa of the same
species
may be designated by
a formula
and,
whenever it seems useful or
necessary,
by a name
of the same taxonomic rank as
the parents or,
if these
are of different rank,
that of the higher-ranking
parent.
In the formula the
order
of the epithets and the use
of the signs ♀ and
♂
should follow the
procedure set down in Art. H. 1.
Note.
In general greater precision will be achieved
with less danger of confusion if
formulae rather
than names are used for such hybrids.
Example:
Lilium davidii var.
davimottiae (=
L. davidii var.
davidii ×
L. davidii var.
willmottiae).
Bigeneric hybrids
(i.e. hybrids between species of two genera)
are
designated by a formula and,
whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name.
51 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 39 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
The formula consists of the names of the two parents
connected by
the multiplication-sign
×, as in Art.
H.l.
The name consists of a new “generic” name
usually formed by a
euphonious combination of
parts of the names of the
two parent genera, and
a
(“specific”) epithet.
The epithet of an intergeneric hybrid must not be placed
under the
name of either of the parent genera.
All hybrids
between the same two genera
bear the same “generic” name,
this to be
preceded by the
multiplication~sign ×.
Examples:
×
Asplenosorus (=
Asplenium ×
Camptosorus); ×
Asplenosorus ebenoides
(=
Asplenium platyneuron ×
Camptosorus rhizophyllus), not
Asplenium ×
ebenoides;
×
Heucherella (=
Heuchera ×
Tiarella); ×
Heucherella tiarelloides (=
Heuchera ×
bri~
zoides ×
Tiarella cordifolia) not
Heuchera ×
tiarelloides; ×
Mahoberberis (=
Berberis ×
Mahonia).
Note. “Hybrid subgenera” and “hybrid sections” may be named in the same way.
Example:
Iris subgen. ×
Regeliocyclus, comprising the hybrids
between species be~
longing to subgenus
Regelia and subgenus
Oncocyclus.
Ternary hybrids, or those of a higher order,
are designated like ordinary
hybrids by a formula and,
whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a binary
name.
Such as are trigeneric or
multigeneric
may be given new
generic names
formed by a combination of
parts of
the names of the parent genera; usually,
however,
multigeneric hybrid groups
combining three or
more genera receive
a conventional name
consisting of the name
of a person
eminent as a collector,
grower
or student of the group,
to which is added
the termination
~ara; no
such name may exceed
eight syllables.
Examples:
Salix
×
straehleri
( =
Salix aurita ×
S. cinerea ×
S. repens or
alter~
natively,
Salix ( aurita ×
repens ) ×
cinerea ).
× Sanderara ( =
Brassia ×
Cochlioda ×
Odontoglossum);
×
Potinara
( =
Brassavola
×
Cattleya ×
Laelia ×
Sophronotis).
Correct validly published compounds such as ×
Dialaeliocattleya,
(composed of parts of the generic
names
Cattleya,
Diacrium
and
Laelia)
must, however, be retained.
When different hybrid forms
of the same parentage (pleomorphic hybrids,
combinations between different forms
of a collective species, segregates, back~
crosses) are united in a collective
taxon,
the subdivisions are classed under
the binary name
applied to the hybrid
population or group like
the sub~
divisions of a species under
the binary name of
the species.
These forms
are recognized
as nothomorphs; when desirable
a nothomorph may be
designated
by an epithet preceded
by the binary name
of the hybrid group
and the term “nothomorph”
(nothomorpha,
abbreviated as
nm.).
Note.
Nothomorpha: ~
a term derived from the Greek
νοθος and
μορφη, meaning
“hybrid form” and applied to any hybrid form, whether
F ı,
segregate or backcross.
Examples:
Mentha ×
niliaca
nm.
lamarckii
(a form of the pleomorphic hybrid
Mentha
×
niliaca =
M. longifolia ×
M. rotundifolia); Ulmus ×
hollandica nm.
hollandica and nm.
vegeta (forms of
Ulmus ×
hollandica =
U. carpinifolia ×
U. glabra).
Taxa which are apomicts may, if desired,
be designated as such in the following
manner:
1.
If they are considered of specific rank,
by the interpolation of the abbreviation
“ap.”
between the generic name and the epithet.
2.
If they are considered as of infraspecific rank,
by the interpolation of the abbreviation
“ap.” between the categoric term and
the infraspecific epithet.
Taxa which are clones may, if desired,
be designated as such by the term “clone”
(abbreviated as “cl.”) or the symbol
G.
The placing of the categoric term will follow the
procedure suggested for the apomict.
52 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 40 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Proposed
International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
The following regulations will not be official
until they have been
formally accepted by the
International Horticultural Congress in September
1952 after
reconsideration and possibly emendation by
the Committee on
Nomenclature at the Congress.
The text as presented below embodies the
decisions of the joint
Committee for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants
(Stockholm Committee) and the
International Committee on Horticultural
Nomenclature and
Registration (London Committee) and is the joint work
of an editorial committee consisting of
W. H. CAMP,
J. S. L. GILMOUR and
W. T. STEARN. It has been reproduced from the
Journal of the Royal Horti~
cultural Society
1952: 160~172.
Section A. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Cultivated plants are basic to civilization.
It is important therefore, that
a precise,
stable and generally accepted system of nomenclature
should be
available for their naming.
The naming of cultivated plants which differ
in no appreciable degree
from their wild parental
stock is governed by the
International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature.
The naming of special forms originating or
maintained in cultivation is
governed by the following
regulations. A legitimate name is a name in accor~
dance
with these regulations.
[They are applicable to such plants used in
agriculture
and forestry as well as in horticulture. ]
Note.
The phrase “originating or maintained in cultivation”
covers new variants
raised from seed collected
in the wild and wild variants which would not normally receive
a Latin botanical name, brought into cultivation direct
from the wild and considered of
interest to cultivators.
Adequate and accurate registration of names is
of first importance for
their stabilization.
Note.
It is recommended that when the existing registration
of a plant group is now
purely national,
this should be placed on an international basis
and that international
registries be set up
for those groups of which
there is no official registration.
Section B. NAMES OF CATEGORIES
Cultivated plants, like wild plants,
are named at three main systematic
levels, i.e.
generic, specific and varietal.
Names at these three levels are:
53 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 41 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
(1)
Generic, i.e. ordinary generic names. e.g.
