CHAPTER VII

REJECTION OF NAMES

Article 52

52.1. A name, unless conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2), or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, definitely included the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, under the rules (but see Art. 52.4 and F.8.1).

52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type of a name is effected by citation of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type under Art. 10 or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types under Art. 10.2; or (b) the type previously designated under Art. 9.11–9.13 or 10.2; or (c) the type previously conserved under Art. 14.9; or (d) the illustrations of these. It is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time excluded either explicitly or by implication.

Ex. 1. The generic name Cainito Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 166. 1763) is illegitimate because it was a superfluous name for Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl.: 192. 1753), which Adanson cited as a synonym.

Ex. 2. Picea excelsa Link (in Linnaea 15: 517. 1841) is illegitimate because it is based on Pinus excelsa Lam. (Fl. Franç. 2: 202. 1779), a superfluous name for Pinus abies L. (Sp. Pl.: 1002. 1753). Under Picea the correct name is Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (Deut. Fl.: 324. 1881).

Ex. 3. Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (Prodr. Stirp. Chap. Allerton: 394. 1796) is legitimate because it is explicitly based on “S. myrsinites” of Hoffmann (Hist. Salic. Ill.: 71. 1787), a misapplication of S. myrsinites L. (Sp. Pl.: 1018. 1753), a name that Salisbury excluded by implication by not citing Linnaeus as he did under each of the other 14 species of Salix.

Ex. 4. Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and C. angustifolius Mill. are not illegitimate names, although Miller’s species are now united with the species previously named C. behen L. (Sp. Pl.: 414. 1753): C. latifolius and C. angustifolius as circumscribed by Miller (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Cucubalus No. 2, 3. 1768) did not include the type of C. behen L., a name that he adopted for another species.

Ex. 5. Explicit exclusion of type. When publishing the name Galium tricornutum, Dandy (in Watsonia 4: 47. 1957) cited G. tricorne Stokes (Bot. Arr. Brit. Pl., ed. 2, 1: 153. 1787) pro parte as a synonym while explicitly excluding its type.

Ex. 6. Exclusion of type by implication. Tmesipteris elongata P. A. Dang. (in Botaniste 2: 213. 1891) was published as a new species but Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited as a synonym. However, on the following page, T. truncata (R. Br.) Desv. is recognized as a different species and two pages later both are distinguished in a key, thus showing that the meaning of the cited synonym was either “P. truncatum R. Br. pro parte” or “P. truncatum auct. non R. Br.”

Ex. 7. Under Persicaria maculosa Gray (Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 2: 269. 1821), the name Polygonum persicaria L. (Sp. Pl.: 361. 1753) was cited as the replaced synonym, and hence the type of Polygonum persicaria was definitely included. However, because Persicaria mitis Delarbre (Fl. Auvergne ed. 2: 518. 1806) is an earlier legitimate replacement name for Polygonum persicaria and is thereby homotypic (Art. 7.4), Persicaria maculosa when published was an illegitimate superfluous name for Persicaria mitis. Its continued use has been made possible by conservation (see App. IV).

Ex. 8. Under Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (in Taxon 25: 362. 1976), the name B. retusa Roxb. (Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 2: 322. 1832) non Poir. (in Lamarck, Encycl. Suppl. 1: 599. 1811), was cited as the replaced synonym while B. emarginata Roxb. ex G. Don (Gen. Syst. 2: 462. 1832) non Mill. (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Bauhinia No. 5. 1768), was also cited in synonymy, and hence the types of the two synonyms were definitely included. However, B. roxburghiana Voigt (Hort. Suburb. Calcutt.: 254. 1845), which was published as a replacement name for B. emarginata Roxb. ex G. Don, is necessarily homotypic with it (Art. 7.4) and should have been adopted by Wunderlin. Therefore, B. semla is an illegitimate superfluous name but is typified by the type of its replaced synonym, B. retusa (see Art. 7 Ex. 5).

Ex. 9. Both Apios americana Medik. (Vorles. Churpfälz. Phys.-Ökon. Ges. 2: 355. 1787) and A. tuberosa Moench (Methodus: 165. 1794) are replacement names for the legitimate Glycine apios L. (Sp. Pl.: 753. 1753), the epithet of which in combination with Apios would form a tautonym (Art. 23.4) and would not therefore be validly published (Art. 32.1(c)). Apios tuberosa was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, and is therefore illegitimate, because Moench cited in synonymy G. apios, which was then, as now, homotypic with A. americana, the name that has priority and that Moench should have adopted.

Ex. 10. Welwitschia Rchb. (Handb. Nat. Pfl.-Syst.: 194. 1837) was based on Hugelia Benth. (Edwards’s Bot. Reg. 19: t. 1622. 1833), non Huegelia Rchb. (in Mitth. Geb. Fl. Pomona 1829(13): 50. 1829). Welwitschia Hook. f. (in Gard. Chron. 1862: 71. 1862) was conserved against Welwitschia Rchb., becoming effective on 18 May 1910 (see Art. 14 Note 4(b)). Eriastrum Wooton & Standl. (in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 16: 160. 1913), also based on Hugelia Benth., was not therefore nomenclaturally superfluous when published because Welwitschia Rchb. was no longer available for use.

Note 1. The inclusion, with an expression of doubt, of an element in a new taxon, e.g. the citation of a name with a question mark, or in a sense that excludes one or more of its potential type elements, does not make the name of the new taxon nomenclaturally superfluous.

