46.1. In publications, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature, it may be desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to the protologue is made, to cite the author(s) of the name concerned (see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1). In so doing, the following rules apply.
Ex. 1. Rosaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 334. 1789), Rosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 491. 1753), Rosa gallica L. (l.c.: 492. 1753), Rosa gallica var. versicolor L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 704. 1762), Rosa gallica L. var. gallica.
Note 1. A name of a taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears (see Art. 46.5) unless one or more of the provisions of Art. 46 rules otherwise.
46.2. A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) to whom the name was ascribed when the validating description or diagnosis was simultaneously ascribed to or unequivocally associated with the same author(s), even when authorship of the publication is different. A new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) to whom it was ascribed when, in the publication in which it appears, it is explicitly stated that the same author(s) contributed in some way to that publication. Art. 46.5 notwithstanding, authorship of a nomenclatural novelty is always accepted as ascribed, even when it differs from authorship of the publication, when at least one author is common to both.
Ex. 2. The name Pinus longaeva was published in a paper by Bailey (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 57: 243. 1971) and was ascribed to “D. K. Bailey”. The validating description is unequivocally associated with Bailey because he is the author of the publication (see Note 5). The name is therefore cited as P. longaeva D. K. Bailey (see also Note 1).
Ex. 3. Wallich (Pl. Asiat. Rar. 3: 66. 15 Aug 1832) ascribed the name Aikinia brunonis to himself (“Wall.”) and, although he ascribed both the diagnosis and description to “Brown”, the correct attribution is A. brunonis Wall. because Wallich is the author of the publication and the name is not ascribed to anyone else (see Note 1).
Ex. 4. The name Viburnum ternatum was published in Sargent (Trees & Shrubs 2: 37. 1907). It was ascribed to “Rehd.”, and the account of the species has “Alfred Rehder” at the end. The name is therefore cited as V. ternatum Rehder.
Ex. 5. In a paper by Hilliard & Burtt (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 43: 365. 1986) names of new species of Schoenoxiphium, including S. altum, were ascribed to Kukkonen, preceded by a statement “The following diagnostic descriptions of new species have been supplied by Dr. I. Kukkonen in order to make the names available for use.” The name is therefore cited as S. altum Kukkonen.
Ex. 6. In Torrey & Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 198. 1838) the names Calyptridium and C. monandrum were ascribed to “Nutt. mss.”, and the descriptions were enclosed in double quotes indicating that Nuttall wrote them, as acknowledged in the preface. The names are therefore cited as Calyptridium Nutt. and C. monandrum Nutt.
Ex. 7. When publishing Eucryphiaceae (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 6: 130. 1848) the otherwise unnamed author “W.”, in a review of Gay’s Flora chilena (1845–1854), wrote “wird die Gattung Eucryphia als Typus einer neuen Familie, der Eucryphiaceae, angesehen”, thus ascribing both the name and its validating description to Gay (Fl. Chil. 1: 348. 1846), who had used the designation “Eucrifiáceas” (see Art. 18.4). The name is therefore cited as Eucryphiaceae Gay.
Ex. 8. When Candolle (Essai Propr. Méd. Pl., ed. 2: 87. 1816) wrote “Elaeocarpeae. Juss., Ann. Mus. 11, p. 233” he ascribed the name to Jussieu and, to validate it, used Jussieu’s diagnosis of an unnamed family (in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 11: 233. 1808). The name is therefore cited as Elaeocarpaceae Juss., nom. cons. (see App. IIB), not Elaeocarpaceae “Juss. ex DC.”
Ex. 9. Green (Census Vasc. Pl. W. Australia, ed. 2: 6. 1985) ascribed the new combination Neotysonia phyllostegia to Wilson and elsewhere in the same publication acknowledged his assistance. The name is therefore cited as N. phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul G. Wilson.
Ex. 10. The authorship of Sophora tomentosa subsp. occidentalis (L.) Brummitt (in Kirkia 5: 265. 1966) is accepted as originally ascribed, although the new combination was published in a paper authored jointly by Brummitt & Gillett.
Note 2. When authorship of a name differs from authorship of the publication in which it was validly published, both are sometimes cited, connected by the word “in”. In such a case, “in” and what follows are part of a bibliographic citation and are better omitted unless the place of publication is being cited.
