Article 41

• In order to be validly published, a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name (see Art. 6.10 and 6.11), must be accompanied by a reference to the basionym or replaced synonym.
• For the purpose of valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name, the following restrictions apply: (a) for a name of a family or subdivision of a family, the basionym or replaced synonym must be a name of a family or subdivision of a family; (b) for a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus, the basionym or replaced synonym must be a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus; and (c) for a name of a species or infraspecific taxon, the basionym or replaced synonym must be a name of a species or infraspecific taxon.
  • Thuspeinanta T. Durand (1888) is a replacement name for Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848) non Herb. (1837); Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (1853) is based on Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. (Prodr. 2: 169. 1825).
• Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference (see Art. 38.14) to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name. Thus, errors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, or in author citation (Art. 46), do not affect valid publication of such names.
  • The name “Persicaria runcinata (Hamilt.)” was included in a list of names by Masamune (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 51: 234. 1937) with no further information. The name Polygonum runcinatum was validly published by Don (Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 73. 1825) and ascribed there to “Hamilton mss”. The mention by Masamune of “Hamilt.” is regarded as an indirect reference through Buchanan-Hamilton to the basionym published by Don, and thus the new combination Persicaria runcinata (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Masam. was validly published.
  • Opiz validly published the name at new rank Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz (1852) by writing “Hemisphace Benth.”, which is regarded as an indirect reference to the basionym Salvia sect. Hemisphace Benth. (Labiat. Gen. Spec.: 193. 1833).
  • The new combination Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson (1882) is validly published through the cryptic notation “309”, which, as explained at the top of the same page, is the running-number of the species (Andropogon martini Roxb.) in Steudel (Syn. Pl. Glumac. 1: 388. 1854). Although the reference to the basionym A. martini is indirect, it is unambiguous (but see Art. 33 Ex. 1; see also Rec. 60C.2).
  • Miller (1768), in the preface to The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, stated that he had “now applied Linnaeus’s method entirely except in such particulars ...”, of which he gave examples. In the main text, he often referred to Linnaean genera under his own generic headings, e.g. to Cactus L. [pro parte] under Opuntia Mill. Therefore an implicit reference to a Linnaean binomial may be assumed when this is appropriate, and Miller’s binomials are accepted as new combinations (e.g. O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill., based on C. ficus-indica L.) or replacement names (e.g. O. vulgaris Mill., based on C. opuntia L.: both names have the reference to “Opuntia vulgo herbariorum” of Bauhin & Cherler in common).
• If, for a name of a genus or taxon of lower rank published before 1 January 1953, no reference to a basionym is given but the conditions for its valid publication as the name of a new taxon or replacement name are fulfilled, that name is nevertheless treated as a new combination or name at new rank when this was the author’s presumed intent and a potential basionym (Art. 6.10) applying to the same taxon exists.
  • In Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871) the note (p. 12) explaining that the author intended to adopt at generic rank the subdivisions of Agaricus then in use, which at the time were those of Fries, and the general arrangement of the work, which faithfully follows that of Fries, have been considered to provide indirect reference to Fries’s earlier names of “tribes” as basionyms. Even though this was Kummer’s presumed intent, he did not actually mention Fries, and it is questionable whether he gave any reference, even indirect, to a basionym. However, even when Art. 41.3 is not considered to apply, as Kummer by providing diagnoses in a key fulfilled the conditions for valid publication of names of new taxa, Art. 41.4 rules that names such as Hypholoma (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. and H. fasciculare (Huds. : Fr.) P. Kumm. are to be accepted as new combinations or names at new rank based on the corresponding Friesian names (here: A. “tribus” Hypholoma Fr. : Fr. and A. fascicularis Huds. : Fr.)
  • Scaevola taccada was validly published by Roxburgh (1814) by reference to an illustration in Rheede (Hort. Malab. 4: t. 59. 1683) that appears to be its sole basis. As the name applies to the species previously described as Lobelia taccada Gaertn. (1788), it is treated as a new combination, S. taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb., not as the name of a new species, even though in Roxburgh’s protologue there is no reference, either direct or indirect, to L. taccada.
  • When Moench (Methodus: 272. 1794) described Chamaecrista, he did not refer to Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753) but used its epithet as the generic name and included its type, Cassia chamaecrista L. (cited in synonymy). Therefore, he published a name at new rank, Chamaecrista (L.) Moench, and not a name of a new genus.
