Preamble | Pre |
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
PREAMBLE
Botany requires a precise and simple system
of nomenclature used by botanists
in all countries,
dealing on the one hand with the terms
which denote the ranks of
taxonomic groups or units,
and on the other hand with the
scientific names which
are applied to the individual taxonomic groups
of plants.
The purpose of giving a
name to a taxonomic group
is not to indicate its characters or history, but to supply
a means of referring to it and to indicate its taxonomic rank.
This Code aims at
the provision of a stable method
of naming taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting
the use of names which may cause error or ambiguity
or throw science into con-
fusion.
Next in importance is the avoidance of the 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 undeniable importance, are relatively accessory.
The Principles form the basis of the system of botanical nomenclature.
The detailed provisions are divided into
Rules, set out in the Articles, and
Recommendations; the notes and examples attached
to these are integral parts
of them.
The object of the
Rules is to put the nomenclature of the past
into order and to
provide for that of the future;
names contrary to a rule cannot be maintained.
The
Recommendations deal with subsidiary points,
their object being to bring
about greater uniformity
and clearness, especially in future nomenclature;
names
contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account,
be rejected, but they are
not examples to be followed.
The provisions regulating the modification of this Code form its last division.
The Rules and Recommendations apply
throughout the plant kingdom, recent
and fossil.
However, special provisions are needed for certain groups.
The Inter-
national Microbiological Congress
has therefore issued an International Code of
Nomenclature
of
Bacteria and Viruses (Ames, Iowa, U.S.A., June 1958).
Similarly
the International
Commission for the Nomenclature
of Cultivated Plants
has published
an
International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
(Utrecht,
June 1961).
Provisions for the names of hybrids and
some special categories appear in
Appendix I.
The only proper reasons for changing a name
are either a more profound
knowledge of the facts
resulting from adequate taxonomic study or
the necessity
of giving up a nomenclature
that is contrary to the rules.
In the absence of a relevant
rule
or where the consequences of rules are doubtful,
established custom is followed.
This edition of the Code supersedes all
previous editions (see
Bibliographia,
p. 367).
15 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 1 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
I–VI | Principles |
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature.
The Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups
treated as plants whether
or not these groups were
originally assigned to the plant kingdom.*
The application of names of taxonomic groups is
determined by means of nomen-
clatural types.
The
nomenclature
of a taxonomic group is based
upon priority of publication.
Each taxonomic group
with
a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can
bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in
accordance with the Rules,
except in specified cases.
Scientific names of
taxonomic groups are treated as Latin
regardless of their
derivation.
The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive
unless expressly limited.
————————
16 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 2 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Ranks | 1—5 |
Division I I . Rules and Recommendations
Chapter I. RANKS OF TAXA, AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM
Taxonomic groups of any rank will, in this Code,
be referred to as
taxa (singular:
taxon).
Every
individual plant
is treated as belonging to a number of taxa of consecutively
subordinate ranks, among which the rank of species
(species) is basic.
The principal ranks of taxa in ascending sequence are:
species
(species), genus
(genus), family
(familia), order
(ordo), class
(classis), and division
(divisio).
Thus
each species belongs (is to be assigned) to a genus,
each genus to a family
(certain
artificial groups of fossil plants excepted),
etc.
Note 1.
Since the names of
species, and consequently of many higher taxa, of
fossil plants are usually based on
fragmentary specimens, and since the connection
between these
specimens can only rarely be proved,
organ-genera
(organo-genera)
and
form-genera
(forma-genera) are distinguished
as taxa within which species may
be recognized.
An organ-genus is a genus
assignable to a family.
A form-genus is
a genus
unassignable to a family,
but it may be referable
to a taxon of higher rank
(see
Art.
59
and Rec.
18A).
Form-genera are artificial
in varying degree.
Examples: Organ-genera: Lepidocarpon Scott (Lepidocarpaceae), Mazocarpon (Scott) Benson
(Sigillariaceae),
Siltaria Traverse (Fagaceae);
form-genera:
Dadoxylon Endl. (Coniferopsida),
Pecopteris (Brongn.) Sternb. (Pteropsida),
Stigmaria Brongn. (Lepidophytales and Lepido-
spermales),
Spermatites Miner
(Cormophyta, excl.
Eocormophyta et
Palaeocormophyta micro-
phylla).
If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required,
the terms for these are made
either by adding the prefix sub
(sub-) to the terms denoting the ranks
or by the
introduction of supplementary terms.
A plant may be assigned to taxa
of the
following subordinate ranks
of the plant kingdom
(Regnum Vegetabile):
Divisio,
Subdivisio, Classis, Subclassis, Ordo, Subordo,
Familia, Subfamilia, Tribus, Sub-
tribus, Genus,
Subgenus, Sectio, Subsectio, Series, Subseries, Species,
Subspecies,
Varietas, Subvarietas, Forma, Subforma.
Further supplementary ranks may be intercalated
or added, provided that con-
fusion or error
is not thereby introduced.
For hybrids and some special categories, see Appendix I.
In classifying parasites,
especially parasitic fungi, authors who do not give
specific value
to taxa characterized from a
physiological standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a
morphological standpoint
may distinguish
within the species special forms
(formae speciales)
characterized by their adaptation to different hosts
(see Rec. 24B).
The relative order of the ranks specified in Arts. 3 and 4 must not be altered.
17 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 3 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
6—7 | Definitions, typification |
Chapter
II.
NAMES OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 29—31.
Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Arts. 32—45.
A legitimate name or epithet is one that is in accordance with the rules.
An illegitimate name or epithet is one that is contrary to the rules.
The
correct name of a taxon with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank
is the legitimate name
which must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art.
11).
Note.
In this Code, unless otherwise indicated,
the word “name” means a name
that has been validly published,
whether it is legitimate or illegitimate.
Example:
The generic name
Cashalia Standl.
(Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci.
13: 440. 1923),
based on
the single species
C. cuscatlanica,
is legitimate because it is in accordance with the
rules.
The same is true of the generic name
Dussia Krug et Urban ex Taub.
(in Engl. et
Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III. 3: 193.
1892), based on
the single species
D. martinicensis.
Both
generic names are correct when the genera
are thought to be separate.
Steyermark (Fieldiana, Bot.
24(5): 248. 1946), however,
united
Cashalia Standl. and
Dussia Krug et Urban in a
single genus;
when this concept is accepted
the latter name is the only correct one for the
genus
with this particular circumscription. The legitimate name
Cashalia
may therefore be
correct or incorrect according
to different concepts of taxa.
The application of names of taxa of the rank of
family or below
is determined by
means of
nomenclatural types. A nomenclatural type
(typus) is that constituent element
of a taxon
to which the name of the taxon is permanently attached,
whether as a
correct name or as a synonym.
Note 1.
The nomenclatural type is not necessarily
the most typical or representative
element of a taxon;
it is merely that element with which the name is permanently
associated.
Note 2.
A
holotype is the one specimen
or other element used by the author or
designated by him
as the nomenclatural type.
As long as a holotype is extant,
it
automatically fixes the application of the name concerned.
Note 3.
If no holotype
was indicated
by the author who described a taxon,
or when the holotype
has been lost or destroyed,
a
lectotype or a
neotype
as a
substitute for it may be
designated.
A lectotype
always takes precedence over a
neotype.
An
isotype, if such exists,
must be chosen as the lectotype.
If no isotype
exists,
the lectotype must be chosen
from among the
syntypes, if such exist. If
neither an isotype
nor a syntype
nor any of the originally cited material
is extant, a
neotype may be selected.
18 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 4 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Typification | 7 |
A
lectotype is a specimen or other element
selected from the original material
to serve as
a nomenclatural type when
no holotype was designated
at the time of
publication or
as long as it is missing.
When two or more specimens
have been designated as types by the author of a
specific or infra-specific name
(e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.),
the
lectotype must be chosen
from among
them.
An
isotype is any
duplicate
(part of a single gathering
made by a collector at
one time) of the holotype;
it is always a specimen.
A
syntype is
any
one of two or more specimens
cited by the author when no
holotype was designated,
or any one of two or more
specimens simultaneously
designated as types.
A
neotype is a specimen
or other element selected to serve
as nomenclatural type
as long as all of the material
on which the name of the taxon was based is missing.*
Note 4.
A new name or epithet published
as an avowed substitute
(nomen novum)
for an older
name or epihet is typified
by the type of the oldest name.
A name or epithet which was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published (see
Art.
63)
is automatically typified by the type of the name or epithet
which ought
to have been adopted under the rules,
unless the author
of the superfluous name or
epithet has indicated
a definite type.
Note 5.
The typification of
names of genera based on
plant megafossils
and
plant microfossils
(form- and
organ-genera),
genera of imperfect fungi, and any
other analogous genera or
lower taxa does not differ from that indicated above.
Note 6.
The type
of the name of a
taxon of fossil plants
of the rank of species
or below
is the specimen whose
figure accompanies
or is cited in the valid publication
of the name (see Art.
38). If
figures of
more than one specimen
were given or cited
when
the name was
validly published,
one of those
specimens
must be chosen
as type.
Note 7.
The type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with
a nomenclatural
starting-point later than 1753
(see Art. 13)
is to be determined in accordance with
the indication
or description and other matter accompanying
its first valid pub-
lication (see Arts.
32-45).
When valid publication is by reference to a pre-starting-
point description, the latter must be used for purposes
of typification as though
newly published.
Note 8.
A
change of
the listed type-species
of a conserved generic name (see
Art.
14
and
App. III)
can be effected only
by a procedure similar
to that adopted
for the conservation
of generic names.
Example:
Bullock and Killick (Taxon 6: 239. 1957) proposed,
in the interests of stability
and taxonomic accuracy,
that the type-species of
Plectranthus L’Hér. should be changed
from
P. punctatus (L.f.) L’Hér. to
P. fruticosus L’Hér.
This was approved by the appropriate
Committees
and sanctioned by an International Botanical Congress.
It
is
strongly recommended
that the original material, especially the holotype,
of a taxon
be deposited in a permanent
responsible institution and that it be scrupulously conserved.
When living material is designated as a type
(for Bacteria and Fungi only;
see Art. 9,
Note 3),
appropriate parts
of it should be immediately preserved.
————————
* See also Guide for the determination of types (p. 64).
19 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 5 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
8—10 | Typification |
Whenever the
original material of a taxon
is heterogeneous, the lectotype should be so
selected
as to preserve current usage unless another element agrees better
with the original
description and (or) figure.
For the name of a fossil species, the lectotype,
when one is needed, should, if possible,
be a specimen
illustrated at the time of the first valid publication.
The author who first
designates a lectotype or
a neotype
must be followed, but
his
choice is superseded if
the holotype or, in the case of a neotype,
any of the
original material
is rediscovered, or if it can be shown that the choice was based
upon a misinterpretation of the original description.
The nomenclatural type
(holotype,
lectotype, or
neotype) of a species or taxon
below the rank of species
is a single specimen or other element except in the following
case:
for small herbaceous plants and for most non-vascular plants,
the type may
consist of more than one individual, which ought to
be conserved permanently and
assembled on one herbarium sheet or
preparation.
If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet or
preparation contains
parts belonging to more than one taxon,
the name must remain attached to that
part
(lectotype) which corresponds most nearly
with the original description.
Examples:
The holotype of
the polygamous species
Rheedia kappleri Eyma
is a male
specimen collected by
Kappler (593a in Herb. Utrecht).
The author designated a herma-
phroditic specimen
collected by the Forestry Service of Suriname as a paratype* (B.W. 1618
in Herb. Utrecht).
The type sheet of
Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker
(Journ. of Bot. 16: 236. 1878) is
Lorentz no. 128
in Herb. Mus. Brit.; this sheet, however, proves to be a mixture.
L. B. Smith
(Proc. Am. Acad. 70: 192. 1935) acted in accordance with
this rule in designating one
element of Lorentz’s specimen as the lectotype.
Note
1.
For
the name of a species
or infraspecific taxon of
recent plants of
which it is impossible to preserve
a specimen, or for
such a name without a type
specimen, the type may be a description or figure.
Note 2.
One
whole
specimen used in establishing a taxon
of fossil
plants is to
be considered
the nomenclatural
type.
If this specimen is cut into pieces (sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coalball plants, etc.),
all parts originally used in establishing
the diagnosis ought to be clearly marked.
Note 3.
A type specimen of a taxon of recent plants,
the Bacteria and Fungi
excepted,
must be conserved permanently
and cannot be a living plant or culture.
The nomenclatural type of
a genus or of any taxon
between genus and species
is a species,
that of a family or of any taxon between family and genus
is the genus
on whose present or former name
that of the taxon concerned is based (see also
Art.
18).
—————————
* See: Guide for the determination of types (p. 64).
20 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 6 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Priority | 11—13 |
Note 1.
The
nomenclatural type of
a family not
based on
a generic name
is the
genus that typifies
the alternative name
of that family (see Art.
18).
Note 2.
The principle of typification does
not apply to names of taxa above
the rank of family (see Art.
16).
Each
family
or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription,
position,
and rank can bear only one correct name,
special exceptions being made for 9
families
for which alternative names are permitted (see Art.
18)
and for certain
fungi
and fossil plants (see Art.
59).
For any taxon from
family to genus inclusive,
the correct name is the earliest
legitimate one with the same rank,
except in cases of limitation of priority
by con-
servation (see Arts.
14 and
15).
For any taxon below the rank of genus,
the correct name is the combination of
the earliest available legitimate epithet in the same rank
with the correct name of
the genus, species,
or taxon of lower rank to which it is assigned.
The principle of priority does not apply to names of taxa
above the rank of
family (see Art.
16).
Note.
The name of a taxon below the rank of genus,
consisting of the name of
a genus combined
with one or more epithets, is termed a combination.
Examples of combinations:
Gentiana lutea,
Gentiana
tenella var.
occidentalis,
Equisetum
palustre var.
americanum f.
fluitans,
Mouriri subg.
Pericrene,
Arytera sect.
Mischarytera.
A name of a taxon has no status under this Code
unless it is validly published
(see Chapter IV, section 2, Arts.
32—45).
Section 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
Valid publication of names for plants of the different groups
is treated as
beginning at the following dates
(for each group a work is mentioned which is
treated
as having been published on the date given for that group):
Recent plants
a.
SPERMATOPHYTA and
PTERIDOPHYTA, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species Plantarum
ed. 1).
b. MUSCI (the SPHAGNACEAE excepted), 1 Jan. 1801 (Hedwig, Species Muscorum).
c. SPHAGNACEAE and HEPATICAE, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
d.
LICHENES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species Plantarum ed. 1).
For nomenclatural
purposes names given to lichens
shall be considered as applying
to their fungal
components.
21 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 7 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
14 | Nomina conservanda |
e.
FUNGI:
UREDINALES,
USTILAGANALES and
GASTEROMYCETES, 31 Dec. 1801
(Per-
soon,
Synopsis Methodica Fungorum).
f.
FUNGI CAETERI, 1 Jan. 1821 (Fries,
Systema Mycologicicum vol. 1). Vol. 1 of the
Systema is treated as having appeared on 1 Jan. 1821,
and the
Elenchus Fungorum
(1828) is treated as a part of the
Systema. Names of
FUNGI CAETERI
published in
other works between the dates of the first (vol. 1)
and last (vol. 3, part 2 and
index) parts of the
Systema which are synonyms or homonyms of names of any
of the
FUNGI CAETERI
included in the
Systema do not affect the nomenclatural
status of names used by Fries in this work.
g.
ALGAE,
1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species Plantarum ed. 1).
Exceptions:
NOSTOCACEAE HOMOCYSTEAE,
1892—93 (Gomont,
Monographie des Oscillariées,
Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII.
15: 263—368;
16: 91—264).
NOSTOCACEAE HETEROCYSTEAE,
1886—88 (Bornet
et
Flahault, Revision des Nosto-
cacées hétérocystées, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII.
3: 323—381;
4: 343—373;
5:
51—129;
7: 177—262).
DESMIDIACEAE, 1848
(Ralfs,
British Desmidieae).
OEDOGONIACEAE, 1900
(Hirn,
Monographie und Iconographie der Oedogoniaceen,
Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).
h. MYXOMYCETES, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1).
i.
BACTERIA, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus,
Species Plantarum ed. 1).
The names of
bacteria are subject to provisions of the
International Code of Nomenclature of
Bacteria and Viruses.
Fossil plants
j.
ALL GROUPS, 31 Dec. 1820 (Sternberg,
Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch: 1—24.
t. 1—13).
Schlotheim,
Petrefactenkunde, 1820,
is regarded as published before
31 Dec. 1820.
Note
1.
It is agreed to associate generic names
which first appear in Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762—63)
with the first subsequent
description given
under those names in Linnaeus’
Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754)
and ed. 6 (1764) (see Art.
41).
Note
2.
The two volumes of Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753),
which
appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively,
are treated as having been published
simultaneously
on the former date (1 May 1753).
Example:
The generic names
Thea L. Sp. Pl. 515 (May 1753) and
Camellia L. Sp. Pl. 698
(Aug. 1753),
Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 311 (1754)
are treated as having been published
simultaneously
in May 1753. Under Art.
57
the combined genus bears the name
Camellia, since Sweet
(Hort. Suburb. Lond. 157. 1818),
who was the first to unite the two genera,
chose that name,
citing
Thea as a synonym.
In order to avoid disadvantageous changes
in the nomenclature of genera, families,
and intermediate taxa entailed
by the strict application of the rules,
and especially
of the principle of priority
in starting from the dates given in Art.
13,
this Code
provides, in
Appendices
II
and
III,
lists of names that are conserved
(nomina con-
servanda)
and must be retained as exceptions.
These names are preferably such as
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
(see Rec.
50E).
22 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 8 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Nomina conservanda | 15 |
Note 1.
These lists of conserved names will remain
permanently open for addi-
tions.
Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied
by a detailed
statement of the cases
both for and against its conservation.
Such proposals must
be submitted to the General Committee
(see Division III),
which will refer them for
examination to the committees
for the various taxonomic groups.
Note 2.
The application of both conserved and rejected names
is determined
by nomenclatural types.
Note 3.
A conserved name is conserved
against all other names
in the same rank
for the same type
(nomenclatural synonyms)
whether these are cited
in the corres-
ponding list
of rejected names or not,
and against those names
based on different
types that are cited in that list.
When a conserved name competes
with one or more
other names based on different types
and against which
it is not explicitly
conserved,
the earliest of the competing names
is adopted in accordance with Art.
57.
Examples:
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 united 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.
Note 4.
When a name
of a genus
has heen conserved against an earlier
name
based on a different type,
the latter is to be restored, subject to Art.
11,
if it is
considered the name of a genus
distinct from that of the
nomen conservandum.