Rosa, Lilium, or comparable
names applied
to bigeneric or multigeneric hybrid groups (“hybrid genera”),
e.g. ×
Heucherella; ×
Potinara; such names cover all members of a particular
genus or hybrid group.
(2)
Specific, i.e. the specific name for a species.
A formula, a name, or a
collective phrase is used for
an interspecific hybrid, this designation covering
the offspring of the cross concerned.
(3)
Varietal, i.e. the varietal name for a wild variant,
or the cultivar name
for a special form (often a clone or line)
originating or maintained in culti~
vation (see Art. C.3,
Note).
Note.
A
cultivar (abbreviated as
cv.) is a variant not known to occur in the wild
or not known to have an equivalent in the wild
in sufficient numbers to justify botanical
recognition,
as distinct from a variety, which is a wild variant
warranting botanical recog~
nition.
In horticulture cultivars are often referred to as
“horticultural varieties” or simply
“varieties”
but it is best to reserve the term “variety” for wild variations.
Examples:
In the name
Sedum dasyphyllum var.
glanduliferum, which is the name of
a variety
of known wild origin, the first word
(Sedum) is on the generic level,
being the
name of the genus; the second word
(dasyphyllum)
is on the specific level and is known
technically as
the specific epithet; the third word
(glanduliferum) is on the varietal level
and is known
technically as the varietal epithet. Similarly in the name
Sedum spectabile
‘Brilliant’, which is the name
of a cultivar, the word ‘Brilliant’ is on the varietal level
and
is called the
cultivar name in this Code.
When it is desirable in large and complicated groups,
the above three
categories of names may be supplemented
by the insertion of others. Thus
the generic name may be
followed by a subgeneric or sectional name;
a specific
by a subspecific; a varietal by a form name.
Within a variable species or
interspecific hybrid,
a group of cultivars may be designated by an additional
name
or collective phrase inserted between the specific name and
the cultivar
name (see Art.
C. 24 (g)).
When greater precision is desired, special cate~
gories
may be used (see Arts.
C. 28~32).
Section C. PRIORITY AND PUBLICATION OF CULTIVAR NAMES
In principle the correct name for a cultivar is
the earliest legitimate name;
other names are synonyms.
However, because of linguistic and other diffi~
culties,
in certain instances the use of validly published synonyms
may be
permitted (see Arts.
C. 12~16).
A name has no standing unless validly published.
Valid
publication is effected
by the sale or distribution of printed or
similar mechanically duplicated matter*)
giving both the name and
description
of the plant concerned
(with or without a figure)
or a reference to a previously
published description,
in any language
using
Roman characters.
Note.
Official registrars
(see Art. C. 4)
should set standards as to what constitutes
a proper and
sufficient description for plants in a particular group.
————————–
*)
Printed or similar mechanically duplicated matter
is reading matter multiplied by a
mechanical process
whereby a number of identical legible and indelible copies
are made
from the same inked surface.
~ W. T. S.
54 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 42 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
The mention of a cultivar name in a catalogue
or list without description
or reference to a previously
published description is not valid publication of
the name,
even though a figure be given.
The cultivar name and description should be published
in a horticultural
or botanical periodical,
or in a monograph, handbook or other standard work,
or
a dated horticultural catalogue,
if possible with an indication of the breeder,
selector or introducer. It is desirable that this work
should be one of a
reasonably permanent nature.
When the earliest validly published cultivar name
is one which is no
longer in use or is in general use
for another plant, so that its revival would
lead to
widespread confusion and inconvenience,
the more recent generally
used name is to be retained.
The rejected name is to be recorded as a synonym
in some
appropriate manner, preferably in the official register
of the group.
When two or more cultivars are widely grown
under the same name,
the official registrar has the power
to decide for which one the name shall
be retained.
In groups where there is no registry,
the principle of priority
should normally be applied.
When a plant is introduced from one country
into another, its original
cultivar name should normally
be retained if it has been published in accor~
dance
with these regulations. However, because of differences
in language or
custom, it is sometimes advisable
to translate or in some manner to change
the name.
(a)
Such translated or changed names are to be known as
commercial
synonyms and are to be used only
after approval by the registrar of the group
concerned.
The official register will list such synonyms;
they should also
appear in lists and catalogues.
Examples:
Rose ‘Peace’ (Meilland) is a commercial synonym
in the U.S.A. of Rose
‘Mme. A. Meilland’.
Pear ‘Bartlett’ is a commercial synonym in the U.S.A.
of Pear ‘Wil~
liams Bon Chrétien’.
(b)
If no official registry of a group exists,
catalogues and lists may use
commercial synonyms but
these should be followed by an indication af the
original name.
A cultivar name which appeared first
in a language not printed in Roman
characters
should be transliterated into Roman characters or translated
into
a language using Raman characters.
The first transliteration should be
adopted,
provided it is published together with a description
in a language
using Roman characters.
Example:
The cultivar name in the full name
Prunus serrulata ‘Amanogawa’ is the
accepted
transliteration from Japanese script; the translation
‘Milky Way’ should not now
be introduced as a cultivar name
for this plant.
55 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 43 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Note.
In general, transliterations should not be replaced
by commercial synonyms;
however, when both transliterations
and translations introduce difficulties of language or
custom,
commercial synonyms may be used instead as set forth in Art.
C. 14
Thus the
English translation ‘Nigger Boy’ of the Russian
‘АРАПУОНОК’
would cause difficulty in
some countries;
if the transliteration ‘Arapchonok’ was also not acceptable,
it would be
advisable to replace both translation and
transliteration by a commercial synonym such as
‘Congo’, ‘Maroon Beauty’, etc.
To establish fixed points of departure for
the determination of prionty,
an approved list
or other publication, enumerating the cultivars
of a group
and compiled in accordance with this
International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants,
should be taken. whenever possible, as a starting point
for the nomenclature of every group of cultivated plants.
(a)
If an official registry exists; such a list
will be one compiled or approved
by the registrar.
(b)
If no registry exists, a list, monograph or
handbook may be adopted
as the standard of nomenclature
for a particular group by the International
Committee on
Horticultural Nomenclature and Registration after consulting
appropriate individuals or societies concerned.
