CHAPTER V

VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

SECTION 2

NAMES OF NEW TAXA

Article 40

40.1. Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is indicated (see Art. 7–10; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids).

40.2. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, indication of the type as required by Art. 40.1 can be achieved by reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, even if it consists of two or more specimens as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.7).

Ex. 1. When Cheng described “Gnetum cleistostachyum” (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 13(4): 89. 1975) the name was not validly published because two gatherings were designated as types: K. H. Tsai 142 (as “♀ Typus”) and X. Jiang 127 (as “♂ Typus”).

Note 1. When the type is indicated by reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, that consists of more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes (see Art. 9.6).

Ex. 2. The protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 276 (Heft 108): 855. 1968) includes the type statement “E. Esterhuysen No. 17070! Typus – Pret., Bol.” The name is validly published because a single gathering is cited, despite the mention of duplicate specimens (syntypes) in two different herbaria, and Art. 40.7 does not apply.

Ex. 3. Radcliffe-Smith (in Gen. Croton. Madag. Comoro: 169. 2016) indicated the type of Croton nitidulus var. acuminatus Radcl.-Sm. as “Cours 4871 (holotypus P)”. In the herbarium P there are four duplicates of Cours 4871. The name is validly published because a single gathering in a single herbarium was indicated as type. These specimens are syntypes, and one of them was subsequently designated as the lectotype by Berry & al. (in Phytokeys 90: 69. 2017).

40.3. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.6). For the purpose of Art. 40.1, mention of a single specimen or gathering (Art. 40.2) or illustration, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type of the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon (but see Art. 40.6).

Ex. 4. “Baloghia pininsularis” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann 13823. Because the author failed to designate one of them as the type, the designation was not validly published. Valid publication of the name B. pininsularis Guillaumin was effected when McPherson & Tirel (Fl. Nouv.-Calédonie & Dépend. 14: 58. 1987) wrote “Lectotype (désigné ici): Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!; iso-, Z)” while providing a full and direct reference to Guillaumin’s Latin description (Art. 33.1; see Art. 46 Ex. 22); McPherson & Tirel’s use of “lectotype” is correctable to “holotype” under Art. 9.10.

Note 2. Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single specimen or gathering. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual type is required, such as the collector’s name, collecting number or date, or unique specimen identifier.

Note 3. Cultures of algae and fungi preserved in a metabolically inactive state are acceptable as types (Art. 8.4; see also Rec. 8B and Art. 40.8).

40.4. For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration prior to 1 January 2007; on or after that date, the type must be a specimen (except as provided in Art. 40.5).

Ex. 5. “Dendrobium sibuyanense” (see Art. 8 Ex. 11) was described with a living collection indicated as holotype and was not therefore validly published. It was not validly published later, when Lubag-Arquiza & Christenson (in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006) designated a published drawing as “lectotype”, contrary to Art. 40.6, which does not permit use of the term “lectotype” in naming a new species starting from 1 January 1990. Nor was valid publication effected when Clements & Cootes (in OrchideenJ. 16: 27–28. 2009) published “Euphlebium sibuyanense” for this taxon because after 1 January 2007 their indication of this drawing as holotype was precluded by Art. 40.4.

40.5. For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.

Ex. 6. Lücking & Moncada (in Fungal Diversity 84: 119–138. 2017) introduced “Lawreymyces” and seven intended microfungal species names using representations of diagnostic sequences of bases of DNA from the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) region as intended types. These representations are not illustrations under Art. 6.1 footnote because they are not depictions of features of the organisms, and consequently the intended names were not validly published.

40.6. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). But in the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient.

Ex. 7. When Stephenson described “Sedum mucizonia (Ortega) Raym.-Hamet subsp. urceolatum” (in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 64: 234. 1992) the name was not validly published because the protologue lacked the indication “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language, a requirement for names published on or after 1 January 1990.

40.7. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the single herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.5 and 40A.6).

Ex. 8. In the protologue of Setaria excurrens var. leviflora Keng ex S. L. Chen (in Bull. Nanjing Bot. Gard. 1988–1989: 3. 1990) the gathering Guangxi Team 4088 was indicated as “模式” [type] and the herbarium where the type is conserved was specified as “中国科学院植物研究所标本室” [Herbarium, Institute of Botany, The Chinese Academy of Sciences], i.e. PE.

Note 4. Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index Herbariorum (http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/) or in the World directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms.

Ex. 9. When ’t Hart described “Sedum eriocarpum subsp. spathulifolium” (in Ot Sist. Bot. Dergisi 2(2): 7. 1995) the name was not validly published because no herbarium, collection, or institution in which the holotype specimen was conserved was specified. Valid publication was effected when ’t Hart (in Strid & Tan, Fl. Hellen. 2: 325. 2002) wrote “Type … ’t Hart HRT-27104 … (U)” while providing a full and direct reference to his previously published Latin diagnosis (Art. 33.1).

40.8. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2019 of which the type is a culture, the protologue must include a statement that the culture is preserved in a metabolically inactive state.

Recommendation 40A

40A.1. The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the description or diagnosis and should include the Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.

40A.2. Authors proposing names of new families or subdivisions of families are urged to ensure that the generic name from which the new name is formed is itself effectively typified (see Art. 7 and 10), if necessary by designating a type for that generic name under the relevant provisions of Art. 7 and 10 (see also Rec. 40A.3).

40A.3. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, authors should cite the type of the species name (see Art. 7–9) that provides the type (Art. 10.1) of the new name and, if necessary, designate the type for that species name under the relevant provisions of Art. 7 and 9.

40A.4. Details of the type specimen of the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon should be published in the Latin alphabet.

40A.5. Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition should be followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying the holotype specimen.

Ex. 1. The type of Sladenia integrifolia Y. M. Shui & W. H. Chen (in Novon 12: 539. 2002) was designated as “Mo Ming-Zhong, Mao Rong-Hua & Yu Zhi-Yong 05 (holotype, KUN 0735701; isotypes, MO, PE)”, where KUN No. 0735701 is the unique identifier of the holotype sheet in the herbarium of the Kunming Institute of Botany (KUN).

40A.6. Citation of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition should use one of the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4 or, when those standards give no abbreviated form, should be given in full with the location.