I. International rules of botanical nomenclature.
By A. B. Rendle.
––––––
Chapter I. General Considerations and Guiding Principles (Art. 1—9).
Art. 1.
Botany cannot make
satisfactory progress without a
precise system
of nomen-
clature, which is used by the great majority of
botanists in all countries.
Art. 2.
The precepts on which
this precise system
of botanical nomenclature
is based
are divided into
principles,
rules and
recommendations. The principles
(Art. 1—9,
10—14,
15—19¹)
form the
basis of the rules
and recommendations. The
object of
the rules
(Art. 19—74)
is to
put the nomenclature
of the past
into
order and
to provide for that of the future. They are
always retroactive: names or forms of nomenclature contrary to a rule
( illegitimate names or
forms) cannot be maintained.
The
recommendations
deal with subsidiary points,
their object
being to
bring about greater uniformity
and clearness in
future nomenclature; names or forms
contrary to a recommendation cannot
on that account be rejected,
but
they
are not
examples
to
be followed.
Art. 3.
The rules of nomenclature should be simple
and founded on considerations
sufficiently clear and forcible for everyone to comprehend
and be disposed to accept.
Art. 4.
The essential points in nomenclature are:
(1) to aim at fixity of names;
(2) to
avoid
or to reject the use of forms and names which may cause error
or ambiguity or throw
science into confusion.
Next in importance is the avoidance of all useless creation of names.
Other considerations, such as absolute grammatical correctness,
regularity or euphony
of names, more or less prevailing custom,
regard for persons,
etc., notwithstanding their un-
deniable importance
are relatively accessory.
Art. 5.
In the absence of
a relevant rule,
or where the consequences of rules are doubtful,
established custom
must be followed.
Art. 6.
Botanical nomenclature is independent
of zoological nomenclature
in the sense
that the name of a plant
is not to be rejected simply
because it is identical
with the name of an
animal. If, however,
an organism is transferred
from the animal to the plant kingdom,
its validly
published names are to be accepted
as botanical nomenclature
in the form prescribed by the
rules of botanical nomenclature,
and if an organism is transferred
from the plant to the animal
kingdom, its names retain their status
in botanical nomenclature.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1) Art. 19 is both a principle and a rule.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 01 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
2 |
Art. 7.
Scientific names
of all groups
are usually taken from Latin or Greek. When
taken from
any language
other than Latin, or formed
in an arbitrary manner,
they are treated
as if they were Latin.
Latin terminations
should be used so far
as possible for new names.
Art. 8.
Nomenclature
deals with:
(1)
the
terms which
denote the
rank of
taxonomic
groups
(Art. 10—14);
(2)
the
names
which are applied to the
individual groups
(Art. 15—72).
Art. 9.
The rules and recommendations of botanical nomenclature
apply to all classes
of the plant kingdom,
recent and fossil, with
certain distinctly
specified exceptions.
Chapter II. Categories of taxonomic groups, and the terms denoting them
Art. 10.
Every individual plant, interspecific hybrids
and chimaeras excepted,
belongs
to a species
(species), every species to a genus
(genus), every genus to a family
(familia), every
family to an order
(ordo), every order to a class
(classis), every class to a division
(divisio).
Art. 11.
In many species, varieties
(varietas), forms
(forma),
and races
or biological
forms
(forma biologica)
are
distinguished;
in parasitic species special forms
(forma specialis),
and in
certain cultivated species
modifications still more numerous; in many genera sections
(sectio)
are distinguished,
in many families tribes
(tribus).
Recommendation I.
In
parasites,
especially parasitic fungi,
authors who do not give specific value
to forms characterized from a biological standpoint
but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint,
should
distinguish within the species special forms
(forma specialis)
characterized by their adaptation to different hosts.
Art. 12.
Finally, if
a greater number of intermediate
categories are
required, the terms
for these subdivisions
are made by
adding the
prefix sub
(sub)
to the terms
denoting the
categories.
Thus subfamily
(subfamilia) denotes a
category
between a family and a tribe,
subtribe
(subtribus)
a category
between a tribe and a genus, etc. The
classification of
subordinated categories may thus be carried,
for wild plants, to twenty-three degrees in
the following order:
Regnum vegetabile.
Divisio.
Subdivisio.
Classis.
Subclassis.
Ordo.
Subordo.
Familia.
Subfamilia.
Tribus.
Subtribus.
Genus.
Subgenus.
Sectio.
Subsectio.
Species.
Subspecies.
Varietas.
Subvarietas.
Forma.
Forma biologica.
Forma specialis.
Individuum.
If this list of
categories is insufficient it
may be augmented
by the intercalation of
supplementary
categories,
provided that this
does not
introduce confusion or error.
Examples: Series and subseries are categories which may be intercalated between subsection and species.
Recommendation II.
The arrangement
of species in a genus or in a subdivision of a genus
is made
by means of typographic signs, letters or numerals.
The arrangement of subspecies under a species
is made by letters or numerals;
that of varieties by the
series of
Greek letters
α,
β,
γ, etc.
Groups below varieties and also half-breeds
are indicated by letters, numerals
or typographic signs at the author’s will.
Art. 13.
The definition of each of these
categories
varies, up to a certain point, accord-
ing
to individual opinion and the state of the science;
but their relative order, sanctioned by
custom,
must not be altered. No classification
is admissible which contains such alterations.
Examples of
inadmissible alteration:
a form divided into varieties,
a species containing genera,
a genus containing
families or tribes: e. g. Huth
(in Engl.
Bot. Jahrb. XX, 337: 1895)
divided the subgenera of
Delphinium into “tribes”.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 02 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
3 |
Art. 14.
The fertilization of one species by another
may give rise to a hybrid
(hybrida);
that of a modification
or subdivision of a species by another modification
of the same species
may give rise to a half-breed
(mistus).
Chapter III. Names of taxonomic groups (Art. 15—72, Rec. III–L).
Section 1. General principles; priority (Art. 15—17, Rec. III).
Art. 15.
The
purpose of giving a
name to
a taxonomic
group is not
to indicate
the
characters or the history of the group, but
to supply a means
of referring to it.
Art. 16.
Each
group
with a given circumscription,
position and rank can bear only
one valid
name¹), the
earliest
that is in
accordance with the
Rules of
Nomenclature.
Art. 17.
No one
may change a name
(or combination of names) without serious motives,
based
either on more profound knowledge of facts or on the necessity
of giving up a nomenclature
that is contrary to
the Rules.
Recommendation III. Changes in nomenclature should be made only after adequate taxonomic study.
Section 2. The type method (Art. 18, Rec. IV—VII).
Art. 18.
The application of names of taxonomic groups
is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.
A nomenclatural type is that constituent element of a group
to which the
name of the group is permanently attached,
whether as an accepted name or as a synonym.
The
name of a group must be changed
if the type of that name is excluded
(see Art. 66).
The type of the name of an order or suborder is a family,
that of the name of a family,
subfamily, tribe or subtribe
is a genus, that of a generic name is a species,
that of the name of
a species or group of lower rank
is usually a specimen or preparation.
In some species, however,
the type is a description or figure
given by a previous author.
Where permanent preservation
of a specimen or preparation
is impossible, the application of the name of a species
or subdivision
of a species is determined
by means of the original description or figure.
Note:
The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical
or representative element of a group; it
is merely that element
with which the name of the group is permanently associated.
Examples:
the type of the name
Malvales is the family
Malvaceae; the type of the name
Malvaceae is the genus
Malva; the type of the name
Malva is the species
Malva sylvestris L.; the type of the name
Polyporus amboinensis Fries
is
the figure and description in Rumph.
Herb. Amboin. VI, p. 129, t. 57, fig. 1.
Recommendations :
IV.
When publishing names
of new groups, authors should
indicate carefully the subdivision which is
the type of the
new name; the
type-genus in a family, the
type-species in a genus, the
type-variety
or specimen in
a species.
This type determines
the application of the name
in the event of the group
being subsequently divided.
When
describing new species,
varieties or forms of parasitic plants,
especially Fungi,
the host plant of the type
should be indicated
V. When revising a genus, an author should state which species he accepts as the nomenclatural type.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1)
In genera and groups of higher rank,
the valid name is the earliest name published with the same rank,
provided that this
is in conformity with the Rules of Nomenclature
and the provisions of Arts.
20
and
21.
In subdivisions of genera the valid name
is the earliest name published with the same rank
provided that
this
name and its combination with the generic name are
in conformity with the Rules of Nomenclature.
In species and groups of lower rank,
the valid name is the binary or ternary combination
containing the earliest
epithet
published with the same rank,
provided that this combination
is in conformity with the Rules of Nomenclature.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 03 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
4 |
VI.
In selecting a nomenclatural type for a genus of
non-vascular Cryptogams, botanists should, where
possible,
choose a species that will fix the generic name
as it is now commonly applied.
Examples:
Hypoxylon Fr.
(Summa Veg. Scand. 383—4).
Fries first used the name for a genus to include
25 species now distributed in
Ustulina,
Anthostoma,
Nummularia,
Daldinia,
Sordaria, etc. To take the first species,
H. ustulatum as the type would displace the name
Ustulina, and most of the other species which are now known as
Hypoxylon would require another generic name. If, however,
H. coccineum, species No. 11 in Fries’s list,
a well-known
and widely-distributed species,
be taken as the type, the name
Hypoxylon would be retained in its present general
application and the nomenclature would be stabilized.
—
The genus
Valsa Fr.
(Summa Veg. Scand. 410) contained 44
species
now placed in several different genera. The first species
V. Sorbi is now known as a species of
Eutypella. By
selecting
V. ceratophora Tul.
(V. decorticans Fr.) the name
Valsa is retained in its present general application and
many nomenclatural changes are avoided ¹).
VII.
The utmost importance
should be
given to the
preservation of the original
(“type”) material on which
the description of
a new group is
based. In microscopic Cryptogams the preparations
and original drawings, in fleshy
Fungi water-colour
drawings and
specimens suitably prepared or dried,
should be preserved.
The original account
should
state where
this material is to be found.
Section 3. Limitation of the principle of priority: publication, starting-points,
conservation of names (Art. 19—22).
Art. 19.
A name of a taxonomic group has no status under the Rules,
and no claim to
recognition by botanists,
unless it is validly published
(see Section 6, Art.
37).
Art.
20.
Legitimate
botanical
nomenclature begins for the different groups of plants
at the following dates:
—
(a) Phanerogamae and Pteridophyta, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).
(b) Muscineae, 1801 (Hedwig, Species Muscorum).
(c) Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).
(d) Lichenes, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).
(e)
Fungi:
Uredinales,
Ustilaginales and
Gasteromycetes, 1801
(Persoon,
Synopsis
methodica Fungorum).
(f) Fungi caeteri, 1821—32 (Fries, Systema mycologicum).
(g) Algae, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).
Exceptions. —
Nostocaceae
homocysteae, 1892—93 (Gomont,
Monographie des Oscillariées, in
Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.
sér. 7.
VI, 91,
VII, 263). —
Nostocaceae
heterocysteae, 1886—93
(Bornet et Flahault,
Revision des Nostocacées hétérocystées
in
Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. sér. 7.
III, 323,
IV, 344,
V, 51,
VII, 177). —
Desmidiaceae, 1848
(Ralfs,
British Desmidieae). —
Oedogoniaceae, 1900
(Hirn,
Monographie und Iconographie der Oedogoniaceen
in
Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn.
XXVII, No. 1).
(h) Myxomycetes, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1).
The nomenclature of Fossil Plants of all groups begins with the year 1820.
It is agreed to associate generic names
which appear in Linnaeus’s
Species Plantarum,
ed. 1
(1753)
and ed. 2
(1762—63)
with the
first
subsequent
descriptions given
under those
names in
Linnaeus’s
Genera Plantarum, ed. 5 (1754)
and ed. 6 (1764).
Art.
21.
However, to avoid disadvantageous changes in
the nomenclature of genera
by the strict application of the
Rules of
Nomenclature,
and especially of the principle of priority
in starting from the dates given in
Art. 20 the
Rules
provide a list of names which must be
retained
as exceptions.
These names are by preference those which have come into general
use in the fifty years following their publication,
or which have been used in monographs and
important floristic works up to the year 1890.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1)
Numerous cases of this kind might be cited among the Fungi.
Following the above recommendation
would
largely obviate the need of a lengthy list of
nomina conservanda.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 04 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
5 |
Note 1.
These lists of conserved names will remain permanently
open for additions. Any proposal of an
additional name
must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases for
and against its conservation.
Such proposals
must be submitted to the Executive Committee,
who will refer them for examination to the Special Committees
for the
various taxonomic groups ¹).
Note 2.
The application of conserved names is determined
by nomenclatural types, or by substitute-types where
necessary or desirable.
Note 3.
A conserved name is conserved against
all other names for the group, whether these are cited
in the
corresponding list of rejected names or not,
so long as the group concerned is not united or reunited
with another group
bearing a legitimate name.
In the event of union or reunion with another group,
the earlier of the two competing names
is adopted
in accordance with
Art. 56.
Note 4. A conserved name is conserved against all earlier homonyms.
Examples.
—
The generic name
Spergularia J. et C. Presl (1819) is conserved against
Alsine L. (1753), emend.
Reichb. (1832) (=
Delia Dum. +
Spergularia), although
Alsine L. (1753), partim,
is not included in the list of rejected names:
Spergularia was conserved as including
Delia
(Alsine L., partim).