Ex. 11. The name and original description of Verrucaria aethiobola Wahlenb. (in Acharius, Methodus, Suppl.: 17. 1803) were published in a single paragraph ascribed to “Wahlenb. Msc.” The name is therefore cited as V. aethiobola Wahlenb., not “Wahlenb. ex Ach.” nor “Wahlenb. in Ach.” (unless a full bibliographic citation is given), regardless of the accompanying description provided by Acharius.
Ex. 12. The new combination Crepis lyrata was published in Candolle’s Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis (7: 170. 1838), as “C. lyrata (Froel. in litt. 1837)”, and in a footnote on p. 160 Candolle acknowledged Froelich as having authored the account of the relevant section of Crepis (“Sectiones generis iv, v et vi, à cl. Froelich elaboratae sunt”). The name is therefore cited as C. lyrata (L.) Froel. or C. lyrata (L.) Froel. in Candolle (followed by a bibliographic citation of the place of publication), but not C. lyrata “(L.) Froel. ex DC.”
Ex. 13. The name Physma arnoldianum was published in a paper authored by Arnold (in Flora 41: 94. 1858). Arnold introduced the name as “Ph. Arnoldianum Hepp. lit. 12. Decbr. 1857”, and the description is immediately followed by the phrase “Hepp. in lit.” The name is therefore cited as P. arnoldianum Hepp, not P. arnoldianum “Hepp ex Arnold”. Because Arnold is the author of the paper, not of the whole work (the journal Flora), his name is not required even in a full bibliographic citation.
Note 3. The authorship of a descriptive name (Art. 16.1(b)) is not changed if the name is used at a rank different from that at which it was first validly published because it is not a name at new rank (see Art. 6 Note 3; see also Art. 49.2).
Ex. 14. Streptophyta Caval.-Sm. (in Lewin, Origins of Plastids: 340. 1993) was originally published as a name at the rank of infrakingdom (used as a rank between subkingdom and phylum). When the name is used at the rank of phylum, it is still cited as Streptophyta Caval.-Sm. (1993).
46.3. For the purposes of Art. 46, ascription is the direct association of the name of a person or persons with a new name or description or diagnosis of a taxon. An author citation associated with a synonym does not constitute ascription of the accepted name, nor does reference to a basionym or a replaced synonym (regardless of bibliographic accuracy) or reference to a homonym.
Ex. 15. The name Atropa sideroxyloides was published in Roemer & Schultes (Syst. Veg. 4: 686. 1819), with the name and diagnosis in a single paragraph followed by “Reliq. Willd. MS.” As this represents direct association of Willdenow with both the name and the diagnosis, the name is cited as A. sideroxyloides Willd., not A. sideroxyloides “Roem. & Schult.” nor A. sideroxyloides “Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.”
Ex. 16. Sicyos triqueter Moc. & Sessé ex Ser. (in Candolle, Prodr. 3: 309. 1830) was ascribed to Mociño and Sessé by Seringe’s writing “S. triqueter (Moc. & Sessé, fl. mex. mss.)”. However, Malpighia emarginata DC. (Prodr. 1: 578. 1824) was not ascribed to these authors by Candolle’s writing “M. emarginata (fl. mex. ic. ined.)”.
Ex. 17. Lichen debilis Sm. (in Smith & Sowerby, Engl. Bot. 35: t. 2462. 1812) was not ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s citing “Calicium debile. Turn. and Borr. Mss.” as a synonym.
Ex. 18. When Opiz (1852) wrote “Hemisphace Benth.” he did not ascribe the generic name to Bentham but provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Salvia sect. Hemisphace Benth. (see Art. 41 Ex. 4).
Ex. 19. When Brotherus (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1(3): 875. 1907) published “Dichelodontium nitidum Hook. fil. et Wils.” he provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Leucodon nitidus Hook. f. & Wilson, and did not ascribe the new combination to Hooker and Wilson. He did, however, ascribe to them the simultaneously published name of his new genus, Dichelodontium Hook. f. & Wilson ex Broth.
Ex. 20. When Sheh & Watson (in Wu & al., Fl. China 14: 72. 2005) wrote “Bupleurum hamiltonii var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 12: 291. 1974” they did not ascribe the new combination to any of those authors but provided a full and direct reference to the basionym, B. tenue var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li.
Ex. 21. When Sirodot (1872) wrote “Lemanea Bory” he in fact published a later homonym (see Art. 48 Ex. 1). His reference to Bory’s earlier homonym is not therefore ascription of the later homonym, Lemanea Sirodot, to Bory.
