CHAPTER V

VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

SECTION 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 36

36.1. A name is not validly published when it is not accepted by its author in the original publication, for example (a) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name) or (b) when it is merely cited as a synonym. These provisions do not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.

Ex. 1. “Sebertia”, proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a unispecific genus, was not validly published by Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept the genus. Although he gave a description of it, he referred its only species “Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)” to the genus Sersalisia R. Br., as “Sersalisia ? acuminata”, which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 36.1 last sentence. The name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., Nachtr. 1: 280. 1897).

Ex. 2. The designations listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium amboinense defended by Stickman (1754) were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not validly published.

Ex. 3. Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in Mag. Neuesten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809) even though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory’s request, Flörke included Bory’s diagnosis (and name) making Bory the publishing author as defined in Art. 46.6. The acceptance or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not therefore relevant for valid publication.

Ex. 4. (a) The designation “Conophyton”, suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82. 1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words “If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt”, was not a validly published generic name because Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 71: 198. 1922).

Ex. 5. (a) “Pteridospermaexylon” and “P. theresiae” were published by Greguss (in Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952) for a genus and species of fossil wood. Because Greguss explicitly stated “Vorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen … [provisionally I designate it by the names …]”, these are provisional names and as such are not validly published.

Ex. 6. (a) The designation “Stereocaulon subdenudatum” proposed by Havaas (in Bergens Mus. Årbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published, even though it was presented as a new species with a Latin diagnosis, because on both pages it was indicated to be “ad int.” [ad interim, for the time being].

Ex. 7. (b) “Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch.” was not validly published by Kunth (Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) when he cited it as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth; the correct combination under Ornithogalum L. was validly published later: O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (in Verh. Bot. Vereins Prov. Brandenburg 8: 165. 1866).

Ex. 8. Besenna A. Rich. and B. anthelmintica A. Rich. (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1: 253. 1847) were simultaneously published by Richard, both with a question mark (“Besenna ?” and “Besenna anthelmintica ? Nob.”). Richard’s uncertainty was due to the absence of flowers or fruits for examination, but the names were nonetheless accepted by him, with Besenna listed as such (i.e. not italicized) in the index (p. [469]).

36.2. A name is not validly published by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned.

Ex. 9. The family designation “Rhaptopetalaceae” was not validly published by Pierre (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. May 1897), who merely mentioned the constituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., Rhaptopetalum Oliv., and “Scytopetalum”, but gave no description or diagnosis; a description of the family was published under the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., Nachtr. 1: 242. Oct 1897).

Ex. 10. The generic designation “Ganymedes” was not validly published by Salisbury (in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 353–355. 1812), who merely mentioned three included species but supplied no generic description or diagnosis.

36.3. When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names based on the same type are accepted simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author and accepted as alternatives by that author in the same publication (so-called alternative names), none of them, if new, is validly published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa or for subdivisions of a genus (see Rec. 22A.1, 22A.2, and 26A.1–3), nor to names provided for in Art. F.8.1.

Ex. 11. The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23–29. 1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl. added in a footnote (pp. 23–24), in which Ducke indicated acceptability of these names under the competing (alternative) American Code. The publication of both sets of names is valid because it was effected before 1 January 1953.

Ex. 12. “Euphorbia jaroslavii” (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, “Tithymalus jaroslavii”. Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a differently transcribed initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 21: 484. 1961), who provided a full and direct reference to the earlier publication and rejected the assignment to Tithymalus.

Ex. 13. Freytag (in Sida Bot. Misc. 23: 211. 2002) published Phaseolus leptostachyus “var. pinnatifolius Freytag forma purpureus Freytag, var. et forma nov.”, using a single diagnosis and designating a single intended holotype. The diagnosis refers to P. leptostachyus f. purpureus, not to “P. leptostachyus var. pinnatifolius” under which Freytag recognized a second forma in the same paper. The varietal designation “pinnatifolius” is therefore a nomen nudum, not validly published.

Ex. 14. Hitchcock (in Univ. Washington Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507–508. 1969) used the name Bromus inermis subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct reference to its basionym, B. pumpellianus Scribn. (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 15: 9. 1888). Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties, one of which he named B. inermis var. pumpellianus (without an author citation but clearly based on the same basionym and type). In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.