—
If the genus
Weihea Spreng. (1825) is united with
Cassipourea Aubl. (1775),
the combined genus will bear the prior name
Cassipourea although
Weihea is conserved, and
Cassipourea is not.
—
If
Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is reunited with
Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the prior
name
Berberis, although
Mahonia is conserved.
—
Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only in the restricted sense,
for
a monotypic genus based on
N. officinale R. Br.: hence, if it is reunited with
Rorippa Scop. (1760), it must bear the name
Rorippa.
—
The generic name
Swartzia Schreb. (1791), conserved in 1905 against
Tounatea Aubl.,
Possira Aubl. and
Hoel-
zelia Neck.,
is thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym
Swartzia Ehrh. (1787).
Art. 22.
When a name proposed for conservation ²) has been
provisionally approved
by the Executive Committee,
botanists are authorised to retain it pending the decision of the
next International Botanical Congress.
Section 4. Nomenclature of the taxonomic groups according to their categories
(Art. 23—35, Rec. VIII—XX).
§ 1. Names of groups above the rank of family.
VIII.
Names of divisions and subdivisions, of classes
and subclasses, are taken from their chief characters.
They are expressed by words of
Greek or
Latin origin
in the plural number,
some similarity of form and termination
being given
to those which designate groups of the same nature.
Examples:
Angiospermae,
Gymnospermae,
Monocotyledoneae,
Dicotyledoneae,
Pteridophyta,
Coniferae.
Among
Cryptogams old family names such as
Fungi,
Lichenes,
Algae,
may be used for names of groups
above the rank of family.
IX.
Orders are designated preferably by the name of one
of their principal families, with the ending
-ales.
Suborders are designated
in a similar manner, with the ending
-ineae. But other terminations may be
used for these names,
provided that they do not lead to confusion or error.
Examples of
names of orders:
Polygonales (from
Polygonaceae),
Urticales (from
Urticaceae),
Glumiflorae,
Centro-
spermae,
Parietales,
Tubiflorae,
Microspermae,
Contortae. Examples of names of suborders:
Bromeliineae (from
Bromeliaceae),
Malvineae (from
Malvaceae),
Tricoccae,
Enantioblastae.
§ 2. Names of families and subfamilies, tribes and subtribes.
Art.
23.
Names of
families are
taken from the name of one of their
present or former
genera
and
end
in
-aceae.
Examples:
Rosaceae (from
Rosa),
Salicaceae (from
Salix),
Caryophyllaceae
(from
Caryophyllus,
a pre-Linnean
genus).
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1) See list of Nomina conservanda proposita.
2) There is also to be provided a list of Nomina conservanda familiarum (Art. 23; Appendix II).
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 05 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
6 |
Exceptions: (1)
The following names,
sanctioned by long usage, are
treated as excep-
tions to the rule:
Palmae,
Gramineae,
Cruciferae,
Leguminosae,
Guttiferae,
Umbelliferae,
Labiatae,
Compositae.
Botanists are authorised,
however, to use as alternatives
the appropriate names
ending in
-aceae.
(2) Those who regard the
Papilionaceae
as constituting
an independent family
may use that name,
although it is not formed
in the prescribed manner.
To avoid disadvantageous changes
in the nomenclature of families
by the strict appli-
cation of the Rules
and especially of
the principle of priority,
a list of names
which must be
retained
as exceptions will be
provided
(Appendix II).
Art.
24.
Names of subfamilies
(subfamiliae) are taken from
the name of one of the
genera in the group, with the ending
-oideae, similarly for tribes
(tribus) with the ending
-eae,
and for subtribes
(subtribus) with the ending
-inae.
Examples of
subfamilies:
Asphodeloideae (from
Asphodelus),
Rumicoideae (from
Rumex); tribes:
Asclepiadeae
(from
Asclepias),
Phyllantheae (from
Phyllanthus); subtribes:
Metastelmatinae (from
Metastelma),
Madiinae (from
Madia).
§ 3. Names of genera and subdivisions of genera.
Art. 25.
Names of genera
are substantives
(or adjectives used as substantives),
in the
singular number and written with an
initial capital,
which may be compared with our family
names.
These names may be taken from any source whatever,
and may even be composed in
an absolutely arbitrary manner.
Examples:
Rosa,
Convolvulus,
Hedysarum,
Bartramia,
Liquidambar,
Gloriosa,
Impatiens,
Manihot,
Ifloga (an
anagram of
Filago).
Recommendation X.
Botanists who are
forming generic names
show judgment and taste by attending
to the following recommendations:
—
(a) Not to make names very long or difficult to pronounce.
(b)
Not to dedicate genera to persons
quite unconnected with botany or at least
with natural science nor to
persons quite unknown.
(c)
Not to take names from barbarous
languages,
unless those names are frequently
cited in books
of travel,
and have an agreeable form that is readily adaptable to the
Latin tongue
and to the tongues of
civilised countries.
(d) To indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or analogies of the genus.
(e) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(f)
Not to give to a genus a name
whose form is rather that of a subgenus or section (e. g.
Eusideroxylon, a name
given to a genus of
Lauraceae. This, however, being
legitimate, cannot be
altered).
(g) Not to make names by combining words from different languages (nomina hybrida).
Art.
26.
Names of
subgenera and sections
are usually substantives resembling the
names of genera. Names of subsections
and other lower subdivisions of genera
are preferably
adjectives in the plural number
agreeing in gender
with the generic
name and written with an
initial capital, or their place
may be taken by an ordinal number or a letter.
Examples.
— Substantives:
Fraxinaster,
Trifoliastrum,
Adenoscilla,
Euhermannia,
Archieracium,
Micromeli-
lotus,
Pseudinga,
Heterodraba,
Gymnocimum,
Neoplantago,
Stachyotypus.
—
Adjectives:
Pleiostylae,
Fimbriati,
Bibracteolata.
Recommendations :
XI.
Botanists constructing names for subgenera
or sections
will do well to attend to the preceding
recom-
mendations and also to the following:
—
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 06 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
7 |
(a)
To
give,
where possible, to the principal
subdivision of a genus a name which
recalls
that of the genus
with
some modification or addition. Thus
Eu
may be placed at the beginning of the
generic name when it is of
Greek
origin,
-astrum,
-ella at the end of the name when
Latin, or any other
modification consistent with the grammar and
usages of the
Latin language.
Examples: Eucardamine (from Cardamine), Trifoliastrum (from Trifolium), Drabella (from Draba).
(b)
To
avoid
giving to a subgenus or a section the name of the genus
to which it belongs, with the
ending
-oides
or
-opsis:
but on the contrary
to
reserve this ending
for a section which resembles another genus and by
then adding
-oides or
-opsis to the name of that other genus, if it is of
Greek origin,
to form the name of the section.
(c)
To
avoid
taking as the name of a subgenus or section a name
which is already in use as such in another
genus,
or which is the name of
a genus.
(d)
To avoid in co-ordinated subdivisions of a genus
the use of names in the form of a noun together
with
those in the form of a plural adjective;
the former should be used chiefly for subgenera and sections,
the latter for sub-
sections, series and subseries.
XII.
When it is
desired to
indicate the
name
of a subgenus or section
(or other subdivision to which
a parti-
cular species belongs)
in connexion with the
generic
name and
specific
epithet, the name of the
subdivision is
placed
in
parenthesis between the
two (where necessary,
the rank of the subdivision
is also indicated).
Examples: Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus; Loranthus (Sect. Ischnanthus) gabonensis.
§ 4. Names of species (binary names).
Art.
27.
Names of species
are
binary combinations
consisting
of the name of the genus
followed by a
single
specific epithet. If an epithet
consists of two or more words,
these must
either be united or joined
by hyphens.
Symbols
forming part of
specific epithets
proposed by
Linnaeus must be transcribed.
The
specific epithet,
when adjectival in
form and not used
as a substantive,
agrees
in gender
with the generic name.
Examples.
—
Cornus sanguinea,
Dianthus monspessulanus,
Papaver Rhoeas,
Uromyces Fabae,
Fumaria Gussonei,
Geranium Robertianum,
Embelia Sarasinorum,
Atropa Belladonna,
Impatiens noli-tangere,
Adiantum Capillus-Veneris.
—
Scandix Pecten
♀ L.
must be transcribed as
Scandix Pecten-Veneris; Veronica Anagallis
∇ L.
must be transcribed as
Veronica
Anagallis-aquatica.
—
Helleborus niger,
Brassica nigra,
Verbascum nigrum.
Recommendations :
XIII.
The specific
epithet should, in general,
give some indication of the appearance, the characters,
the
origin, the history or the properties of the species.
If taken from the name of a person, it usually recalls the name of the
one who discovered or described it, or was in some way concerned with it.
XIV.
Names of men and women and also of countries
and localities used as specific
epithets,
may be substan-
tives in the genitive
(Clusii,
saharae) or adjectives
(Clusianus,
dahuricus).
It will be well, in the future, to avoid the use of
the genitive and the adjectival form of the same epithet
to designate two different species of the same genus:
for example
Lysimachia Hemsleyana Maxim. (1891) and
L. Hemsleyi Franch. (1895).
XV.
In forming specific
epithets botanists will do well to
have regard also to
the following re-
commendations:
—
(a) To avoid those which are very long and difficult to pronounce.
(b) To avoid those which express a character common to all or nearly all the species of a genus.
(c) To avoid using the names of little-known or very restricted localities, unless the species is quite local.
(d)
To
avoid, in the same genus,
epithets
which are very much alike,
especially those which differ only in their
last letters.
(e)
Not to
adopt
unpublished names found in travellers’ notes
or in herbaria, attributing them to their authors,
unless these have approved publication.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 07 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
8 |
(f)
Not
to name a species
after a person who has neither discovered,
nor described, nor figured, nor in any
way studied it.
(g) To avoid epithets which have been used before in any closely allied genus.
(h) To avoid specific epithets formed of two or more (hyphened) words.
(i)
To
avoid
epithets
which have the same meaning as the generic name
(pleonasm).
§ 5. Names of groups below the rank of species (ternary names).
Art. 28.
Epithets of subspecies
and varieties are formed like
those of species and follow
them in order,
beginning with those of the highest rank.
When adjectival in
form and not used
as substantives
they agree in gender
with the generic name.
Similarly for subvarieties,
forms and slight or transient modifications of wild plants,
which receive
either epithets
or numbers or letters to facilitate their arrangement.
The use of
a
binary nomenclature for subdivisions of species
is not admissible.
It is permissible to reduce
more complicated names
to ternary combinations.
Examples:
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
macrothrix (not
Andropogon macrothrix or
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
A. macrothrix);
Herniaria hirsuta var.
diandra (not
Herniaria diandra or
Herniaria hirsuta var.
H. diandra);
Trifolium
stellatum
forma
nanum
(not
nana).
Saxifraga Aïzoon
subforma
surculosa Engl. et Irmsch.
is permissible for
Saxifraga Aïzoon var.
typica subvar.
brevifolia forma
multicaulis subforma
surculosa Engl. et Irmsch.
Art. 29.
The same
epithet may be
used
for subdivisions of different species,
and the
subdivisions of one species may bear the same
epithet as other species.
Examples:
Rosa Jundzillii var.
leioclada and
Rosa glutinosa var.
leioclada; Viola tricolor var.
hirta in spite of
the existence
already of a different species named
Viola hirta.
Art. 30.
Two
subdivisions
of the same species,
even if they are of different
rank,
cannot
bear the same
subdivisional epithet,
unless they are based
on the same type.
If the earlier
subdivisional name
(ternary combination)
was validly published,
the later one is illegitimate
and must be rejected.
Examples:
The ternary combinations
Biscutella didyma subsp.
apula Briq. and
Biscutella didyma var.
apula
Halácsy (see Briquet,
Prodr. Pl. Corse. II. 107. 108: 1913)
may both be used because they are based on the same type,
and
the one includes the other.
The following
is incorrect:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum and
E. hieraciifolium
subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum — a form of nomenclature
which allows two varieties bearing the same name in the
same species.
Andropogon Sorghum subsp.
halepensis var.
halepensis Hack. is permissible:
the two subdivisions bearing the
same epithet
but representing subordinate grades based on the same type,
A. halepensis Brot.,
and thus being synonymous
except that the epithet of
the lower subdivision is used in a restricted sense.
Recommendations :
XVI. Recommendations made for specific epithets apply equally to epithets of subdivisions of species.
XVII.
Special forms
(forma specialis) are
preferably named
after the host species; if desired,
double names
may be used.
Examples: Puccinia Hieracii f. sp. villosi; Pucciniastrum Epilobii f. sp. Abieti-Chamaenerii.
XVIII.
Botanists should avoid giving a new epithet to
any subdivision of a species which includes the
type either of a higher subdivisional name or of the specific name.
They should either repeat that epithet, with or
without a
prefix,
or use one of the
customary epithets,
typicus,
genuinus,
originarius, etc.
Examples:
Andropogon caricosus subsp.
mollissimus var.
mollissimus Hackel;
Arthraxon ciliaris subsp.
Langs-
dorfii var.
genuinus Hackel.
XIX.
Botanists
proposing new epithets
for subdivisions of species
should avoid such as have been used
previ-
ously in the same genus,
whether for species or for
subdivisions of other
species.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 08 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
9 |
§ 6. Names of hybrids and half-breeds.
Art. 31.