Note 4. When the name of a new taxon is validly published by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)), the name of the author of that description or diagnosis, even if not explicitly mentioned, is unequivocally associated with it.
Ex. 22. The appropriate author citation for Baloghia pininsularis (see Art. 40 Ex. 4) is Guillaumin, and not McPherson & Tirel, because in the protologue the name was ascribed to Guillaumin and a full and direct reference was given to Guillaumin’s earlier Latin description. Even though McPherson & Tirel did not explicitly ascribe the validating description to its author, Guillaumin, he is “unequivocally associated” with it.
Ex. 23. “Pancheria humboldtiana” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Ser. B, Bot. 15: 47. 1964), but not validly so because no type was indicated. Valid publication was effected by Hopkins & Bradford (in Adansonia 31: 119. 2009), who designated “Baumann-Bodenheim 15515 (P! P00143076)” as the holotype, ascribed the name to Guillaumin, and by citing “Pancheria humboldtiana Guillaumin, Mémoires du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, sér. B, botanique 15: 47 (1964), nom. inval.”, provided a full and direct reference to a validating description that is unequivocally associated with Guillaumin. Art. 46.10 notwithstanding, the name is therefore attributed to Guillaumin, not “Guillaumin ex H. C. Hopkins & J. Bradford” as given by Hopkins & Bradford.
Note 5. A name or its validating description or diagnosis is treated as though ascribed to the author(s) of the publication (as defined in Art. 46.6) when there is no ascription to or unequivocal association with a different author or different authors.
Ex. 24. The name Asperococcus pusillus was published in Hooker (Brit. Fl., ed. 4, 2(1): 277. 1833), with the name and diagnosis ascribed simultaneously, at the end of the paragraph, to “Carm. MSS.” followed by a description ascribed similarly to Carmichael. Direct association of Carmichael with both the name and the diagnosis is evident, and the name must be cited as A. pusillus Carmich. However, the paragraph containing the name and the diagnosis of A. castaneus, published by Hooker on the same page of the same work, ends with “Scytosiphon castaneus, Carm. MSS.” Because Carmichael is directly associated with “S. castaneus” and not A. castaneus, the latter name is correctly cited as A. castaneus Hook., the author of the publication, even though the description is ascribed to Carmichael.
Ex. 25. Brown is accepted as the author of the treatments of genera and species appearing under his name in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis, ed. 2 (1810–1813), even when names of new taxa or the descriptions validating them are not explicitly ascribed to him. In a postscript to that work (5: 532. 1813), Aiton wrote: “Much new matter has been added by [Robert Brown] … the greater part of his able improvements are distinguished by the signature Brown mss.” The latter phrase is therefore a statement of authorship not merely an ascription. For example, the combination Oncidium triquetrum, based by indirect reference on Epidendrum triquetrum Sw. (Prodr.: 122. 1788), is cited as O. triquetrum (Sw.) R. Br. (in Aiton, Hort. Kew., ed. 2, 5: 216. 1813) and is not attributed to “R. Br. ex W. T. Aiton”, nor to Aiton alone, because in the generic heading Brown is credited with authorship of the treatment of Oncidium.
46.4. When a validly published name or its final epithet is taken up from and attributed to the author of a different “name” that has not been validly published, or one at a different rank likewise not validly published, only the author of the validly published name is cited (except as provided in Art. 46.7).
Ex. 26. When publishing the new generic name Anoplon, Reichenbach (Consp. Regn. Veg.: 212b. 1828–1829) attributed the name to Wallroth and referred to the designation published by Wallroth (Orobanches Gen. Diask.: 25, 66. 1825) as Orobanche “Tribus III. Anoplon”, which was not validly published under Art. 37.6 because its rank was denoted by a misplaced term (tribe between genus and species). The generic name is cited as Anoplon Rchb., not Anoplon “Wallr. ex Rchb.”
Ex. 27. When publishing Andropogon drummondii, Steudel (Syn. Pl. Glumac. 1: 393. 1854) attributed the name to “Nees. (mpt. sub: Sorghum.)”. This reference to the unpublished binary designation “Sorghum drummondii Nees” is not ascription of A. drummondii to Nees, and the name is cited as A. drummondii Steud., not A. drummondii “Nees ex Steud.”
