Preamble Pre.1–Pre.4

 
 
 
 
 

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE

FOR ALGAE, FUNGI, AND PLANTS
 

                                            PREAMBLE
 

 1.  Biology requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature that is
used in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms that denote
the ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the sci-
entific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups. The pur-
pose 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 taxo-
nomic rank. This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming
taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names that may cause
error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. 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.

 2.  Algae, fungi, and plants are the organisms¹ covered by this Code.

 3.  The Principles form the basis of the system of nomenclature governed
by this Code.

 4.  The detailed provisions are divided into rules, which are set out in the
Articles (Art.) (sometimes with clarification in Notes), and Recommenda-
tions (Rec.). Examples (Ex.)² are added to the rules and recommendations
to illustrate them. A Glossary defining terms used in this Code is included.
 

———————————

1     In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “organism” applies only to
       the organisms covered by this Code, i.e. those traditionally studied by botanists,
       mycologists, and phycologists (see Pre. 8).

2     See also Art. 7 *Ex. 16 footnote.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 01 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Pre.5–Pre.14 Preamble

 5.  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.

 6.  The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object is to
achieve
greater uniformity and clarity, especially in future nomenclature;
names contrary to a Recommendation cannot, on that account, be rejected,
but they are not examples to be followed.

 7.  The provisions regulating the governance of this Code form its last
Division (Div. III).

 8.  The provisions of this Code apply to all organisms traditionally treated
as algae, fungi, or plants, whether fossil or non-fossil, including blue-green
algae (Cyanobacteria)¹, chytrids, oomycetes, slime moulds, and photosyn-
thetic protists with their taxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups
(but excluding Microsporidia). Provisions for the names of hybrids appear
in Chapter H.

 9.  Names that have been conserved, protected, or rejected, suppressed
works, and binding decisions are given in Appendices IVII.

 10.  The Appendices form an integral part of this Code, whether published
together with, or separately from, the main text.

 11.  The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants is pre-
pared under the authority of the International Commission for the Nomen-
clature of Cultivated Plants and deals with the use and formation of names
applied to special categories of organisms in agriculture, forestry, and
horticulture.

 12.  The only proper reasons for changing a name are either a more pro-
found knowledge of the facts resulting from adequate taxonomic study or
the necessity of giving up a nomenclature that is contrary to the rules.

 13.  In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules
are doubtful, established custom is followed.

 14.  This edition of the Code supersedes all previous editions.
 
 

————————————

1     For the nomenclature of other prokaryotic groups, see the International Code of
       Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Prokaryotic Code 2008 Revision);  DOI: https://doi
       .org/10.1099/ijsem.0.000778; formerly the International Code of Nomenclature of
       Bacteria (Bacteriological Code)
.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 02 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Principles I-VI

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

DIVISION I

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLE I

The nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants is independent of zoological
and prokaryotic nomenclature. This Code applies equally to names of taxo-
nomic groups treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether or not these groups
were originally so treated (see Pre. 8).

PRINCIPLE II

The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of
nomenclatural types.

PRINCIPLE III

The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.

PRINCIPLE IV

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.

PRINCIPLE V

Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin regardless of
their derivation.

PRINCIPLE VI

The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 03 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

1 Taxa and Ranks

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

DIVISION II

RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER I

TAXA AND THEIR RANKS

ARTICLE 1

 1.1.  Taxonomic groups at any rank will, in this Code, be referred to as
taxa (singular: taxon).

 1.2.  A taxon (diatom taxa excepted) the name of which is based on a fossil
type is a fossil-taxon. A fossil-taxon comprises the remains of one or more
parts of the parent organism, or one or more of their life-history stages, in
one or more preservational states, as indicated in the original or any sub-
sequent description or diagnosis of the taxon (see also Art. 11.1 and 13.3).

Ex. 1.  Alcicornopteris hallei J. Walton (in Ann. Bot. (Oxford), ser. 2, 13: 450. 1949) is
a fossil-species for which the original description included rachides, sporangia, and
spores of a pteridosperm, preserved in part as compressions and in part as petrifactions.

Ex. 2.  Protofagacea allonensis Herend. & al. (in Int. J. Pl. Sci. 56: 94. 1995) is a fossil-
species for which the original description included dichasia of staminate flowers, with
anthers containing pollen grains, fruits, and cupules, and thus comprises more than one
part and more than one life-history stage.

Ex. 3.  Stamnostoma A. G. Long (in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 64: 212. 1960) is a
fossil-genus that was originally described with a single species, S. huttonense A. G.
Long
, comprising anatomically preserved ovules with completely fused integuments
forming an open collar around the lagenostome. Rothwell & Scott (in Rev. Palaeobot.
Palynol. 72: 281. 1992) subsequently modified the description of the genus, expanding
its circumscription to include also the cupules in which the ovules were borne.  The
name Stamnostoma can be applied to a genus with either circumscription or to any other
that may involve other parts, life-history stages, or preservational states, so long as it
includes S. huttonense, but not the type of any earlier legitimate generic name.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 04 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Taxa and Ranks 2–4

ARTICLE 2

 2.1.  Every individual organism is treated as belonging to an indefinite
number of taxa at consecutively subordinate ranks, among which the rank
of species is basic.

ARTICLE 3

 3.1.  The principal ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom (reg-
num), division or phylum (divisio or phylum), class (classis), order (ordo),
family (familia), genus (genus), and species (species). Thus, each species is
assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.

  Note 1.  Species and subdivisions of genera must be assigned to genera, and
infraspecific taxa must be assigned to species, because their names are combina-
tions (Art. 21.1, 23.1, and 24.1), but this provision does not preclude the placement
of taxa as incertae sedis with regard to ranks higher than genus.

Ex. 1.  The genus Haptanthus Goldberg & C. Nelson (in Syst. Bot. 14: 16. 1989) was
originally described without being assigned to a family.

Ex. 2.  The fossil-genus Paradinandra Schönenberger & E. M. Friis (in Amer. J. Bot.
88: 478. 2001
) was assigned to “Ericales s.l.” but its family placement was given as
“incertae sedis”.

 3.2.  The principal ranks of hybrid taxa (nothotaxa) are nothogenus and
nothospecies. These ranks are the same as genus and species. The prefix
“notho” indicates the hybrid character (see Art. H.1.1).

ARTICLE 4

 4.1.  The secondary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are tribe (tri-
bus) between family and genus, section (sectio) and series (series) between
genus and species, and variety (varietas) and form (forma) below species.

 4.2.  If a greater number of ranks of taxa is desired, the terms for these
are made by adding the prefix “sub-” to the terms denoting the principal or
secondary ranks. An organism may thus be assigned to taxa of the follow-
ing ranks (in descending sequence): kingdom (regnum), subkingdom (sub-
regnum), division or phylum (divisio or phylum), subdivision or subphylum
(subdivisio or subphylum), class (classis), subclass (subclassis), order (ordo),
suborder (subordo), family (familia), subfamily (subfamilia), tribe (tribus)

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 05 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

4–5A Taxa and Ranks

subtribe (subtribus), genus (genus), subgenus (subgenus), section (sectio),
subsection (subsectio), series (series), subseries (subseries), species (spe-
cies), subspecies (subspecies), variety (varietas), subvariety (subvarietas),
form (forma), and subform (subforma).

  Note 1.  Ranks formed by adding “sub-” to the principal ranks (Art. 3.1) may be
formed and used whether or not any secondary ranks (Art. 4.1) are adopted.

 4.3.  Further ranks may also be intercalated or added, provided that confu-
sion or error is not thereby introduced.

 4.4.  The subordinate ranks of nothotaxa are the same as the subordinate
ranks of non-hybrid taxa, except that nothogenus is the highest rank per-
mitted (see Chapter H).

  Note 2.  Throughout this Code the phrase “subdivision of a family” refers only
to taxa at a rank between family and genus and “subdivision of a genus” refers
only to taxa at a rank between genus and species.

  Note 3.  For the designation of special categories of organisms used in agricul-
ture, forestry, and horticulture, see Pre. 11 and Art. 28 Notes 2, 4, and 5.

  Note 4.  In classifying parasites, especially fungi, authors who do not give spe-
cific, subspecific, or varietal value to taxa characterized from a physiological
standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a morphological standpoint may distin-
guish within the species special forms (formae speciales) characterized by their
adaptation to different hosts, but the nomenclature of special forms is not gov-
erned by the provisions of this Code.

ARTICLE 5

 5.1.  The relative order of the ranks specified in Art. 3 and 4 must not be
altered (see Art. 37.6 and F.4.1).

Recommendation 5A

 5A.1.  For purposes of standardization, the following abbreviations are recom-
mended: cl. (class), ord. (order), fam. (family), tr. (tribe), gen. (genus), sect. (sec-
tion), ser. (series), sp. (species), var. (variety), f. (forma). The abbreviations for
additional ranks created by the addition of the prefix sub-, or for nothotaxa with
the prefix notho-, should be formed by adding the prefixes, e.g. subsp. (subspe-
cies), nothosp. (nothospecies), but subg. (subgenus) not “subgen.”

 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 06 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Status definitions 6

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER II

STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES

SECTION 1

STATUS DEFINITIONS

ARTICLE 6

 6.1.  Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 2931.
Except in specified cases (Art. 8.1, 9.4(a), 9.22, Rec. 9A.3, and Art. 40.7),
text and illustrations¹ must be effectively published to be taken into account
for the purposes of this Code.

 6.2.  Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with the rel-
evant provisions of
Art. 3245, F.4, F.5.1, F.5.2, and H.9 (see also Art. 61).

  Note 1.  For nomenclatural purposes, valid publication creates a name, and
sometimes also an autonym (Art. 22.1 and 26.1), but does not itself imply any
taxonomic circumscription beyond inclusion of the type of the name (Art. 7.1).

 6.3.  In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word “name” means a
name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate
(see Art. 12; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14).

  Note 2.  When the same name, based on the same type, has been published
independently at different times, perhaps by different authors, then only the earli-
est of these “isonyms” has nomenclatural status. The name is always to be cited
from its original place of valid publication, and later isonyms may be disregarded
(but see Art. 14.14).

————————————

1     Here and elsewhere in this Code, the term “illustration” designates a work of art or a
       photograph depicting a feature or features of an organism, e.g. a drawing, picture of
       a herbarium specimen or a scanning electron micrograph.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 07 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

6 Status definitions

Ex. 1.  Baker (Summary New Ferns: 9. 1892) and Christensen (Index Filic.: 44. 1905)
independently published the name Alsophila kalbreyeri as a replacement for A. podo-
phylla
Baker (in J. Bot. 19: 202. 1881) non Hook. (in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 9:
334.
 1857
). As published by Christensen, A. kalbreyeri is a later isonym of A. kalbreyeri
Baker without nomenclatural status (see also Art. 41 Ex. 24).

Ex. 2.  In publishing “Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.”, Leenhouts (in Blumea 9:
406. 1959
) re-used the illegitimate C. pimela K. D. Koenig (in Ann. Bot. (König &
Sims) 1: 361.
 1805
), attributing it to himself and basing it on the same type. He thereby
created a later isonym without nomenclatural status.

Ex. 3.  The name Dalbergia brownei (Jacq.) Schinz (in Bull. Herb. Boissier 6: 731. 1898)
was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because Schinz cited the legitimate
name Hedysarum ecastaphyllum L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 1169. 1759) as a synonym. Be-
cause D. brownei has a basionym (Amerimnon brownei Jacq.), it is nevertheless legiti-
mate (Art. 52.4). On excluding H. ecastaphyllum, Urban (Symb. Antill. 4: 295. 1905)
published “D. Brownei Urb.” as a replacement name. This is a later isonym that has no
nomenclatural status.

 6.4.  An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in Art. 18.3,
19.6, 5254, F.3.3, or F.6.1 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 2). A
name that according to this Code was illegitimate when published cannot
become legitimate later unless Art. 18.3 or 19.6 so provide; unless it is con-
served (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2), or sanctioned (Art. F.3); or unless the
name is superfluous under Art. 52 and its intended basionym is conserved
or protected.

Ex. 4.  Skeletonemopsis P. A. Sims (in Diatom Res. 9: 389.1995) was illegitimate when
published because it included the original type of Skeletonema Grev. (in Trans. Micro-
scop. Soc. London, n.s., 13: 43.
1865
). When Skeletonema was conserved with a differ-
ent type, Skeletonemopsis nevertheless remained illegitimate and had to be conserved
in order to be available for use (see App. III).

 6.5.  A legitimate name is one that is in accordance with the rules, i.e. one
that is not illegitimate as defined in Art. 6.4.

 6.6.  At the rank of family or below, the correct name of a taxon with a
particular circumscription, position, and rank is the legitimate name that
must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 11).

Ex. 5.  The generic name Vexillifera Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 140.
1922), based on the single species V. micranthera Ducke, is legitimate. The same is true
of the generic name Dussia Krug & Urb. ex Taub. (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzen-
fam. 3(3): 193.
1892
), based on the single species D. martinicensis Krug & Urb. ex Taub.
Both generic names are correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (in
Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 19: 291. 1924
), however, united Vexillifera and Dus-
sia
in a single genus; the latter name is the correct one for the genus with that particular

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 08 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Status definitions 6

circumscription. The legitimate name Vexillifera may therefore be correct or incorrect
according to different taxonomic concepts.

 6.7.  The name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name
of a genus combined with one or two epithets, is termed a combination (see
Art. 21, 23, and 24).

Ex. 6.  Combinations: Mouriri subg. Pericrene Morley (in Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 26:
280. 1953)
, Arytera sect. Mischarytera Radlk. (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 165 (Heft 98f):
1271. 1933
)
, Gentiana lutea L. (Sp. Pl.: 227. 1753), Gentiana tenella var. occidentalis
J. Rousseau & Raymond (in Naturaliste Canad. 79(2): 77. 1952), Equisetum palustre
var. americanum Vict. (in Contr. Lab. Bot. Univ. Montréal 9: 51. 1927), Equisetum
palustre
f. fluitans Vict. (l.c.: 60. 1927).

 6.8.  Autonyms are names that are established automatically under Art.
22.3 and 26.3, whether or not they actually appear in the publication in
which they are created (see Art. 32.3, Rec. 22B.1 and 26B.1).

 6.9.  The name of a new taxon (e.g. genus novum, gen. nov., species nova,
sp. nov.) is a name validly published in its own right, i.e. one not based on
a previously validly published name; it is not a new combination, a name at
new rank, or a replacement name.

Ex. 7.  Cannaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 62. 1789), Canna L. (Sp. Pl.: 1. 1753), Canna indica L.
(l.c. 1753), Heterotrichum pulchellum Fisch. (in Mém. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou
3: 71.
1812
), Poa sibirica Roshev. (in Izv. Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 12: 121. 1912),
Solanum umtuma Voronts. & S. Knapp (in PhytoKeys 8: 4. 2012).

 6.10.  A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or name at new
rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate, previ-
ously published name, which is its basionym. The basionym does not itself
have a basionym; it provides the final epithet¹, name, or stem of the new
combination or name at new rank. (See also Art. 41.2).

Ex. 8.  The basionym of Centaurea benedicta (L.) L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 1296. 1763) is Cnicus
benedictus
L. (Sp. Pl.: 826. 1753), the name that provides the epithet.

Ex. 9.  The basionym of Crupina (Pers.) DC. (in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 16: 157. 1810)
is Centaurea subg. Crupina Pers. (Syn. Pl. 2: 488. 1807), the epithet of which name
provides the generic name; it is not Centaurea crupina L. (Sp. Pl.: 909. 1753) (see Art.
41.2(b)).

————————————

1     Here and elsewhere in this Code, the phrase “final epithet” refers to the last epithet in
       sequence in any particular name, whether of a subdivision of a genus, a species, or an
       infraspecific taxon.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 09 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

6 Status definitions

Ex. 10.  The basionym of Anthemis subg. Ammanthus (Boiss. & Heldr.) R. Fern. (in Bot.
J. Linn. Soc. 70: 16.
1975) is Ammanthus Boiss. & Heldr. (in Boissier, Diagn. Pl. Orient.,
ser. 1, 11: 18.
1849
), the name that provides the epithet.

Ex. 11.  The basionym of Ricinocarpaceae Hurus. (in J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 3,
Bot., 6: 224. 1954) is Ricinocarpeae Müll.-Arg. (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 22: 324. 1864),
but not Ricinocarpos Desf. (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 3: 459. 1817) (see Art. 41.2(a); see
also Art. 49.2), from which the names of both family and tribe are formed.

  Note 3.  A descriptive name (Art. 16.1(b)) used at a rank different from that at
which it was first validly published is not a name at new rank because descriptive
names may be used unchanged at different ranks.

  Note 4.  The phrase “nomenclatural novelty”, as used in this Code, refers to any
or all of the categories: name of a new taxon, new combination, name at new rank,
and replacement name.

  Note 5.  A new combination can at the same time be a name at new rank (comb.
& stat. nov.); a nomenclatural novelty with a basionym need not be either of these.

Ex. 12.  Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. (Fl. Indica: 83. 1768), based on A. perfoliata var. vera L.
(Sp. Pl.: 320. 1753), is both a new combination and a name at new rank.

Ex. 13.  Centaurea jacea subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Greuter, “comb. in stat. nov.” (in
Willdenowia 33: 55. 2002), based on C. weldeniana Rchb. (Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 213. 1831),
was not a new combination because C. jacea var. weldeniana (Rchb.) Briq. (Monogr.
Centaurées Alpes Marit.: 69. 1902
) had been published previously; nor was it a name at
new rank, due to the existence of C. amara subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Kušan (in Prir.
Istraž. Kral. Jugoslavije 20: 29. 1936); it was nevertheless a nomenclatural novelty.

 6.11.  A  replacement  name  (nomen  novum,  nom. nov.) is a new name
published as an explicit substitute (avowed substitute) for a legitimate or
illegitimate, previously published name, which is its replaced synonym.
The replaced synonym, when legitimate, does not provide the final epithet,
name, or stem of the replacement name (see also Art. 41.2 and 58.1).

Ex. 14.  Gussone (Fl. Sicul. Syn. 2: 468. 1844) described plants from the Eolie Islands
near Sicily under the name Helichrysum litoreum Guss., citing in synonymy Gnapha-
lium angustifolium
Lam. (Encycl. 2: 746. 1788), but without indication that the existing
H. angustifolium (Lam.) DC. (in Candolle & Lamarck, Fl. Franç., ed. 3, 6: 467. 1815)
was an illegitimate later homonym of H. angustifolium Pers. (in Syn. Pl. 2: 415. 1807)
that needed replacement. At the end of the protologue, Gussone wrote: “nomen mutavi
confusionis vitendi gratia
[I changed the name to avoid confusion]”. This makes explicit
Gussone’s intent to propose H. litoreum as a replacement name based on the type of
G. angustifolium (from Posillipo near Naples), not on the material he described and
cited in the protologue.

Ex. 15.  Mycena coccineoides Grgur. (in Fungal Diversity Res. Ser. 9: 287. 2003), was
published as an explicit substitute (“nom. nov.”) for
Omphalina coccinea Murrill (in
Britton, N. Amer. Fl. 9: 350.
1916
) because M. coccinea (Murrill) Singer (in Sydowia

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 10 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Status definitions 6

15: 65. 1962) is an illegitimate later homonym of M. coccinea (Sowerby) Quél. (in Bull.
Soc. Amis Sci. Nat. Rouen, ser. 2, 15: 155.
1880).

Ex. 16.  Centaurea chartolepis Greuter (in Willdenowia 33: 54. 2003), was published
as an explicit substitute (“nom. nov.”) for the legitimate name
Chartolepis intermedia
Boiss. (Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 2, 3: 64. 1856), because the epithet intermedia was una-
vailable in Centaurea due to Centaurea intermedia Mutel (in Rev. Bot. Recueil Mens.
1: 400.
1846
).

 6.12.  A name not explicitly proposed as a substitute for an earlier name is
nevertheless a replacement name either (a) if it is validated solely by refer-
ence to that earlier name or (b) under the provisions of Art. 7.5.

 6.13.  A name not explicitly proposed as a substitute for an earlier name
and not covered by Art. 6.12 may be treated either as a replacement name
or as the name of a new taxon if in the protologue¹ both (a) a potential re-
placed synonym is cited and (b) all requirements for valid publication of the
name of a new taxon are independently met. Decision on the status of such
a name is to be based on predominant usage and is to be effected by means
of appropriate type designation (Art. 9 and 10).

Ex. 17.  When describing Astragalus penduliflorus Lam. (Fl. Franç. 2: 636. 1779) using
material from the French Alps, Lamarck also cited in synonymy Phaca alpina L. (Sp.
Pl.: 755. 1753
) [non Astragalus alpinus L., Sp. Pl.: 760. 1753], described from Siberia.
It is questionable whether Linnaeus’s and Lamarck’s plants belong to the same species.
Greuter (in Candollea 23: 265. 1969) designated different types for the two names, so
that, in conformity with predominant usage, A. penduliflorus is treated as the name of
a new, European species.

 6.14.  A factually incorrect statement of a name’s status, as defined in Art.
6.9–6.11, does not preclude valid publication of that name with a different
status; it is treated as a correctable error (see also Art. 41.4 and 41.8).

Ex. 18.  Racosperma nelsonii was published by Pedley (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 92: 249.
1986) as a new combination (“comb. nova”) citing Acacia nelsonii Maslin (in J. Ade-
laide Bot. Gard. 2: 314. 1980
) as “basionym”. However, A. nelsonii Maslin is illegitimate
under Art. 53.1 because it is a later homonym of A. nelsonii Saff. (in J. Wash. Acad. Sci.
4: 363. 1914
). Racosperma nelsonii Pedley is therefore validly published as a replace-
ment name (Art. 6.11), with A. nelsonii Maslin its replaced synonym, and Pedley’s state-
ment is treated as a correctable error.

————————————

1     Protologue (from Greek πρώτος, protos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything
       associated with a name at its valid publication, e.g. description, diagnosis, illustrations,
       references, synonymy, geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and
       comments.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 11 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

7 Typification (General provisions)

SECTION 2

TYPIFICATION

ARTICLE 7

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

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

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

Ex. 1.  Pinus mertensiana Bong. (in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg, Sér. 6, Sci.
Math. 2: 163. 1832
)
was transferred to the genus Tsuga by Carrière (in Traité Gén. Conif.,
ed. 2: 250. 1867
)
, who, as is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new
combination T. mertensiana to another species of Tsuga, namely T. heterophylla (Raf.)
Sarg. (Silva 12: 73. 1899). The combination T. mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière must not be
applied to T. heterophylla but must be retained for P. mertensiana when that species is
placed in Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art. 49) of the name of the original
author, Bongard, indicates the basionym, and hence the type, of the name.

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 12 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (General provisions) 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

type of G. grinnellii is not automatically that of G. splendens. The names G. splendens
and G. grinnellii
have since been conserved and rejected, respectively (see App. IV
and V)
.

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

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 13 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

7 Typification (General provisions)

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

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

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

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

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

 7.9.  A name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-
point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be typified by an element
selected from the context of its valid publication (Art. 3245).

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

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 14 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (General provisions) 7

 7.10.  For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a
type is achieved only by effective publication (Art. 2931).

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 15 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

7–8 Typification (General provisions – Species and infraspecific taxa)

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

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

Recommendation 7A

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

ARTICLE 8

 8.1.  The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species or
infraspecific taxon is either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium
or other collection or institution, or a published or unpublished illustration
(but see Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4, 40.5 and 40 Ex. 6).

 8.2.  For the purpose of typification a specimen is a gathering², or part of
a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon, disregarding admix-
tures (see Art. 9.14). It may consist of a single organism, parts of one or
several organisms, or of multiple small organisms. A specimen is usually
mounted on a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent preparation, such
as a box, packet, jar, or microscope slide.

————————————

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

2     Here and elsewhere in this Code, the term “gathering” is used for a collection presumed
       to be of a single taxon made by the same collector(s) at the same time from a single
       locality. The possibility of a mixed gathering is always to be considered, especially
       when designating a type.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 16 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) 8

Ex. 1.  The holotype of Asparagus kansuensis F. T. Wang & Tang ex S. C. Chen (in Acta
Phytotax. Sin. 16(1): 94. 1978
), Hao 416 (PE [barcode 00034519]) belongs to a gathering
of a dioecious species made at one time at a single locality. It consists of a staminate
branch and a pistillate branch, i.e. parts of two individuals, mounted on a single her-
barium sheet.

Ex. 2.  The diatom species Tursiocola denysii Frankovich & M. J. Sullivan (in Phytotaxa
234: 228. 2015
) was described from material collected from neck skin of four logger-
head turtles and the type designated as “Type:—UNITED STATES. Florida: Florida
Bay, samples removed from the skin in the dorsal neck area of loggerhead sea turtles
Caretta caretta, 24° 55’ 01” N, 80° 48’ 28” W, B.A. Stacy, 24 June 2015 (holotype CAS!
223049, illustrated as Figs 1–4, 6, 12, 15–30, paratypes ANSP! GC59142, BM! 101 808,
illustrated as Figs 7–10, 14, BRM! ZU10/31, Figs 5, 11, 13).” Because the specimens
were collected on the same date, at the same place, by the same collector they comprise
a single gathering, admixtures excepted, and the authors’ citation of “paratypes” is cor-
rectable to isotypes under Art. 9.10.

Ex. 3.  “Echinocereus sanpedroensis” (Raudonat & Rischer in Echinocereenfreund
8(4): 91–92. 1995) was based on a “holotype” consisting of a complete plant with roots,
a detached branch, an entire flower, a flower cut in halves, and two fruits that, accord-
ing to the label, were taken from the same cultivated individual at different times and
preserved, in alcohol, in a single jar. Because this material was collected at more than
one time, it belongs to more than one gathering and cannot be accepted as a type.
Raudonat & Rischer’s name is not validly published under Art. 40.2.

  Note 1.  Field numbers, collecting numbers, accession numbers, or specimen
identifiers alone do not necessarily denote different gatherings.

Ex. 4.  Solidago ×snarskisii Gudžinskas & Žalneravičius (in Phytotaxa 253: 148. 2016)
was validly published (Art. 40.2) with a single gathering in BILAS indicated as type,
the parts of which were numbered separately in the field, mounted on separate sheets
and designated as follows: “Holotype:—LITHUANIA. Trakai district, Aukštadvaris
Regional Park, environs of Zabarauskai village, in an abandoned meadow on the
edge of forest (54.555191° N; 24.512987° E), 13 September 2014, Z. Gudžinskas &
E. Žalneravičius 76801
(generative shoot) and 76802 (vegetative shoot) (BILAS, on two
cross-referenced sheets). Isotypes:—Z. Gudžinskas & E. Žalneravičius 76803, 76804
(BILAS).”

 8.3.  A specimen may be mounted as more than one preparation, as long
as the parts are clearly labelled as being part of that same specimen, or bear
a single, original label in common. Multiple preparations from a single
gathering that are not clearly labelled as being part of a single specimen are
duplicates¹, irrespective of whether the source was one individual or more
than one.

————————————

1     Here and elsewhere in this Code, the word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning
       in curatorial practice. A duplicate is part of a single gathering of a single species or
       infraspecific taxon.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 17 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

8 Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa)

Ex. 5.  The holotype specimen of Delissea eleeleensis H. St. John, Christensen 261
(BISH), is mounted as two preparations, a herbarium sheet (BISH No. 519675 [barcode
BISH1006410]
) bearing the annotation “fl. bottled” and an inflorescence preserved in
alcohol in a jar labelled “Cyanea, Christensen 261”. The annotation indicates that the
inflorescence is part of the holotype specimen and not a duplicate, nor is it part of the
isotype specimen (BISH No. 519676 [barcode BISH1006411]), which is not labelled as
including additional material preserved in a separate preparation.

Ex. 6.  The holotype specimen of Johannesteijsmannia magnifica J. Dransf., Dransfield
862
(K), consists of a leaf mounted on five herbarium sheets, an inflorescence and in-
fructescence in a box, and liquid-preserved material in a bottle.

Ex. 7.  The holotype of Cephaelis acanthacea Standl. ex Steyerm., Cuatrecasas 16752
(F), consists of a single specimen mounted on two herbarium sheets, labelled “sheet 1”
and “sheet 2”. Although the two sheets have separate herbarium accession numbers,
F No. 1153741 and F No. 1153742, respectively, the cross-labelling indicates that they
constitute a single specimen. A third sheet of Cuatrecasas 16572, F No. 1153740, is
not cross-labelled and is therefore a duplicate. (The valid publication of this name was
discussed by Taylor in Novon 25: 331–332. 2017.)

Ex. 8.  The holotype specimen of Eugenia ceibensis Standl., Yuncker & al. 8309, is
mounted on a single herbarium sheet in F. A fragment was removed from the specimen
subsequent to its designation as holotype and is now conserved in LL. The fragment is
mounted on a herbarium sheet along with a photograph of the holotype and is labelled
“fragment of type!”. The fragment is no longer part of the holotype specimen because
it is not permanently conserved in the same herbarium as the holotype. It is a duplicate,
i.e. an isotype.

Ex. 9.  In the Geneva herbaria, a single specimen is often prepared on two or more
sheets, which are not therefore duplicates. Although the individual sheets are usually
not labelled as being part of the same specimen, they are physically kept together in
their own specimen folder and bear a single, original label in common.

Ex. 10.  Three specimens collected by Martius (Brazil, Maranhão, “in sylvis ad fl. Itapi-
curú”, May 1819, Martius s.n., M) are syntypes of Erythrina falcata Benth. (in Martius,
Fl. Bras. 15(1): 172. 1859
). Only one of the sheets (barcode M-0213337) has Martius’s
original blue label, whereas the other two (barcodes M-0213336 and M-0213338) have
been labelled with the locality to identify them as the same gathering. Because the three
specimens do not bear a single, original label in common, and are not cross-labelled,
they are treated as duplicates.

 8.4.  Type specimens of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and
may not be living organisms or cultures. Nevertheless, cultures of algae
and fungi, if preserved in a metabolically inactive state (e.g. by lyophiliza-
tion or deep-freezing to remain alive in that inactive state), are acceptable
as types (see also Art. 40.8).

Ex. 11.  “Dendrobium sibuyanense“ (Lubag-Arquiza & al. in Philipp. Agric. Sci. 88: 484–
488. 2005) was described with the statement “Type specimen is a living specimen being
maintained at the Orchid Nursery, Department of Horticulture, University of the Philip-

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 18 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) 8–9

pines Los Baños (UPLB). Collectors: Orville C. Baldos & Ramil R. Marasigan, April
5, 2004”. However, this is a living collection and, as such, is not acceptable as a type.
Consequently no type was indicated and the name was not validly published (Art. 40.1).

Ex. 12.  The strain CBS 7351 is acceptable as the type of the name Candida populi
Hagler & al. (in Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39: 98. 1989) because it is permanently preserved
in a metabolically inactive state by lyophilization (see also Rec. 8B.2).

 8.5.  The type, epitypes (Art. 9.9) excepted, of the name of a fossil-taxon at
the rank of species or below is always a specimen (see Art. 9.15). One whole
specimen is to be considered as the nomenclatural type (see Rec. 8A.3).

Recommendation 8A

8A.1.  When a holotype, a lectotype, or a neotype is an illustration, the specimen
or specimens upon which that illustration is based should be used to help deter-
mine the application of the name (see also Art. 9.15).

8A.2.  When an illustration is designated as the type of a name under Art. 40.5,
the collection data of the illustrated material should be given (see also Rec. 38D.2).

8A.3.  If the type specimen of a name of a fossil-taxon is cut into pieces (sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coalball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in establish-
ing the diagnosis should be clearly marked.

8A.4.  When a single specimen designated as type is mounted as multiple prepara-
tions, this should be stated in the protologue, and the preparations appropriately
labelled.

Recommendation 8B

8B.1.  Whenever practicable a living culture should be prepared from the holotype
material of the name of a newly described taxon of algae or fungi and deposited in
at least two institutional culture or genetic resource collections. (Such action does
not obviate the requirement for a holotype specimen under Art. 8.4.)

8B.2.  In cases where the type of a name is a culture permanently preserved in
a metabolically inactive state (see Art. 8.4), any living isolates obtained from it
should be referred to as “ex-type” (ex typo), “ex-holotype” (ex holotypo), “ex-
isotype” (ex isotypo), etc., in order to make it clear they are derived from the type
but are not themselves the nomenclatural type.

ARTICLE 9

 9.1.  A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one
specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated by the

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 19 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

9 Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa)

author(s) as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author(s) when no
type was indicated. As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the applica-
tion of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).

  Note 1.  Any designation of the type made by the original author, if definitely
expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final
(but see Art. 9.11, 9.15, and 9.16). If the author used only one specimen or illustra-
tion, either cited or uncited, when preparing the account of the new taxon, it must
be accepted as the holotype, but the possibility that the author used additional,
uncited specimens or illustrations (which may have been lost or destroyed) must
always be considered.
If a name of a new taxon is validly published solely by
reference to a previously published description or diagnosis, the same considera-
tions apply to specimens or illustrations used by the author of that description or
diagnosis (see Art. 7.8; but see Art. 7.9).

Ex. 1.  When Tuckerman established Opegrapha oulocheila Tuck. (Lich. Calif.: 32.
1866
) he referred to “the single specimen, from Schweinitz’s herbarium (Herb. Acad.
Sci. Philad.) before me”. Even though the term “type” or its equivalent was not used in
the protologue, that specimen (in PH) was clearly the one specimen used by the author
and
is therefore the holotype.

Ex. 2.  In the protologue of Coronilla argentea L. (Sp. Pl.: 743. 1753), Linnaeus cited an
illustration by Alpini (Pl. Exot.: 16. 1627) and did not designate a type. Although no
uncited specimens or illustrations are known to exist, making Alpini’s illustration the
only extant element of original material, it is not the holotype because it is not certain
that Linnaeus used only this one element when preparing the account of the new taxon;
he could have possessed a specimen that has since been lost or destroyed. Moreover,
citation of the illustration cannot be accepted as indication of the type under the second
sentence of Art. 40.3 because that provision applies only for the purpose of Art. 40.1, i.e.
indication of type as a requirement of valid publication of names published on or after
1 January 1958. Alpini’s illustration was designated as the lectotype of C. argentea by
Greuter (in Ann. Mus. Goulandris 1: 44. 1973).

