Article 6

• Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 29–31.
• Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Art. 32–45 or H.9 (see also Art. 61).
  • For nomenclatural purposes, valid publication creates a name, and sometimes also an autonym (Art. 22.1 and 26.1), but does not itself imply any taxonomic circumscription beyond inclusion of the type of the name (Art. 7.1).
• In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “name” means a name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate (see Art. 12; but see Art. 14.15).
  • When the same name, based on the same type, has been published independently at different times perhaps by different authors, then only the earliest of these “isonyms” has nomenclatural status. The name is always to be cited from its original place of valid publication, and later isonyms may be disregarded (but see Art. 14.15).
  • Baker (Summary New Ferns: 9. 1892) and Christensen (Index Filic.: 44. 1905) independently published the name Alsophila kalbreyeri as a replacement for A. podophylla Baker (1881) non Hook. (1857). As published by Christensen, A. kalbreyeri is a later isonym of A. kalbreyeri Baker without nomenclatural status (see also Art. 41 Ex. 19).
  • In publishing “Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.”, Leenhouts (in Blumea 9: 406. 1959) re-used the illegitimate C. pimela K. D. Koenig (1805), attributing it to himself and basing it on the same type. He thereby created a later isonym without nomenclatural status.
• An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in Art. 18.3, 19.6, or 52–54 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 2). A name that according to this Code was illegitimate when published cannot become legitimate later unless Art. 18.3 or 19.6 so provide or unless it is conserved or sanctioned.
  • Anisothecium Mitt. (1869) when published included the previously designated type of Dicranella (Müll. Hal.) Schimp. (1856). When Dicranella was conserved with a different type, Anisothecium did not thereby become legitimate.
  • Skeletonemopsis P. A. Sims (1995) was illegitimate when published because it included the original type of Skeletonema Grev. (1865). When Skeletonema was conserved with a different type, Skeletonemopsis nevertheless remained illegitimate and had to be conserved in order to be available for use.
• A legitimate name is one that is in accordance with the rules, i.e. one that is not illegitimate as defined in Art. 6.4.
• At the rank of family or below, the correct name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank is the legitimate name that must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 11).
  • The generic name Vexillifera Ducke (1922), based on the single species V. micranthera, is legitimate. The same is true of the generic name Dussia Krug & Urb. ex Taub. (1892), based on the single species D. martinicensis. Both generic names are correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 19: 291. 1924), however, united Vexillifera and Dussia in a single genus; the latter name is the correct one for the genus with that particular circumscription. The legitimate name Vexillifera may therefore be correct or incorrect according to different taxonomic concepts.
• The name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name of a genus combined with one or two epithets, is termed a combination (see Art. 21, 23, and 24).
  • Combinations: Mouriri subg. Pericrene, Arytera sect. Mischarytera, Gentiana lutea, Gentiana tenella var. occidentalis, Equisetum palustre var. americanum, Equisetum palustre f. fluitans.
• Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under Art. 22.3 and 26.3, whether or not they actually appear in the publication in which they are created (see Art. 32.3, Rec. 22B.1 and 26B.1).
• The name of a new taxon (e.g. genus novum, gen. nov., species nova, sp. nov.) is a name validly published in its own right, i.e. one not based on a previously validly published name; it is not a new combination, a name at new rank, or a replacement name.
  • Cannaceae Juss. (1789), Canna L. (1753), Canna indica L. (1753), Heterotrichum pulchellum Fisch. (1812), Poa sibirica Roshev. (1912), Solanum umtuma Voronts. & S. Knapp (2012).
• A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or name at new rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate, previously published name, which is its basionym. The basionym provides the final epithet, name, or stem of the new combination or name at new rank. (see also Art. 41.2).
  • The basionym of Centaurea benedicta (L.) L. (1763) is Cnicus benedictus L. (1753), the name that provides the epithet.
  • The basionym of Crupina (Pers.) DC. (1810) is Centaurea subg. Crupina Pers. (Syn. Pl. 2: 488. 1807), the name of which the epithet provides the generic name; it is not Centaurea crupina L. (1753) (see Art. 41.2(b)).
  • The basionym of Anthemis subg. Ammanthus (Boiss. & Heldr.) R. Fern. (1975) is Ammanthus Boiss. & Heldr. (1849), the name that provides the epithet.
  • The basionym of Ricinocarpaceae Hurus. (in J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, ser. 3, Bot., 6: 224. 1954) is Ricinocarpeae Müll.-Arg. (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 22: 324. 1864), but not Ricinocarpos Desf. (1817) (see Art. 41.2(a); see also Art. 49.2), from which the names of both family and tribe are formed.
  • The phrase “nomenclatural novelty”, as used in this Code, refers to any or all of the categories: name of a new taxon, new combination, name at new rank, and replacement name.
  • A new combination can at the same time be a name at new rank (comb. & stat. nov.); a nomenclatural novelty with a basionym may be neither of these.
  • Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. (1768), based on A. perfoliata var. vera L. (Sp. Pl.: 320. 1753), is both a new combination and a name at new rank.
  • Centaurea jacea subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Greuter, “comb. in stat. nov.” (in Willdenowia 33: 55. 2002), based on C. weldeniana Rchb. (1831), was not a new combination because C. jacea var. weldeniana (Rchb.) Briq. (Monogr. Centaurées Alpes Marit.: 69. 1902) had been published previously; nor was it a name at new rank, due to the existence of C. amara subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Kušan (in Prir. Istraž. Kral. Jugoslavije 20: 29. 1936); it was nevertheless a nomenclatural novelty.
• A replacement name (avowed substitute, nomen novum, nom. nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate or illegitimate, previously published name, which is its replaced synonym. The replaced synonym, when legitimate, does not provide the final epithet, name, or stem of the replacement name (see also Art. 58.1).
  • Caulerpa pinnata C. Agardh (1817), based on the illegitimate Fucus pinnatus L. f. (1782), a later homonym of F. pinnatus Huds. (1762). – Centaurea chartolepis Greuter (2003), based on Chartolepis intermedia Boiss. (1856), the epithet intermedia being unavailable in Centaurea because of Centaurea intermedia Mutel (1846). – Cyanus segetum Hill (1762), based on Centaurea cyanus L. (1753), the epithet cyanus being unavailable in combination with Cyanus (Art. 23.4). – Mycena coccineoides Grgur. (2003), based on Omphalina coccinea Murrill (1916), as M. coccinea (Murrill) Singer (1962) is an illegitimate later homonym of M. coccinea (Sowerby) Quél. (1880).