STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES
9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated by the author(s) as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author(s) when no type was indicated. As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).
Note 1. Any designation of the type made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final (but see Art. 9.11, 9.15, and 9.16). If the author used only one specimen or illustration, either cited or uncited, when preparing the account of the new taxon, it must be accepted as the holotype, but the possibility that the author used additional, uncited specimens or illustrations (which may have been lost or destroyed) must always be considered. If a name of a new taxon is validly published solely by reference to a previously published description or diagnosis, the same considerations apply to specimens or illustrations used by the author of that description or diagnosis (see Art. 7.8; but see Art. 7.9).
Ex. 1. When Tuckerman established Opegrapha oulocheila Tuck. (Lich. Calif.: 32. 1866) he referred to “the single specimen, from Schweinitz’s herbarium (Herb. Acad. Sci. Philad.) before me”. Even though the term “type” or its equivalent was not used in the protologue, that specimen (in PH) was clearly the one specimen used by the author and is therefore the holotype.
Ex. 2. In the protologue of Coronilla argentea L. (Sp. Pl.: 743. 1753), Linnaeus cited an illustration by Alpini (Pl. Exot.: 16. 1627) and did not designate a type. Although no uncited specimens or illustrations are known to exist, making Alpini’s illustration the only extant element of original material, it is not the holotype because it is not certain that Linnaeus used only this one element when preparing the account of the new taxon; he could have possessed a specimen that has since been lost or destroyed. Moreover, citation of the illustration cannot be accepted as indication of the type under the second sentence of Art. 40.3 because that provision applies only for the purpose of Art. 40.1, i.e. indication of type as a requirement of valid publication of names published on or after 1 January 1958. Alpini’s illustration was designated as the lectotype of C. argentea by Greuter (in Ann. Mus. Goulandris 1: 44. 1973).
9.2.If a designation of holotype made in the protologue of the name of a taxon is later found to contain errors (e.g. in locality, date, collector, collecting number, herbarium code, specimen identifier, or citation of an illustration), these errors are to be corrected provided that the intent of the original author(s) is not changed. However, omissions of required information under Art. 40.6–40.8 are not correctable.
Ex. 3. The name Phoebe calcarea S. Lee & F. N. Wei (in Guihaia 3: 7. 1983) was validly published with the holotype designated as Du’an Expedition “4-10-004” in IBK, but no specimen with this collecting number exists in IBK. However, a specimen in IBK annotated with “Phoebe calcarea sp. nov.”, “Typus”, and matching all other details of the protologue bears the collecting number Du’an Expedition 4-10-0243. Therefore, the original type citation is obviously erroneous and is to be corrected.
9.3. A lectotype is one specimen or illustration designated from the original material (Art. 9.4) as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art. 9.11 and 9.12, if the name was published without a holotype, or if the holotype is lost or destroyed, or if a type is found to belong to more than one taxon (see also Art. 9.14). For sanctioned names (Art. F.3), a lectotype may be selected from among elements associated with either or both the protologue and the sanctioning treatment (Art. F.3.9).
Ex. 4. Adansonia grandidieri Baill. (in Grandidier, Hist. Phys. Madagascar 34: t. 79B bis, fig. 2 & t. 79E, fig. 1. 1893) was validly published when accompanied solely by two illustrations with analysis (see Art. 38.8). Baum (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 82: 447. 1995) designated one of the sheets of Grevé 275 (flowering specimen in P [barcode P00037169]), which he presumed to be the very specimen from which most or all of the components of t. 79E, fig. 1 were drawn, as the lectotype of this name.
9.4. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises the following elements: (a) those specimens and illustrations (both unpublished and published prior to publication of the protologue) that the author associated with the taxon, and that were available to the author prior to, or at the time of, preparation of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with analysis (Art. 38.7 and 38.8) validating the name; (b) any illustrations published as part of the protologue; (c) the holotype and those specimens which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid publication; and (d) the isotypes or isosyntypes1 of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9, and F.3.9).
[footnote]1 Duplicate specimens of a syntype, lectotype, neotype, and epitype are isosyntypes, isolectotypes, isoneotypes, and isoepitypes, respectively.
Note 2. For names falling under Art. 7.9, only elements from the context of the protologue itself are considered as original material.
Note 3. For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from the context of the validating description are considered as original material, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type.
9.5. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
Note 4. The term isotype is also used for a duplicate of the type of the conserved name of a species because, under Art. 14.8, such a type, like a holotype, may only be changed by the procedure of conservation.
9.6. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.