 9.2.  If a designation of holotype made in the protologue of the name of a
taxon is later found to contain errors (e.g. in locality, date, collector, collect-
ing number, herbarium code, specimen identifier, or citation of an illustra-
tion), these errors are to be corrected provided that the intent of the original
author(s) is not changed. However, omissions of required information under
Art. 40.640.8 are not correctable.

Ex. 3.  The name Phoebe calcarea S. Lee & F. N. Wei (in Guihaia 3: 7. 1983) was validly
published with the holotype designated as Du’an Expedition 4-10-004 in IBK, but
no specimen with this collecting number exists in IBK. However, a specimen in IBK
annotated with Phoebe calcarea sp. nov.”, “Typus”, and matching all other details of
the protologue bears the collecting number Duan Expedition 4-10-0243. Therefore, the
original type citation is obviously erroneous and is to be corrected.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 20 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) 9

 9.3.  A lectotype is one specimen or illustration designated from the orig-
inal material (Art. 9.4) as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art.
9.11 and 9.12, if the name was published without a holotype, or if the holo-
type is lost or destroyed, or if a type is found to belong to more than one
taxon (see also Art. 9.14). For sanctioned names (Art. F.3), a lectotype may
be selected from among elements associated with either or both the proto-
logue and the sanctioning treatment (Art. F.3.9).

Ex. 4.  Adansonia grandidieri Baill. (in Grandidier, Hist. Phys. Madagascar 34: t. 79B
bis, fig. 2 & t. 79E, fig. 1. 1893) was validly published when accompanied solely by two
illustrations with analysis (see Art. 38.8). Baum (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 82: 447.
1995
) designated one of the sheets of Grevé 275 (flowering specimen in P [barcode
P00037169]), which he presumed to be the very specimen from which most or all of the
components of t. 79E, fig. 1 were drawn, as the lectotype of this name.

 9.4.  For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises the follow-
ing elements: (a) those specimens and illustrations (both unpublished and
published prior to publication of the protologue) that the author associated
with the taxon, and that were available to the author prior to, or at the time
of, preparation of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with analysis
(Art. 38.7 and 38.8) validating the name; (b) any illustrations published as
part of the protologue; (c) the holotype and those specimens which, even if
not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name,
were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid
publication; and (d) the isotypes or isosyntypes¹ of the name irrespective
of whether such specimens were seen by either the author of the validating
description or diagnosis or the author of the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9, and
F.3.9).

  Note 2.  For names falling under Art. 7.9, only elements from the context of the
protologue itself are considered as original material.

  Note 3.  For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from the context of the
validating description are considered as original material, unless the validating
author has definitely designated a different type.

 9.5.  An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

  Note 4.  The term isotype is also used for a duplicate of the type of the con-
served name of a species because, under Art. 14.8, such a type, like a holotype,
may only be changed by the procedure of conservation.

————————————

1     Duplicate specimens of a syntype, lectotype, neotype, and epitype are isosyntypes,
       isolectotypes, isoneotypes, and isoepitypes, respectively.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 21 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

9 Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa)

 9.6.  A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no
holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated
in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire
gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.

Ex. 5.  In the protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (see Art. 40 Ex. 2) a sin-
gle gathering in two herbaria was designated as the type. Therefore, there must exist at
least two specimens and these are syntypes.

Ex. 6.  In the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (Sp. Pl.: 539. 1753), two specimens are
cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These
specimens, held in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.

 9.7.  A paratype is any specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the
holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if in the protologue two or
more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.

Ex. 7.  The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma (in Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb.
Rijks Univ. Utrecht 4: 26.
1932
), which applies to a polygamous species, is a male speci-
men, Kappler 593a (U). The author designated a hermaphroditic specimen, Forestry
Service of Surinam B. W. 1618
(U), as a paratype.

  Note 5.  In most cases in which no holotype was designated there will also be
no paratypes because all the cited specimens will be syntypes. However, when an
author designated two or more specimens as types (Art. 9.6), any remaining cited
specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.

Ex. 8.  In the protologue of Eurya hebeclados Y. Ling (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 1: 208. 1951)
the author simultaneously designated two specimens as types, Y. Ling 5014 as “typus,
♂” and Y. Y. Tung 315 as “typus, ♀”, which are therefore syntypes. Ling also cited the
specimen Y. Ling 5366 but without designating it as a type; it is therefore a paratype.

 9.8.  A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomen-
clatural type if no original material is extant, or as long as it is missing (see
also Art. 9.16 and 9.19(c)).

 9.9.  An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an inter-
pretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neo-
type, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is
demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes
of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Designation of an epitype
is not effected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype
supports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).

Ex. 9.  Podlech (in Taxon 46: 465. 1997) designated Herb. Linnaeus No. 926.43 (LINN)
as the lectotype of Astragalus trimestris L. (Sp. Pl.: 761. 1753). He simultaneously
designated an epitype (Egypt. Dünen oberhalb Rosetta am linken Nilufer bei Schech

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 22 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) 9

Mantur, 9 May 1902, Anonymous BM), because the lectotype lacks fruits, “which show
important diagnostic features for this species.”

Ex. 10.  The lectotype of Salicornia europaea L. (Herb. Linnaeus No. 10.1, LINN, desig-
nated by
Jafri & Rateeb in Jafri & El-Gadi, Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1978) does not show the rel-
evant characters by which it could be identified for the precise application of this name
in a critical group of taxa that are best characterized molecularly. Therefore, Kadereit
& al. (in Taxon 61: 1234. 2012) designated as the epitype a molecularly tested specimen
from the type locality (Sweden, Gotland, W shore of Burgsviken Bay, Näsudden Cape,
Piirainen & Piirainen 4222, only the plant numbered G38-1, MJG).

 9.10.  The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1, 9.3 and 9.5–9.9)
as denoting a type, in a sense other than that in which it is so defined, is
treated as an error to be corrected (for example, the use of the term lecto-
type to denote what is in fact a neotype).

Ex. 11.  Borssum Waalkes (in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7
(LINN) as the holotype of Sida retusa L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 961. 1763). However, illustra-
tions in Plukenet (Phytographia: t. 9, fig. 2. 1691) and Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t.
19. 1750
) were cited by Linnaeus in the protologue. Therefore, the original material of
S. retusa comprises three elements (Art. 9.4(a)), and Borssum Waalkes’s use of holotype
is an error to be corrected to lectotype.

  Note 6.  A misused term may be corrected only if the requirements of Art. 7.11
(for correction to lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for cor-
rection to holotype) does not apply.

 9.11.  If the name of a species or infraspecific taxon was published without
a holotype (Art. 9.1), or when the holotype or previously designated lecto-
type has been lost or destroyed, or when the material designated as type is
found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or, if permissible (Art.
9.8), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated (see also Art. 9.16).

 9.12.  In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists,
or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype
or isosyntype is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the para-
types if such exist. If none of the above specimens exists, the lectotype
must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited
illustrations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.

Ex. 12.  Baumann & al. (in J. Eur. Orch. 34: 176. 2006) designated an illustration cited
in the protologue of Gymnadenia rubra Wettst. (in Verh. K. K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien
39: 83.
1889
) as “lectotype”. Because Wettstein also cited syntypes, which always have
precedence over illustrations in lectotype designation, Baumann’s choice was not in
conformity with Art. 9.12 and must not be followed. Later, Baumann & Lorenz (in
Taxon 60: 1775. 2011
) correctly designated one of the syntypes as the lectotype.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 23 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

9 Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa)

 9.13.  If no original material is extant or as long as it is missing, a neotype
may be selected. A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype, ex-
cept as provided by Art. 9.16 and 9.19(c).

 9.14.  When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains
parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the name must re-
main attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art. 8.2) that corresponds
most nearly with the original description or diagnosis.

Ex. 13.  The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (in Abh. Königl.
Ges. Wiss. Göttingen 24: 334.
1878
) is Lorentz 128 (BM); the material on this sheet,
however, proved to be mixed. Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in
accordance with Art. 9.14 in designating one part of the sheet in BM as the lectotype.

 9.15.  The holotype (or lectotype) of a name of a fossil-species or infraspe-
cific fossil-taxon (Art. 8.5) is the specimen (or one of the specimens) on
which the validating illustrations (Art. 43.2) are based. When, prior to
1 January 2001 (see Art. 43.3), in the protologue of a name of a new fossil-
taxon at the rank of species or below, a type specimen is indicated (Art.
40.1) but not identified among the validating illustrations, a lectotype must
be designated from among the specimens illustrated in the protologue. This
choice is superseded if it can be demonstrated that the original type speci-
men corresponds to another validating illustration.

 9.16.  When a holotype or a previously designated lectotype has been lost
or destroyed and it can be shown that all the other original material differs
taxonomically from the lost or destroyed type, a neotype may be selected
to preserve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art.
9.18).

 9.17.  A designation of a lectotype, neotype, or epitype that later is found to
refer to a single gathering but to more than one specimen must nevertheless
be accepted (subject to Art. 9.19 and 9.20), but may be further narrowed to
a single one of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypification,
neotypification, or epitypification (see also Art. 9.14).

Ex. 14.  Erigeron plantagineus Greene (in Pittonia 3: 292. 1898) was described from
material collected by R. M. Austin in California. Cronquist (in Brittonia 6: 173. 1947)
wrote “Type: Austin s.n., Modoc County, California (ND)”, thereby designating the
Austin material in ND as the lectotype [first-step]. Strother & Ferlatte (in Madroño 35:
85. 1988
), noting that there were two specimens of this gathering in ND, designated
one of them, “ND-G, 057228” [barcode NDG57228], as the [second-step] lectotype. In
subsequent references, both lectotypification steps may be cited in sequence.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 24 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa) 9

 9.18.  A neotype selected under Art. 9.16 may be superseded if it can
be shown to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it
replaced.

 9.19.  The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a lectotype
or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–9.13 must be followed, but that
choice is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of
the original material is found to exist; the choice may also be superseded
if it can be shown that (b) it is contrary to Art. 9.14 or (c) it is in serious
conflict with the protologue, in which case an element that is not in conflict
with the protologue is to be chosen; a lectotype may only be superseded by
a non-conflicting element of the original material, if such exists; if none
exists it may be superseded by a neotype.

Ex. 15.  (b) Navarro & Rosúa (in Candollea 45: 584. 1990) designated a sheet in G-DC as
lectotype of Teucrium gnaphalodes L’Hér. (Stirp. Nov.: 84. 1788), but this preparation
contains more than one gathering and a heterogeneous mixture of more than one spe-
cies, not all of which matched L’Héritier’s diagnosis. Ferrer-Gallego & al. (in Candollea
67: 38. 2012
) superseded the previous lectotype in choosing one of the specimens on the
same preparation that corresponds most nearly with the original diagnosis.

Ex. 16.  (c) Fischer (in Feddes Repert. 108: 115. 1997) designated Herb. Linnaeus
No. 26.58 (LINN) as lectotype of Veronica agrestis L. (Sp. Pl.: 13. 1753). However,
Martínez-Ortega & al. (in Taxon 51: 763. 2002) established that the designated lecto-
type was in serious conflict with Linnaeus’s diagnosis and that three sheets of original
material not conflicting with the protologue were available in the Celsius herbarium.
One of them was designated as the new lectotype of V. agrestis, superseding the choice
of Fischer.

  Note 7.  Only a choice of uncited material as lectotype may be superseded
under Art. 9.19(c); cited specimens and illustrations are part of the protologue and
cannot therefore be in serious conflict with it.

 9.20.  The author who first designates (Art. 7.9, 7.10 and F.5.4) an epitype
must be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original
epitype is lost or destroyed (see also Art. 9.17). A lectotype or neotype sup-
ported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.19 or, in
the case of a neotype, in accordance with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that
an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither
Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be proposed for conservation with
a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).

  Note 8.  An epitype supports only the type to which it is linked by the typifying
author. If the supported type is lost, destroyed, or superseded, the epitype has no
standing with respect to the replacement type.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 25 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

9–9A Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa)

 9.21.  Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the herbarium, col-
lection,
or institution in which the epitype is conserved is specified or, if
the epitype is a published illustration, a full and direct bibliographic refer-
ence (Art. 41.5) to it is provided.

 9.22.  On or after 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of
a name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished
illustration is not effected unless the herbarium, collection, or institution in
which the type is conserved is specified.

 9.23.  On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification, neotypification, or
epitypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected
unless indicated by use of the term “lectotypus” or “neotypus”, or “epitypus”,
its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Art. 7.11
and 9.10).

Recommendation 9A

9A.1.  Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be
carried out with an understanding of the author’s method of working; in particular
it should be realized that some of the material used by the author in describing the
taxon may not be in the author’s herbarium or may not even have survived, and
conversely, that not all the material surviving in the author’s herbarium was neces-
sarily used in describing the taxon.

9A.2.  Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an
understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the
protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as
the automatic selection of the first element cited or of a specimen collected by the
person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and lead-
ing to possible future confusion and further changes.

9A.3.  In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name
should be given preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue.
Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recog-
nizable figures, and epithets such as typicus, genuinus, etc.

9A.4.  When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with
the original description or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected as to pre-
serve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or
more elements as other taxa, one of the remaining elements should be designated
as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original
description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.19(c)).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 26 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Species and infraspecific taxa – Above specific rank) 9B–10

Recommendation 9B

9B.1.  In selecting a neotype, particular care and critical knowledge should be
exercised because there is usually no guide except personal judgement as to what
best fits the protologue; if this selection proves to be faulty it may result in further
change.

9B.2.  Authors designating an epitype should state in what way the holotype,
lectotype, neotype, or all original material is ambiguous such that epitypification
is necessary.

Recommendation 9C

9C.1.  Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition should
be followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying
the lectotype, neotype, or epitype specimen (see also Rec. 40A.3).

ARTICLE 10

 10.1.  The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the
type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4). For purposes
of designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e. it is
considered as the full equivalent of its type (see also Rec. 40A.3).

  Note 1.  Terms such as “holotype”, “syntype”, and “lectotype”, as presently
defined in Art. 9, although not applicable to the types of names at ranks higher
than species, have sometimes been so used by analogy.

 10.2.  If in the protologue of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of
a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or more previously or simultane-
ously published species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. 10.3), the
type must be chosen from among these types, unless (a) the type was indi-
cated (Art. 10.8, 40.1, and 40.3) or designated by the author of the name; or
(b) the name was sanctioned (Art. F.3), in which case the type may also be
chosen from among the types of species names included in the sanctioning
treatment. If no type of a previously or simultaneously published species
name was definitely included, a type must be otherwise chosen, but the
choice is to be superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type
is not conspecific with any of the material associated with either the proto-
logue or the sanctioning treatment.

Ex. 1.  The genus Anacyclus, as originally circumscribed by Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 892. 1753),
comprised three validly named species. Cassini (in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 34: 104. 1825)
designated Anthemis valentina L. (l.c.: 895. 1753) as type of Anacyclus, but this was not

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 27 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

10 Typification (Above specific rank)

an original element of the genus. Green (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 182. 1929)
designated Anacyclus valentinus L. (l.c.: 892. 1753), “the only one of the three original
species still retained in the genus”, as the “standard species” (see Art. 7 *Ex. 16), and
her choice must be followed (Art. 10.5). Humphries (in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot.
7: 109. 1979
) designated a specimen in the Clifford Herbarium (BM) as lectotype of
Anacyclus valentinus, and that specimen thereby became the type of Anacyclus.

Ex. 2.  Castanella Spruce ex Benth. & Hook. f. (Gen. Pl. 1: 394. Aug 1862) was de-
scribed on the basis of a single specimen collected by Spruce and without mention of
a species name. Swart (in ING Card No. 2143. 1957) was the first to designate a type
(as “T.”): C. granatensis Planch. & Linden (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 4, 18: 365.
Dec 1862
), based on Linden 1360. As long as the Spruce specimen is considered to be
conspecific with Linden’s material, Swart’s type designation cannot be superseded,
even though the Spruce specimen became the type of Paullinia paullinioides Radlk.
(Monogr. Paullinia: 173. 1896), because the latter is not a “previously or simultaneously
published species name”.

 10.3.  For the purposes of Art. 10.2, definite inclusion of the type of a
name of a species is effected by citation of, or reference (direct or indirect)
to, a validly published species name, whether accepted or synonymized
by the author, or by citation of the holotype or lectotype of a previously or
simultaneously published species name.

Ex. 3.  The protologue of Elodes Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 444, 553. 1763) includes refer-
ences to “Elodes” of Clusius (Alt. App. Rar. Pl. Hist., App. Alt. Auct.: [7]. 1611, i.e.
Ascyrum supinum ελωδης”
), “Hypericum” of Tournefort (Inst. Rei Herb. 1: 255. 1700,
i.e. “Hypericum palustre, supinum, tomentosum”
), and Hypericum aegypticum L. (Sp.
Pl.: 784.
1753
). The last is the only reference to a validly published species name, and
neither of the other elements is the type of a species name. The type of H. aegypticum
is therefore the type of Elodes even though subsequent authors designated H. elodes L.
(Amoen. Acad. 4: 105. 1759) as the type (see Robson in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.),
Bot. 5: 305
, 337. 1977).

 10.4.  By and only by conservation (Art. 14.9), the type of a name of a
genus may be a specimen or illustration, preferably used by the author in
the preparation of the protologue, other than the type of a name of an in-
cluded species.

  Note 2.  If the element designated under Art. 10.4 is the type of a species name,
that name may be cited as the type of the generic name. If the element is not the
type of a species name, a parenthetical reference to the correct name of the type
element may be added.

Ex. 4.  Physconia Poelt (in Nova Hedwigia 9: 30. 1965) was conserved with the speci-
men “‘Lichen pulverulentus’, Germania, Lipsia in Tilia, 1767, Schreber (M)” as the
conserved type. That specimen is the type of P. pulverulacea Moberg (in Mycotaxon 8:
310.
1979), the name now cited in the type entry in App. III.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 28 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Above specific rank) 10

Ex. 5.  Pseudolarix Gordon (Pinetum: 292. 1858) was conserved with a specimen from
the Gordon herbarium (K No. 3455) as its conserved type. Because this specimen is not
the type of any species name, its accepted identity “[= P. amabilis (J. Nelson) Rehder
...]” has been added to the corresponding entry in App. III.

 10.5.  The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a type
of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the
choice may be superseded if the author used a largely mechanical method
of selection (Art. 10.6). A type chosen using a largely mechanical method
of selection is superseded by any later choice of a different type not made
using such a method, unless, in the interval, the supersedable choice has
been affirmed by its adoption in a publication that did not use a mechanical
method of selection.

  Note 3.  The effective date of a typification (cf. Art. 22.2, 48.2 and 52.2(b))
subject to supersession under Art. 10.5 remains that of the original selection, un-
less the type has been superseded.

 10.6.  For the purposes of Art. 10.5, “a largely mechanical method of selec-
tion” is defined as one in which the type is selected following a set of objec-
tive criteria such as those set out in “Canon 15” of the so-called “Philadel-
phia Code” (Arthur & al. in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 31: 255–257. 1904) or in
“Canon 15” of the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Arthur & al.
in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 172–174. 1907
).

Ex. 6.  The first type designation for Delphinium L. was by Britton (in Britton & Brown,
Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 93. 1913
), who followed the American Code and whose selection
of D. consolida L. is therefore considered to have been largely mechanical. His choice
has been superseded under Art. 10.5 by the designation of D. peregrinum L. by Green
(in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 162. 1929).

 10.7.  Unless the author(s) specifically state that they are not using a
mechanical method of type selection, the following criteria determine
whether a particular publication, appearing prior to 1 January 1935, has
adopted a largely mechanical method of type selection:

(a)  any statement to that effect, including that the American Code or the
      “Philadelphia Code” was being followed or that types were determined
      in a particular mechanical way (e.g. the first species in order); or

(b)  adoption of any provision of the “Philadelphia Code” or the American
      Code that was contrary to the provisions of the International Rules of
      Botanical Nomenclature in force at that time, e.g. the inclusion of one
      or more tautonyms as species names.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 29 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

10 Typification (Above specific rank)

Additionally for publications appearing prior to 1 January 1921:

(c)  if an author of the publication was a signatory of the “Philadelphia
      Code”¹ (and was therefore also a signatory of the American Code);

(d)  if an author of the publication stated publicly (e.g. in another publica-
      tion) that in the typification of generic names the “Philadelphia Code”
      or the American Code was followed;

(e)  if an author of the publication was an employee or a recognized associ-
      ate of the New York Botanical Garden; or

(f)  if an author of the publication was an employee of the United States
      government.

Ex. 7.  (a) Fink (in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 14: 2. 1910) specified that he was “stating the
types of the genera according to the ‘first species’ rule”. His type designations may
therefore be superseded under Art. 10.5. For example, Fink had designated Biatorina
griffithii
(Ach.) A. Massal. as the type of Biatorina A. Massal.; but his choice was
superseded when the next subsequent designation, by Santesson (in Symb. Bot. Upsal.
12: 428. 1952), stated a different type, B. atropurpurea (Schaer.) A. Massal.

Ex. 8.  (a) Underwood (in Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 6: 247–283. 1899) wrote (p. 251): “For
each genus established the first named species will be regarded
as type”. Therefore, his
designation (p. 276) of Caenopteris furcata Bergius as type of Caenopteris Bergius (in
Acta Acad. Sci. Imp. Petrop. 1782(2): 249. 1786
) is supersedable; this has been effected
by Copeland (Gen. Filicum: 166. 1947), who designated C. rutifolia Bergius as type.

Ex. 9.  (a) Murrill (in J. Mycol. 9: 87. 1903), referring to generic types, wrote: “The
principles by which I have been chiefly guided are also quite well known having
been stated and explained by Underwood” [see Ex. 8]. Consequently Murrill (l.c.: 95,
98. 1903) listed the first-named species treated by Quélet (Enchir. Fung.: 175. 1886),
Coriolus lutescens (Pers.) Quél., as type of Coriolus Quél. (l.c.), and later (in Bull.
Torrey Bot. Club 32: 640. 1906
) listed Polyporus zonatus Nees as type because it was
“the first species accompanied by a correct citation of a figure”. Both lectotypifica-
tions are considered to be mechanical and were superseded by the choice of Polyporus
versicolor
(L.) Fr. by Donk (Revis. Niederl. Homobasidiomyc.: 180. 1933).

Ex. 10.  (b) Britton & Wilson (Bot. Porto Rico 6: 262. 1925) designated Cucurbita
lagenaria
L. as type of Cucurbita L. (Sp. Pl.: 1010. 1753). However, because they were
evidently following the American Code (they included many tautonyms in their publi-
cation, e.g. “Abrus Abrus (L.) W. Wight”, “Acisanthera Acisanthera (L.) Britton”, and
Ananas Ananas (L.) Voss”), their type selections used a largely mechanical method.
Their selection of C. lagenaria (currently treated as Lagenaria siceraria (Molina)
Standl.) has been superseded by the selection of C. pepo L. by Green (in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 190. 1929
).

————————————

1     A list of the 23 signatories of the “Philadelphia Code” was published in Taxon 65: 1448.
       2016, as well as in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 31: 250. 1904.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 30 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Typification (Above specific rank) 10

Ex. 11.  (d) In considering the typification of Achyranthes L. in a preliminary to his
account of Amaranthaceae in the North American Flora, Paul C. Standley (in J. Wash.
Acad. Sci. 5: 72. 1915
) selected A. repens L. as type stating that “there seems, moreo-
ver, no doubt as to the type of the genus Achyranthes under the American Code of
nomenclature”, noting that, as a result, “the name Achyranthes must be used in a sense
other than that in which it has generally been employed in recent years”. As a result of
this published statement of acceptance of the American Code, not only is Standley’s
selection of A. repens superseded by that of A. aspera L. by Hitchcock (in Sprague,
Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 135. 1929
), but types cited in Standley’s other publications (e.g.
in Britton, N. Amer. Fl. 21: 1–254. 1916–1918) are supersedable under Art. 10.5. There-
fore, Standley’s statement (l.c.: 134. 1917) that A. repens was the type of Achyranthes
does not constitute affirmation of his earlier selection; similarly his publication of type
designations previously made by Britton & Brown, such as Chenopodium rubrum L.
(l.c.: 9. 1916) and Amaranthus caudatus L. (l.c.: 102. 1917), does not constitute affirma-
tion of their selection; the typification of Chenopodium L. has been superseded by the
selection of C. album L. by Hitchcock (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 137. 1929) and
that of Amaranthus L. was first affirmed by Green (in Sprague, l.c.: 188. 1929).

 10.8.  When the epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is identical
with or derived from the epithet in one of the originally included species
names, the type of the higher-ranking name is the same as that of the spe-
cies name, unless the original author of the higher-ranking name desig-
nated another type.

Ex. 12.  The type of Euphorbia subg. Esula Pers. (Syn. Pl. 2: 14. 1806) is the type of
E. esula L., one of the species names included by Persoon; the designation of E. pep-
lus
L. (also included by Persoon) as type by Croizat (in Revista Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13.
1939) has no standing.

Ex. 13.  The type of Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753) is the type
of C. chamaecrista L., nom. rej. (App. V), one of the five species names included by
Linnaeus.

 10.9.  The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is
the same as that of the generic name from which it is formed (see Art. 18.1).
For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the generic name alone
suffices. The type of a name of a family or subfamily not formed from a
generic name is the same as that of the corresponding alternative name
(Art. 18.5 and 19.8).

 10.10.  The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above
the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by
being formed from generic names (see Art. 16(a)), the type of which is the
same as that of the generic name.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 31 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

10A–11 Typification (Above specific rank) – Priority

Recommendation 10A

10A.1.  When a combination at a rank of a subdivision of a genus has been pub-
lished under a generic name that has not yet been typified, the type of the generic
name should be selected from the subdivision of the genus that was designated as
nomenclaturally typical, if that is apparent.

10A.2.  In citing a type chosen using a largely mechanical method of selection
that has since been affirmed by an author not using such a method, both the place
of original selection and that of affirmation should be cited, e.g. “Quercus L. …
Type: Q. robur L. designated by Britton & Brown (Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 1: 616
1913
); affirmed by Green (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 189. 1929)”.

SECTION 3

PRIORITY

ARTICLE 11

 11.1.  Each family or lower-ranked taxon with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can bear only one correct name. Special exceptions are
made for nine families and one subfamily for which alternative names are
permitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.8). The use of separate names is allowed
for fossil-taxa that represent different parts, life-history stages, or preser-
vational states of what may have been a single organismal taxon or even a
single individual (Art. 1.2).

Ex. 1  The generic name Sigillaria Brongn. (in Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris 1822: 26.
1822
) was established for fossils of “bark” fragments, but Brongniart (in Arch. Mus.
Hist. Nat. 1: 405. 1839
) subsequently included stems with preserved anatomy within
his concept of Sigillaria. Cones with preserved anatomy that may in part represent
the same biological taxon are referred to as Mazocarpon M. J. Benson (in Ann. Bot.
(Oxford) 32: 569. 1918
), whereas such cones preserved as adpressions are known as
Sigillariostrobus Schimp. (Traité Paléont. Vég. 2: 105. 1870). All these generic names
can be used concurrently in spite of the fact that they may, at least in part, apply to the
same organism.

 11.2.  A name has no priority outside the rank at which it is published (but
see Art. 53.3).

Ex. 2.  When Campanula sect. Campanopsis R. Br. (Prodr.: 561. 1810) is treated as
a genus, it is called Wahlenbergia Roth (Nov. Pl. Sp.: 399. 1821), a name conserved
against the heterotypic (taxonomic) synonym Cervicina Delile (Descr. Egypte, Hist.
Nat.: 150.
1813
), and not Campanopsis (R. Br.) Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 378. 1891).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 32 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 11

Ex. 3.  Solanum subg. Leptostemonum Bitter (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 55: 69. 1919) is the
correct name of the subgenus that includes its type, S. mammosum L., because it is the
earliest available name at that rank. The homotypic S. sect. Acanthophora Dunal (Hist.
Nat. Solanum: 131
, 218. 1813), the inclusion of which caused the illegitimacy of S. sect.
Leptostemonum Dunal (in Candolle, Prodr. 13(1): 29, 183. 1852), has no priority outside
its own rank.

Ex. 4.  Helichrysum stoechas subsp. barrelieri (Ten.) Nyman (Consp. Fl. Eur.: 381. 1879)
when treated at specific rank is called H. conglobatum (Viv.) Steud. (Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2,
1: 738.
1840
), based on Gnaphalium conglobatum Viv. (Fl. Libyc. Spec.: 55. 1824),
and not H. barrelieri (Ten.) Greuter (in Boissiera 13: 138. 1967), based on G. barrelieri
Ten. (Fl. Napol. 5: 220. 1835–1838).

Ex. 5.  Magnolia virginiana var. foetida L. (Sp. Pl.: 536. 1753) when raised to specific
rank is called M. grandiflora L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 1082. 1759), not M. foetida (L.) Sarg.
(in Gard. & Forest 2: 615. 1889).

  Note 1.  The provisions of Art. 11 determine priority between different names
applicable to the same taxon; they do not concern homonymy.

 11.3.  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 conservation or protection (see Art. 14 and F.2) or where Art.
11.7, 11.8, 19.4, 56, 57, F.3, or F.7 apply.

Ex. 6.  When Aesculus L. (Sp. Pl.: 344. 1753), Pavia Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: Pavia.
1754
), Macrothyrsus Spach (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 2: 61. 1834), and Calothyrsus
Spach (l.c.: 62. 1834) are referred to a single genus, its correct name is Aesculus.

 11.4.  For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the com-
bination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at
the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is
assigned, except (a) in cases of limitation of priority under Art. 14, 56, 57,
F.2, F.3, or F.7, or (b) if Art. 11.7, 11.8, 22.1, or 26.1 rules that a different
combination be used
, or (c) if the resulting combination could not be val-
idly published under Art. 32.1(c) or would be illegitimate under Art. 53. If
(c) applies, the final epithet of the next earliest legitimate name at the same
rank is to be used instead or, if there is no final epithet available, a replace-
ment name or the name of a new taxon may be published.

Ex. 7.  Primula sect. Dionysiopsis Pax (in Jahresber. Schles. Ges. Vaterländ. Kul-
tur 87: 20. 1909
) when transferred to Dionysia Fenzl becomes D. sect. Dionysiopsis
(Pax) Melch. (in Mitt. Thüring. Bot. Vereins 50: 164–168. 1943); the replacement name
D. sect. Ariadna Wendelbo (in Bot. Not. 112: 496. 1959) is illegitimate under Art. 52.1.

Ex. 8.  Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl.: 613. 1753) when transferred to Linaria Mill. is
called L. spuria (L.) Mill. (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Linaria No. 15. 1768).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 33 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

11 Priority

Ex. 9.  When transferring Serratula chamaepeuce L. (Sp. Pl.: 819. 1753) to Ptilostemon
Cass., Cassini illegitimately (Art. 52.1) named the species P. muticus Cass. (in Cuvier,
Dict. Sci. Nat. 44: 59.
1826
). In Ptilostemon, the correct name is P. chamaepeuce (L.)
Less. (Gen. Cynaroceph.: 5. 1832).

Ex. 10.  The correct name for Rubus aculeatiflorus var. taitoensis (Hayata) T. S. Liu &
T. Y. Yang (in Annual Taiwan Prov. Mus. 12: 12. 1969) is R. taitoensis Hayata var. tai-
toensis
because R. taitoensis Hayata (in J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo 30(1): 96. 1911)
has priority over R. aculeatiflorus Hayata (Icon. Pl. Formosan. 5: 39. 1915).

Ex. 11.  When transferring Spartium biflorum Desf. (Fl. Atlant. 2: 133. 1798) to Cytisus
Desf., Ball correctly proposed the replacement name C. fontanesii Spach ex Ball (in
J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 16: 405.
1878
) because of the previously and validly published C. bi-
florus
L’Hér. (Stirp. Nov.: 184. 1791); the combination C. biflorus based on S. biflorum
would be illegitimate under Art. 53.1.

Ex. 12.  Spergula stricta Sw. (in Kongl. Vetensk. Acad. Nya Handl. 20: 235. 1799) when
transferred to Arenaria L. is called A. uliginosa Schleich. ex Schltdl. (in Mag. Neuesten
Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 7: 207.
1808) because of the
existence of the name A. stricta Michx. (Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1: 274. 1803), based on a dif-
ferent type; but on further transfer to the genus Minuartia L. the epithet stricta is again
available and the species is called M. stricta (Sw.) Hiern (in J. Bot. 37: 320. 1899).

Ex. 13.  Arum dracunculus L. (Sp. Pl.: 964. 1753) when transferred to Dracunculus Mill.
is named D. vulgaris Schott (Melet. Bot. 1: 17. 1832). The use of the Linnaean epithet
in Dracunculus would result in a tautonym (Art. 23.4), which would not be validly
published (Art. 32.1(c))
.

Ex. 14.  Cucubalus behen L. (Sp. Pl.: 414. 1753) when transferred to Behen Moench was
legitimately renamed B. vulgaris Moench (Methodus: 709. 1794) to avoid the tautonym
“B. behen”. In Silene L., the epithet behen is unavailable because of the existence of
S. behen L. (Sp. Pl.: 418. 1753). Therefore, the replacement name S. cucubalus Wibel
(Prim. Fl. Werth.: 241. 1799) was proposed. This, however, is illegitimate (Art. 52.1)
because the specific epithet vulgaris was available. In Silene, the correct name of the
species is S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke (Fl. N. Mitt.-Deutschland, ed. 9: 64. 1869).

Ex. 15.  Helianthemum italicum var. micranthum Gren. & Godr. (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847)
when transferred as a variety to H. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal retains its vari-
etal epithet and is named H. penicillatum var. micranthum (Gren. & Godr.) Grosser (in
Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 193 (Heft 14): 115. 1903
).

