CHAPTER II

STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES

SECTION 2

TYPIFICATION

Article 7

7.1. The application of names of taxa at the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The application of names of taxa at the higher ranks is also determined by means of types when the names are formed from a generic name (see Art. 10.10).

7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon.

7.3. A new combination or a name at new rank (Art. 6.10) is typified by the type of the basionym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 48.1).

Ex. 1. Pinus mertensiana Bong. (in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg, Sér. 6, Sci. Math. 2: 163. 1832) was transferred to the genus Tsuga by Carrière (in Traité Gén. Conif., ed. 2: 250. 1867), who, as is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combination T. mertensiana to another species of Tsuga, namely T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. (Silva 12: 73. 1899). The combination T. mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière must not be applied to T. heterophylla but must be retained for P. mertensiana when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art. 49.1) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the basionym, and hence the type, of the name.

Ex. 2. Delesseria gmelinii J. V. Lamour. (in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 20: 124. 1813) is a legitimate replacement name for Fucus palmetta S. G. Gmel. (Hist. Fuc.: 183. 1768), the change of epithet necessitated by the simultaneous publication of D. palmetta (Stackh.) J. V. Lamour. (see Art. 11 Note 2). All combinations based on D. gmelinii (and not excluding the type of F. palmetta; see Art. 48.1) have the same type as F. palmetta even though the material possessed by Lamouroux is now assigned to a different species, D. bonnemaisonii C. Agardh (Spec. Alg.: 186. 1822).

Ex. 3. The new combination Cystocoleus ebeneus (Dillwyn) Thwaites (in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, 3: 241. 1849) is typified by the type of its basionym Conferva ebenea Dillwyn (Brit. Conferv.: t. 101. 1809) even though the material illustrated by Thwaites was of Racodium rupestre Pers. (in Neues Mag. Bot. 1: 123. 1794).

7.4. A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typified by the type of the replaced synonym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).

Ex. 4. Myrcia lucida McVaugh (in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 18(2): 100. 1969) was published as a replacement name for M. laevis O. Berg (in Linnaea 31: 252. 1862), an illegitimate homonym of M. laevis G. Don (Gen. Hist. 2: 845. 1832). The type of M. lucida is therefore the type of M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don).

7.5. A name that is illegitimate under Art. 52 is a replacement name, typified automatically by the type of the name (the replaced synonym) that itself or the epithet of which ought to have been adopted under the rules (Art. 7.4; but see Art. 7.6), unless a different type was designated or definitely indicated in the protologue, in which case it is either (a) a replacement name with a different replaced synonym or (b) treated as the name of a new taxon. Automatic typification does not apply to names sanctioned under Art. F.3.

Ex. 5. Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (in Taxon 25: 362. 1976) is illegitimate under Art. 52 (see Art. 52 Ex. 8), but its publication as a replacement name for B. retusa Roxb. (Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 2: 322. 1832) non Poir. (in Lamarck, Encycl. Suppl. 1: 599. 1811) is definite indication of a different type (that of B. retusa Roxb.) from that of the name (B. roxburghiana Voigt, Hort. Suburb. Calcutt.: 254. 1845) that ought to have been adopted.

Ex. 6. Hewittia bicolor Wight & Arn. (in Madras J. Lit. Sci. 5: 22. 1837), which provides the type of Hewittia Wight & Arn., is illegitimate under Art. 52 because, in addition to the illegitimate intended basionym Convolvulus bicolor Vahl (Symb. Bot. 3: 25. 1794) non Desr. (in Lamarck, Encycl. 3: 564. 1792), the legitimate C. bracteatus Vahl (Symb. Bot. 3: 25. 1794) was cited as a synonym. Wight & Arnott’s adoption of the epithet bicolor is definite indication that the type of H. bicolor, and therefore the type of Hewittia, is the type of C. bicolor, not that of C. bracteatus, the epithet of which ought to have been adopted.

7.6. If the type of the name causing illegitimacy (Art. 52.2) is included in a subordinate taxon that does not include the intended type of the illegitimate name, then typification is not automatic (see Art. 7.5).

Ex. 7. Mason & Grant (in Madroño 9: 212. 1948) validly published the names Gilia splendens and G. splendens subsp. grinnellii, the former without indicating a type (because they believed the name to be already validly published) and the latter for “a long-tubed form of the species”. Under Art. 52, G. splendens was illegitimate because of the inclusion of the type of G. grinnellii Brand (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 250 (Heft 27): 101. 1907), the basionym of subsp. grinnellii. But, because subsp. grinnellii was applied to a subordinate taxon that did not include the intended type of the illegitimate name, the type of G. grinnellii is not automatically that of G. splendens. The names G. splendens and G. grinnellii have since been conserved and rejected, respectively (see App. IV and V).

7.7. The type of an autonym is the same as that of the name from which it is derived.

Ex. 8. The type of Caulerpa racemosa (Forssk.) J. Agardh var. racemosa is that of C. racemosa; the type of C. racemosa is that of its basionym, Fucus racemosus Forssk. (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 191. 1775), i.e. Herb. Forsskål No. 845 (C).

7.8. A name of a new taxon validly published solely by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)) (and not by a reproduction of such a description or diagnosis) is to be typified by an element selected from the entire context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type, but not by an element explicitly excluded by the validating author (see also Art. 7.9).