Ex. 28. “Porphyra yezoensis f. narawaensis” was published by Miura (in J. Tokyo Univ. Fish. 71: 6. 1984), but two gatherings (from the same place but on different dates) were cited as “holotype” and the designation was not therefore validly published. Kikuchi & al. (in J. Jap. Bot. 90: 381. 2015), using Miura’s description and designating a single specimen as the holotype, validly published the name Pyropia yezoensis f. narawaensis N. Kikuchi & al., which is not to be cited as P. yezoensis f. narawaensis “A. Miura ex N. Kikuchi & al.”
46.5. A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears when the name was ascribed to a different author or different authors but the validating description or diagnosis was neither ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that author or those authors. A new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears, although it was ascribed to a different author or different authors, when no separate statement was made that one or more of those authors contributed in some way to that publication. However, in both cases authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s).
Ex. 29. Henry (in Bull. Trimestriel Soc. Mycol. France 74: 303. 1958) published the designation “Cortinarius balteatotomentosus” with a Latin description and a locality citation but without indicating a type (Art. 40 Note 2). He later (in Bull. Trimestriel Soc. Mycol. France 101: 4. 1985) validated the name by designating a holotype and providing a full and direct reference to his earlier description (see Art. 33.1). The description is therefore unequivocally associated with Henry (Art. 46 Note 4) and the name, although not explicitly ascribed, is treated as ascribed to Henry because he was the author of the publication (Note 5). Liimatainen & al. (in Persoonia 33: 118. 2014) cited the authorship as C. balteatotomentosus “Rob. Henry ex Rob. Henry”, but Art. 46.5 does not apply because Henry did not ascribe the name to a different author. Under Art. 46.2 the name is correctly cited as C. balteatotomentosus Rob. Henry.
Ex. 30. Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (in Grubov & Egorova, Rast. Tsent. Azii, Mater. Bot. Inst. Komarova 7: 70. 1977) as a new species, with its name ascribed to Ivanova; because there is no indication that Ivanova provided the validating description, the name is cited as either L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or L. tianschanicum Grubov.
Ex. 31. In a paper by Boufford, Tsi & Wang (in J. Arnold Arbor. 71: 123. 1990) the name Rubus fanjingshanensis was ascribed to Lu with no indication that Lu provided the description; the name is attributed to either L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al. or Boufford & al.
Ex. 32. Seemann (Fl. Vit.: 22. 1865) published Gossypium tomentosum “Nutt. mss.”, followed by a validating description not ascribed to Nuttall; the name is cited as either G. tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or G. tomentosum Seem.
Ex. 33. Rudolphi published Pinaceae (Syst. Orb. Veg.: 35. 1830) as “Pineae. Spreng.”, followed by a validating diagnosis not ascribed to Sprengel; the name is cited as either Pinaceae Spreng. ex F. Rudolphi or Pinaceae F. Rudolphi.
Ex. 34. Green (Census Vasc. Pl. W. Australia, ed. 2: 6. 1985) ascribed the new combination Tersonia cyathiflora to “(Fenzl) A. S. George”; because Green nowhere mentioned that George had contributed in any way, the name is cited as either T. cyathiflora (Fenzl) A. S. George ex J. W. Green or T. cyathiflora (Fenzl) J. W. Green.
46.6. For the purposes of Art. 46, the authorship of a publication is the authorship of that part of a publication in which a name appears regardless of the authorship or editorship of the publication as a whole.
Ex. 35. Pittosporum buxifolium was described as a new species, with its name ascribed to Feng, in Wu & Li, Flora yunnanica, vol. 3 (1983). The account of Pittosporaceae in that flora was authored by Yin, while the whole volume was edited by Wu & Li. The author of the publication (including the validating diagnosis) was Yin. The name is therefore cited as either P. buxifolium K. M. Feng ex W. Q. Yin or P. buxifolium W. Q. Yin, but not P. buxifolium “K. M. Feng ex C. Y. Wu & H. W. Li” nor P. buxifolium “C. Y. Wu & H. W. Li”.
Ex. 36. Vicia amurensis f. sanneensis, ascribed to Jiang & Fu, was published in Ma & al. (ed.), Flora intramongolica, ed. 2, vol. 3 (1989). The author of the account of Vicia in that flora is Jiang, one of the persons to whom the name was ascribed (see Art. 46.2 last sentence). The name is therefore cited as V. amurensis f. sanneensis Y. C. Jiang & S. M. Fu, not V. amurensis f. sanneensis “Y. C. Jiang & S. M. Fu ex Ma & al.”