Ex. 11. The protologue of Blandfordia grandiflora R. Br. (Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 296. 1810) includes, in synonymy, “Aletris punicea. Labill. nov. holl. 1. p. 85. t. 111 ?”, indicating that the new species might be the same as A. punicea Labill. (Nov. Holl. Pl. 1: 85. 1805). Blandfordia grandiflora is nevertheless a legitimate name.

Note 2. The inclusion, in a new taxon, of an element that was subsequently designated as the type of a name that, so typified, ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, does not in itself make the name of the new taxon illegitimate.

Ex. 12. Leccinum Gray (Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 1: 646. 1821) does not include all potential types (in fact, none) of Boletus L. (Sp. Pl.: 1176. 1753) : Fr. and is not therefore illegitimate even though it included, as L. edule (Bull. : Fr.) Gray, the subsequently conserved type of Boletus, B. edulis Bull. : Fr.

52.3. For the purpose of Art. 52.2(e), citation of a name can be effected by a direct and unambiguous reference to it, e.g. by citation of its original sequential number or exact diagnostic phrase name (Linnaean “nomen specificum legitimum”) rather than its epithet.

Ex. 13. In publishing the name Matricaria suaveolens (Fl. Suec., ed. 2: 297. 1755), Linnaeus adopted the phrase name and included all the synonyms of M. recutita L. (Sp. Pl.: 891. 1753), but did not explicitly cite M. recutita. Because in 1755 M. recutita had no holotype, no syntypes, and no designated lectotype or conserved type, the provisions of Art. 52.2 alone do not make M. suaveolens illegitimate. However, because the exact diagnostic phrase name (nomen specificum legitimum) of M. recutita was that provided for M. suaveolens, the latter name is illegitimate under Art.52.3.

Note 3. For the purpose of Art. 52.2(e), citation of a later isonym is equivalent to citation of the name itself if the citing author does not normally cite the primary source, or if the name is usually not cited from its primary source in contemporary literature. However, if it is possible to imply that the isonym is cited “in the sense of” the later author or “as used in” the later source, its inclusion does not by itself cause illegitimacy.

52.4. A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous when published is not illegitimate on account of its superfluity if it has a basionym (which is necessarily legitimate; see Art. 6.10), or if it is formed from a legitimate generic name. When published it is incorrect, but it may become correct later.

Ex. 14. Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (Prodr.: 26. 1788) was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because Swartz cited the legitimate Andropogon fasciculatus L. (Sp. Pl.: 1047. 1753) as a synonym. However, it is not illegitimate because it has a basionym, Agrostis radiata L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 873. 1759). Chloris radiata is the correct name in the genus Chloris for Agrostis radiata when Andropogon fasciculatus is treated as a different species, as was done by Hackel (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 6: 177. 1889).

Ex. 15. Juglans major (Torr.) A. Heller (in Muhlenbergia 1: 50. 1904), based on J. rupestris var. major Torr. (in Rep. Exped. Zuni and Colorado Rivers: 171. 1853), was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because Heller cited the legitimate J. californica S. Watson (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 10: 349. 1875) as a synonym. Nevertheless, J. major is legitimate because it has a basionym, and it may be correct when considered taxonomically distinct from J. californica.

Ex. 16. The generic name Hordelymus (Jess.) Harz (Landw. Samenk.: 1147. 1885) was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because its type, Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of Cuviera Koeler (Descr. Gram.: 328. 1802). However, it is not illegitimate because it has a basionym, Hordeum [unranked] Hordelymus Jess. (Deutschl. Gräser: 202. 1863). Cuviera Koeler has since been rejected in favour of its later homonym Cuviera DC., and Hordelymus can now be used as the correct name for a segregate genus containing E. europaeus L.

Ex. 17. Carpinaceae Vest (Anleit. Stud. Bot.: 265, 280. 1818) was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because of the inclusion of Salix L., the type of Salicaceae Mirb. (Elém. Physiol. Vég. Bot. 2: 905. 1815). However, it is not illegitimate because it is formed from a legitimate generic name, Carpinus L.

Ex. 18. Wormia suffruticosa Griff. ex Hook. f. & Thomson (in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 1: 35. 1872), nom. cons., was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because of the inclusion of W. subsessilis Miq. (Fl. Ned. Ind., Eerste Bijv.: 619. 1861), nom. rej. With conservation, the previously illegitimate W. suffruticosa became available to serve as basionym of Dillenia suffruticosa (Griff. ex Hook. f. & Thomson) Martelli (in Malesia 3: 163. 1886), which thereby also became legitimate (see Art. 6.4), although it too was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because of the inclusion of W. subsessilis.

Note 4. In no case does a statement of parentage accompanying the publication of a name for a hybrid make the name illegitimate (see Art. H.4 and H.5).

Ex. 19. The name Polypodium ×shivasiae Rothm. (in Kulturpflanze, Beih. 3: 245. 1962) was proposed for hybrids between P. australe Fée and P. vulgare subsp. prionodes (Asch.) Rothm., while in the same publication (l.c.) the author accepted P. ×font-queri Rothm. (in Cadevall y Diars & Font Quer, Fl. Catalun. 6: 353. 1937) for hybrids between P. australe and P. vulgare L. subsp. vulgare. Under Art. H.4.1, P. ×shivasiae is a synonym of P. ×font-queri; nevertheless, it is not an illegitimate name.