Section D. FORMATION AND USE OF CULTIVAR NAMES
From January 1, 1953 onwards
the cultivar name of a newly described
cultivar
(i.e. new or hitherto unnamed cultivar) should be
a vernacular or
“fancy” name
(i.e. one in common language) and
markedly different from
a botanical epithet,
e.g. ‘Pygmy’ not
pygmaeus, or ‘Prinz Handjery’ not
Handjeryi. It can be attached to either a scientific name
or a common name,
e.g.
Syringa vulgaris ‘Mont Blanc’ or
Lilac ‘Mont Blanc’.
The cultivar name should
begin with a capital letter
and be distinguished
typographically from a botanical epithet,
preferably by enclosing it in quotation
marks, e.g.
Sedum spectabile ‘Brilliant’.
Note.
The use of quotation marks makes it unnecessary
to place the abbreviation
“cv” (see Art. C.5,
note)
before the cultivar name.
When in the past a name of Latin form
(technically a varietal epithet)
has been generally
used for a cultivar, this is not to be rejected
but should
be treated as a cultivar name.
It should then be distinguished typographically
from a botanical epithet,
e.g. by enclosing it in quotation marks.
Examples:
Thuja orientalis ‘Elegantissima’,
Hibiscus syriacus ‘Totus albus’,
Magnolia
× soulangeana ‘Lennei’.
The cultivar name remains unchanged even
when legitimate changes take
place in the generic name,
e.g. through the union or division of genera or
the
use of an earlier generic name,
unless the same cultivar name is already in
use
for another cultivar under the new generic name.
56 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 44 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Note.
The cultivar name does not form
a technical nomenclatural combination with
the generic,
specific or varietal name to which it is appended.
If the name of the producer
(i.e. raiser or introducer) is cited,
this remains the same even when the name preceding
the cultivar name is changed.
Example:
Weigela ‘Eva Rathke’ (Rathke) becomes
Diervilla ‘Eva Rathke’ (Rathke),
when
Weigela and
Diervilla are treated as one genus under the name
Diervilla.
Within the same genus or “hybrid genus”
the same cultivar name is not
to be used for more than one
cultivar without permission of the official
registrar of the group,
this permission being granted only when it can be
proved
that the cultivar to which this name was first given is no longer
in
cultivation or already possesses a correct name and
that no confusion will
result.
Thus the use of the name
Narcissus pseudonarcissus
‘Victoria’ precludes
the use of
‘Victoria’ as a
cultivar name for
a cultivar of any other species
of
Narcissus such as
Narcissus poeticus
‘Victoria’.
Note 1.
It is advisable to avoid duplication of names
among cultivars of closely related
groups,
such as Azaleas and Rhododendrons, which although separated
generically by some
plantsmen are placed by others in one genus,
Rhododendron. Thus, when
Azalea ‘Harvest
Moon’ is transferred to the genus
Rhododendron, the cultivar name ‘Harvest Moon’
cannot
be retained for it because this name is already in use under
Rhododendron for another
cultivar.
Note 2.
When permission has been granted for the use
of an obsolete name to
designate a new cultivar,
this is to be recorded in the official register of the group.
The
revived name should be followed
by the name of the new cultivar.
The following practices
should be observed
in the coining of
new cultivar
names, but well~established
names should not be altered
to conform to them.
(a)
So far as possible
a cultivar name
should consist of a single
word;
it
should not exceed
three words.
(b)
Excessively long words or
words difficult to pronounce
should be
avoided.
(c)
For cultivars within the same genus or hybrid genus,
names which are
likely to be confused
with one another
should be avoided;
the use of ‘Alexander’
should preclude
the use of ‘Alexandra’
and ‘Alexandria’
and possibly ‘Princess
Alexandra’ within
the same genus or hybrid group.
(d)
When personal names are used to designate cultivars,
forms of address
liable to be confused,
especially through errors in printing, e.g.
‘Mr.’,
‘Mrs.’:,
‘Sr.’ and ‘Sra.’, should be avoided;
‘Ellen Willmott’ is preferable to ‘Miss
Willmott’.
(e)
The use of abbreviations for personal and
geographical names should
be avoided;
thus ‘George Yeld’ is preferable to
‘G. Yeld’ or ‘Geo. Yeld’ and
‘Mount Kisco’ to ‘Mt. Kisco’.
(f)
The
articles “a” and “the” and
their equivalents in
other languages
should be avoided
except where linguistic custom dictates otherwise, e.g.
‘Colonel’
(not
‘The Colonel’),
‘Giant’
(not
‘The Giant’),
but ‘La Rochelle’
(not ‘Rochelle’).
(g)
The scientific or vernacular name of a genus
or other group of plants
should not be used as
a cultivar name; names such as Carnation ‘Pelargonium’,
Rosa ‘Camellia’ and Plum ‘Apricot’ are to be avoided.
(h)
The name of a living person should not be used as
a cultivar name
without his or her consent.
57 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 45 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Section E. NAMES OF HYBRIDS ORIGINATING IN CULTIVATION
The
first word of the name of a hybrid is a generic name,
when the
parents belong to the same genus,
or the name of a “hybrid genus” when
the parents
belong to two or more genera. It conforms to the
International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature
as far as generic names are concerned.
Names of bigeneric or multigeneric hybrid groups
are framed in accordance
with Art.
C. 25 (I.C.B.N., Art.
49 and
H. 1~5).
The
last part of the name of a hybrid originating
or maintained in
cultiviation (see Art.
C. 3)
is a cultivar name (see Art.
C. 5)
applying to a
single hybrid form and its direct descendants
forming part of the same clone
or line. The cultivar name
is subject to all pertinent regulations in this
Inter~
national Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.
When the parentage is known or the cultivar
belongs to a well~marked
hybrid group, a formula
indicating the parentage or a collective designation
or group name for the group may be placed between
the generic name and
the cultivar name,
thus forming the second part of the full name.
For the sake of brevity or when the parentage
is unknown; uncertain or
of complicated origin,
the cultivar name may directly follow the generic name,
e.g.
Iris
‘Ambassadeur’.
Regulations for the designation of hybrid groups
of the same parentage
by means of formulae or
by collective names are to be found in Article
C.25
(I.C.B.N., Art.
49 and
H. 1~5)
if these are in Latin form only. The following
parallel regulations have been set up for use with groups
to be designated
primarily in common language.
Additional provisions are included for those
who wish particularly to use designations in Latin form.
(a)
The formula consists of the names of the parents
in alphabetical order
separated by the multiplication sign.
Example: Camellia japonica × C. saluenensis.