Ex. 37. Centaurea funkii var. xeranthemoides “Lge. ined.” was described in Prodromus florae hispanicae, which was authored as a whole by Willkomm & Lange, although the different family treatments are by individual authors, and Fam. 63 Compositae has a footnote “Auctore Willkomm”. Because the validating description was not ascribed to Lange, the name is cited as C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. Its full bibliographic citation is C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. in Willkomm & Lange, Prodr. Fl. Hispan. 2: 154. 1865.
Ex. 38. The name Solanum dasypus was published in a work of Candolle (Prodr. 13(1): 161. 1852), in which the account of Solanaceae was authored by Dunal. Dunal introduced the name as “S. dasypus (Drège, n. 1933, in h. DC)” thereby ascribing it to Drège. The name is therefore cited as either S. dasypus Drège ex Dunal or S. dasypus Dunal.
Ex. 39. Schultes & Schultes (Mant. 3: 526. 1827), in a note, published a new classification of the traditional genera Avena and Trisetum, which they had received from “Besser in litt.” The publishing author of that text, in which the new genera Acrospelion Bess., Helictotrichon Bess., and Heterochaeta Bess. were described, is Besser. The new names are validly published, authored by Besser alone, irrespective of whether or not the volume authors, Schultes & Schultes, accepted them. (See also Art. 36 Ex. 3).
46.7. When a name has been ascribed by its author to a pre-starting-point author, the latter may be included in the author citation, followed by “ex”. For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a taxon of a pre-starting-point author was changed in rank or taxonomic position upon valid publication of its name, that pre-starting-point author may be cited in parentheses, followed by “ex”.
Ex. 40. Linnaeus (Gen. Pl., ed 5: 322. 1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author Tournefort; the name is cited as either Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (Sp. Pl.: 751. 1753) or Lupinus L. (see Art. 13.4).
Ex. 41. “Lyngbya glutinosa” (Agardh, Syst. Alg.: 73. 1824) was taken up as Hydrocoleum glutinosum by Gomont in the publication that marks the starting-point of the “Nostocaceae homocysteae” (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15: 339. 1892). The name is cited as either H. glutinosum (C. Agardh) ex Gomont or H. glutinosum Gomont.
Ex. 42. Designations of desmids published prior to their starting-point (see Art. 13.1(e)) may be cited according to their validation in Ralfs (Brit. Desmid. 1848) as follows: “Closterium dianae” (Ehrenberg, Infusionsthierchen: 92. 1838), cited as C. dianae Ehrenb. ex Ralfs (Brit. Desmid.: 168. 1848); “Euastrum pinnatifidum” (Kützing, Phycol. Germ.: 134. 1845), cited as Micrasterias pinnatifida (Kütz.) ex Ralfs (Brit. Desmid.: 77. 1848).
46.8. In determining the correct author citation, only internal evidence in the publication as a whole (as defined in Art. 37.5) where the name was validly published is to be accepted, including ascription of the name, statements in the introduction, title, or acknowledgements, and typographical or stylistic distinctions in the text.
Ex. 43. Although the descriptions in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally considered to have been written by Solander or Dryander, the names of new taxa published there are attributed to Aiton, the stated author of the work, except where a name and description were both ascribed in that work to someone else.
Ex. 44. The name Andreaea angustata was published in a work of Limpricht (Laubm. Deutschl. 1: 144. 1885) with the ascription “nov. sp. Lindb. in litt. ad Breidler 1884”, but there is no internal evidence that Lindberg had supplied the validating description. Authorship is therefore cited as either Limpr. or Lindb. ex Limpr., but not “Lindb.”
46.9. External evidence may be used to determine authorship of nomenclatural novelties included in a publication for which there is no internal evidence of authorship.
Ex. 45. If no internal or external evidence of authorship of effectively and validly published names can be determined, the standard form “Anon.” (for Anonymous) may be used, e.g. Ficus cooperi Anon. (in Proc. Roy. Hort. Soc. London 2: 374. 1862) or Nymphaea gigantea f. hudsonii (Anon.) K. C. Landon (in Phytologia 40: 439. 1978).
Ex. 46. No authorship appears anywhere in the work known as “Cat. Pl. Upper Louisiana. 1813”, a catalogue of plants available from the Fraser Brothers Nursery. Based on external evidence (cf. Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 105: 785. 1981), authorship of the document, and of included nomenclatural novelties such as Oenothera macrocarpa, is attributed to Thomas Nuttall.