Ex. 16.  The final epithet in the combination Thymus praecox subsp. arcticus (Durand)
Jalas (in Veröff. Geobot. Inst. ETH Stiftung Rübel Zürich 43: 190. 1970), based on
T. serpyllum var. arcticus Durand (Pl. Kaneanae Groenl.: 196. 1856), was first used at
the rank of subspecies in the combination T. serpyllum subsp. arcticus (Durand) Hyl.
(in Uppsala Univ. Årsskr. 1945(7): 276. 1945). However, if T. britannicus Ronniger
(in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 20: 330. 1924) is included in this taxon, the correct
name at subspecific rank is T. praecox subsp. britannicus (Ronniger) Holub (in Preslia
45: 359. 1973), for which the final epithet was first used at this rank in the combination
T. serpyllum subsp. britannicus (Ronniger) P. Fourn. (Quatre Fl. France: 841. 1938,
“S.-E. [Sous-Espèce] Th. Britannicus”).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 34 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 11

Ex. 17.  Transfer of Polypodium tenerum Roxb. (in Calcutta J. Nat. Hist. 4: 490. 1844) to
Cyclosorus Link (Hort. Berol. 2: 128. 1833) would result in a later homonym due to the
existence of C. tener (Fée) Christenh. (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 161: 250. 2009), based on
Goniopteris tenera Fée (Mém. Foug. 11: 60. 1866). The correct name is a heterotypic
synonym, C. ciliatus (Wall. ex Benth.) Panigrahi (in Res. J. Pl. Environm. 9: 66. 1993),
based on the next earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, Aspidium cili-
atum
Wall. ex Benth. (Fl. Hongkong.: 455. 1861).

  Note 2.  The valid publication of a name at a rank lower than genus precludes
any simultaneous homonymous combination (Art. 53), irrespective of the priority
of other names with the same final epithet that may require transfer to the same
genus or species.

Ex. 18.  Tausch included two species in his new genus Alkanna: A. tinctoria Tausch
(in Flora 7: 234. 1824), a new species based on “Anchusa tinctoria” in the sense of
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 192. 1762), and A. matthioli Tausch (l.c. 1824), a replacement
name based on Lithospermum tinctorium L. (Sp. Pl.: 132. 1753). Both names are legiti-
mate and take priority from 1824.

Ex. 19.  Raymond-Hamet transferred to the genus Sedum both Cotyledon sedoides DC.
(in Mém. Agric. Econ. Soc. Agric. Seine 11: 11. 1808) and Sempervivum sedoides Decne.
(in Jacquemont, Voy. Inde 4(Bot.): 63. 1844). He combined the epithet of the later name,
Sempervivum sedoides, under Sedum, as S. sedoides (Decne.) Raym.-Hamet (in Can-
dollea 4: 26.
1929), and published a replacement name, S. candollei Raym.-Hamet (l.c.
1929), for the earlier name. Both of Raymond-Hamet’s names are legitimate.

 11.5.  When, for any taxon at the rank of family or below, a choice is pos-
sible between legitimate names of equal priority at the corresponding rank,
or between available final epithets of names of equal priority at the corre-
sponding rank, the first such choice to be effectively published (Art. 2931)
establishes the priority of the chosen name, and of any legitimate combina-
tion with the same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other com-
peting name(s) (but see Art. 11.6; see also Rec. F.5A.2).

  Note 3.  A choice as provided for in Art. 11.5 is effected by adopting one of the
competing names, or its final epithet in the required combination, and simultane-
ously rejecting or relegating to synonymy the other(s), or their homotypic (nomen-
clatural) synonyms.

Ex. 20.  When Dentaria L. (Sp. Pl.: 653. 1753) and Cardamine L. (l.c.: 654. 1753) are
united, the resulting genus is called Cardamine because that name was chosen by
Crantz (Cl. Crucif. Emend.: 126. 1769), who first united them.

Ex. 21.  When Claudopus Gillet (Hyménomycètes: 426. 1876), Eccilia (Fr. : Fr.)
P. Kumm. (Führer Pilzk.: 23. 1871), Entoloma (Fr. ex Rabenh.) P. Kumm. (l.c.: 23. 1871),
Leptonia (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (l.c.: 24. 1871), and Nolanea (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (l.c.: 24.
1871
) are united, one of the four generic names simultaneously published by Kummer
must be used for the combined genus. Donk (in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg, ser. 3,

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 35 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

11 Priority

18(1): 157. 1949) selected Entoloma, which is therefore treated as having priority over
the other names.

Ex. 22.  Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exped. Zaire: 484. 1818) was the first to unite Walthe-
ria americana
L. (Sp. Pl.: 673. 1753) and W. indica L. (l.c. 1753). He adopted the name
W. indica for the combined species, and this name is accordingly treated as having
priority over W. americana.

Ex. 23.  Baillon (in Adansonia 3: 162. 1863), when uniting for the first time Sclerocro-
ton integerrimus
Hochst. (in Flora 28: 85. 1845) and S. reticulatus Hochst. (l.c. 1845),
adopted the name Stillingia integerrima (Hochst.) Baill. for the combined taxon. Con-
sequently Sclerocroton integerrimus is treated as having priority over S. reticulatus
irrespective of the genus (Sclerocroton, Stillingia, or any other) to which the species
is assigned.

Ex. 24.  Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 902. 1753) simultaneously published the names Verbesina
alba
and V. prostrata. Later (Mant. Pl.: 286. 1771), he published Eclipta erecta, an
illegitimate name because V. alba was cited in synonymy, and E. prostrata, based on
V. prostrata. The first author to unite these taxa was Roxburgh (Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 3:
438. 1832
), who adopted the name E. prostrata (L.) L. Therefore, V. prostrata is treated
as having priority over V. alba.

Ex. 25.  Donia speciosa and D. formosa, which were simultaneously published by Don
(Gen. Hist. 2: 468. 1832), were illegitimately renamed Clianthus oxleyi and C. dampieri,
respectively, by Lindley (in Trans. Hort. Soc. London, ser. 2, 1: 522. 1835). Brown (in
Sturt, Narr. Exped. C. Australia 2: 71. 1849) united both in a single species, adopting
the illegitimate name C. dampieri and citing D. speciosa and C. oxleyi as synonyms; his
choice is not of the kind provided for by Art. 11.5. Clianthus speciosus (G. Don) Asch.
& Graebn. (Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 6(2): 725. 1909), published with D. speciosa and C. dam-
pieri
listed as synonyms, is an illegitimate later homonym of C. speciosus (Endl.) Steud.
(Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 384. 1840); again, conditions for a choice under Art. 11.5 were
not satisfied. Ford & Vickery (in Contr. New South Wales Natl. Herb. 1: 303. 1950)
published the legitimate combination C. formosus (G. Don) Ford & Vickery and cited
D. formosa and D. speciosa as synonyms, but because the epithet of the latter was
unavailable in Clianthus Sol. ex Lindl. a choice was not possible and again Art. 11.5
does not apply. Thompson (in Telopea 4: 4. 1990) was the first to effect an acceptable
choice when publishing the combination Swainsona formosa (G. Don) Joy Thomps. and
indicating that D. speciosa was a synonym of it.

 11.6.  An autonym is treated as having priority over the name(s) of the
same date and rank that upon their valid publication established the auto-
nym (see Art. 22.3 and 26.3)
.

  Note 4.  When the final epithet of an autonym is used in a new combination
under the requirements of Art. 11.6, the basionym of that combination is the name
from which the autonym is derived, or its basionym if it has one.

Ex. 26.  The publication of Synthyris subg. Plagiocarpus Pennell (in Proc. Acad. Nat.
Sci. Philadelphia 85: 86. 1933) simultaneously established the autonym Synthyris
Benth. (in Candolle, Prodr. 10: 454. 1846) subg. Synthyris. If Synthyris, including subg.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 36 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority 11

Plagiocarpus, is recognized as a subgenus of Veronica L. (Sp. Pl.: 9. 1753), the correct
name is V. subg. Synthyris (Benth.) M. M. Mart. Ort. & al. (in Taxon 53: 440. 2004),
which has precedence over a combination in Veronica based on S. subg. Plagiocarpus.

Ex. 27.  Heracleum sibiricum L. (Sp. Pl.: 249. 1753) includes H. sibiricum subsp. lecokii
(Godr. & Gren.) Nyman (Consp. Fl. Eur.: 290. 1879) and H. sibiricum subsp. sibiricum
automatically established at the same time. When H. sibiricum, so circumscribed, is
included in H. sphondylium L. (l.c. 1753) as a single subspecies, the correct name of that
subspecies is H. sphondylium subsp. sibiricum (L.) Simonk. (Enum. Fl. Transsilv.: 266.
1887
), not “H. sphondylium subsp. lecokii”.

Ex. 28.  The publication of Salix tristis var. microphylla Andersson (Salices Bor.-Amer.:
21. 1858) simultaneously established the autonym S. tristis Aiton (in Hort. Kew. 3: 393.
1789
) var. tristis. If S. tristis, including var. microphylla, is recognized as a variety of
S. humilis Marshall (Arbust. Amer.: 140. 1785), the correct name is S. humilis var. tristis
(Aiton) Griggs (in Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci. 4: 301. 1905). However, if both these varieties
of S. tristis are recognized as varieties of S. humilis, then the names S. humilis var. tristis
and S. humilis var. microphylla (Andersson) Fernald (in Rhodora 48: 46. 1946) are used.

 11.7.  For purposes of priority, names of fossil-taxa (diatom taxa excepted)
compete only with names based on a fossil type.

Ex. 29.  The name Polysphaeridium zoharyi (M. Rossignol) J. P. Bujak & al. (in Special
Pap. Palaeontol. 24: 34. 1980), based on Hystrichosphaeridium zoharyi M. Rossignol
(in Pollen & Spores 4: 132. 1962), may be retained for a fossil-species of cysts even
though cysts of the same kind are known to be part of the life cycle of the non-fossil
species Pyrodinium bahamense L. Plate (in Arch. Protistenk. 7: 427. 1906).

Ex. 30.  Reid (in Nova Hedwigia 29: 429–462. 1977) indicated that his new fossil-spe-
cies Votadinium calvum was the resting cyst of the non-fossil dinoflagellate Peridinium
oblongum
(Auriv.) Cleve (in Kongl. Svenska Vetensk. Acad. Handl., n.s., 32(8): 20.
1900
). Votadinium calvum can be used as the correct name for the cyst fossil-species be-
cause it has a fossil type and therefore does not compete for priority with P. oblongum.

 11.8.  Names of organisms (diatoms excepted) based on a non-fossil type
are treated as having priority over names at the same rank based on a fos-
sil type where these names are treated as synonyms for a non-fossil taxon.

Ex. 31.  If Platycarya Siebold & Zucc. (in Abh. Math.-Phys. Cl. Königl. Bayer. Akad.
Wiss. 3: 741.
1843
), based on a non-fossil type, and Petrophiloides Bowerb. (Hist. Fruits
London Clay: 43.
1840
), based on a fossil type, are treated as heterotypic synonyms
for a non-fossil genus, the name Platycarya is correct even though it is antedated by
Petrophiloides.

Ex. 32.  The generic name Metasequoia Miki (in Jap. J. Bot. 11: 261. 1941) was based
on the fossil type of M. disticha (Heer) Miki. After discovery of the non-fossil spe-
cies M. glyptostroboides Hu & W. C. Cheng, conservation of Metasequoia Hu & W. C.
Cheng (in Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol., Bot., ser. 2, 1: 154. 1948) as based on the non-fossil
type was approved. Otherwise, any new generic name based on M. glyptostroboides
would have been treated as having priority over Metasequoia Miki.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 37 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

11 Priority

Ex. 33.  Hyalodiscus Ehrenb. (in Ber. Bekanntm. Verh. Königl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Ber-
lin 1845: 71.
1845
), based on the fossil type of H. laevis Ehrenb. (l.c.: 78. 1845), is the
name of a diatom genus that includes non-fossil species. If later synonymous generic
names based on a non-fossil type exist, they are not treated as having priority over
Hyalodiscus because Art. 11.8 excepts diatoms.

Ex. 34.  Boalch & Guy-Ohlson (in Taxon 41: 529–531. 1992) synonymized the two non-
diatom algal generic names Pachysphaera Ostenf. (in Knudsen & Ostenfeld, Iagtt.
Overfladevand. Temp. Salth. Plankt. 1898: 52.
1899) and Tasmanites E. J. Newton (in
Geol. Mag. 12: 341.
1875
). Pachysphaera is based on a non-fossil type and Tasmanites
on a fossil type. Under the Code in effect in 1992, Tasmanites had priority and was
therefore adopted. Under the current Art. 11.8, which excepts only diatoms and not
algae in general, Pachysphaera is the correct name for a non-fossil genus for which both
of these names are treated as heterotypic synonyms.

Ex. 35.  The non-fossil species Gonyaulax ellegaardiae K. N. Mertens & al. (in
J. Phycol. 51: 563. 2015) was indicated in the protologue to produce a cyst correspond-
ing to the fossil-species Spiniferites pachydermus (M. Rossignol) P. C. Reid (in Nova
Hedwigia 25: 607. 1974). Both names were correct because Mertens & al. did not treat
them as synonyms. However, if these names are treated as synonyms for the non-fossil
species, G. ellegaardiae is treated as having priority even though it is antedated by
S. pachydermus.

  Note 5.  In accordance with Art. 53, later homonyms are illegitimate whether
the type is fossil or non-fossil.

Ex. 36.  Endolepis Torr. (in Pacif. Railr. Rep. 12(2, 2): 47. 1860–1861), based on a
non-fossil type, is an illegitimate later homonym of Endolepis Schleid. (in Schmid &
Schleiden, Geognos. Verhältnisse Saalthales Jena: 72.
1846), based on a fossil type.

Ex. 37.  Cornus paucinervis Hance (in J. Bot. 19: 216. 1881), based on a non-fossil type,
is an illegitimate later homonym of C. paucinervis Heer (Fl. Tert. Helv. 3: 289. 1859),
based on a fossil type.

Ex. 38.  Ficus crassipes F. M. Bailey (Rep. Pl. Prelim. Gen. Rep. Bot. Meston’s Exped.
Bellenden-Ker Range: 2.
1889), F. tiliifolia Baker (in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 21: 443. 1885),
and F. tremula Warb. (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20: 171. 1894), each based on a non-fossil
type, were illegitimate later homonyms of, respectively, F. crassipes (Heer) Heer (Fl.
Foss. Arct. 6(2): 70.
1882
), F. tiliifolia (A. Braun) Heer (Fl. Tert. Helv. 2: 68. 1856), and
F. tremula Heer (in Abh. Schweiz. Paläontol. Ges. 1: 11. 1874), each based on a fossil
type. The three names with non-fossil types have been conserved against their earlier
homonyms in order to maintain their use (see App. V).

 11.9.  For purposes of priority, names given to hybrids are subject to the
same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa at equivalent rank (but see Art.
H.8).

Ex. 39.  The name ×Solidaster H. R. Wehrh. (in Bonstedt, Pareys Blumengärtn. 2: 525.
1932) has priority over ×Asterago Everett (in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 101: 6. 1937) for the
hybrids between Aster L. and Solidago L.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 38 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Priority – Starting-points 11–13

Ex. 40.  Anemone ×hybrida Paxton (in Paxton’s Mag. Bot. 15: 239. 1849) has priority
over A. ×elegans Decne. (pro sp.) (Rev. Hort. (Paris) 1852: 41. 1852). The former is
correct when both are considered to apply to the same hybrid, A. hupehensis (Lemoine
& É. Lemoine) Lemoine & É. Lemoine × A. vitifolia Buch.-Ham. ex DC. (Art. H.4.1).

Ex. 41.  Camus (in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 33: 538. 1927) published the name ×Agroe-
lymus
E. G. Camus ex A. Camus without a description or diagnosis, mentioning only
the names of the parent genera (Agropyron Gaertn. and Elymus L.). Because this name
was not validly published under the Code then in force, Rousseau (in Mém. Jard. Bot.
Montréal 29: 10–11. 1952) published a Latin diagnosis. However, under the present
Code (Art. H.9), the date of valid publication of ×Agroelymus is 1927, not 1952, and
therefore
it has priority over the name ×Elymopyrum Cugnac (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat.
Ardennes 33: 14. 1938).

 11.10.  The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of family
(but see Rec. 16A).

ARTICLE 12

 12.1.  A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly
published (see Art. 6.3; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.15).

SECTION 4

LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

ARTICLE 13

 13.1.  Valid publication of names for organisms of different groups is treated
as beginning at the following dates (for each group a work is mentioned that
is treated as having been published on the date given for that group):

Non-fossil organisms:

(a)   Spermatophyta  and  Pteridophyta,  names  at  ranks  of  genus  and
       below, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1); suprageneric
       names, 4 August 1789 (Jussieu, Genera plantarum).

(b)   Musci (except Sphagnaceae), 1 January 1801 (Hedwig, Species musco-
       rum).

(c)   Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, (including Anthocerotae), names at ranks
       of genus and below, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1;
       suprageneric names, 4 August 1789 (Jussieu, Genera plantarum).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 39 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

13 Starting-points

(d)   Fungi (Pre. 8), see Art. F.1.1.

(e)   Algae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1). Exceptions:

       Nostocaceae homocysteae, 1 January 1892 (Gomont, “Monogra-
       phie des Oscillariées”, in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15: 263–368; 16:
       91–264). The two parts of Gomont’s “Monographie”, which appeared
       in 1892 and 1893, respectively, are treated as having been published
       simultaneously on 1 January 1892.

       Nostocaceae heterocysteae, 1 January 1886 (Bornet & Flahault,
       “Révision des Nostocacées hétérocystées”, in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser.
       7, 3: 323–381; 4: 343–373; 5: 51–129; 7: 177–262). The four parts of the
       “Révision”, which appeared in 1886, 1886, 1887, and 1888, respectively,
       are treated as having been published simultaneously on 1 January 1886.

       Desmidiaceae (s. l.), 1 January 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).

       Oedogoniaceae, 1 January 1900 (Hirn, “Monographie und Iconogra-
       phie der Oedogoniaceen”, in Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).

Fossil organisms (diatoms excepted):

(f)   All groups, 31 December 1820 (Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch
       1: 1–24, t. 1–13). Schlotheim’s Petrefactenkunde (1820) is regarded as
       published before 31 December 1820.

 13.2.  The group to which a name is assigned for the purposes of Art. 13.1
and F.1 is determined by the accepted taxonomic position of the type of the
name.

Ex. 1.  The genus Porella and its single species, P. pinnata, were referred by Linnaeus
(Sp. Pl.: 1106. 1753) to the Musci; because the type specimen of P. pinnata is now
accepted as belonging to the Hepaticae, the names were validly published in 1753.

Ex. 2.  The designated type of Lycopodium L. (Sp. Pl.: 1100. 1753) is L. clavatum L. (l.c.:
1101.
1753
), the type specimen of which is currently accepted as a pteridophyte. Accord-
ingly, although the genus is listed by Linnaeus among the Musci, the generic name
and the names of the pteridophyte species included by Linnaeus under it were validly
published in 1753.

 13.3.  For nomenclatural purposes, a name is treated as pertaining to a
non-fossil taxon unless its type is fossil in origin (Art. 1.2). Fossil material
is distinguished from non-fossil material by stratigraphic relations at the
site of original occurrence. In cases of doubtful stratigraphic relations, and
for all diatoms, provisions for non-fossil taxa apply.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 40 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Starting-points – Conservation 13–14

 13.4.  Generic names that appear in Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, ed. 1
(1753)
and ed. 2 (1762–1763), are associated with the first subsequent
description given under those names in Linnaeus’s Genera plantarum,
ed. 5 (1754)
and ed. 6 (1764). The spelling of the generic names included in
Species plantarum, ed. 1, is not to be altered because a different spelling
has been used in Genera plantarum, ed. 5.

  Note 1.  The two volumes of Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, ed. 1 (1753), which
appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively, are treated as having been pub-
lished simultaneously on 1 May 1753 (Art. 13.1).

Ex. 3.  The generic names Thea L. (Sp. Pl.: 515. 24 Mai 1753; Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 232. 1754),
and Camellia L. (Sp. Pl.: 698. 16 Aug 1753; Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 311. 1754), are treated as hav-
ing been published simultaneously on 1 May 1753. Under Art. 11.5 the combined genus
bears the name Camellia, because Sweet (Hort. Suburb. Lond.: 157. 1818), who was the
first to unite the two genera, chose that name, and cited Thea as a synonym.

Ex. 4.  Sideroxylon L. (Sp. Pl.: 192. 1753) is not to be altered because Linnaeus spelled it
‘Sideroxylum’ in Genera plantarum, ed. 5 (p. 89. 1754); usage of Brunfelsia L. (Sp. Pl.:
191.
1753, orth. cons., ‘Brunsfelsia’
), which Linnaeus adopted in 1754, has been made
possible only through conservation (see App. III).

ARTICLE 14

 14.1.  In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed
by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of prior-
ity in starting from the dates given in Art. 13 and F.1, this Code provides,
in App. IIIV, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are con-
served (nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E.1). Conserved names are legiti-
mate even though initially they may have been illegitimate. The name of a
subdivision of a genus or of an infraspecific taxon may be conserved with
a conserved type and listed in App. III and IV, respectively, when it is the
basionym or replaced synonym of a name of a genus or species that could
not continue to be used in its current sense without conservation.

 14.2.  Conservation aims at retention of those names that best serve stabil-
ity of nomenclature.

 14.3.  The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined
by nomenclatural types. The type of the species name cited as the type
of a conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in
App. IV. Application of conserved and rejected names of nothogenera is
determined by a statement of parentage (Art. H.9.1).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 41 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

14 Conservation

 14.4.  A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other
names at the same rank with the same type (homotypic, i.e. nomenclatural,
synonyms, which are to be rejected) whether or not these are cited in the
corresponding list as rejected names, and against those names with different
types (heterotypic, i.e. taxonomic, synonyms) that are listed as rejected.¹
A conserved name of a species is conserved against all names listed as
rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected names.

  Note 1.  Except as by Art. 14.15 (see also Art. 14.9), the Code does not provide
for conservation of a name against itself, i.e. against an “isonym” (Art. 6 Note
2: the same name with the same type but with a different place and date of valid
publication and perhaps with a different author). Only the earliest known isonyms
are listed in App. IIA, III, and IV.

  Note 2.  A species name listed as conserved or rejected in App. IV may have
been published as the name of a new taxon, or as a combination based on an earlier
name. Rejection of a name based on an earlier name does not in itself preclude
the use of the earlier name because that name is not “a combination based on a
rejected name” (Art. 14.4).

Ex. 1.  Rejection of Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) H. Karst. (Deut. Fl.: 966. 1882) in
favour of L. esculentum Mill. (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Lycopersicon No. 1. 1768) does not
preclude the use of the homotypic Solanum lycopersicum L. (Sp. Pl.: 185. 1753).

 14.5.  When a conserved name competes with one or more names based
on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earli-
est of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11, except
for the conserved family names listed in App. IIB, which are conserved
against unlisted names.

Ex. 2.  If Mahonia Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 1: 211. 1818) is united with Berberis L. (Sp.
Pl.: 330.
1753
), the combined genus will bear the prior name Berberis, although Maho-
nia
is conserved and Berberis is not.

Ex. 3.  Nasturtium W. T. Aiton (Hort. Kew., ed. 2, 4: 109. 1812) was conserved only
against the homonym Nasturtium Mill. (Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: Nasturtium. 1754) and
the homotypic (nomenclatural) synonym Cardaminum Moench (Methodus: 262. 1794);
consequently if reunited with Rorippa Scop. (Fl. Carniol.: 520. 1760) it must bear the
name Rorippa.

Ex. 4.  Combretaceae R. Br. (Prodr.: 351. 1810) is conserved against the unlisted earlier
heterotypic name Terminaliaceae J. St.-Hil. (Expos. Fam. Nat. 1: 178. 1805).

————————————

1     The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature uses the terms “objective
       synonym” and “subjective synonym” for homotypic and heterotypic synonym,
       respectively.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 42 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Conservation 14

 14.6.  When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier
heterotypic synonym, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art. 11, if it is
considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the
conserved name.

Ex. 5.  The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (Fl. Peruv. 3: 65. 1802) is conserved
against the earlier names Enargea Banks ex Gaertn. (Fruct. Sem. Pl. 1: 283. 1788) and
Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 41. 1789). If, however, Enargea is considered to be
a separate genus, the name Enargea is retained for it.

Ex. 6.  To preserve the name Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook (in Science, n.s., 12:
479.
1900
), its basionym Oreodoxa regia Kunth (in Humboldt & al., Nov. Gen. Sp. 1,
ed. qu.: 305
; ed. fol.: 244. 1816) is conserved against Palma elata W. Bartram (Trav-
els Carolina: iv
, 115–116. 1791). However, the name R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper
(in Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 59: 29. 1946) can be used for a species distinct from
R. regia.

 14.7.  A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may
not be restored for a taxon that includes the type of the corresponding con-
served name.

Ex. 7.  Enallagma (Miers) Baill. (Hist. Pl. 10: 54. 1888) is conserved against Dendro-
sicus
Raf. (Sylva Tellur.: 80. 1838), but not against Amphitecna Miers (in Trans. Linn.
Soc. London 26: 163.
1868
); if Enallagma, Dendrosicus, and Amphitecna are united, the
combined genus must bear the name Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly
conserved against Dendrosicus.

 14.8.  The listed type and spelling of a conserved name (evident misspell-
ings excepted) may only be changed by the procedure outlined in Art. 14.12.

Ex. 8.  Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the listed
type of Plectranthus L’Hér. be changed from P. punctatus (L. f.) L’Hér. to P. fruticosus
L’Hér. This proposal was approved by the appropriate committees and by an Interna-
tional Botanical Congress (see App. III).

 14.9.  A name may be conserved with a different type from that desig-
nated by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also
Art. 10.4). Such a name may be conserved either (a) from its place of
valid publication (even though the type may not then have been included
in the named taxon) or (b) from a later publication by an author who did
include the type as conserved. In the second case the name as conserved
is treated as validly published in the later publication, whether or not the
name as conserved was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the
taxon named; the original name and the name as conserved are treated as
homonyms (see Art. 14.10).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 43 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

14 Conservation

Ex. 9.  Bromus sterilis L. (Sp. Pl.: 77. 1753) has been conserved from its place of valid
publication even though its conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in
1932, was not originally included in Linnaeus’s species.

Ex. 10.  Protea L. (Sp. Pl.: 94. 1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic
name, P. cynaroides (L.) L. (Mant. Pl.: 190. 1771), which in 1753 was placed in the
genus Leucadendron. Protea was therefore conserved from the 1771 publication, and
Protea L. (Mant. Pl.: 187. 1771), although not intended to be a new generic name and
still including the original type elements, is treated as if it were a validly published
homonym of Protea L. (1753).

 14.10.  A conserved name, with any corresponding autonym, is conserved
against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name is
not made illegitimate by that conservation but is unavailable for use; if not
otherwise illegitimate, it may serve as basionym of another name or com-
bination based on the same type (see also Art. 55.3).

Ex. 11.  The generic name Smithia Aiton (Hort. Kew. 3: 496. 1789), conserved against
Damapana Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 323, 548. 1763), is conserved automatically against
the earlier, listed homonym Smithia Scop. (Intr. Hist. Nat.: 322. 1777). – Blumea DC.
(in Arch. Bot. (Paris) 2: 514. 1833) is conserved automatically against Blumea Rchb.
(Consp. Regn. Veg.: 209. 1828–1829), although the latter name is not listed alongside
the former in App. III.

 14.11.  A name may be conserved in order to preserve a particular spelling
or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of date
to the author who validly published it, not to an author who later introduced
the conserved spelling or gender.

Ex. 12.  The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2,
12: 44.
1839
), has been conserved against the original spelling Rhodomenia, used by
Greville (Alg. Brit.: xlviii, 84. 1830). The name is cited as Rhodymenia Grev. (1830).

  Note 3.  The date upon which a name was conserved does not affect its priority
(Art. 11), which is determined only on the basis of the date of its valid publication
(Art. 3245; see also Art. F.4, F.5.1, F.5.2, and H.9; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14).

 14.12.  The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for
additions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against conserva-
tion. Such proposals must be submitted to the General Committee which
will refer them for examination to the specialist committees for the various
taxonomic groups (see Rec. 14A, Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10; see also
Art. 34.1 and 56.2).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 44 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Conservation 14

 14.13.  Entries of conserved names may not be deleted.

Ex. 13.  In the Seattle Code of 1972 (p. 254),Alternaria C. G. Nees ex Wallroth, Fl.
Crypt. Germ. 148.
1833
was listed as conserved against Macrosporium E. M. Fries,
Syst. Mycol. 3: 373. 1832” because Macrosporium Fr. antedated Alternaria “C. G.
Nees ex Wallroth” in relation to
the then starting-point work for fungi (Fries, Systema
mycologicum,
vol. 1, 1 January 1821
)
. Conservation became unnecessary following the
abolition of later starting-point dates for fungi at the Sydney Congress of 1981 and
in the Sydney Code of 1983, which resulted in Alternaria being recognized as hav-
ing been validly published by Nees (Syst. Pilze: 72. 1816). In addition, it was realized
that Alternaria
had been adopted by Fries in the introduction to the sanctioning work
(Syst. Mycol. 1: xlvi. 1821; Art. F.3.1). Because the entry cannot be deleted, Alternaria
Nees : Fr. continues to be listed in App. III, but without a corresponding rejected name.

 14.14.  The places of publication cited for conserved names of families in
App. IIB are treated as correct in all circumstances and consequently are
not to be changed, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12, even when
otherwise such a name would not be validly published or when it is a later
isonym.

 14.15.  When a proposal for the conservation (Art. 14) or protection (Art.
F.2)
of a name has been approved by the General Committee after study
by the specialist committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention
of that name as approved is authorized subject to the decision of a later
International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 34.2 and 56.3). Before 1
January 1954, conservation takes effect on the date of decision by the rel-
evant International Botanical Congress. On or after that date, conservation
or protection takes effect on the date of effective publication (Art. 29–31) of
the General Committee’s approval.

  Note 4.  The effective dates for International Botanical Congress (IBC) deci-
sions on conservation of names made before 1954 are as follows:

(a)  Conservation of names in the 1906 Vienna Rules became effective on
       17 June 1905 at the II IBC in Vienna (see Verh. Int. Bot. Kongr. Wien
       1905: 135–137. 1906).

(b)  Conservation of names in the 1912 Brussels Rules became effective
       on 18 May 1910 at the III IBC in Brussels (see Actes Congr. Int. Bot.
       Bruxelles 1910: 67–83. 1912).

(c)  Conservation of names in the 1952 Stockholm Code include: (1) those
       of the Special Committee for Phanerogamae and Pteridophyta, which
       became effective on 1 June 1940 under the authority of the VI IBC held
       in Amsterdam in 1935 (see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1940: 81–134);

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 45 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

14–14A Conservation

       (2) those of the Special Committee for Fungi, which became effective
       on 20 July 1950 at the VII IBC in Stockholm (see Regnum Veg. 1:
       549–550. 1953).

The date, from 1954 onward, of the General Committee’s approval of a
particular conservation or protection proposal can be determined by con-
sulting the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants
Appendices   database   (http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/index
.cfm
).

Recommendation 14A

14A.1.  When a proposal for the conservation (Art. 14) or protection (Art. F.2) of a
name has been referred to the appropriate specialist committee for study, authors
should follow existing usage of names as far as possible pending the General
Committee’s recommendation on the proposal (see also Rec. 34A and 56A).

ARTICLE 15

(SANCTIONED NAMES)

SEE ART. F.3 IN CHAPTER F

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 46 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Higher taxa 16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER III

NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK

SECTION 1

NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY

ARTICLE 16

 16.1.  The name of a taxon above the rank of family is treated as a noun in
the plural and is written with an initial capital letter. Such names may be
either (a) automatically typified names (Art. 10.10), formed from a generic
name in the same way as family names (Art. 18.1; but see Art. 16.4) by add-
ing the appropriate rank-denoting termination (Art. 16.3 and 17.1), preceded
by the connecting vowel -o- if the termination begins with a consonant; or
(b) descriptive names, not so formed, which may be used unchanged at dif-
ferent ranks (see also Art. 6 Note 3).

Ex. 1.  Automatically typified names above the rank of family: Lycopodiophyta, formed
from Lycopodium; Magnoliophyta, from Magnolia; Gnetophytina, from Gnetum;
Pinopsida,
from Pinus; Marattiidae, from Marattia; Caryophyllidae and Caryophyl-
lales,
from Caryophyllus; Fucales, from Fucus; Bromeliineae, from Bromelia.

Ex. 2.  Descriptive names above the rank of family: Angiospermae, Anthophyta, Asco-
mycetes,
Ascomycota, Ascomycotina, Centrospermae, Chlorophyta, Coniferae, Enan-
tioblastae, Gymnospermae, Lycophyta, Parietales
.

 16.2.  For automatically typified names, the name of the subdivision or
subphylum that includes the type of the adopted name of a division or phy-
lum, the name of the subclass that includes the type of the adopted name of
a class, and the name of the suborder that includes the type of the adopted
name of an order are to be formed from the same generic name (see also
Art. 16.4) as the corresponding higher-ranked name.
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 47 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

16 Higher taxa

Ex. 3.  Pteridophyta Schimp. (in Zittel, Handb. Palaeont., Palaeophyt.: 1. 1879) and
Pteridophytina B. Boivin (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 103: 493. 1956); Gnetopsida Prantl
(Lehrb. Bot., ed. 5: 194. 1883) and Gnetidae Pax (in Prantl, Lehrb. Bot., ed. 9: 210.
1894); Liliales Perleb (Lehrb. Naturgesch. Pflanzenr.: 129. 1826) and Liliineae Rchb.
(Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: xxxvii. 1841).

 16.3.  Automatically typified names end as follows: the name of a division
or phylum ends in -phyta, unless it is referable to the fungi in which case it
ends in -mycota; the name of a subdivision or subphylum ends in -phytina,
unless it is referable to the fungi in which case it ends in -mycotina; the
name of a class in the algae ends in -phyceae, and of a subclass in -phyci-
dae;
the name of a class in the fungi ends in -mycetes, and of a subclass
in -mycetidae; the name of a class in the plants ends in -opsida, and of a
subclass in -idae (but not -viridae). Automatically typified names with a
termination not in accordance with this rule or Art. 17.1 are to be corrected,
without change of authorship or date of publication (see Art. 32.2). How-
ever, if such names are published with a non-Latin termination they are not
validly published.