Note:
Although it is the custom of some hybridizers
to place the name of the female
parent first in the formula,
it is recommended that the method set forth
in the Botanical
Code be followed (Art.
C. 25,
I.C.B.N. Art.
H. 1).
The placing of the names of the parents
of the hybrid
in alphabetical order is advocated here
because the formula covers all off~
spring of a cross,
whichever way it is made, and because, for spontaneous hybrids
and
for the many hybrids whose history is obscure,
nothing can be positively stated as to which
was the female and which the male parent.
(b)
When it seems useful or desirable,
a collective name, preceded by the
multiplication sign ×,
may be substituted for the formula.
This name may
be either a word of Latin form or
a phrase in common language preferably
containing
a word such as ‘hybrids’, ‘crosses’ or their equivalents
in other
languages, which will make evident
the collective usage of the phrase.
All
plants derived from a cross between the two or more species
represented by
one formula carry the same collective name,
including subsequent generations
from the first cross,
crosses within these generations and back~crosses with
either
parent provided that they are distinguishable from the parents.
Examples:
The collective name
Camellia ×
williamsii covers all the hybrid forms e.g.
‘Donation’,
‘J. C. Williams’,
‘Mary Christian’ and
‘St. Ewe’, derived from
C. japonica ×
C. saluenensis.
When the collective name is a phrase in common language, e.g.
Lilium
‘Bellingham Hybrids’, it is usually expedient
to parenthesize the collective name as in
the name
Lilium (Bellingham Hybrids) ‘Shuksan’;
here the cultivar name ‘Shuksan’ belongs
to only one hybrid form (clone),
which is thereby distinguished from other forms of the
‘Bellingham Hybrids’, the parental formula of which is
L. humboldtii var.
ocellatum ×
L.
pardalinum.
58 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 46 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
(c)
The use of the name of only one parent species
to designate a hybrid
group should be avoided.
Such a phrase as
“Rhododendron fortunei hybrids”
is permissible
only when the other parents are unknown or uncertain or
are
themselves of complex, uncertain or unknown parentage,
and the hybrid group
has well-marked characters
undoubtedly derived from the one species indicated.
(d)
When the collective name is of Latin form,
it is subject to the same
rules of
botanical nomenclature as those governing the names of species.
It must therefore be published with a description or a diagnosis
in Latin of
a plant belonging to the hybrid group,
or with a reference to a previously and
effectively published
description or diagnosis which must be in Latin
if
published after January 1, 1935; mention of
the parents without such a
description or reference
does not validate the name.
A dried specimen of the
plant should be deposited
in the herbarium of a botanical or horticultural
institution
which should be mentioned when publishing such a Latin name
and description.
(e)
If the collective name is not of Latin form,
no Latin description is
required. In general,
cultivators are recommended not to give names of Latin
form to plants originating in cultivation.
Publication of names of hybrid groups
in common language
will follow the principles laid down for the publication
of names of cultivars (Sect. C., Arts.
7~16).
(f)
A word formed by combining the Latin epithets
(or parts thereof) of
the parent species may be used
as a collective name but not as a cultivar name.
Example:
The name
Lilium ×
sulphurgale is a collective name for hybrids of
L. regale
×
L. sulphureum.
(g)
When a major hybrid group becomes separable
into subsidiary groups,
these groups may be given
special designations in common language,
preferably
including the word “group”.
They are to be regarded primarily as convenient
headings
for use in catalogues and handbooks.
Grammatically they are formed
in accordance
with the language of the literature in which they are used
and
may thus be translated.
Examples:
Tulipa ×
gesneriana (Darwin group) ‘Bartigon’;
Dahlia ×
cultorum (Cac~
tus group) ‘Julia Svedelius’.
Note on procedure.
When, for a new cross between two species,
the describer has
decided to publish a Latin name
as a collective name,
it is particularly important that either
before
or at the same time he should give a cultivar name
to each particular form of the
hybrid
that he considers worth distinguishing,
even if there exists only one such form.
If this is not done then, later there will be a danger
that horticulturally inferior forms of
the same parentage
will be placed under the same collective name,
without any cultivar
name being available
to distinguish the original and possibly superior form.
If, however,
the original form of the cross
is distinguished from the time of its first publication
by a
cultivar name, confusion with later forms,
each of which would possess its own cultivar
name,
will be avoided. It is greatly to the advantage
of the first producer to follow this
procedure.
Examples:
The name
Viburnum ×
bodnantense covers all hybrids of
V. fragrans ×
V. grandiflorum,
though based on a selected form raised at Bodnant,
which has been given
the cultivar name ‘Dawn’
to distinguish it from other forms of the same parentage.
Similarly
the name
Eucryphia ×
intermedia covers all hybrids of
E. glutinosa ×
E. lucida but the
name
E. ×
intermedia ‘Rostrevor’
is to be used only for vegetative descendants
of the
hybrid raised at Rostrevor.
Section F. NAMES OF LATIN FORM APPLIED TO HYBRIDS IN GENERAL
General Rules for the naming of Hybrids
are provided in the
International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952
(Appendix II),
if these names are to
be in Latin form.
59 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 47 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Section G. NAMES OF BUD~MUTANTS (“SPORTS”) AND
RE~SELECTED AND IMPROVED STRAINS
In naming a bud~mutant (“sport”) of
a recognized cultivar, the name
selected should
so far as possible identify the mutant with the parent cultivar,
if the season of flowering or ripening of the fruit or period
of use has not
been changed.
Example:
Apple ‘Red Rome’ was derived from
a bud~mutation of ‘Rome Beauty’ and
is identical with it
in all characteristics except that the fruit is red all over
instead of striped.
When a strain becomes, through continuous selection,
so distinct from
the original that it can be regarded
as a new cultivar, it should be given a
concise new name.
When, however, selection has not resulted in such diver~
gence,
the reselected strain should keep the name of the original cultivar,
followed by the name of the selector or some other convenient designation.
Examples:
Broccoli ‘De Cicco’, derived from Broccoli ‘Calabrese’,
is available a full
week earlier
and has somewhat different cultural requirements.
Cabbage ‘Wisconsin All
Seasons’, highly resistant
to the diseases “yellows” and cabbage mosaic, is an otherwise
similar selection from the non~resistant ‘All Seasons’.
Excessively long names resulting from
repeated re~selections,
such as Onion ‘Giant Yellow Zittau Nordre Munkegaard I’,
should
be avoided.