  • Brachiolejeunea was published by Stephani & Spruce (in Hedwigia 28: 167. 1889) for a taxon that had previously been described as Lejeunea subg. Brachiolejeunea Spruce (in Trans. & Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 15: 75, 129. 1884) but without even an indirect reference to Spruce’s earlier publication. Because Stephani & Spruce provided a description of B. plagiochiloides that under Art. 38.5 is acceptable as a descriptio generico-specifica of a monotypic genus, Brachiolejeunea fulfils the requirements for valid publication as the name of a new genus. Under Art. 41.4, it is therefore to be treated as a name at new rank, Brachiolejeunea (Spruce) Steph. & Spruce, based on Spruce’s subgeneric name.
  • When Sampaio published “Psoroma murale Samp.” (in Bol. Real Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 27: 142. 1927), he adopted the epithet of Lichen muralis Schreb. (1771), a name applied to the same taxon, without referring to that name either directly or indirectly. He cited Lecanora saxicola Ach. in synonymy. Under Art. 41.4, Psoroma murale is treated as a new combination based on Lichen muralis; otherwise it would be a validly published but illegitimate replacement name for Lecanora saxicola.
• On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date (but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). On or after 1 January 2007, a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced synonym is cited.
  • In transferring Ectocarpus mucronatus D. A. Saunders to Giffordia, Kjeldsen & Phinney (in Madroño 22: 90. 27 Apr 1973) cited the basionym and its author but without reference to its place of valid publication. They later (in Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul 1973) validly published the new combination G. mucronata (D. A. Saunders) Kjeldsen & H. K. Phinney by giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication of the basionym.
  • For the purpose of Art. 41.5, a page reference (for publications with a consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue appears, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that of the protologue (see also Art. 30 Note 2).
  • When proposing “Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally (in Mycotaxon 40: 337. 1991) cited the basionym as “Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesew., Can. J. Bot. 60: 2288–2294. 1982”. As this refers to the pagination of Boesewinkel’s entire paper, not of the protologue of the intended basionym alone, the combination was not validly published by Peerally.
  • The new combination Conophytum marginatum subsp. littlewoodii (L. Bolus) S. A. Hammer (Dumpling & His Wife: New Views Gen. Conophytum: 181. 2002), being made prior to 1 January 2007, was validly published even though Hammer did not cite the basionym (C. littlewoodii L. Bolus) but only indicated it by giving a full and direct reference to its place of valid publication.
• For names published on or after 1 January 1953, errors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation (Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 41.5), do not preclude valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name.
  • Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) F. Seym. (Fl. New England: 308. 1969) was published as a new combination “Based on Mespilus arbutifolia L. var. nigra Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800.” Willdenow treated these plants in the genus Pyrus, not Mespilus, and publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors of citation do not prevent valid publication of the new combination.
  • The name at new rank Agropyron desertorum var. pilosiusculum (Melderis) H. L. Yang (in Kuo, Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 9(3): 113. 1987) was inadvertently but validly published by Yang, who wrote “Agropyron desertorum ... var. pilosiusculum Meld. in Norlindh, Fl. Mong. Steppe. 1: 121. 1949”, which constitutes a full and direct reference to the basionym, A. desertorum f. pilosiusculum Melderis, despite the error in citing the rank-denoting term.
• Mere reference to the Index kewensis, the Index of fungi, or any work other than that in which the name was validly published does not constitute a full and direct reference to the place of publication of a name (but see Art. 41.8).
  • For the purposes of Art. 41.7 an early version of an unpaginated or independently paginated electronic publication and a later version with definitive pagination are not considered to be different publications (Art. 30 Note 2).
  • Ciferri (in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86–89. 1954), in proposing 142 intended new combinations in Meliola, omitted references to places of publication of basionyms, stating that they could be found in Petrak’s lists or in the Index of fungi; none of these combinations was validly published. Similarly, Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ.: 18. 1963) introduced a new combination in the form Lecanora campestris f. “pseudistera (Nyl.) Grumm. c.n. – L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521”, in which “Z 5” referred to Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. Univ. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the basionym, Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.; Grummann’s combination was not validly published.
  • A new name published for a taxon previously known under a misapplied name is always the name of a new taxon and must therefore meet all relevant requirements of Art. 32–45 for valid publication of such a name. This procedure is not the same as publishing a replacement name for a validly published but illegitimate name (Art. 58.1), the type of which is necessarily that of the replaced synonym (Art. 7.4).