Hybrids
or putative hybrids
between species of the same genus are designated
by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary,
by a name.
(1)
Sexual hybrids.
The formula consists of the names or specific epithets
of the two
parents in alphabetical order and
connected by the sign ×.
When the hybrid is of known experi-
mental origin, the formula may be made
more precise by the addition of the signs ♀, ♂, the name
of the female
(seed-bearing) parent
being placed first.
The name, which is subject to the same rules as names
of species, is distinguished
from the latter by the sign × before the name.
(2)
Asexual hybrids
(graft hybrids, chimaeras, etc.).
The formula consists of the names of
the two parents
in alphabetical order and connected by the sign +.
The name has a “specific”
epithet different from
that of the corresponding sexual hybrid (if any),
and is preceded by
the sign +.
Examples
of
sexual hybrids:
× Salix capreola
(Salix aurita ×
caprea),
Digitalis lutea ♀ ×
purpurea ♂;
Digi-
talis
purpurea ♀ ×
lutea ♂.
Example of asexual hybrids: + Solanum tubingense (Solanum nigrum + S. Lycopersicum).
Art. 32.
Bigeneric hybrids
(i. e. hybrids between species of
two genera)
are also
designated by a formula and, whenever
it seems useful or necessary, by a name.
The formula consists of the names of the two parents connected by a sign, as in Art. 31.
The name consists of a new “generic” name usually
formed by a combination of the
names of the parent genera,
and a “specific” epithet.
All hybrids (whether sexual or asexual)
between the same two genera bear the same “generic” name.
(1)
Sexual hybrids.
In the formula the connecting sign × is used.
The name is pre-
ceded by the sign ×.
(2)
Asexual hybrids.
In the formula the connecting sign + is used.
The name is pre-
ceded
by the sign +.
The “specific” epithet is different from
that of the corresponding sexual
hybrid (if any)
between the same species.
Examples of
sexual hybrids:
× Odontioda Boltonii (Cochlioda Noezliana ×
Odontoglossum Vuylstekeae);
×
Pyronia Veitchii (Cydonia oblonga ×
Pyrus communis).
Examples of
asexual hybrids:
+ Laburnocytisus Adami (Laburnum +
Cytisus purpureus); +
Pyronia
Daniellii (Cydonia oblonga +
Pyrus communis).
Art. 33.
Ternary hybrids, or those of a higher order,
are designated like ordinary
hybrids by a formula
and, whenever it seems useful
or necessary, by a
binary name.
Such as
are trigeneric
or polygeneric are given
new “generic” names
usually formed
by a combination
of the names of the parent genera.
Examples: × Salix Straehleri = Salix aurita × cinerea × repens or S. (aurita × repens) × cinerea.
Examples of
new generic names: ×
Brassolaeliocattleya (composed of the three names
Brassavola,
Laelia and
Cattleya); ×
Potinara; ×
Vuylstekeara.
Recommendation
XX.
Half-breeds or
putative half-breeds
may be designated by a name and a
formula.
Names of half-breeds are intercalated among
the subdivisions of a species, and are preceded
by the
sign ×. In the formula the names
of the parents are in alphabetical order.
When the
half-breed
is of known ex-
perimental origin,
the formula may be made more precise
by the addition of the signs
♀, ♂,
the name of the female
(seed-bearing) parent
being placed first.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 09 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
10 |
Art. 34.
When different
hybrid forms of
the same parentage
(pleomorphic hybrids;
combinations between different forms of a collective species, etc.)
are united
in a collective group,
the subdivisions are classed under the
binary name of
the hybrid like the subdivisions of
a species
under
that of a species.
Examples:
× Mentha
niliaca β Lamarckii
(= M. longifolia ×
rotundifolia).
The preponderance of the characters
of one or other parent
may be indicated in the formulae
in the following manner:
Mentha longifolia > ×
rotundifolia,
M. longifolia × <
rotundifolia.
The participation of a particular variety
may also be indicated, e. g.
Salix caprea ×
daph-
noides var.
pulchra.
§ 7. Names of plants of horticultural origin.
Art. 35.
Forms and half-breeds
among cultivated plants receive fancy
epithets prefer-
ably
in common language, as different as possible from the
Latin
epithets of species or varieties.
When they can be
attached to a species,
a subspecies, or a botanical variety,
this is indicated by
a succession of names.
Examples:
Pelargonium zonale Mrs. Pollock.
Section 5. Conditions of effective publication (Art. 36).
Art.
36.
Publication is effected, under these Rules, by sale
to the general public
or to botanical institutions,
of printed matter or indelible autographs, or
by distribution
of these
to specified
representative botanical
institutions ¹).
No
other kind of publication
is accepted as effective:
communication of new names
at a public meeting, or the placing of names in collections
or gardens open to the public, does
not constitute effective publication.
Examples.
—
Effective publication without printed matter:
Salvia oxyodon Webb et Heldr. was published in
July 1850 in an autograph catalogue placed on sale
(Webb et Heldreich,
Catalogus Plantarum hispanicarum . . .
ab A. Blanco
lectarum, Paris, Jul. 1850, folio).
—
Non-effective publication at a public meeting:
Cusson announced his establishment of
the genus
Physospermum in a memoir read at the
Société des Sciences de Montpellier in 1770,
and later in 1782 or 1783 at
the Société de Médecine de Paris,
but its effective publication dates from 1787 in the
Mémoires de la Société Royale de
Médecine de Paris,
V, 1re
partie, p. 279.
Section 6. Conditions and dates of valid publication of names
(Art. 37—45, Rec. XXI—XXIX).
Art.
37.
A
name
of a taxonomic group
is not validly published
unless it is both
(1)
effectively published
(see Art. 36), and
(2) accompanied by a description
of the group
or by a
reference to
a previously
and effectively published
description of it.
Mention of a name
on a ticket issued with a dried plant without
a printed
or auto-
graphed description
does not constitute
valid
publication of that name.
Note.
In certain circumstances a
plate or figure
with analyses is accepted as
equivalent to a description
(see
Art.
43,
44).
Examples
of
names
not validly
published.
—
Egeria Néraud
(Bot. Voy. Freycinet. 28: 1826)
published without
description or reference
to a former description.
—
Sciadophyllum heterotrichum Decaisne et Planch. in
Rev. Hortic. sér.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1)
The preparation of a list of representative botanical
institutions is referred to the Executive Committee
(see App. VI).
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 10 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
11 |
4, III, 107 (1854), published without description
or reference to a previous description under another name.
— The name
Loranthus macrosolen Steud.
originally appeared without a description
on the printed tickets
issued about the year 1843,
with Sect. II. nn. 529, 1288
of Schimper’s herbarium specimens
of Abyssinian plants;
it was not validly published,
however,
until A. Richard
(Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1, 340: 1847)
supplied a description.
—
Nepeta Sieheana Hausskn.
was not validly published
by its appearance
without a description in a
set of dried plants (W. Siehe,
Bot. Reise nach Cilicien, No. 521: 1896).
Art.
38.
From January 1,
1935 ¹),
names of new groups of recent plants, the Bacteria
excepted,
are considered as
validly
published
only when they are accompanied by a
Latin
diagnosis.
Note.
This article legitimizes names of new groups effectively published
from 1908 to 1934 with diagnoses
in modern languages.
Art.
39.
From January 1, 1912, the
name
of a
new taxonomic
group of fossil plants
is not considered as
validly
published unless
it is accompanied by illustrations
or figures showing
the essential characters, in addition
to the description,
or by a reference to a previously and
effectively published illustration
or figure.
Art. 40.
A
name
of a taxonomic group
is not
validly
published when it is merely
cited
as a
synonym.
Examples.
—
Acosmus Desv., cited
as a synonym of the generic name
Aspicarpa Rich., was not validly published
thereby.
—
Ornithogalum undulatum Hort. Berol. ex Kunth
(Enum.
Pl. IV, 348: 1843),
cited as a synonym under
Myogalum
Boucheanum Kunth, was
not validly
published thereby;
when transferred to
Ornithogalum this species must be called
Ornitho-
galum Boucheanum
(Kunth) Aschers. (in
Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr.
XVI, 192: 1866).
—
Similarly
Erythrina micropteryx Poepp.
was
not validly
published by being
cited as a synonym of
Micropteryx Poeppigiana Walp.
(in
Linnaea, XXIII, 740: 1850);
the species in question, when placed
under
Erythrina, must be called
Erythrina Poeppigiana
(Walp.) O. F. Cook
(in
U. S.
Dept. Agric. Bull. no. 25, p. 57: 1901).
Art. 41.
A
group is not
characterized,
and the publication of its name is not validated,
merely by mention of the subordinate groups included in it:
thus the publication of the name of
an order
is not validated by mention of the included families; that of a family
is not validated
by mention of the included genera; that of a
genus
is not validated by mention of the in-
cluded
species.
Examples.
—
The family name
Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre (in
Bull. Soc. Linn. Par. II, 1296: maio 1897),
which was
accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera,
Brazzeia,
Scytopetalum and
Rhaptopetalum,
was not validly published,
as Pierre gave no description; the family bears the later name
Scytopetalaceae Engl. (in Engl. und Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam.
I, 242: 1897, serius),
which was accompanied by a description.
—
The generic name
Ibidium Salisbury (in
Trans.
Hort. Soc. I, 291: 1812)
was published merely with the mention of four included species:
as Salisbury supplied no generic
description, the publication of
Ibidium was invalid.
Art.
42.
A
name of
a
genus is
not validly published
unless it is accompanied
(1) by
a description of the genus, or
(2) by the citation of a previously
and effectively published
descrip-
tion
of the genus
under another name; or (3) by
a reference to a
previously and effectively
published description of the genus
as a subgenus, section
or other subdivision of a genus.
An exception is made
for the generic names
published by Linnaeus in
Species Plan-
tarum, ed. 1
(1753)
and ed. 2 (1762—63),
which are treated
as having been validly
published
on those dates
(see Art. 20).
Note.
In certain circumstances, a
plate with analyses is accepted
as equivalent to a generic description
(see Art. 43).
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1)
Owing to the delay in publication of the Rules
the Editors have put forward the date from 1932
(see statement by the Rapporteur Général;
Fifth International Botanical Congress Report, p. 591: 1931).
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 11 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
12 |
Examples
of
validly published
generic names:
Carphalea Juss.
(Gen. Pl. 198: 1789),
accompanied by a
generic
description;
Thuspeinanta Th. Dur.
(Ind. Gen. Phanerog. p. X: 1888),
accompanied by a reference to
the
previously
described
genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non Herb.);
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch
(Hort. Dendrol. 242: 1853),
based on a previously
described section,
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.
Art. 43.
The name of a monotypic new genus based on a new species is validated:
(1) by the provision of a combined generic and specific description
(descriptio generico-specifica),
or
(2) by the provision of a
plate with analyses
showing essential characters;
but this applies
only to plates and generic names
published before January 1, 1908.
Examples.
—
The generic name
Sakersia Hook. f.
(Hook. Ic. Pl. Ser. III. i. 69, t. 1086: 1871)
was validly publi-
shed,
being accompanied by a combined generic and specific description of
S. africana Hook. f. (nov. gen. et sp.)
the only
known species.
—
The generic name
Philgamia Baill.(in Grandidier.
Hist. Madag., Pl., Atlas III. t. 265: 1894)
was validly
published, as it appeared on a plate with analyses of
P. hibbertioides Baill.
(nov. gen. et sp.),
published before January 1, 1908.
Art. 44.
The
name
of
a species or
of a subdivision of a species is not
validly
published
unless it is accompanied
(1) by a description of the group; or
(2) by the citation of a previously
and effectively published description
of the group under another name; or
(3) by a
plate or figure
with analyses
showing essential
characters;
but this applies only to plates
or figures
published
before January 1, 1908.
Examples
of
validly
published names
of species.
Onobrychis eubrychidea Boiss.
(Fl. or. II. 546: 1872),
published with a description. —
Hieracium Flahaultianum
Arv.-Touv. et Gaut., published
on a label
with a printed
diagnosis
in a set of dried plants
(Hieraciotheca gallica, nos. 935—942: 1903).
—
Cynanchum nivale Nyman
(Syll.
Fl.
Eur. 108: 1854—55),
published with a reference to
Vincetoxicum nivale Boiss. et Heldr.
previously described.
—
Panax nossibiensis Drake
(in Grandidier,
Hist. Madag. Bot., Atlas III. t. 406: 1896),
published on a plate with analyses.
Examples of names of species not validly published are given under Art. 36 and 40.
Art.
45.
The date of a name or of
an epithet is that of
its valid publication
(see Art. 19,
37).
For purposes of priority,
however, only
legitimate names
and epithets
published
in legi-
timate combinations
are taken into consideration ¹)
(see Art. 60).
In the absence of proof to the
contrary, the date
given in the work containing the name
or epithet
must be regarded as correct.
On and after January 1, 1935 ²),
only the date of publication of the
Latin diagnosis
can be taken into account
for new groups of recent plants.
For new groups
of fossil plants, on and after January
1, 1912,
the date
is that of
the simultaneous publication of the
description and figure
(or if these are published
at different
dates,
the later of the two dates).
Examples.
— Specimens of
Mentha foliicoma Opiz were distributed by
Opiz in 1832,
but the name dates from
1882, when it was validly
published by Déséglise
(Menth.Op. in
Bull.
Soc.