Example:
The generic name
Luzuriaga Ruiz
et Pav. (1802)
is conserved against the earlier
names
Enargea Banks
et Sol. ex Gaertn. (1788) and
Callixene
Comm. ex Juss. (1789).
If,
however,
Enargea Banks
et Sol. ex Gaertn.
is considered to be a separate genus, the name
Enargea is retained for this.
Note 5. A conserved name is conserved against all its earlier homonyms.
Example:
The generic name
Smithia Ait. (1789), conserved against
Damapana Adans.,
is thereby conserved automatically
against the earlier homonym
Smithia Scop. (1777).
Note 6.
Provision for the
conservation of a name
in a sense that excludes the
original type
is made in Art.
48.
When a name proposed for conservation has bee
n approved
by the General
Committee
after study by the Committee
for the taxonomic group concerned,
botanists
are authorized to retain it
pending the decision of a later International Botanical
Congress.
When a name proposed for conservation
has been referred to the appropriate Committee
for study,
botanists should follow existing usage as far as possible pending
the General
Committee’s recommendation on the proposal.
23 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 9 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
16—18 | Names of higher taxa |
Chapter III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK
Section 1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
The principles of priority and typification do not
affect the form of
names of
taxa above the rank of
family (see Arts.
10
and
11).
(a)
The name of a division is preferably taken from characters
indicating the nature of
the division as closely as possible;
it should end in
-phyta, except when it is a division of
FUNGI,
in which case it should end in
-mycota. Words of Greek origin are generally
preferable.
The name of a subdivision is formed in a similar manner;
it is distinguished from a
divisional name by
an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the ending
-phytina, except when it
is a subdivision of FUNGI,
in which case it should end in
-mycotina.
(b)
The name of a class or of a subclass
is formed in a similar manner and should
end as follows:
1. In the ALGAE: -phyceae (class) and -phycidae (subclass);
2. In the FUNGI: -mycetes (class) and -mycetidae (subclass);
3. In the CORMOPHYTA: -opsida (class) and -idae (subclass).
If
the name of an order is
based on the stem of a name
of a family,
it must have
the ending
-ales.
If
the name of
a suborder
is based on the stem of a name
of a
family,
it must have the ending
-ineae.
Note 1.
Names published with their rank denoted
by a term such as
“Cohors”,
“Nixus”, “Alliance”, or “Reihe” instead of
ordo are treated as having been published
as names of orders.
Note 2.
When
the name of an order or suborder
based on the stem of a name
of a family has been published
with an improper termination,
the ending must be
changed to accord with the rule,
without change of the author’s name.
Examples of
names of orders:
Fucales, Polygonales,
Centrospermae,
Parietales,
Farinosae,
Ustilaginales; suborders:
Enantioblastae,
Bromeliineae, Malvineae.
Section 2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES,
TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
The name of a family is a plural adjective
used as a substantive; it is formed by
adding the suffix
-aceae to the
stem of a legitimate name of
an included
genus
(see also Art.
10).
(For the treatment of final vowels of stems in composition,
see
Rec.
73G.)
24 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 10 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Names of subfamilies | 19 |
Names published with their rank denoted by the term
ordo (order, ordre, Ordnung)
instead of
familia
are treated as having heen published as names of families.
Examples:
Rosaceae (from
Rosa),
Salicaceae (from
Salix),
Plumbaginaceae (from
Plumbago),
Caryophyllaceae,
nom. cons.
(from
Caryophyllus
Mill. non L.),
Winteraceae,
nom. cons.
(from
Wintera Murr., an illegitimate
synonym of
Drimys J. R.
et G. Forst.).
Note 1.
A name of a family based on the stem of an illegitimate
generic name is
illegitimate unless conserved. Contrary to
Art. 32(2)
such a name is validly published
if it complies
with the other requirements for valid publication.
Note
2.
When a name of a family has been published with an improper
Latin
termination,
the ending must be changed to accord with the rule,
without change
of the author’s name.
Note
3.
The following names, sanctioned by long usage,
are treated as exceptions
to the rule:
Palmae
(Arecaceae; type,
Areca L.);
Gramineae
(Poaceae; type,
Poa L.);
Cruciferae
(Brassicaceae; type,
Brassica L.);
Leguminosae
(Fabaceae;
type,
Faba Mill. (=
Vicia L. p.p.));
Guttiferae
(Clusiaceae; type,
Clusia L.);
Umbelliferae
(Apiaceae; type,
Apium L.);
Labiatae
(Lamiaceae; type,
Lamium L.);
Compositae
(Asteraceae; type,
Aster L.).
Botanists are authorized, however, to use
as alternatives the appropriate names
ending in
-aceae.
When
Papilionaceae are
regarded
as a family
distinct from the remainder
of the
Leguminosae,
that name is conserved against
Leguminosae.
The alternative name is
Fabaceae.
This is an unique exception
to Art.
51.
Names of families of fossil plants should not be based on names of form-genera (see Art. 3).
The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective
used as a substantive; it is formed
by adding the suffix
-oideae to the stem of a
legitimate name of
an included genus.
A
tribe is designated
in a similar manner, with the ending
-eae, and a subtribe
similarly with the ending
-inae.
The name of any taxon of a rank below family and
above genus which includes
the type of the next higher taxon
must be based on the same stem as the name of
the next higher
taxon, but without citation of an author’s name (see Art.
46).
Examples of
names of subfamilies:
Asphodeloideae (from
Asphodelus),
Rumicoideae (from
Rumex); tribes:
Asclepiadeae (from
Asclepias),
Phyllantheae (from
Phyllanthus); subtribes:
Rutinae (from
Ruta),
Madiinae (from
Madia).
Note.
When a name of a taxon belonging to one of the above
categories has
been published with an improper termination,
such as
-eae for a subfamily or
-oideae for a tribe,
the ending must be changed to accord with the rule,
without
change of the author’s name. However,
when the rank of the group is changed by
a later author,
his name is then cited as author for the name
with the appropriate
ending, in the usual way.
Example:
The subfamily name
Climacieae Grout
(Moss Fl. N. Am. 3: 4. 1928) must be
changed to
Climacioideae with rank and author’s name unchanged.
If it is held necessary
to change the rank of this taxon
to a tribe, then the name
Climacieae must be used followed
by the name of the author making the change.
25 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 11 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
20 | Generic names |
Section 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA*
The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number, or a word treated
as such.
It may be taken from any source whatever,
and may even be composed in
an absolutely arbitrary manner.
Examples:
Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia, Liquidamar,
Gloriosa, Impatiens,
Rhododendron, Manihot, Ifloga
(an anagram of
Filago).
The
name of a genus may
not coincide with
a technical term currently used
in
morphology unless
it was
published before
1 Jan. 1912
and was accompanied,
when
originally published, by
a specific name
published
in accordance with the binary
method of Linnaeus.
Examples:
The generic name
Radicula Hill (Brit. Herbal 264. 1756)
coincides with the
technical term
radicula (radicle)
and, when originally published, was not accompanied by
a
specific name in accordance with the Linnaean method.
The name must be attributed
to
Moench
(Meth. 262.
1794),
who first combined it
with specific epithets,
but at that time he
included
in the genus the type-species
of the generic name
Rorippa Scop.
(Fl. Carn. 520. 1760).
Radicula Moench must therefore be rejected in favour of Rorippa. — Tuber Michelli ex Fr.
(Syst. Myc. 2: 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.
The
name of a genus
may not consist of two words,
unless these words
are joined
by a hyphen.
Example:
The generic name
Uva ursi Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754)
as originally
published consisted of two separate words
unconnected by a hyphen, and must therefore be
rejected; the name must be attributed to
Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Arbust.
2: 371. 1755) as
Uva-ursi
(hyphened when published).
However, names such as
Quisqualis
(formed by
combining
two words
into one when originally published),
Sebastiano-Schaueria, and
Neves-
Armondia
(both hyphened when originally published) are admissible.
Note. The following are not to be regarded as generic names:
(1) words not intended as names;
Examples: 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.
—
Schaenoides and
Scirpoides,
used by Rottböll
(Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 14, 27. 1772)
to indicate
unnamed genera resembling
Schoenus and
Scirpus which he stated
(op. cit.: 7) he intended
to name later are token words
and not generic names.
Kyllinga Rottböll and
Fuirena Rottböll
(Descr. Ic. Nov. Pl. 12, 70. 1773)
are the first legitimate names
of these genera.
(2) unitary designations of species.
Examples:
F. Ehrhart
(Phytophylacium 1780, and Beitr. 4: 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
—————————
*
Here and elsewhere in the Code the phrase
“subdivision of a genus” refers only to taxa
between genus and species in rank.
26 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 12 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Names of subdivisions of genera | 21 |
name by A. Dietrich (Sp. Pl. 2(2): 89. 1833).
—
N. J. de Necker
in his Elementa Botanica,
1790,
proposed unitary designations
for his “species naturales”.
These names,
which resemble
generic names,
are not to be treated as such,
unless they have been published
as generic
names by a subsequent
author; for example
Anthopogon,
employed by Necker
for one of
his ‘species naturales’, was published as a generic name
by Rafinesque:
Anthopogon Raf.,
Fl.
Tell. 3: 25. 1837
(non Nuttall 1818).
Botanists who are forming generic names should comply with the following suggestions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin tongue.
(c) Not to make names which are very long or difficult in pronounce in Latin.
(d) Not to make names by combining words from different languages.
(e)
To indicate, if possible, by the formation
or ending of the name the affinities or
analogies of the genus.
(f) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(g)
Not to use a name similar to or derived
from the epithet of one of the species of
the taxon.
(h)
Not to dedicate genera to persons
quite unconnected with botany or at least with
natural science.
(i)
To give a feminine form to all personal generic names,
whether they commemorate
a man or a woman
(see Rec.
73B).
It is desirable that the name
of an organ-genus
of fossil plants
should indicate the morpho-
logical category
of the organ (for leaves a combination with
phyllum, for fructifications
with
carpus or
theca, etc.).
When naming an organ-genus or a form-genus
of fossil plants
of uncertain nature or
affinities, a name suggesting
definite relationship with a recent plant should be avoided.
The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination
of a generic name and
a subdivisional epithet
connected by a term (subgenus, section, series, etc.)
denoting
its rank.
The epithet is
either of the same form
as a generic name, or a
plural adjective
agreeing in gender with the generic name
and written with a capital initial letter.
The epithet of a subgenus or section
must not be formed from the name of the
genus
to which it belongs by adding the ending
-oides or
-opsis, or
the prefix
Eu-.
Examples:
Costus subg.
Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect.
Anomodiscus; Sapium subsect.
Patentinervia; Euphorbia sect.
Tithymalus subsect.
Tenellae.
When it is
desired
to indicate the name of a subdivision of the genus
to which a particular
species belongs
in connection with the generic name and specific epithet,
its epithet is placed
in parentheses between the two;
when necessary, its rank is also indicated.
Examples:
Astragalus
(Cycloglottis)
contortuplicatus; Loranthus (sect.
Ischnanthus)
gabonensis.
27 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 13 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
22—23 | Specific names |
The epithet
of a subgenus
or section is
preferably a substantive, that of
a subsection
or
lower subdivision of a genus
preferably a plural adjective.
Botanists, when
proposing
new
epithets
for
subdivisions
of
genera,
should avoid
those
in
the form of
a substantive
when
other
co-ordinate
subdivisions of
the same
genus
have those
in the form of a plural adjective, and vice-versa.
They should also avoid, when
proposing an epithet for a subdivision
of a genus,
one
already used
for a subdivision of a closely related genus,
or one which is identical with the
name of such a genus.
If it is desired to indicate
the resemblance of a subgenus or section
(other than the type
subgenus or section)
of one genus to another genus, the ending
-oides or
-opsis may be added
to the name of that other genus to form the epithet
of the subgenus or section concerned.
The subgenus or section
including the type species of the correct name
of the
genus to which it is assigned
bears
that name unaltered as its epithet,
but without
citation of an author’s name
(see
Art.
46).
Similarly, a section including the type species
of any subgenus must bear as its
epithet
the correct epithet of the subgenus.
Valid publication of a name for a subgenus
or section which does not include the
nomenclatural type
of the next higher taxon automatically establishes
another
subgenus or section which has as its type
the type of this higher taxon
and which
bears the generic name
(or subgeneric epithet) unaltered as its epithet.
Examples:
The subgenus of
Croton L. containing the lectotype of the genus
(C. tiglium L.)
must be called
Croton subg.
Croton and not
Croton subg.
Eluteria Griseb.
The section of the genus
Mouriri Aubl. containing the type species of the subgenus
Taphroxylon Morley
(M. acutiflora Naudin) must be called
Mouriri subg.
Taphroxylon Morley
sect.
Taphroxylon and not
Mouriri sect.
Acutiflos Morley.
The name of a species is a binary combination
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 hyphened.
An epithet not so joined when
originally published
is not to be rejected but, when used,
must be
united or hyphened.
The epithet of a species
may be taken from any source whatever,
and may even
be composed arbitrarily.
Examples:
Cornus sanguinea,
Dianthus monspessulanus,
Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces fabae,
Fumaria gussonei,
Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasinorum,
Atropa bella-donna, Impatiens
noli-tangere,
Adiantum capillus-veneris, Spondias mombin
(an indeclinable epithet).
Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus must be transcribed.
Examples:
Scandix pecten ♀ L. must be transcribed as
Scandix pecten-veneris;
Veronica
anagallis ∇ L. must be transcribed as
Veronica anagallis-aquatica.
The
specific epithet
may not exactly repeat the generic name
with or without
the addition of a transcribed symbol
(tautonym).
Examples: Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum.
28 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 14 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Specific names | 23 |
The specific epithet, when adjectival in form
and not used as a substantive,
agrees
grammatically with the generic name.
Examples:
Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra,
Verbascum nigrum; Rubus amnicola, the
specific epithet
being an invariable Latin
substantive;
Peridermium balsameum Peck, but also
Gloeosporium balsameae J. J. Davis, both from
Abies balsamea, the specific epithet of which
is treated as a substantive in the second example.
Note. The following are not to be regarded as specific epithets:
(1) words not intended as names,
Examples:
Viola “qualis” Krocker
(Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790);
Atriplex “nova” Winterl
(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) ordinal adjectives used for enumeration,
Examples: Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.
(3)
those published in
works in which
the Linnaean system of binary nomen-
clature
for species was not consistently employed.
Examples:
The name
Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herbal 49. 1756)
is a descriptive phrase
reduced to two words,
not a binary name in accordance with the Linnaean method,
and
must be 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 fol. androsaemi L.
(Sp. Pl. 213. 1753).
Names of men and women and also of countries and localities
used as specific epithets may
be substantives 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 word to designate two different species of the same genus;
for example,
Lysimachia
hemsleyana Maxim. (1891) and
L. hemsleyi Franch. (1895).
In forming specific epithets, botanists should comply also with the following suggestions:
(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin.
(c) Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.
(d) To avoid those formed of two or more hyphened words.
(e) To avoid those which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).
(f)
To avoid those which express a character
common to all or nearly all the species
of a genus.
(g)
To avoid in the same genus those which are very much alike,
especially those which
differ only in their last letters
or in the arrangement of two letters.
(h) To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus.
(i)
Not to adopt unpublished names found in
correspondence,
travellers’ notes,
herbarium
labels, or similar sources,
attributing them to their authors, unless these have approved
publication.
(j)
To avoid using the names of little-known or
very restricted localities, unless the species
is quite local.
29 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 15 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
24 | Infraspecific names |
Section 5. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)
The name of an infraspecific taxon
is a combination of the name
of the species
or infraspecific
taxon of next higher rank and an
infraspecific epithet connected by a
term denoting its rank.
Infraspecific
epithets are formed
as those of species and,
when adjectival in form
and not used as substantives, they agree grammatically
with the generic name.
Infraspecific epithets such as
typicus,
originalis,
originarius,
genuinus,
verus, and
veridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon
containing the nomenclatural type
of
the next higher taxon, are illegitimate
except where they repeat the specific epithet
because Art.
26
requires their use.
The use of a binary combination for an infraspecific taxon is not admissible.
Examples:
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
macrothrix (not
Andropogon macrothrix);
Herniaria
hirsuta var.
diandra (not
Herniaria diandra);
Trifolium stellatum forma
nanum (not
nana).
Names published in the form of
e.g.
Andropogon ternatus subsp.
A. macrothrix
are to be
altered
to the proper form
without change
of author’s name.
It is permissible to cite more complicated names
as ternary combinations, provided
that the rank of the taxon is stated.
Examples:
Saxifraga aizoon subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmscher is permissible for
Saxifraga
aizoon var.
aizoon subvar.
brevifolia forma
multicaulis subforma
surculosa Engler & Irmscher.
Infraspecific taxa within different species
may
bear
the same epithets, and those
within one species may bear the same epithets as other species
(but see Rec.
24C).
Examples:
Rosa jundzillii var.
leioclada and
Rosa glutinosa var.
leioclada; Viola tricolor
var.
hirta in spite of the previous existence
of a different species named
Viola hirta.
Note.
The use
within the same species of
the same epithet for
infraspecific taxa,
even if they are of different
rank, based on different
types is
illegitimate under
Art.
64.
Examples:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum and
E. hieraciifolium
subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum.
Recommendations made for specific epithets
(see Recs.
23A,
B)
apply equally to infra-
specific epithets.
Special forms
(formae speciales) are preferably named
after the host species; if desired,
epithets
formed of two words joined by a hyphen may be used.
Examples: Puccinia hieracii f. sp. villosi; Pucciniastrum epilobii f. sp. abieti-chamaenerii.
Botanists proposing new infraspecific epithets
should avoid
those
previously used for
species in the same genus.
30 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 16 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Cultivated plants | 25—28 |
For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon
below the rank of species
is regarded as the sum
of its subordinate taxa, if any.
Valid publication of a
name of a subordinate taxon
which does not include the
nomenclatural type
of the higher taxon automatically
establishes a second taxon of
the same rank which has as its nomenclatural type
the type of the higher taxon
(see Art.
26)
and bears the same epithet.
Example:
The publication in 1843 of
Lycopodium inundatum L. var.
bigelovii Tuckerm.
automatically
establishes another variety,
Lycopodium inundatum L. var.
inundatum, the type
of which is that of
Lycopodium inundatum L.
In the name of an infraspecific taxon
which includes the nomenclatural type of
the epithet
of the next higher taxon, the epithet of this higher taxon
must be repeated
unaltered but
without citation of an author’s name
(see
Art. 46).
This epithet can no
longer be used if that of
the next higher taxon is changed.
Examples:
The combination
Lobelia spicata Lam. var.
originalis McVaugh, which includes
the type of
Lobelia spicata Lam., must be replaced by
Lobelia spicata Lam. var.
spicata.