  • Sadleria hillebrandii Rob. (1913) was introduced as a “nom. nov.” for “Sadleria pallida Hilleb. Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888. Not Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. 75. 1832.” Since the requirements for valid publication were satisfied (prior to 1935, simple reference to a previous description or diagnosis in any language was sufficient), the name is a validly published name of a new species, validated by Hillebrand’s description of the taxon to which he misapplied the name S. pallida Hook. & Arn., but not a replacement name as stated by Robinson.
  • “Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis” (Hermann in U.S. Forest Serv., Techn. Rep. RM-18: 14. 1975) was published as a “nom. et stat. nov.” for J. sphaerocarpus “auct. Am., non Nees”. Since there is no Latin description or diagnosis, indication of type, or reference to any previous publication providing these requirements, this is not a validly published name.
• On or after 1 January 1953, in any of the following cases, a full and direct reference to a work other than that in which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published is treated as an error to be corrected, not affecting the valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name:
  • when the name cited as the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published earlier than in the cited publication, but in that cited publication, in which all conditions for valid publication are again fulfilled, there is no reference to the actual place of valid publication;
  • when the failure to cite the place of valid publication of the basionym or replaced synonym is explained by the later nomenclatural starting-point for the group concerned, or by the backward shift of the starting date for some fungi;
  • when an intended new combination or name at new rank would otherwise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegitimate) replacement name; or
  • when an intended new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name would otherwise be the validly published name of a new taxon.
  • (a) The new combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (1970) with a full and direct reference to “Alsophila Kalbreyeri C. Chr. Ind. Fil. 44. 1905”. This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended basionym, which had previously been published, with the same type, by Baker (1892; see Art. 6 Ex. 1). As Christensen provided no reference to Baker’s earlier publication, Tryon’s error of citation does not affect the valid publication of his new combination, which is to be cited as T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M. Tryon.
  • (a) The intended new combination “Machaerina iridifolia” was proposed by Koyama (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69: 64. 1956) with a full and direct reference to “Cladium iridifolium Baker, Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”. However, C. iridifolium had been proposed by Baker as a new combination based on Scirpus iridifolius Bory (1804). As Baker provided an explicit reference to Bory, Art. 41.8(a) does not apply and the combination under Machaerina was not validly published by Koyama.
  • (b) The combination Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with a full and direct reference to Peziza corticalis in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the basionym, which, under the Code operating in 1980, was in Mérat (Nouv. Fl. Env. Paris, ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821), and under the current Code is in Persoon (Observ. Mycol. 1: 28. 1796). Raitviir’s error of citation, being partly explained by the backward shift of the starting date for most fungi and partly by the absence of a reference to Mérat in Fries’s work, does not prevent valid publication of the new combination, which is to be cited as L. corticale (Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.
  • (c) The new combination Mirabilis laevis subsp. glutinosa was proposed by Murray (in Kalmia 13: 32. 1983) with a full and direct reference to “Mirabilis glutinosa A. Nels., Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 92 (1904)” as the intended basionym. This, however, cannot be a basionym because it is an illegitimate later homonym of M. glutinosa Kuntze (1898); it is also the replaced synonym of Hesperonia glutinosa Standl. (1909). Under Art. 41.8(c) Murray validly published a new combination based on H. glutinosa because otherwise he would have published a replacement name for M. glutinosa. The name is therefore to be cited as M. laevis subsp. glutinosa (Standl.) A. E. Murray.
  • (c) The new combination Tillandsia barclayana var. minor was proposed by Butcher (in Bromeliaceae 43(6): 5. 2009) with a reference, but not a full and direct one, to Vriesea barclayana var. minor Gilmartin (in Phytologia 16: 164. 1968). Butcher also provided a full and direct reference to T. lateritia André (1888), which is the replaced synonym of V. barclayana var. minor. Under Art. 41.8(c), T. barclayana var. minor (Gilmartin) Butcher was validly published as a new combination based on V. barclayana var. minor because it would otherwise have been published as a replacement name for T. lateritia.
  • (d) The replacement name Agropyron kengii was proposed by Tzvelev (1968) with a full and direct reference to “Roegneria hirsuta Keng, Fl. ill. sin., Gram. (1959) 407”. This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended replaced synonym, which was subsequently validly published by Keng (1963). As Tzvelev also provided a Latin description and indicated a single gathering as the type, the replacement name was validly published as such because it would otherwise have been the validly published name of a new taxon.

Recommendation 41A

• The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym or replaced synonym should immediately follow a proposed new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name. It should not be provided by mere cross-reference to a bibliography at the end of the publication or to other parts of the same publication, e.g. by use of the abbreviations “loc. cit.” or “op. cit.”