Études
Scient. Angers. 1881—82, 210);
Mentha
bracteolata Opiz (Seznam, 65: 1852, without description),
takes effect only from 1882,
when it was published with a descrip-
tion (Déséglise
loc. cit. 211).
—
There is some reason for supposing that the first volume of Adanson’s
Familles des Plantes
was published in 1762, but in
the absence of certainty
the date 1763 on the title-page is assumed to be correct.
—
Indi-
vidual parts of Willdenow’s
Species Plantarum were published as follows:
vol. I, 1798;
vol. II. 2, 1800;
vol. III. 1. 1801;
vol. III. 2, 1803;
vol. III. 3, 1804;
vol. IV, 2, 1806;
and not in the years 1797, 1799, 1800, 1800, 1800 and 1805 respectively,
which appear
on
the title-pages of the volumes: it is the
former series of dates
which takes effect.
Botanists will do well in publishing to conform to the following Recommendations : —
XXI.
Not to publish a
new
name without clearly indicating
whether it is the name of a family or a tribe,
a genus or a section, a species or a variety;
briefly, without expressing an opinion
as to the rank of the group
to which
the name
is
given.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1) A legitimate name or epithet is one that is strictly in accordance with the Rules.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 12 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
13 |
Not to publish the name of a new group without indicating its type (see Recommendation IV).
XXII.
To avoid publishing or mentioning in their publications
unpublished names which they do not
accept,
especially if the persons responsible for these names have not
formally authorized their publication (see
Recommen-
dation XV, e).
XXIII.
When publishing names of new groups
of plants,
in works written in a modern language (floras,
catalogues, etc.)
to publish simultaneously the
Latin diagnoses
of recent plants
(Bacteria excepted) and the figures
of
fossil plants, which will validate the publication of these
names.
XXIV.
In describing new groups of lower Cryptogams,
especially among the Fungi or among microscopic
plants,
to add to the description a figure or figures of the plants,
with details of microscopic structure, as an aid to
identification.
XXV.
The description of parasitic plants should always be followed
by the indication of the hosts, especially
in the case
of parasitic fungi. The hosts should be designated by their
Latin scientific names
and not by popular names in
modern languages,
the significance of which is often doubtful.
XXVI.
To give the etymology of new generic names, and also of
new epithets when the meaning of
these
is not obvious.
XXVII.
To indicate precisely the date of publication
of their works and that of the placing on sale
or the
distribution of named and numbered plants
when these are accompanied by printed diagnoses.
In the case of a work
appearing in parts,
the last published sheet of the volume
should indicate the precise dates at which the different fascicles
or parts of the volume were published
as well as the number of pages in each.
XXVIII.
When works are published in periodicals, to require the
publisher to indicate
on the separate
copies the date
(year and month, if possible the day)
of publication and also the title of the periodical
from which the
work is extracted.
XXIX.
Separate copies should always bear the pagination
of the periodical of which they form a part;
if desired they may also bear a special pagination.
Section 7. Citation of authors’ names for purposes of precision
(Art. 46—49, Rec. XXX—XXXII).
Art.
46.
For the indication of the name
(unitary, binary, or ternary)
of a group to be
accurate and complete,
and in order that the date may be readily verified,
it is necessary to cite
the author
who first published the name in question.
Examples: Rosaceae Juss., Rosa L., Rosa gallica L., Rosa gallica L. var. eriostyla R. Keller.
Art.
47.
An alteration of the
diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of
a group does not warrant the
citation of an author
other than the one who first published
its name.
When the changes have been considerable,
an indication of their
nature, and of the
author responsible for
the change is
added, the words:
mutatis charact., or
pro parte, or
excl.
gen.,
excl. sp.,
excl. var., or some other abridged indication
being employed.
Examples:
Phyllanthus L. em. (emendavit) Müll. Arg.;
Myosotis L. pro parte, R. Br.;
Globularia cordifolia
L. excl. var.
β
(em. Lam.).
Art.
48.
When
a name
of a taxonomic group
has been proposed
but not published
by one author,
and is subsequently validly
published and ascribed
to him (or her) by another
author who supplied
the description, the
name of the latter author
must be appended to the
citation
with the connecting word
ex. The same
holds
for names of garden origin cited
as
“Hort.”.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 13 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
14 |
If it is desirable or necessary to abbreviate such a citation,
the name of the publishing
author, being the more important,
must be retained.
Examples:
Havetia flexilis
Spruce ex Planch. et Triana;
Capparis lasiantha R. Br. ex DC.;
Gesneria Donklarii
Hort. ex Hook.,
or
Gesneria Donklarii Hook.
Where a name and description by one author
are published by another author, the
word
apud is used to connect the names of the two authors,
except where the name of the second
author forms part of the title
of a book or periodical,
in which case the connecting word
in is
used instead.
Examples:
Teucrium charidemi Sandwith apud Lacaita (in
Cavanillesia, III, 38: 1930),
the description
of the species being contributed by Sandwith and
published in a paper by Lacaita.
Viburnum ternatum Rehder (in
Sargent, Trees and Shrubs, II, 37: 1907)
—
in this latter example
the second author’s name, Sargent,
forms part of the
title of a book.
Art.
49.
When a genus
or a group of lower rank is
altered in
rank but retains
its name
or epithet, the original author
must be cited in parenthesis, followed by the name of
the author
who effected
the alteration.
The same holds
when a subdivision of a genus,
a species, or a group
of lower rank,
is transferred to another genus
or species with or
without alteration of rank.
Examples:
Medicago polymorpha L. var.
orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of a species becomes
Medicago
orbicularis (L.) All.
Anthyllis sect.
Aspalathoides DC.
raised to generic rank, retaining the name
Aspalathoides, is cited as
Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch.
Sorbus sect.
Aria Pers., on transference to
Pyrus, is cited as
Pyrus sect.
Aria (Pers.) DC.
Cheiranthus tristis L.
transferred
to the genus
Matthiola becomes
Matthiola tristis (L.) R. Br.
Recommendations :
XXX. Authors’ names put after names of plants are abbreviated, unless they are very short.
For this purpose preliminary particles or letters
that, strictly speaking, do not form part of the name,
are sup-
pressed, and the first letters
are given without any omission.
If a name of one syllable is long enough to make it worth while
to abridge it, the first consonants only are given
(Br. for Brown); if the name has two or more syllables,
the first syllable
and the first letter of the following one
are taken, or the two first when both are consonants
(Juss. for Jussieu,
Rich. for
Richard).
When it is necessary to give more of a name to avoid confusion
between names beginning with the same syllables
the same system is to be followed.
For instance two syllables are given together with the one or
two first consonants of the
third; or one of
the last characteristic consonants of the name is added
(Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish from Bertero;
Michx. for Michaux, to distinguish from Micheli).
Christian names
or accessory designations, serving to distinguish two botanists
of the same name, are abridged
in the same way
(Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu,
Gaertn. fil. or Gaertn. f. for Gaertner filius).
When it is a well established custom
to abridge a name in another manner,
it is best to conform to it
(L. for
Linnaeus,
DC. for De Candolle,
St.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire).
In publications destined for the general public and in titles it is preferable not to abridge.
XXXI.
When citing a name published as a synonym,
the words “as synonym” or
pro synon. should be added
to the citation.
When an author published as a synonym
a manuscript name of another author, the word
ex should be used
to connect the names of the two authors.
Example:
Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steud.
Nomencl. 321 (1821), pro synon., a manuscript name
of Koenig’s
published by Steudel as a synonym of
Eugenia laurina Willd.
XXXII.
The citation of authors, earlier than the
starting point of the nomenclature of a group, is indicated
when considered useful or desirable, preferably between brackets or
by the use of the word ex. This method is especially
applicable in mycology when reference is made to authors earlier than
Fries or Persoon.
Examples:
Lupinus [Tournef.
Inst. 392, t. 213: 1719]
L.
Sp.
Pl. ed. 1, 721 (1753) and
Gen.
Pl. ed.
5, 332, or
Lupinus Tourn. ex L.;
Boletus piperatus [Bull.
Hist. Champ. Fr. 318, t. 451, f. 2: 1791—1812] Fries,
Syst. Myc. I, 388
(1821), or
Boletus piperatus Bull. ex Fries.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 14 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
15 |
Section 8. Retention of names or epithets of groups which are remodelled or divided
(Art. 50—52).
Art. 50.
An alteration of
the diagnostic characters, or
of the circumscription
of a group,
does not warrant a change in
its name, except in
so far as this may be necessitated
(1) by trans-
ference
of the group
(Art. 53—55),
or
(2) by its union
with another group
of the same rank
(Art. 56—57),
or
(3) by a change of its rank
(Art. 58).
Examples:
The genus
Myosotis as revised by R. Brown differs
from the original genus of Linnaeus,
but the
generic name has not been changed,
nor is
a change allowable.
—
Various authors have united with
Centaurea Jacea L.
one or two species which Linnaeus had kept distinct;
the group thus constituted must be called
Centaurea Jacea L.
sensu
ampl. or
Centaurea Jacea L.
em. Cosson et Germain,
em. Visiani, or em. Godron, etc.:
the creation of a new name such as
Centaurea vulgaris Godr. is superfluous.
Art.
51.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the
generic name must be
retained for one of them, or (if it has not been retained),
must be re-established.
When a parti-
cular species
was originally designated as
the type, the generic
name must be retained
for the
genus
including that species.
When no type was designated,
a type must be chosen according
to the regulations given
(Appendix I).
Examples:
The
genus
Glycine L.
Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 753 (1753)
was divided by Adanson
Fam. Pl. II, 324, 327, 562:
1763) into the two genera
Bradlea and
Abrus; this procedure is contrary
to Art. 51: the name
Glycine must be kept
for one
of the genera,
and it is now retained for part of
Glycine L. (1753).
—
The genus
Aesculus L. contains the sections
Eu-Aes-
culus,
Pavia (Poir.),
Macrothyrsus (Spach) and
Calothyrsus (Spach),
the last three of which were regarded as distinct genera
by
the authors
cited in parenthesis:
in the event of these
four sections being
treated as
genera, the name
Aesculus must be
kept for
the first of these,
which includes the species
Aesculus Hippocastanum L., as this
species is the type of the
genus founded by Linnaeus
(Sp.
Pl. ed. 1, 344: 1753;
Gen. Pl. ed. 5,
1754); Tournefort’s name
Hippocastanum
must not be used
as was done by Gaertner
(Fruct.
II, 135: 1791).
Art.
52.
When a species is divided into two or more
species, the specific epithet
must
be retained for
one of them, or
(if it has not been retained)
must be re-established.
When a
particular specimen
was originally designated
as the type,
the specific epithet
must be retained
for the species including that specimen.
When no type was designated,
a type must be chosen
according to the regulations
given
(Appendix I).
The
same rule applies to
subdivisions
of species,
for example,
to a subspecies
divided
into two
or more subspecies,
or to a variety
divided into two
or more varieties.
Example:
Lychnis dioica L.
Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 437,
was divided by Philip Miller
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8,
nn. 3, 4: 1768)
into two species,
L. dioica L. em. Mill. and
L. alba Mill.
—
G. F. Hoffmann
(Deutschlands Flora, 1800, I, 166)
divided
Juncus articulatus L. (1753)
into two species,
J. lampocarpus Ehrh., and
J. acutiflorus Ehrh. The name
J. articulatus L.
ought,
however, to have been retained
for one of the segregate species,
and has been re-established
in the sense of
J. lampocarpus
Ehrh. (see Briq.
Prodr. Fl. Corse, I. 264: 1910).
—
Genista horrida DC.
(Fl.
franç. IV, 500: 1805)
was divided by Spach
(in
Ann. Sci. Nat.
Bot. sér. 3, II, 253: 1844)
into three species,
G. horrida
(Vahl) DC.,
G. Boissieri Spach, and
G. Webbii
Spach; the name
G. horrida
was rightly kept for the
species including the plant
from Jaca in Aragon originally
described
by Vahl
(Symb. I, 51: 1790) as
Spartium horridum.
—
Several species
(Primula cashmiriana Munro,
P. erosa Wall.) have
been separated from
Primula denticulata Sm.
(Exot. Bot. 109, tab. 114: 1805),
but the name
P. denticulata has been
rightly kept for the form
which Smith described and figured under this name.
Section 9. Retention of names or epithets of groups below the rank of genus on
transference to another genus or species (Art. 53–55).
Art. 53.
When a subdivision of a
genus is
transferred
to another genus
(or placed under
another generic
name for the same genus)
without change of rank,
its subdivisional
name
must
be retained, or
(if it has not been
retained)
must be re-established
unless one of the
following
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 15 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
16 |
obstacles exists:
(1) that the resulting
association of names
has been previously published
validly
for a different subdivision, or
(2) that there is available
an earlier
and validly published
subdivisional name
of the same rank.
Example:
Saponaria
sect.
Vaccaria DC., transferred to
Gypsophila, becomes
Gypsophila sect.
Vaccaria
(DC.)
Godr.
Art. 54.
When a species is transferred to another genus
(or placed under
another generic name
for the same genus), without change of
rank, the
specific epithet
must be retained
or
(if it has not been retained)
must be re-established,
unless one of
the following
obstacles exists:
(1) that the resulting binary name is a later homonym
(Art. 61)
or a tautonym
(Art. 68, 3),
(2) that there is available an earlier validly published
specific epithet.