Ex. 4.  Cacteae Juss. ex Bercht. & J. Presl (Přir. Rostlin: 238. 1820, formed from Cac-
tus
L.) and ‘Coriales’ Lindl. (Nix. Pl.: 11. 1833, formed from Coriaria L.), both pub-
lished for taxa at the rank of order, are to be corrected to Cactales Juss. ex Bercht. &
J. Presl
(1820) and Coriariales Lindl. (1833), respectively.

Ex. 5.  Ptéridées (Kirschleger, Fl. Alsace 2: 379. 1853–Jul 1857), published for a taxon at
the rank of order, is not to be accepted as “Pteridales Kirschl.” because it has a French
rather than a Latin termination. The name Pteridales was later validly published by
Doweld (Prosyll. Tracheophyt., Tent. Syst. Pl. Vasc.: xi. 2001).

  Note 1.  The terms “divisio” and “phylum”, and their equivalents in modern
languages, are treated as referring to one and the same rank (Art. 3.1). When “divi-
sio” and “phylum” are used simultaneously to denote different non-consecutive
ranks, this is to be treated as informal usage of rank-denoting terms (see Art. 37.8;
see also
37 Note 1).

 16.4.  At ranks higher than order, the word elements -clad-, -cocc-, -cyst-,
-monad-, -mycet-, -nemat-,
or -phyt-, which are genitive singular stems of
the second part of a name of an included genus, may be omitted before the
rank-denoting termination. Such names are automatically typified when
their derivation is obvious or is indicated in the protologue.

Ex. 6.  The name Raphidophyceae Chadef. ex P. C. Silva (in Regnum Veg. 103: 78. 1980)
was indicated by its author to be formed from Raphidomonas F. Stein (Organismus
Infus. 3(1): x
, 69,
152, 153. 1878). The name Saccharomycetes G. Winter (Rabenh.
Krypt.-Fl., ed. 2, 1(1): 32.
1880
) is regarded as being formed from Saccharomyces
Meyen (in Arch. Naturgesch. 4: 100. 1838). The name Trimerophytina H. P. Banks (in

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 48 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Higher taxa – Families 16–18

Taxon 24: 409. 1975) was indicated by its author to be formed from Trimerophyton
Hopping (in Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, B, Biol. 66: 25. 1956).

  Note 2.  The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of family (Art.
11.10; but see Rec. 16A).

Recommendation 16A

16A.1.  In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of family,
authors should generally follow the principle of priority.

ARTICLE 17

 17.1.  Automatically typified names of orders or suborders are to end in
-ales (but not -virales) and -ineae, respectively (see Art. 16.3 and 32.2).

 17.2.  Names intended as names of orders, but published with their rank
denoted by a term such as “cohors”, “nixus”, “alliance”, or “Reihe” instead
of “order”, are treated as having been published as names of orders.

Recommendation 17A

17A.1.  A new name should not be published for an order for which a name already
exists that is based on the same type as the name of an included family.

SECTION 2

NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES

ARTICLE 18

 18.1.  The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is formed
from the genitive singular of a name of an included genus by replacing the
genitive singular inflection (Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is; transcribed Greek -ou,
-os, -es, -as,
or -ous, and its equivalent -eos) with the termination -aceae
(but see Art. 18.5). For generic names of non-classical origin, when anal-
ogy with classical names is insufficient to determine the genitive singular,
-aceae is added to the full word. Likewise, when formation from the geni-
tive singular of a generic name results in a homonym, -aceae may be added
to the nominative singular. For generic names with alternative genitives the

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 49 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

18 Families

one implicitly used by the original author must be maintained, except that
the genitive of names ending in -opsis is always -opsidis.

  Note 1.  The generic name from which the name of a family is formed provides
the type of the family name (Art. 10.6) but is not a basionym of that name (Art.
6.10; see Art. 41.2(a)).

Ex. 1.  Family names formed from a generic name of classical origin: Rosaceae (from
Rosa, genitive singular: Rosae), Salicaceae (from Salix, Salicis), Plumbaginaceae
(from Plumbago, Plumbaginis), Rhodophyllaceae (from Rhodophyllus, Rhodophylli),
Rhodophyllidaceae (from Rhodophyllis, Rhodophyllidos), Sclerodermataceae (from
Scleroderma, Sclerodermatos), Aextoxicaceae (from Aextoxicon, Aextoxicou), Potamo-
getonaceae
(from Potamogeton, Potamogetonos).

Ex. 2.  Family names formed from a generic name of non-classical origin: Nelumbon-
aceae
(from Nelumbo, Nelumbonis, declined by analogy with umbo, umbonis), Gink-
goaceae
(from Ginkgo, indeclinable).

  Note 2.  The name of a family may be formed from any validly published name
of an included genus, even one that is unavailable for use, although the provisions
of Art. 18.3 apply if the generic name is illegitimate.

Ex. 3.  Cactaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 310. 1789) formed from Cactus L. (Sp. Pl.: 466. 1753),
a generic name now rejected in favour of Mammillaria Haw. (Syn. Pl. Succ.: 177. 1812).

 18.2.  Names intended as names of families, but published with their rank
denoted by one of the terms “order” (ordo) or “natural order” (ordo natura-
lis) instead of “family”, are treated as having been published as names of
families (see also Art. 19.2), unless this treatment would result in a taxo-
nomic sequence with a misplaced rank-denoting term.

Ex. 4.  Cyperaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 26. 1789), Lobeliaceae Juss. (in Bonpland, Descr. Pl.
Malmaison: [19].
1813
), and Xylomataceae Fr. (Scleromyceti Sveciae 2: p. post titulum.
1820) were published as “ordo Cyperoideae”, “ordo naturalis Lobeliaceae”, and “ordo
Xylomaceae”, respectively.

  Note 3.  If the term “family” is simultaneously used to denote a rank different
from “order” or “natural order”, a name published for a taxon at the latter rank
cannot be considered to have been published as the name of a family.

*Ex. 5.  Names published at the rank of order (“řad”) by Berchtold & Presl (O přirozenosti
rostlin
... 1820
) are not to be treated as having been published at the rank of family,
because the term family (“čeled”) was sometimes used to denote a rank below order.

 18.3.  A name of a family formed from an illegitimate generic name is
illegitimate unless and until it or the generic name from which it is formed
is conserved.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 50 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Families 18

Ex. 6.  Caryophyllaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 299. 1789), nom. cons., formed from Caryophyl-
lus
Mill. non L.; Winteraceae R. Br. ex Lindl. (Intr. Nat. Syst. Bot.: 26. 1830), nom.
cons., formed from Wintera Murray, an illegitimate replacement name for Drimys J. R.
Forst. & G. Forst.

Ex. 7.  Nartheciaceae Fr. ex Bjurzon (Skand. Vaxtfam.: 64. 1846), formed from Narthe-
cium
Huds., nom. cons. (Fl. Angl.: 127. 1762), became legitimate when the generic
name was conserved against its earlier homonym Narthecium Gérard (Fl. Gallo-Prov.:
142.
1761
) (see App. III).

 18.4.  When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin
termination, the termination must be changed to conform with Art. 18.1,
without change of authorship or date (see Art. 32.2). However, if such a
name is published with a non-Latin termination, it is not validly published.

Ex. 8.  ‘Coscinodisceae’ Kütz. (Kieselschal. Bacill.: 130. 1844), published to designate
a family, is to be accepted as Coscinodiscaceae Kütz. (1844) and not attributed to De
Toni, who first used the correct termination (in Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).

Ex. 9.  ‘Atherospermeae’ R. Br. (in Flinders, Voy. Terr. Austral. 2: 553. 1814), pub-
lished to designate a family, is to be accepted as Atherospermataceae R. Br. (1814) and
not attributed to Airy Shaw (in Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl., ed. 7: 104. 1966), who first used
the correct spelling, nor to Lindley (Veg. Kingd.: 300. 1846), who used the spelling
‘Atherospermaceae’.

Ex. 10.  Tricholomées (Roze in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 23: 49. 1876), published to desig-
nate a family, is not to be accepted as “Tricholomataceae Roze” because it has a French
rather than a Latin termination. The name Tricholomataceae was validly published by
Pouzar (in Česká Mykol. 37: 175. 1983; see App. IIA).

 18.5.  The following names, of long usage, are treated as validly published:
Compositae (nom. alt.: Asteraceae; type: Aster L.); Cruciferae (nom. alt.:
Brassicaceae; type: Brassica L.); Gramineae (nom. alt.: Poaceae; type:
Poa L.); Guttiferae (nom. alt.: Clusiaceae; type: Clusia L.); Labiatae (nom.
alt.: Lamiaceae; type: Lamium L.); Leguminosae (nom. alt.: Fabaceae; type:
Faba Mill. [= Vicia L.]); Palmae (nom. alt.: Arecaceae; type: Areca L.);
Papilionaceae (nom. alt.: Fabaceae; type: Faba Mill.); Umbelliferae (nom.
alt.: Apiaceae; type: Apium L.). When the Papilionaceae are regarded as a
family distinct from the remainder of the Leguminosae, the name Papilion-
aceae
is conserved against Leguminosae.

 18.6.  The  use,  as  alternatives,  of  the  eight  family  names  indicated  as
“nom. alt.” (nomen alternativum) in Art. 18.5 is authorized.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 51 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

19 Subdivisions of families

ARTICLE 19

 19.1.  The name of a subfamily  is a plural  adjective  used  as a noun;  it is
formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by add-
ing the termination -oideae instead of -aceae.

 19.2.  Names intended as names of subfamilies, but published with their
rank denoted by the term “suborder” (subordo) instead of subfamily, are
treated as having been published as names of subfamilies (see also Art.
18.2), unless this would result in a taxonomic sequence with a misplaced
rank-denoting term.

Ex. 1.  Cyrilloideae Torr. & A. Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 256. 1838) and Sphenocleoideae
Lindl. (Intr. Nat. Syst. Bot., ed. 2: 238. 1836) were published as “suborder Cyrilleae
and “Sub-Order ? Sphenocleaceae”, respectively.

  Note 1.  If the term “subfamily” is simultaneously used to denote a rank differ-
ent from “suborder”, a name published for a taxon at the latter rank cannot be
considered to have been published as the name of a subfamily.

 19.3.  The name of a tribe or subtribe is formed in the same manner as the
name of a subfamily (Art. 19.1), except that
the termination is -eae for a
tribe
and -inae (but not -virinae) for a subtribe.

 19.4.  The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the family to which it is assigned is to be formed
from the generic name equivalent to that type (Art. 10.9; but see Art. 19.8).

Ex. 2.  The type of the family name Rosaceae Juss. is Rosa L. and hence the subfamily
and tribe assigned to Rosaceae that include Rosa are to be called Rosoideae Endl. and
Roseae DC., respectively.

Ex. 3.  The type of the family name Gramineae Juss. (nom. alt.: Poaceae Barnhart, see
Art. 18.5) is Poa L. and hence the subfamily, tribe, and subtribe assigned to Gramineae
that include Poa are to be called Pooideae Asch., Poeae R. Br., and Poinae Dumort.,
respectively.

  Note 2.  Art. 19.4 applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that in-
clude the type of the adopted name of the family (but see Rec. 19A.2).

Ex. 4.  The type of the family name Ericaceae Juss. is Erica L. and hence the subfamily
and tribe assigned to Ericaceae that include Erica are to be called Ericoideae Endl.
and Ericeae D. Don, respectively, the priority of any competing names notwithstand-
ing. The subfamily that includes Rhododendron L. is called Rhododendroideae Endl.
However, the correct name of the tribe of Ericaceae that includes both Rhododendron
and Rhodora L. is Rhodoreae D. Don (in Edinburgh New Philos. J. 17: 152. 1834), not
Rhododendreae Brongn. (Énum. Pl. Mus. Paris: 127. 1843).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 52 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of families 19

  Note 3.  A name of a subdivision of a family that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the family to which it is assigned, but is not formed
from the generic name equivalent to that type, is incorrect but may nevertheless be
validly published and may become correct in a different context.

Ex. 5.  When published, the name Lippieae Endl. (Gen. Pl.: 633. 1838) was applied to a
tribe of Verbenaceae J. St.-Hil. that included Verbena L., the type of the family name,
as well as Lippia L. Although originally incorrect, Lippieae may become correct if used
for a tribe of Verbenaceae that includes Lippia but excludes Verbena.

 19.5.  The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of a
name listed in App. IIB (i.e. a name of a family conserved against all un-
listed names, see Art. 14.5) is to be formed from the generic name equiva-
lent to that type (Art. 10.9), unless this is contrary to Art. 19.4 (see also
Art. 19.8). If more than one such type is included, the correct name is de-
termined by precedence in App. IIB of the corresponding family names.

Ex. 6.  A subfamily assigned to Rosaceae Juss. that includes Malus Mill., the type
of Malaceae Small (Fl. S.E. U.S.: 495, 529. 1903) listed in App. IIB, is to be called
Maloideae C. Weber (in J. Arnold Arbor. 45: 164. 1964) unless it also includes Rosa L.,
i.e. the type of Rosaceae, or the type of another name listed in App. IIB that takes prec-
edence over Malaceae. This is so even if the subfamily also includes Spiraea L. and/or
Pyrus L. because, although Spiraeoideae Arn. (in Hooker & Arnott, Bot. Beechey Voy.:
107. 1832) and Pyroideae Burnett (Outlines Bot.: 695, 1137. 1835) were published ear-
lier than Maloideae, neither Spiraeaceae nor Pyraceae is listed in App. IIB. However,
if Amygdalus L. is included in the same subfamily as Malus, the name Amygdaloideae
Arn. (in Hooker & Arnott, Bot. Beechey Voy.: 107. 1832) takes precedence because
Amygdalaceae Marquis (Esq. Règne Vég.: 49. 1820) is listed in App. IIB with priority
over Malaceae.

Ex. 7.  Monotropaceae Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 1: 272. 1818) and Pyrolaceae Lindl.
(Syn. Brit. Fl.: 175. 1829) are both listed in App. IIB, but Pyrolaceae is conserved against
Monotropaceae. Therefore, a subfamily including both Monotropa L. and Pyrola L. is
called Pyroloideae Beilschm. (in Flora 16(Beibl. 1): 72, 109. 1833).

 19.6.  A name of a subdivision of a family formed from an illegitimate
generic name is illegitimate unless and until that generic name or the cor-
responding family name is conserved.

Ex. 8.  The name Caryophylloideae Arn. (in Hooker & Arnott, Bot. Beechey Voy.: 99.
1832
), formed from the illegitimate Caryophyllus Mill. non L., is legitimate because the
corresponding family name, Caryophyllaceae Juss., is conserved.

Ex. 9.  Thunbergioideae T. Anderson (in Thwaites, Enum. Pl. Zeyl.: 223. 1860), formed
from Thunbergia Retz., nom. cons. (in Physiogr. Sälsk. Handl. 1(3): 163. 1780), became
legitimate when the generic name was conserved against its earlier homonym Thunber-
gia
Montin (in Kongl. Vetensk. Acad. Handl. 34: 288. 1773) (see App. III).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 53 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

19–20 Subdivisions of families – Genera

 19.7.  When a name of a subdivision of a family has been published with
an improper Latin termination, such as -eae for a subfamily or -oideae for
a tribe, the termination must be changed to accord with Art. 19.1 and 19.3,
without change of authorship or date (see Art. 32.2). However, if such a
name is published with a non-Latin termination it is not validly published.

Ex. 10.  “Climacieae” (Grout, Moss Fl. N. Amer. 3: 4. 1928), published to designate a
subfamily, is to be changed to Climacioideae Grout (1928).

Ex. 11.  Melantheen (Kittel in Richard, Nouv. Elém. Bot., ed. 3, Germ. Transl.: 727.
1840), published to designate a tribe, is not to be accepted as “Melanthieae Kitt.”, be-
cause
it has a German rather than a Latin termination. The name Melanthieae was
validly published by Grisebach (Spic. Fl. Rumel. 2: 377. 1846).

 19.8.  When the Papilionaceae are included in the family Leguminosae
(nom. alt.: Fabaceae; see Art. 18.5) as a subfamily, the name Papilion-
oideae
may be used as an alternative to Faboideae.

Recommendation 19A

19A.1.  When a family is changed to the rank of a subdivision of a family, or the in-
verse change occurs, and no legitimate name is available at the new rank, the name
should be retained, with only the termination (-aceae, -oideae, -eae, -inae) altered.

19A.2.  When a subdivision of a family is changed to another such rank, and no
legitimate name is available at the new rank, its name, Art. 19.5 permitting, should
be formed from the same generic name as the name at the former rank.

Ex. 1.  The subtribe Drypetinae Griseb. (Fl. Brit. W. I.: 31. 1859) when raised to the rank of
tribe was named Drypeteae Small (Man. S.E. Fl.: 775. 1933); the subtribe Antidesmatinae
Müll. Arg. (in Linnaea 34: 64. 1865) when raised to the rank of subfamily was named
Antidesmatoideae Hurus. (in J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 3, Bot. 6: 322, 340. 1954).

SECTION 3

NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA

ARTICLE 20

 20.1.  The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, or a word
treated as such, and is written with an initial capital letter (see Art. 60.2). It
may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an
absolutely arbitrary manner, but it must not end in -virus.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 54 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Genera 20

Ex. 1.  Bartramia, Convolvulus, Gloriosa, Hedysarum, Ifloga (an anagram of Filago),
Impatiens, Liquidambar, Manihot, Rhododendron, Rosa.

 20.2.  The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term
in use in morphology at the time of publication unless it was published be-
fore 1 January 1912 and was accompanied by a species name published in
accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.

Ex. 2.  “Radicula” (Hill, Brit. Herb.: 264. 1756) coincides with the Latin technical term
“radicula” (radicle) and was not accompanied by a species name in accordance with
the binary system of Linnaeus. The name Radicula is correctly attributed to Moench
(Methodus: 262. 1794), who first combined it with specific epithets.

Ex. 3.  Tuber F. H. Wigg. : Fr., when published in 1780, was accompanied by a binary
species name (Tuber gulosorum F. H. Wigg., Prim. Fl. Holsat.: 109. 1780) and is there-
fore validly published even though it coincides with a Latin technical term.

Ex. 4.  The intended generic names “Lanceolatus” (Plumstead in Trans. Geol. Soc.
South Africa 55: 299.
1952) and “Lobata” (Chapman in Trans. Roy. Soc. New Zea-
land 80: 48.
1952
) coincide with Latin technical terms and are not therefore validly
published.

Ex. 5.  Cleistogenes Keng (in Sinensia 5: 147. 1934) coincides with “cleistogenes”, the
English plural of a technical term in use at the time of publication. Keng’s name is
validly published because the technical term is not Latin. Kengia Packer (in Bot. Not.
113: 291.
1960
), published as a replacement name for Cleistogenes, is illegitimate under
Art. 52.1.

Ex. 6.  Words such as “caulis”, “folium”, “radix”, “spina”, etc., cannot now be validly
published as generic names.

 20.3.  The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless these
words are joined by a hyphen (but see Art. 60.12 for names of fossil-genera).

Ex. 7.  “Uva ursi”, as originally published by Miller (Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: Uva ursi.
1754
), consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen, and is not therefore
validly published (Art. 32.1(c)); the name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (Traité
Arbr. Arbust. 2: 371.
1755
) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).

Ex. 8.  Names such as Quisqualis L. (formed by combining two words into one when
originally published), Neves-armondia K. Schum., Sebastiano-schaueria Nees, and
Solms-laubachia Muschl. ex Diels (all hyphenated when originally published) are val-
idly published.

  Note 1.  The names of intergeneric hybrids are formed according to the provi-
sions of Art. H.6.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 55 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

20–20A Genera

 20.4.  The following are not to be regarded as generic names:

(a) Words not intended as names.

Ex. 9.  The designation “Anonymos” was applied by Walter (Fl. Carol.: 2, 4, 9, etc. 1788)
to 28 different genera to indicate that they were without names (see Sprague in Bull.
Misc. Inform. Kew 7: 318–319, 331–334. 1939).

Ex. 10.  “Schaenoides” and “Scirpoides”, as used by Rottbøll (Descr. Pl. Rar.: 14, 27.
1772
) to indicate unnamed genera resembling Schoenus and Scirpus that, as stated on
p. 7, he intended to name later, are token words and not generic names. These unnamed
genera were subsequently named Kyllinga Rottb. (Descr. Icon. Rar. Pl.: 12. 1773), nom.
cons.,
and Fuirena Rottb. (l.c.: 70. 1773), respectively.

(b) Unitary designations of species.

  Note 2.  Examples such as “Leptostachys” and “Anthopogon”, listed in edi-
tions of the Code prior to the Tokyo Code of 1994 were from publications that are
now suppressed (see App. I).

Recommendation 20A

20A.1.  Authors forming generic names should comply with the following:

(a)   Use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

(b)   Avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin language.

(c)   Not make names that are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.

(d)   Not make names by combining words from different languages.

(e)   Indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or
       analogies of the genus.

(f)   Avoid adjectives used as nouns.

(g)   Not use a name similar to or derived from the epithet in the name of one of the
       species of the genus.

(h)   Not dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected with botany, mycology,
       phycology, or natural science in general.

(i)   Give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemo-
       rate a man or a woman (see Rec. 60B; see also Rec. 62A.1).

(j)   Not form generic names by combining parts of two existing generic names,
       because such names are likely to be confused with nothogeneric names (see
       Art. H.6).
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 56 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of genera 21

ARTICLE 21

 21.1.  The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic
name and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term (subgenus, sectio,
series, etc.) is used to denote the rank.

  Note 1.  Names of subdivisions of the same genus, even if they differ in rank,
are homonyms if they have the same epithet but are based on different types (Art.
53.3), because the rank-denoting term is not part of the name.

 21.2.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is either of the
same form as a generic name, or a noun in the genitive plural, or a plural
adjective agreeing in gender with the generic name (see Art. 32.2), but not
a noun in the genitive singular. It is written with an initial capital letter (see
Art. 60.2).

Ex. 1.  Euphorbia sect. Tithymalus, Ricinocarpos sect. Anomodiscus; Pleione subg.
Scopulorum; Arenaria ser. Anomalae, Euphorbia subsect. Tenellae, Sapium subsect.
Patentinervia.

Ex. 2.  In “Vaccinium sect. Vitis idaea” (Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ. Helv.: 474. 1837), the
intended epithet consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen; this is not
therefore a validly published name (Art. 20.3 and 32.1(c); “Vitis idæa” is a pre-Linnaean,
binary generic name). The name is correctly attributed to Gray (in Mem. Acad. Arts
Sci., n.s., 3: 53. 1846) as Vaccinium sect. Vitis-idaea (hyphenated when published).

 21.3.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is not to be
formed from the name of the genus to which it belongs by adding the prefix
Eu- (see also Art. 22.2).

Ex. 3.  Costus subg. Metacostus; Valeriana sect. Valerianopsis; but not Carex sect.
Eucarex”.

 21.4.  A name with a binary combination instead of a subdivisional epithet,
but otherwise in accordance with this Code, is treated as validly published
in the form determined by Art. 21.1 without change of authorship or date.

Ex. 4.  Sphagnum “b. Sph. rigida” (Lindberg in Öfvers. Förh. Kongl. Svenska Vetensk.-
Akad. 19: 135. 1862
) and S. sect. “Sphagna rigida” (Limpricht, Laubm. Deutschl. 1:
116. 1885) are to be cited as Sphagnum [unranked] Rigida Lindb. and S. sect. Rigida
(Lindb.) Limpr., respectively.

  Note 2.  Names of hybrids at the rank of a subdivision of a genus are formed
according to the provisions of Art. H.7.
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 57 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

21A–22 Subdivisions of genera

Recommendation 21A

21A.1.  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 spe-
cific epithet, the subdivisional epithet should be placed in parentheses between the
two; when desirable, the subdivisional rank may also be indicated.

Ex. 1.  Astragalus (Cycloglottis) contortuplicatus; A. (Phaca) umbellatus; Loranthus
(sect. Ischnanthus) gabonensis.

Recommendation 21B

21B.1.  Recommendations made for forming the name of a genus (Rec. 20A) apply
equally to an epithet of a subdivision of a genus, unless Rec. 21B.2–4 recommend
otherwise.

21B.2.  The epithet in the name of a subgenus or section is preferably a noun; that
in the name of a subsection or lower-ranked subdivision of a genus is preferably a
plural adjective.

21B.3.  Authors, when proposing new epithets for names of subdivisions of gen-
era, should avoid those in the form of a noun when other co-ordinate subdivisions
of the same genus have them in the form of a plural adjective, and vice-versa.
They should also avoid, when proposing an epithet for a name of a subdivision of
a genus, one already used for a subdivision of a closely related genus, or one that
is identical with the name of such a genus.

21B.4.  When a section or a subgenus is raised to the rank of genus, or the inverse
change occurs, the original name or epithet should be retained unless the resulting
name would be contrary to the Code.

ARTICLE 22

 22.1.  The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat
that generic name unaltered as its epithet, not followed by an author citation
(see Art. 46). Such names are autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.7).

Ex. 1.  The subgenus that includes the type of the name Rhododendron L. is to be named
Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron.

Ex. 2.  The subgenus that includes the type of Malpighia L. (M. glabra L.) is to be called
M. subg. Malpighia, not M. subg. Homoiostylis Nied.; and the section that includes the
type of Malpighia is to be called M. sect. Malpighia, not M. sect. Apyrae DC.

  Note 1.  Art. 22.1 applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that in-
clude the type of the adopted name of the genus (but see Rec. 22A).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 58 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Subdivisions of genera 22

Ex. 3.  The correct name of the subgenus of the genus Solanum L. that includes S. pseu-
docapsicum
L., the type of S. sect. Pseudocapsicum (Medik.) Roem. & Schult. (Syst.
Veg. 4: 569 (‘Pseudocapsica’)
, 584 (‘Pseudo-Capsica’). 1819), if considered distinct
from S. subg. Solanum, is S. subg. Minon Raf. (Autikon Bot.: 108. 1840), the earliest
legitimate name at that rank, and not “S. subg. Pseudocapsicum”.

 22.2.  A name of a subdivision of a genus that includes the type (i.e. the
original type or all elements eligible as type or the previously designated
type) of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus is not validly published
unless its epithet repeats the generic name unaltered. For the purposes of
this provision, explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical element
is included is considered as equivalent to inclusion of the type, whether or
not it has been previously designated (see also Art. 21.3).

Ex. 4.  “Dodecatheon sect. Etubulosa” (Knuth in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 237 (Heft 22):
234. 1905
) was not validly published because it was proposed for a section that included
D. meadia L., the original type of the generic name Dodecatheon L.

Ex. 5.  Cactus [unranked] Melocactus L. (Gen. Pl., ed. 5: 210. 1754) was proposed for
one of four unranked (Art. 37.3), named subdivisions of the genus Cactus, comprising
C. melocactus L. (its type under Art. 10.8) and C. mammillaris L. It is validly published
even though C. mammillaris was subsequently designated as the type of Cactus L. (by
Coulter in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 3: 95. 1894
).

 22.3.  The first instance of valid publication of a name of a subdivision of
a genus under a legitimate generic name automatically establishes the cor-
responding autonym (see also Art. 11.6 and 32.3).

Ex. 6.  Publication of Tibetoseris sect. Simulatrices Sennikov (in Komarovia 5: 91. 2008)
automatically established the autonym Tibetoseris Sennikov sect. Tibetoseris. Publica-
tion of Pseudoyoungia sect. Simulatrices (Sennikov) D. Maity & Maiti (in Compositae
Newslett. 48: 31. 2010
) automatically established the autonym Pseudoyoungia D. Maity
& Maiti sect. Pseudoyoungia.

 22.4.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat
unchanged the correct name of the genus unless the two names have the
same type.

 22.5.  The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat
the generic name unaltered if the latter is illegitimate.

Ex. 7.  When Kuntze (in Post & Kuntze, Lex. Gen. Phan.: 106. 1903) published Caulinia
sect. Hardenbergia (Benth.) Kuntze under Caulinia Moench (Suppl. Meth.: 47. 1802),
a later homonym of Caulinia Willd. (in Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci. Hist. (Berlin) 1798: 87.
1801
), he did not establish the autonym “Caulinia sect. Caulinia”.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 59 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

22A–23 Subdivisions of genera – Species

Recommendation 22A

22A.1.  A section including the type of the correct name of a subgenus, but not
including the type of the correct name of the genus, should, where there is no
obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same epithet and type as the
subgeneric name.

22A.2.  A subgenus not including the type of the correct name of the genus should,
where there is no obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same epithet
and type as the correct name of one of its subordinate sections.

Ex. 1.  When Brizicky raised Rhamnus sect. Pseudofrangula Grubov to the rank of sub-
genus, instead of using a new epithet he named the taxon R. subg. Pseudofrangula
(Grubov) Brizicky so that the type of both names is the same.

Recommendation 22B

22B.1.  When publishing a name of a subdivision of a genus that will also establish
an autonym, the author should mention this autonym in the publication.
 
 
 

SECTION 4

NAMES OF SPECIES

ARTICLE 23

 23.1.  The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name
of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an adjec-
tive, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition (see also Art. 23.6). If
an epithet consisted originally of two or more words, these are to be united
or hyphenated. An epithet not so joined when originally published is not to
be rejected but, when used, is to be united or hyphenated, as specified in
Art. 60.9.

 23.2.  The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source
whatever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art. 60.1).

Ex. 1.  Adiantum capillus-veneris, Atropa bella-donna, Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus
monspessulanus, Embelia sarasiniorum, Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum,
Impatiens noli-tangere, Papaver rhoeas, Spondias mombin
(an indeclinable epithet),
Uromyces fabae.

 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 60 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Species 23

 23.3.  Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeus do
not prevent valid publication of the relevant names but must be transcribed.

Ex. 2.  Scandix pecten L. is to be transcribed as Scandix pecten-veneris; Veronica
anagallis L. is to be transcribed as Veronica anagallis-aquatica.

 23.4.  The specific epithet, with or without the addition of a transcribed
symbol, may not exactly repeat the generic name (a designation formed by
such repetition is a tautonym).

Ex. 3.  “Linaria linaria and “Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum are tautonyms and
cannot be validly published.

Ex. 4.  Linum radiola L. (Sp. Pl.: 281. 1753) when transferred to Radiola Hill may
not be named “Radiola radiola, as was done by Karsten (Deut. Fl.: 606. 1882), be-
cause
that combination is a tautonym and cannot be validly published. The next earli-
est name, L. multiflorum Lam. (Fl. Franç. 3: 70. 1779), is an illegitimate superfluous
name for L. radiola. Under Radiola, the species has been given the legitimate name
R. linoides Roth (Tent. Fl. Germ. 1: 71. 1788).

 23.5.  The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun,
agrees with the gender of the generic name; when the epithet is a noun in
apposition or a genitive noun, it retains its own gender and termination
irrespective of the gender of the generic name. Epithets not conforming to
this rule are to be corrected (see Art. 32.2) to the proper form of the termi-
nation (Latin or transcribed Greek) of the original author(s). In particular,
the usage of the word element -cola as an adjective is a correctable error.

Ex. 5.  Names with Latin adjectival epithets: Helleborus niger L., Brassica nigra (L.)
W. D. J. Koch, Verbascum nigrum L.; Rumex cantabricus Rech. f., Daboecia canta-
brica
(Huds.) K. Koch (Vaccinium cantabricum Huds.); Vinca major L., Tropaeolum
majus
L.; Bromus mollis L., Geranium molle L.; Peridermium balsameum Peck, de-
rived from the epithet of Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. treated as an adjective.

Ex. 6.  Names with transcribed Greek adjectival epithets: Brachypodium distachyon (L.)
P. Beauv. (Bromus distachyos L.); Oxycoccus macrocarpos (Aiton) Pursh (Vaccinium
macrocarpon
Aiton).

Ex. 7.  Names with a noun for an epithet: Convolvulus cantabrica L., Gentiana pneu-
monanthe
L., Liriodendron tulipifera L., Lythrum salicaria L., Schinus molle L., all
with epithets featuring pre-Linnaean generic names. Gloeosporium balsameae Davis,
derived from the epithet of Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. treated as a noun.

Ex. 8.  Correctable errors in Latin adjectival epithets: Zanthoxylum trifoliatum L. (Sp.
Pl.: 270. 1753
) upon transfer to Acanthopanax (Decne. & Planch.) Miq. (m, see Art.
62.2(a)) is correctly A. trifoliatus (L.) Voss (Vilm. Blumengärtn., ed. 3: 1: 406. 1894,
‘trifoliatum’
); Mimosa latisiliqua L. (Sp. Pl.: 519. 1753) upon transfer to Lysiloma
Benth. (n) is correctly L. latisiliquum (L.) Benth. (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 30: 534.
1875, ‘latisiliqua’
); Corydalis chaerophylla DC. (Prodr. 1: 128. 1824) upon transfer to

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 61 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

23 Species

Capnoides Mill. (f, see Art. 62.4) is correctly Capnoides chaerophylla (DC.) Kuntze
(Revis. Gen. Pl. 1: 14. 1891, ‘chaerophyllum’).

Ex. 9.  Correctable errors in transcribed Greek adjectival epithets: Andropogon dis-
tachyos
L. (Sp. Pl.: 1046. 1753, ‘distachyon’), nom. cons.; Bromus distachyos L. (Fl. Pa-
laest.: 13. 1756
) upon transfer to Brachypodium P. Beauv. (n) is correctly B. distachyon (L.)
P. Beauv. (Ess. Agrostogr.: 155. 1812, ‘distachyum’) or to Trachynia Link (f) is correctly
T. distachyos (L.) Link (Hort. Berol. 1: 43. 1827, ‘distachya’); Vaccinium macrocarpon
Aiton (Hort. Kew. 2: 13. 1789) upon transfer to Oxycoccus Hill (m) is correctly O. macro-
carpos
(Aiton) Pursh (Fl. Amer. Sept. 1: 263. 1813, ‘macrocarpus’) or to Schollera Roth
(f) is correctly S. macrocarpos (Aiton) Steud. (Nomencl. Bot. 746. 1821, ‘macrocarpa’).