Because under
Lobelia syphilitica L.
there is described var.
ludoviciana A. DC., one must
write
Lobelia syphilitica L. var.
syphilitica
if only that part of
L. syphilitica L.
which includes
the type is meant.
Because under
Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafleu there is described a variety
fulva Stafleu, one must write
Vochysia rufa Mart. subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafleu var.
sericea
if only that part of the subsp.
sericea (Pohl) Stafleu which includes the type is meant.
An infraspecific epithet may repeat unchanged
that of the next higher taxon only
when it has the same nomenclatural type.
Section 6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION
Plants brought into cultivation from the wild
which differ in no fundamental way
from the parent stocks
bear the same names as are applied to the same species
and
infraspecific taxa in nature.
Plants arising in cultivation through hybridization,
mutation, or other processes
which tend to establish
recognizable differences from the parent stocks
receive
epithets, preferably in common language
(i.e. fancy epithets), markedly different
from the Latin epithets of species or varieties.
Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants
in cultivation appear in the
International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.
31 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 17 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
29—30 | Effective publication |
Chapter IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
Section 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
Publication is effected, under this Code,
only by distribution of printed matter
(through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public
or at least to botanical
institutions with libraries
accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected
by
communication of new names at a public meeting,
by the placing of names in
collections
or gardens open to the public,
or by the issue of microfilm made from
manuscripts,
type-scripts or other unpublished material.
Offer for sale of printed
matter that does not exist
does not constitute effective publication.
Publication by indelible autograph before 1 Jan. 1953 is effective.
Note.
For the purpose of this Article,
handwritten material, even though repro-
duced
by some mechanical or graphic process
(such as lithography, offset,
or metallic
etching),
is still considered as autographic.
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, July 1850, folio).
Effective publication in reproduced handwritten material:
H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy
Tchéou (1914-15),
a work lithographed from the handwritten manuscript.
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 5(1): 279.
Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of a new name
in tradesmen’s catalogues or
in non-scientific newspapers,
even if accompanied by a Latin diagnosis,
does not
constitute effective publication.
Authors are urged
to avoid publishing new names
or descriptions in ephemeral publications,
in popular periodicals,
in any publication unlikely to reach the general botanical public,
in
those produced by such methods that their permanence is unlikely,
or in abstracting journals.
The date of effective publication
is the date on which the printed matter
became
available as defined in Art.
29.
In the absence of proof establishing some other date,
the one appearing in the printed matter
must be accepted as correct.
Example:
Individual parts of Willdenow’s
Species Plantarum were published as follows:
1(1), 1797;
1(2), 1798;
2(1), 1799;
2(2), 1799 or 1800;
3(1) (to page 850), 1800;
3(2) (to page
1470), 1802;
3(3) (to page 2409), 1803
(and later than Michaux’
Flora Boreali-Americana);
4(1) (to page 630), 1805;
4(2), 1806;
these dates, which are partly in disagreement
with those
on the title-pages of the volumes,
are the dates of publication
(see Rhodora 44: 147-150. 1942).
When separates from periodicals or other works
placed on sale are issued in
advance, the date on the separate
is accepted as the date of effective publication
unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.
Example:
Publication in separates issued in advance: the
Selaginella species published
by
Hieronymus in Hedwigia 51: 241-272 (1912)
were effectively published on 15 Oct. 1911,
since
the volume in which the paper appeared states (p. ii)
that the separate appeared on that date.
32 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 18 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 31—32 |
The date on which the publisher or his agent
delivers printed matter to one of the usual
carriers for distribution
to the public should be accepted as its date of publication.
The distribution on or after 1 Jan. 1953
of exsiccata relative to any new taxon,
accompanied by an original diagnosis, even if this is printed,
does not constitute
effective publication.
Note.
If the printed matter is also distributed independently
of the exsiccata,
this constitutes effective publication.
Example:
Works such as Schedae operis
. . . .,
Plantae Finlandiae Exsiccatae, Helsingfors
1. 1906, 2. 1916, 3. 1933, 1944, or Lundell
et
Nannfeldt, Fungi Exsiccati Suecici etc., Uppsala
1-. . . ., 1934-. . . .,
whether published before or after 1 Jan. 1953,
are effectively published.
Section 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon must
(1)
be effectively
published
(see Art.
29), (2) have a form which complies
with the provisions of
Chapter III
(but see Art. 18,
notes 1
and
2), and
(3)
be accompanied
by a description
of the taxon or by a reference
(direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively
published description of it.
Note 1.
An indirect reference is a clear indication,
by the citation of the author’s
name or in some other way,
that a previously and effectively published description
applies to the taxon to which the new name is given.
Examples of
names not validly published:
Egeria Néraud
(in Gaudichaud, Bot. Voy.
Freycinet 28. 1826),
published without a description or a reference
to a former description.
—
The name
Loranthus macrosolen Steud. originally appeared
without a description on the
printed tickets
issued about the year 1843 with Sect. II. no. 529, 1288,
of Schimper’s her-
barium specimens of Abyssinian plants;
it was not validly published, however, until A. Richard
(Tent. Fl. Abys. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.
Examples of
indirect reference:
—
Kratzmannia Opiz (in Berchtold et Opiz,
Oekon.-techn.
Fl. Böhmens 1/2: 398. 1836)
is published with a description,
but it was not definitely accepted
by the author and
is therefore not validly published.
It is accepted definitely in Opiz, Seznam
Rostlin Květeny České 56 (1852),
but without any description.
The citation of “Kratzmannia
O.”
includes an indirect reference
to the previously published description in 1836.
—
Opiz
published the name of the genus
Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz
in Seznam Rostlin Květeny České
50 (1852)
without a description, but as he wrote
Hemisphace Benth.
he indirectly referred
to the previously
validly published description
by Bentham, Labiat. Gen. Sp. 193 (1833), of
Salvia sect.
Hemisphace. —
The publication of the new combination
Cymbopogon martinii
by W. Watson in
Atkinson, Gaz. NW. Provo India 10: 392 (1882)
is validated by the addition
of the number “309”,
which, as explained at the top of the same page,
is the running-number
of the species
(Andropogon martini Roxb.)
in Steudel, Syn. Pl. Glum. 1: 388 (1854).
Although
the reference to the synonym
Andropogon martini is indirect,
it is perfectly unambiguous.
Note
2.
In certain circumstances an illustration
with analysis is accepted as
equivalent
to a description (see Arts.
42 and
44).
Note 3.
For names of plant taxa originally published
as names of animals, see
Art.
45.
33 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 19 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
33 | Valid publication |
Publication of a name should not be
validated solely
by a reference to a description
published before 1753.
The
description
or diagnosis of any new taxon
should mention the points in which the
taxon differs from its allies.
Authors should avoid adoption
of a name or an epithet which has been previously but
not validly published for a different taxon.
In describing new taxa, authors should, when possible,
supply figures with details of
structure
as an aid to identification.
In the explanation of the figures, it is valuable
to indicate the specimen(s) on which
they are based.
Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.
The description of parasitic plants
should always be followed by an indication of the
hosts,
especially those of parasitic fungi.
The hosts should be designated by their scientific
names
and not solely by names in modern languages,
the significance of which is often
doubtful.
A combination is not validly published
unless the author definitely indicates that
the epithet
or epithets concerned are to be used in that particular combination.
Examples of
combinations definitely indicated:
In Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum
the placing
of the epithet in the margin opposite
the name of the genus clearly indicates the combination
intended. The same result is attained in Miller’s
Gardeners Dictionary, ed. 8,
by the
inclusion of the epithet in parentheses
immediately after the name of the genus, in Steudel’s
Nomenclator Botanicus by the arrangement of the epithets
in a list headed by the name of
the genus, and in general
by any typographical device which indicates that an epithet
is
associated with a particular generic or other name.
Examples of
combinations not definitely indicated:
Rafinesque’s statement under
Blephilia
(in Journ. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. 89: 98. 1819)
that “Le type de ce genre est la
Monarda
ciliata Linn.”
does not constitute publication of the combination
Blephilia ciliata, since he
did not indicate that
that combination was to be used. Similarly, the combination
Eulophus
peucedanoides must not be ascribed
to Bentham and Hooker f. on the basis of the listing
of
Cnidium peucedanoides H.B.K. under
Eulophus (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867).
A new
combination or a new name
for a previously
recognized taxon
published on
or after 1 Jan. 1953
is not validly published unless
its basionym
(name-bringing or
epithet-bringing synonym)
or replaced
synonym is clearly indicated
and a full
and
direct reference
given to its author
and original publication
with page or plate
reference and date.
Note 1.
Mere reference to the
Index Kewensis, the
Index of Fungi, or any work
other than that
in which the name was validly published does not constitute a full
and direct reference to the original publication of a name.
34 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 20 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 34 |
Note 2.
Bibliographic errors of citation
do not invalidate the publication of a
new combination.
A
name given to a taxon
whose rank is at the same time
denoted by a misplaced
term
(one contrary to
Art.
5) is treated
as not validly published, examples of such
misplacement
being a form divided into varieties, a species containing genera,
or a
genus containing families or tribes.
An exception is made for names of the infrageneric taxa
termed tribes
(tribus) in
Fries’
Systema Mycologicum,
which are treated as validly published.
Example:
The names
Delphinium tribus
Involuta Huth
(Bot. Jahrb. 20: 365. 1895), tribus
Brevipedunculata Huth (l.c. 20: 368), etc.,
are treated as not validly published,
since Huth
misapplied the term “tribus”
to a category of lower rank than section.
A name is not validly published
(1) when it is not accepted by the author who
published it;
(2) when it is merely proposed in anticipation
of the future acceptance
of the group concerned,
or of a particular circumscription, position,
or rank of the
group (so-called provisional name);
(3) when it is merely mentioned incidentally;
(4) when it is
merely cited as a synonym;
(5) by the mere
mention of the subordinate
taxa included in
the taxon concerned.
Note 1.
Provision no. 1 does not apply to names or epithets published
with a
question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt,
yet published and accepted
by the author.
Note 2.
By “incidental mention” of a new name or combination
is meant mention
by an author who does not intend
to introduce the new name or combination
concerned.
Examples:
(1)
The generic name
Sebertia Pierre ex Baillon
(Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945.
1891)
was not accepted by Baillon who referred its only species
with a question mark to the
genus
Sersalisia.
(1) (2)
The generic name
Conophyton Haw., suggested by Haworth
(Rev. Pl. Succ. 82.
1821) for
Mesembryanthemum sect.
Minima Haw. (l.c. 81. 1821) in the words
“If this section
proves to be a genus, the name of
Conophyton would be apt”, was not validly published,
since Haworth did not adopt that generic name nor accept
that genus. The correct name
for the genus is
Conophytum N. E. Brown
(Gard. Chron. III. 71: 198. 1922).
(3)
The generic name
Jollya was mentioned incidentally by Pierre
(Notes Bot. Sapot. 7.
1890) in the discussion
of the stamens of another genus and was therefore
not validly
published in that publication.
(4)
Acosmus Desv.
(in Desf. Cat. Pl. Hort. Paris ed. 3. 233. 1829),
cited as a synonym of
the generic name
Aspicarpa L. C. Rich.,
was not validly published thereby.
—
Ornithogalum
undulatum Hort. Bouch. ex Kunth
(Enum. 4: 348. 1843), cited as a synonym under
Myogalum
boucheanum Kunth,
was not validly published thereby; when transferred to
Ornithogalum,
this species must be called
Ornithogalum boucheanum (Kunth) Aschers.
(Oest. Bot. Zeitschr.
16: 192. 1866).
Similarly
Erythrina micropteryx Poepp.
was not validly published by being cited as a
synonym of
Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (Linnaea 23: 740. 1850);
the species concerned,
when placed under
Erythrina, must be called
Erythrina poeppigiana (Walp.) O. F. Cook
(U.S. Dep. Agr. Bull. 25: 57. 1901).
(5)
The family name
Rhaptopetalaceae Pierre
(Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. May 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 Engler (in Engler
et
Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr.
zum
35 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 21 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
35—37 | Valid publication |
II-IV. 1: 242. 1897),
which was accompanied by a description.
—
The generic name
Ibidium
Salisb. (Trans. Hort. Soc.
London 1: 291. 1812)
was published merely with the mention of four
included species.
As Salisbury supplied no generic description, his publication of
Ibidium
is invalid.
When on or after 1 Jan. 1953,
two or more different names (so-called alternative
names)
are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author,
none
of them is validly published.
Example:
The species of
Brosimum described by Ducke
(Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio 3: 23-29. 1922)
were published with alternative names under
Piratinera added in a footnote (pp. 23-24).
The
publication of these names,
being effected before 1 Jan. 1953, is valid.
Authors should
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 Rec.
23B, i).
A
new name published on
or after 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear indication of the
rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.
Note.
For such names published before 1 Jan. 1953
the choice made by the first
author
who assigned a definite rank must be followed.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of plants, the bacteria,
algae,
and all fossils excepted,
published on or after 1 Jan. 1935 must be accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis or by a reference to a previously
and effectively published
Latin diagnosis.
Example:
The names
Schiedea gregoriana Degener,
Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 1936 (Apr. 9)
and
S. kealiae Caum
et
Hosaka, Bernice P. Bishop Mus. Occas. Papers 11(23): 3. 1936
(Apr.
10) were proposed for the same plant;
the type of the former is a part of the original material
of the latter. Since the name
S. gregoriana is not accompanied by a Latin diagnosis, the later
S. kealiae is the legitimate name.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of algae* published on
or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied by a Latin diagnosis
or by a reference
to a previously and effectively published
Latin diagnosis.
Authors publishing names of new taxa of recent plants
should give or cite a full description
in Latin in addition to the diagnosis.
Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1958
of the name of a new taxon
of the rank of
family or below
is valid only when the nomenclatural type
is indicated (see Arts.
7—10).
————————
*
The Nomenclature Section
of the Montreal Botanical Congress adopted a resolution
recommending botanists to interpret this Article in the sense
intended by the Paris Congress.
The sense of the Paris Congress
was that the word “algae” applied only to recent algae.
36 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 22 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 38—41 |
The
indication of the nomenclatural type
should immediately follow the Latin diagnosis
and
should be given by the insertion of the Latin word “typus”
(or “holotypus”, etc.)
immediately before or after the particulars
of the type so designated.
When the nomenclatural type of a new taxon is a specimen,
the place where it is perma-
nently conserved
should be indicated.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of fossil plants
of specific
or lower rank published on or
after 1 Jan. 1912
must be accompanied by an illustra-
tion or figure
showing the essential characters, in addition to the description,
or by
a reference to a previously and effectively
published illustration or figure.
In order to be validly published,
a name of a new taxon of
recent algae
of specific
or lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1958
must be accompanied by an illustra-
tion or figure
showing the distinctive morphological features,
in addition to the Latin
diagnosis or by a reference
to a previously and effectively published illustration
or
figure.
For purposes of
valid publication, names in Latin form given to hybrids are subject
to the same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa
of corresponding rank.
In order to be validly published, a name of a genus must be accompanied
(1) by a
description of the genus, or
(2) by a reference
(direct or indirect)
to a previously
and effectively published description
of the genus
in that rank or
as a subdivision
of a genus.
An exception is made for the generic names
first published by Linnaeus in
Species
Plantarum ed. 1 (1753)
and ed. 2 (1762—63), which are treated
as having been
validly published on those dates
(see Art. 13,
Note 1).
Note.
In certain circumstances,
an illustration with analysis is accepted
as
equivalent to a generic description (see Art.
42).
Examples of validly published generic names:
Carphalea Juss. (Gen. 198. 1789),
accom-
panied by a generic description;
Thuspeinanta Th. Dur. (Ind. Gen. Phan. 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.
An author describing a new genus of fossil plants
should indicate whether he regards it
as an organ-genus
or a form-genus.
An author describing
an organ-genus should clearly indicate
for which kind of organ
the genus is established.
37 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 23 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
42—43 | Valid publication |
The publication of the name of a monotypic new genus
based on a new species is
validated either by
(1) the provision of a combined generic and specific description
(descriptio generico-specifica), or
(2), for generic names published before 1 Jan. 1908,
by the provision of an illustration with analysis
showing essential characters
(see
Art. 32,
Note 2).
However,
the name of a monotypic genus
of fossil plants published
on or after 1 Jan. 1953
must be accompanied by a description of the genus
indicating
its difference from other genera.
Examples:
Strophioblachia fimbricalyx Boerl.
(Handl. Fl. Ned. Ind. 3(1): 235. 1900)
is a
new species assigned to the monotypic new genus
Strophioblachia published with a combined
generic
and specific description.
—
The generic name
Philgamia Baill. (in Grandidier, Hist.
Madag. Pl. Atlas 3:
pl. 265. 1894) was validly published,
as it appeared on a plate with
analyses of
P. hibbertioides Baill. published before 1 Jan. 1908.
Note 1.
A description of a new species assigned to a monotypic new genus
is
treated also as a generic description if the genus is not
separately described.
Similarly, a description of a monotypic new genus
based on a new species is
treated also as a specific description
if the generic name and specific epithet are
published together and the species is not
separately described.
Note 2.
Single figures of microscopic plants showing the details
necessary for
identification are considered as illustrations
with analysis showing essential characters.
A name of a taxon below the rank of genus
is not validly published unless the
name of the genus or species
to which it is assigned is validly published
at the same
time or was validly published previously.
Examples:
The specific names
Eragrostis minor and
E. major were published in 1809 by
Host
(Gram. Austr. 4: 15, 14) as substitutes for
Poa eragrostis L. and
Briza eragrostis L.
respectively;
these two names were cited as synonyms.
As, however, the generic name
Eragrostis was not validly published until 1812
(P. Beauv. Agrost. 70), the names given by
Host
cannot be considered validly published.
In 1880,
Müller Argoviensis (Flora 63: 286) published the new genus
Phlyctidia with the
species
P. hampeana n. sp.,
P. boliviensis (=
Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.),
P. sorediiformis (=
Phlyctis sorediiformis Krempelh.),
P. brasiliensis (=
Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), and
P. andensis
(=
Phlyctis andensis Nyl.). These specific names are,
however, not validly published in this
place,
because the generic name
Phlyctidia was not validly published;
Müller gave no generic
diagnosis
but only a description of the new species
P. hampeana.
This description cannot
validate
the generic name as a
descriptio generico-specifica
in accordance with Art.
42,
since
the new genus was not monotypic.
The first valid publication of the name
Phlyctidia was
made by Müller in 1895
(Hedwigia 34: 141), where a short generic diagnosis was given.
The
only species mentioned here were
P. ludoviciensis n. sp. and
P. boliviensis (Nyl.).
The latter
combination was validly published in 1895
by the reference to the basionym.
Note.
This Article applies to
specific and other
epithets published under
Anonymos
and other
words not intended as
generic names (see Art. 20,
Note (1)).
