A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name); (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; or (d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. Art. 36.1(a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.
(a) “Sebertia”, proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a unispecific genus, was not validly published by Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept the genus. Although he gave a description of it, he referred its only species “Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)” to the genus Sersalisia R. Br., as “Sersalisia ? acuminata”, which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 36.1, last sentence. The name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (1897).
(a) The designations listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium amboinense defended by Stickman (1754) were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not validly published.
(a) Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in Mag. Neusten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809) even though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory’s request, Flörke included Bory’s diagnosis (and name) making Bory the publishing author as defined in Art. 46.6. The acceptance or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not, therefore, relevant for valid publication.
(a) (b) The designation “Conophyton”, suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82. 1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words “If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt”, was not a validly published generic name since Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).
(b) “Pteridospermaexylon” and “P. theresiae” were published by Greguss (in Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952) for a genus and species of fossil wood. As Greguss explicitly stated “Vorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen ...” [provisionally I designate it by the names ...], these are provisional names and as such are not validly published.
(b) The designation “Stereocaulon subdenudatum” proposed by Havaas (in Bergens Mus. Årbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published in spite of it being presented as a new species with a Latin diagnosis, since on both pages it was indicated to be “ad int.” [ad interim, for the time being].
(c) “Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch.” was not validly published by Kunth (Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) when he cited it as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth; the combination under Ornithogalum L. was validly published later: O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).
(d) The family designation “Rhaptopetalaceae” was not validly published by Pierre (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. Mai 1897), who merely mentioned the constituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., Rhaptopetalum Oliv., and “Scytopetalum”, but gave no description or diagnosis; the family bears the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897), which was accompanied by a description.
(d) The generic designation “Ibidium” was not validly published by Salisbury (in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812), who merely mentioned four included species but supplied no generic description or diagnosis.
Besenna A. Rich. and B. anthelmintica A. Rich. (1847) were simultaneously published by Richard, both with a question mark (“Besenna ?” and “Besenna anthelmintica ? Nob.”). Richard’s uncertainty was due to the absence of flowers or fruits for examination, but the names were nonetheless accepted by him, with Besenna listed as such (i.e. not italicized) in the index (p. [469]).
When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names based on the same type are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author (so-called alternative names), none of them is validly published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within a species or for subdivisions of a genus within a genus (see Rec. 22A.1–2 and 26A.1–3), nor to names provided for in Art. 59.1.
The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23–29. 1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl. added in a footnote (pp. 23–24). The publication of both sets of names, being effected before 1 January 1953, is valid.
“Euphorbia jaroslavii” (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, “Tithymalus jaroslavii”. Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a differently transcribed initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961), who provided a full and direct reference to the earlier publication and rejected the assignment to Tithymalus.
Description of “Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill var. tumidum, subsp. et var. nov.” (in Brittonia 32: 474. 1980) simultaneously validated both M. bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill and M. bicuspidatum var. tumidum S. R. Hill.
Freytag (in Sida Bot. Misc. 23: 211. 2002) simultaneously published Phaseolus leptostachyus “var. pinnatifolius Freytag forma purpureus Freytag, var. et forma nov.”, using a single diagnosis and designating a single intended holotype. Since the intended combinations are not the same, neither is validly published.
Hitchcock (in Univ. Washington Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507–508. 1969) used the name Bromus inermis subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct reference to its basionym, B. pumpellianus Scribn. Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties, one of which he named B. inermis var. pumpellianus (without author citation but clearly based on the same basionym and type). In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.