Ex. 10.  Correctable errors in epithets that are nouns: the epithet of Polygonum segetum
Kunth (in Humboldt & al., Nov. Gen. Sp. 2, ed. qu.: 177. 1817) is a genitive plural noun
(of the corn fields); when Small (Fl. S.E. U.S.: 378. 1903) proposed the new combination
Persicaria segeta, it was a correctable error for Persicaria segetum (Kunth) Small.
In Masdevallia echidna Rchb. f. (in Bonplandia 3: 69. 1855), the epithet corresponds
to the generic name of an animal; when Garay (in Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 47: 201. 1953)
proposed the new combination Porroglossum echidnum, it was a correctable error for
P. echidna (Rchb. f.) Garay.

Ex. 11.  Correctable error in the usage of -cola as an adjective: when Blanchard (in Rho-
dora 8: 170.
1906
)
proposed Rubus amnicolus, it was a correctable error for R. amni-
cola
Blanch.

 23.6.  The following designations are not to be regarded as species names:

(a)  Designations consisting of a generic name followed by a phrase name
       (Linnaean “nomen specificum legitimum”) commonly of one or more
       nouns and associated adjectives in the ablative case, but also including
       any single-word phrase names in works in which phrase names of two
       or more words predominate.

Ex. 12.  Smilax “caule inermi” (Aublet, Hist. Pl. Guiane 2, Tabl.: 27. 1775) is an abbrevi-
ated descriptive reference to an imperfectly known species, which is not given a bino-
mial in the text but referred to
merely by a phrase name cited from Burman.

Ex. 13.  In Miller, The gardeners dictionary … abridged, ed. 4 (1754), phrase names
of two or more words largely predominate over those that consist of a single word and
that are thereby similar to Linnaean nomina trivialia (specific epithets) but are not dis-
tinguished typographically or in any other way from other phrase names. Therefore,
designations in that work such as Alkekengi officinarum, Leucanthemum vulgare,
Oenanthe aquatica, and Sanguisorba minor are not validly published names.

(b)  Other designations of species consisting of a generic name followed by
       one or more words not intended as a specific epithet.

Ex. 14.  Viola “qualis” [of what sort] (Krocker, Fl. Siles. 2: 512, 517. 1790). Urtica
“dubia?”
[doubtful] (Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: cxxi. 1775); the word “dubia?” was
repeatedly used in Forsskål’s work for species that could not be reliably identified.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 62 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Species 23

Ex. 15.  Atriplex “nova” (Winterl, Index Hort. Bot. Univ. Hung.: fol. A [8] recto et verso.
1788
); the word “nova” (new) was here used in connection with four different species
of Atriplex. However, in Artemisia nova A. Nelson (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274.
1900
), the species was newly distinguished from others and nova was intended as a
specific epithet.

Ex. 16.  Cornus “gharaf” (Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xci, xcvi. 1775) is an interim
designation not intended as a species name. An interim designation in Forsskål’s work
is an original designation (for an accepted taxon and not therefore a “provisional name”
as defined in Art. 36.1(a) with an epithet-like vernacular that is not used as an epithet
in the “Centuriae” part of the work. Elcaja “roka” (Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: xcv.
1775
) is another example of such an interim designation; in other parts of the work (pp.
c
, cxvi, 127) this species is not named.

Ex. 17.  In Agaricus “octogesimus nonus and Boletus “vicesimus sextus (Schaeffer,
Fung. Bavar. Palat. Nasc. 1: t. 100. 1762
; 2: t. 137. 1763), the generic names are followed
by ordinal adjectives used for enumeration. The corresponding species were given val-
idly published names, A. cinereus Schaeff. : Fr. and B. ungulatus Schaeff., in the final
volume of the same work (l.c. 4: 100, 88. 1774).

Ex. 18.  Honckeny (1782; see Art. 46 Ex. 47) used species designations such as, in Agros-
tis, “A. Reygeri I.”, “A. Reyg. II.”, “A. Reyg. III.”
(all referring to species described but
not named in Reyger, Tent. Fl. Gedan.: 36–37. 1763), and also “A. alpina. II” for a newly
described species following after A. alpina Scop. These are informal designations used
for enumeration, not validly published binomials; they may not be expanded into, e.g.,
“Agrostis reygeri-prima”.

(c)  Designations of species consisting of a generic name followed by two
       or more adjectival words in the nominative case.

Ex. 19.  Salvia africana caerulea” (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 26. 1753) and Gnaphalium fru-
ticosum flavum”
(Forsskål, Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: cxix. 1775) are generic names followed
by two adjectival words in the nominative case. They are not to be regarded as species
names.

Ex. 20.  Rhamnus vitis idaea Burm. f. (Fl. Ind.: 61. 1768) is to be regarded as a species
name because the generic name is followed by a noun and an adjective, both in the nomi-
native case; these words are to be hyphenated (R. vitis-idaea) under the provisions of Art.
23.1 and 60.11. In Anthyllis Barba jovis L. (Sp. Pl.: 720. 1753) the generic name is fol-
lowed by a noun in the nominative case and a noun in the genitive case, and they are to be
hyphenated (A. barba-jovis). Likewise, Hyacinthus non scriptus L. (Sp. Pl.: 316. 1753),
where the generic name is followed by a negative particle and a past participle used as an
adjective, is corrected to H. non-scriptus, and Impatiens noli tangere L. (Sp. Pl.: 938.
1753
), where the generic name is followed by two verbs, is corrected to I. noli-tangere.

Ex. 21.  In Narcissus Pseudo Narcissus L. (Sp. Pl.: 289. 1753) the generic name is fol-
lowed by a prefix (a word that cannot stand independently) and a noun in the nominative
case, and the name is to be corrected to N. pseudonarcissus under the provisions of Art.
23.1 and 60.11.

(d)  Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H.10.2).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 63 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

23–23A Species

 23.7.  Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets (“nomina triv-
ialia”) are to be corrected in accordance with later usage by Linnaeus him-
self (but see Art. 23.6(c)).

Ex. 22.  Apocynum fol. [foliis] androsaemi L. is to be cited as A. androsaemifolium L. (Sp.
Pl.: 213. 1753
[corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 946. 1759]); and Mussaenda fr. [fructu] fron-
doso
L., as M. frondosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 177. 1753 [corr. L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 931. 1759]).

 23.8.  Where the status of a designation of a species is uncertain under Art.
23.6, established custom is to be followed (Pre.13).

*Ex. 23.  Polypodium F. mas, P. F. femina, and P. F. fragile (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 1090
1091. 1753) are, in accordance with established custom, to be treated as P. filix-mas L.,
P. filix-femina L., and P. fragile L., respectively. Likewise, Cambogia G. gutta is to
be treated as C. gummi-gutta L. (Gen. Pl.: [522]. 1754). The intercalations “Trich.”
[Trichomanes] and “M.” [Melilotus] in the names of Linnaean species of Asplenium and
Trifolium, respectively, are to be deleted, so that names in the form Asplenium Trich.
dentatum
and Trifolium M. indica, for example, are treated as A. dentatum L. and
T. indicum L. Sp. Pl.: 765, 1080. 1753).

Recommendation 23A

23A.1.  Names of persons and also of countries and localities used in specific epi-
thets should take the form of nouns in the genitive (clusii, porsildiorum, saharae)
or of adjectives (clusianus, dahuricus) (see also Art. 60, Rec. 60C and 60D).

23A.2.  The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to desig-
nate two different species of the same genus should be avoided (e.g. Lysimachia
hemsleyana
Oliv. and L. hemsleyi Franch.).

23A.3.  In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also with the following:

(a)   Use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

(b)   Avoid epithets that are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin.

(c)   Not make epithets by combining words from different languages.

(d)   Avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words.

(e)   Avoid those that have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).

(f)    Avoid those that express a character common to all or nearly all the species of
       a genus.

(g)   Avoid in the same genus those that are very much alike, especially those that
       differ only in their last letters or in the arrangement of two letters.

(h)   Avoid those that have been used before in any closely allied genus.

(i)    Not adopt epithets from unpublished names found in correspondence,

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 64 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Species – Infraspecific taxa 23A–24

       travellers’ notes, herbarium labels, or similar sources, attributing them to
       their authors, unless these authors have approved publication (see Rec. 50G).

(j)    Avoid using the names of little-known or very restricted localities unless the
       species is quite local.
 
 

SECTION 5

NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES

(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)

ARTICLE 24

 24.1.  The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of
a species and an infraspecific epithet. A connecting term is used to denote
the rank.

Ex. 1.  Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch. This taxon may also be referred
to as Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa Engl.
& Irmsch.; in this way a full classification of the subforma within the species is given,
not only its name.

 24.2.  Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets and, when
adjectival in form and not used as nouns, they agree grammatically with
the generic name (see Art. 23.5 and 32.2).

Ex. 2.  Solanum melongena var. insanum (L.) Prain (Bengal Pl.: 746. 1903, ‘insana’).

 24.3.  Infraspecific names with final epithets such as genuinus, originalis,
originarius, typicus, verus,
and veridicus, or with the prefix eu-, when pur-
porting to indicate the taxon containing the type of the name of the next
higher-ranked taxon, are not validly published unless they have the same
final epithet as the name of the corresponding higher-ranked taxon (see
Art. 26.2, Rec. 26A.1, and 26A.3).

Ex. 3.  “Hieracium piliferum var. genuinum” (Rouy, Fl. France 9: 270. 1905) was based
on “H. armerioides var. genuinum” of Arvet-Touvet (Hieracium Alpes Franç.: 37. 1888),
a designation not validly published under Art. 26.2. As circumscribed by Rouy, the taxon
does not include the type of H. piliferum Hoppe, but it does include the type of the name
of  the  next  higher-ranked  taxon,  H. piliferum  subsp.  armerioides  (Arv.-Touv.)  Rouy.
Therefore, “H. piliferum var. genuinum” is not a validly published name of a new variety.

Ex. 4.  “Narcissus bulbocodium var. eu-praecox” and “N. bulbocodium var. eu-albidus”
were not validly published by Emberger & Maire (in Jahandiez & Maire, Cat. Pl. Maroc:

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 65 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

24–24B Infraspecific taxa

961. 1941) because they were placed, respectively, in N. bulbocodium subsp. praecox
Gattef. & Maire (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 28: 540. 1937) and N. bulbocodium
subsp. albidus (Emb. & Maire) Maire (in Jahandiez & Maire, Cat. Pl. Maroc: 138. 1931)
and their epithet purports inclusion of the type of the higher-ranked name in the sub-
ordinate variety.

Ex. 5.  “Lobelia spicata var. originalis” (McVaugh in Rhodora 38: 308. 1936) was not
validly published (see Art. 26 Ex. 1), whereas the autonyms Galium verum L. subsp.
verum and G. verum var. verum are validly published.

Ex. 6.  Aloe perfoliata var. vera L. (Sp. Pl.: 320. 1753) is validly published because it does
not purport to contain the type of A. perfoliata L. (l.c. 1753).

 24.4.  A name with a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet,
but otherwise in accordance with this Code, is treated as validly published
in the form determined by Art. 24.1 without change of authorship or date.

Ex. 7.  Salvia grandiflora subsp. “S. willeana” (Holmboe in Bergens Mus. Skr., ser. 2,
1(2): 157. 1914
) is to be altered to S. grandiflora subsp. willeana Holmboe.

Ex. 8.  Phyllerpa prolifera var. “Ph. firma” (Kützing, Sp. Alg.: 495. 1849) is to be altered
to P. prolifera var. firma Kütz.

Ex. 9.  Cynoglossum cheirifolium “β. Anchusa (lanata)” (Lehmann, Pl. Asperif. Nucif.:
141. 1818
), a new combination based on Anchusa lanata L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 914.
1759
), is to be altered to C. cheirifolium var. lanatum (L.) Lehm.

  Note 1.  Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear names with the
same final epithet; those within one species may bear names with the same final
epithet as the names of other species (but see Rec. 24B.1).

Ex. 10.  Rosa glutinosa var. leioclada H. Christ (in Boissier, Fl. Orient. Suppl.: 222.
1888
) and Rosa jundzillii f. leioclada Borbás (in Math. Term. Közlem. 16: 376, 383.
1880
) are both permissible, as is Viola tricolor var. hirta Ging. (in Candolle, Prodr. 1:
304. 1824
), in spite of the previous existence of Viola hirta L. (Sp. Pl.: 934. 1753).

  Note 2.  Names of infraspecific taxa within the same species, even if they dif-
fer in rank, are homonyms if they have the same final epithet but are based on
different types (Art. 53.3), because the rank-denoting term is not part of the name.

Recommendation 24A

24A.1.  Recommendations made for forming specific epithets (Rec. 23A) apply
equally for infraspecific epithets.

Recommendation 24B

24B.1.  Authors proposing new infraspecific names should avoid final epithets
previously used as specific epithets in the same genus.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 66 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa 24B–26

24B.2.  When an infraspecific taxon is raised to the rank of species, or the inverse
change occurs, the final epithet of its name should be retained unless the resulting
combination would be contrary to the Code.

ARTICLE 25

 25.1.  For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon below the rank
of species is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, if any.

Ex. 1.  When Montia parvifolia (DC.) Greene is treated as comprising two subspecies,
the name M. parvifolia applies to the species in its entirety, i.e. including both M. parvi-
folia
subsp. parvifolia and M. parvifolia subsp. flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris, and its use for
M. parvifolia subsp. parvifolia alone may lead to confusion.

ARTICLE 26

 26.1.  The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the
adopted, legitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat
the specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet, not followed by an author
citation (see Art. 46). Such names are autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.7).

Ex. 1.  The variety that includes the type of the name Lobelia spicata Lam. is to be
named Lobelia spicata Lam. var. spicata (see also Art. 24 Ex. 5).

  Note 1.  Art. 26.1 applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that in-
clude the type of the adopted name of the species (but see Rec. 26A).

 26.2.  A name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type (i.e. the holo-
type or all syntypes or the previously designated type) of the adopted, legit-
imate name of the species to which it is assigned is not validly published
unless its final epithet repeats the specific epithet unaltered. For the pur-
pose of this provision, explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical
element of the species is included is considered as equivalent to inclusion
of the type, whether or not it has been previously designated (see also Art.
24.3).

Ex. 2.  The intended combination “Vulpia myuros subsp. pseudomyuros (Soy.-Will.)
Maire & Weiller” was not validly published in Maire (Fl. Afrique N. 3: 177. 1955)
because it included in synonymyF. myuros L., Sp. 1, p. 74 (1753) sensu stricto”, i.e.
Festuca myuros L. the basionym of Vulpia myuros (L.) C. C. Gmel.

Ex. 3.  Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 3. 1753) recognized two named varieties under Salicornia eu-
ropaea
. Because S. europaea has neither a holotype nor syntypes, both varietal names
are validly published even though the lectotype of S. europaea (designated by Jafri

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 67 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

26–26A Infraspecific taxa

& Rateeb in Jafri & El-Gadi, Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1979) can be attributed to S. europaea
var. herbacea L. (l.c. 1753) and the varietal name was subsequently lectotypified (by
Piirainen in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 28: 82. 1991) with the same specimen as the species name.

Ex. 4.  Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 779–781. 1753) recognized 13 named varieties under Medicago
polymorpha
. Because M. polymorpha L. has neither a holotype nor syntypes, all vari-
etal names are validly published, and the lectotype subsequently designated for the spe-
cies name (by Heyn in Bull. Res. Council Israel, Sect. D, Bot., 7: 163. 1959) is not part
of the original material for any of the varietal names of 1753.

 26.3.  The first instance of valid publication of a name of an infraspecific
taxon under a legitimate species name automatically establishes the cor-
responding autonym (see also Art. 11.6 and 32.3).

Ex. 5.  The publication of the name Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii Tuck. (in
Amer. J. Sci. Arts 45: 47. 1843
) automatically established the name of another vari-
ety, L. inundatum L. var. inundatum, the autonym, the type of which is that of the
name L. inundatum L. (Art. 7.7).

Ex. 6.  Pangalo (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23: 258. 1930) when describing Cucurbita mixta
Pangalo distinguished two varieties, C. mixta var. cyanoperizona Pangalo and var.
stenosperma Pangalo, together encompassing the entire circumscription of the species.
Although Pangalo did not mention the autonym (see 26B.1), C. mixta var. mixta
was automatically established at the same time. Because neither a holotype nor any
syntypes were indicated for C. mixta, both varietal names were validly published (see
Art. 26.2). Merrick & Bates (in Baileya 23: 96, 101. 1989), in the absence of known
type material, neotypified C. mixta by an element that can be attributed to C. mixta var.
stenosperma. As long as their choice of neotype is followed, under Art. 11.6 the correct
name for that variety recognized under C. mixta is C. mixta var. mixta, dating from
1930, not C. mixta var. stenosperma. When that variety is recognized under C. argyro-
sperma
Huber (Cat. Graines: 8. 1867), as was done by Merrick & Bates, its correct
name is not C. argyrosperma var. stenosperma (Pangalo) Merrick & D. M. Bates; a
combination based on C. mixta is required.

Recommendation 26A

26A.1.  A variety including the type of the correct name of a subspecies, but not
including the type of the correct name of the species, should, where there is no
obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same final epithet and type as
the subspecific name.

26A.2.  A subspecies not including the type of the correct name of the species
should, where there is no obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same
final epithet and type as a name of one of its subordinate varieties.

26A.3.  A taxon at a rank lower than variety that includes the type of the correct
name of a subspecies or variety, but not the type of the correct name of the species,
should, where there is no obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 68 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Infraspecific taxa 26A–27

final epithet and type as the name of the subspecies or variety. On the other hand,
a subspecies or variety that does not include the type of the correct name of the
species should not be given a name with the same final epithet as a name of one of
its subordinate taxa below the rank of variety.

Ex. 1.  Fernald treated Stachys palustris subsp. pilosa (Nutt.) Epling (in Repert. Spec.
Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 8: 63. 1934) as composed of five varieties, for one of which (that
including the type of S. palustris subsp. pilosa) he made the combination S. palustris
var. pilosa (Nutt.) Fernald (in Rhodora 45: 474. 1943) because there was no legitimate
varietal name available.

Ex. 2.  Because there was no legitimate name available at the rank of subspecies, Bona-
parte made the combination Pteridium aquilinum subsp. caudatum (L.) Bonap. (Notes
Ptérid. 1: 62. 1915
), using the same final epithet that Sadebeck had used earlier in the
combination P. aquilinum var. caudatum (L.) Sadeb. (in Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst.
Beih. 14(3): 5. 1897
) with both combinations based on Pteris caudata L. Each name is
legitimate, and both can be used, as was done by Tryon (in Rhodora 43: 52–54. 1941),
who treated P. aquilinum var. caudatum as one of four varieties under subsp. cauda-
tum
(see also Art. 36.3).

Recommendation 26B

26B.1.  When publishing a name of an infraspecific taxon that will also establish
an autonym, the author should mention that autonym in the publication.

ARTICLE 27

 27.1.  The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not re-
peat unchanged the epithet of the correct name of the species to which the
taxon is assigned unless the two names have the same type.

 27.2.  The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not
repeat unchanged the epithet of the species name if that species name is
illegitimate.

Ex. 1.  When Honda (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 41: 385. 1927) published Agropyron japoni-
cum
var. hackelianum Honda under the illegitimate A. japonicum Honda (l.c.: 384.
1927), which is a later homonym of A. japonicum (Miq.) P. Candargy (in Arch. Biol.
Vég. Pure Appl. 1: 42.
1901), he did not validly publish an autonym “A. japonicum var.
japonicum” (see also Art. 55 Ex. 3).

 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 69 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

28 Cultivated organisms

SECTION 6

NAMES OF ORGANISMS IN CULTIVATION

ARTICLE 28

 28.1.  Organisms brought from the wild into cultivation retain the names
that are applied to them when growing in nature.

  Note 1.  Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as
provided in Chapter H (see also Art. 11.9, 32.4, and 50).

  Note 2.  Additional, independent designations for special categories of organ-
isms used in agriculture, forestry, and horticulture (and arising either in nature or
cultivation) are dealt with in the International Code of Nomenclature for Culti-
vated Plants (ICNCP),
which defines the cultivar as its basic category (see Pre. 11).

  Note 3.  Nothing precludes the use, for cultivated organisms, of names pub-
lished in accordance with the requirements of this Code.

  Note 4.  Epithets in names published in conformity with this Code are retained
as cultivar epithets, included in single quotation marks, under the rules of the
ICNCP when it is considered appropriate to treat the taxon concerned under that
Code.

Ex. 1.  Mahonia japonica DC. (Syst. Nat. 2: 22. 1821) may be treated as a cultivar, which
is then designated as Mahonia ‘Japonica’; Taxus baccata var. variegata Weston (Bot.
Univ. 1: 292, 347.
1770), when treated as a cultivar, is designated as Taxus baccata
‘Variegata’.

  Note 5.  The ICNCP also provides for the establishment of epithets differing
markedly from epithets provided for under this Code.

Ex. 2.  ×Disophyllum ‘Frühlingsreigen’; Eriobotrya japonica ‘Golden Ziad’ and E. ja-
ponica
‘Maamora Golden Yellow’; Phlox drummondii ‘Sternenzauber’; Quercus
frainetto
‘Hungarian Crown’.

Ex. 3.  Juniperus ×pfitzeriana ‘Wilhelm Pfitzer’ (P. A. Schmidt in Folia Dendrol. 10:
292.
1998) was established for a tetraploid cultivar presumed to result from the original
cross between J. chinensis L. and J. sabina L.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 70 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication (Conditions) 29

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER IV

EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

SECTION 1

CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

ARTICLE 29

 29.1.  Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed
matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to
scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries. Publication is also
effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in
Portable Document Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an
online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or
an International Standard Book Number (ISBN).

Ex. 1.  The paper containing the new combination Anaeromyces polycephalus (Y. C.
Chen & al.) Fliegerová & al. (Kirk in Index Fungorum 1: 1. 2012), based on Piromy-
ces polycephalus
Y. C. Chen & al. (in Nova Hedwigia 75: 411. 2002), was effectively
published when it was issued online in Portable Document Format with an ISSN on 1
January 2012.

Ex. 2.  Intended nomenclatural novelties by Ruck & al. (in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 103:
155–171. 22 Jul 2016) appeared only in supplementary material published online in
Microsoft Word document format and were not therefore effectively published. These
novelties were effectively published when they appeared in Portable Document Format
(Ruck & al. in Notul. Alg. 10: 1–4. 17 Aug 2016), meeting the requirements of Art. 29.1.

  Note 1.  The distribution before 1 January 2012 of electronic material does not
constitute effective publication.

Ex. 3.  Floristic accounts of the Asteraceae in Flora of China 20–21, containing numer-
ous nomenclatural novelties, were published online in Portable Document Format on
25 October 2011. Because they were distributed before 1 January 2012 they were not
effectively published. Effective publication occurred when the printed version of the
same volume became available on 11 November 2011.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 71 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

29–29A Effective publication (Conditions)

Ex. 4.  The paper in which the diatom Tursiocola podocnemicola was first described
was distributed online on 14 December 2011 as an “iFirst” PDF document (DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/0269249X.2011.642498
) available through the Diatom Research web-
site (ISSN 0269-249X, print; ISSN 2159-8347, online). Although the paper appeared
online in an ISSN-bearing electronic publication in Portable Document Format, it was
distributed before 1 January 2012 and was not therefore effectively published. It did not
become effectively published on 1 January 2012 merely by remaining available online.
Effective publication occurred on 28 February 2012 upon distribution of the printed
version of the journal in which the name T. podocnemicola C. E. Wetzel (in Diatom Res.
27: 2. 2012) was validly published.

 29.2.  For the purpose of Art. 29.1, “online” is defined as accessible elec-
tronically via the World Wide Web.

 29.3.  Should Portable Document Format (PDF) be succeeded, a successor
international standard format communicated by the General Committee
(see Div. III Prov. 7.9) is acceptable.

  Note 2.  Citation, for electronic material, of an inappropriate ISSN or ISBN
(e.g. one that does not exist or that refers to a serial publication or book in which
that electronic material is not included, not even as a declared supplement to an
included item) does not result in effective publication under Art. 29.1.

Ex. 5.  The paper by Meyer, Baquero, and Cameron in which “Dracula trigonopetala”
was described as an intended new species was placed online as a PDF/A document
on 1 March 2012. There was no mention of a journal or ISSN in the document it-
self, but, because it was made accessible through the homepage of OrchideenJournal
(ISSN 1864-9459), it could be argued that it qualified as an “online publication with an
International Standard Serial Number” (Art. 29.1). However, the content of the paper
was not presented in a format suited for publication in the OrchideenJournal and was
evidently not intended for inclusion in that journal. A new version of the paper, trans-
lated into German, appeared in print (OrchideenJ. 19: 107–112) on 15 August 2012.
Although this was effectively published, “D. trigonopetala” was not validly published
there because no Latin or English description or diagnosis was provided. (The name
was later validated as D. trigonopetala Gary Mey. & Baquero ex A. Doucette in Phyto-
taxa 74: 59. 9 December 2012
.)

Recommendation 29A

29A.1.  Publication electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF) should
comply with the PDF/A archival standard (ISO 19005).

29A.2.  Authors of electronic material should give preference to publications that
are archived and curated, satisfying the following criteria as far as is practical (see
also Rec. 29A.1):
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 72 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication (Conditions) 29A–30

(a)   The material should be placed in multiple trusted online digital repositories,
       e.g. an ISO-certified repository.

(b)   Digital repositories should be in more than one area of the world and prefer-
       ably on different continents.

ARTICLE 30

 30.1.  Publication is not effected by communication of nomenclatural nov-
elties at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens
open to the public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts or
typescripts or other unpublished material, or by distribution of electronic
material other than as described in Art. 29.

Ex. 1.  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 Hist. Soc.
Roy. Méd. 5(1): 279
).

 30.2.  An electronic publication is not effectively published if there is evi-
dence within or associated with the publication that its content is merely
preliminary and was, or is to be, replaced by content that the publisher
considers final, in which case only the version with that final content is
effectively published.

Ex. 2.  “Rodaucea was published in a paper first placed online on 12 January 2012 as
a PDF document accessible through the website of the journal Mycologia (ISSN 0027-
5514, print; ISSN 1557-2436, online). That document had a header stating “In Press”,
and on the journal website it was qualified as “Preliminary version”, which is clear
evidence that it was not considered by the publisher as final. Because the final version
of the document appeared simultaneously online and in print, a correct citation of the
name is: Rodaucea W. Rossi & Santam. in Mycologia 104 (print and online): 785. 11
Jun 2012.

Ex. 3.  “Lycopinae appeared in a paper first placed online on 26 April 2012 as an
“Advance Access” PDF document accessible through the website of the American Jour-
nal of Botany
(ISSN 0002-9122, print; ISSN 1537-2197, online). Because the journal
website stated (May 2012) “AJB Advance Access articles … have not yet been printed
or posted online by issue” and “minor corrections may be made before the issue is re-
leased”, this was evidently not considered the final version by the publisher. The name
Lycopinae B. T. Drew & Sytsma was validly published in Amer. J. Bot. 99: 945. 1 May
2012
, when the printed volume containing it was effectively published.

Ex. 4.  The paper (in S. African J. Bot. 80: 63–66; ISSN 0254-6299) in which the name
Nanobubon hypogaeum J. Magee appeared was effectively published online as a PDF
document on 30 March 2012 in its “final and fully citable” form, prior to publication

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 73 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

30 Effective publication (Conditions)

of the printed version (May 2012). Papers that appeared online in the same journal
under the heading “In Press Corrected Proof” are not effectively published because
the journal website clearly stated “Corrected proofs: articles that contain the authors’
corrections. Final citation details, e.g. volume/issue number, publication year and page
numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.”

  Note 1.  An electronic publication may be a final version even if details, e.g.
volume, issue, article, or page numbers, are to be added or changed, provided that
those details are not part of the content (see Art. 30.3).

 30.3.  Content of an electronic publication includes that which is visible on
the page, e.g. text, tables, illustrations, etc., but it excludes volume, issue,
article, and page numbers; it also excludes external sources accessed via a
hyperlink or URL (Uniform Resource Locator).

Ex. 5.  A paper describing the new genus Partitatheca and its four constituent species,
accepted for the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society (ISSN 0024-4074, print;
ISSN 1095-8339, online), was placed online on 1 February 2012 as an “Early View”
PDF document with preliminary pagination (1–29). This was evidently the version con-
sidered final by the journal’s publisher because, in the document itself, it was declared
the “Version of Record” (an expression defined by the standard NISO-RP-8-2008).
Later, in the otherwise identical electronic version published together with the printed
version on 27 February 2012, the volume pagination (229–257) was added. A correct
citation of the generic name is: Partitatheca D. Edwards & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 168
(online): [2 of 29], 230. 1 Feb 2012, or just “… 168 (online): 230. 1 Feb 2012”.

Ex. 6.  The new combination Rhododendron aureodorsale was made in a paper in Nor-
dic Journal of Botany
(ISSN 1756-1051, online; ISSN 0107-055X, print), first effectively
published online on 13 March 2012 in “Early View”, the “Online Version of Record pub-
lished before inclusion in an issue”, with a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) but
with preliminary pagination (1-EV to 3-EV). When the printed version was published
on 20 April 2012, the pagination of the electronic version was changed to 184–186 and
the date of the printed version was added. The combination can be cited as Rhododen-
dron aureodorsale
(W. P. Fang ex J. Q. Fu) Y. P. Ma & J. Nielsen in Nordic J. Bot. 30
(online): 184. 13 Mar 2012 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01438.x).

Ex. 7.  Two new Echinops species, including E. antalyensis, were described in Annales
Botanici Fennici
(ISSN 1797-2442, online; ISSN 0003-3847, print) in a paper effectively
published in its definitive form on 13 March 2012 as an online PDF document, still with
preliminary pagination ([1]4) and the watermark “preprint”. When the printed version
was published on 26 April 2012, the online document was repaginated ([95]98) and the
watermark removed. A correct citation of the name is: E. antalyensis C. Vural in Ann.
Bot. Fenn. 49 (online): 95. 13 Mar 2012
.

 30.4.  The content of a particular electronic publication must not be altered
after it is effectively published. Any such alterations are not themselves
effectively published. Corrections or revisions must be issued separately to
be effectively published.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 74 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication (Conditions) 30

 30.5.  Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is effective.
Indelible autograph produced at a later date is not effectively published.

 30.6.  For the purpose of Art. 30.5, indelible autograph is handwritten mate-
rial reproduced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography,
offset, or metallic etching).

Ex. 8.  Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914–1915), is a work lithographed from a hand-
written text.

Ex. 9.  Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum ... ab A. Blanco lectarum, (Webb & Heldreich,
Paris, Jul 1850, folio) was effectively published as an indelible autograph catalogue.

Ex. 10.  The Journal of the International Conifer Preservation Society, vol. 5[1]. 1997
(“1998”), consists of duplicated sheets of typewritten text with handwritten additions
and corrections in several places. The handwritten portions are not effectively pub-
lished
because they are indelible autograph published after 1 January 1953. Intended
new combinations (e.g. “Abies koreana var. yuanbaoshanensis”, p. 53) for which the
basionym reference is handwritten are not validly published. The entirely handwritten
account of a new taxon (p. 61: name, Latin description, statement of type) is treated as
not effectively published.

Ex. 11.  The generic designation “Lindenia” was handwritten in ink by Bentham in the
margin of copies of a published but not yet distributed fascicle of the Plantae hartwegi-
anae
(p. 84. 1841)
to replace the struck-out name Siphonia Benth., which he had discov-
ered was a later homonym of Siphonia Rich. ex Schreb. (Gen. Pl.: 656. 1791). Although
the fascicle was then distributed, the handwritten portion was not itself reproduced by
mechanical or graphic process and is not therefore effectively published.

 30.7.  Publication on or after 1 January 1953 in trade catalogues or non-
scientific newspapers, and on or after 1 January 1973 in seed-exchange
lists, does not constitute effective publication.

 30.8.  The distribution on or after 1 January 1953 of printed matter accom-
panying specimens does not constitute effective publication.

  Note 2.  If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the speci-
mens, it is effectively published.

Ex. 12.  The printed labels of Fuckel’s Fungi rhenani exsiccati (1863–1874) are effec-
tively published even though not independently issued. The labels antedate Fuckel’s
subsequent accounts (e.g. in Jahrb. Nassauischen Vereins Naturk. 23–24. 1870).

Ex. 13.  Vězda’s Lichenes selecti exsiccati (1960–1995) were issued with printed labels
that were also distributed as printed fascicles; the latter are effectively published, and
nomenclatural novelties appearing in Vězda’s labels are to be cited from the fascicles.

 30.9.  Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial
work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 75 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

30 Effective publication (Conditions)

education for the purpose of obtaining a degree does not constitute effec-
tive publication unless the work includes an explicit statement (referring
to the requirements of the Code for effective publication) or other inter-
nal evidence that it is regarded as an effective publication by its author or
publisher.

  Note 3.  The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a
statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed
version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effec-
tively published.

Ex. 14.  Meclatis in Clematis; yellow flowering Clematis species – Systematic studies
in Clematis L. (Ranunculaceae), inclusive of cultonomic aspects
” a “Proefschrift ter
verkrijging van de graad van doctor ... van Wageningen Universiteit” by Brandenburg,
was effectively published on 8 June 2000, because it bears the ISBN 90-5808-237-7.

Ex. 15.  The thesis “Comparative investigations on the life-histories and reproduc-
tion of some species in the siphoneous green algal genera Bryopsis and Derbesia” by
Rietema, submitted to Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen in 1975, is stated to have been
printed (“Druk”) by Verenigde Reproduktie Bedrijven, Groningen and was therefore
effectively published.

Ex. 16.  The dissertation “Die Gattung Mycena s.l.” by Rexer, submitted to the Eber-
hard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, was effectively published in 1994 because it bears
the statement “Druck: Zeeb-Druck, Tübingen 7 (Hagelloch)”, referring to a commercial
printer. The generic name Roridomyces Rexer and the names of new species in Mycena,
such as M. taiwanensis Rexer, are therefore validly published.