When the specific epithet, on transference to another
generic name, has been applied
erroneously
in its new position to a different plant,
the combination must be retained for the
plant on which
the epithet was originally based.
Examples:
Antirrhinum spurium L.
(Sp. Pl. 613: 1753)
when transferred to the genus
Linaria, must be called
Linaria spuria (L.) Mill.
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8, n. 15: 1768).
—
Chailletia hispida Oliv.
(Fl. Trop. Afr. 1, 343: 1868)
when
placed under the generic name
Dichapetalum
(an older name for the same genus),
must be called
Dichapetalum hispidum
(Oliv.) Baill.
(Hist. Pl. V, 140: 1874).
—
Lotus siliquosus L.
(Syst.
ed. 10, 1178: 1759)
when transferred to the genus
Tetra-
gonolobus, must be called
Tetragonolobus siliquosus (L.) Roth
(Tent.
Fl. Germ. I. 323: 1788) and not
Tetragonolobus Scandalida
Scop.
(Fl. Carn.
ed. 2, II, 87: 1772).
—
Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798–1800), when transferred to the genus
Cytisus
by
Spach in 1849, could not be called
Cytisus biflorus,
because
this name had been
previously and
validly published for a
diffe-
rent
species
by
L’Héritier in
1789; the name
Cytisus Fontanesii
given by
Spach
is therefore legitimate.
—
Santolina suave-
olens
Pursh (1814)
when transferred to the genus
Matricaria must be called
Matricaria matricarioides
(Less.) Porter (1894);
the epithet
suaveolens cannot be used in the genus
Matricaria owing to the existence of
Matricaria suaveolens L.
(Fl. Suec.
ed. 2, 297: 1755),
an earlier validly published name.
—
The specific epithet of
Pinus Mertensiana Bong.
was transferred to
Tsuga by Carrière,
who, however, erroneously applied
the new combination
Tsuga Mertensiana
to another species of
Tsuga,
namely
T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.,
as is evident from his description:
the combination
Tsuga Mertensiana (Bong.)
must be
retained for
Pinus Mertensiana Bong.
when that species is placed in
Tsuga;
the citation in parenthesis
(under Art. 49) of
the name of the original author,
Bongard, indicates the type
of the epithet.
Art. 55.
When
a variety or other subdivision
of a species is transferred,
without change
of
rank, to another genus or
species
(or placed under another generic or specific name for the
same genus or species), the original subdivisional epithet
must be retained or
(if it has not been
retained)
must be re-established,
unless one of the following
obstacles exists:
(1) that the resulting
ternary combination has been
previously and validly published for a subdivision
based on a
different type,
even if that subdivision is of a different rank;
(2) that there is an earlier validly
published
subdivisional epithet available.
When the epithet of a subdivision of a species,
on transference to another species, has
been applied
erroneously in its new position to a different plant,
the new combination must
be retained
for the plant on which the group was originally based.
Examples:
The variety
micranthum Gren. et Godr.
(Fl. France, I, 171: 1847) of
Helianthemum italicum Pers.,
when transferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thib., retains its
varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var.
micranthum
(Gren. et Godr.) Grosser (in Engl.
Pflanzenreich, Heft 14, 115: 1903).
—
The variety
subcarnosa Hook. fil.
(Bot. Antarct.
Voy. I, 5: 1847) of
Cardamine hirsuta L.,
when transferred as a variety to
C. glacialis DC.,
becomes
C. glacialis var.
sub-
carnosa
(Hook. f.) O. E. Schulz (in Engl.
Bot. Jahrb. XXXII, 542: 1903); the
existence of an earlier synonym
of different
rank
(C.
propinqua Carmichael in
Trans. Linn. Soc. XII, 507: 1818)
does not affect the
nomenclature of the variety
(see
Art. 58). In
each of these cases
it is the earliest varietal epithet
which is retained.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 16 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
17 |
Section 10. Choice of names when two groups of the same rank are united,
or in Fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle (Art. 56—57, Rec. XXXIII—XXXV).
Art.
56.
When two or more groups of the same
rank are united the oldest
legitimate
name or
(in species and their subdivisions)
the oldest legitimate
epithet is retained.
If the names
or epithets
are of the same date,
the author who unites the groups
has the right of
choosing one
of them.
The author who first adopts
one of them, definitely treating
another as a synonym or
referring it to a subordinate group,
must be followed.
Examples:
K.
Schumann (in Engl. und Prantl,
Nat. Pflanzenfam.
III, Abt. 6, 5: 1890),
uniting the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753),
Echinocarpus Blume (1825) and
Phoenicosperma Miq. (1865—1866)
rightly adopted the oldest
of these
three generic names,
Sloanea L., for the resulting genus.
—
If the two genera
Dentaria
L.
(Sp.
Pl. ed. 1, 653:
1753, et
Gen.
Pl. ed. 5,
295, no. 726: 1754)
and
Cardamine L.
(l. c.
654, et
l. c. 295,
no. 727) are
united, the
resulting genus must be called
Cardamine because this name was chosen by Crantz
(Class. Crucif. 126: 1769), who was the first to
unite them.
—
When
H. Hallier (in Engl.
Bot. Jahrb. XVIII, 123: 1893) united three species of
Ipomoea,
namely,
I. verticillata Forsk. (1775),
I. rumicifolia Choisy (1834) and
I. Perrottetii Choisy (1845), he rightly
retained the name
I. verticillata Forsk.
for the
resulting
species because
verticillata is the
oldest of the three
specific epithets.
—
Robert Brown (in Tuckey,
Narr. Exped.
Congo,
App. V, 484: 1818)
appears to have been the first to unite
Waltheria americana L.
(Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 673: 1753)
and
W. indica L.
(l. c.).
Since he adopted the name
Waltheria indica
and stated that he considered
W. americana
to be a variety of it, the name
W. indica must be retained
for the combined species.
Recommendations :
XXXIII.
Authors who have to choose between two generic names
should note the following re-
commendations.
(1) Of two names of the same date to prefer the one which was first accompanied by the description of a species.
(2)
Of two names of the same date,
both accompanied by descriptions of species,
to prefer the one, which,
when the author made his choice,
included the larger number of species.
(3) In cases of equality from these various points of view to prefer the more correct and appropriate name.
XXXIV.
When several genera are united as subgenera
or sections under one generic name,
the sub-
division
including the type
of the generic name used,
may bear
that name
unaltered (e. g.:
Anarrhinum sect.
Anarrhinum;
Hemigenia sect.
Hemigenia) or
with a prefix
(Anthriscus sect.
Eu-Anthriscus) or
a suffix
(Stachys sect.
Stachyotypus). These
prefixes or suffixes
lapse when the subdivisions are raised to generic rank.
XXXV.
When several species are united
as subspecies or varieties under
one specific name,
the subdivision
which
included the type
of the specific epithet
used may
be designated either
by the same epithet
unaltered (e. g.
Stachys
recta subsp.
recta) or
with a prefix
(e. g.
Alchemilla alpina subsp.
eu-alpina), or by
one of the customary
epithets
typicus, originarius,
genuinus, verus, veridicus, etc.)
indicating that it is the type
subdivision.
Art.
57.
Among Fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle
the different successive
states of the same species
(anamorphoses,
status)
can bear only one generic and specific
name
(binary), that is the earliest
which has been given, starting from Fries,
Systema,
or Persoon,
Synopsis, to the state containing
the form which it has been agreed to call the
perfect form,
provided that the name is otherwise in conformity with the Rules.
The
perfect state is that which ends in the ascus stage in the
Ascomycetes, in the basidium in the
Basidiomycetes,
in the teleutospore or its equivalent in the
Uredinales, and in the spore in the
Ustilaginales.
Generic and specific names given to other states
have only a temporary value.
They
cannot replace a generic name already existing
and applying to one or more species,
any one of
which contains the “perfect” form.
The nomenclature of Fungi which have not
a pleomorphic life-cycle follows the
ordinary rules.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 17 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
18 |
Examples:
The names
Aecidium Pers.,
Caeoma Link, and
Uredo Pers. designate different states
(aecidiosporic
with or without pseudoperidium, uredosporic)
in the group
Uredinales: the generic name
Melampsora Cast.
(Obs. II, 18:
1843), applied to a genus
which is defined by means of the teleutospores,
cannot therefore be replaced by the name
Uredo
Pers.
(in Roemer,
Neu. Mag. 1, 93: 1794) since the name
Uredo is already used to designate a state.
—
Among the
Dothideaceae
(Ascomycetes)
a species of the genus
Phyllachora Nitschke,
P. Trifolii (Pers.) Fuck.
(Symb. 218: 1869—70),
has an older
synonym,
Polythrincium Trifolii G. Kunze
(Myk. Heft
i, 13, t.
I. f. 8: 1817),
based on the conidial state of this species: the
name
Polythrincium cannot displace that of
Phyllachora because it represents an inferior state.
—
The name
Phoma Fries
emend. Desm.
has been given to a group of
Fungi Imperfecti
(Deuteromycetes),
several members of which have been reco-
gnised as
the spermogonial state of species of the genus
Diaporthe
(Valsaceae,
Ascomycetes): thus
Phoma Ailanthi Sacc.
belongs to
Diaporthe Ailanthi Sacc.,
Phoma alnea (Nitschke) Sacc. to
Diaporthe alnea Fuck.,
Phoma detrusa (Fries) Fuck.
to
Diaporthe detrusa Sacc. etc.
But the perfect state of many species of the
“genus”
Phoma is not known and
in some cases
probably does not exist:
hence the practical necessity for retaining the name
Phoma to designate the group of
Fungi Im-
perfecti
in question.
Section 11. Choice of names when the rank of a group is changed (Art. 58, Rec. XXXVI).
Art.
58.
When a tribe becomes a family,
when a subgenus or section becomes a genus,
when a subdivision of a species becomes a species,
or when the reverse of these changes takes
place,
and in general when a group changes its rank,
the earliest legitimate name
or epithet
given to the group in its new
rank is valid, unless
that name
or the resulting association
or
combination is
a later homonym
(see Art. 60,
61).
Examples:
The section
Campanopsis R. Br.
(Prodr.
Fl. Nov. Holl. 561: 1810) of the genus
Campanula
was first
raised to generic rank by Schrader,
and as a genus must be called
Wahlenbergia Schrad.
(Cat. Hort. Goett.: 1814), not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) O. Kuntze
(Rev. Gen. II, 378: 1891).
—
The var.
foetida L.
(Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 536: 1753) of
Magnolia
virginiana, when raised to specific rank,
must be called
Magnolia grandiflora L.
(Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1082: 1759), not
Magnolia
foetida (L.) Sarg. (in
Gard. and For. II, 615: 1889).
—
Lythrum intermedium Ledeb.
(Ind. Hort. Dorp.: 1822),
when treated
as a variety of
Lythrum
Salicaria L., must be called
L. Salicaria var.
glabrum Ledeb.
(Fl. Ross. II, 127: 1844), not
L. Salicaria var.
intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne (in Engl.
Bot. Jahrb. I, 327: 1881).
In all these cases
the name or
epithet
given to the group
in its original rank is replaced
by the first legitimate name
or epithet given to it
in its new rank.
Recommendation
XXXVI.
(1)
When a subtribe becomes a tribe,
when a tribe becomes a sub-
family,
when a subfamily becomes a family, etc.,
or when the inverse changes occur, the root of
the name
should not
be
altered but only the termination
(-inae,
-eae,
-oideae,
-aceae,
-ineae,
-ales, etc.) unless
the resulting name is rejected
under Section 12
or the new name
becomes a source of error or there is
some other serious reason against it.
(2)
When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus,
or the inverse changes
occur, the original
name should be
retained
unless
it is rejected
under Section 12.
(3)
When a subdivision of a species becomes a species,
or the inverse change occurs,
the original epithet should
be
retained
unless
the resulting combination
is rejected
under Section 12.
Section 12. Rejection of names (Art. 59—69, Rec. XXXVII).
Art.
59.
A
name
or epithet must not be rejected, changed or modified, merely because
it is badly chosen, or disagreeable, or
because
another is preferable
or better known.
Examples:
This rule was broken by the change of
Staphylea to
Staphylis,
Tamus to
Thamnos,
Thamnus or
Tamnus,
Mentha to
Minthe,
Tillaea to
Tillia,
Vincetoxicum to
Alexitoxicum; and by the change of
Orobanche
rapum to
O. sarothamnophyta,
O. Columbariae to
O. columbarihaerens,
O. Artemisiae to
O. artemisiepiphyta.
All these modifications
must be rejected.
—
Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825)
must not be changed to
A. pentagona A. DC. (1834)
although the
specific epithet
quinquegona is a hybrid word
(Latin and Greek).
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 18 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
19 |
Art.
60.
A name must be rejected if it is illegitimate
(see Art.
2).
The publication
of an epithet in an illegitimate combination
must not be taken into consideration for purposes
of priority (see Art.
45).
A name is illegitimate in the following cases:
(1)
If it
was superfluous when published, i. e. if there was a
valid name (see
Art.
16)
for the
group to which it was
applied,
with its particular circumscription, position
and rank.
Examples:
The generic name
Cainito Adans.
(Fam. II. 166: 1763)
is illegitimate because it was a superfluous
name for
Chrysophyllum L.
(Sp. Pl. ed. 1. 192: 1753);
the two genera had precisely the same circumscription.
—
The generic
name
Unisema Raf.