Ex. 5. In the protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (see Art. 40 Ex. 2) a single gathering in two herbaria was designated as the type. Therefore, there must exist at least two specimens and these are syntypes.
Ex. 6. In the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (Sp. Pl.: 539. 1753), two specimens are cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These specimens, held in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.
9.7. A paratype is any specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if in the protologue two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.
Ex. 7. The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma (in Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb. Rijks Univ. Utrecht 4: 26. 1932), which applies to a polygamous species, is a male specimen, Kappler 593a (U). The author designated a hermaphroditic specimen, Forestry Service of Surinam B. W. 1618 (U), as a paratype.
Note 5. In most cases in which no holotype was designated there will also be no paratypes because all the cited specimens will be syntypes. However, when an author designated two or more specimens as types (Art. 9.6), any remaining cited specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.
Ex. 8. In the protologue of Eurya hebeclados Y. Ling (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 1: 208. 1951) the author simultaneously designated two specimens as types, Y. Ling 5014 as “typus, ♂” and Y. Y. Tung 315 as “typus, ♀”, which are therefore syntypes. Ling also cited the specimen Y. Ling 5366 but without designating it as a type; it is therefore a paratype.
9.9. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype supports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).
Ex. 9. Podlech (in Taxon 46: 465. 1997) designated Herb. Linnaeus No. 926.43 (LINN) as the lectotype of Astragalus trimestris L. (Sp. Pl.: 761. 1753). He simultaneously designated an epitype (Egypt, Dünen oberhalb Rosetta am linken Nilufer bei Schech Mantur, 9 May 1902, Anonymous, BM) because the lectotype lacks fruits, “which show important diagnostic features for this species”.
Ex. 10. The lectotype of Salicornia europaea L. (Herb. Linnaeus No. 10.1, LINN, designated by Jafri & Rateeb in Jafri & El-Gadi, Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1978) does not show the relevant characters by which it could be identified for the precise application of this name in a critical group of taxa that are best characterized molecularly. Therefore, Kadereit & al. (in Taxon 61: 1234. 2012) designated as the epitype a molecularly tested specimen from the type locality (Sweden, Gotland, W shore of Burgsviken Bay, Näsudden Cape, Piirainen & Piirainen 4222, only the plant numbered G38-1, MJG).
9.10. The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1, 9.3 and 9.5–9.9) as denoting a type, in a sense other than that in which it is so defined, is treated as an error to be corrected (for example, the use of the term lectotype to denote what is in fact a neotype).
Ex. 11. Borssum Waalkes (in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7 (LINN) as the holotype of Sida retusa L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 961. 1763). However, illustrations in Plukenet (Phytographia: t. 9, fig. 2. 1691) and Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 19. 1750) were cited by Linnaeus in the protologue. Therefore, the original material of S. retusa comprises three elements (Art. 9.4(a)), and Borssum Waalkes’s use of holotype is an error to be corrected to lectotype.
9.11. If the name of a species or infraspecific taxon was published without a holotype (Art. 9.1), or when the holotype or previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed, or when the material designated as type is found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or, if permissible (Art. 9.8), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated (see also Art. 9.16).
9.12. In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the paratypes if such exist. If none of the above specimens exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.
Ex. 12. Baumann & al. (in J. Eur. Orch. 34: 176. 2006) designated an illustration cited in the protologue of Gymnadenia rubra Wettst. (in Verh. K. K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 39: 83. 1889) as “lectotype”. Because Wettstein also cited syntypes, which always have precedence over illustrations in lectotype designation, Baumann’s choice was not in conformity with Art. 9.12 and must not be followed. Later, Baumann & Lorenz (in Taxon 60: 1775. 2011) correctly designated one of the syntypes as the lectotype.
9.14. When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the name must remain attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art. 8.2) that corresponds most nearly with the original description or diagnosis.
Ex. 13. The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (in Abh. Königl. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen 24: 334. 1878) is Lorentz 128 (BM); the material on this sheet, however, proved to be mixed. Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in accordance with Art. 9.14 in designating one part of the sheet in BM as the lectotype.
9.15. The holotype (or lectotype) of a name of a fossil-species or infraspecific fossil-taxon (Art. 8.5) is the specimen (or one of the specimens) on which the validating illustrations (Art. 43.2) are based. When, prior to 1 January 2001 (see Art. 43.3), in the protologue of a name of a new fossil-taxon at the rank of species or below, a type specimen is indicated (Art. 40.1) but not identified among the validating illustrations, a lectotype must be designated from among the specimens illustrated in the protologue. This choice is superseded if it can be demonstrated that the original type specimen corresponds to another validating illustration.
