Article 35

35.1. A name of a taxon below the rank of genus is not validly published unless the name of the genus or species to which it is assigned is validly published at the same time or was validly published previously (but see Art. 13.4).

Ex. 1. Binary designations for six species of “Suaeda”, including “S. baccata” and “S. vera”, were published with descriptions and diagnoses by Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 69–71. 1775), but he provided no description or diagnosis for the genus: these were not therefore validly published names.

Ex. 2. Müller (in Flora 63: 286. 1880) published the new genus “Phlyctidia” with the species “P. hampeana n. sp.”, “P. boliviensis” (Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.), “P. sorediiformis” (Phlyctis sorediiformis Kremp.), “P. brasiliensis” (Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and “P. andensis” (Phlyctis andensis Nyl.). However, the intended new binomials were not validly published in this place because the intended generic name “Phlyctidia” was not validly published; Müller gave no generic description or diagnosis but only a description and a diagnosis for one additional species, “P. hampeana”, and so failed to validly publish “Phlyctidia” under Art. 38.5 because the genus was not monotypic (see Art. 38.6). Valid publication of the name Phlyctidia was by Müller (in Hedwigia 34: 141. 1895), who provided a short generic diagnosis and explicitly included only two species, the names of which, P. ludoviciensis Müll. Arg. and P. boliviensis (Nyl.) Müll. Arg., were also validly published in 1895.

Note 1. Art. 35.1 applies also when specific and other epithets are published under words not to be regarded as names of genera or species (see Art. 20.4 and 23.6).

Ex. 3. The binary designation “Anonymos aquatica” (Walter, Fl. Carol.: 230. 1788) is not a validly published name. The first validly published name for the species concerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel. (Syst. Nat. 2: 150. 1791). This name is not to be cited as P. aquatica “(Walter) J. F. Gmel.”

Ex. 4. Despite the existence of the generic name Scirpoides Ség. (Pl. Veron. Suppl.: 73. 1754), the binary designation “S. paradoxus” (Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.: 27. 1772) is not validly published because “Scirpoides” in Rottbøll’s context was a word not intended as a generic name (see Art. 20 Ex. 10). The first validly published name for this species is Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (Descr. Icon. Rar. Pl. 70. 1773).

35.2. A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless the author definitely associates the final epithet with the name of the genus or species, or with its abbreviation (see Art. 60.14).

Ex. 5. Combinations validly published. In Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, the placing of the epithet in the margin opposite the name of the genus clearly associates the epithet with the name of the genus. The same result is attained in Miller’s The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, by the inclusion of the epithet in parentheses immediately after the name of the genus, in Steudel’s Nomenclator botanicus by the arrangement of the epithets in a list headed by the name of the genus, and in general by any typographical device that associates an epithet with a particular name of a genus or species.

Ex. 6. Combinations not validly published. Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia that “Le type de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn.” (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not constitute valid publication of the combination B. ciliata because Rafinesque did not definitely associate the epithet ciliata with the generic name Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is not to be attributed to Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867) on the basis of their listing of “Cnidium peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under Eulophus.

Ex. 7. Erioderma polycarpum subsp. verruculosum Vain. (in Acta Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 7(1): 202. 1890) is validly published because Vainio clearly linked the subspecific epithet to the specific epithet by an asterisk.

Ex. 8. When Tuckerman (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 168. 1877) described “Erioderma velligerum, sub-sp. nov.”, he stated that his new subspecies was very near to E. chilense, from which he provided distinguishing features. However, because he did not definitely associate the subspecific epithet with that species name, he did not validly publish “E. chilense subsp. velligerum”.