Examples:
The binary combination
Anonymos aquatica Walt. (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788) is
not
validly published.
The correct name for the species concerned is
Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel.
(1791),
and the date of the epithet
aquatica for purposes of priority is 1791.
The species
must not be cited as
Planera aquatica (Walt.) J. F. Gmel. If, however,
it is desired to indicate
that the epithet originated with Walter,
the name may be cited as
Planera aquatica [Walt.]
J. F. Gmel.
38 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 24 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Valid publication | 44—45 |
The binary combination
Scirpoides paradoxus Rottböll
(Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 27. 1772)
is not validly published since
Scirpoides is a word not intended as a generic name.
The first
validly published name for this species is
Fuirena umbellata Rottböll (Descr. Ic. Pl. 70. 1773).
The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon
published before 1 Jan. 1908
is validly published
if it is accompanied
only by an illustration with analysis
showing
essential characters
(see Art. 32,
Note 2).
Note.
Single figures of microscopic plants showing the details
necessary for
identification are considered as illustrations
with analysis showing essential characters.
Examples:
Panax nossibiensis Drake
(in Grandidier, Hist. Madag. Pl. Atlas 3:
pl. 406. 1896),
published on a plate with analyses.
—
Eunotia gibbosa Grunow
(in Van Heurck, Syn. Diat.
Belg.
pl. 35, fig. 13. 1881),
a name of a diatom published with a single figure of the valve.
Examples of names of species not validly published are given under Arts. 33 and 34.
The date of a name or of an epithet is that
of its valid publication.
When the
various conditions for valid publication
are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is
that on which the last is fulfilled.
Example:
Specimens of
Mentha foliicoma Opiz were distributed
by Opiz in 1832, but the
name dates from 1882,
when it was validly published by Déséglise
(Bull. Soc. Etud. Sci.
Angers 1881-82: 210. 1882).
Note.
For purposes of priority only legitimate names
and epithets
are taken into
consideration (see Arts.
11,
63—67).
However,
validly published
earlier homonyms,
whether legitimate or not,
shall cause rejection
of their later homonyms
(unless the
latter are conserved).
If a taxon is transferred from the animal
to the plant kingdom, its name or names
available*
under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature
and validly
published in the form provided in the botanical Code
(except that for algae validity
under the zoological rules
only is required) shall be automatically accepted as having
been validly published under this Code at the time of
its valid publication as the
name of an animal.
Example:
Amphiprora Ehrenberg (Abh. Preuß. Akad. Wiss. 1841: 401. 1843)
was published
as the name of a genus of animals
which was transferred to the plant kingdom in 1844 by
Kützing; it has priority
in botanical nomenclature from 1843, not 1844.
Authors publishing a name of a new taxon in works
written in a modern language (floras,
catalogues, etc.)
should simultaneously comply with the requirements
of valid publication.
Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication
of their works. In a work
appearing in parts the last-published
sheet of the volume should indicate the precise dates
on
which the different fascicles or parts of the volume were
published as well as the number
of pages and plates in each.
————————
*
The word
“available” in the
International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature
is equivalent
to “legitimate”
in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
39 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 25 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
46 | Citation author |
On separately printed and issued copies of works
published in a periodical, the date (year,
month, and day),
the name of the periodical, the number of its volume or parts,
and the
original pagination should be indicated.
Section 3. CITATION OF AUTHORS’ NAMES AND OF LITERATURE
FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION
For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate
and complete, and in
order that the date may be readily
verified, it is necessary to cite the name of the
author
who first validly published the name concerned
unless the provisions of
Arts.
19,
22, or
26 apply.
Examples:
Rosaceae Juss.,
Rosa L.,
Rosa gallica L.,
Rosa gallica var.
eriostyla R. Keller,
Rosa gallica L. var.
gallica.
Authors’ names
put after names of plants should be abbreviated,
unless they are very
short. For this purpose,
particles are suppressed unless they are an inseparable part
of the
name,
and the first letters are given without any omission
(Lam. for J.B.P.A. Monet chevalier
de Lamarck,
but De Wild. for E. De Wildeman).
If a name of one syllable is long enough
to make it worth while to abridge it,
the first
consonants only are given
(Fr. for Elias Magnus Fries);
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 syllable, 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 it from Bertero;
Michx.
for Michaux, to distinguish it 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. f. for Gaertner
filius,
R. Br. for Robert Brown,
A. Br. for Alexander Braun, J. F. Gmelin for
Johann Friedrich
Gmelin,
J. G. Gmelin for
Johann Georg Gmelin,
C. C. Gmelin for
Carl Christian Gmelin,
S. G. Gmelin for
Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin).
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,
F. v. Muell.
for Ferdinand von Mueller).
When a name has been published jointly by two authors,
the names of both should be
cited, linked by means of the word
et or by an ampersand (&).
When a name has been published jointly by more
than two authors, the citation should be
restricted
to that of the first one followed by
et al.
Examples:
Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et Wilson
(or Britton & Wilson);
Streptomyces
albo-niger Hesseltine, J. N. Porter, Deduck,
Hauck, Bohonos, & J. H. Williams, Mycologia 46:
19. 1954, should be cited as
S. albo-niger Hesseltine et al.
When a name has been proposed but not validly published
by one author and is sub-
sequently validly published
and ascribed to him by another author, the name of the former
40 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 26 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation author | 47—48 |
author followed by the connecting word
ex may be inserted before the name of the publishing
author.
The same holds for names of garden origin
cited as “Hort.” (Hortulanorum).
If it is
desirable or necessary to abbreviate such a citation,
the name of the publishing author,
being
the more important, should be retained.
Examples:
Havetia flexilis Spruce ex Planch.
et Triana or
Havetia flexilis Planch.
et Triana.
—
Gossypium tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or
Gossypium tomentosum Seem.
—
Lithocarpus
polystachya (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder or
Lithocarpus
polystachya (A. DC.) Rehder.
—
Gesneria donklarii Hort. ex Hook. or
Gesneria donklarii Hook.
When a name with a description (or reference
to a description) supplied by one author is
published
in a work by another author, the word
in should be used to connect the names of
the two authors.
In such cases the name of the author
who supplied the description is the
most important and should be retained
when it is desirable to abbreviate
such a citation.
Examples:
Viburnum ternatum Rehder
in Sargent, Trees and Shrubs 2: 37 (1907), or
Viburnum ternatum
Rehder;
Teucrium charidemii Sandwith in Lacaita,
Cavanillesia 3: 38
(1930), or
Teucrium charidemii
Sandwith.
The citation of an author
who published the name before the starting-point
of the group
concerned
(see Art. 13) is indicated when
such indication is
considered useful or desirable,
preferably between square brackets.
Examples:
Lupinus
[Tourn. Inst. 392.
pl. 213. 1719] L.
Sp. Pl. 721. 1753,
Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 322.
1754, or
Lupinus
[Tourn.] L.
—
Boletus piperatus [Bull. Hist. Champ. Fr. 318.
pl. 451, f. 2.
1791-1812]
Fr. Syst. Myc. 1: 388. 1821, or
Boletus piperatus
[Bull.] Fr.
An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the
circumscription of a taxon
without the exclusion of the type
does not warrant the citation of the name of an
author
other than the one who first published its name.
When the alteration mentioned in Art. 47 has been
considerable, the nature of the change
and the author
responsible for it may be indicated by adding such words,
abbreviated where
suitable, as
emendavit
(emend.),
mutatis characteribus
(mut. char.),
pro parte
(p.p.),
excluso
genere or
exclusis generibus
(excl. gen.),
exclusa specie or
exclusis speciebus
(excl. sp.),
exclusa
varietate or
exclusis varietatibus
(excl. var.), etc.
Examples:
Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.;
Myosotis L. pro parte, R. Br.;
Globularia
cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).
When an author circumscribes a taxon in such a way
as to exclude the original
type of the name
he uses for it, he is considered to have published
a later homonym
that must be
ascribed solely
to him.
Example:
Lemanea
as treated by Sirodot (1872) explicitly excluded the type of
Lemanea
Bory (1808) and hence must be
cited
Lemanea Sirodot and not
Lemanea Bory emend. Sirodot.
41 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 27 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
49—50 | Citation author |
Note.
Retention of a name in a sense that excludes the type
can be effected only
by conservation.
When a name is conserved
with a type
different from that
of the
original author, the author
of the name as conserved, with the new type, must be cited.
Example:
Bulbostylis Kunth,
nom. cons. (non
Bulbostylis Steven 1817).
—
This must not
be cited as
Bulbostylis Steven emend. Kunth,
since the type listed was not included in
Bulbostylis by Steven in 1817.
When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered
in rank but retains its name or
epithet,
the author who first published this as a legitimate name
or epithet must
be cited in parentheses,
followed by the name of the author who effected the alteration.
The same holds
when a taxon of lower rank than genus is transferred
to another
taxon, with or without alteration of rank.
Examples:
Medicago polymorpha L. var.
orbicularis L.
when raised to the rank of 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.
The species of
Corydalis based on
Fumaria bulbosa γ solida L. (1753) must be cited as
Corydalis solida (L.) Sw. (1819) and not as
Corydalis solida (Mill.) Sw. The latter citation
refers to
Fumaria solida (L.) Mill. from 1771, also based on
Fumaria bulbosa γ solida L.;
the former,
correct citation refers to the first author of the legtimate epithet.
When the status of a taxon bearing a binary name
is altered from species to hybrid
or vice versa,
the name of the original author must be cited,
followed by an indication
in parentheses of the original status.
If it is desirable or necessary to abbreviate such
a citation,
the indication of the original status may be omitted.
Examples:
Stachys ambigua J. E. Smith.
(Engl. Bot. 30:
pl. 2089. 1810)
was published as
a species.
If regarded as a hybrid, it must be cited as
Stachys ×
ambigua J. E. Smith (pro
sp.).
—
The binary name
Salix ×
glaucops Anderss. in DC.
(Prodr. 16(2): 281. 1868) was
published as the name of a hybrid.
Later, Rydberg (Bull. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899)
altered the status of the group to that of a species.
If this view is accepted, the name must be
cited as
Salix glaucops Anderss. (pro hybr.).
Section 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION
In the citation of a name published as a synonym,
the words “as synonym” or
pro syn.
should be added.
When an author has published as a synonym
a manuscript name of another author, the
word
ex should be used in citations to connect
the names of the two authors.
Example:
Myrtus serratus, a manuscript name of Koenig published by Steudel
as a synonym
of
Eugenia laurina Willd., should be cited thus:
Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steudel,
Nomencl.
321 (1821) pro syn.
In the citation of a
nomen nudum, its status should be indicated by adding
nomen nudum
(nom. nud.).
42 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 28 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation author | 50 |
When a name
that is illegitimate because
of an earlier homonym
is cited in synonymy, the
citation should be followed
by the name of the author of the earlier homonym preceded
by
the word
non, preferably with the date of publication added.
In some instances it will be
advisable to cite
also any later homonym, preceded by the word
nec.
Examples:
Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Am. Journ. Sci. 19: 170 (1831)
non Borkh. 1800.
—
Lindera Thunb. Nov. Gen.
Pl. 64 (1783)
non Adans. 1763.
—
Bartlingia Brongn.
Ann. Sci.
Nat. 10: 373 (1827)
non Reichb. 1824. nec F. v. Muell. 1877.
Misidentifications should not be included
in the synonymy but added after it.
A misapplied
name should be indicated by the words
auct. non followed by the name of the original author
and the bibliographical reference of the misidentification.
Examples:
Ficus stortophylla Warb. in Warb.
et De Wild.
Ann. Mus. Congo Belge Bot. VI.
1: 32 (1904).
F. irumuensis De Wild. Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341 (1922).
F. exasperata auct. non Vahl:
De Wild.
et Th. Dur.
Ann. Mus. Congo Belge Bot. II. 1: 54. 1899;
De Wild. Pl. Laur. 26
(1903); Th.
et H. Dur.
Syll. Fl. Congol. 505 (1909).
If a generic name is accepted as a
nomen conservandum (see
Art. 14
and
App. III),
the
abbreviation
nom. cons. should be added to the citation.
Examples:
Protea
L. Mant. 187 (1771),
nom. cons., non L. 1753.
—
Combretum Loefl.
1758
nom. cons.
(syn. prius
Grislea L.).
—
Schouwia DC.
nom. cons.
(homonymum prius
Schouwia Schrad.).
A name cited in synonymy should be spelled exactly
as published by its author. If any
explanatory words
are required, these should be inserted in brackets.
If a name is adopted
with alterations from the form
as originally published, it is desirable that in full citations
the exact original form should be added, preferably
between quotation marks.
Examples:
Pyrus
calleryana Decne.
(Pirus mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov. 12: 189. 1913)
or
(P. mairei Léveillé, Repert. Sp. Nov. 12: 189. 1913,
“Pirus”), but not as
Pyrus mairei.
Zanthoxylum
cribrosum
Spreng. Syst. 1: 946. 1825,
“Xanthoxylon”
(Xanthoxylum caribaeum
var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray,
Proc. Am. Acad. II. 23: 225. 1888), but not as
Z. caribaeum var.
floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray.
Quercus
bicolor Willd.
(Q. prinus discolor Michx.
f. Hist. Arb. For. 2: 46. 1811),
but not as
Q. prinus var.
discolor Michx.
f.
Spiraea
latifolia (Ait.) Borkh.
(Spiraea salicifolia γ latifolia Ait.
Hort. Kew. 2: 198. 1789),
but not as
S. salicifolia latifolia Ait. or
S. salicifolia var.
latifolia Ait.
Juniperus
communis var.
saxatilis Pallas
(J. communis [var.] 3
nana Loudon, Arb. Brit. 4:
2489. 1838).
In this case “var.” may be added in brackets,
since Loudon classes this comb-
ination
under “varieties”.
Ribes tricuspis Nakai, Bot. Mag. Tokyo 30: 142. 1916, “tricuspe”.
43 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 29 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
51—53 | Remodelling of taxa |
Chapter V. RETENTION, CHOICE, AND REJECTION OF NAMES
Section 1. RETENTION OF NAMES OR EPITHETS OF TAXA
WHICH ARE REMODELLED OR DIVIDED
An alteration of the diagnostic characters
or of the circumscription of a taxon
does not warrant a change in its name,
except as may be required
(1) by transference
of the taxon (Arts.
54—56), or
(2) by its union with another taxon of the same rank
(Arts.
57,
58,
Rec.
57A), or
(3) by a change of its rank
(Art. 60).
An unique exception is made for the family name Papilionaceae (see Art. 18, Note 3).
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, since the
type of
Myosotis L. remains in the genus; it must be cited as
Myosotis L. or as
Myosotis L.
emend. R. Br. (see Art.
47, Rec.
47A).
—
Various authors have united with
Centaurea jacea
L.
one or two species which Linnaeus had kept distinct;
the taxon so constituted must be
called
Centaurea jacea L. sensu amplo or
Centaurea jacea L. emend. Cosson et Germain,
emend. Visiani, or emend. Godr., etc.;
the creation of a new name such as
Centaurea vulgaris
Godr.
is superfluous and illegitimate.
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 reinstated
for one
of them.
When a particular species was originally designated as the type,
the generic
name must be retained for the genus
including that species. When no type has
been designated,
a type must be chosen (see
Guide for the determination
of types,
p. 64).
Examples:
The genus
Dicera J. R. et G. Forster
(Char. Gen. Pl. 79. 1776) was divided by
Rafinesque
(Sylva Tell. 60. 1838)
into the two genera
Misipus and
Skidanthera;
this procedure
is inadmissible: the name
Dicera must be kept
for one of the genera, and it is now retained for
that part of
Dicera based on the lectotype,
D. dentata.
—
The genus
Aesculus L. contains the
sections
Aesculus, Pavia (Poir.) Pax,
Macrothyrsus (Spach) Pax, and
Calothyrsus (Spach) Pax,
the last three of which were regarded as distinct genera
by the authors cited in parentheses;
in the event
of these four sections being treated as genera, the name
Aesculus must be kept
for the first of them,
which includes the species
Aesculus hippocastanum L.,
as this species
is the type of the genus founded by Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl. 344. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5.
161. 1754);
Tournefort’s name
Hippocastanum must not be used for a genus including
Aesculus hippo-
castanum L. as was done by
P. Miller
(Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754).
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 reinstated
for one
of them.
When a particular specimen, description, or figure
was originally designated
as the type, the specific epithet
must be retained for the species including that
element.
When no type has been designated,
a type must be chosen (see
Guide for
the determination of types, p. 64).
44 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 30 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Transference | 54—55 |
Examples: Lychnis dioica L. (Sp. Pl. 437. 1753) was divided by Miller (Gard. Dict. ed. 8.
nos. 3, 4. 1768) into two species,
L. dioica L. emend. Mill. and
L. alba Mill.
—
G. F. Hoff-
mann (Deutschl. Fl. 1: 166. 1800) divided
Juncus articulatus L. (1753) into two species,
J. lampocarpus Ehrh.
ex Hoffm. and
J. acutiflorus Ehrh.
ex Hoffm. The name
J. articulatus
L. ought, however,
to have been retained for one of the segregate species,
and it has been
reinstated in the sense of
J. lampocarpus Ehrh.
ex Hoffm.
(see Briq. Prodr. Fl. Corse 1: 264.
1910).
—
Genista horrida (Vahl) DC.
(in Lam. et DC., Fl. Franç.
ed. 3. 4: 500. 1805)
was
divided by Spach (Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. III. 2: 252. 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. 1: 51.
1790) as
Spartium horridum.
—
Two species
(Primula cashmiriana Munro,
P. erosa Wall.)
have been separated from
Primula denticulata J. E. Smith
(Exot. Bot. 2: 109.
pl. 114. 1806),
but the name
P. denticulata has rightly been kept for the form
which Smith described and
figured under this name.
—
Stipa pennata L.
(Sp. Pl. 1753)
has been split into several species
all bearing other names.
Mansfeld
(Repert. Sp. Nov. 47: 268. 1939)
rightly reintroduced this
name for one of the species, namely
Stipa joannis Čel.
(Oest. Bot. Zeitschr. 34:
318. 1884),
which must be abandoned.
The same rule applies to infraspecific taxa,
for example, to a subspecies divided
into two or more subspecies,
or to a variety divided into two or more varieties.
Section 2. RETENTION OF EPITHETS OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF GENUS
ON TRANSFERENCE TO ANOTHER GENUS OR SPECIES
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 epithet must
be retained or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated
unless one of the
following obstacles exists:
(1)
the resulting combination has been previously
and validly published for a
subdivision of a genus
based on a different type;
(2) an earlier and legitimate epithet of the same rank is available;
(3) Arts. 21 or 22 provide that another epithet be used.
Examples: Saponaria sect. Vaccaria DC. when transferred to Gypsophila becomes Gypso-
phila sect.