(Med. Repos. N. York. V. 192: 1819)
is illegitimate because
Rafinesque so circumscribed his genus as
to include
Pontederia cordata L. the type species of
Pontederia L. (1753):
Unisema Raf. was therefore a superfluous name
for
Pontederia L.
—
Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb.
(Prodr. 138: 1796)
is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for
C. Cai-
nito L. (1753),
which Salisbury cited as a synonym.
—
On the other hand,
Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill.
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8. nn. 3, 4: 1768)
are not illegitimate names,
although these species are now re-united with
C. Behen L.
(1753),
from which Miller separated them:
C. latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill.
as circumscribed by Miller did not
include the type of
C. Behen L.
(2)
If it is a binary or ternary name published
in contravention of Art.
16,
50,
52 or
54,
i. e. if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet
available for the group with its
particular circumscription,
position and rank.
Example:
Tetragonolobus
Scandalida Scop. (1772)
is an illegitimate name because Scopoli did not adopt
the
earliest specific epithet available, namely
siliquosus,
when he
transferred
Lotus siliquosus L. (1759) to
Tetragonolobus
(see Art. 54).
On the other hand,
Seseli selinoides Jacq.
(Enum. Stirp. Vindob. 51. 227:
1762) is not an illegitimate
name, although it is now treated as conspecific with
Peucedanum Silaus L. (1753),
Jacquin
(loc. cit. 46). Jacquin did
not transfer
Peucedanum Silaus to
Seseli as
Seseli selinoides:
he described the latter as a new species,
based on a cultivated
specimen of a plant found
wild near Lanzendorff.
As circumscribed by Jacquin,
Seseli selinoides and
Peucedanum Silaus
were mutually exclusive.
(3) If it is a later homonym (see Art. 61).
(4) If it is a generic name which must be rejected under Art. 67.
(5) If its specific epithet must be rejected under Art. 68.
Art. 61.
A name of a taxonomic group is illegitimate
and must be rejected if it
is a
later
homonym, that is if it
duplicates a
name
previously and validly published
for a
group of the same rank based on a different type.
Even if the earlier homonym is illegi-
timate,
or is generally treated as a synonym on taxonomic grounds,
the later homonym must
be rejected.
Examples:
The
generic
name
Tapeinanthus
Boiss. ex Benth. (1848)
given to a genus of
Labiatae, is a later
homonym
of
Tapeinanthus Herb.
(1837), a name previously
and validly published for a
genus of
Amaryllidaceae;
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth.
must therefore be rejected
as was done
by Th. Durand
(Ind. Gen. Phan. 703: 1888)
who re-
named it
Thuspeinanta.
—
The generic name
Amblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860)
is a later homonym of the validly
published generic name
Amblyanthera Blume (1849),
and must therefore be rejected although
Amblyanthera Blume is now
reduced to
Osbeckia L. (1753).
—
Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss.
(Diagn. Fl. Or., Ser. I. II. 83: 1843)
is a later homonym
of the validly published name
Astragalus rhizanthus Royle
(Illustr. Bot. Himal. 200: 1835),
and it must therefore be
rejected, as was done by
Boissier who renamed
it
A. cariensis
(Diagn. ser. I.
IX. 57: 1849).
Note.
Mere orthographic variants of the same name are treated as homonyms,
when they are based on
different types —
see Art. 70.
Art. 62.
A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected
if owing to its use with diffe-
rent meanings,
it becomes a permanent source
of confusion or error.
A list of names to be aban-
doned for this reason
(Nomina ambigua) will form
Appendix IV.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 19 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
20 |
Examples:
The generic name
Alsine L., being used by various authors for three genera of
Caryophyllaceae
(Stellaria L.,
Spergularia J. et C. Presl,
Minuartia L.), has been a permanent source of confusion
and error (see Sprague
in
Kew Bull. (1920) 308).
—
The name
Rosa villosa
L.
Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 491 (1753) is rejected,
because it has been applied
to several different
species,
and has become a source of
confusion.
Art. 63.
A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected when
its application is un-
certain
(nomen dubium).
Example:
Ervum soloniense L.
(Cent. II. Pl. 28, 1756)
is a name the application of which is uncertain;
it must
herefore be rejected (see Schinz und Thell. in
Vierteljahrsschr. Nat. Ges. Zürich, LVIII, 71: 1913).
Recommendation XXXVII.
When the correct application of a
nomen dubium has been established by
subsequent investigation (of types etc.),
authors adopting it should for purposes of precision cite the name of the author
who published the additional certifying evidence as well as that of
the original author.
It is also desirable to add the date
of certification.
Example:
The generic name
Bembix Lour.
(Fl. Cochinch. 282: 1790) was a
nomen dubium from the time of its
publication until 1927,
when Spencer Moore (in
Journ. of Bot. LXV, 279) identified it with
Ancistrocladus: the latter
name has been proposed for conservation, but should the name
Bembix be adopted it should be cited as
Bembix Lour.
sec. (i. e. secundum) Spencer Moore, 1927.
Art. 64.
A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected
if the characters of that group
were derived
from two or more entirely discordant
elements,
especially if those elements were
erroneously supposed
to form part of the same individual.
A list of names to be abandoned for
this reason
(Nomina confusa) will form
Appendix V.
Examples:
The
characters of the genus
Schrebera L.
(Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 1662: 1763,
Gen. Pl. ed. 6, 124: 1764),
were
derived from the two genera
Cuscuta and
Myrica parasite and host)
(see Retz.
Obs. VI, 15: 1791).
The characters
of the genus
Actinotinus Oliv. (in
Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 1740: 1888)
were derived from the two genera
Viburnum and
Aesculus,
owing to the inflorescence of a
Viburnum having been inserted
into the terminal bud of an
Aesculus by a native Chinese
collector. The names
Schrebera and
Actinotinus
must therefore
be abandoned.
Art. 65.
A name or epithet of a taxonomic group must be rejected
when it is based
on a monstrosity.
Examples:
The generic name
Uropedium Lindl.
was based on a monstrosity
which is now referred to
Phragmi-
pedium cordatum Rolfe.
—
The name
Ornithogalum fragiferum Vill.
(Hist. Pl. Dauph. II. 269: 1787)
was based on a mon-
strosity,
and must therefore be rejected:
on transference to the genus
Gagea the specific epithet
fragiferum must also be
rejected:
the oldest name for the normal plant being
Ornithogalum fistulosum Ram. ex DC. (1895),
the species must be called
Gagea fistulosa (Ram. ex DC.) Ker-Gawl.
Art.
66.
The name of an order, suborder, family or subfamily,
tribe or subtribe, must
be changed when it is taken from
the name of a genus which
is known not
to belong
to the group
in question.
Examples:
If the genus
Portulaca
were excluded from the family
now known as
Portulacaceae,
the residual
group could
no longer bear the name
Portulacaceae
and would have to be
renamed.
—
Link
(Hort. Berol. I. 230: 1827)
gave
the name
Tristeginae to a
“suborder” of
Gramineae,
from
Tristegis Nees (now treated as a synonym of
Melinis Beauv.).
Nees (in Hooker and Arnott,
Bot. Beechey’s Voy.
237: 1836)
treated the group
as a
tribe, under
the name
Tristegineae.
When
Stapf (in
Fl. Cap. VII, 313: 1898)
excluded
Tristegis from the
tribe
Tristegeae he legitimately
renamed the tribe
Arundinelleae.
Art.
67.
Names of genera
are illegitimate
in the following special cases
and
must
be rejected.
(1) When they are merely words not intended as names.
(2)
When they coincide with a technical term
currently
used in morphology unless
they
were accompanied, when originally
published, by specific names
in accordance with the
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 20 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
21 |
binary method of Linnaeus.
On and after Jan. 1, 1912,
all new generic names coinciding with
such technical terms
are unconditionally rejected.
(3) When they are unitary designations of species.
(4)
When they
consist of two words, unless these words were from the first
combined
into one, or joined by a hyphen.
Examples: (1)
Anonymos Walt.
(Fl. Carol. 2, 4, 9, etc.: 1788)
must be rejected as being a word applied to 28
different genera by Walter
to indicate that they were without names.
(2)
The
generic name
Radicula Hill
(Brit. Herb. 264: 1756) coincides with the technical term
radicula (radicle),
and when originally published,
was not accompanied by specific names
in accordance with the Linnean method.
These
were not added until 1794 (by Moench),
after the publication of the generic name
Rorippa Scop. (1760).
Radicula Hill
must therefore be rejected in favour of
Rorippa.
—
Tuber Micheli ex Fries
(Syst. Myc. II, 289: 1823)
was accompanied by
binary specific names, e. g.
Tuber cibarium,
and is therefore
admissible.
—
Names such as
Radix,
Caulis,
Folium,
Spina,
etc., cannot now
be validly published as new
generic names.
(3)
Ehrhart
(Phytophylacium: 1780, and Beitr. IV, 145—150: 1789)
proposed unitary names for
various species
known at that time under binary names,
e. g.
Phaeocephalum
for
Schoenus fuscus, and
Leptostachys
for
Carex leptostachys.
These names, which resemble generic names,
should not be confused with
them, and
must be rejected, unless
they have
been published
as generic names by
a subsequent author:
for example,
the name
Baeothryon
employed as a unitary name
of a species
by Ehrhart, was subsequently published
as a
generic name by A. Dietrich
(Sp. Pl. II, 89: 1833).
(4)
The generic name
Uva ursi Miller
(Abridg. Gard. Dict. ed. 4, 1754)
as originally published, consisted of
two separate words
unconnected by a hyphen, and must therefore he rejected.
On the other hand,
names such as
Quisqualis
(composed of two words combined into one when originally published),
Sebastiano-Schaueria and
Neves-Armondia
(both
hyphened when originally published)
are admissible.
Art.
68.
Specific
epithets are illegitimate
in the following special cases
and
must
be rejected.
(1) When they are merely words not intended as names.
(2) When they are merely ordinal adjectives being used for enumeration.
(3)
When they
exactly repeat the generic name
with or without the addition
of a trans-
cribed symbol
(tautonym).
(4)
When they were published in works in which the Linnean system
of binary nomen-
clature for species
was not consistently employed.
Examples:
(1)
Viola
“qualis” Krocker
(Fl.Siles. II, 512 and 517: 1790);
Atriplex
“nova” Winterl (in
Ind. Hort.
Bot. Univ. Pest.
fol. A 8, recto et verso: 1788), the word
“nova” being here used in connection
with four different species
of
Atriplex.
(2) Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.
(3) Linaria Linaria, Nasturtium Nasturtium-aquaticum.
(4)
The name
Abutilon album Hill
(Brit. Herb. 49: 1756)
is a descriptive phrase reduced to two words,
not a
binary name in accordance with the Linnean method,
and must he rejected: Hill’s other species was
Abutilon flore flavo.
Linnaeus is regarded as having used
binary nomenclature for species
consistently from 1753 onwards,
although there are
exceptions. e. g.
Apocynum foliis Androsaemi,
Sp. Pl. ed. 1, 213.
Art.
69.
In cases foreseen in
Art.
60—68 the name
or epithet to be rejected is replaced
by the oldest
legitimate name, or (in a combination) by the oldest legitimate epithet
which will
be, in the new
position,
in accordance with the
Rules. If none
exists,
a new name or epithet
must
be
chosen.
Where a new epithet
is required,
an author may, if he wishes, adopt an epithet
previ-
ously given to the group
in an illegitimate combination,
if there is no obstacle
to its employment
in the new position or sense.
Examples:
Linum Radiola L. (1753) when
transferred to the genus
Radiola must
not be called
Radiola
Radiola
(L.) Karst.,
as that combination is contrary to
Art.
68 (3):
the next oldest specific epithet is
multiflorum, but
the
name
Linum
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 21 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
22 |
multiflorum Lam. (1778)
is illegitimate,
since it was a superfluous name for
Linum Radiola L.: under
Radiola the
species
must be called
R.
linoides Roth (1788), since
linoides
is the earliest
legitimate epithet available.
—
The
combination
Talinum polyandrum Hook. (in
Bot. Mag. t. 4833: 1855) is illegitimate,
being a later homonym of
T. polyandrum Ruiz et Pav.
(Syst. Fl. Per. I, 115: 1798):
when Bentham transferred
T. polyandrum Hook. to
Calandrinia, he called it
Calandrinia polyandra Fl. Austral. I, 172: 1863).
This is treated, not as a new combination,
but as a new name,
C. polyandra Benth. (1863).
Section 13. Orthography of names (Art. 70, 71, Rec. XXXVIII—XLIV).
Art.
70.
The original spelling of a name
or epithet must be retained,
except in
the case
of a typographic
error, or
of a clearly unintentional
orthographic error.
When the difference
between two generic names
lies in the termination, these names
must be regarded as distinct,
even though differing by one letter only.
This does not apply
to mere orthographic variants
of
the same name.
Note 1.
The words “original spelling” in this Article
mean the spelling employed
when the name was
validly published.
Note 2.
The use of a wrong connecting vowel or vowels
(or the omission of a connecting vowel in a specific
epithet,
or in that of a subdivision of a species) is treated as
an unintentional orthographic error which may be corrected ¹)
(see Rec. XLIV).
Note 3.
In deciding whether two or more slightly
different
names
should be treated as distinct
or as ortho-
graphic variants,
the essential consideration is
whether they may be confused with
one another or not: if there is serious
risk of confusion,
they should be treated as orthographic variants.
Doubtful cases should be referred to
the Executive
Committee.