Ex. 17.  The thesis by Demoulin, “Le genre Lycoperdon en Europe et en Amérique du
Nord”, defended in 1971, was not effectively published because it does not contain inter-
nal evidence that it is regarded as such. Even if photocopies of it can be found in some
libraries, names of new species of Lycoperdon, e.g. “L. americanum”, “L. cokeri”, and
“L. estonicum”, introduced there, were validly published in the effectively published
paper “Espèces nouvelles ou méconnues du genre Lycoperdon (Gastéromycètes)”
(Demoulin in Lejeunia, ser. 2, 62: 1–28. 1972).

Ex. 18.  The dissertation by Funk, “The Systematics of Montanoa Cerv. (Asteraceae)”,
submitted to the Ohio State University in 1980, was not effectively published because it
does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as such. The same applies to fac-
simile copies of the dissertation printed from microfiche and distributed, on demand,
from 1980 onward, by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. The name Montanoa imbri-
cata
V. A. Funk, introduced in the dissertation, was validly published in the effectively
published paper “The systematics of Montanoa (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)” (Funk in
Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 36: 1–133. 1982).

Ex. 19.  The dissertation “Revision der südafrikanischen Astereengattungen Mairia und
Zyrphelis” submitted in 1990 by Ursula Zinnecker-Wiegand to the Ludwig-Maximil-
ians-Universität München (University of Munich) is not effectively published because
it does not include an ISBN, the name of any printer or publisher or distributor, or any
statement that it was intended to be effectively published under the Code, even though

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 76 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication (Conditions) 30–30A

about 50 copies were distributed to other public libraries and all the other formalities
for the publication of new taxa were met. The designations in the thesis became validly
published names in the effectively published paper by Ortiz & Zinnecker-Wiegand (in
Taxon 60: 1194–1198. 2011
).

Recommendation 30A

30A.1.  Preliminary and final versions of the same electronic publication should
be clearly indicated as such when they are first issued. The phrase “Version of
Record” should only be used to indicate a final version in which the content will
not change.

30A.2.  To facilitate citation, final versions of electronic publications should con-
tain final pagination.

30A.3.  Authors and editors are strongly recommended to include page numbers
on the actual pages of publications, such that if electronic publications are printed,
these page numbers are visible.

30A.4.  It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing nomenclatural
novelties in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular printed matter that
is multiplied in restricted and uncertain numbers, in which the permanence of the
text may be limited, for which effective publication in terms of number of copies
is not obvious, or that is unlikely to reach the general public. Authors should also
avoid publishing nomenclatural novelties in popular periodicals, in abstracting
journals, or on correction slips.

Ex. 1.  Kartesz provided an unpaginated printed insert titled “Nomenclatural innova-
tions” to accompany the electronic version (1.0) of the Synthesis of the North American
flora
produced on compact disk (CD-ROM, which is not effectively published under
Art. 30.1). This insert, which is effectively published under Art. 29–31, is the place of
valid publication of 41 new combinations, which also appear on the disk, in an item
authored by Kartesz: “A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland” (e.g. Dichanthelium
hirstii
(Swallen) Kartesz in Kartesz & Meacham, Synth. N. Amer. Fl., Nomencl. Innov.:
[1]. Aug 1999). Kartesz’s procedure is not to be recommended, as the insert is unlikely
to be permanently stored and catalogued in libraries and so reach the general public.

30A.5.  To aid availability through time and place, authors publishing nomencla-
tural novelties should give preference to periodicals that regularly publish taxo-
nomic work, or else they should send a copy of a publication (printed or electronic)
to an indexing centre appropriate to the taxonomic group. When such publications
exist only as printed matter, they should be deposited in at least ten, but preferably
more, generally accessible libraries throughout the world.

30A.6.  Authors and editors are encouraged to mention nomenclatural novelties in
the summary or abstract, or list them in an index in the publication.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 77 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

31 Effective publication (Dates)

SECTION 2

DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

ARTICLE 31

 31.1.  The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed
matter or electronic material became available as defined in Art. 29 and 30.
In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in
the printed matter or electronic material must be accepted as correct.

Ex. 1.  Individual parts of Willdenow’s Species plantarum were published as follows:
1(1), Jun 1797; 1(2), Jul 1798; 2(1), Mar 1799; 2(2), Dec 1799; 3(1), 1800; 3(2), Nov
1802
; 3(3), Apr-Dec 1803; 4(1), 1805; 4(2), 1806; these dates are presently accepted
as the dates of effective publication (see Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 116: 303.
1988
).

Ex. 2.  Fries first published Lichenes arctoi in 1860 as an independently paginated pre-
print, which antedates the identical content published in a journal (Nova Acta Reg. Soc.
Sci. Upsal., ser. 3, 3: 103–398. 1861
).

Ex. 3.  Diatom Research 2(2) bears the date December 1987. Nevertheless, Williams &
Round, the authors of a paper in that issue, stated in a subsequent paper (in Diatom Res.
3: 265. 1988
) that the actual date of publication had been 18 February 1988. Under Art.
31.1 their statement is acceptable as proof establishing another date of publication for
issue 2(2) of the journal.

Ex. 4.  The paper in which Ceratocystis omanensis Al-Subhi & al. is described was
available online in final form on Science Direct on 7 November 2005, but was not
effectively published (Art. 29 Note 1). It was distributed in print (in Mycol. Res. 110(2):
237–245) on 7 March 2006, which is the date of effective publication.

 31.2.  When a publication is issued in parallel as electronic material and
printed matter, both must be treated as effectively published on the same
date unless the dates of the versions are different as determined by Art.
31.1.

Ex. 5.  The paper in which Solanum baretiae was validly published was placed online in
final form, as a PDF document, on 3 January 2012 in the journal PhytoKeys (ISSN 1314-
2003). The printed version (ISSN 1314-2011) of the corresponding issue of PhytoKeys,
with identical pagination and content, is undated but demonstrably later because it in-
cludes a paper dated 6 January 2012. A correct citation of the name is: S. baretiae Tepe
in PhytoKeys 8 (online): 39. 3 Jan 2012.

 31.3.  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 effec-
tive publication unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 78 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Effective publication (Dates) 31–31C

Ex. 6.  The names of the Selaginella species published by Hieronymus (in Hedwigia 51:
241–272
) were effectively published on 15 October 1911, because the volume in
which the paper appeared, though dated 1912, states (p. ii) that the separate appeared
on that date.

Recommendation 31A

31A.1.  The date on which the publisher or publisher’s agent delivers printed mat-
ter to one of the usual carriers for distribution to the public should be accepted as
its date of effective publication.

Recommendation 31B

31B.1.  The date of effective publication should be clearly indicated as precisely
as possible within a publication. When a publication is issued in parts, this date
should be indicated in each part.

31B.2.  In electronic material, the precise dates (year, month, and day) of effective
publication should be included.

Recommendation 31C

31C.1.  On reprints of papers published in a periodical, the name of the periodical,
volume and part number, original pagination, and date (year, month, and day) of
publication
should be indicated.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 79 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

32 Valid publication (General provisions)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER V

VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

SECTION 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 32

 32.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms ex-
cepted) must: (a) be effectively published (Art. 2931) on or after the start-
ing-point date of the respective group (Art. 13.1 and F.1.1); (b) be composed
only of letters of the Latin alphabet, except as provided in Art. 23.3, 60.4,
60.7, and 60.1114, and (c) have a form that complies with the provisions of
Art. 1627 (but see Art. 21.4 and 24.4) and Art. H.6 and H.7 (see also Art.
61).

  Note 1.  The use of typographic signs, numerals, or letters of a non-Latin
alphabet in the arrangement of taxa (such as Greek letters α, β, γ, etc. in the
arrangement of varieties under a species) does not prevent valid publication, be-
cause
rank-denoting terms and devices are not part of the name.

 32.2.  Names above the rank of species are validly published even when
they or their epithets were published with an improper Latin termina-
tion but otherwise in accordance with this Code; they are to be changed
to accord with Art. 1619 and 21. without change of authorship or date.
Names of species or infraspecific taxa are validly published even when
their epithets were published with an improper Latin or transcribed Greek
termination but otherwise in accordance with this Code; they are to be
changed to accord with Art. 23 and 24, without change of authorship or
date (see also Art. 60.8).

Ex. 1.  The epithet in Cassia “*” ‘Chamaecristae’ L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753), the name of a
subdivision of a genus,
is a noun in the nominative plural, derived from “Chamaecrista”,

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 80 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (General provisions) 32–32A

a pre-Linnaean generic designation. Under Art. 21.2, however, this epithet must have
the same form as a generic name, i.e. a noun in the nominative singular (Art. 20.1). The
name is to be changed accordingly and is cited as Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L.

  Note 2.  Improper terminations of otherwise correctly formed names or epi-
thets may result from the use of an inflectional form other than that required by
Art. 32.2.

Ex. 2.  Senecio sect. Synotii Benth. (in Bentham & Hooker, Gen. Pl. 2: 448. 1873) was
validly published with reference to certain species that constituted a section (“in spe-
ciebus … sectionem subdistinctam (Synotios) constituentibus”). Although the sectional
epithet was written as an adjective in the accusative plural (because it was a direct ob-
ject), it is to be cited in the nominative plural, S. sect. Synotii, as required by Art. 21.2.

 32.3.  Autonyms (Art. 6.8) are accepted as validly published names, dat-
ing from the publication in which they were established (see Art. 22.3 and
26.3), whether or not they actually appear in that publication.

 32.4.  In order to be validly published, names of hybrids at specific or
lower rank with Latin epithets must comply with the same rules as names
of non-hybrid taxa at the same rank.

Ex. 3.  “Nepeta ×faassenii” (Bergmans, Vaste Pl. Rotsheesters, ed. 2: 544. 1939, with a
description in Dutch; Lawrence in Gentes Herb. 8: 64. 1949, with a diagnosis in Eng-
lish) is not validly published, not being accompanied by or associated with a Latin
description or diagnosis (Art. 39.1). The name Nepeta ×faassenii Bergmans ex Stearn
(in J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 75: 405. 1950) is validly published because it is accompanied by
a Latin description.

Ex. 4.  “Rheum ×cultorum” (Thorsrud & Reisaeter, Norske Plantenavn: 95. 1948), is a
nomen nudum and is not therefore validly published (Art. 38.1(a)).

Ex. 5.  “Fumaria ×salmonii” (Druce, List Brit. Pl.: 4. 1908) is not validly published (Art.
38.1(a)) because
only the presumed parentage (F. densiflora × F. officinalis) was stated.

  Note 3.  For names of hybrids at the rank of genus or of a subdivision of a
genus, see Art. H.9.

  Note 4.  For valid publication of names of organisms originally assigned to a
group not covered by this Code, see Art. 45.

Recommendation 32A

32A.1.  When publishing nomenclatural novelties, authors should indicate this by
a phrase including the word “novus” or its abbreviation, e.g. genus novum (gen.
nov., new genus), species nova (sp. nov., new species), combinatio nova (comb.
nov., new combination), nomen novum (nom. nov., replacement name), or status
novus (stat. nov., name at new rank).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 81 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

33 Valid publication (General provisions)

ARTICLE 33

 33.1.  The date of a name 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. However, the name must always be ex-
plicitly accepted in the place of its valid publication. A name published on
or after 1 January 1973 for which the various conditions for valid publica-
tion are not simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and
direct reference (Art. 41.5) is given to the place(s) where these requirements
were previously fulfilled (but see Art. 41.7).

Ex. 1.  “Clypeola minor” first appeared in the Linnaean thesis Flora monspeliensis
(p. 21, 1756
), in a list of names preceded by numerals but without an explanation of the
meaning of these numerals and without any other descriptive matter; when the thesis
was reprinted in vol. 4 of the Amoenitates academicae (1759), a statement was added
(p. 475) explaining that the numbers referred to earlier descriptions published in Mag-
nol’s Botanicum monspeliense (1676). However, “Clypeola minor” was absent from the
reprint
and was not therefore validly published.

Ex. 2.  When proposing “Graphis meridionalis” as a new species, Nakanishi (in J. Sci.
Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 75. 1966) provided a Latin description but failed to
designate a type. Graphis meridionalis M. Nakan. was validly published only when
Nakanishi (in J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 265. 1967) designated the holotype
of the name and provided a full and direct reference to his previous publication.

Ex. 3.  “Passiflora salpoense” (Leiva & Tantalean in Arnaldoa 22: 39. 2015) was not
validly published because, although a single gathering, S. Leiva & M. Leiva 5806, was
designated as “tipo”, it was specified as being conserved in five herbaria, contrary to
Art. 40.7. The name P. salpoensis S. Leiva & Tantalean (again as ‘salpoense’, but cor-
rectable to salpoensis under Art. 23.5 and 32.2) was validly published only when the
same authors (in Arnaldoa 23: 628. 2016) designated the same gathering as “lectotipo”
in a single herbarium, HAO, with “isolectotipos” in CORD, F, MO, and HUT (correct-
able, respectively, to holotype and isotypes under Art. 9.10), while providing a full and
direct reference to their previously published (l.c. 2015) validating English diagnosis of
the species.

 33.2.  A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 32.2 and 60)
does not affect its date.

Ex. 4.  The correction of the erroneous spelling of Gluta benghas L. (Mant. Pl.: 293.
1771
) to G. renghas L. does not affect the date of the name even though the correction
dates from 1883 (Engler in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 82 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (General provisions) 34–35

ARTICLE 34

 34.1.  New names at specified ranks included in publications listed as sup-
pressed works (opera utique oppressa; App. I) are not validly published
and no nomenclatural act¹ within the work associated with any name at
the specified ranks is effective. Proposals for the addition of publications
to App. I must be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer
them for examination to the specialist committees for the various taxo-
nomic groups (see Rec. 34A, Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10; see also Art.
14.12 and 56.2).

Ex. 1.  In the suppressed work (see App. I) of Motyka, Porosty, Lecanoraceae (3: 97.
1996), one of three specimens of Lecanora dissipata Nyl. (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 13:
368. 1866
) in Nylander’s herbarium in H was designated as the lectotype for that name.
This designation is not effective and therefore has no nomenclatural status.

 34.2.  When a proposal for the suppression of a publication has been
approved by the General Committee after study by the specialist commit-
tees for the taxonomic groups concerned, suppression of that publication
is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Con-
gress (see also Art. 14.15 and 56.3) and takes retroactive effect.

Recommendation 34A

34A.1.  When a proposal for the suppression of a publication under Art. 34.1 has
been referred to the appropriate specialist committees for study, authors should
follow existing usage of names as far as possible pending the General Committee’s
recommendation on the proposal (see also Rec. 14A and 56A).

ARTICLE 35

 35.1.  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 (but see
Art. 13.4).

Ex. 1.  Binary designations for six species of “Suaeda”, including “S. baccata”
and “S. vera”, were published with descriptions and diagnoses by Forsskål (Fl.

————————————

1     A nomenclatural act is an act requiring effective publication that results in a
       nomenclatural novelty (Art. 6 Note 4) or affects aspects of names such as typification
       (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4), priority (Art. 11.5 and 53.5), orthography (Art. 61.3), or
       gender (Art. 62.3).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 83 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

35 Valid publication (General provisions)

Aegypt.- Arab.: 69–71. 1775), but he provided no description or diagnosis for the genus:
these were not therefore validly published names.

Ex. 2.  Müller (in Flora 63: 286. 1880) published the new genus “Phlyctidia” with the
species “P. hampeana n. sp.”, “P. boliviensis” (Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.), “P. soredii-
formis”
(Phlyctis sorediiformis Kremp.), “P. brasiliensis” (Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.),
and “P. andensis” (Phlyctis andensis Nyl.). However, the intended new binomials were
not validly published in this place because the intended generic name “Phlyctidia”
was not validly published; Müller gave no generic description or diagnosis but only a
description and a diagnosis for one additional species, “P. hampeana”, and so failed to
validly publish “Phlyctidia” under Art. 38.5 because the genus was not monotypic (see
Art. 38.6)
. Valid publication of the name Phlyctidia was by Müller (in Hedwigia 34: 141.
1895
), who provided a short generic diagnosis and explicitly included only two species,
the names of which, P. ludoviciensis Müll. Arg. and P. boliviensis (Nyl.) Müll. Arg.,
were also validly published in 1895.

  Note 1.  Art. 35.1 applies also when specific and other epithets are published
under words not to be regarded as names of genera or species (see Art. 20.4 and
23.6).

Ex. 3.  The binary designation “Anonymos aquatica” (Walter, Fl. Carol.: 230. 1788) is
not a validly published name. The first validly published name for the species con-
cerned is Planera aquatica J. F. Gmel. (Syst. Nat. 2: 150. 1791). This name is not to be
cited as P. aquatica “(Walter) J. F. Gmel.”

Ex. 4.  Despite the existence of the generic name Scirpoides Ség. (Pl. Veron. Suppl.: 73.
1754
), the binary designation “S. paradoxus” (Rottbøll, Descr. Pl. Rar.: 27. 1772) is not
validly published because “Scirpoides” in Rottbøll’s context was a word not intended
as a generic name (see Art. 20 Ex. 10). The first validly published name for this species
is Fuirena umbellata Rottb. (Descr. Icon. Rar. Pl. 70. 1773).

 35.2.  A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless
the author definitely associates the final epithet with the name of the genus
or species, or with its abbreviation (see Art. 60.14).

Ex. 5.  Combinations validly published. In Linnaeus’s Species plantarum the placing of
the epithet in the margin opposite the name of the genus clearly associates the epithet
with the name of the genus. The same result is attained in Miller’s The gardeners dic-
tionary,
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 that
associates an epithet with a particular name of a genus or species.

Ex. 6.  Combinations not validly published. Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia that
“Le type de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn.” (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts
89: 98. 1819
) does not constitute valid publication of the combination B. ciliata, be-
caus
e Rafinesque did not definitely associate the epithet ciliata with the generic name
Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is not to be attributed
to Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867) on the basis of their listing of “Cnidium
peucedanoides,
H. B. et K.” under Eulophus.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 84 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (General provisions) 35–36

Ex. 7.  Erioderma polycarpum subsp. verruculosum Vain. (in Acta Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn.
7(1): 202. 1890
) is validly published because Vainio clearly linked the subspecific epi-
thet to the specific epithet by an asterisk.

Ex. 8.  When Tuckerman (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 168. 1877) described “Erio-
derma velligerum,
sub-sp. nov.”, he stated that his new subspecies was very near to
E. chilense, from which he provided distinguishing features. However, because he did
not definitely associate the subspecific epithet with that species name, he did not validly
publish “E. chilense subsp. velligerum”.

ARTICLE 36

 36.1.  A name is not validly published when it is not accepted by its author
in the original publication, for example (a) when it is merely proposed in
anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a par-
ticular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional
name) or (b) when it is merely cited as a synonym. These provisions do not
apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxo-
nomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.

Ex. 1.  “Sebertia”, proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a unispecific genus, was not validly pub-
lished by Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept
the genus. Although he gave a description of it, he referred its only species “Sebertia
acuminata Pierre
(ms.)” to the genus Sersalisia R. Br., as “Sersalisia ? acuminata”,
which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 36.1 last sentence. The
name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam.,
Nachtr. 1: 280.
1897
).

Ex. 2.  The designations listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium
amboinense
defended by Stickman (1754) were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon
publication and are not validly published.

Ex. 3.  Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in Mag.
Neuesten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809
) even
though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory’s request, Flörke included
Bory’s diagnosis (and name) making Bory the publishing author as defined in Art. 46.6.
The acceptance or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not therefore relevant for valid
publication.

Ex. 4.  (a) The designation “Conophyton”, suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82.
1821
) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words
“If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt”, was not a
validly published generic name because Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus.
The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 71:
198.
1922
).

Ex. 5.  (a) “Pteridospermaexylon” and “P. theresiae” were published by Greguss (in
Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952) for a genus and species of fossil wood. Because Greguss

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 85 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

36 Valid publication (General provisions)

explicitly stated “Vorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen … [provisionally I designate
it by the names …]”, these are provisional names and as such are not validly published.

Ex. 6.  (a) The designation “Stereocaulon subdenudatum” proposed by Havaas (in Ber-
gens Mus.
Årbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published, even though it was pre-
sented as a new species with a Latin diagnosis, because on both pages it was indicated
to be “ad int.” [ad interim, for the time being].

Ex. 7.  (b) Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch.” was not validly published by Kunth
(Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) when he cited it as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum
Kunth; the correct combination under Ornithogalum L. was validly published later:
O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (in Verh. Bot. Vereins Prov. Brandenburg 8: 165. 1866).

Ex. 8.  Besenna A. Rich. and B. anthelmintica A. Rich. (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1: 253. 1847)
were simultaneously published by Richard, both with a question mark (“Besenna ?”
and “Besenna anthelmintica ? Nob.”). Richard’s uncertainty was due to the absence
of flowers or fruits for examination, but the names were nonetheless accepted by him,
with Besenna listed as such (i.e. not italicized) in the index (p. [469]).

 36.2.  A name is not validly published by the mere mention of the subordi-
nate taxa included in the taxon concerned.

Ex. 9.  The family designation “Rhaptopetalaceae” was not validly published by Pierre
(in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. May 1897), who merely mentioned the con-
stituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., Rhaptopetalum Oliv., and “Scytopetalum”, but gave no
description or diagnosis; a description of the family was published under the name Scy-
topetalaceae
Engl. (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., Nachtr. 1: 242. Oct 1897).

Ex. 10.  The generic designation Ganymedes was not validly published by Salisbury
(in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 353–355. 1812), who merely mentioned three included
species but supplied no generic description or diagnosis.

 36.3.  When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names
based on the same type are accepted simultaneously for the same taxon
by the same author and accepted as alternatives by that author in the same
publication (so-called alternative names), none of them, if new, is validly
published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combina-
tion is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa
or for subdivisions of a genus (see Rec. 22A.1, 22A.2, and 26A.13), nor to
names provided for in Art. F.8.1.

Ex. 11.  The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de
Janeiro 3: 23–29. 1922
) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl.
added in a footnote (pp. 23–24), in which Ducke indicated acceptability of these names
under the competing (alternative) American Code. The publication of both sets of names
is valid because it was effected before 1 January 1953.

Ex. 12.  “Euphorbia jaroslavii” (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova
Akad. Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation,

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 86 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (General provisions) 36–37

“Tithymalus jaroslavii”. Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphor-
bia yaroslavii
(with a differently transcribed initial letter), was validly published by
Poljakov (in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 21: 484. 1961),
who provided a full and direct reference to the earlier publication and rejected the
assignment to Tithymalus.

Ex. 13.  Freytag (in Sida Bot. Misc. 23: 211. 2002) published Phaseolus leptostachyus
“var. pinnatifolius Freytag forma purpureus Freytag, var. et forma nov.”, using a single
diagnosis and designating a single intended holotype. The diagnosis refers to P. leptos-
tachyus
f. purpureus, not to “P. leptostachyus var. pinnatifolius” under which Freytag
recognized a second forma in the same paper. The varietal designation “pinnatifolius”
is therefore a nomen nudum, not
validly published.

Ex. 14.  Hitchcock (in Univ. Washington Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507–508. 1969) used the name
Bromus inermis subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct
reference to its basionym, B. pumpellianus Scribn. (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 15: 9.
1888
)
. Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties, one of which he named B. iner-
mis
var. pumpellianus (without an author citation but clearly based on the same basio-
nym and type). In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of B. inermis
var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.

ARTICLE 37

 37.1.  A name published on or after 1 January 1953 without a clear indica-
tion of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.

 37.2.  For suprageneric names published on or after 1 January 1887, the use
of one of the terminations specified in Art. 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, and 19.3 is
accepted as an indication of the corresponding rank, unless this (a) would
conflict with the explicitly designated rank of the taxon (which takes prec-
edence), (b) would result in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5 (in which
case Art. 37.6 applies), or (c) would result in a rank sequence in which the
same rank-denoting term occurs at more than one hierarchical position.

Ex. 1.  Jussieu (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827) proposed Zanthoxyleae without
specifying the rank. Although he used the present termination for tribe (-eae), that
name is unranked because it was published prior to 1887. Zanthoxyleae Dumort. (Anal.
Fam. Pl.: 45. 1829
), however, is the name of a tribe because Dumortier specified its rank.

————————————

1     The terminations specified in Art. 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, and 19.3 are: -phyta (division
       or  phylum  in  algae  and  plants),  -mycota  (division  or  phylum  in  fungi),  -phytina
       (subdivision or subphylum in algae and plants), -mycotina (subdivision or subphylum
       in fungi), -phyceae (class in algae), -mycetes (class in fungi), -opsida (class in plants),
       -phycidae (subclass in algae), -mycetidae (subclass in fungi), -idae (subclass in plants),
       -ales (order), -ineae (suborder), -aceae (family), -oideae (subfamily), -eae (tribe), and
       -inae (subtribe).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 87 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

37 Valid publication (General provisions)

Ex. 2.  Nakai (Chosakuronbun Mokuroku [Ord. Fam. Trib. Nov.]. 1943) validly pub-
lished the names Parnassiales, Lophiolaceae, Ranzanioideae, and Urospatheae. He
indicated the respective ranks of order, family, subfamily, and tribe, by use of their
terminations even though he did not mention these ranks explicitly.

 37.3.  A name published before 1 January 1953 without a clear indication
of its rank is validly published provided that all other requirements for valid
publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative in questions of priority
except for homonymy (see Art. 53.3). If it is the name of a new taxon, it may
serve as a basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent new combina-
tions, names at new ranks, or replacement names at definite ranks.

Ex. 3.  The unranked groups “Soldanellae”, “Sepincoli”, “Occidentales”, etc., were
published under Convolvulus L. by House (in Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908). The names
C. [unranked] Soldanellae House, etc., are validly published names but have no status
in questions of priority except for purposes of homonymy under Art. 53.3.

Ex. 4.  In Carex L., the epithet Scirpinae was used in the name of an unranked subdivi-
sion of a genus by Tuckerman (Enum. Meth. Caric.: 8. 1843); this taxon was assigned
sectional rank by Kükenthal (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 20 (Heft 38): 81. 1909) and its
name is then cited as Carex sect. Scirpinae (Tuck.) Kük. (C. [unranked] Scirpinae Tuck.).

Ex. 5.  Loesener published “Geranium andicola var. vel forma longipedicellatum”
(Bull. Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, 3(2): 93. 1903) with an ambiguous indication of infraspe-
cific rank. The name is correctly cited as G. andicola [unranked] longipedicellatum
Loes. The epithet was used in a subsequent combination, G. longipedicellatum (Loes.)
R. Knuth (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 129 (Heft 53): 171. 1912).

 37.4.  If in one whole publication (Art. 37.5), prior to 1 January 1890,
only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that of vari-
ety unless this would be contrary to the author’s statements in the same
publication.

 37.5.  In questions of indication of rank, all publications appearing under
the same title and by the same author, such as different parts of a flora
issued at different times (but not different editions of the same work), must
be considered as a whole, and any statement made therein designating the
rank of taxa included in the work must be considered as if it had been pub-
lished together with the first instalment.

Ex. 6.  In Link’s Handbuch (1829–1833) the rank-denoting term “O.” (ordo) was used in
all three volumes. These names of orders cannot be considered as having been published
as names of families (Art. 18.2) because the term family was used for Agaricaceae and
Tremellaceae under the order Fungi in vol. 3 (pp. 272, 337; see Art. 18 Note 3). This
applies to all three volumes of the Handbuch even though vol. 3 was published later
(Jul–29 Sep 1833)
than vols. 1 and 2 (4–11 Jul 1829).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 88 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (General provisions) 37

 37.6.  A name is not validly published if it is given to a taxon of which the
rank is at the same time denoted by a misplaced term, contrary to Art. 5.
Such misplacements include, e.g., forms divided into varieties, species con-
taining genera, and genera containing families or tribes (but see Art. F.4.1).

 37.7.  Only those names published with rank-denoting terms that must be
removed so as to achieve a proper sequence are to be regarded as not val-
idly published. In cases where terms are switched, e.g. family-order, and a
proper sequence can be achieved by removing either or both of the rank-
denoting terms, names at neither rank are validly published unless one is a
secondary rank (Art. 4.1) and one is a principal rank (Art. 3.1), e.g. family-
genus-tribe, in which case only names published at the secondary rank are
not validly published.

Ex. 7.  “Sectio Orontiaceae” (Brown, Prodr.: 337. 1810) is not a validly published name
because Brown misapplied the term “sectio” to a rank higher than genus.

Ex. 8.  “Tribus Involuta” and “tribus Brevipedunculata” (Huth in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20:
365
, 368. 1895) are not validly published names because Huth misapplied the term “tri-
bus” to a rank lower than section within the genus Delphinium.

  Note 1.  Consecutive use of the same rank-denoting term in a taxonomic se-
quence does not represent misplaced rank-denoting terms.

Ex. 9.  Danser (in Recueil Trav. Bot. Néerl. 18: 125–210. 1921) published ten names of
new subspecies in a treatment of Polygonum in which he recognized subspecies (indi-
cated by Roman numerals) within subspecies (indicated by Arabic numerals). These do
not represent misplaced rank-denoting terms, Art. 37.6 does not apply, and the names
are validly published.

 37.8.  Situations where the same or equivalent rank-denoting term is used
at more than one non-consecutive position in the taxonomic sequence rep-
resent informal usage of rank-denoting terms. Names published with such
rank-denoting terms are treated as unranked (see Art. 37.1 and 37.3; see
also Art. 16 Note 1).

Ex. 10.  Names published with the term “series” by Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1–3.
1862–1883
) are treated as unranked because this term was used at seven different hi-
erarchical positions in the taxonomic sequence. Therefore, the sequence in Rhyncho-
spora
(3: 1058–1060. 1883) of genus-“series”-section does not contain a misplaced
rank-denoting term.

 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 89 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

38 Valid publication (New taxa)

SECTION 2

NAMES OF NEW TAXA

ARTICLE 38

 38.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon (see Art. 6.9)
must (a) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon (see also
Art. 38.7 and 38.8)
or, if none is provided in the protologue, by a reference
(see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published description or diag-
nosis (except as provided in Art. 13.4 and H.9; see also Art. 14.9 and 14.14);
and (b) comply with the relevant provisions of Art. 3245 and F.4F.5.

  Note 1.  An exception to Art. 38.1 is made for the generic names first published
by Linnaeus in Species plantarum, ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762–1763), which are
treated as having been validly published in those works even though the validat-
ing descriptions were published later in Genera plantarum, ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6
(1764)
, respectively (see Art. 13.4).

 38.2.  A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the opinion of
its author distinguishes the taxon from other taxa.

Ex. 1.  “Egeria” (Néraud in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot.: 25, 28. 1826) was published
without a description or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one (and thus is a nomen
nudum); it was not validly published.

Ex. 2.  Loranthus macrosolen originally appeared without a description or diagnosis
on the printed labels issued about the year 1843 with Sect. II, No. 529, 1288, of the
herbarium specimens from Schimper’s Abyssinische Reise”. The name L. macrosolen
Steud.
ex A. Rich. (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1: 340. 1848) was validly published when Richard
supplied a description.

*Ex. 3.  In Don, Sweet’s Hortus britannicus, ed. 3 (1839), for each listed species the
flower colour, the duration of the plant, and a translation into English of the specific
epithet are given in tabular form. In many genera the flower colour and duration may
be identical for all species and clearly their mention is not intended as a validating
description or diagnosis. Names of new taxa appearing in that work are not therefore
validly published, except in some cases where reference is made to earlier descriptions
or diagnoses.

Ex. 4.  “Crepis praemorsa subsp. tatrensis” (Dvořák & Dadáková in Biológia (Brati-
slava) 32: 755. 1977) appeared with “a subsp. praemorsa karyotypo achaeniorumque
longitudine praecipue differt”. This statement specifies the features in which the two
taxa differ but not how these features differ and so it does not satisfy the requirement of
Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”.

Ex. 5.  The generic name Epilichen Clem. (Gen. Fungi: 69, 174. 1909) is validly published
by means of the key character “parasitic on lichens” (contrasting with “saprophytic” for

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 90 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New taxa) 38

Karschia) and the Latin diagnosis “Karschia lichenicola”, referring to the ability of the
included species formerly included in Karschia to grow on lichens. These statements,
in the opinion of Clements, distinguished the genus from others, although provision of
such a meagre diagnosis is not good practice.

Ex. 6.  The protologue of Iresine borschii Zumaya & Flores Olv. (in Willdenowia 46:
166. 2016) includes both a morphological and a molecular diagnosis. Both are diagnoses
because they indicate how the features of the new species, in the opinion of the authors,
differ from those of other taxa.

  Note 2.  Whereas a diagnosis must comprise one or more descriptive statements
(Art. 38.2 and 38.3), a validating description (Art. 38.1) need not be diagnostic.

 38.3.  The requirements of Art. 38.1(a) are not met by statements describ-
ing properties such as purely aesthetic features, economic, medicinal or
culinary use, cultural significance, cultivation techniques, geographical
origin, or geological age.

Ex. 7.  “Musa basjoo” (Siebold in Verh. Bat. Genootsch. Kunsten 12: 18. 1830) appeared
with “Ex insulis Luikiu introducta, vix asperitati hiemis resistens. Ex foliis linteum,
praesertim in insulis Luikiu ac quibusdam insulis provinciae Satzuma conficitur. Est
haud dubie linteum, quod Philippinis incolis audit Nippis”. This statement gives infor-
mation about the economic use (linen is made from the leaves), hardiness in cultivation
(scarcely survives the winter), and geographical origin (introduced from the Ryukyu
Islands), but, because there is no descriptive information on the “leaves”, the only char-
acter mentioned, it does not satisfy the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description
or diagnosis”. Musa basjoo Siebold & Zucc. ex Iinuma was later validly published by
Iinuma, Sintei Somoku Dzusetsu [Illustrated Flora of Japan], ed. 2, 3: ad t. 1. 1874, with
floral details and a description in Japanese.

 38.4.  When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the re-
quirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”, a request for a
decision may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer it
for examination to the specialist committee for the appropriate taxonomic
group (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A Committee recommendation
as to whether or not the name concerned is validly published may then be
put forward to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will
become a binding decision with retroactive effect. These binding decisions
are listed in App. VI.