Section H. SPECIAL CATEGORIES
Experimental horticulture and botany may need to recognize
various
special categories outside the requirements
of the non~specialist. These cate~
gories are considered
in the following regulations. In general their nomen~
clature
is governed by the regulations above, when applicable.
In “grafted” or “budded” plants,
when it is desired to indicate the
materials of which
such plants are made up, the name of the upper species,
cultivar, clone, etc. (i.e. the scion),
precedes the name of the next lower (i.e.
the stock),
the names being separated by a slanting line or lines.
Examples:
Viburnum carlesii/V. lantana; Syringa vulgaris cl.
‘Decaisne’/Ligustrum
ovalifolium;
Rose ‘Betty Uprichard’/Rosa multiflora;
Apple ‘Grimes Golden’/‘Malling 2’. In
“double~worked” or
“triple~worked” materials the same sequence would be followed.
For greater precision in the nomenclature
of cultivated plants the following
categories
may be recognized:
(a)
The
line (Latin
linea, abbreviated as
ln.): a sexually reproductive and
uniform~appearing group propagated entirely by means of seed,
its stability
maintained by selection
(this known
as “roguing the line” by practical plants~
men).
The epithet would be preceded by the term “line”. The “line” usually
is equivalent in rank to the category of “cultivar”.
Example: Petunia ln. ‘Rosy Morn’.
(b)
The
clone: essentially uniform material derived
from a single individual
and propagated entirely
by vegetative means, as by cuttings, divisions, grafts.
60 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 48 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
etc.
The epithet would be preceded by the term “clone”
(abbreviated as
cl.)
or indicated by the symbol
G.
This category is essentially equivalent to
“cultivar” and replaces it in horticultural groups
where nomenclatural precision
is essential
(see also this Article, paragraph (f)).
Example:
Picea pungens var.
glauca clone ‘R. H. Montgomery’: as expediency dictates,
Syringa vulgaris cl.
‘Decaisne’ may also be designated as
Lilac cl.
‘Decaisne’ or Lilac
G
‘Decaisne’ or ‘Decaisne’
G.
(c)
The
hybrid~group (Latin
grex hybrida, abbreviated as
gh.): a group
of hybrids originating
from the same parents or series of parents but
whose
individuals vary in appearance;
the group would be delimited
by the potential
variations
inherent in the parental stocks.
This category is on the “specific”
level (see Art.
C. 5 (2) and Art.
C.24 (b)).
Example:
The ‘Hardy Ghent hybrid azaleas’
are sometimes listed as
Rh. ×
gandavense
(said to be derived from
Rhododendron calendulaceum ×
Rh. flavum ×
Rh. nudiflorum);
where greater precision is desired and to indicate
that the group is not a simple one with
few variants,
this might be listed as
Rhododendron gh.
gandavense. A particular clone of
this group
would be designated, e.g. as
Rhododendron gh.
gandavense cl. ‘Pallas’.
(d)
The
line~hybrid (Latin
linea hybrida, abbreviated as
lh.): a predictably
uniform group derived
by repetitive hybridization from a series of two or more
constantly maintained breeding stocks,
these parental “lines” being maintained
either
by continued inbreeding or as clones.
The epithet, or identifying symbol
or number,
could be prefixed by the hyphenated words “line~hybrid”
or the
abbrevation “lh.”.
This category is essentially on the cultivar level.
Example:
This is the standard practice
in the “hybrid seed corn” industry~e.g.
‘United States Department of Agriculture, hybrid seed corn No. 13’
(usually abbreviated
as ‘hybrid corn, US~13’) which,
for greater precision in format international literature
where the word “corn” has various applications, might be listed as
Zea mays lh. ‘US~13’.*)
(e)
The
convariety (Latin
convarietas, abbreviated as
conv.); a group of
closely allied cultivars,
somewhat analogous to the subspecies.
Example:
Cucurbita pepo conv.
citrullina, which includes the cultivars (lines)
‘Dahl~
emer Dauerkurbis’,
‘Long Cream’,
‘Mogono’, etc. †)
Note.
The category of convariety has special use
in the systematics of cultivated
plants
where the category of “subspecies”,
with its geographic connotations in modern
taxonomy,
has little pertinence, and where the category of “variety”
is devoid of system~
atic precision.
(f)
Appendix II. Rec.
H. 5 A
of the
International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature
also has pertinence here and should be consulted. The
apomict
is a plant which reproduces by means of seed,
the embryos of which are
produced in various ways,
but without fertilization. Apomixy is relatively
common
in such important families as the Rosaceae, Gramineae. etc.
[Special note. By extension,
the instructions for the placing of the abbreviation
ap.
as outlined in Rec.
H. 5 A.
might, where advisable, also be applied to cultivar names.
These would follow the system outlined for the clone
given above (Art.
C.30 (b)).]
Polyploid or genetically differentiated races
may be named or their
cytological condition
indicated by an appropriate symbol.
Examples: Phlox drummondii ‘Tetra Red’; Salsify ‘Mammouth’ (4n).
————————–
*)
This method also is an increasingly common
practice in the production of orna~
mental plants
~ W. H. C.
†)
Probably the numerous kinds of yellow~flowered,
hard-shelled ornamental gourds
would also
comprise a convariety of this species
~ W. H. C.
61 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 49 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Graft
chimaeras (sometimes called
“graft hybrids”)
are designated by
a formula and,
where it seems useful or necessary,
by a name.
(a)
The formula consists of the names
of the two taxonomic groups (taxa)
from which the tissues of the chimaera were derived,
in alphabetical order
and connected by the addition
sign +.
Example:
Cydonia oblonga +
Pyrus communis; Cytisus purpureus +
Laburnum
ana~
gyroides;
Syringa ×
chinensis +
S. vulgaris.
(b)
When the components belong to different genera,
the name consists of
a new “generic” name formed
by a combination of the names of the component
genera,
preceded by the sign + and followed by an epithet.
This “generic”
name should not be the same as
the “generic” name of hybrids between the
same genera,
nor should the epithet of a chimaera be the same
as that used
for a hybrid between
the same species as the components of the chimaera.
Examples:
+ Crataegomespilus dardarii =
Crataegus monogyna +
Mespilus germanica
but ×
Crataemespilus gillotii =
Crataegus monogyna ×
Mespilus germanica;
Solanum
+
tubingense =
Solanum lycopersicum +
S. nigrum or,
if the components are considered
generically distinct, +
Lycosolanum tubingense =
Lycopersicon esculentum +
Solanum
nigrum.