Note 4.
Specific and other epithets of Greek origin
differing merely by having Greek and Latin terminations
respectively are orthographic variants.
Epithets bearing the same meaning and differing only slightly
in form are considered
as orthographic variants.
The genitive and adjectival forms of a personal name are,
however, treated as different epithets
(e. g.
Lysimachia Hemsleyana and
L. Hemsleyi).
Examples of
retention of original spelling:
The generic names
Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and
Amaranthus
(1753) were deliberately so spelt
by Linnaeus and the spelling must not be altered to
Mesembrianthemum and
Amarantus
respectively,
although these latter forms are philologically preferable. —
Valantia L. (1753) and
Clutia L. (1753),
comme-
morating Vaillant and Cluyt respectively,
must not be altered to
Vaillantia and
Cluytia²): Linnaeus latinized the names of
these botanists deliberately as “Valantius” and “Clutius”.
—
Phoradendron Nutt. must not be altered to
Phoradendrum.
—
Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. must not be altered to
T. mossambica, as in Engl.
Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas, C. 232 (1895).
—
Alyxia ceylanica Wight must not be altered to
A. zeylanica, as in Trimen,
Handb. Fl. Ceylon, iii, 127 (1895).
—
Fagus
sylvatica L. must not be altered to
F. silvatica. The correct classical spelling
silvatica is recommended for adoption
in the case of a new name (Rec. XLII),
but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica deliberately adopted by
Linnaeus must
not be altered.
Examples of
typographic errors:
Saurauja Willd. (1801) was a typographic error for
Saurauia;
Willdenow in
his herbarium
always wrote the name correctly, as
Saurauia.
—
Globba brachycarpa Baker (in Hook. f.
Fl. Brit. Ind. VI,
205: 1890), and
Hetaeria alba Ridley (in
Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. XXXII, 404: 1896),
being typographic errors for
G. trachycarpa and
H. alta respectively, should be cited as
Globba trachycarpa Baker and
Hetaeria alta Ridley (see
Journ. of
Bot. LIX, 349: 1921).
—
Thevetia nereifolia A. Juss. ex Steud.
is an obvious typographic error for
T. neriifolia.
—
Rosa Pissarti Carr. (in
Rev. Hort. 1880, 314) is a typographic error for
R. Pissardi (see
Rev. Hort. 1881, 190).
Examples of
unintentional orthographic errors:
Hexagona Fries
(Epicr. 496: 1836—38)
was an unintentional
orthographic error for
Hexagonia: Fries had previously
(Syst. Myc. I, 344: 1821) cited
Hexagonia Poll. erroneously as
“Hexagona Poll.”
—
Libertia Laurencei Hook. f.
(Fl. Tasman. II, 34: 1860) being an orthographic error for
L. Lawrencei
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1) The reading passed by the Congress is “peut subir une correction” : (see also “British Proposals” Art. 74).
2)
In some cases an altered spelling of a generic name
is conserved; e. g.
Bougainvillea (see list of
nomina
conservanda proposita).
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 22 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
23 |
Hook. f.
(l. c. 373, t. 129),
the latter spelling should be adopted:
the collector’s name was Lawrence, not Laurence.
—
Gluta
Benghas L.
(Mant. II, 293: 1771), being an orthographic error for
G. renghas, should be cited as
Gluta renghas L., as has
been done by Engler (in DC.
Monogr. IV, 224: 1883): the vernacular name used as a specific epithet
by Linnaeus is “Reng-
has” not “Benghas”.
—
Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC. (in
Mém. Mus. Par. XVII, 76: 1828) should be cited as
P. opuntiiflora DC.
(cf. also Rec. XLIV. and Art. 70, Note 2).
—
Cacalia napeaefolia DC. (in DC.
Prodr. VI, 328: 1837) and
Senecio
napeaefolius (DC.) Sch. Bip. (in
Flora, XXVIII, 498: 1845) should be cited as
Cacalia napaeifolia DC. and
Senecio napaei-
folius (DC.) Sch. Bip.
respectively: the specific epithet
refers to the resemblance of the leaves
to those of the genus
Napaea (not
Napea), and the connecting vowel
“i” should have been used instead of
“ae”.
Examples
of
different names:
Rubia and
Rubus,
Monochaete and
Monochaetum,
Peponia and
Peponium,
Iria
and
Iris,
Desmostachys and
Desmostachya,
Symphyostemon and
Symphostemon,
Gerrardina and
Gerardiina,
Durvillea and
Urvillea,
Elodes and
Elodea,
Peltophorus (Gramineae) and
Peltophorum (Leguminosae).
Examples of
different specific epithets:
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip. (vide supra) and
S. napifolius
MacOwan are different names, the epithets
napaeifolius and
napifolius being derived respectively from
Napaea and
Napus.
Examples of
orthographic variants:
—
Generic names:
Astrostemma and
Asterostemma,
Pleuripetalum and
Pleuropetalum,
Columella and
Columelia,
both commemorating Columella,
the Roman writer on agriculture,
Eschweilera
and
Eschweileria,
Skytanthus and
Scytanthus. The four generic names
Bradlea Adans.,
Bradlaeia Neck.,
Bradleja Banks ex
Gaertn.,
Braddleya Vell.,
all commemorating Richard Bradley (1675—1732),
must be treated as orthographic variants
because each of them has been spelt by subsequent authors both as
“Bradleia” and as
“Bradleya” and one only can be used
without serious risk of confusion.
—
Specific epithets:
chinensis and
sinensis;
ceylanica and
zeylanica;
napaulensis,
nepalensis,
nipalensis;
polyanthemos and
polyanthemus;
macrostachys and
macrostachyus;
heteropus and
heteropodus,
-a,
-um;
poikilantha
and
poikilanthes;
pteroides and
pteroideus;
trinervis,
-e and
trinervius,
-a,
-um.
Recommendations :
XXXVIII.
When a new name is derived from a Greek word
containing the spiritus asper (rough
breathing),
this should be transcribed as the letter
h.
XXXIX.
When
a new
name
for a genus,
subgenus or section is taken from the name of a person, it
should
be formed in the following manner.
(a)
When the name
of the person ends in a vowel the letter
a is added
(thus
Bouteloua after Boutelou;
Ottoa
after Otto;
Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name already ends in
a,
when
ea is added (e. g.
Collaea after Colla),
(b)
When the name
of the person
ends in a consonant, the letters
ia are added
(e. g.
Magnusia after Magnus,
Ramondia after Ramond), except when the name ends in
er, when
a is added (e. g.
Kernera after Kerner).
(c)
The syllables
which are not modified by these
endings retain their original spelling,
even with the conso-
nants
k and
w or with groupings of vowels
which were not used in classical Latin. Letters
foreign to botanical
Latin
should
be transcribed,
and diacritic signs suppressed. The
Germanic ä, ö, ü become
ae,
oe,
ue; the French
é,
è and
ê become
generally
e.
In works in which diphthongs
are not represented by special type,
the diaeresis sign should be used
where required, e. g.
Cephaëlis, not
Cephaelis.
(d)
Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix,
or modified by anagram or abbreviation.
In these
cases they count as different words
from the original name.
Examples:
Durvillea and
Urvillea; Lapeyrousea and
Peyrousea; Englera,
Englerastrum and
Englerella; Bouchea
and
Ubochea;
Gerardia and
Graderia; Martia and
Martiusia.
XL.
When a
new specific
or other epithet is taken
from the name of a man, it
should be formed
in the follow-
ing
manner.
(a)
When the name
of the person ends in a vowel,
the letter
i is added (thus
Glazioui from Glaziou,
Bureaui
from Bureau), except when the name ends in
a, when
e is added (thus
Balansae from Balansa).
(b)
When the name ends in a consonant, the letters
ii are added (thus
Magnusii from Magnus,
Ramondii
from Ramond),
except when the name ends in
-er, when
i is added
(thus
Kerneri from Kerner).
(c)
The
syllables
which are not modified
by these endings retain their original spelling, even
with the con-
sonants
k or
w or
with groupings of vowels which
were not used in classical Latin. Letters foreign to
botanical
Latin
should be transcribed
and diacritic signs suppressed. The
Germanic
ä,
ö,
ü, become
ae,
oe,
ue, the
French
é,
è,
ê, become
generally
e.
The diaeresis sign should be used
where required.
(d)
When
epithets taken
from the name of a person have an adjectival form
they are formed in a similar
way
(e. g.
Geranium Robertianum,
Verbena Hasslerana).
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 23 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
24 |
XLI.
The same
provisions apply to
epithets formed
from the names of women.
When these have
a substantival form they are
given a
feminine
termination (e. g.
Cypripedium Hookerae,
Rosa Beatricis,
Scabiosa Olgae,
Omphalodes Luciliae).
XLII.
New specific (or other) epithets
should be written in conformity with the original spelling of
the
words from which they are derived and
in accordance with the rules of Latin and latinization.
Examples: silvestris (not sylvestris), sinensis (not chinensis).
XLIII.
Specific
(or other) epithets should be
written with a small
initial letter, except those which are
derived
from names of persons (substantives or adjectives) or are taken
from generic names (substantives or adjectives).
Examples:
Ficus indica,
Circaea lutetiana,
Aster novi-belgii;
Malva Tournefortiana,
Phyteuma Halleri,
Lythrum
Hyssopifolia,
Brassica Napus,
Rosa stylosa var.
Desvauxiana.
XLIV.
In the formation of specific
(or other) epithets
composed of two or several roots taken from
Latin
or
Greek,
the vowel placed between the two roots
becomes a connecting vowel, in
Latin
i, in
Greek
o; thus
menthifolia,
salviifolia, not
menthaefolia,
salviaefolia.
When the second root begins with a vowel and euphony
requires,
the connecting
vowel
should be eliminated (e.
g.
lepidantha). The connecting
vowels
ae
should be
retained only where
this is required
for etymological reasons (e. g.
caricaeformis from
Carica,
in order to avoid
confusion with
cariciformis from
Carex).
In certain compounds
of Greek words,
no connecting vowel is required, e. g.
brachycarpus and
glycyphyllus.
Art. 71.
When the spelling of a generic name differs in Linnaeus
Species Plantarum
ed. 1, and
Genera Plantarum, ed. 5, the correct spelling is determined
by the following regulations.
(1)
If Linnaeus subsequently to 1753–54 consistently adopted
one of the spellings,
that spelling is accepted, e. g.
Thuja (not
Thuya).
(2)
If Linnaeus did not do so,
then the spelling which is more correct philologically
is accepted, e. g.
Agrostemma (not
Agrostema).
(3)
If the two spellings are equally correct philologically,
and there is a great prepon-
derance of usage
in favour of one of them, that one is accepted, e. g.
Rhododendron (not
Rhodo-
dendrum).
(4)
If the two spellings are equally correct philologically
and there is not a great pre-
ponderance of usage
in favour of one of them, then the spelling
that is in accordance or more
nearly in accordance
with the Recommendations is accepted, e. g.
Ludwigia (not
Ludvigia),
Ortegia (not
Ortega).
Section 14. Gender of generic names (Art. 72).
Art. 72. The gender of generic names is governed by the following regulations.
(1)
A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name
retains the gender assigned
to it by its author.
Examples: Orchis (f.); Stachys (f.); Erigeron (n.).
(2)
Generic names which are modern compounds
formed from two or more Greek
or Latin words
take the gender of the last.
If the ending is altered, however,
the gender will
follow it.
Examples of
names formed from Greek ¹) words:
The generic name
Andropogon L. was treated by Linnaeus as
neuter,
but it, like all other modern compounds
in which the Greek masculine word
pogon is the final element (e. g.
Centro-
pogon,
Cymbopogon,
Bystropogon), is now treated as masculine.
Similarly all modern compounds ending in
-codon,
-myces,
-odon,
-panax,
-stemon and other masculine words are masculine.
The generic names
Dendromecon Benth.,
Eomecon Hance
and
Hesperomecon E. L. Greene are treated as feminine,
because they end in the Greek feminine word
mecon, poppy: the
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1) Examples of names formed from Latin words are not given as these offer few difficulties.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 24 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
25 |
fact that Bentham and E. L. Greene
respectively ascribed the neuter gender to the names
Dendromecon and
Hesperomecon
is immaterial.
Similarly all modern compounds ending in
-achne,
-carpha,
-cephala,
-chlamys,
-daphne
and other feminine
words are treated as feminine.
The generic names
Aceras R. Br.,
Aegiceras Gaertn. and
Xanthoceras Bunge are neuter because
they end in the
Greek neuter word
ceras: the fact that Robert Brown and Bunge respectively made
Aceras and
Xanthoceras feminine is
immaterial.
Similarly all modern compounds ending in
-dendron,
-nema,
-stigma,
-stoma, and other neuter words are neuter.
Names ending in
-anthos (or
-anthus), and those in
-chilos (or
-chilus) ought strictly speaking to be neuter,
since that is the
gender of the Greek words
anthos and
cheilos. These names, however,
have been with very few exceptions
treated as mascu-
line,
hence it is agreed to assign that gender to them.
Similarly those ending in
-gaster which should strictly speaking be
feminine are treated as masculine
in accordance with botanical custom.
Examples of
compound generic names where the termination
of the last word is altered:
Hymenocarpus,
Diptero-
carpus
and all other modern compounds ending in the Greek masculine
carpos (or
carpus) are masculine. Those in
-carpa
or
-carpaea, however, are feminine, e. g.