9.16. When a holotype or a previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed and it can be shown that all the other original material differs taxonomically from the lost or destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to preserve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art. 9.18).
9.17. A designation of a lectotype, neotype, or epitype that later is found to refer to a single gathering but to more than one specimen must nevertheless be accepted (subject to Art. 9.19 and 9.20), but may be further narrowed to a single one of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypification, neotypification, or epitypification (see also Art. 9.14).
Ex. 14. Erigeron plantagineus Greene (in Pittonia 3: 292. 1898) was described from material collected by R. M. Austin in California. Cronquist (in Brittonia 6: 173. 1947) wrote “Type: Austin s.n., Modoc County, California (ND)”, thereby designating the Austin material in ND as the lectotype [first-step]. Strother & Ferlatte (in Madroño 35: 85. 1988), noting that there were two specimens of this gathering in ND, designated one of them, “ND-G, 057228” [barcode NDG57228], as the [second-step] lectotype. In subsequent references, both lectotypification steps may be cited in sequence.
9.18. A neotype selected under Art. 9.16 may be superseded if it can be shown to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.
9.19. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–9.13 must be followed, but that choice is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is found to exist; the choice may also be superseded if it can be shown that (b) it is contrary to Art. 9.14 or (c) it is in serious conflict with the protologue, in which case an element that is not in conflict with the protologue is to be chosen; a lectotype may only be superseded by a non-conflicting element of the original material, if such exists; if none exists it may be superseded by a neotype.
Ex. 15. (b) Navarro & Rosúa (in Candollea 45: 584. 1990) designated a sheet in G-DC as lectotype of Teucrium gnaphalodes L’Hér. (Stirp. Nov.: 84. 1788), but this preparation contains more than one gathering and a heterogeneous mixture of more than one species, not all of which matched L’Héritier’s diagnosis. Ferrer-Gallego & al. (in Candollea 67: 38. 2012) superseded the previous lectotype in choosing one of the specimens on the same preparation that corresponds most nearly with the original diagnosis.
Ex. 16. (c) Fischer (in Feddes Repert. 108: 115. 1997) designated Herb. Linnaeus No. 26.58 (LINN) as lectotype of Veronica agrestis L. (Sp. Pl.: 13. 1753). However, Martínez-Ortega & al. (in Taxon 51: 763. 2002) established that the designated lectotype was in serious conflict with Linnaeus’s diagnosis and that three sheets of original material not conflicting with the protologue were available in the Celsius herbarium. One of them was designated as the new lectotype of V. agrestis, superseding the choice of Fischer.
Note 7. Only a choice of uncited material as lectotype may be superseded under Art. 9.19(c); cited specimens and illustrations are part of the protologue and cannot therefore be in serious conflict with it.
9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed (see also Art. 9.17). A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.19 or, in the case of a neotype, in accordance with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).
Note 8. An epitype supports only the type to which it is linked by the typifying author. If the supported type is lost, destroyed, or superseded, the epitype has no standing with respect to the replacement type.
9.21. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the herbarium, collection, or institution in which the epitype is conserved is specified or, if the epitype is a published illustration, a full and direct bibliographic reference (Art. 41.5) to it is provided.
9.22. On or after 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished illustration is not effected unless the herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved is specified.
9.23. On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification, neotypification, or epitypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless indicated by use of the term “lectotypus”, “neotypus”, or “epitypus”, its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Art. 7.11 and 9.10).
9A.1. Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be carried out with an understanding of the author’s method of working; in particular it should be realized that some of the material used by the author in describing the taxon may not be in the author’s herbarium or may not even have survived, and conversely, that not all the material surviving in the author’s herbarium was necessarily used in describing the taxon.
9A.2. Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as the automatic selection of the first element cited or of a specimen collected by the person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and leading to possible future confusion and further change.
9A.3. In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name should be given preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue. Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recognizable figures, and epithets such as typicus, genuinus, etc.
9A.4. When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original description or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, one of the remaining elements should be designated as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.19(c)).
9B.1. In selecting a neotype, particular care and critical knowledge should be exercised because there is usually no guide except personal judgement as to what best fits the protologue; if this selection proves to be faulty it may result in further change.
9B.2. Authors designating an epitype should state in what way the holotype, lectotype, neotype, or all original material is ambiguous such that epitypification is necessary.
9C.1. Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition should be followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying the lectotype, neotype, or epitype specimen (see also Rec. 40A.6).