Ex. 9. Adenanthera bicolor Moon (Cat. Pl. Ceylon: 34. 1824) was validly published solely by reference to the description associated with an illustration devoid of analysis, “Rumph. amb. 3: t. 112”, cited by Moon. Because Moon did not definitely designate as type the specimen collected by him (in K, labelled “Adenanthera bicolor”), that specimen is unavailable as type. In the absence of the material on which the validating description was based, the lectotype can only be the associated illustration (Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 3: t. 112. 1743).

Ex. 10. Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or diagnosis but with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a “Lycopsis” species was discussed with no description or diagnosis but with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax: 255. 1623). The accepted validating description of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen from the context of his work. Consequently the Sherard specimen in the Morison herbarium (OXF), selected by Klotz (in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Math.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9: 375–376. 1960), although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The first acceptable choice of lectotype is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of “Echii altera species” in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620. 1583), suggested by Gibbs (in Lagascalia 1: 60–61. 1971) and formally made by Stearn (in Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973).

Ex. 11. Hieracium oribates Brenner (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 30: 142. 1904) was validly published without accompanying descriptive matter but with reference to the validating description of H. saxifragum subsp. oreinum Dahlst. ex Brenner (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 18: 89. 1892). Because Brenner definitely excluded his earlier infraspecific name and part of its original material, H. oribates is the name of a new taxon, not a replacement name, and may not be typified by an excluded element.

7.9. A name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be typified by an element selected from the context of its valid publication (Art. 32–45).

Note 1. The typification of names of fossil-taxa (Art. 1.2) and of any other analogous taxa at or below the rank of genus does not differ from that indicated above.

7.10. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only by effective publication (Art. 29–31).

7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent.

Note 2. Art. 7.10 and 7.11 apply only to the designation of lectotypes (and their equivalents under Art. 10), neotypes, and epitypes; for holotypes see Art. 9.1.

Ex. 12. The original material for the name Quercus acutifolia Née includes nine specimens in MA. In 1985, Breedlove labelled one of these (barcode MA 25953) as “Lectotype”, but, because this was not effectively published, Breedlove did not achieve a designation of type (see Art. 7.10). Valencia-A. & al. (in Phytotaxa 218: 289–294. 2015) effectively published a type designation of the same specimen as “lectotype”, but did not include the words “designated here” or a linguistic equivalent, as required by Art. 7.11. Nixon & Barrie (in Novon 25: 449. 2017) published an effective lectotypification statement “TYPE: Mexico. Guerrero, Née s.n. (lectotype, designated here, MA [bc] MA25953 as image!)” fulfilling all of the requirements of Art. 7.11.

Ex. 13. The protologue of Dryopteris hirsutosetosa Hieron. (in Hedwigia 46: 343–344, t. 6. 1907) cited only a locality (“Aequatoria: crescit in altiplanicie supra Allpayacu inter Baños et Jivaría de Píntuc”) and Stübel collecting number (“n. 903”), but did not specify a herbarium, thus indicating all specimens of that gathering as syntypes (Art. 40 Note 1). In citing “Type from Ecuador: Baños-Pintuc, Stübel nr. 903 (B!)” Christensen (in Kongel. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., Naturvidensk. Math. Afd., ser. 8, 6: 112. 1920) designated the specimen in B as the lectotype of D. hirsutosetosa satisfying the requirements of Art. 7.11. A duplicate specimen in BM is an isolectotype.

Ex. 14. The absence of any original material (Art. 9.13) for Ocimum gratissimum L. (Sp. Pl.: 1197. 1753) means that Cramer’s (in Dassanayake & Fosberg, Revis. Handb. Fl. Ceylon 3: 112. 1981) citation of “Type: Hortu Upsalensi, 749.2 (LINN)” as “type” is to be accepted as designation (Art. 7.11) of a neotype, antedating the superfluous neotypification by Paton (in Kew Bull. 47: 411. 1992).

Ex. 15. Chlorosarcina Gerneck (in Beih. Bot. Centralbl., Abt. 2, 21: 224. 1907) originally comprised two species, C. minor Gerneck and C. elegans Gerneck. Vischer (in Beih. Bot. Centralbl., Abt. 1, 51: 12. 1933) transferred C. minor to Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained C. elegans in Chlorosarcina. He did not, however, use the term “type” or an equivalent, so that his action does not constitute typification of Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a type, as “LT.”, was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov 1962), who selected Chlorosarcina elegans.

*Ex. 16.¹ The phrase “standard species” as used by Hitchcock & Green (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 110–199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to “type”, and hence type designations in that work are acceptable.

[footnote]¹ Here and elsewhere in this Code, a prefixed asterisk denotes a “voted Example”, accepted by an International Botanical Congress in order to govern nomenclatural practice when the corresponding Article of the Code is open to divergent interpretation or does not adequately cover the matter. A voted Example is therefore comparable to a rule, as contrasted with other Examples provided by the Editorial Committee solely for illustrative purposes.

Ex. 17. Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. 1: [Praefatio, p. 2]. 1871) explained that he cited species names only when he intended to indicate the type of names of genera and sections: “Species plantarum in libro meo omnino negliguntur, excepta indicatione illarum, quae typum generis novi aut novo modo circumscripti vel sectionis offerunt. [Species of plants are entirely disregarded in my book, except for the indication of those that are presented as the type of a new or re-circumscribed genus or of a section.]” This explanation includes the term type, and the citation of a species name has therefore been accepted as designation of a type.

Recommendation 7A

7A.1. It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, especially the holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection with a policy of giving bona fide researchers access to deposited material, and that it be scrupulously conserved.