Callicarpa and
Polycarpaea; and those in
-carpon,
-carpum or
-carpium are neuter,
e. g.
Polycarpon,
Ormocarpum and
Pisocarpium.
(3)
Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names
used as generic names take
the gender assigned
to them by their authors.
Where the original author has failed to indicate
the gender,
the next subsequent author has the right of choice.
Examples:
Taonabo Aubl.
(Hist. Pl. Guiane, I, 569: 1775) is feminine;
Aublet’s two species were
T. dentata
and
T. punctata.
—
Agati Adans.
(Fam. II, 326: 1763)
was published without indication of gender:
the feminine gender was
assigned to it by Desvaux
(Journ. de Bot. I, 120: 1813),
who was the first subsequent author to adopt the name,
and his
choice is decisive.
—
Boehmer (in Ludwig,
Gen. ed. 3, 436: 1760), and Adanson
(Fam. II, 356: 1763), failed to indicate
the gender of
Manihot: the first author to supply specific epithets was Crantz
(Inst. Rei Herb. I. 167: 1766), who proposed
the name
Manihot gossypifolia etc., and
Manihot is therefore feminine.
Section 15. Various Recommendations (Rec. XLV—L).
XLV.
When writing in modern languages
botanists should use
Latin
scientific names or those immediately
derived from them,
in preference to names of another kind or origin
(popular names). They should avoid the use of the
latter unless these are very clear and in common use.
XLVI.
Every friend of science should oppose the introduction
into a modern language of names of plants
which are
not already there, unless they are derived from
Latin
botanical names by means of some slight alteration.
XLVII.
Only
the metric system
should be
used in botany for reckoning weights and measures.
The foot,
inch, line, pound, ounce, etc.
should be rigorously excluded from scientific language.
Altitude, depth, rapidity etc.
should be measured
in metres. Fathoms, knots, miles etc.
are terms which should
disappear from scientific language.
XLVIII.
Very minute dimensions
should be reckoned in
μ (micromillimetres, microns,
or thousandths of
a millimetre)
and not in fractions of millimetres or of lines etc.; fractions encumbered
with ciphers and commas
easily give
rise to mistakes.
XLIX. Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.
L. Temperatures should be expressed in degrees of the centigrade thermometer of Celsius.
Chapter IV. Interpretation and modification of the Rules (Art. 73, 74).
Art. 73.
A small permanent International Executive Committee
is established with
functions including the following:
(1)
Interpreting the Rules in doubtful cases,
and issuing considered “Opinions”
on the basis of the evidence submitted.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 25 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
26 |
(2)
Considering
Nomina conservanda, Nomina ambigua, Nomina dubia, and
Nomina
confusa,
and making recommendations thereon
to the next International Botanical Congress.
(3)
Considering all proposals for the modification of the Rules
and reporting thereon
to the next Congress.
(4)
Reporting on the effects of modifications of the Rules
accepted at the preceding
Congress.
Art. 74.
These Rules can be modified
only by competent persons at an
International
Botanical Congress convened
for the express purpose.
Modifications accepted at one Congress
remain on trial until
the next Congress,
at which they will
receive sanction unless
un-
desirable consequences,
reported to the Executive Committee,
show need for further amendment
or rejection.
————————
|
Appendix
I¹).
Appendix II¹). Appendix III. Appendix IV¹). Appendix V ¹). Appendix VI¹). Appendix VII. |
Regulations for determining types.
Nomina familiarum conservanda. Nomina generica conservanda. Nomina ambigua. Nomina confusa. Represententative Botanical Institutions recognized under Art. 36. Nomenclature of garden plants. |
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1)
Drafts of these Appendixes will be prepared for
submission to the next International Congress.
————————
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 26 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
[
Appendix I was only included in the 1952,
Stockholm Code,
while Appendix II was approved only at the 1935, Amsterdam Congress.
Appendix
III,
on conserved names of genera, is not included here.
Appendix IV to VI were never realized.
A draft list for Appendix VI was submitted at the 1935 Amsterdam Congress,
but only for discussion by the Executive Committee ]
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 27 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
Nomenclature of Garden Plants.
By A. B. Rendle.
–—–
At the International Horticultural Conference of London
in 1930 the nomenclature
of Garden Plants was discussed.
The principles and rules governing the naming of plants
by botanists were accepted as governing the naming
of plants of garden origin. Names of species
and botanical varieties are thus fully provided for.
Plants raised in gardens as seedlings or sports
of these species or as hybrids between species
have often to be named by non-botanical workers
and the following “rules” were framed for their guidance.
a) The name of a horticultural “variety”
should be placed after that of the species to which
it belongs and its status should in general
be indicated by the contraction “var.”
b) The varietal name should be of Latin form
only when it expresses some character of the
plant, e. g.
nanus,
albus,
fastigiatus, or its place of origin, e. g.
kewensis.
c) The name will thus usually be a “fancy” name
beginning with a capital letter, e. g.
Galega
officinalis var. George Hartland (not
Galega officinalis var.
Hartlandii);
Dianthus deltoides var.
Brilliant; Pea “Masterpiece”.
These names do not form combinations with the binary name
and if the name of their raiser or author is cited
it remains the same even if the preceding
part of the name is changed; e. g. Lilac “Decaisne” Lemoine,
Syringa vulgaris “Decaisne”
Lemoine.
d) Varietal names must not be translated
when transferred from other languages, but must be
preserved in the language in which they were
originally described. Where desirable a trans-
lation may be placed in brackets after the varietal name.
e) So far as possible names of horticultural
varieties should consist of a single word; the use
of not more than three words is permitted as a maximum.
1. A varietal name in use for one variety
of a kind of plant should not be used for another
variety of that kind,
even though it may be attached to a different species.
Thus the use of the name
Narcissus Pseudonarcissus “Victoria” should preclude the use
of “Victoria” as a varietal name for any other species of
Narcissus, such as
Narcissus
poeticus “Victoria”. Similarly there should be but one
Iris “Bridesmaid”, one Plum
“Superb” and so on.
2. Varietal names likely to be confused
with one another should be avoided. For instance,
the use of the name “Alexander” should
preclude the use of “Alexandra”, “Alexandria”
and “Alexandrina” as varietal names for the same kind of plant.
3. Where personal names are used to designate
varieties, the prefix “Mr., Mrs., Miss”,
and their equivalents should be avoided.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 28 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
113 |
4. Excessively long words and words difficult
to pronounce should be avoided.
5. The articles “a” and “the” and
their equivalents should be avoided in all languages when
they do not form an integral part of the substantive.
For instance “Colonel”, not “the
Colonel” ; “Giant”, not “the Giant”; “Bride”, not “the Bride”.
6. Existing names in common use should not
be altered to conform to these rules, but atten~
tion should be paid to them in all new names proposed.
f) The names of horticultural hybrids
are formed as provided in the International Rules of
Botanical Nomenclature. If a Latin name has been given
to a hybrid form of uncertain origin
which cannot be referred to a Latin binominal
it must be treated like a vernacular (fancy)
name; e. g.
Rhododendron “Atrosanguineum”,
Rhododendron “Purpureum grandiflorum”.
g) All plants raised by crossing the same two species
receive the same “specific” name, variations
between the seedlings being indicated where necessary
by varietal names framed as already
described (a-e). In practice in crossbred plants
the specific name is frequently omitted;
e. g. Iris “Ambassadeur”.
h) Publication.
In order to be valid a name must be published.
1. The publication of a name of a horticultural variety
or hybrid is effected by a recognizable
description, with or without a figure,
in any language written in Roman characters.
2. The description must appear in a recognized
horticultural or botanical periodical, or in
a monograph or other scientific publication,
or in a dated horticultural catalogue.
3. The mention of a variety without description
in a catalogue or in the report of an exhibition
is not valid publication, even when a figure is given.
It is desirable that descriptions of
new varieties in horticultural catalogues
should also be published in periodical horti-
cultural papers.
The Committee also arranged for the preparation
of a list of generic names to be
recommended for use
in catalogues etc. In regard to taxonomic differences
the names recommen-
ded would be selected
with reference to recent monographs and prevailing usage
in modern
botanical and horticultural literature
but avoiding extremes in splitting and lumping.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 29 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
Kurze Übersicht der wichtigsten Änderungen
in den Regeln gegenüber der zweiten Ausgabe.
––––––
Nach den Beschlüssen des Kongresses zu Cambridge 1930
sind die Regeln und Empfehlungen teilweise
anders angeordnet worden als vordem.
Ferner ist ihre Zahl erheblich vermehrt worden;
die Zahl der Regeln (Artikel)
ist von 58 auf 74,
die der Empfehlungen von 38 auf 50 gestiegen.
Im Kapitel III ist die neue
Section 2 hinzugekommen:
Die Typenmethode
(Art. 18;
Empf. IV—VII).
Während
die Ausgabe 1912 in der
Empf. XVIII bis
nur die sorgfältige Angabe der nomenclatorischen Typen
bei der Veröffentlichung
neu aufgestellter Gruppen anempfahl,
wird jetzt die Anwendung der Namen mit Hilfe
n o m e n c l a t o r i s c h e r
T y p e n
festgelegt. — Der
Art. 21 (früher
Art. 20),
der die Einschränkung des Grundsatzes der Priorität
für die Gattungsnamen be-
handelt,
ist verändert und genauer gefaßt worden. — In den
§§ 6 und
7
ist die Nomenclatur der Bastarde, Blendlinge und
Gartenpflanzen
ausführlicher dargestellt worden
(Art. 31—35);
dazu kommt noch für die Gartenpflanzen
Anhang VII.
—
Die frühere
Section 4
(Veröffentlichung der Namen und deren Datum)
ist in zwei Sectionen geteilt worden:
Section 5.
Bedingungen für wirksame Veröffentlichung
(Art. 36);
Section 6.
Bedingungen und Daten für gültige Veröffentlichung
von Namen
(Art. 37—45;
Empf. XXI—XXIX).
Dabei werden die Begriffe
„w i r k s a m e
u n d
g ü l t i g e
V e r ö f f e n t l i c h u n g“
genauer umschrieben. Wichtig ist besonders,
daß die Frist für die Zulassung von Beschreibungen neuer Gruppen
in einer
anderen als der lateinischen Sprache
bis zum 1. Januar 1935 verlängert wurde
(Art. 38). — In der
Section 7
(Vorschriften
über das Citieren der Autoren; früher
Section 5) ist
Art. 49 zu beachten;
bei Anderung der Rangstufe oder Versetzung einer
Gruppe
wird die Anführung des ursprünglichen Autors in Klammern gefordert,
während im früheren
Art. 43
seine An-
führung nur zugelassen wurde, er aber auch fortbleiben durfte. —
Die frühere, aus recht verschiedenen Bestandteilen
zu-
sammengesetzte
Section 6 ist in die
Sectionen 8—11 zerlegt worden,
wodurch eine bessere Ubersicht der einzelnen Be-
stimmungen erreicht ist:
Section 8.
Beibehaltung von Namen (oder Epitheta) bei Gruppen,
die umgearbeitet oder zerlegt
werden
(Art. 50—52).
Section 9.
Beibehaltung von Namen oder Epitheta bei Gruppen unterhalb der Gattung,
die in eine
andere Gattung oder Art gestellt werden
(Art. 53—55).
Section 10.
Wahl der Namen bei der Vereinigung zweier Gruppen
gleicher Rangstufe
oder bei Pilzen mit pleomorphem Entwicklungsgange
(Art. 56—57;
Empf. XXXIII—XXXV).
Section 11.
Wahl der Namen bei Anderung der Rangstufe einer Gruppe
(Art. 58;
Empf. XXXVI).
Gerade in diesen sehr wichtigen
Abschnitten,
die jetzt eine wesentlich schärfere Regelung vorschreiben,
war eine Vermehrung der Artikel nötig,
um ihnen
eine klarere Fassung zu geben als vordem. — Die
Section 12
enthält Vorschriften über das Verwerfen der Namen
(Art. 59
bis
69;
Empf. XXXVII);
sie entspricht größtenteils der früheren
Section 7
(Art. 50—56;
Art. 57
behandelte die Schreibung
der Namen). Zu beachten ist besonders
Art. 61,
der die grundsätzliche Verwerfung der
s p ä t e r e n
H o m o n y m e
fordert
und in die Namengebung der Gattungen und Arten tief eingreift.
— Die
Sectionen 13
(Rechtschreibung der Namen;
Art. 70 und
71;
Empf. XXXVIII—XLIV) und
14
(Geschlecht der Gattungsnamen;
Art. 72)
wurden neu eingeführt, da
es sich herausgestellt hatte,
daß eingehendere Vorschriften darüber nötig sind.
Die Bezeichnungen
l e g i t i m e und
i l l e g i t i m e
(r e g e l g e m ä ß e und
r e g e l w i d r i g e)
Namen wurden eingeführt
und definiert
(Art. 2;
Art. 45 Fußnote). —
Nähere Angaben über den Begriff
“g ü l t i g e
N a m e n” enthält
Art. 16 Fußnote.
Man vergleiche im übrigen den
I n d e x
a n a l y t i q u e,
der, ursprünglich von
B r i q u e t verfaßt,
von mir nach
den neuen Regeln umgearbeitet wurde.
H. H a r m s.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 1935 — Cambridge Rules
– 30 –
web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
___________________________________________________________________________
[ Not present in this edition ]