Vaccaria (DC.) Godr.
—
Primula sect.
Dionysiopsis Pax
when transferred to the
genus
Dionysia cannot become
Dionysia sect.
Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melchior
because of Art.
21;
the name
Dionysia sect.
Ariadna Wendelbo,
based on the same type,
has to be used instead.
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, if legitimate,
must be retained
a)
or, if it has not been retained, must be reinstated
b)
unless
one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
the resulting binary name is a later homonym
c) (Art.
64) or a tautonym
d)
(Art.
23);
————————
*
Here and elsewhere in this Code the phrase
“subdivision of a genus”
refers only to
taxa between genus and species in rank.
45 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 31 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
56 | Transference |
(2) an earlier legitimate specific epithet is available e).
Examples: a) Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl. 613. 1753) when transferred to the genus
Linaria must be called
Linaria spuria (L.) Mill.
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8. no. 15. 1768).
—
b)
Spergula
stricta Sw. (1799) when transferred to the genus
Arenaria must be called
Arenaria uliginosa
Schleich. ex Schlechtend. (1808)
because of the existence of
Arenaria stricta Michx. (1803),
a
different species;
but on further transfer to the genus
Minuartia the epithet
stricta must be
reinstated and the species called
Minuartia stricta (Sw.) Hiern (1899).
—
c)
Spartium biflorum
Desf. (1798)
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 different
species by L’Héritier
in 1791; the name
Cytisus fontanesii given by Spach is therefore legiti-
mate. — d) Pyrus malus L. (1753) when transferred to the genus Malus must be called Malus
sylvestris Mill. (1768), the combination
Malus malus Britton (1913) being illegitimate.
—
e)
Melissa calamintha L. (1753)
when transferred to the genus
Thymus becomes
T. calamintha
(L.) Scop. (1772);
placed in the genus
Calamintha it cannot be called
C. calamintha (a
tautonym)
but is called
C. officinalis Moench (1794).
However, when
C. officinalis
is trans-
ferred
to the genus
Satureja,
the earlier legitimate epithet
is again available
and its name
becomes
S. calamintha (L.) Scheele (1843).
When, on transference to another genus,
the specific epithet has been applied
erroneously
in its new position to a different species,
the new combination must be
retained for the species
to which the epithet was originally applied,
and must be
attributed to the author who first published it
f).
Example:
f)
Pinus mertensiana Bong.
was transferred to the genus
Tsuga by Carrière,
who,
however, as is evident from his description,
erroneously applied the new combination
Tsuga
mertensiana to another species of
Tsuga, namely
T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sargent:
the com-
bination
Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.
must not be applied to
T. heterophylla (Raf.)
Sargent
but must be retained for
Pinus mertensiana Bong.
when that species is placed in
Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art.
49)
of the name of the original author, Bongard,
indicates the type of the epithet.
When an infraspecific taxon is transferred
without change of rank to another
genus or species,
the original epithet must be retained or, if it has not been retained,
must be reinstated
unless one of the following obstacles exists:
(1)
the resulting ternary combination has been previously
and validly published
for an infraspecific taxon
based on a different type, even if that taxon
is of different
rank;
(2) an earlier legitimate epithet is available;
(3) Arts. 24 or 26 provide that another epithet be used.
Example:
The variety
micranthum Gren. et Godr. (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847) of
Helian-
themum italicum Pers.
when transferred as a variety to
H. penicillatum Thib.
retains its
varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var.
micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser
(Pflan-
zenreich, Heft 14
(IV. 193): 115. 1903).
When, on transference to another genus or species,
the epithet of an infraspecific
taxon has been applied erroneously
in its new position to a different taxon of the
same rank,
the new combination must be retained for the taxon
to which the original
combination was applied,
and must be attributed to the author who first published it.
46 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 32 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Union of taxa | 57—58 |
Section 3. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN TAXA OF THE SAME RANK ARE
UNITED
When two or more taxa of the same rank are united,
the oldest legitimate name
or
(for taxa below the rank of genus)
the oldest legitimate epithet is retained,
unless
a later name or epithet
must be accepted under the provisions of Art.
58.
The author
who first unites taxa bearing names
or epithets of the same date
has the right to
choose one of them,
and his choice must be followed.
Examples:
K. Schumann (in Engler et Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam.
III.
6: 5. 1890),
uniting
the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753),
Echinocarpus Blume (1825), and
Phoenicosperma Miq.
(1865),
rightly adopted the oldest of these three generic names,
Sloanea L., for the resulting
genus.
—
If the two genera
Dentaria L.
(Sp. Pl. 653. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295. 1754) and
Cardamine L.
(Sp. Pl. 654. 1753; Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 295. 1754) are united,
the resulting genus
must be called
Cardamine because the name was chosen by Crantz
(Class. Crucif. 126. 1769),
who was the first to unite the two genera.
—
Robert Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exp. Congo
484. 1818)
appears to have been the first to unite
Waltheria americana L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753)
and
W. indica L. (Sp. Pl. 673. 1753). He adopted the name
Waltheria indica for the combined
species, and this name must accordingly be retained.
—
Fiori et Paoletti
(Fl. Ital. 1(1): 107.
1896)
united
Triticum aestivum L.
(Sp. Pl. 85. 1753) and
T. hybernum L.
(loc. cit.)
into one
species under one of these names,
T. aestivum L.
Consequently the latter name
is correct
for the combined taxon
comprising common soft wheat.
The use of an illegitimate name,
such
as
Triticum vulgare Vill.
(Hist. Pl. Dauph. 2: 153. 1787),
or the creation of a new name
is
contrary to the Code.
Authors who have to choose
between two generic names
should note the following
suggestions:
(1)
Of two names of the same date, to prefer that
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 that which, when the author makes his choice,
includes the larger number of species.
(3)
In cases of equality from these various points
of view to select the more appropriate
name.
Fossil specimens uniting diagnostic features of diverse taxa
may be either assigned to
one of them, thereby enlarging
its circumscription, or proposed as a new taxon
having the
amplified circumscription (but see Art.
63).
When a taxon of recent plants, algae excepted, and a taxon
of the same rank of
fossil or subfossil plants are united,
the correct name or epithet of the
recent taxon
must
take precedence.
Example:
If
Platycarya
Sieb. et Zucc. (1843),
a genus of recent plants, and
Petrophiloides
Bowerbank (1840),
a genus of fossil plants, are united, the name
Platycarya
must be accepted
for the combined genus,
although it is antedated by
Petrophiloides.
47 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 33 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
59—60 | Change of rank |
Section 4. NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE AND
OF FOSSILS ASSIGNED TO FORM-GENERA
In Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes
with two or more states in the life cycle
(except
those which are lichen-fungi),
but not in Phycomycetes,
the first legitimate name or
epithet
applied to the perfect state takes precedence.
The perfect state is that
which
bears asci in the Ascomycetes,
which consists of the spores giving rise to basidia
in
the Uredinales
and of the chlamydospores in the Ustilaginales,
or which bears basidia
in the remaining Basidiomycetes.
The type specimen of a name applied to a particular
state
must show the characteristics of that state.
However, the provisions of this
Article
shall not be construed as preventing
the use of names of imperfect states
in
works referring to such states.
The author who first describes a perfect state
may
adopt the specific epithet
applied to the corresponding imperfect state,
but his
binomial for the perfect state
is to be attributed to him alone,
and is not to be
regarded as a
new combination.
When not already available,
binomials for imperfect states may be proposed
at
the time of publication
of the name
of a perfect state or later, and may contain
either the specific epithet applied to the perfect state
or any other epithet available.
As in the case of pleomorphic fungi,
the provisions of the Code shall not be
construed
as preventing the use of names of form-genera
in works referring to
such taxa.
Section 5. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN THE RANK OF A TAXON IS CHANGED
When the rank of a genus or infrageneric* taxon is changed,
the correct name or
epithet is the earliest legitimate one
available in the new rank. In no case does a
name
or an epithet have priority outside its own rank.
Examples:
The section
Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) of the genus
Campanula
was first raised to generic rank by Schrader
and, as a genus, must be called
Wahlenbergia
Schrad.
ex Roth
(Nov. Pl. Sp. 399. 1821), not
Campanopsis (R. Br.) O. Kuntze (Rev.
Gen.
Pl. 2: 378. 1891).
—
Magnolia virginiana var.
foetida L. (Sp. Pl. 536. 1753)
when raised to
specific rank must be called
Magnolia grandiflora L.
(Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 1082. 1759), not
Magnolia foetida (L.) Sargent
(Gard. & For. 2: 615. 1889).
—
Lythrum intermedium Ledeb.
(Ind. Hort. Dorpat 1822)
when treated as a variety of
Lythrum salicaria L. (1753) must be
called
L. salicaria var.
glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. 2: 127. 1843), not
L. salicaria var.
inter-
medium (Ledeb.) Koehne
(Bot. Jahrb. 1: 327. 1881).
In all these cases, the name or epithet
given to the taxon in its original rank is replaced
by the first correct name or epithet given
to it
in its new rank.
(1)
When a section or a subgenus becomes a genus,
or the inverse change occurs, the
original name or epithet
should be retained unless it is contrary to this Code.
(2)
When an infraspecific taxon becomes a species,
or the inverse change occurs,
the
original epithet should be retained
unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.
(3)
When an infraspecific taxon is changed in rank
within the species, the original epithet
should be retained
unless the resulting combination is contrary to this Code.
————————
*
Here and elsewhere in the Code the term
“infrageneric” refers to all ranks below that
of genus.
48 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 34 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 61—63 |
When a taxon of a rank higher than genus
and not higher than
family is changed
in rank, the stem of the name must be retained
and only the termination altered
(-inae,
-eae,
-oideae,
-aceae),
unless the resulting name is rejected under
Arts.
62—72.
Example:
The subtribe
Drypetinae Pax (1890)
(Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank
of tribe becomes
Drypeteae (Pax) Hurusawa (1954); the subtribe
Antidesmatinae Pax (1890)
(Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank of subfamily becomes
Antidesmatoideae (Pax)
Hurusawa (1954).
Section 6. REJECTION OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
A legitimate name or epithet must not be rejected merely
because it is inappropriate
or disagreeable,
or because another is preferable or better known,
or because it has
lost its original meaning.
Examples:
This rule was broken by the change of
Staphylea to
Staphylis, Tamus to
Tham-
nos, 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. colum-
barihaerens, 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)
(see Rec.
23B,
c).
The name
Scilla sibirica Andrews
(Bot. Repos. 5: pl. 304. 1804)
must not be rejected
because the species
does not grow in Siberia.
—
The name
Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.)
Zitw.,
based on
Polycnemum oppositifolium Pall.
(Reise 1: 422, 431, app. 484. 1771),
must not
be rejected because
the species has leaves only partly opposite,
and partly alternate, although
there is another closely related species,
Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge,
having all its
leaves opposite.
A name is illegitimate
and
must be rejected
if
it was nomenclaturally superfluous
when published,
i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed
by its
author, included the type of a name or epithet
which ought to have been adopted
under the rules.
Examples:
The generic name
Cainito Adans. (Fam. 2: 166. 1763)
is illegitimate because
it was a superfluous name for
Chrysophyllum L. (Sp. Pl. 192. 1753);
the two genera had
precisely the same circumscription.
—
Chrysophyllum sericeum Salisb.
(Prodr. 138. 1796)
is
illegitimate, being a superfluous name for
C. cainito L. (1753), which Salisbury cited as a
synonym.
—
Picea excelsa (Lam.) Link
is illegitimate, because it is based on
Pinus excelsus
Lam. (Fl. Franç. 2: 202. 1778),
a superfluous name for
Pinus abies L.
(Sp. Pl. 1002. 1753).
Under
Picea the proper name is
Picea abies (L.) Karst.
(Deutschl. Fl. 325. 1880).
—
On the
other hand,
Cucubalus latifolius Mill. and
C. angustifolius Mill.
(Gard. Dict. ed. 8. nos. 2., 3.
1768)
are not illegitimate names,
although these species are now reunited 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.
Note.
A nomenclaturally superfluous new combination
is not illegitimate if the
epithet of its basionym
is legitimate. When published it is incorrect,
but it may become
correct later.
Example:
Chloris radiata (L.) Sw.
(Prodr. 26. 1788), based on
Agrostis radiata L.
(Syst.
Nat. ed. 10. 2: 873. 1759),
was nomenclaturally superfluous when published,
since Swartz
also cited
Andropogon fasciculatum L. (Sp. Pl. 1047. 1753)
as a synonym. It is, however,
the correct name in the genus
Chloris for
Agrostis radiata when
Andropogon fasciculatum
is treated as a different species,
as was done by Hackel (in DC. Monogr. Phan. 6: 177. 1889).
49 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 35 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
64—65 | Rejection |
A
name
is illegitimate
and
must be rejected
if it is a later homonym, that is, if
it
is spelled exactly
like
a name previously and validly published
for a taxon of the
same rank based on a different type.
Even if the earlier homonym is illegitimate, or
is generally treated as a synonym on taxonomic grounds,
the later homonym must
be rejected.
Note.
Mere orthographic variants of the same name
are treated as homonyms
when they are based on different types (see Arts.
73
and
75).
Examples:
The 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. x. 1888), who renamed 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
Am-
blyanthera Blume is now reduced to
Osbeckia L. (1753).
—
Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss.
(Diagn. Pl. Orient. 2: 83. 1843)
is a later homonym of the validly published name
Astragalus
rhizanthus Royle (Ill. Bot. Himal. 200. 1835)
and it must therefore be rejected,
as was done
by Boissier, who renamed it
A. cariensis (Diagn. Pl. Orient. 9: 56. 1849).
The
names of
two subdivisions of
the same genus, or of
two infraspecific taxa
within the same species,
even if they are of
different rank,
are treated as homonyms
if they have
the same epithet
and are not
based on the same type.
The same epithet
may be used for subdivisions
of different genera,
and for
infraspecific taxa within
different species.
Examples:
Under
Verbascum
the sectional epithets
Aulacosperma and
Bothrosperma are
allowed,
although there are also in the genus
Celsia two sections named
Aulacospermae and
Bothrospermae.
These, however, are not examples to be followed,
since they are contrary
to Rec.
21B.
The following is
illegitimate:
Erysimum hieraciifolium subsp.
strictum var.
longisiliquum
and
E. hieraciifolium subsp.
pannonicum var.
longisiliquum
—
a form of nomenclature which
allows two varieties
bearing the same epithet in the same species.
The name
Andropogon sorghum subsp.
halepensis (L.) Hackel var.
halepensis is legitimate,
since the subspecies and the variety have the same type
and the epithet must be repeated
under Art.
26.
When the same new name is simultaneously published
for more than one taxon,
the first author who adopts it
in one sense, rejecting the other, or provides another
name
for one of these taxa must be followed.
Example:
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl. 1753) published
Aira 1
spicata on p. 63 and
Aira 7
spicata
on p. 64, but in “Errata” line 9 from base
(vol. 2, after “Nomina trivialia” and “Addenda”)
substituted
indica for
spicata of species 1 on p. 63; the name
Aira spicata L.
is therefore
legitimate for species 7 on p. 64.
A
name
is illegitimate
and
must be rejected
if it is the name of a taxon
which on
transfer of that taxon from the animal
to the plant kingdom becomes, at the time
of such transfer,
a homonym of a name for a plant taxon.
If a taxon is transferred from the plant kingdom
to the animal kingdom, its name
or names retain their status
in botanical nomenclature for purposes of homonymy.
In all other cases,
the name of a plant
must not be rejected
merely because it is the
name of an animal.
50 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 36 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Rejection | 66—70 |
An epithet of a subdivision of a genus
is illegitimate and must be rejected
in the
following special cases:
(1)
If it was published in contravention of Arts.
51,
54,
57,
58, or
60,
i.e. if its
author did not adopt
the earliest legitimate epithet available
for the taxon with its
particular circumscription,
position, and rank.
(2) If it is an epithet of a type subgenus or section which contravenes Art. 22.
Note 1.
Illegitimate epithets
must not be taken into consideration
for purposes of
priority (see Art.
45)
except in the rejection of a later homonym (Art.
64).
Note 2.
An epithet originally published
as part of an illegitimate name may be
made legitimate later in another combination (see Art.
72).
A specific or infraspecific epithet is illegitimate
and must be rejected
if
it was
published in contravention of Arts.
51,
53,
55,
56,
57,
58, or
60, i.e. if its author
did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet available
for the taxon with its particular
circumscription,
position, and rank.
Note.
The publication of a name containing
an illegitimate epithet must not be
taken
into consideration for purposes of priority
(see Art.
45)
except in the rejection
of a later homonym (Art.
64).
A specific epithet is not illegitimate merely because
it was originally published
under an illegitimate generic name,
but must be taken into consideration for purposes
of priority
if the epithet and the corresponding combination
are in other respects
in accordance with the rules.
In the same way an infraspecific epithet may be
legitimate even if originally published under an
illegitimate name of a species or
infraspecific taxon.
Note.
An
illegitimate epithet
may be made legitimate later in another combination
(see Art.
72).
A
name must
be rejected if it is used in different senses
and so has become a long-
persistent source of error.
Examples: The name Rosa villosa L. (Sp. Pl. 491. 1753) is rejected, because it has been
applied to several different species
and has become a source of error.
—
Lavandula spica L.
(Sp. Pl. 572. 1753)
included the two species subsequently known as
L. angustifolia Mill. and
L. latifolia Vill. The name
Lavandula spica has been applied almost equally
to these two
species, and, being now ambiguous,
must be rejected (see Kew Bull. 1932: 295).
A name must be rejected if it is based on a type
consisting of two or more entirely
discordant elements,
unless it is possible to select one of these elements
as a satis-
factory type.
51 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 37 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
71—72 | Rejection |
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. 6: 15. 1791).
—
The characters of the genus
Actinotinus Oliv. (Hook. Ic. Pl.
pl. 1740. 1888)
were derived from the two genera
Viburnum and
Aesculus,
owing to the
insertion of the inflorescence of a
Viburnum in the terminal bud of an
Aesculus by
a collector.
The names
Schrebera L. and
Actinotinus Oliv. must therefore be abandoned.
The name of the genus
Pouteria Aubl. (Pl. Guiane 85. 1775)
is based on a type which is
a mixture of a species of
Sloanea
(Elaeocarpaceae)
and a sapotaceous species
(flowers and
leaves); both elements can be easily separated,
as has been done by Martius,
and Radlkofer
was right in proposing
(Sitzber. Math.-Phys. Cl. Bayer. Akad. München 12: 333. 1882)
to
retain the name
Pouteria as correct for the part of the type
belonging to the
Sapotaceae.
A name must be rejected if it is based on a monstrosity.
