Article 7

• The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The application of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by means of types when the names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.7).
• A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon.
• A new combination or a name at new rank (Art. 6.10) is typified by the type of the basionym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 48.1).
  • Pinus mertensiana Bong. was transferred to the genus Tsuga by Carrière, who, however, as is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combination T. mertensiana to another species of Tsuga, namely T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. The combination T. mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière must not be applied to T. heterophylla but must be retained for P. mertensiana when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art. 49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the basionym, and hence the type, of the name.
  • Delesseria gmelinii J. V. Lamour. (1813) is a legitimate replacement name for Fucus palmetta S. G. Gmel. (1768), the change of epithet being necessitated by the simultaneous publication of D. palmetta (Stackh.) J. V. Lamour. (see Art. 11 Note 2). All combinations based on D. gmelinii (and not excluding the type of F. palmetta; see Art. 48.1) have the same type as F. palmetta even though the material possessed by Lamouroux is now assigned to a different species, D. bonnemaisonii C. Agardh (1822).
  • The new combination Cystocoleus ebeneus (Dillwyn) Thwaites (1849) is typified by the type of its basionym Conferva ebenea Dillwyn (1809) even though the material illustrated by Thwaites was of Racodium rupestre Pers. (1794).
• A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typified by the type of the replaced synonym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).
  • Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a replacement name for M. laevis O. Berg (1862), an illegitimate homonym of M. laevis G. Don (1832). The type of M. lucida is therefore the type of M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely, Spruce 3502 (BR).
• A name that is illegitimate under Art. 52 is typified either by the type of the name that ought to have been adopted under the rules (automatic typification), or by a different type designated or definitely indicated by the author of the illegitimate name. However, if no type was designated or definitely indicated and the type of the earlier name was included (see Art. 52.2) in a subordinate taxon that did not include the evidently intended type of the illegitimate name, typification is not automatic. Automatic typification does not apply to names sanctioned under Art. 15.
  • Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (1976) is illegitimate under Art. 52 (see Art. 52 Ex. 9), but its publication as a replacement name for B. retusa Roxb. (1832) non Poir. (1811) is definite indication of a different type (that of B. retusa) from that of the name (B. roxburghiana Voigt, 1845) that ought to have been adopted.
  • Hewittia bicolor Wight & Arn. (1837), which provides the type of Hewittia Wight & Arn., is illegitimate under Art. 52 because, in addition to the illegitimate intended basionym Convolvulus bicolor Vahl (1794) non Desr. (1792), the legitimate C. bracteatus Vahl (1794) was cited as a synonym. Wight & Arnott’s adoption of the epithet “bicolor” is definite indication that the type of H. bicolor, and therefore the type of Hewittia, is the type of C. bicolor, not that of C. bracteatus, the epithet of which ought to have been adopted.
  • Gilia splendens, when validly published by Mason & Grant (in Madroño 9: 212. 1948), included, as “a long-tubed form of the species”, G. splendens subsp. grinnellii, based on G. grinnellii Brand (1907), and is therefore illegitimate under Art. 52. Mason & Grant, who believed that G. splendens was already validly published, did not indicate its type, which is not automatically that of G. grinnellii; the specimen that has since been adopted as the conserved type could have been selected as lectotype.
• The type of an autonym is the same as that of the name from which it is derived.
  • The type of Caulerpa racemosa (Forssk.) J. Agardh var. racemosa is that of C. racemosa; the type of C. racemosa is that of its basionym, Fucus racemosus Forssk. (1775), i.e. Herb. Forsskål No. 845 (C).
• A name of a new taxon validly published solely by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)) is to be typified by an element selected from the entire context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type, but not by an element explicitly excluded by the validating author (see also Art. 7.8).
  • Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to the description associated with an illustration devoid of analysis, “Rumph. amb. 3: t. 112”, cited by Moon, the lectotype of the name, in the absence of the specimen(s) on which the validating description was based, is the illustration associated with that description, i.e. t. 112 (in Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 3. 1743). It is not the specimen, at Kew, collected by Moon and labelled “Adenanthera bicolor”, since Moon did not definitely designate the latter as the type.
  • Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or diagnosis but with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a “Lycopsis” species was discussed with no description or diagnosis but with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax: 255. 1623). The accepted validating description of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen from the context of his work. Consequently the Sherard specimen in the Morison herbarium (OXF), selected by Klotz (in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Math.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9: 375–376. 1960), although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The first acceptable choice is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of “Echii altera species” in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620. 1583), suggested by Gibbs (in Lagascalia 1: 60–61. 1971) and formally made by Stearn (in Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973).
  • Hieracium oribates Brenner (1904) was validly published without accompanying descriptive matter but with reference to the validating description of H. saxifragum subsp. oreinum Dahlst. ex Brenner (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 18: 89. 1892). As Brenner definitely excluded the earlier name itself and part of its original material, H. oribates is the name of a new taxon, not a replacement name, and may not be typified by an excluded element.
• A name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be typified by an element selected from the context of its valid publication (Art. 32–45).
  • The typification of names of fossil-taxa (Art. 1.2) and of any other analogous taxa at or below the rank of genus does not differ from that indicated above.
• For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only by effective publication (Art. 29–31).
• For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent.
  • Art. 7.9 and 7.10 apply only to the designation of lectotypes (and their equivalents under Art. 10), neotypes, and epitypes; for the indication of a holotype see Art. 40.
  • Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907) originally comprised two species, C. minor and C. elegans. Vischer (1933) transferred the former to Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained the latter in Chlorosarcina. He did not, however, use the term “type” or an equivalent, so that his action does not constitute typification of Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a type, as “LT.”, was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov 1962), who selected Chlorosarcina elegans.
  • The phrase “standard species” as used by Hitchcock & Green (Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 110–199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to “type”, and hence type designations in that work are acceptable.

Recommendation 7A

• It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, especially the holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection with a policy of giving bona fide researchers access to deposited material, and that it be scrupulously conserved.