Ex. 47. The book that appeared under the title Vollständiges systematisches Verzeichniß aller Gewächse Teutschlandes … (Leipzig 1782) bears no explicit authorship but is attributed to “einem Mitgliede der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde”. External evidence may be used to determine that G. A. Honckeny is the author of the work and of the nomenclatural novelties that appear in it (e.g. Poa vallesiana Honck., Phleum hirsutum Honck.; see also Art. 23 Ex. 18), as was done by Pritzel (Thes. Lit. Bot.: 123. 1847).
46.10. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties and wishing other persons’ names followed by “ex” to precede theirs in author citation may adopt the “ex” citation in the protologue.
Ex. 48. In validly publishing the name Nothotsuga, Page (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 45: 390. 1989) ascribed it to “H.-H. Hu ex C. N. Page”, noting that in 1951 Hu had published it as a nomen nudum; the name is attributed to either Hu ex C. N. Page or C. N. Page.
Ex. 49. Atwood (in Selbyana 5: 302. 1981) ascribed the name of a new species, Maxillaria mombachoensis, to “Heller ex Atwood”, with a note stating that it was originally named by Heller, then deceased; the name is attributed to either A. H. Heller ex J. T. Atwood or J. T. Atwood.
46A.1. For the purpose of author citation, prefixes indicating ennoblement (see Rec. 60C.4(d) and (e) should be suppressed unless they are an inseparable part of the name.
Ex. 1. Lam. for J. B. P. A. Monet Chevalier de Lamarck, but De Wild. for E. De Wildeman.
46A.2. When a name in an author citation is abbreviated, the abbreviation should be long enough to be distinctive, and should normally end with a consonant that, in the full name, precedes a vowel. The first letters should be given without any omission, but one of the last characteristic consonants of the name may be added when this is customary.
Ex. 2. L. for Linnaeus; Fr. for Fries; Juss. for Jussieu; Rich. for Richard; Bertol. for Bertoloni, to be distinct from Bertero; Michx. for Michaux, to be distinct from Micheli.
46A.3. Given names or accessory designations serving to distinguish two authors of the same name should be abridged in the same way.
Ex. 3. R. Br. for Robert Brown; A. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu; Burm. f. for Burman filius; J. F. Gmel. for Johann Friedrich Gmelin, J. G. Gmel. for Johann Georg Gmelin, C. C. Gmel. for Carl Christian Gmelin, S. G. Gmel. for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin; Müll. Arg. for Jean Müller argoviensis [of Aargau].
46A.4. When it is a well-established custom to abridge a name in another manner, it is advisable to conform to custom.
Ex. 4. DC. for Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle; St.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire; Rchb. for H. G. L. Reichenbach.
Note 1. Brummitt & Powell’s Authors of plant names (1992) provides unambiguous standard forms for a large number of authors of names of organisms in conformity with this Recommendation. These standard forms, updated as necessary from the International Plant Names Index (http://www.ipni.org) and Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org), have been used for author citations throughout this Code, albeit with additional spacing.
46B.1. In citing the author of the scientific name of a taxon, the romanization of the author’s name given in the original publication should normally be accepted. Where an author failed to give a romanization, or where an author has at different times used different romanizations, then the romanization known to be preferred by the author or that most frequently adopted by the author should be accepted. In the absence of such information the author’s name should be romanized in accordance with an internationally available standard.
46B.2. Authors of scientific names whose personal names are not written in the Latin alphabet should romanize their names, preferably (but not necessarily) in accordance with an internationally recognized standard and, as a matter of typographical convenience, without diacritical signs. Once authors have selected the romanization of their personal names, they should use it consistently. Whenever possible, authors should not permit editors or publishers to change the romanization of their personal names.
46C.1. After a name published jointly by two authors, both authors should be cited, linked by an ampersand (&) or by the word “et”.
Ex. 1. Didymopanax gleasonii Britton & P. Wilson or D. gleasonii Britton et P. Wilson.
46C.2. After a name published jointly by more than two authors, the citation should be restricted to the first author followed by “& al.” or “et al.”, except in the original publication.
Ex. 2. Lapeirousia erythrantha var. welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck, Lisowski, Malaisse & Symoens (in Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique 105: 336. 1972) should be cited as L. erythrantha var. welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck & al. or L. erythrantha var. welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck et al.
46D.1. Authors should cite themselves by name after each nomenclatural novelty they publish rather than refer to themselves by expressions such as “nobis” (nob.) or “mihi” (m.).