Examples:
The generic name
Uropedium Lindl. (Orch. Linden. 28. 1846)
was based on a
monstrosity which is now referred to
Phragmipedium caudatum (Lindl.) Rolfe (Orchid Rev. 4:
330. 1896); it must therefore be rejected.
—
The name
Ornithogalum fragiferum Vill.
(Hist.
Pl. Dauph. 2: 270. 1787)
was based on a monstrosity and must therefore be rejected.
In cases foreseen in Arts.
63—71,
the name or epithet to be rejected is replaced
by the oldest legitimate name or (in a combination)
by the oldest available legitimate
epithet
in the rank concerned. If none exists,
a new name or epithet must be chosen.
Similar action is to be taken
when use of an epithet is inadmissible
under Arts.
21,
23,
and
24.
Example:
Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genus
Radiola must not be
called
Radiola radiola (L.) H. Karst. (1882),
as that combination is
inadmissible under Art.
23;
the next oldest specific epithet is
multiflorum, but the name
Linum multiflorum Lam. (1778)
is illegitimate,
since it was a superfluous name for
L. radiola L.: under
Radiola, the species
must be called
R. linoides Roth (1788), since
linoides is the oldest legitimate specific epithet
available.
Note.
When a new epithet is required, an author may,
if he wishes, adopt an
epithet previously given to the taxon
in an illegitimate name, if there is no obstacle
to its employment in the new position or sense;
the epithet in the resultant com-
bination
is treated as new.
Example:
The name
Talinum polyandrum Hook. (Bot. Mag.
pl. 4833. 1855) is illegitimate,
being a later homonym of
T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pav. (Syst. 1: 115. 1798);
when Bentham
transferred
T. polyandrum Hook. to
Calandrinia, he called it
Calandrinia polyandra (Fl.
Austr. 1: 172. 1863). The epithet
polyandra in this combination is treated as new,
dating from
1863, and the binomial should be written
Calandrinia polyandra Benth., not
C. polyandra
(Hook.) Benth.
Authors should avoid adoption of an illegitimate epithet
previously published for the
same taxon.
52 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 38 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 73 |
Chapter VI. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
Section 1. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS
The original spelling of a name or epithet
must be retained, except
for the
correc-
tion of
typographic or orthographic errors.
The consonants
w and
y, foreign to classical Latin, and
k, rare in that language,
are permissible in Latin plant names.
Diacritic signs are not used in Latin plant names.
In names (either new or old)
drawn from words in which
such signs appear, the signs must be suppressed with
the necessary transcription of the letters so modified; for example
ä,
ö,
ü become
respectively
ae,
oe,
ue;
é,
è,
ê become
e, or sometimes
ae;
ø becomes
oe;
å becomes
ao; the diaeresis,
however, is permissible
(Cephaëlis for
Cephaelis).*
Note 1.
The words “original spelling” in this Article
mean the spelling employed
when the name was validly published.
They do not refer to the use of an initial
capital
or small letter, this being a matter of typography (see
Art.
21, Rec.
73F).
Note 2.
The use of a wrong connecting vowel or vowels
(or the omission of a
connecting vowel) in a name
or an epithet is treated as an orthographic error
(see
Rec.
73G).
Note 3.
The
wrong use
of the terminations
i,
ii,
ae,
iae,
anus, or
ianus,
mentioned
in Rec. 73C (a, b, d),
is treated as
an orthographic error.
Note 4.
The liberty of correcting a name must be used with reserve,
especially
if the change affects the first syllable and,
above all, the first letter of the name.
Note 5.
When changes made in orthography
by earlier authors who adopt
personal, geographic, or vernacular
names in nomenclature are intentional latiniza-
tions,
they must be preserved.
Note 6.
The letters
j and
v must be changed to
i and
u respectively when they
represent vowels;
the reverse changes must be made when consonants
are required.
Examples of
retention of original spelling:
The generic names
Mesembryanthemum L.
(1753) and
Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled
by Linnaeus and the spelling
must not be altered to
Mesembrianthemum and
Amarantus respectively, although these latter
forms are philologically preferable
(see Kew Bull. 1928: 113, 287).
—
Valantia L. (1753) and
Clutia L. (1753), commemorating Vaillant and Cluyt
respectively, must not be altered
to
Vaillantia and
Cluytia**: Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists
deliberately as
“Valantius” and “Clutius”.
—
Phoradendron Nutt. must not be altered to
Phoradendrum.
—
Triaspis mozambica Adr. Juss. must not be altered to
T. mossambica, as in Engler, Pfl.
Ost-Afr. C: 232 (1895).
—
Alyxia ceylanica Wight must not be altered to
A. zeylanica, as in
Trimen,
Handb. Fl. Ceyl. 3: 127 (1895).
—
Fagus sylvatica L. must not be altered to
F.
————————
*
The diaeresis should be used where required in works
in which diphthongs are not
represented by special type, e.g.
Cephaëlis in works in which there is
Arisaema, not
Arisæma.
**
In some cases an altered spelling of a generic name
is conserved e.g.
Bougainvillea
(see list of nomina conservanda no. 2350).
53 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 39 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
73 | Orthography |
silvatica. The correct classical spelling
silvatica is recommended for adoption
in the case of
a new name (Rec.
73E),
but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica, deliberately adopted by Lin-
naeus, must not be altered.
—
The spelling of the generic name
Lespedeza must not be
altered,
although it commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes
(see Rhodora 36: 130-132,
390-392. 1934).
Examples of
typographic errors:
Globba brachycarpa Baker
(in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 6:
205. 1890) and
Hetaeria alba Ridley
(Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 32: 404. 1896)
are typographic
errors for
Globba trachycarpa Baker and
Hetaeria alta Ridley respectively
(see Journ. of Bot.
59: 349. 1921).
—
Thevetia nereifolia Adr. Juss. ex Steud,
is an obvious typographic error
for
T. neriifolia.
Examples of
orthographic errors:
—
Hexagona Fr. (Epicr. 496. 1836-38)
was an orthographic
error for
Hexagonia; Fries had previously
(Syst. Myc. 1: 344. 1821) cited
Hexagonia Poll.
erroneously as
“Hexagona Poll.”.
—
Gluta benghas L. (Mant. 293.1771),
being an orthographic
error for
G. renghas, should be cited as
G. renghas L., as has been done by Engler (in DC.
Monogr. Phan. 4: 22.5. 1883);
the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is
“Renghas”, not “Benghas”.
—
Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC.
(Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 17: 76.
1828) should be cited as
P. opuntiiflora DC. (cf. Rec. 73G).
—
Cacalia napeaefolia DC.
(in DC. Prodr. 6: 328. 1837) and
Senecio napeaefolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip.
(Flora 28: 498. 1845)
should be cited as
Cacalia napaeifolia DC. and
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip.
respectively; the specific epithet refers
to the resemblance of the leaves to those of the genus
Napaea (not
Napea), and the reduced stem-ending
i should have been used instead of
ae.
—
Dioscorea lecardi De Wild. should be corrected to
D. lecardii, and
Berberis wilsonae Hemsl.
should be corrected to
B. wilsoniae: the genitive forms derived from Lecard (m)
and Wilson
(f) prescribed by Rec. 73C are
lecardii and
wilsoniae respectively.
Example
of
both a typographic
and an orthographic error:
Rosa pissarti Carr. (Rev. Hort.
1880: 314)
is a typographic error for
R. pissardi (see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190),
which may be
corrected to
R. pissardii
(see Rec. 73C, b).
Examples illustrating Note 6:
Taraxacvm Zinn must be changed to
Taraxacum, Iungia L. f.
to
Jungia, Saurauja Willd. to
Saurauia.
When a new name or epithet is to be derived from Greek,
the transliteration to Latin
should conform to classical usage.
The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.
The etymology of new names
and epithets should be given when the meaning of these
is not obvious.
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 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, except
when the name ends in
er, when
a is added (e.g.
Kernera after Kerner). In latinized names
ending in
-us, this termination is dropped before adding the suffix
(Dillenia).
(c)
The syllables not modified by these endings
retain their original spelling, unless they
contain letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritic signs
(see Art. 73).
(d)
Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix,
or be modified by anagram or
abbreviation.
In these cases they count as different words from the original name.
Examples:
Durvillea and
Urvillea; Lapeirousia and
Peyrousea; Englera, Englerastrum, and
Englerella; Bouchea and
Ubochea; Gerardia and
Graderia; Martia and
Martiusia.
54 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 40 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Orthography | 73 |
When a new specific or
infraspecific epithet
is taken from the name of a man,
it should
be formed in the following 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
(ramondii
from Ramond),
except when the name ends in
-er, when
i is added (thus
kerneri from Kerner).
(c)
The syllables not modified by these endings
retain their original spelling, unless they
contain
letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritic signs (see Art.
73).
(d)
When epithets taken from the name of a man
have an adjectival form they are
formed in a similar way (e.g.
Geranium robertianum,
Verbena hasslerana, Asarum hayatanum).
(e)
If the personal name is already Latin or Greek,
the appropriate Latin genitive should be
used, e.g.
alexandri from Alexander,
francisci from Franciscus,
augusti from Augustus,
linnaei
from Linnaeus,
hectoris from Hector.
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).
An epithet derived from a geographical name
is preferably an adjective
and usually takes
the termination
-ensis, -(a)nus, -inus, -ianus, or
-icus.
Examples:
Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec),
Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia),
Polygonum
pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania).
A new epithet should be written in conformity
with the original spelling of the word or
words
from which it is derived and in accordance
with the accepted usage of Latin and
latinization
(see Art.
23).
Examples: silvestris (not sylvestris), sinensis (not chinensis).
All specific and infraspecific epithets
should be written with a small initial letter,
although
authors desiring to use capital initial letters
may do so when the epithets are directly derived
from the names of persons (whether actual or mythical),
or are vernacular (or non-Latin)
names,
or are former generic names.
A compound name or an epithet combining elements
derived from two or more Greek
or Latin words
should be formed, as far as practicable,
in accordance with classical usage
(see
Note 2 to Art. 73).
This may be stated as follows:
(a)
In a true compound
(as distinct from pseudocompounds such as
Myos-otis, nidis-avis)
a noun or adjective in a non-final position
appears as a bare stem without case-ending
(Hydro-
phyllum).
(b)
Before a vowel the final vowel of this stem,
if any, is normally elided
(Chrys-anthemum,
mult-angulus),
with the exception of Greek
y and
i
(poly-anthus, Meli-osma).
(c)
Before a consonant the final vowel
is normally preserved in Greek
(mono-carpus, Poly-
gonum, Coryne-phorus,
Meli-lotus), except that
a is commonly replaced by
o
(Hemero-callis
from
hemera); in Latin the final vowel is reduced to
i
(multi-color,
menthi-folius, salvii-folius).
(d)
If the stem ends in a consonant, a connecting vowel
(o in Greek,
i in Latin) is inserted
before a following consonant
(Odont-o-glossum,
cruc-i-formis).
55 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 41 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
74—75 | Orthography |
Some irregular forms, however,
have been extensively used through false analogy
(atro-
purpureus,
on the analogy of pseudo-compounds such as
fusco-venatus in which
o is the
ablative case-ending).
Others are used as revealing etymological distinctions
(caricae-formis
from
Carica, as distinct from
carici-formis from
Carex). Where such irregularities occur
in
the original spelling of existing compounds,
this spelling should be retained.
Note.
The hyphens in the above examples are given solely
for explanatory reasons. They
should all be
eliminated in botanical names and epithets except in
nidis-avis,
terrae-novae
and similar Latin pseudo-compounds.
Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name
of the host plant should be
spelled in accordance
with the accepted spelling of this name; other spellings
must be
regarded as orthographic variants
and should be corrected.
Examples:
Phyllachora anonicola Chardon, 1940,
should be altered to
P. annonicola, since
the spelling
Annona is now accepted in preference to
Anona; Meliola albizziae Hansford et
Deighton, 1948,
should be altered to
M. albiziae, since the spelling
Albizia is now accepted
in preference to
Albizzia.
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),
Prunella (not
Brunella).
(2)
If Linnaeus did not do so,
then the spelling which is
more correct philo-
logically is accepted, e.g.
Agrostemma (not
Agrostema),
Euonymus (not
Evonymus).
(3)
If the two spellings are equally correct philologically,
and there is a great
preponderance of usage
in favour of one of them, that one is accepted, e.g.
Rhodo-
dendron (not
Rhododendrum).
(4)
If the two spellings are equally correct philologically,
and there is not a great
preponderance of usage in favour of
one of them, then the spelling that is in
accordance or
more nearly in accordance with Recommendations
73A, 73B, and 73G
is accepted, e.g.
Ludwigia (not
Ludvigia),
Ortegia (not
Ortega).
When two or more generic names are so similar
that they are likely to be confused*,
because
they are applied to related taxa or for any other reason,
they are to be
treated as variants,
which are homonyms when they are based on different types.
Examples of
names treated as orthographic variants:
Astrostemma and
Asterostemma;
Pleuripetalum and
Pleuropetalum; Collumella and
Columellia, both commemorating Columella,
the Roman writer on agriculture;
Eschweilera and
Eschweileria; Skytanthus and
Scytanthus.
—
The
three generic names
Bradlea Adans.,
Bradleja Banks ex Gaertn., and
Braddleya Veil., all
commemorating
Richard Bradley (1675-1732),
must be treated as orthographic variants because
one only can be used without serious risk of confusion.
Examples of
names not likely to be confused:
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
(Poaceae) and
Peltophorum
(Fabaceae).
————————
*
When it is doubtful whether names
are sufficiently alike to be confused,
they should
be referred to the General Committee.
56 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 42 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Gender | 75 |
The same applies to specific epithets within the same genus
and to infraspecific
epithets within the same species.
Examples of
epithets treated as orthographic variants:
chinensis and
sinensis; ceylanica
and
zeylanica; napaulensis, nepalensis, and
nipalensis; polyanthemos and
polyanthemus;
macrostachys and
macrostachyus; heteropus and
heteropodus; poikilantha and
poikilanthes;
pteroides and
pteroideus; trinervis and
trinervius; macrocarpon and
macrocarpum; trachy-
caulum and
trachycaulon.
Examples of
epithets not likely to be confused:
Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip.
and
S. napifolius Macowan are different names, the epithets
napaeifolius and
napifolius being
derived respectively from
Napaea and
Napus.
—
Lysimachia hemsleyana and
Lysimachia
hemsleyi
(see, however,
Rec. 23A).
Section 2. GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES
The gender of generic names should be determined as follows:
(1)
A Greek or Latin word adopted as a generic name
should retain its gender. When the
gender varies
the author should choose one of the alternative genders.
In doubtful cases
general usage should be followed.
The following names, however,
whose classical gender is
masculine,
should be treated as feminine
in accordance with botanical custom:
Adonis,
Diospyros, Strychnos; so also should
Orchis and
Stachys, which are masculine in Greek and
feminine in Latin. The name
Hemerocallis, derived from the Latin and Greek
hemerocalles
(n.), although masculine in Linnaeus’
Species Plantarum,
should be treated as feminine in
order to bring it
into conformity with all other generic names ending in
-is.
(2)
Generic names formed from two or more Greek or Latin words
should take the gender
of the last. If the ending is altered,
however, the gender should follow it.
Examples of names formed from Greek words:*
Modern compounds ending in
-codon, -myces, -odon, -panax,
-pogon,
-stemon,
and other
masculine words should be masculine.
The fact that
the generic name
Andropogon L. was
originally
treated as neuter by Linnaeus
is immaterial.
Similarly,
all modern compounds ending in
-achne, -chlamys, -daphne,
-mecon,
-osma
(the modern transcription of
the feminine
Greek word
osmé)
and other feminine words should
be feminine.
The fact that
Dendromecon Benth.
and
Hesperomecon E. L. Greene
were
originally
ascribed the neuter gender
is immaterial.
An exception should be made
in the
case of names
ending in
-gaster,
which strictly speaking
ought to
be feminine,
but which
should be treated
as masculine in accordance
with botanical custom.
Similarly,
all modern compounds ending in
-ceras,
-dendron, -nema, -stigma, -stoma,
and
other neuter words should be neuter.
The fact that Robert Brown and
Bunge respectively
made
Aceras and
Xanthoceras feminine is immaterial.
An exception should be made for
names
ending in
-anthos (or
-anthus) and
-chilos
(-chilus or
-cheilos), which ought to be neuter,
since that is the gender of the
greek words
anthos and
cheilos, but which
have generally been
treated as masculine
and should have that gender
assigned to them.
Examples of
compound generic names
where the termination of the last word is altered:
Stenocarpus, Dipterocarpus,
and all other modern compounds ending in the Greek masculine
carpos (or
carpus), e.g.
Hymenocarpos,
should be masculine. Those in
-carpa or
-carpaea,
however, should be feminine, e.g.
Callicarpa and
Polycarpaea; and those in
-carpon, -carpum,
or
-carpium should be neuter, e.g.
Polycarpon, Ormocarpum, and
Pisocarpium.
————————
* Examples of names formed from Latin words are not given as these offer few difficulties.
57 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 43 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
75 | Gender |
(3)
Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names
or adjectives used as generic
names,
whose gender is not apparent, should take the gender
assigned to them by their
authors.
Where the original author has failed to indicate the gender,
the next subsequent
author may choose a gender,
and his choice should be accepted.
Examples:
Taonabo Aubl.
(Pl. Guiane 569. 1775) should be feminine:
Aublet’s two species
were
T. dentata and
T. punctata.
—
Agati Adans. (Fam. 2: 326. 1763)
was published without
indication of gender:
the feminine gender was assigned to it by
Desvaux (Journ. de Bot. 1:
120. 1813),
who was the first subsequent author to adopt the name,
and his choice should be
accepted.
—
Boehmer (in Ludwig, Def. Gen. Pl. ed. 3. 436. 1760) and
Adanson (Fam. 2:
356. 1763) failed to indicate the gender of
Manihot: the first author to supply specific
epithets was
Crantz (Inst. Rei Herh. 1: 167. 1766), who proposed the names
Manihot gossypii-
folia, etc., and
Manihot should therefore be treated as feminine.
—
Cordyceps Link (Handb.
3: 346. 1833)
is adjectival in form and has no classical gender;
Link assigned to it
C. capitatus,
etc., and
Cordyceps should therefore be treated as masculine.
(4)
Generic names ending in
-oides or
-odes should be treated as feminine irrespective
of the gender assigned to them by the original author.
When a genus is divided into two or more genera,
the gender of the new generic name
or names should be that of the generic name that is retained.
Example:
When
Boletus is divìded,
the gender of the new generic names should be
masculine:
Xerocomus,
Boletellus, etc.
58 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 44 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Modification | Div. III |
Division
I I I .
Provisions for modification
of the Code
Provision 1.
Modification of the Code. The Code may be
modified only by
action of a plenary session of an
International Botanical Congress on a resolution
moved by
the Nomenclature Section of that Congress.