Ex. 8.  Ascomycota Caval.-Sm. (in Biol. Rev. 73: 247. 1998, as “Ascomycota Berkeley
1857 stat. nov.”) was published as the name of a phylum, with the diagnosis “sporae
intracellulares”. Because Cavalier-Smith (l.c.) did not provide a full and direct refer-
ence to Berkeley’s publication (Intr. Crypt. Bot.: 270. 1857) of the name Ascomycetes
[not Ascomycota], valid publication of Ascomycota is dependent on its meeting the re-
quirements of Art. 38.1(a), and a request was made for a binding decision under Art.
38.4. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi concluded (in Taxon 59: 292. 2010) that

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 91 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

38 Valid publication (New taxa)

the requirements of Art. 38.1(a) were minimally fulfilled and recommended a bind-
ing decision
that Ascomycota is validly published. This was endorsed by the General
Committee (in Taxon 60: 1212. 2011) and ratified by the XVIII International Botanical
Congress in Melbourne in 2011 (see App. VI).

Ex. 9.  Brugmansia aurea Harrison (Floric. Cab. & Florist’s Mag. 5: 144. 1837) was de-
scribed in an account of a garden visit as comprising “plants about two feet high” with
flowers “about the size of the B. sanguinea, but of fine rich golden yellow colour”, and
was compared with “an inferior kind … the flowers of which are of a dull buff colour”.
A binding decision has been made that the name is validly published (see App. VI).

 38.5.  The names of a genus and a species may be validly published
simultaneously by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-
specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only
generic or specific, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the
genus is at that time monotypic (see Art. 38.6); (b) no other names (at any
rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type; and
(c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the requirements
for valid publication. A descriptio generico-specifica must accompany the
names of the taxa described;
reference instead to an earlier description or
diagnosis is not acceptable.

 38.6.  For the purpose of Art. 38.5, a monotypic genus is one for which a
single binomial is validly published even though the author may indicate
that other species are attributable to the genus.

Ex. 10.  Nylander (in Flora 62: 353. 1879) described the new species “Anema nummulari-
ellum”
in a new genus “Anema” without providing a generic description or diagnosis.
Because in the same publication (l.c.: 354. 1879) he wrote “Affine Anemati nummulario
(DR.) Nyl., …”, which was an attempted new combination in
“Anema” based on Col-
lema
nummularium Dufour ex Durieu & Mont. (Expl. Sci. Algérie 1: 200. 1846–1847),
none of his designations was validly published. The names were later validly published
by Forssell (Beitr. Gloeolich.: 40, 91, 93. 1885).

Ex. 11.  The names Kedarnatha P. K. Mukh. & Constance (in Brittonia 38: 147. 1986)
and K. sanctuarii P. K. Mukh. & Constance, the latter designating the single, new spe-
cies of the new genus, are both validly published although a Latin description was pro-
vided only under the generic name.

Ex. 12.  Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth. (Pl. Hartw.: 29. 1840) was a new species assigned
to the monotypic new genus Piptolepis. Both names were validly published with a com-
bined generic and specific description.

Ex. 13.  In publishing “Phaelypea” without a generic description or diagnosis, Browne
(Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave
the species a phrase name not a validly published binomial. Art. 38.5 does not therefore
apply and “Phaelypea” is not a validly published name.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 92 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New taxa) 38

 38.7.  For the purpose of Art. 38.5, prior to 1 January 1908, an illustration
with analysis (see Art. 38.9 and 38.10) is acceptable in place of a written
description or diagnosis.

Ex. 14.  The generic name Philgamia Baill. (in Grandidier, Hist. Phys. Madagascar 35:
t. 265.
1894
) was validly published because it appeared on a plate with analysis of the
only included species, P. hibbertioides Baill.

 38.8.  The name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published before
1 January 1908 may be validly published even if only accompanied by an
illustration with analysis (see Art. 38.9 and 38.10).

Ex. 15.  When “Polypodium subulatum” (Vellozo, Fl. Flumin. Icon. 11: ad t. 67. 1831)
was published, only an illustration of part of a frond was presented, without analysis,
hence
this drawing does not fulfil the provisions of Art. 38.8 and the designation was
not validly published there. The name P. subulatum Vell. was validly published when
Vellozo’s fern species descriptions appeared (in Arch. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro 5: 447.
1881
).

 38.9.  For the purpose of this Code, an analysis is a figure or group of
figures, commonly separate from the main illustration of the organism
(though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding identifi-
cation, with or without a separate caption (see also Art. 38.10).

Ex. 16.  Panax nossibiensis Drake (in Grandidier, Hist. Phys. Madagascar 35: t. 406.
1897
) was validly published on a plate with analysis that includes details of flower
structure
.

 38.10.  For organisms other than vascular plants, single figures showing
details aiding identification are considered as illustrations with analysis
(see also Art. 38.9).

Ex. 17.  Eunotia gibbosa Grunow (in Van Heurck, Syn. Diatom Belgique: t. 35, fig. 13.
1881
), a name of a diatom, was validly published by provision of a figure of a single
valve.

 38.11.  For the purpose of valid publication of a name of a new taxon, refer-
ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis is
restricted as follows: (a) for a name of a family or subdivision of a family,
the earlier description or diagnosis must be that of a family or subdivision
of a family; (b) for a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus, the earlier
description or diagnosis must be that of a genus or subdivision of a genus;
and (c) for a name of a species or infraspecific taxon, the earlier description
or diagnosis must be that of a species or infraspecific taxon (but see Art.
38.12).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 93 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

38 Valid publication (New taxa)

Ex. 18.  Pseudoditrichaceae fam. nov.” (Steere & Iwatsuki in Canad. J. Bot. 52: 701.
1974) was not a validly published name of a family as there was no Latin description or
diagnosis nor reference to either, but only mention of the single included genus and spe-
cies (see Art. 36.2), as “Pseudoditrichum mirabile gen. et sp. nov.”, the names of which
were both validly published under Art. 38.5 by a single Latin diagnosis.

Ex. 19.  Scirpoides Ség. (Pl. Veron. Suppl.: 73. 1754) was published without a generic
description or diagnosis. It was validly published by indirect reference (through the title
of the book and a general statement in the preface) to the generic diagnosis and further
direct references in Séguier (Pl. Veron. 1: 117. 1745).

Ex. 20.  Because Art. 38.11 places no restriction on names at ranks higher than family,
Eucommiales Němejc ex Cronquist (Integr. Syst. Class. Fl. Pl.: 182. 1981) was validly
published by Cronquist, who provided a full and direct reference to the Latin descrip-
tion associated with the genus Eucommia Oliv. (in Hooker’s Icon. Pl. 20: ad t. 1950.
1890
).

 38.12.  A name of a new species may be validly published by reference
(direct or indirect; see Art. 38.13 and 38.14) to a description or diagnosis of
a genus, if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the name of the genus
was previously and validly published simultaneously with its description or
diagnosis and (b) neither the author of the name of the genus nor the author
of the name of the species indicates that more than one species belongs to
the genus in question.

Ex. 21.  Trilepisium Thouars (Gen. Nov. Madagasc.: 22. 1806) was validated by a generic
description but without mention of a name of a species. Trilepisium madagascariense
DC. (Prodr. 2: 639. 1825) was subsequently proposed without a description or diagnosis
of the species and with the generic name followed by a reference to Thouars. Neither
author gave any indication that there was more than one species in the genus. Candolle’s
species name is therefore validly published.

 38.13.  For the purpose of valid publication of a name of a new taxon, refer-
ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis may
be direct or indirect (Art. 38.14). For names published on or after 1 January
1953 it must, however, be full and direct as specified in Art. 41.5.

 38.14.  An indirect reference is a clear (if cryptic) indication, by an author
citation or in some other way, that a previously and effectively published
description or diagnosis applies.

Ex. 22.  “Kratzmannia” (Opiz in Berchtold & Opiz, Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398.
1836
) was published with a diagnosis but was not definitely accepted by the author and
was not therefore validly published under Art. 36.1. Kratzmannia Opiz (Seznam: 56.
1852
), lacking description or diagnosis, is however definitely accepted, and its citation
as “Kratzmannia O.” constitutes an indirect reference to Opiz’s diagnosis published in
1836.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 94 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New taxa) 38A–A39

Recommendation 38A

38A.1.  A name of a new taxon should not be validated solely by a reference to a
description or diagnosis published before 1753.

Recommendation 38B

38B.1.  When a description is provided for valid publication of the name of a new
taxon, a separate diagnosis should also be presented.

38B.2.  Where no separate diagnosis is provided, the description of any new taxon
should mention the points that distinguish the taxon from others.

Recommendation 38C

38C.1.  When naming a new taxon, authors should not adopt a name that has been
previously but not validly published for a different taxon.

Recommendation 38D

38D.1.  In describing or diagnosing new taxa, authors should, when possible, sup-
ply figures with details of structure as an aid to identification.

38D.2.  In the explanation of figures, authors should indicate the specimen(s) on
which they are based (see also Rec. 8A.2).

38D.3.  Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures that
they publish.

Recommendation 38E

38E.1.  Descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa of parasitic organisms, especially
fungi, should always be followed by indication of the hosts. The hosts should be
designated by their scientific names and not solely by names in modern languages,
the application of which is often doubtful.

ARTICLE 39

 39.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon (algae and
fossils excepted) published between 1 January 1935 and 31 December 2011,
inclusive, must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by
a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published Latin
description or diagnosis (but see Art. H.9; for fossils see Art. 43.1; for algae
see Art. 44.1).
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 95 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

39–40 Valid publication (New taxa)

Ex. 1.  Arabis “Sekt. Brassicoturritis O. E. Schulz” and “Sekt. Brassicarabis O. E.
Schulz” (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 17b: 543–544. 1936), published
with German but no Latin descriptions or diagnoses, are not validly published names.

Ex. 2.  “Schiedea gregoriana” (Degener, Fl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 9 Apr 1936) was
accompanied by an English but no Latin description and is not therefore a validly pub-
lished name. Schiedea kealiae Caum & Hosaka (in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Mus. 11(23): 3. 10 Apr 1936
), the type of which is part of the material used by Degener,
is provided with a Latin description and is validly published.

Ex. 3.  Alyssum flahaultianum Emb., first published without a Latin description or diag-
nosis (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Maroc 15: 199. 1936), was validly published posthumously
when a Latin translation of Emberger’s original French description was provided (in
Willdenowia 15: 62–63. 1985).

 39.2.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon published
on or after 1 January 2012 must be accompanied by a Latin or English de-
scription or diagnosis or by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously and
effectively published Latin or English description or diagnosis (for fossils
see also Art. 43.1).

Recommendation 39A

39A.1.  Authors publishing names of new taxa should give or cite a full description
in Latin or English in addition to the diagnosis.

ARTICLE 40

 40.1.  Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon
at the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is
indicated (see Art. 710; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain
hybrids).

 40.2.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, indication of
the type as required by Art. 40.1 can be achieved by reference to an entire
gathering, or a part thereof, even if it consists of two or more specimens as
defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.7).

Ex. 1.  When Cheng described “Gnetum cleistostachyum” (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 13(4):
89. 1975) the name was not validly published because two gatherings were designated
as types: K. H. Tsai 142 (as “♀ Typus”) and X. Jiang 127 (as “♂ Typus”).

  Note 1.  When the type is indicated by reference to an entire gathering, or a part
thereof, that consists of more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes
(see Art. 9.6).

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 96 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New taxa) 40

Ex. 2.  The protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (in Engler, Pflanzenr.
IV. 276 (Heft 108): 855. 1968) includes the type statement “E. Esterhuysen No. 17070!
Typus – Pret., Bol.” The name is validly published because a single gathering is cited,
despite the mention of duplicate specimens (syntypes) in two different herbaria, and
Art. 40.7 does not apply
.

Ex. 3.  Radcliffe-Smith (in Gen. Croton. Madag. Comoro: 169. 2016) indicated the type
of Croton nitidulus var. acuminatus Radcl.-Sm. as “Cours 4871 (holotypus P)”. In the
herbarium P there are four duplicates of Cours 4871. The name is validly published be-
cause a single gathering in a single herbarium was indicated as type. These specimens
are syntypes, and one of them was subsequently designated as the lectotype by Berry &
al. (in Phytokeys 90: 69. 2017).

 40.3.  For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference
(direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or
lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name,
even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as
indication of the type (see also Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.6). For the purpose
of Art. 40.1, mention of a single specimen or gathering (Art. 40.2) or illus-
tration, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is accept-
able as indication of the type of the name of a new species or infraspecific
taxon
(but see Art. 40.6).

Ex. 4.  “Baloghia pininsularis” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist.
Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann
13823
. Because the author failed to designate one of them as the type, the designation
was
not validly published. Valid publication of the name B. pininsularis Guillaumin was
effected when McPherson & Tirel (Fl. Nouv.-Calédonie & Dépend. 14: 58. 1987) wrote
“Lectotype (désigné ici): Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!; iso-, Z)” while providing a
full and direct reference to Guillaumin’s Latin description (Art. 33.1; see Art. 46 Ex.
22); McPherson & Tirel’s use of “lectotype” is correctable to “holotype” under Art. 9.10.

  Note 2.  Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single spec-
imen or gathering. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual type
is required, such as the collector’s name, collecting number or date, or unique
specimen identifier.

  Note 3.  Cultures of algae and fungi preserved in a metabolically inactive state
are acceptable as types (Art. 8.4; see also Rec. 8B and Art. 40.8).

 40.4.  For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new species or
infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration
prior to 1 January 2007; on or after that date, the type must be a specimen
(except as provided in Art. 40.5).

Ex. 5.  “Dendrobium sibuyanense” (see Art. 8 Ex. 11) was described with a living col-
lection indicated as holotype and was not therefore validly published. It was not validly

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 97 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

40 Valid publication (New taxa)


published later, when Lubag-Arquiza & Christenson (in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006)
designated a published drawing as “lectotype”, contrary to Art. 40.6, which does not
permit use of the term “lectotype” in naming a new species starting from 1 January
1990. Nor was valid publication effected when Clements & Cootes (in OrchideenJ. 16:
27–28. 2009) published “Euphlebium sibuyanense” for this taxon, because after 1 Janu-
ary 2007 their indication of this drawing as holotype was precluded by Art. 40.4.

 40.5.  For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new species or
infraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted:
see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively published illustration if there are techni-
cal difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a
specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author
of the name.

Ex. 6.  Lücking & Moncada (in Fungal Diversity 84: 119–138. 2017) introduced “Law-
reymyces”
and seven intended microfungal species names using representations of
diagnostic sequences of bases of DNA from the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS)
region as intended types. These representations are not illustrations under Art. 6.1 foot-
note because they are not depictions of features of the organisms, and consequently the
intended names were not validly published.

 40.6.  For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published
on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the
words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a
modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). But in the case of the
name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a
genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication
of the type of the species name is sufficient.

Ex. 7.  When Stephenson described “Sedum mucizonia (Ortega) Raym.-Hamet subsp.
urceolatum” (in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 64: 234. 1992) the name was not validly
published because the protologue lacked the indication “typus” or “holotypus”, or its
abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language, a requirement for names published
on or after 1 January 1990.

 40.7.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or
after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illus-
tration, the single herbarium or collection or institution in which the type is
conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.5 and 40A.6).

Ex. 8.  In the protologue of Setaria excurrens var. leviflora Keng ex S. L. Chen (in
Bull. Nanjing Bot. Gard. 1988–1989: 3. 1990) the gathering Guangxi Team 4088 was
indicated as “模式” [“type”] and the herbarium where the type is conserved was speci-
fied as “中国科学院植物研究所標本室” [“Herbarium, Institute of Botany, The Chinese
Academy of Sciences”], i.e. PE.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 98 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New taxa) 40–40A

  Note 4.  Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution may be made
in an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index Herbariorum (http://sweetgum.nybg
.org/science/ih/
)
or in the World directory of collections of cultures of micro-
organisms
.

Ex. 7.  When ’t Hart described “Sedum eriocarpum subsp. spathulifolium” (in Ot Sist.
Bot. Dergisi 2(2): 7. 1995) the name was not validly published because no herbarium,
collection, or institution in which the holotype specimen was conserved was specified.
Valid publication was effected when ’t Hart (in Strid & Tan, Fl. Hellen. 2: 325. 2002)
wrote “Type ... ’t Hart HRT-27104 ... (U)” while providing a full and direct reference
to his previously published Latin diagnosis (Art. 33.1).

 40.8.  For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on
or after 1 January 2019 of which the type is a culture, the protologue must
include a statement that the culture is preserved in a metabolically inactive
state.

Recommendation 40A

40A.1.  The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the
description or diagnosis and should include the Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.

40A.2.  Authors proposing names of new families or subdivisions of families are
urged to ensure that the generic name from which the new name is formed is itself
effectively typified (see Art. 7 and 10), if necessary by designating a type for that
generic name under the relevant provisions of Art. 7 and 10 (see also Rec. 40A.3).

40A.3.  For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, authors should cite
the type of the species name (see Art. 79) that provides the type (Art. 10.1) of the
new name and, if necessary, designate the type for that species name under the
relevant provisions of Art. 7 and 9.

40A.4.  Details of the type specimen of the name of a new species or infraspecific
taxon should be published in the Latin alphabet.

40A.5.  Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition
should be followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously
identifying the holotype specimen.

Ex. 1.  The type of Sladenia integrifolia Y. M. Shui & W. H. Chen (in Novon 12: 539.
2002
) was designated as “Mo Ming-Zhong, Mao Rong-Hua & Yu Zhi-Yong 05 (holotype,
KUN 0735701; isotypes, MO, PE)”, where KUN No. 0735701 is the unique identifier of
the holotype sheet in the herbarium of the Kunming Institute of Botany (KUN).

40A.6.  Citation of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition should
use one of the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4 or, when those standards give
no abbreviated form, should be given in full with the location.
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 99 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

41 Valid publication (New combinations, etc.)

SECTION 3

NEW COMBINATIONS, NAMES AT NEW RANKS,

REPLACEMENT NAMES

ARTICLE 41

 41.1.  In order to be validly published, a new combination, name at new
rank, or replacement name must be accompanied by a reference to the
basionym or replaced synonym. (See Art. 6.10 and 6.11).

 41.2.  For the purpose of valid publication of a new combination, name at
new rank, or replacement name, the following restrictions apply: (a) for a
name of a family or subdivision of a family, the basionym or replaced syno-
nym must be a name of a family or subdivision of a family; (b) for a name
of a genus or subdivision of a genus, the basionym or replaced synonym
must be a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus; and (c) for a name of a
species or infraspecific taxon, the basionym or replaced synonym must be
a name of a species or infraspecific taxon.

Ex. 1.  Thuspeinanta T. Durand (Index Gen. Phan.: 703. 1888) is a replacement name for
Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Benth. (in Candolle, Prodr. 12: 436. 1848) non Herb. (Amaryl-
lidaceae: 190.
1837
); Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch (Hort. Dendrol.: 242. 1853) is based
on Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. (Prodr. 2: 169. 1825).

Ex. 2.  Presl did not validly publish “Cuscuteae” (in Presl & Presl, Delic. Prag.: 87. 1822)
as the name of a family (see “Praemonenda”, pp. [3–4]) based on Cuscutales Bercht. &
J. Presl (Přir. Rostlin: 247. 1820, Cuscuteae) because the latter is the name of an order
(see Art. 18 *Ex. 5).

 41.3.  Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference (see Art. 38.14) to a
basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new
combination, name at new rank, or replacement name. Therefore, errors in
the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, or in author citation (Art.
46), do not affect valid publication of such names.

Ex. 3.  In a list of names by Masamune (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 51: 234. 1937), Persi-
caria runcinata
was attributed to “(Hamilt.)” but no further information was given.
Earlier, the name Polygonum runcinatum had been validly published by Don (Prodr. Fl.
Nepal.: 73. 1825
) and ascribed there to “Hamilton MSS.” The mention by Masamune of
“Hamilt.” is regarded as an indirect reference to the basionym published by Don, and
thus the new combination Persicaria runcinata (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Masam. was
validly published.
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 100 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) 41

Ex. 4.  Opiz validly published the name at new rank Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz (Seznam:
50.
1852
) by writing “Hemisphace Benth.”, which is regarded as an indirect reference to
the basionym Salvia sect. Hemisphace Benth. (Labiat. Gen. Spec.: 193. 1833).

Ex. 5.  The new combination Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson (in Gaz. N.-W.
Prov. India 10: 392.
1882) is validly published through the cryptic notation “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. Glumac. 1: 388. 1854). Although the
reference to the basionym A. martini is indirect, it is unambiguous (but see Art. 33 Ex.
1; see also Rec. 60C.2).

Ex. 6.  Miller (1768), in the preface to The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, stated that he
had “now applied Linnaeus’s method entirely except in such particulars …”,
of which
he gave examples. In the main text, he often referred to Linnaean genera under his
own generic headings, e.g. to Cactus L. [pro parte] under Opuntia Mill. Therefore,
an implicit reference to a Linnaean binomial may be assumed when this is appropri-
ate, and Miller’s binomials are accepted as new combinations (e.g. O. ficus-indica (L.)
Mill.
, based on C. ficus-indica L.) or replacement names (e.g. O. vulgaris Mill., based
on C. opuntia L.: both names have the reference to “Opuntia vulgo herbariorum” of
Bauhin & Cherler in common).

Ex. 7.  When Haines (Forest Fl. Chota Nagpur: 530. 1910) published the name Dioscorea
belophylla,
he attributed the name to “Voight”. Previously, Prain (Bengal Pl. 2: 1065,
1067. 1903) had validly published D. nummularia var. belophylla Prain, citing “Voigt
(sp.)”, an apparent reference to the nomen nudum “Dioscorea belophylla” (Voigt, Hort.
Suburb. Calcutt.: 653. 1845
). The mention by Haines of “Voight” is regarded as an
indirect reference to Prain’s varietal name, and thus D. belophylla (Prain) Haines was
validly published as a new combination and name at new rank.

Ex. 8.  Cortinarius collinitus var. trivialis (J. E. Lange) A. H. Sm. (in Lloydia 7: 175.
1944) was validly published as a new combination based on C. trivialis J. E. Lange (Fl.
Agaric. Danic. 5(Taxon. Consp.): iii 1940), even though Smith referred to the basionym
as “C. trivialis Lange ‘Studies,’ pt. 10: 24. 1935”, where that name was not validly pub-
lished because Lange failed to provide a Latin description or diagnosis.

 41.4.  If, for a name of a genus or lower-ranked taxon published before
1 January 1953, no reference to a basionym is given but the conditions for
its valid publication as the name of a new taxon or replacement name are
fulfilled, that name is nevertheless treated as a new combination or name
at new rank when this was the author’s presumed intent and a potential
basionym (Art. 6.10) applying to the same taxon exists.

Ex. 9.  In Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871) the note (p. 12) explaining that
the author intended to adopt at generic rank the subdivisions of Agaricus then in use,
which at the time were those of Fries, and the general arrangement of the work, which
faithfully follows that of Fries, have been considered to provide indirect reference to
Fries’s earlier names of “tribes” as basionyms (see Art. F.4.1). Even though this was
Kummer’s presumed intent, he did not actually mention Fries, and it is questionable
whether he gave any reference, even indirect, to a basionym. Nevertheless, even when

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 101 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

41 Valid publication (New combinations, etc.)

Art. 41.3 is not considered to apply, because Kummer provided diagnoses in a key
and thus fulfilled the conditions for valid publication of names of new taxa, Art. 41.4
rules that names such as Hypholoma (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. and H. fasciculare (Huds. : Fr.)
P. Kumm. are to be accepted as new combinations or names at new rank based on the
corresponding Friesian names (here: A. “tribus” [unranked] Hypholoma Fr. : Fr. and
A. fascicularis Huds. : Fr.).

Ex. 10.  Scaevola taccada was validly published by Roxburgh (Hort. Bengal.: 15. 1814)
solely by reference to an illustration in Rheede (Hort. Malab. 4: t. 59. 1683) that is asso-
ciated with a description of a species. Because the same illustration was cited in the pro-
tologue of the earlier name
Lobelia taccada Gaertn. (Fruct. Sem. Pl. 1: 119. 1788) and
the two names apply to the same species, S. taccada is treated as a new combination,
S. taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb., not as the name of a new species, even though in Roxburgh’s
protologue there is no reference, either direct or indirect, to L. taccada.

Ex. 11.  When Moench (Methodus: 272. 1794) described Chamaecrista, he did not refer
to Cassia [unranked] Chamaecrista L. (Sp. Pl.: 379. 1753; see Art. 32 Ex. 1) but used
its epithet as the generic name and included its type, Cassia chamaecrista L. (cited in
synonymy). Therefore, he published a name at new rank, Chamaecrista (L.) Moench,
and not a name of a new genus.

Ex. 12.  Cololejeunea was published by Stephani (in Hedwigia 30: 208. 1891) for a taxon
that had previously been described as Lejeunea subg. Cololejeunea Spruce (in Trans.
& Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 15: 79
, 291. 1884) but without even an indirect reference
to Spruce’s earlier publication. Because Stephani provided a description of C. elegans
Steph. that under Art. 38.5 is acceptable as a descriptio generico-specifica, he fulfilled
the requirements for valid publication of Cololejeunea as the name of a new monotypic
genus. Under Art. 41.4, Cololejeunea is therefore to be treated as a name at new rank,
Cololejeunea (Spruce) Steph., based on Spruce’s subgeneric name.

Ex. 13.  When Sampaio published “Psoroma murale Samp.” (in Bol. Real Soc. Esp.
Hist. Nat. 27: 142. 1927
), he adopted the epithet of Lichen muralis Schreb. (Spic. Fl.
Lips.: 130.
1771
), a name applied to the same taxon, without referring to that name
either directly or indirectly. He cited in synonymy Lecanora saxicola (Pollich) Ach.
(Lichenogr. Universalis: 431. 1810), which is based on Lichen saxicola Pollich (Hist.
Pl. Palat. 3: 225. 1777
)
. Under Art. 41.4, Psoroma murale (Schreb.) Samp. is treated as
a new combination based on Lichen muralis; otherwise it would be a validly published
but illegitimate replacement name for Lichen saxicola.

 41.5.  On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at new rank, or
replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced
synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its
author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date
(but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). On or after 1 January 2007, a new combination,
name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its
basionym or replaced synonym is cited.

Ex. 14.  In transferring Ectocarpus mucronatus D. A. Saunders to Giffordia, Kjeldsen
& Phinney (in Madroño 22: 90. 27 Apr 1973) cited the basionym and its author but

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 102 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) 41

without reference to its place of valid publication. They later (in Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul
1973
) validly published the new combination G. mucronata (D. A. Saunders) Kjeldsen
& H. K. Phinney by giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication
of the basionym.

  Note 1.  For the purpose of Art. 41.5, a page reference (for publications with a
consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym
or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue appears,
but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that
of the protologue.

Ex. 15.  When proposing “Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally (in Mycotaxon 40:
337. 1991) cited the basionym as “Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesew., Can. J. Bot. 60:
2288-2294. 1982”. Because this refers to the pagination of Boesewinkel’s entire paper,
not of the protologue of the intended basionym alone, the combination was not validly
published by Peerally.

Ex. 16.  The new combination Conophytum marginatum subsp. littlewoodii (L. Bolus)
S. A. Hammer (Dumpling & His Wife: New Views Gen. Conophytum: 181. 2002), be-
cause it was
made prior to 1 January 2007, was validly published even though Hammer
did not cite the basionym (C. littlewoodii L. Bolus) but only indicated it by giving a full
and direct reference to its place of valid publication.

 41.6.  For names published on or after 1 January 1953, errors in the citation
of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation
(Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 41.5), do not preclude valid publication of
a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name.

Ex. 17.  Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) F. Seym. (Fl. New England: 308. 1969) was
published as a new combination “Based on Mespilus arbutifolia L. var. nigra Willd., in
Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800.” Willdenow treated these plants in the genus Pyrus, not Mespilus,
and publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors of citation do not prevent valid pub-
lication of the new combination.

Ex. 18.  The name at new rank Agropyron desertorum var. pilosiusculum (Melderis)
H. L. Yang (in Kuo, Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 9(3): 113. 1987) was inadvertently but
validly published by Yang, who wrote “Agropyron desertorum ... var. pilosiusculum
Meld. in Norlindh, Fl. Mong. Steppe. 1: 121. 1949”, which constitutes a full and direct
reference to the basionym, A. desertorum f. pilosiusculum Melderis, despite the error in
citing the rank-denoting term.

Ex. 19.  Nekemias grossedentata (Hand.-Mazz.) J. Wen & Z. L. Nie (in PhytoKeys 42:
16. 2014
) was published as a new combination, with the basionym cited as “Ampelop-
sis cantoniensis
var. grossedentata Hand.-Mazz., Sitzungsber. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss.,
Math.-Naturwiss. Cl., Abt. 1, 59: 105. 1877
”. The actual place of publication of the cited
basionym was in Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 59: 105. 1922. These
errors of citation (name of the journal and date) do not prevent valid publication of the
new combination.
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 103 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

41 Valid publication (New combinations, etc.)

 41.7.  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 place of publication of a name (but see
Art. 41.8).

Ex. 20.  Leptosiphon croceus (Eastw.) J. M. Porter & L. A. Johnson, comb. nov.” (in
Aliso 19: 80. 2000
) was published with the basionym citation “Linanthus croceus
Eastw., Pl. hartw. p. 325. 1849.” Because the actual place of publication of Linanthus
croceus
was in Bot. Gaz. 37: 442–443. 1904, Porter & Johnson’s combination was not
validly published.

Ex. 21.  Ciferri (in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86–89. 1954), in proposing 142 in-
tended new combinations in Meliola, omitted references to places of publication of
basionyms, stating that they could be found in Petrak’s lists or in the Index of fungi;
none of these combinations was validly published. Similarly, Grummann (Cat. Lich.
Germ.: 18. 1963) introduced a new combination in the form Lecanora campestris
f. “pseudistera (Nyl.) Grumm. c.n. – L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521”, in which “Z 5” referred
to Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. Univ. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the
basionym, Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.; Grummann’s combination was not validly
published.

  Note 2.  For the purposes of Art. 41.7 an unpaginated or independently pagi-
nated electronic publication and a later version with definitive pagination are not
considered to be different publications (Art. 30 Note 1).

  Note 3.  A new name published for a taxon previously known under a misap-
plied name is always the name of a new taxon and must therefore meet all relevant
requirements of Art. 3245 and F.4F.5 for valid publication of such a name. This
procedure is not the same as publishing a replacement name for a validly pub-
lished but illegitimate name (Art. 58.1), the type of which is necessarily that of the
replaced synonym (Art. 7.4).

Ex. 22.  Sadleria hillebrandii Rob. (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 40: 226. 1913) was intro-
duced as a “nom. nov.” for “Sadleria pallida Hilleb. Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888. Not Hook.
& Arn. Bot. Beech. 75. 1832.” Because the requirements for valid publication were
satisfied (prior to 1935, simple reference to a previous description or diagnosis in any
language was sufficient), S. hillebrandii is the name of a new species validated by Hille-
brand’s description of the taxon to which he misapplied the name S. pallida Hook. &
Arn., not a replacement name as stated by Robinson (see Art. 6.14).

Ex. 23.  Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis (Hermann in U.S. Forest Serv., Techn. Rep.
RM-18: 14. 1975) was published as a “nom. et stat. nov.” for J. sphaerocarpus “auct.
Am., non Nees”. Because there is no Latin description or diagnosis, indication of type,
or reference to any previous publication providing these requirements, this is not a
validly published name.

 41.8.  On or after 1 January 1953, in any of the following cases, a full and
direct reference to a work other than that in which the basionym or replaced
synonym was validly published is treated as an error to be corrected, not

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 104 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (New combinations, etc.) 41

affecting the valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or
replacement name:

(a)  when the actual basionym or replaced synonym was validly published
      earlier than the name or later isonym cited as such, but in the cited publi-
      cation, in which all conditions for valid publication of the name as cited
      are fulfilled, there is no reference, in association with that name, to the
      place of valid publication of the actual basionym or replaced synonym;

(b)  when the failure to cite the place of valid publication of the basionym
      or replaced synonym is explained by the later nomenclatural starting-
      point for the group concerned (Art. 13.1), or by the backward shift of
      the starting date for some fungi;

(c)  when the resulting new combination or name at new rank would other-
      wise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegitimate) replacement
      name; or

(d)  when the resulting new combination, name at new rank, or replacement
      name would otherwise be the validly published name of a new taxon.

Ex. 24.  (a) The new combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (in
Contr. Gray Herb. 200: 45.
1970
) with a full and direct reference to “Alsophila Kalbrey-
eri
C. Chr. Ind. Fil. 44. 1905”. This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the
intended basionym, which had previously been published, with the same type, by Baker
(1892; see Art. 6 Ex. 1). Because Christensen provided no reference to Baker’s earlier
publication, Tryon’s error of citation does not affect the valid publication of his new
combination, which is cited as T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M. Tryon.

Ex. 25.  (a) The intended new combination “Machaerina iridifolia” was proposed by
Koyama (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69: 64. 1956) with a full and direct reference to “Cladium
iridifolium
Baker, Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”. However, C. iridifolium had been proposed
by Baker as a new combination based on Scirpus iridifolius Bory (Voy. Îles Afrique 2:
94.
1804
). Because Baker provided an explicit reference to Bory, Art. 41.8(a) does not
apply and the combination under Machaerina was not validly published by Koyama.

Ex. 26.  (b) The combination Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (in
Scripta Mycol. 9: 106.
1980) with a full and direct reference to Peziza corticalis in
Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This, however, is not the place of valid publication of
the basionym, which, under the Code operating in 1980, was in Mérat (Nouv. Fl. Env.
Paris, ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821
), and under the current Code is in Persoon (Observ. Mycol. 1:
28. 1796
). Raitviir’s error of citation is partly explained by the backward shift of the
starting date for some fungi and partly by the absence of a reference to Mérat in Fries’s
work, and does not therefore prevent valid publication of the new combination, which is
cited as L. corticale (Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.