(c)
When the components belong to the same genus,
the name consists of
the generic name followed by
the sign + and an epithet.
Example: Syringa + correlata = Syringa × chinensis + S. vulgaris.
(d)
The same two components may build a chimaera
in more than one way,
so that morphologically and
histologically different forms may be distinguished.
These forms should be united under the same formula
or binary (“specific”)
name;
when it is desirable to give them special designations
they should be
recognized as mixomorphs and
designated by epithets in the same manner as
forms of
species or as cultivars with names in the vernacular.
This epithet
preceded by the term “mixomorph”
(mixomorpha, abbreviated as
mx.) may
be placed after the binary name
or after a formula.
Examples:
+ Crataegomespilus dardarii mx. ‘Jules d’Asnières’;
Solanum +
tubingense
mx.
koelreuterianum.
INDEX
(Figures refer to Articles).
Address, forms of,
22.
Apomicts,
30.
Approved lists,
16.
Budmutants,
26.
Categories,
5,
special,
28~32.
Clone,
30.
Collective names for hybrids,
24b,
24d,
24f.
Commercial synonym,
14,
15.
Convariety,
30.
Cultivar,
5 (note).
Cultivar name,
5.
Duplication of names,
21.
Epithets, specific and varietal,
5
(examples).
Fancy names,
17.
Formation of names,
17~22.
Formulae for
hybrids,
24 H.1,
25 H.4,
25a.
Generic name level,
5.
Graft chimaeras,
32.
Graft hybrids,
32.
Grafted material,
29.
Grex hybrida,
30c.
Group, hybrid,
24g.
Guiding principles,
1~4.
Hybrid genera,
25 H.3.
Hybrid subgenera and
sections,
25 H.3.
Hybrids,
23~25,
30c,
bigeneric,
25 H.3,
infraspecific,
25 H.2,
intergeneric
25 H.3,
25 H.4,
interspecific,
25 H.1,
multigeneric
25 H.4.
Inter~
national Code of Botanical Nomenclature,
2,25.
Latin description or diagnosis,
24d,
24e.
Latin names,
19,
24d,
24f,
24 (notes),
25 H.6.
Legitimate name,
3.
Line,
30a.
Line hybrid,
30d,
Long names,
22a,
25 H.4,
27.
Mixomorph,
32d.
Nomina nuda,
10.
Nothomorph,
25 H.5.
Obsolete names,
21 (note).
Personal
62 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 50 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
names,
22.
Polyploids,
31.
Principles, guiding,
1~4.
Printed matter,
9.
Priority,
7,
13,
rejection of,
12.
Publication,
8~11,
24d,
e,
25 H.6.
Registration,
4.
Starting points,
16.
Special categories,
28~32.
Specific name level,
5.
Strains,
improved,
27.
Taxon,
25 H.1.
(special note).
Translations,
15.
Transliterations,
15.
Typography,
18,
19.
Valid publication,
8.
Varietal name level,
5.
Variety,
5.
Vernacular names,
17.
63 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 51 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Special provisions concerning fossil plants
Since the names of the species,
and consequently of many of the higher
taxa of
fossil plants are usually based on specimens of detached
organs and
since the connection between these organs
can only rarely be proved,
organ~
genera (organo~genera) and
form~genera (forma~genera) are distinguished
as taxa within which species may be recognized.
An
organ~genus is a genus whose diagnostic characters
are derived from
single organs of
the same morphological category or from restricted groups
of organs connected together.
A
form~genus is one that is maintained for classifying
fossil specimens
that lack diagnostic characteristics
indicative of natural affinity but which
for practical reasons need to be provided with binary names.
Form~genera are
artificial in varying degree.
Note 1.
Organ~genera based on detached parts may be
distinguished not only by
morphological characters,
but also by reason of different modes of preservation.
Note 2.
It is necessary to distinguish both
organ~genera and
form~genera since the
former are held
to indicate a certain degree of natural affinity,
while the latter may
~ and
in many instances do ~
include species belonging to different families or even
groups of
higher rank, e.g. ferns and pteridosperms. But
form~genera have been recognized as per~
taining
to a special morphological category since 1828
(Adolphe Brongniart).
Since that
time they have been constantly used
in taxonomic and morphological literature and
they
are quite indispensable.
The general rules applicable to the naming
of recent plants apply also to
the names of fossil plants
and to those of organ~genera and form~genera (see
Chapter
III
and the Recommendations PB. 6 A, B, C).
2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
From 1 Jan. 1953 the name of a genus or
of a taxon of higher rank is
not validly published,
unless it is accompanied by a description of the taxon
or by reference to a previously and effectively published
description of it
(see Art.
48).
The type of a genus of fossil plants is
the first described species which
shows such characters
as are necessary for distinguishing the genus from
other taxa.
The type of a species of fossil plants is the first described
and
figured specimen showing such characters as are necessary
for distinguishing
the species from other species.
64 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 52 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
When diagnostic characters are altered or
circumscription changed in
taxa of fossil plants,
the type is determined by reference to the original
specimen figured in validation of the name of the taxon.
If more than one
figure is supplied in validation of the name,
the emending author must indicate
from the specimens
originally figured the one he regards as constituting
the type.
The name of a monotypic genus of fossil plants
published after 1 Jan. 1953
must be accompanied
by a description of the genus indicating its difference
from other genera.
An author describing organ~genera should clearly indicate
for which kind of organ
the genus is established.
It is desirable that the name
should indicate the morphological category of the organ
(For leaves a combination with
phyllum, for fructifications with
carpus or
theca, etc.).
The names of form~genera should as a rule be used only
in their original meaning,
and subsequent alteration of
the diagnostic characters of the form~genera is not desirable.
Form~genera should not be used as types
on which natural taxa of higher rank are
established.
Note:
While organ~genera may be grouped in families
bearing names taken from one
of the genera and ending in
~aceae, form~genera should not be placed in groups
with names
implying the status of natural taxa.
In descriptions of organs of uncertain nature
or affinities, a name suggesting definite
relationship
with a recent plant should be avoided.
In descriptions of new species it is desirable to
mention which specimen is regarded
as the type and
to indicate in which museum or collection the type is to be found.