Provision 2.
Nomenclature Committees.
Permanent Nomenclature Committees
are established under the auspices of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
Members of these committees are elected by
an International Botanical Congress.
The Committees have power to co-opt
and to establish subcommittees;
such officers
as may be desired
are
elected.
1.
General
Comittee,
composed of the secretaries of the other committees,
the rapporteur-
général, the president and the secretary of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy,
and at least 5 members to be appointed by the Nomenclature Section.
The rapporteur-général
is charged with the presentation of
nomenclature proposals to the International Botanical
Congress.
2. Committee for Spermatophyta.
3. Committee for Pteridophyta.
4. Committee for Bryophyta.
5. Committee for Fungi and Lichens.
6. Committee for Algae.
7. Committee for Bacteria.
8. Committee for Virus.
9. Committee for Cultivated Plants.
10. Committee for
Fossil Plants.
11. Editorial Committee,
charged with the preparation and publication of the Code
in
conformity with the decisions adopted by
the International Botanical Congress.
Chairman: the
rapporteur-général
of the previous Congress,
who is charged with the general duties in
connection with the editing of the Code.
Provision 3. The Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical Congress.
Its officers are:
1. The president of the Nomenclature Section,
elected by the
organizing committee of
the International Botanical Congress in question.
2. The
recorder,
appointed by the same organizing committee.
3. The rapporteur-général,
elected by the previous Congress.
4. The vice-rapporteur,
elected by the organizing
committee on
the proposal of the rapporteur-général.
Provision 4.
The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds:
1. a pre-
liminary guiding mail vote and
2. a final and binding vote at
the Nomenclature
Section of the International Congress.
Qualifications for voting:
A.
Preliminary mail vote.
1. The members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
2. The authors of proposals.
3. The members of the nomenclature committees.
Note. No accumulation or transfer of personal votes is permissible.
59 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 45 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Div. III | Modification |
B. Final vote at the sessions of the Nomenclature Section.
1. All officially enrolled members of the Section.
No accumulation or transfer of personal
votes is permissible.
2. Official delegates or vice-delegates of
the institutes appearing on a list drawn up by
the Bureau of Nomenclature of
the International Botanical Congress
and submitted to the
General Committee for final approval;
such institutes are entitled to 1-7 votes,
as specified
on the list.
Transfer of institutional votes to specified vice-delegates is permissible,
but no
single person will be allowed more than 15 votes,
his personal vote included. Institutional
votes may be deposited at the Bureau of Nomenclature to be counted
in a specified way for
specified proposals.
60 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 46 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H. 1 |
Names of
hybrids and some special
categories
Hybrids or putative hybrids between two species
of the same genus are 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 the multiplication
sign
(× )
or the name of the genus
followed by
the specific epithets
of the two
parents
connected by the
same
sign.
When the hybrid is of known experimental
origin,
the formula may be made more precise by the addition of the sign
♀ to the
epithet of the parent producing the female gamete and
♂ to the epithet of the parent
producing the male gamete.
The name, which is subject to the same rules
as names of species, is distinguished
from the latter
by the multiplication-sign × before the (“specific”) epithet.
Where binary “specific” names of Latin form
are used for hybrids, all offspring
of crosses
between individuals of the same parent species
receive the same binary
name.
An exception may be made
for names of amphidiploids
treated as species,
which may bear a separate epithet
without the multiplication sign
(× ) and are then
subject to the same rules
as names of species.
Examples:
Digitalis lutea ♀ ×
D. purpurea ♂
—
Salix ×
capreola
=
Salix aurita ×
S.
caprea, or alternatively
Salix aurita ×
caprea.
Note 1.
When polymorphic parental species are involved
and if infraspecific taxa
are recognized in them,
greater precision may be achieved by the use of formulae
than by giving the hybrids “specific” names.
Note 2.
Designations consisting of the specific epithets
of the parents combined
in unaltered form by a hyphen,
or with the ending of only one epithet changed,
or
consisting of the specific epithet of
one parent combined with the generic name of
the other
(with or without change of ending) are considered as formulae
and not
as true epithets.
Examples:
The designation
Potentilla atrosanguinea-formosa
published by Maund is con-
sidered as a formula meaning
Potentilla atrosanguinea ×
P. formosa.
—
Verbascum nigro-
lychnitis Schiede (Pl. Hybr. 40. 1825)
is considered as a formula,
Verbascum lychnites ×
V.
nigrum; the correct binary name for this hybrid is
Verbascum ×
schiedeanum Koch.
Note 3.
Graft chimaeras (sometimes called “graft hybrids”),
being horticultural
objects, are dealt with by
the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated
Plants.
Note 4.
The order of the names or epithets in the formula
may be either alpha-
betical (as in this Code)
or with the name or epithet of the female parent first
when
this is known. The female (♀ ) and
male ( ♂ ) signs may be added if desired.
The
method used in any publication should be clearly stated.
61 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 47 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
H. 2—H. 4 | Hybrids |
Hybrids or putative hybrids between infraspecific taxa
of the same species may
be designated by a formula and,
whenever it seems useful or necessary, by a name
of the same taxonomic rank as the parents or,
if these are of different rank, that
of the higher-ranking parent.
In the formula the order of
the names or epithets
and the use of the signs ♀ and ♂
should follow the procedure set down in Art. H. 1.
Note.
In general greater precision will be achieved
with less danger of confusion
if formulae
rather than names are used for such hybrids.
Example:
Lilium davidii var.
davimottiae (=
L. davidii var.
davidii ×
L. davidii var.
willmottiae).
Bigeneric hybrids (i.e. hybrids between species
of two genera) are 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 the multi-
plication-sign ×.
The name consists of a new “generic” name
usually formed by an euphonious
combination of parts
of the names of the two parent genera,
and a (“specific”)
epithet.
The epithet of a bigeneric hybrid must not be placed
under the name of either
of the parent genera.
All hybrids between the same two genera bear the same
“generic” name, this to
be
preceded by the multiplication-sign ×.
Examples:
× Asplenophyllitis (=
Asplenium ×
Phyllitis); ×
Heucherella (=
Heuchera ×
Tiarella);
× Heucherella tiarelloides (=
Heuchera ×
brizoides ×
Tiarella cordifolia), not
Heuchera ×
tiarelloides; ×
Mahoberberis (=
Berberis ×
Mahonia).
Note. “Hybrid subgenera” and “hybrid sections” may be named in the same way.
Example:
Iris subgen. ×
Regeliocyclus, comprising the hybrids
between species belonging
to subgenus
Regelia and subgenus
Oncocyclus.
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 multigeneric may be given
new generic names formed by a
combination of parts
of the names of the parent genera; usually, however,
multi-
generic hybrid groups combining three or
more genera receive a conventional name
consisting of
the name of a person eminent as a collector, grower,
or student of the
group, to which is added the termination
-ara;
no such name may exceed eight syllables.
Examples:
Salix
× straehleri [=
Salix aurita ×
S. cinerea ×
S. repens or, alternatively,
Salix
(aurita ×
repens) ×
S. cinerea].
× Sanderara (=
Brassia ×
Cochlioda ×
Odontoglossum);
× Potinara (=
Brassavola ×
Cattleya ×
Laelia ×
Sophronitis). Correct validly published compounds such as
× Dialaelio-
cattleya (composed of the generic name
Cattleya, and parts of
Diacrium and
Laelia) must,
however, be retained.
62 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 48 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Hybrids | H. 5 |
When different hybrid forms of the same parentage
(pleomorphic hybrids, com-
binations between
different forms of a collective species, segregates, back-crosses)
are united in a collective taxon, the subdivisions are classed
under the binary name
applied to the hybrid population or
group like the subdivisions of a species under
the binary name
of the species. These forms are recognized as nothomorphs;
when
desirable a nothomorph may be designated by an epithet
preceded by the binary
name of the hybrid group and the term
“nothomorph”
(nothomorpha, abbreviated
as nm.).
Note.
Nothomorpha:
— a term derived from the Greek
νοθος and
μορφη
meaning “hybrid form” and applied to any hybrid form, whether
Fı, segregate,
or backcross.
Examples:
Mentha
× niliaca nm.
lamarckii (a form of the pleomorphic hybrid
Mentha ×
niliaca =
M. longifolia ×
M. rotundifolia);
Ulmus ×
hollandica nm.
hollandica and nm.
vegeta (forms of
Ulmus ×
hollandica =
U. carpinifolia ×
U. glabra).
Taxa which are apomicts may, if desired, be designated as such in the following manner:
(1)
If they are considered of specific rank,
by the interpolation of the abbreviation “ap.”
between the generic name and the epithet.
(2)
If they are considered as of infraspecific rank,
by the interpolation of the abbreviation
“ap.”
between the term denoting the rank and the infraspecific epithet.
Taxa which are clones may, if desired,
be designated as such by the use of the term
“clone”
(abbreviated as “cl.”)
in the same manner as
“ap.”.
Nomina familiarum conservanda
Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda
63 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 49 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Types | Guide |
GUIDE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF TYPES
The following is intended as a guide
to the determination or selection of the
nomenclatural types of previously published taxa.
Where the application
of a rule
is concerned,
reference is made to the appropriate Article.
1.
The choice made by the original author,
if definitely expressed at the time
of the original publication of the name of the taxon,
is final. If he included only
one element,
that one must always be accepted as the
holotype
(Arts.
7,
9, 10).
If a
new name is based on a previously published description
of the taxon, the same
considerations apply to material
cited by the earlier author.
2.
A new name or epithet published
as an avowed substitute
(nomen novum)
for an older
name or epithet
is typified
by the type of the older name (Art. 7,
Note 4).
3.
A
lectotype may be chosen only
when an author failed to designate a holotype,
or when, for species or taxa of lower rank,
the type has been lost or destroyed
(Art. 7,
Note 3).
4.
Designation of a
lectotype
should be undertaken only in the light
of an
understanding of the group concerned.
Mechanical systems, such as the automatic
selection
of the first species or specimen cited or of a specimen
collected by the
person after whom a species is named,
should be avoided as unscientific and
productive of
possible future confusion and further change.
In choosing a lectotype,
all aspects of the protologue*
should be considered as
a basic guide.
a.
A
lectotype
must be chosen from among elements that were definitely
studied
by the author up to the time
the name of the taxon was published and included in
the protologue.
b.
Other things being equal, a specimen should be given
preference over pre-
Linnaean or other cited
descriptions or illustrations when
lectotypes of species
or
infraspecific taxa are designated.
c.
If a holotype was designated by the original author
and has been lost or
destroyed, an
isotype (Art. 7,
Note 3),
if such exists, must be chosen as the
lectotype.
If no holotype was designated by the original author and if
syntypes
(Art. 7,
Note 3)
exist, one of them must be chosen as tbe lectotype.
If no holotype
was designated by the original author
and if no syntypes are extant, the lectotype
should be chosen from among duplicates** of the syntypes
(isosyntypes), if such
————————
*
Protologue (from
πρωθος, first,
λογος, discourse):
everything associated with a name
at its first publication,
i.e. diagnosis,
description,
illustrations, references, synonymy, geo-
graphical data,
citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.
**
The word duplicate is here given its usual meaning
in herbarium curatorial practice.
It is part of
a single gathering made by a collector at one time.
However, the possibility of
a mixed gathering
must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype
and corres-
ponding caution used.
64 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 50 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Guide | Types |
exist. If neither an isotype, a syntype,
nor an isosyntype is extant, a
paratype***, if
such exists,
may be chosen as lectotype. If none of the specimens
cited in the proto-
logue
nor any duplicates of them are extant, a neotype (Art. 7,
Note 3)
may be
designated.
d.
In choosing a lectotype,
any indication of intent by the author of a name
should be given preference unless
such indication is contrary to
the protologue.
Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations
on herbarium sheets, recognizable
figures,
and epithets such as
typicus, genuinus, vulgaris, communis, etc.
e.
In cases when two or more elements
were included in or cited with the original
description, the reviewer should use his
best judgment in
the selection of a
lecto-
type,
but if another author has already segregated one or two
elements as other
taxa, the residue or part of it
should be designated as the
lectotype if its essential
characters correspond with the original description.
If it can be shown that the
element best fitting the
protologue has been removed, it
should be restored
and
treated as the
lectotype. Whenever the
original material
of a taxon is heterogeneous,
the
lectotype
should be selected so as to preserve current usage
unless another
element agrees better with the
protologue
(Rec.
7B).
f.
The first choice of a
lectotype
must be followed
by subsequent workers
(Art.
8)
unless the original material
is rediscovered, or
unless it can be shown that the choice
was based
upon a misinterpretation
of the protologue.
5.
In selecting a
neotype even more care and critical knowledge are essential,
as
the reviewer
usually has no guide
except his own judgment as to what best fits the
protologue.
If his selection proves to be faulty
it will inevitably result in further
change.
A
neotype may be
designated only when all
the originally cited material
and its duplicates
are believed lost
or destroyed (Art. 7,
Note 3).
The first choice of a neotype must be followed
by subsequent workers unless the
original material
is rediscovered, or unless the choice neglected an available
lecto-
type, or if it can be shown that the choice
was based on a misinterpretation of the
original protologue.
A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype (Art. 7,
Note 3).
6.
For the name of a fossil species, the
lectotype, when one is needed, should,
if
possible, be a specimen illustrated
at the time of the first valid publication
(Rec.
7C).
————————
***
A
paratype is a specimen cited
in the protologue
other than the holotype or isotype(s).
In most cases where no holotype
was designated
there will also be no paratypes,
since all
the cited specimens
will be syntypes.
However, in cases where
an author cited two or more
specimens as types
(Art. 7,
Note 3), the remaining
cited specimens
are paratypes
and not
syntypes.
65 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 51 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation | Guide |
GUIDE TO THE CITATION OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
A reference to literature in a botanical publication
should consist of the following
items,
in the order in which they are treated below:
1.
Name of Author(s).
In a citation appended to the name of a taxon, the name
of the author should be abbreviated as recommended
in Rec. 46A.
In other citations
(as in bibliographies),
the name of the author should be given in full;
the last name
first, followed by first name(s).
The use of the full name (rather than initials)
tends to avoid errors.
If several authors are cited,
the name of the last should be preceded
by the
word
et or by the sign “&”
(see Rec. 46B).
After the name of a taxon, an unabbreviated author’s name
should be separated
from what follows by a comma;
an abbreviated name needs no punctuation other
than the period (full stop) indicating abbreviation.
2.
Title.
After the name of a taxon, the title of a book
is commonly abbreviated,
and the title of an article
in a serial is commonly omitted. Elsewhere
(as in biblio-
graphies),
titles should be cited exactly as they appear on
the title-page of the book
or at the head of the article.
In a citation appended to the name of a taxon,
no punctuation should separate
the title from
what follows other than a period (full stop)
indicating abbreviation.
Examples of
Taxonomic Citation of Authors and Titles:
P. Br. Hist. Jam.
—
Hook. f. Fl.
Brit. Ind.
—
G. F. Hoffm. Gen. Umbell.
—
G. Don, Gen. Hist.
—
H.B.K. Nov. Gen. Sp.
—
L. Sp. Pl.
—
Michx. Fl. Bor.-Am.
—
DC. Prodr.
—
T.
et G. Fl. N. Am.
The last five authors’
names are not abbreviated
strictly in accordance with Rec.
46A.
but with common usage.
Examples of
Names written in full:
Mueller, Ferdinand Jacob Heinrich von.
—
Müller,
Johann Friedrich Theodor (“Fritz Müller”).
—
Mueller, Ferdinand Ferdinandowitsch.
—
Müller, Franz August.
Müller, Franz.
3.
Name of Serial.
Principal words should be abbreviated* to the first syllable,
with such additional letters or syllables as
may be necessary to avoid confusion;
articles, prepositions,
and other particles (der, the, of, de, et, and so forth)
should
be omitted except when that omission might create
confusion. The order of words
should be that
which appears on the title-page. Unnecessary words, subtitles,
and
the like should be omitted.
To avoid confusion among publications having
the same name or very similar
names,
the place of publication or other distinguishing data
should be added in
brackets.
No punctuation other than a period (full stop)
indicating abbreviation should
separate the name of
the serial from what follows.
Examples of
Citation of Names of Serials:
Ann. Sci. Nat.; not Ann. des Sci. Nat.
—
Am.
Journ. Bot.; not Amer. Jour. Bot.
—
Bot. Jahrb. (Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik,
Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie);
not Engl. Bot. Jahrb. (Engler was the editor,
————————
*
Titles consisting of a single word,
and personal names, are customarily not abbreviated;
but many exceptions are sanctioned by usage.
66 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 52 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Guide | Citation |
not the author of the series).
—
Mem. Soc. Cub. Hist. Nat.
(Memorias de la Sociedad
Cubana de Historia Natural “Felipe Poey”).
—
Acta Soc. Faun. Fl. Fenn.
(Acta Societatis
pro Fauna et Flora Fennica).
—
Bull. Jard. Bot. Etat [Bruxelles]
(Bulletin du Jardin
Botanique de l’État).
—
Flora [Quito]
(to distinguish it from the well-known “Flora”
published in Jena).
—
Hedwigia; not Hedwig.
—
Gartenflora; not Gartenfl.
—
Missouri Bot.
Gard. Bull.;
not Bull. Mo. Bot. Gard. (see title-page).
4.
Edition and Series.
If a book has appeared in more than one edition,
those
subsequent to the first should be designated
by “ed. 2”, “ed. 3”, and so forth.
If a serial has appeared in more than one series in
which the numbers of volumes
are repeated,
those subsequent to the first should be designated
by a roman capital
numeral, or
by “ser. 2”, “ser. 3”, and so forth.
Examples of
Editions and Series:
G. F. Hoffm. Gen. Umbell. ed. 2.
—
Compt. Rend.
Acad. URSS. II.
(Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS. Nouvelle Série).
—
Ann. Sci. Nat. IV.
—
Mem. Am. Acad. II. (or ser. 2.)
(Memoirs of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences. New Series); not Mem. Am. Acad. N.S.
5.
Volume.
The volume should be shown by an arabic numeral;
for greater
clarity this should be printed in boldface type.
When volumes are not numbered,
the years on the title-pages
may be used as volume-numbers.
The volume-number should always be separated
from the numbers of pages and
illustrations by a colon.
6.
Part or Issue.
If a volume consists of separately paged parts,
the number of
the part should be inserted immediately
after the volume-number (and before the
colon),
either in parentheses or as a superscript.
For volumes which are continuously
paged,
the designation of parts serves no useful purpose
and leads to typographical
errors.
7.
Pages.
Pages are shown by arabic numerals,
except those otherwise designated
in the original.
If several pages are cited, the numbers are separated by commas;
or
if more than two consecutive pages are cited,
the first and last are given, separated
by a dash.
