CHAPTER V. Valid publication of names
SECTION 2. Names of new taxa
Article 40
- Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is indicated (see Art. 7–10; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids).
- For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, indication of the type as required by Art. 40.1 can be achieved by reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, even if it consists of two or more specimens as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.7).
- When Cheng described “Gnetum cleistostachyum” (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 13(4): 89. 1975) the name was not validly published because two gatherings were designated as types: K. H. Tsai 142 (as “♀ Typus”) and X. Jiang 127 (as “♂ Typus”).
- When the type is indicated by reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, that consists of more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes (see Art. 9.5).
- The protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 276 (Heft 108): 855. 1968) includes the type statement “E. Esterhuysen No. 17070! Typus – Pret., Bol.” The name is validly published because a single gathering is cited, despite the mention of duplicate specimens (syntypes) in two different herbaria.
- For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art. 22.6; but see Art. 40.6). Similarly, for the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, mention of a single specimen or gathering (Art. 40.2) or illustration (when permitted by Art. 40.4 or 40.5), even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (but see Art. 40.6).
- “Baloghia pininsularis” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann 13823. As the author failed to designate one of them as the type, he did not validly publish the name. Valid publication was effected when McPherson & Tirel (in Fl. Nouv.-Caléd. 14: 58. 1987) wrote “Lectotype (désigné ici): Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!; iso-, Z)” while providing a full and direct reference to Guillaumin’s Latin description (Art. 33.1; see Art. 46 Ex. 20); McPherson & Tirel’s use of “lectotype” is correctable to “holotype” under Art. 9.9.
- Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single specimen or gathering. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual type, such as the collector’s name or collecting number or date, is required.
- Cultures of algae and fungi preserved in a metabolically inactive state are acceptable as types (Art. 8.4; see also Rec. 8B.1).
- For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration prior to 1 January 2007; on or after that date, the type must be a specimen (except as provided in Art. 40.5).
- “Dendrobium sibuyanense” (see Art. 8 Ex. 6) was described with a living collection indicated as holotype and was not therefore validly published. It was not validly published later, when Lubag-Arquiza & Christenson (in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006) designated a published drawing as “lectotype”, contrary to Art. 40.6, which does not permit use of the term “lectotype” in naming a new species starting from 1 January 1990. Nor was valid publication effected when Clements & Cootes (in OrchideenJ. 2009: 27–28. 2009) published “Euphlebium sibuyanense” for this taxon, because after 1 January 2007 their indication of this drawing as holotype was precluded by Art. 40.4.
- For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.
- For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.2). But in the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient.
- “Crataegus laurentiana var. dissimilifolia” was not validly published by Kruschke (in Publ. Bot. Milwaukee Public Mus. 3: 35. 1965), because, contrary to Art. 40, two gatherings were cited as “type”. Phipps (in J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 3: 242. 2009) made a full and direct reference to Kruschke’s Latin diagnosis (Art. 7.7) but termed Kruschke K-49-145 as “lectotype”. As he did not use either of the terms “typus” or “holotypus”, nor one of their abbreviations or equivalents in a modern language, Phipps did not validly publish the name.
- For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the single herbarium or collection or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.3 and 40A.4).
- In the protologue of Setaria excurrens var. leviflora Keng ex S. L. Chen (in Bull. Nanjing Bot. Gard. 1988–1989: 3. 1990) the gathering Guangxi Team 4088 was indicated as “模式” [“type”] and the herbarium where the type is conserved was specified as “中国科学院植物研究所標本室” [“Herbarium, Institute of Botany, The Chinese Academy of Sciences”], i.e. PE.
- Specification of the herbarium or collection or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index herbariorum, part I, or in the World directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms.
- When ’t Hart described “Sedum eriocarpum subsp. spathulifolium” (in Ot Sist. Bot. Dergisi 2(2): 7. 1995) the name was not validly published because no herbarium or collection or institution in which the holotype specimen was conserved was specified. Valid publication was effected when ’t Hart (in Strid & Tan, Fl. Hellen. 2: 325. 2002) wrote “Type ... ’t Hart HRT-27104 ... (U)” while providing a full and direct reference to his previously published Latin diagnosis (Art. 33.1).
Recommendation 40A
- The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the description or diagnosis and should include the Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.
- Details of the type specimen of the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon should be published in Roman script.
- Specification of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition (see Art. 40 Note 4) should be followed by any available number permanently identifying the holotype specimen (see also Rec. 9D.1).
- Citation of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition should use one of the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4.