Ex. 27.  (b). Malvidae C. Y. Wu (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 40: 306. 2002) was validly pub-
lished
as a name at new rank based on Malvaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 271. 1789), even
though Wu cited as the basionym
“Malvaceae” (Adanson, Fam. Pl. 2: 390. 1763). Wu’s

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 105 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

41–41A Valid publication (New combinations, etc.)

error of citation, explained by the later nomenclatural starting-point for suprageneric
names of Spermatophyta and Pteridophyta (Art. 13.1(a)), does not prevent valid publica-
tion of the name at new rank
.

Ex. 28.  (c) The new combination Mirabilis laevis subsp. glutinosa was proposed by
Murray (in Kalmia 13: 32. 1983) with a full and direct reference to “Mirabilis glutinosa
A. Nels., Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 92 (1904)” as the intended basionym. This, how-
ever, cannot be a basionym because it is an illegitimate later homonym of M. glutinosa
Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 3: 265. 1898); it is also the replaced synonym of Hespero-
nia glutinosa
Standl. (in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 365. 1909). Under Art. 41.8(c),
Murray validly published a new combination based on H. glutinosa, because otherwise
he would have published a replacement name for M. glutinosa. The name is therefore to
be cited as M. laevis subsp. glutinosa (Standl.) A. E. Murray.

Ex. 29.  (c) The new combination Tillandsia barclayana var. minor was proposed by
Butcher (in Bromeliaceae 43(6): 5. 2009) with a reference, but not a full and direct one,
to Vriesea barclayana var. minor Gilmartin (in Phytologia 16: 164. 1968). Butcher also
provided a full and direct reference to T. lateritia André (“BASIONYM: Tillandsia
lateritia
Andre, Enum. Bromel. 6. 13 Dec 1888; Revue Hort. 60: 566. 16 Dec 1888
),
which is the replaced synonym of V. barclayana var. minor. Under Art. 41.8(c), T. bar-
clayana
var. minor (Gilmartin) Butcher was validly published as a new combination
based on V. barclayana var. minor because it would otherwise have been published as a
replacement name for T. lateritia.

Ex. 30.  (d) When Koyama published the new combination Carex henryi (C. B. Clarke)
T. Koyama (in Jap. J. Bot. 15: 175. 1956), he cited the basionym, C. longicruris var.
henryi C. B. Clarke (in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 36: 295. 1903), with a full and direct reference
not to the work in which that name was validly published, but to a later work (Kükenthal
in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 20 (Heft 38): 603. 1909), in which the name was accompanied
by a Latin diagnosis. Koyama’s reference to Kükenthal is treated as an error to be cor-
rected, not affecting the valid publication of the new combination C. henryi, because
otherwise
that name would be validly published as the name of a new species by direct
reference to Kükenthal’s Latin diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)).

Recommendation 41A

41A.1.  The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym
or replaced synonym should immediately follow a proposed new combination,
name at new rank, or replacement name. It should not be provided by mere cross-
reference to a bibliography at the end of the publication or to other parts of the
same publication, e.g. by use of the abbreviations “loc. cit.” or “op. cit.”

41A.2.  In the absence of established tradition, if publications are not paginated,
page numbers should be referenced with square brackets.

Ex. 1.  The name Crocus antalyensioides Rukšāns was published electronically in Inter-
national Rock Gardener
(ISSN 2053-7557), Volume 64, April 2015, in Portable Docu-
ment Format (PDF), without page numbers included on the actual pages of the publica-
tion. The reference should be cited as Int. Rock Gard. 64: [6]. 2015.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 106 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (Particular groups) 42–43

SECTION 4

NAMES IN PARTICULAR GROUPS

ARTICLE 42

 42.1.  Interested institutions, in particular those with expertise in nomen-
clatural indexing, may apply for recognition as nomenclatural repositories
under this Code. A nomenclatural repository takes charge, for specified
categories of organisms, of registering nomenclatural novelties (Art. 6 Note
4) and/or any nomenclatural act (Art. 34.1 footnote).

 42.2.  Applications for recognition as nomenclatural repositories for
organisms other than fungi (for fungi see Art. F.5.3) are to be addressed to
the General Committee, which will refer the applications to the Registra-
tion Committee (see Div. III Prov. 7.13) and act upon its recommendation.
Prior to such a recommendation, mechanisms and modalities of registra-
tion, and definition of coverage, will be developed in consultations among
the applicant(s), the Registration Committee, and the Permanent Nomen-
clature Committee(s) for the group(s) concerned, and be widely publicized
in the taxonomic community; a public trial run of at least one year must
have shown that the procedure works efficiently and sustainably. The Gen-
eral Committee has the power to suspend or revoke a granted recognition.

 42.3.  Registration may be proactive and/or synchronous and/or retrospec-
tive; that is, it may occur before and/or simultaneously with and/or after the
valid publication of a nomenclatural novelty (Art. 6 Note 4) or the effective
publication of any nomenclatural act (Art. 34.1 footnote).

  Note 1.  For ways in which proactive registration of nomenclatural novelties
functions, see Art. F.5.1 and F.5.2, relevant for names of organisms treated as
fungi, including fossil fungi and lichen-forming fungi.

ARTICLE 43

 43.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new fossil-taxon pub-
lished on or after 1 January 1996 must be accompanied by a Latin or Eng-
lish description or diagnosis or by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previ-
ously and effectively published Latin or English description or diagnosis.
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 107 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

43–44 Valid publication (Particular groups)

  Note 1.  Because Art. 39.1 does not apply to names of fossil-taxa, a validating
description or diagnosis (see Art. 38) in any language is acceptable for them prior
to 1996.

 43.2.  A name of a new fossil-genus or lower ranked fossil-taxon published
on or after 1 January 1912 is not validly published unless it is accompanied
by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters or by a refer-
ence to a previously and effectively published such illustration or figure.
For this purpose, in the case of a name of a fossil-genus or subdivision of
a fossil-genus, citation of, or reference (direct or indirect) to, a name of a
fossil-species validly published on or after 1 January 1912 will suffice.

Ex. 1.  “Laconiella” when published by Krasser (in Akad. Wiss. Wien Sitzungsber.,
Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. Abt. 1, 129: 16. 1920
) included only one species, the intended
name of which, “Laconiella sardinica”, was not validly published as no illustration or
figure or reference to a previously and effectively published illustration or figure was
provided. “Laconiella” is not therefore a validly published generic name.

Ex. 2.  Batodendron Chachlov (in Izv. Sibirsk. Otd. Geol. Komiteta 2(5): 9, fig. 23–25.
1921) was published with a description and illustrations. Even though the new fossil-
genus did not include any named species, its name is validly published (albeit as an
illegitimate later homonym of the non-fossil generic name Batodendron Nutt. in Trans.
Amer. Philos. Soc., ser. 2, 8: 261.
1842
).

 43.3.  A name of a new fossil-species or infraspecific fossil-taxon pub-
lished on or after 1 January 2001 is not validly published unless at least one
of the validating illustrations is identified as representing the type speci-
men (see also Art. 9.15).

  Note 2.  A nomenclatural novelty applied to a fungal fossil-taxon and published
on or after 1 January 2013 must comply with Art. F.5.1 and F.5.2 in order to be
validly published.

ARTICLE 44

 44.1.  In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae published between 1 January 1958 and 31 December 2011, inclusive,
must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference
(see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published Latin description
or diagnosis.

  Note 1.  Because Art. 39.1 does not apply to names of algal taxa, a validating
description or diagnosis (see Art. 38) in any language is acceptable for them prior
to 1958.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 108 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Valid publication (Particular groups) 44–45

Ex. 1.  Although Neoptilota Kylin (Gatt. Rhodophyc.: 392. 1956) was accompanied only
by a description in German, it is a validly published name because it applies to an alga
and was published before 1958.

 44.2.  A name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil algae
published on or after 1 January 1958 is not validly published unless it is
accompanied by an illustration or figure showing the distinctive morpho-
logical features, or by a reference to a previously and effectively published
such illustration or figure.

Recommendation 44A

44A.1.  The illustration or figure required by Art. 44.2 should be prepared from
actual specimens, preferably including the holotype.

ARTICLE 45

 45.1.  If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its names need satisfy only
the requirements of the relevant other Code that the author was using for
status equivalent to valid publication under this Code (but see Art. 54 and
F.6.1, regarding homonymy). The Code used by the author is determined
through internal evidence, irrespective of any claim by the author as to
the group of organisms to which the taxon is assigned. However, a name
generated in zoological nomenclature in accordance with the Principle of
Coordination is not validly published under this Code unless and until it
actually appears in a publication as the accepted name of a taxon.

Ex. 1.  Amphiprora Ehrenb. (in Abh. Königl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1841: 401, t. II(VI), fig.
28.
1843
), available¹ under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the
name of a genus of animals, was first treated as belonging to the algae by Kützing (Kie-
selschal. Bacill.: 107.
1844
). Under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae,
fungi, and plants, Amphiprora
is validly published and dates from 1843, not 1844.

Ex. 2.  Petalodinium Cachon & Cachon-Enj. (in Protistologia 5: 16. 1969) is available
under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the name of a genus of
dinoflagellates. When the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae, its name is validly
published and retains its original authorship and date even though the original publica-
tion lacked a Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 44.1).

 
 

————————————

1     The word “available” (when applied to a name) in the International Code of Zoological
       Nomenclature is equivalent to “validly published” in this Code.

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 109 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

45 Valid publication (Particular groups)

Ex. 3.  Prochlorothrix hollandica Burger-Wiersma & al. (in Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39:
256. 1989
) was published according to the International Code of Nomenclature of
Prokaryotes
. When the taxon is treated as an alga, its name is validly published and re-
tains its original authorship and date even though it was based on a living culture (Art.
8.4) and the original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 44.1).

Ex. 4.  Labyrinthodictyon Valkanov (in Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969, ‘Labyrintho-
dyction’
) is available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the
name of a genus of rhizopods. When the taxon is treated as belonging to the fungi, its
name is validly published and retains its original authorship and date even though the
original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis (Art. 39.1).

Ex. 5.  Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy (in Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921, ‘Protodini-
feridae’
), available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, is val-
idly published as a name of a family of algae and retains its original authorship and date
but with the original termination changed in accordance with Art. 18.4 and 32.2.

Ex. 6.  Pneumocystis P. Delanoë & Delanoë (in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.
155: 660. 1912
) was published for a “protozoan” genus with a description expressing
doubt as to its generic status, “Si celui-ci doit constituer un genre nouveau, nous propo-
sons de lui donner le nom de Pneumocystis Carinii”. Under Art. 36.1(a) Pneumocystis
would not be validly published, but Art. 11.5.1 of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature
allows for such qualified publication before 1961. Therefore, Pneumo-
cystis,
because it is an available name under the ICZN,, is validly published under Art.
45.1.

Ex. 7.  Pneumocystis jirovecii Frenkel (in Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 43: 16. 1976,
‘jiroveci’), treated as a protozoan, was published with only an English description and
without designation of a type, but the former condition is no obstacle to availability
under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see Rec. 13B) and the latter
was no obstacle under that Code until after 1999 (
Art. 72.3). Therefore, when consid-
ered the name of a fungus, P. jirovecii, with corrected termination (Art. 60.8), is validly
published under Art. 45.1. Subsequent publication of a Latin diagnosis and indication of
type
by Frenkel (J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 46: 91S. 1999), who treated the species as a
fungus, was necessary for valid publication under the edition of the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature
in operation at that time, but is no longer so; P. jirovecii
dates from 1976, not 1999.

  Note 1.  Names of Microsporidia are not covered by this Code (see Pre. 8 and
Art. F.1.1) even when Microsporidia are considered as fungi.

  Note 2.  If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to the plants (i.e. not the algae or fungi), the authorship and
date of any of its names are determined by the first publication that satisfies the
relevant requirements of Art. 32–45 for valid publication.

 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 110 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER VI

CITATION

SECTION 1

AUTHOR CITATIONS

ARTICLE 46

 46.1.  In publications, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and no-
menclature, it may be desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to
the protologue is made, to cite the author(s) of the name concerned (see also
Art. 22.1 and 26.1). In so doing, the following rules apply.

Ex. 1.  Rosaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 334. 1789), Rosa L. (Sp. Pl.: 491. 1753), Rosa gallica L.
(l.c.: 492. 1753), Rosa gallica var. versicolor L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 704. 1762), Rosa gal-
lica
L. var. gallica.

  Note 1.  A name of a taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in
which it appears (see Art. 46.5) unless one or more of the provisions of Art. 46
rules otherwise.

 46.2.  A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) to whom the
name was ascribed when the validating description or diagnosis was simul-
taneously ascribed to or unequivocally associated with the same author(s),
even when authorship of the publication is different. A new combination,
name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) to
whom it was ascribed when, in the publication in which it appears, it is ex-
plicitly stated that the same author(s) contributed in some way to that pub-
lication. Art. 46.5 notwithstanding, authorship of a nomenclatural novelty
is always accepted as ascribed, even when it differs from authorship of the
publication, when at least one author is common to both.

Ex. 2.  The name Pinus longaeva was published in a paper by Bailey (in Ann. Missouri
Bot. Gard. 57: 243. 1971
) and was ascribed to “D. K. Bailey”. The validating description

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 111 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Author citations

is unequivocally associated with Bailey because he is the author of the publication (see
Note 5). The name is therefore cited as P. longaeva D. K. Bailey (see also Note 1).

Ex. 3.  Wallich (Pl. Asiat. Rar. 3: 66. 15 Aug 1832) ascribed the name Aikinia brunonis
to himself (“Wall.”) and, although he ascribed both the diagnosis and description to
“Brown”, the correct attribution is A. brunonis Wall. because Wallich is the author of
the publication and the name is not ascribed to anyone else (see Note 1).

Ex. 4.  The name Viburnum ternatum was published in Sargent (Trees & Shrubs 2: 37.
1907
). It was ascribed to “Rehd.”, and the account of the species has “Alfred Rehder” at
the end. The name is therefore cited as V. ternatum Rehder.

Ex. 5.  In a paper by Hilliard & Burtt (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 43: 365.
1986) names of new species of Schoenoxiphium, including S. altum, were ascribed to
Kukkonen, preceded by a statement “The following diagnostic descriptions of new spe-
cies have been supplied by Dr. I. Kukkonen in order to make the names available for
use.” The name is therefore cited as S. altum Kukkonen.

Ex. 6.  In Torrey & Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 198. 1838) the names Calyptridium and
C. monandrum were ascribed to “Nutt. mss.”, and the descriptions were enclosed in
double quotes indicating that Nuttall wrote them, as acknowledged in the preface. The
names are therefore cited as Calyptridium Nutt. and C. monandrum Nutt.

Ex. 7.  When publishing Eucryphiaceae (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 6: 130. 1848) the
otherwise unnamed author “W.”, in a review of Gay’s Flora chilena (1845–1854), wrote
“wird die Gattung Eucryphia als Typus einer neuen Familie, der Eucryphiaceae, an-
gesehen”, thus ascribing both the name and its validating description to Gay (Fl. Chil.
1: 348. 1846
), who had used the designation “Eucrifiáceas” (see Art. 18.4). The name is
therefore cited as Eucryphiaceae Gay.

Ex. 8.  When Candolle (Essai Propr. Méd. Pl., ed. 2: 87. 1816) wrote “Elaeocarpeae.
Juss., Ann. Mus. 11, p. 233” he ascribed the name to Jussieu and, to validate it, used
Jussieu’s diagnosis of an unnamed family (in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 11: 233. 1808).
The name is therefore cited as Elaeocarpaceae Juss., nom. cons. (see App. IIB), not
Elaeocarpaceae “Juss. ex DC.”

Ex. 9.  Green (Census Vasc. Pl. W. Australia, ed. 2: 6. 1985) ascribed the new combina-
tion Neotysonia phyllostegia to Wilson and elsewhere in the same publication acknowl-
edged his assistance. The name is therefore cited as N. phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul
G. Wilson.

Ex. 10.  The authorship of Sophora tomentosa subsp. occidentalis (L.) Brummitt (in
Kirkia 5: 265. 1966
) is accepted as originally ascribed, although the new combination
was published in a paper authored jointly by Brummitt & Gillett.

  Note 1.  When authorship of a name differs from authorship of the publication
in which it was validly published, both are sometimes cited, connected by the
word “in”. In such a case, “in” and what follows are part of a bibliographic citation
and are better omitted unless the place of publication is being cited.

Ex. 11.  The name and original description of Verrucaria aethiobola Wahlenb. (in
Acharius, Methodus, Suppl.: 17. 1803
) were published in a single paragraph ascribed to

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 112 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

“Wahlenb. Msc.” The name is therefore cited as V. aethiobola Wahlenb., not “Wahlenb.
ex Ach.” nor “Wahlenb. in Ach.” (unless a full bibliographic citation is given), regard-
less of the accompanying description provided by Acharius
.

Ex. 12.  The new combination Crepis lyrata was published in Candolle’s Prodromus
systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis
(7: 170. 1838)
, as “C. lyrata (Froel. in litt. 1837)”,
and in a footnote on p. 160 Candolle acknowledged Froelich as having authored the
account of the relevant section of Crepis (“Sectiones generis iv, v et vi, à cl. Froelich
elaboratae sunt”
). The name is therefore cited as C. lyrata (L.) Froel. or C. lyrata (L.)
Froel. in Candolle (followed by a bibliographic citation of the place of publication), but
not C. lyrata “(L.) Froel. ex DC.”

Ex. 13.  The name Physma arnoldianum was published in a paper authored by Arnold
(in Flora 41: 94. 1858). Arnold introduced the name as “Ph. Arnoldianum Hepp. lit. 12.
Decbr. 1857”, and the description is immediately followed by the phrase “Hepp. in lit.”
The name is therefore cited as P. arnoldianum Hepp, not P. arnoldianum “Hepp ex
Arnold”. Because Arnold is the author of the paper, not of the whole work (the journal
Flora), his name is not required even in a full bibliographic citation.

  Note 3.  The authorship of a descriptive name (Art. 16.1(b)) is not changed if the
name is used at a rank different from that at which it was first validly published
because it is not a name at new rank (see Art. 6 Note 3; see also Art. 49.2).

Ex. 14.  Streptophyta Caval.-Sm. (in Lewin, Origins of Plastids: 340. 1993) was origi-
nally published as a name at the rank of infrakingdom (used as a rank between sub-
kingdom and phylum). When the name is used at the rank of phylum, it is still cited as
Streptophyta Caval.-Sm. (1993).

 46.3.  For the purposes of Art. 46, ascription is the direct association of the
name of a person or persons with a new name or description or diagnosis
of a taxon. An author citation associated with a synonym does not consti-
tute ascription of the accepted name, nor does reference to a basionym or
a replaced synonym (regardless of bibliographic accuracy) or reference to
a homonym.

Ex. 15.  The name Atropa sideroxyloides was published in Roemer & Schultes (Syst.
Veg. 4: 686. 1819
), with the name and diagnosis in a single paragraph followed by
“Reliq. Willd. MS.” As this represents direct association of Willdenow with both the
name and the diagnosis, the name is cited as A. sideroxyloides Willd., not A. sideroxy-
loides
“Roem. & Schult.” nor A. sideroxyloides “Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.”

Ex. 16.  Sicyos triqueter Moc. & Sessé ex Ser. (in Candolle, Prodr. 3: 309. 1830) was
ascribed to Mociño and Sessé by Seringe’s writing “S. triqueter (Moc. & Sessé, fl. mex.
mss.)”. However, Malpighia emarginata DC. (Prodr. 1: 578. 1824) was not ascribed to
these authors by Candolle’s writing “M. emarginata (fl. mex. ic. ined.)”.

Ex. 17.  Lichen debilis Sm. (in Smith & Sowerby, Engl. Bot. 35: t. 2462. 1812) was not
ascribed to Turner and Borrer by Smith’s citing “Calicium debile. Turn. and Borr. Mss.”
as a synonym.

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 113 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Author citations

Ex. 18.  When Opiz (1852) wrote “Hemisphace Benth.” he did not ascribe the generic
name to Bentham but provided an indirect reference to the basionym, Salvia sect. Hemi-
sphace
Benth. (see Art. 41 Ex. 4).

Ex. 19.  When Brotherus (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1(3): 875. 1907) pub-
lished “Dichelodontium nitidum Hook. fil. et Wils.” he provided an indirect reference
to the basionym, Leucodon nitidus Hook. f. & Wilson, and did not ascribe the new
combination to Hooker and Wilson. He did, however, ascribe to them the simultane-
ously published name of his new genus, Dichelodontium Hook. f. & Wilson ex Broth.

Ex. 20.  When Sheh & Watson (in Wu & al., Fl. China 14: 72. 2005) wrote “Bupleurum
hamiltonii
var. paucefulcrans C. Y. Wu ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li, Acta Phytotax. Sin.
12: 291. 1974
” they did not ascribe the new combination to any of those authors but
provided a full and direct reference to the basionym, B. tenue var. paucefulcrans C. Y.
Wu ex R. H. Shan & Yin Li.

Ex. 21.  When Sirodot (1872) wrote “Lemanea Bory” he in fact published a later homo-
nym (see Art. 48 Ex. 1). His reference to Bory’s earlier homonym is not therefore ascrip-
tion of the later homonym, Lemanea Sirodot, to Bory.

  Note 4.  When the name of a new taxon is validly published by reference to a
previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)), the
name of the author of that description or diagnosis, even if not explicitly men-
tioned, is unequivocally associated with it.

Ex. 22.  The appropriate author citation for Baloghia pininsularis (see Art. 40 Ex. 4)
is Guillaumin, and not McPherson & Tirel, because in the protologue the name was
ascribed to Guillaumin and a full and direct reference was given to Guillaumin’s earlier
Latin description. Even though McPherson & Tirel did not explicitly ascribe the vali-
dating description to its author, Guillaumin, he is “unequivocally associated” with it.

Ex. 23.  “Pancheria humboldtiana” was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl.
Hist. Nat., Ser. B, Bot. 15: 47. 1964
), but not validly so because no type was indicated.
Valid publication was effected by Hopkins & Bradford (in Adansonia 31: 119. 2009),
who designated “Baumann-Bodenheim 15515 (P! P00143076)” as the holotype, ascribed
the name to Guillaumin, and by citing “Pancheria humboldtiana Guillaumin, Mémoires
du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
, sér. B, botanique 15: 47 (1964), nom. inval.”,
provided a full and direct reference to a validating description that is unequivocally as-
sociated with Guillaumin. Art. 46.10 notwithstanding, the name is therefore attributed
to Guillaumin, not “Guillaumin ex H. C. Hopkins & J. Bradford” as given by Hopkins
& Bradford.

  Note 5.  A name or its validating description or diagnosis is treated as though
ascribed to the author(s) of the publication (as defined in Art. 46.6) when there
is no ascription to or unequivocal association with a different author or different
authors.

Ex. 24.  The name Asperococcus pusillus was published in Hooker (Brit. Fl., ed. 4, 2(1):
277. 1833
), with the name and diagnosis ascribed simultaneously, at the end of the para-
graph, to “Carm. MSS.” followed by a description ascribed similarly to Carmichael.
Direct association of Carmichael with both the name and the diagnosis is evident, and

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 114 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

the name must be cited as A. pusillus Carmich. However, the paragraph containing the
name and diagnosis of A. castaneus, published by Hooker on the same page of the
same work, ends with “Scytosiphon castaneus, Carm. MSS.” Because Carmichael is
directly associated with “S. castaneus” and not A. castaneus, the latter name is cor-
rectly cited as A. castaneus Hook., the author of the publication, even though the de-
scription is ascribed to Carmichael.

Ex. 25.  Brown is accepted as the author of the treatments of genera and species appear-
ing under his name in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis, ed. 2 (1810–1813), even when names
of new taxa or the descriptions validating them are not explicitly ascribed to him. In a
postscript to that work (5: 532. 1813), Aiton wrote: “Much new matter has been added
by [Robert Brown] ... the greater part of his able improvements are distinguished by
the signature Brown mss.
” The latter phrase is therefore a statement of authorship not
merely an ascription. For example, the combination Oncidium triquetrum, based by
indirect reference on Epidendrum triquetrum Sw. (Prodr.: 122. 1788), is cited as O. tri-
quetrum
(Sw.) R. Br. (in Aiton, Hort. Kew., ed. 2, 5: 216. 1813) and is not attributed to
“R. Br. ex W. T. Aiton”, nor to Aiton alone, because in the generic heading Brown is
credited with authorship of the treatment of Oncidium.

 46.4.  When a validly published name or its final epithet is taken up from
and attributed to the author of a different “name” that has not been validly
published, or one at a different rank likewise not validly published, only
the author of the validly published name is cited (except as provided in Art.
46.7)
.

Ex. 26.  When publishing the new generic name Anoplon, Reichenbach (Consp. Regn.
Veg.: 212b. 1828–1829
) attributed the name to Wallroth and referred to the designation
published by Wallroth (Orobanches Gen. Diask.: 25, 66. 1825) as Orobanche “Tribus
III. Anoplon”, which was not validly published under Art. 37.6 because its rank was
denoted by a misplaced term (tribe between genus and species). The generic name is
cited as Anoplon Rchb., not Anoplon “Wallr. ex Rchb.”

Ex. 27.  When publishing Andropogon drummondii, Steudel (Syn. Pl. Glumac. 1: 393.
1854
) attributed the name to “Nees. (mpt. sub: Sorghum.)”. This reference to the unpub-
lished binary designation “Sorghum drummondii Nees” is not ascription of A. drum-
mondii
to Nees, and the name is cited as A. drummondii Steud., not A. drummondii
“Nees ex Steud.”

Ex. 28.  “Porphyra yezoensis f. narawaensis” was published by Miura (in J. Tokyo Univ.
Fish. 71: 6. 1984), but two gatherings (from the same place but on different dates) were
cited as “holotype” and the designation was not therefore validly published. Kikuchi
& al. (in J. Jap. Bot. 90: 381. 2015), using Miura’s description and designating a single
specimen as the holotype, validly published the name Pyropia yezoensis f. narawaensis
N. Kikuchi & al., which is not to be cited as P. yezoensis f. narawaensis “A. Miura ex
N. Kikuchi & al.”

 46.5.  A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the pub-
lication in which it appears when the name was ascribed to a different

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 115 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Author citations

author or different authors but the validating description or diagnosis was
neither ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that author or those
authors. A new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is
attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears, although
it was ascribed to a different author or different authors, when no separate
statement was made that one or more of those authors contributed in some
way to that publication. However, in both cases authorship as ascribed,
followed by “ex”, may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing
author(s).

Ex. 29.  Henry (in Bull. Trimestriel Soc. Mycol. France 74: 303. 1958) published the
designation “Cortinarius balteatotomentosus” with a Latin description and a locality
citation but without indicating a type (Art. 40 Note 2). He later (in Bull. Trimestriel Soc.
Mycol. France 101: 4. 1985) validated the name by designating a holotype and providing
a full and direct reference to his earlier description (see Art. 33.1). The description is
therefore unequivocally associated with Henry (Art. 46 Note 4) and the name, although
not explicitly ascribed, is treated as ascribed to Henry because he was the author of the
publication (Note 5). Liimatainen & al. (in Persoonia 33: 118. 2014) cited the authorship
as C. balteatotomentosus “Rob. Henry ex Rob. Henry”, but Art. 46.5 does not apply
because Henry did not ascribe the name to a different author. Under Art. 46.2 the name
is correctly cited as C. balteatotomentosus Rob. Henry.

Ex. 30.  Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (in Grubov & Egorova, Rast.
Tsent. Azii, Mater. Bot. Inst. Komarova 7: 70.
1977) as a new species, with its name
ascribed to Ivanova; because there is no indication that Ivanova provided the validat-
ing description, the name is cited as either L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov
or L. tianschanicum Grubov.

Ex. 31.  In a paper by Boufford, Tsi & Wang (in J. Arnold Arbor. 71: 123. 1990) the name
Rubus fanjingshanensis was ascribed to Lu with no indication that Lu provided the
description; the name is attributed to either L. T. Lu ex Boufford & al. or Boufford & al.

Ex. 32.  Seemann (Fl. Vit.: 22. 1865) published Gossypium tomentosum “Nutt. mss.”,
followed by a validating description not ascribed to Nuttall; the name is cited as either
G. tomentosum Nutt. ex Seem. or G. tomentosum Seem.

Ex. 33.  Rudolphi published Pinaceae (Syst. Orb. Veg.: 35. 1830) as “Pineae. Spreng.”,
followed by a validating diagnosis not ascribed to Sprengel; the name is cited as either
Pinaceae Spreng. ex F. Rudolphi or Pinaceae F. Rudolphi.

Ex. 34.  Green (Census Vasc. Pl. W. Australia, ed. 2: 6. 1985) ascribed the new combi-
nation Tersonia cyathiflora to “(Fenzl) A. S. George”; because Green nowhere men-
tioned that George had contributed in any way, the name is cited as either T. cyathiflora
(Fenzl)
A. S. George ex J. W. Green or T. cyathiflora (Fenzl) J. W. Green.

 46.6.  For the purposes of Art. 46, the authorship of a publication is the
authorship of that part of a publication in which a name appears regardless
of the authorship or editorship of the publication as a whole.

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 116 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

Author citations 46

Ex. 35.  Pittosporum buxifolium was described as a new species, with its name ascribed
to Feng, in Wu & Li, Flora yunnanica, vol. 3 (1983). The account of Pittosporaceae in
that flora was authored by Yin, while the whole volume was edited by Wu & Li. The
author of the publication (including the validating diagnosis) was Yin. The name is
therefore cited as either P. buxifolium K. M. Feng ex W. Q. Yin or P. buxifolium W. Q.
Yin, but not P. buxifolium “K. M. Feng ex C. Y. Wu & H. W. Li” nor P. buxifolium
“C. Y. Wu & H. W. Li”.

Ex. 36.  Vicia amurensis f. sanneensis, ascribed to Jiang & Fu, was published in Ma &
al. (ed.), Flora intramongolica, ed. 2, vol. 3 (1989). The author of the account of Vicia in
that flora is Jiang, one of the persons to whom the name was ascribed (see Art. 46.2 last
sentence). The name is therefore cited as V. amurensis f. sanneensis Y. C. Jiang & S. M.
Fu, not V. amurensis f. sanneensis “Y. C. Jiang & S. M. Fu ex Ma & al.”

Ex. 37.  Centaurea funkii var. xeranthemoides “Lge. ined.” was described in Prodromus
florae hispanicae,
which was authored as a whole by Willkomm & Lange, although
the different family treatments are by individual authors, and Fam. 63 Compositae has
a footnote “Auctore Willkomm”. Because the validating description was not ascribed
to Lange, the name is cited as C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. Its full
bibliographic citation is C. funkii var. xeranthemoides Lange ex Willk. in Willkomm &
Lange, Prodr. Fl. Hispan. 2: 154. 1865
.

Ex. 38.  The name Solanum dasypus was published in a work of Candolle (Prodr. 13(1):
161. 1852
), in which the account of Solanaceae was authored by Dunal. Dunal intro-
duced the name as “S. dasypus (Drège, n. 1933, in h. DC)” thereby ascribing it to Drège.
The name is therefore cited as either S. dasypus Drège ex Dunal or S. dasypus Dunal.

Ex. 39.  Schultes & Schultes (Mant. 3: 526. 1827), in a note, published a new classi-
fication of the traditional genera Avena and Trisetum, which they had received from
“Besser in litt.” The publishing author of that text, in which the new genera Acrospelion
Bess., Helictotrichon Bess., and Heterochaeta Bess. were described, is Besser. The
new names are validly published, authored by Besser alone, irrespective of whether or
not the volume authors, Schultes & Schultes, accepted them. (See also Art. 36 Ex. 3).

 46.7.  When a name has been ascribed by its author to a pre-starting-point
author, the latter may be included in the author citation, followed by “ex”.
For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a taxon of a pre-
starting-point author was changed in rank or taxonomic position upon
valid publication of its name, that pre-starting-point author may be cited in
parentheses, followed by “ex”.

Ex. 40.  Linnaeus (Gen. Pl., ed 5: 322. 1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-start-
ing-point author Tournefort; the name is cited as either Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (Sp. Pl.:
751.
1753
) or Lupinus L. (see Art. 13.4).

Ex. 41.  “Lyngbya glutinosa” (Agardh, Syst. Alg.: 73. 1824) was taken up as Hydro-
coleum glutinosum
by Gomont in the publication that marks the starting-point of the
“Nostocaceae homocysteae” (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 7, 15: 339. 1892). The name is
cited as either H. glutinosum (C. Agardh) ex Gomont or H. glutinosum Gomont.
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2018  —  Shenzhen Code

– 117 –

text: © 2018, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2018, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 


 

46 Author citations

Ex. 42.  Designations of desmids published prior to their starting-point (see Art. 13.1(e))
may be cited according to their validation in Ralfs (Brit. Desmid. 1848) as follows:
“Closterium dianae” (Ehrenberg, Infusionsthierchen: 92. 1838), cited as C. dianae
Ehrenb. ex Ralfs (Brit. Desmid.: 168. 1848); “Euastrum pinnatifidum” (Kützing, Phy-
col. Germ.: 134. 1845
), cited as Micrasterias pinnatifida (Kütz.) ex Ralfs (Brit. Des-
mid.: 77. 1848
).

 46.8.  In determining the correct author citation, only internal evidence
in the publication as a whole (as defined in Art. 37.5) where the name was
validly published is to be accepted, including ascription of the name, state-
ments in the introduction, title, or acknowledgements, and typographical or
stylistic distinctions in the text.

Ex. 43.  Although the descriptions in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally con-
sidered to have been written by Solander or Dryander, the names of new taxa published
there are attributed to Aiton, the stated author of the work, except where a name and
description were both ascribed in that work to somebody else.

Ex. 44.  The name Andreaea angustata was published in a work of Limpricht (Laubm.
Deutschl. 1: 144.
1885) with the ascription “nov. sp. Lindb. in litt. ad Breidler 1884”,
but there is no internal evidence that Lindberg had supplied the validating description.
Authorship is therefore cited as either Limpr. or Lindb. ex Limpr., but not “Lindb.”

 46.9.  External evidence may be used to determine authorship of nomen-
clatural novelties included in a publicatio