8.
Illustrations.
Figures and plates, when it is desirable to refer to them,
should
be indicated by arabic numerals preceded
by f. and pl.
or t.
(tabula) respectively;
for greater clarity these should be printed in italic type.
9.
Dates.
The year of publication should end the citation;
or, in lists of works to
which reference is
made by author and date, it may be inserted
between the author’s
name and the title of his work.
If it is desirable to cite the exact date, day, month,
and year should be given in that order.
The date (in either position) may be
enclosed in parentheses.
Note.
With the exceptions above noted,
each item of the citation should be
separated
from the following item by a period (full stop).
Examples of
Citations Appended to Names of Taxa:
Anacampseros Sims, Bot. Mag.
33:
pl. 1367. 1811.
—
Tittmannia Brongn. Ann. Sci. Nat.
8: 385. 1826.
—
Monachaetum Naud.
Ann. Sci. Nat. III.
4: 48.
pl. 2. 1845.
—
Cudrania Tréc. Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 3.
8: 122.
f. 76-85.
67 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 53 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Citation | Guide |
1847.
—
Symphyoglossum Turcz. Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc.
21¹: 255. 1848.
—
Hedysarum gremiale
Rollins, Rhodora
42: 230 (1940).
—
Hydrocotyle nixioides Math. & Const.
Bull. Torrey Club
78: 303. 24 July 1951.
—
Ferula tolucensis H.B.K. Nov. Gen. Sp.
5: 12. 1821.
—
Critamus
dauricus G. F. Hoffm.
Gen. Umbell. ed. 2. 184. 1816.
—
Geranium tracyi Sandw. Kew Bull.
1941: 219. 9 March 1942.
—
Sanicula tuberosa Torr. Pacif. Railr. Rep.
4(1): 91. 1857.
Examples of
Bibliographic Citations:
Norton, John Bitting Smith.
Notes on some plants,
chiefly from the southern United States.
Missouri Bot. Gard. Rep.
9: 151-157.
pl. 46-50. 1898.
Reichenbach, Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig.
Handbuch des natürlichen Pflanzensystems. i-x,
1-346. 1837.
Don, George.
A general history of the dichlamydeous plants.
1: 1-818 (1831).
2: 1-875
(1832).
3: 1-867 (1834).
4: 1-908 (1838).
Schmidt, Friedrich.
Reisen im Arnur-Lande und auf der Insel Sachalin.
Botanischer Theil.
Mém. Acad. St.-Pétersb. VII.
12²: 1-277.
pl. 1-8. June 1868.
Glover, George Henry & Robbins, Wilfred William. 1915.
Colorado plants injurious to
livestock. Bull. Colorado Exp. Sta.
211: 3-74.
f. 1-92.
68 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 54 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 55 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
KEY TO THE NUMBERING OF THE ARTICLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Code
Montreal Preamble |
Code
Paris Preamble |
Code
Stockholm 1-9, 11, 17, 17A |
Rules
Cambridge 1-9, 15, 17, III |
Division I
Principles |
—
— |
—
— |
—
— |
I
II III IV V VI Division II Chapter I 1 2 3 4 4A 5 Chapter II section 1 |
I
pp.
II III IV V VI — Chapter II 1 2 3, PB 1 4 4A 5 para 1 Chapter II section 1 |
6 pp.
18 pp. — 16 pp. 7 pp. 2 pp. — Chapter II 8 pp. 12 pp. 12 pp., PB 1 13, 14 14A 15 para 1 Chapter III pp. — |
6 pp.
18 pp. — 16 pp. 7 pp. 2 pp. — Chapter II 8 pp. 10 pp. 10 pp. 11, 12 I — Chapter III pp. — |
6
section 2 |
6
section 2 |
10
section 2 |
—
section 2 |
7
7A 7B 7C 8 9 10 section 3 |
7,
8A,
8E,
PB 5
8B 8C 8D 8 10, PB 4 9 section 3, 4 pp. |
18,
19A,
PB 5
19B App. I pp. App. I pp. 19 21, PB 4 20 section 1, 3 pp. |
18 pp.
VII — — 18 pp. 18 pp. 18 pp. section 1, 3 pp. |
11
12 section 4 |
11
12 section 4 pp. |
16
22 section 3 pp. |
16
19 section 3 pp. |
13
14 15 15A |
13
14 15 — |
23,
76 pp.
24 25 — |
20
21 22 — |
365 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 56 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Code
Montreal Chapter III section 1 |
Code
Paris Chapter III section 1, 2 |
Code
Stockholm section 4 subsection 1, 2 |
Rules
Cambridge section 4 § 1 |
16
16A 17 section 2 |
16
16A 17 section 3 |
26
26A 27 subsection 3 |
—
VIII IX § 2 |
18
18A 19 section 3 |
18
PB 6C 19 section 4 |
28
PB 6C 29 subsection 4 |
23
— 24 § 3 |
20
20A 20B 20C 21 21A 21B 22 section 4 |
20,68
20A PB 6A PB 6D 21 22B 21A, 22A 22 section 5 |
30,
78
30A PB 6A PB 6D 31 32B 31 pp., 32A 32 subsection 5 |
25,
67
X — — 26 XII 26 pp., XI — § 4 |
23
— 23A 23B section 5 |
23,
70 pp.
— 23A 23B, 45A section 6 |
33,
79
33A 33B 33C subsection 6 |
27,
68
XIII XIV XV § 5 |
24
24A 24B 24C 25, 26 pp. 26, 25 pp. 27 section 6 |
24,
27,
61
24A 24B 24C 25, 26 pp. 26 pp. 26 pp. section 7 |
34 pp.,
36
37A 37B 37C 34 pp. 35 pp. 35 pp. 37 subsection 7 |
28 pp.,
29
XVI XVII XIX 28 pp. — — 30 § 7 |
28
Chapter IV section 1 |
28
Chapter IV section 1 |
38
— section 5 |
35
— section 5 |
29
29A 30 30A 31 |
29
29A 30 — 31 |
39
39A 40 — 41 |
36
— — — — |
363 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 57 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Code
Montreal section 2 |
Code
Paris section 2 |
Code
Stockholm section 6 |
Rules
Cambridge section 6 |
32
32A 32B 32C 32D 32E 33 34 34A 35 36 36A 37 37A 37B 38 39 40 41 41A 41B 42 43 44 45 45A 45B 45C section 3 |
32
pp.
32A 41A 45C 45E 45F 32 pp., 5 para 2, 3 33, 37, 38 45A 44 34 — 35 — 35A 36(1) 36(2) 40 39 PB 6A — 41, PB 6 42 43 45 45D 45H 45I section 3 |
42
pp.
42A 50A 54D 54F, 83F 54G 42 pp., 15 para 2, 3 43, 46, 47 54B 54 44 — 54A — — 45 — 49 48 PB 6A — 50, PB 6 51 52 53 54E pp. 54I 54K, 54L section 7 |
37
pp.
— — — XXIV, XLIX XXV 42 pp., 13 40, 41 XXII XXI pp. 38 — XXII — — 39 — — 42 — — 43 — 44 45 XXIII pp. XXVII XXVIII, XXIX section 7 |
46
46A 46B 46C 46D 46E 47 47A 48 49 50 50A 50B 50C 50D 50E 50F |
46
50A — 46A 46B 50D 47 47A 48 49 50 50B 50C 50E 50F 50G 50H |
55
60A — 58 58A 60D 56 56A 57 59 60 60B 60C 60E 60F 60G 60H |
46
XXX — 48(1) 48(2) XXXII 47(1) 47(2) — 49 — XXXI — — — — — |
364 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 58 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Code
Montreal Chapter V section 1 |
Code
Paris Chapter V section 1 |
Code
Stockholm — section 8 |
Rules
Cambridge — section 8 |
51
52 53 section 2 |
51
52 53 section 2 |
61
62 63 section 9 |
50
51 52 section 9 |
54
55 56 section 3 |
54
55 56 section 3 |
64
65 66 section 10 |
53
54 55 section 10 pp. |
57
57A 57B 58 — section 4 |
57
58A — 58 — section 4 |
67
68A — 68 68B section 10 |
56
XXXIII — — XXXIV section 10 pp. |
59
section 5 |
59
section 5 |
69
section 12 |
57
section 11 |
60
60A 61 section 6 |
60
60A 61 section 6 |
70
71A 71 section 13 |
58
XXXVI, 2, 3 — section 12 |
62
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 72A Chapter VI section 1 |
62
64(1)(2) 64(2) 64(3), 1 pp. 69 70(1) 70 note 3 65 66 67 72 45B Chapter VI section 1 |
72
73(1) 74 6 pp. 73(2) pp. 73(2) pp. — 75 76 77 81 54C — section 14 |
59
60(1)(2) 61 6 pp. 60 pp. 68 — 62 64 65 69 — — section 13 |
73
73A 73B 73C 73D 73E 73F 73G |
73
73A, 45G 73B 73C 73D 73E 73F 73G |
82 pp.
82A 82B 82C, D 82E 82F 82G 82H |
70 pp.
XXXIII XXXIX XI, XLI — XLII XLIII XLIV |
365 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 59 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
Code
Montreal 73H 74 75 section 2 |
Code
Paris — 74 75 section 2 |
Code
Stockholm — 83 82 pp. section 15 |
Rules
Cambridge — 71 70 pp. section 14 |
75A
75B Division III Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Guide Types Guide Citation I.C.N.C.P. (separately printed) |
75A
— Division III Appendix I — Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V I.C.N.C.P. |
83A
— — Appendix II — Appendix V Appendix I Appendix VI Appendix III |
72
— Chapter IV Arts. 31-34 — Appendix III — — Appendix III |
366 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 60 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHIA
1. | 1867 |
LOIS / DE LA / NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE
/ ADOPTÉES PAR /
LE
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE
/ TENU A PARIS EN AOUT 1867
/ SUIVIES D’UNE
/ DEUXIÈME ÉDITION
/ DE L’INTRODUCTION HISTO-
RIQUE ET DU COMMENTAIRE
/ QUI ACCOMPAGNAIENT LA RÉDACTION
PRÉPARATOIRE
PRÉSENTÉE AU CONGRÈS
/ PAR / M. ALPH. DE CANDOLLE
/ Éditeur et en partie auteur du /
Prodromus systematis naturalis vegetabilum. /
— / GENÈVE ET BALE /
H. GEORG, LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR
/ PARIS / J.-B.
BAILLIÈRE ET FILS
/ 1867 /
In 8°; p. [1]-64; ‘Lois’: p. 13-32, ‘Commentaire’: p. 33-64.
Sometimes referred to as ‘Paris
Code’ or ‘Paris Rules’.
2. | 1906 |
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES /
DE LA / NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE /
ADOPTÉES PAR LE /
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE DE
VIENNE 1905 / ET
PUBLIÉES AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE
RÉDACTION
DU CONGRÈS
/ PAR / JOHN BRIQUET /
RAPPORTEUR GÉNÉRAL. /
INTER-
NATIONAL RULES OF /
BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS OF VIENNA 1905. /
— / INTER-
NATIONALE REGELN DER
/ BOTANISCHEN NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN
VOM INTERNATIONALEN
BOTANISCHEN KONGRESS ZU WIEN 1905. / — /
VERLAG VON GUSTAV FISCHER IN JENA. / 1906. /
In 8° max.; p. [1]-99; Commission de Rédaction: J. Briquet,
Ch. Flahault, H. Harms,
A. B. Rendle. Title on p. 17:
‘Règles internationales pour la Nomenclature botanique prin-
cipalement des plantes vasculaires’. Sometimes referred
to as ‘Vienna Code’ or ‘First edition
of the Rules’.
Also published in ‘Verhandlungen des internationalen botanischen
Kongresses
in Wien 1905’, Jena 1906, pp. 165-261.
3. | 1912 |
RÈGLES INTERNATIONALES / DE LA /
NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE
/
ADOPTÉES PAR LE
/ CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE BOTANIQUE DE
VIENNE 1905 / DEUXIÈME
ÉDITION MISE AU
POINT D’APRÈS LES /
DÉCISIONS DU
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE
/ BOTANIQUE DE BRUXEL-
LES 1910 /
PUBLIÉE AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE
RÉDACTION DU
CONGRÈS / PAR / JOHN BRIQUET / RAPPORTEUR
GÉNÉRAL / — /
INTER-
NATIONAL RULES / OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
/ ADOPTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESSES
/ OF VIENNA 1905 AND
BRUSSELS 1910
/ — / INTERNATIONALE REGELN /
DER BOTANISCHEN
NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN VON DEN
INTERNATIONALEN BOTA-
NISCHEN KONGRESSEN /
ZU WIEN 1905 UND BRÜSSEL 1910 / JENA /
VERLAG VON GUSTAV FISCHER / 1912 /
In 8° max.; p. [I]-VIII, [1]-110; Commission de Rédaction:
J. Briquet, H. Harms, L.
Mangin, A. B. Rendle. Title on p. 12
(cf. p. 17, Vienna Code): ‘II. Règles internationales
de la
Nomenclature botanique’. Sometimes referred to as ‘Brussels Code’,
‘Brussels Rules’,
‘Second edition of the Rules’.
367 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 61 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
4. | 1935 |
INTERNATIONAL RULES / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL
CONGRESSES / OF VIENNA, 1905,
AND BRUSSELS, 1910
/ REVISED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL
CONGRESS
/ OF CAMBRIDGE, 1930 / COMPILED BY THE
EDITORIAL COM-
MITTEE FOR NOMENCLATURE FROM THE REPORT OF
/ THE SUBSECTION
OF NOMENCLATURE PREPARED BY
/ JOHN BRIQUET (†) / — /
RÈGLES
INTERNATIONALES /
DE LA NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE /
ADOPTÉES
PAR LES
CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAUX DE BOTANIQUE
DE VIENNE, 1905,
/ BRUXELLES, 1910, ET CAMBRIDGE, 1930
/ — / INTERNATIONALE REGELN
/ DER BOTANISCHEN NOMENCLATUR / ANGENOMMEN VON DEN
INTER-
NATIONALEN BOTANISCHEN KONGRESSEN ZU WIEN 1905, /
BRÜSSEL 1910
UND CAMBRIDGE 1930 /
DRITTE AUSGABE / — / VERLAG VON GUSTAV
FISCHER IN JENA / 1935 /
In 8° max.; p. [I]-[XII], [1]-[152]; General editor: H. Harms;
English text (primary)
prepared by A. B. Rendle,
in collaboration with J. Ramsbottom, T. A. Sprague and A. J.
Wilmott; French text prepared by B. P. G. Hochreutiner;
German text prepared by H. Harms.
An unofficial abridged edition
of the English text was issued by A. B. Rendle as a supple-
ment
to ‘The Journal of Botany’, June 1934, entitled:
‘International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature adopted by
the Fifth International Botanical Congress, Cambridge, 1930’.
The
abridgement consisted merely in the omission of most of
the examples and of the Appendices.
Mostly referred to as ‘Cambridge Rules' or ‘Third edition of the Rules’.
5. | 1947 |
International Rules of / Botanical Nomenclature
/ Formulated by the International
Botanical Congresses
of Vienna, 1905, / Brussels, 1910, and Cambridge 1930 /
Adopted and revised by the International Botanical Congress
of Amsterdam, 1935
/ Compiled from various sources by
/ W. H. Camp, H. W. Rickett and C. A.
Weatherby
/ UNOFFICIAL SPECIAL EDITION /
Issued as a service to members
of the / American Society of
Plant Taxonomists / Published by / THE NEW YORK
BOTANICAL GARDEN
/ in co-operation with / THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
PLANT TAXONOMISTS / THE SCIENCE PRESS PRINTING COMPANY
/
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA /
Top line: / Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1—120 BRITTONIA APRIL 9,
1947 /
In 8°; p. [1]-120; Brittonia 6(1): 1-120. 1947.
Second printing, 1948, reproduced by offset and published
by the Chronica Botanica Co.
Waltham, Mass., U.S.A.
for the New York Botanical Garden,
and the American Society of
Plant Taxonomists.
Mostly referred to as ‘Brittonia edition of the Rules’.
6. | 1950 |
INTERNATIONAL RULES / of / BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
/ SUPPLE-
MENT / embodying the alterations
made at the / Sixth International Botanical
Congress, Amsterdam,
1935 / compiled by / T. A. SPRAGUE, D. Sc. /
late Deputy
Keeper of the Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
/
Rapporteur Général for
Nomenclature, Sixth International Botanical Congress
/ — / (65) /
In 8°: In: Chronica Botanica, Volume 12, Number 1/2, pp. (65)-[88]. 1950.
368 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 62 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
7. | 1952 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE / OF / BOTANICAL
NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY /
THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL / CONGRESS,
STOCK-
HOLM, JULY 1950 PREPARED BY
/ J. LANJOUW, Chief Editor /
CH. BAEHNI,
E. D. MERRILL, H. W. RICKETT, W. ROBYNS, /
T. A. SPRAGUE, Members of
the Editorial Committee /
F. A. STAFLEU, Secretary of the Committee /
AVEC
UNE TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE / PAR / CH. BAEHNI / —
/ 1952 / UTRECHT
— NETHERLANDS /
Published with financial support of I.U.B.S. by the /
Inter-
national Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the
/ International
Association for Plant Taxonomy
/ The Chronica Botanica Co. : Waltham, Mass.
U.S.A.
In 8°; p.p. [l]-228; Regnum Vegetabile, A Series of Handbooks
for the use of Plant
Taxonomists and Plant Geographers, Volume 3.
Issued September 1952. Mostly referred to
as ‘Stockholm Code’.
8. | 1956 |
INTERNATIONAL CODE / OF / BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE / ADOPTED
BY /
THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL / CONGRESS, PARIS,
JULY
1954 / PREPARED AND EDITED BY /
J. LANJOUW, Chairman, / CH. BAEHNI,
W. ROBYNS,
R. C. ROLLINS, R. ROSS, / J. ROUSSEAU, G. M. SCHULZE,
A. C.
SMITH, R. DE VILMORIN, Members, /
F. A. STAFLEU, Secretary of the Editorial
Committee /
[I.A.P.T. emblem] / 1956 / UTRECHT —
NETHERLANDS / Pub-
lished with financial support of
I.U.B.S.—U.N.E.S.C.O. by the / International Bureau
for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature / of the International
Association for Plant
Taxonomy /
In 8°; pp. [l]-338; Regnum Vegetabile, A Series of Handbooks
for the use of Plant
Taxonomists and Plant Geographers, Volume 8.
Issued December 1956. With similar French,
German and Spanish
title pages on pp. [2], [4] and [5]. Mostly referred to as ‘Paris Code’.
369 |
______________________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code
– 63 –
text: © 1961, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
______________________________________________________________________
[ Not present in this edition ]