Paleobotanists should exercise great caution in
applying to well preserved specimens
names
which have been originally attached to poorly preserved specimens
or to specimens
which have been inadequately described
or figured.
65 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 53 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
[
Appendix
V, pp. 66-157, is not included here.
It lists conserved names of families and genera. ]
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 54 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 55 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Guide to the Citation of Botanical Literature
A reference to literature in a botanical
publication should consist of the
following items,
in the order in which they are treated below:
1.
Name of Author(s).
In a citation appended to the name of a taxon,
the name of
the author should be abbreviated as recommended
in Rec. 60A.
In other citations (as in bibliographies),
the name of the author should be
given in full;
the last name first, followed by first name(s).
The use of the
full name (rather than initials)
tends to avoid errors.
If several authors are cited,
the name of the last should be preceded by
the sign “&”.
After the name of a taxon,
an unabbreviated author’s name should be separated from
what follows by a comma; an abbreviated name needs no punctuation
other than the period
(full stop) indicating abbreviation.
2.
Title.
After the name of a taxon,
the title of a book is commonly
abbreviated,
and the title of an article in a serial is commonly omitted.
Else~
where (as in bibliographies), titles should be cited
exactly as they appear
on the title~page of the book
or at the head of the article.
In a citation appended to the name of a taxon,
no punctuation should separate the
title from what follows
other than a period (full stop) indicating abbreviation.
Examples of
Taxonomic Citation of Authors and Titles:
~ P. Br. Hist. Jam.
~ Hook.
f. Fl. Brit. Ind.
~ Hoffm. Gen. Umbell.
~ G. Don. Gen. Hist.
~ H. B. K. Nova Gen. &
Sp.
~ L. Sp. Pl.
~ Michx. Fl. Bor~Am.
~ DC. Prodr.
~ T. & G. Fl. N. Am.
The last
five author’s names are not abbreviated strictly
in accordance with Rec.
60A
but with
common usage.
Examples of
Names written in full:
~ Mueller, Ferdinand Jacob Heinrich von.
~ Müller,
Johann Friedrich Theodor (“Fritz Müller”).
~ Mueller, Ferdinand Ferdinandowitsch.
~ Mül~
ler, Franz August.
~ Müller, Franz.
3.
Name of Serial.
Principal words should be abbreviated *) to the
first syllable,
with such additional letters or syllables as may be necessary
to avoid confusion; articles, prepositions and other particles
(der, the, of, de,
et, and so forth) should be omitted.
The order of words should be that which
appears on
the title-page. Unnecessary words, subtitles, and the like,
should
be omitted.
To avoid confusion among publications having
the same name or very
similar names,
the place of publication or other distinguishing data
should be
added in brackets.
No punctuation other than a period (full stop)
indicating abbreviation should separate
the name of the serial from what follows.
Examples of
Citation of Names of Serials:
~ Ann. Sci. Nat.;
not Ann. des Sci. Nat.,
~ Am. Jour. Bot;
not Amer. Journ. Bot.
~ Bot. Jahrb.
(Botanische Jahrbücher für Syste~
matik,
Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie);
not Engl. Bot. Jahrb. (Engler was the
editor,
not the author of the series).
~ Mem. Soc. Cub. Hist. Nat.
(Memorias de las
Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural “Felipe Poey”).
~ Acta Soc. Faun. Fl. Fenn.
(Acta
Societatis pro Fauna et Flora Fennica).
~ Bull. Jard. Bot. Etat [Bruxelles]
(Bulletin du Jardin
Botanique de l’Etat).
~ Flora [Quito] (to distinguish it
from the well~known “Flora”
published in Jena).
~ Hedwigia; not Hedwig.
~ Gartenflora; not Gartenfl.
~ Missouri Bot.
Gard. Bull.;
not Bull. Mo. Bot. Gard. (see title~page).
————————–
*)
Titles consisting of a single word, and personal names,
are customarily not abbre~
viated;
but many exceptions are sanctioned by usage.
158 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 56 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
4.
Edition and Series.
If a book has appeared in more than one edition,
those subsequent to the first should be designated by
“ed. 2”, “ed. 3”,
and so forth.
If a serial has appeared in more than one series
in which the numbers
of volumes are repeated,
those subsequent to the first should be designated
by a roman capital numeral,
or by “ser. 2”, “ser. 3”, and so forth.
Examples of
Editions and Series:
~ Hoffm. Gen. Umbell. ed. 2.
~ Compt. Rend.
Acad. URSS. II.
(Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS. Nouvelle Série).
~ Ann. Sci. Nat. IV
~ Mem. Am. Acad. II. (or ser. 2.)
(Memoirs of the American Aca~
demy of Arts and Sciences.
New Series); not Mem. Am. Acad. N. S.
5.
Volume.
The volume should be shown by an arabic numeral;
for
greater clarity this should be printed
in boldface type. When volumes are
not numbered,
the years on the title~pages may be used as volume~numbers.
The volume~number should always be separated trom
the numbers of pages and il~
lustrations by a colon.
6.
Part or Issue.
If a volume consists of separately paged parts,
the
number of the part should be inserted immediately
after the volume~number
(and before the colon),
either in parentheses or as a superscript.
For volumes
which are continuously paged,
the designation of parts serves no useful pur~
pose and
leads to typographical errors.
7.
Pages.
Pages are shown by arabic numerals,
except those otherwise
designated in the original.
If several pages are cited, the numbers are separated
by commas;
or if more than two consecutive pages are cited,
the first and
last are given, separated by a dash.
8.
Illustrations.
Figures and plates, when it is desirable to refer to
them,
should be indicated by arabic numerals preceded by f. and pl.
respec~
tively; for greater clarity,
these should be printed in italic type.
9.
Data.
The year of publication should end the citation; or, in lists
of works to which reference is made by author and date,
it may be inserted
between the author’s name and the title
of his work. If it is desirable to cite
the exact data,
day, month and year should be given in that order.
The date
(in either position) may be enclosed in parentheses.
Note.
With the exceptions above noted,
each item of the citation should be separated
from the following item by a period (full stop).
Examples of
Citations Appended to Names of Taxa:
~
Anacampseros Sims,
Bot.
Mag.
33:
pl. 1367. 1811.
~
Tittmannia Brongn.
Ann. Sci. Nat.
8: 385. 1826.
~
Mono~
chaetum Naud.
Ann. Sci. Nat. IV.
3: 48.
pl. 2. 1845.
~
Cudrania Tréc.
Ann. Sci. Nat. ser.
3.
8: 122.
f. 76~85. 1847.
~
Symphyoglossum Turcz.
Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc.
21¹: 255. 1848.
~
Hedysarum gremiale Rollins.
Rhodora
43: 230 (1940).
~
Hydrocotyle nixioides Math. &
Const.
Bull. Torrey Club
78:
303. 24 July 1951.
~
Ferula tolucensis H. B. K.
Nov. Gen. &
Sp.
5: 12. 1821.
~
Critamus dauricus Hoffm.
Gen. Umbell. ed. 2. 184. 1816.
~
Geranium
tracyi Sandw.
Kew Bull.
1941: 219. 9 March 1942.
~
Sanicula tuberosa Torr.
Pacif. Railr.
Rep.
4 (1): 91. 1857.
Examples of
Bibliographic Citations:
Norton. John Bitting Smith.
Notes on some
plants, chiefly from the southern United States.
Missouri Bot. Gard. Rep.
9: 151~157.
pl.
46~50. 1898.
Reichenbach, Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig.
Handbuch des natürlichen Pflanzensystems. i~x,
1~346. 1837.
Don, George.
A general history of the dichlamydeous plants.
1: 1~818 (1831).
2: 1~875
(1832).
3: 1~867 (1834).
4: 1~908 (1838).
Schmidt, Friedrich.
Reisen im Amur~Lande und auf der Insel Sachalin.
Botanischer
Teil. Mém. Acad. St.~Petersb. VII.
12²: 1~277.
pl. 1~8. June 1868.
Glover, George Henry & Robbins, Wilfred William. 1915.
Colorado plants injurious
to livestock.
Bull. Cola. Exp. Sta.
211: 3~74.
f. 1~92.
159 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 57 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 58 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Key to the numbering of the Articles and Recommendations.
Code
Stockholm Ch. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ch. II 12 13 14 14A 15 Ch. III Section 1 16 17 17A Section 2 18 19 19A 19B 20 21 Section 3 22 23 24 25 Section 4 Subsect. 1 26 26A subsect. 2 27 subsect. 3 28 |
Rules ed. 3
Ch. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 ~ 9 Ch. II 10 12 11 I 13 Ch. III Section 1 16 17 III Section 2 18pp. 18pp. ~ VII 18pp. 18pp. Section 3 19 20 21 22 Section 4 § 1 pp. ~ VIII § 1 pp. IX § 2 23 |
Synopsis
Stockholm Ch. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 8bis 9 Ch. II 10 12 11 I 13 Ch. III Section 1 16 17 III Section 2 18 18quin. IIIbis VII 18ter 18bis Section 3 19 20 21 22 Section 4 § 1 pp. VIII, 4f (p. 47) VIII § 1 pp. VIII, 4c (p. 47) § 2 23 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Code
Stockholm 29 subsect. 4 30 30A 31 32 32A 32B subsect. 5 33 33A 33B 33C subsect. 6 34 35 36 37 37A 37B 37C subsect. 7 38 Section 5 39 39A 40 41 Section 6 42 42A 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 50A 51 52 53 54 54A 54B 54C 54D 54E 54F 54G |
Rules ed. 3
24 § 3 25 X 26 ~ XI XII § 4 27 XIII XIV XV § 5 28 ~ 29 30 XVI XVII XIX § 7 35 Section 5 36 ~ ~ ~ Section 6 37 ~ ~ 38 39 40 41 42 ~ 43 ~ ~ 44 45 XXIpp. XXIpp. XXII ~ ~ XXIII XXIV XXV |
Synopsis
Stockholm 24 § 3 25 X 26 26bis XI XII § 4 27 XIII XIV XV § 5 28 28bis 29 30 XVI XVII XIX § 7 35 Section 5 36 XXbis, ter 36bis 36ter Section 6 37 XXquat. 37bis 38 39 40 41 42 42bis, ter, quat. 43 XXsex. 43ter 44 45 XXIprop. 2 XXIpp. XXII XXIIbis pp. XXbis pp. XXIII XXIV XXV |
227 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 59 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
Code
Stockholm 54H 54I 54K 54L Section 7 55 56 56A 57 58 58A 59 60 60A 60B 60C 60D 60E 60F 60G 60H Section 8 61 62 63 Section 9 64 65 66 Section 10 67 68 68A 68B Section 11 69 |
Rules ed. 3
XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX Section 7 46 47 (1) 47 (2) ~ 48 (1) 48 (2) 49 ~ XXX XXXI ~ XXXII ~ ~ ~ ~ Section 8 50 51 52 Section 9 53 54 55 Section 10 pp. 56 ~ XXXIII XXXIV Section 10 pp. 57 |
Synopsis
Stockholm XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX Section 7 46 47 (1) 47 (2) 47bis 48 (1) 48 (2) 49 49bis XXX XXXI XXXIbis XXXII XXXIIbis XXXII ter XXXIIsex. XXXIIsep. Section 8 50 51 52 Section 9 53 54 55 Section 10 pp. 56 18 prop. 4 XXXIII XXXIV Section 10 pp. 57 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Code
Stockholm Section 12 70 71 71A Section 13 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Section 14 82 82A 82B 82C 82D 82E 82F 82G 82H 82I 83 Section 15 83A Section 16 83B 83C 83D 83B 83F 83G |
Rules ed. 3
Section 11 58 ~ XXXVI 2, 3 Section 12 59 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 ~ 69 Section 13 70 XXXVIII XXXIX XL XLI ~ XLII XLIII XLIV ~ 71 Section 14 72 Section 15 XLV XLVI XLVII XLVIII XLIX L |
Synopsis
Stockholm Section 11 58 58bis XXXVI 2, 3 Section 12 59 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 68bis 69 Section 13 70 XXXVIII XXXIX XL XLI XLIbis XLII XLIII XLIV 70 prop. 6 71 Section 14 XLIVbis Section 15 XLV XLVI XLVII XLVIII XLIX L | |
228 |
________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1952 — Stockholm Code
– 60 –
text: © 1952, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
________________________________________________________________
[ Not present in this edition ]
[ supposed to be superscript ]
[ F
1, with the "1" in a smaller font ]
[ This symbol cannot be represented in HTML: see
this .jpg-file
(from the 1956,
Paris Code)
]