Codex brevis maturus

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    By request of the international Congress
of botanists in London , 1866, A. de Can-
dolle projected the Laws of botanical nomen-
clature, which by invitation of the Société bo-
tanique de France were discussed and accepted
at the botanical Congress in Paris 1867. Thus
originated that international legislation , the
Paris Code , on which basis we can only re-
form and continue to build , otherwise we
would receive a right of revolution and never
realize international order in nomenclature.

    But that Paris Code contains on the one
hand many articles which are not necessary ,
on the other hand there are too many defects.
Necessarily augmented by about 100 conform
amendments in the Codex emendatus it was
no more clear ; it often contains the same ob-
ject in many articles and on distant pages.
Scarcely any botanist has a clear idea of that
diffuse Code so difficult of consultation.

    The 76 articles of the Codex emendatus are
reduced here to 21 and some articles of formerly
obscure conception are divided in to concise
paragraphs. Moreover we have regulated in
detail but without going to extremes the uni-
formity of orthography of generic names ; that
was absolutely necessary, because there exist
now over 10 000 different orthographies of
generic plant-names.
    All §§ have been tried by practice ; thus
the Codex brevis became matured. Practical
proof was wanting mostly to the legislative
propositions of other botanists ; their propo-
sitions of alteration proved mostly inexecutable
or even detrimental.

    Beside the detailed quotations of the Laws
of 1867 and of the articles of the Codex emen-
datus reference is made to formerly published
commentaries ; complemental commentaries will
be published pg. XXXVI–LVIII.
    The Codex brevis maturus contains only
M e l i o r a t i o n e s n e c e s s a r i a e e t u t i l e s

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- i -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

proved by practice, to the Laws of 1867, the
only base for botanical international nomen-
clature.   These meliorations and their results
in nomenclature obtained by twenty years
labour are to admit by J u s q u a e s i t u m ,
with exception from exleges (lawlesses) ;   but
every exlex augments the discord and the chaos
in botany.   Only statistically proved deterior-
ations could be rejected.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- ii -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois de
1867

—
§ 15 un-
bestimmt

dto.
dto.

—

§ 15 & 60¹.

—

—

—

—

—

§ 18— 24
& 61

dto.

Codex
emendatus

§ 75
§ 15 em.

dto.

§ 72²

§ 71
§ 59 bis

p.p. corr.

§ 74

Rev. gen. pl.
(= R.), etc.

R. III -I p. CCCLXIII
R. III -I p. CCCLXIV
—CCCLXXVI ²)
R. III-II : 134—140 ;
181—182 ³)

R. III-I Noten 136&252
R. III-II : 543

R. III-II : 26

ABZ. 8) [Allg. Bot.
Zeitschrift] 114 (4)

R. III -I : 149—153

R. III -I p. CCCLIX . . .
& CCCXXXIII
R. III -I Noten 129—
140

R. III-II : 195

Neu

ABZ. 112—114
(2—4)

R. III -I p. CCCLXIV

R. III -I p. CCCLXIII
R. III-II: 183

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

     § 1. The beginning of nomenclature is for
    a) higher groups (above genera) 1763 with
Adanson’s “familles des plantes” ;
    b) genera and their sections 1737 with Lin-
naeus’ “genera plantarum” ; ¹)
    c) species and their forms 1753 with Linnaeus’
“species plantarum” ;
    d) Former names published before these
dates are to be rejected as obsolete under pre-
scription (§ 6 e) ;
    e) Any other beginning for isolated groups
is inadmissible. 4)
    § 2. Priority.
    a) Since the dates of the § 1 the first legally
published 5) latin or latinized name is to be
valid irrevocably for each group, or for higher
groups their name published in an international
language, 6) if it is derivable from a legally
admitted 7) genus-name ;  such group-names are
to be latinized according to § 3.
    b) Priority in place at uniting equivalent
groups of the same date is to be valid only
under the conditions of § 17.
    c) Exceptions of priority are regulated for
preoccupied binoms in the sense of § 8 f.
     d) Exceptions of an Index inhonestans are
inadmissible. 9)
    e) The Principium inhonestans ¹º) of a cente-
nary prescription can only be introduced by a
competent Congress (§ 21) and without retro-
active force.
    f) Until the priority of two competing names
shall have been reliably established, the first
decision of the case shall remain valid and all
others shall be rejected.
    g) The name of a section can be older than
the genus-name if the genus-name cannot be
valid for some reason, e. g. Withania Pauquy
1824 cum § Physalodes OK. (Moench 1794 non
Boehm. 1760), Caryopteris Bunge 1835 cum
§ Barbula OK. (Lour. 1790 non Hedw. 1782).

    § 3. Names of higher groups.
    a) The names of primary groups (division
and class) as far as to subclass are Pluralia
simplicia with some similarity of form and ter-
mination, e. g. Cryptogamae, Phanerogamae.
    b) The other groups are designated by the
valid or synonymous name of one of their
genera and receive the following suffixes:
    Cohors : -ales (Ordnungen, ordo)
       Subcohors : -enses
           Familia : -aceae (Ordo, familie, order)
              Subfamilia : -atae (Subordo)
                 Tribus : -eae
                      Subtribus : -anae
    c) Examples for families : Rosaceae (Rosa),
Berberidaceae (Berberis), Salicaceae (Salix), Hip-
pocastanaceae (syn. Hippocastanum).
    d) As exceptions are only to be retained ¹¹)
the following names not derived from a genus-
name for families and subfamilies: Composaceae

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 1 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—
—

—

§ 48, 49

§ 58

§ 50

§ 69

§ 74

§ 51 add.

Neu
Neu

R. I p. CXXI—CXXII
R. III-II: 197

R. I p. LXXX—
LXXXVI

ABZ.: 156 (19)

R. I p. XII; R. III-I: p.
CCCXLIII; ABZ.:
157—158 (19—20)

Rev. I p. XXIV & 588
603, etc.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

with Tubulatae, Biligulatae, Ligulatae, Labiaceae,
Leguminaceae, Umbellaceae.
    e) A generic synonym cannot serve as a name
of higher groups if there exists a valid ho-
monym in another family ; e. g. Lupulaceae
Wulff 1765 (Humulus Lupulus) cannot be valid
on account of the Rhamnacea Lupulus Mill. ¹²)
    § 4. International languages and graphical
signs.
    Publications are only admissible to the com-
petition for valid nomenclature as long and as
far as they are printed in Latin characters and
appear in the Latin, English, French, German or
Italian ¹³) languages, but as to gothic characters
this has no retroactive force. The prohibition
of gothic characters begins with a date to be
fixed by a competent Congress.
    § 5. Exact quotation of authors.
    a) The author’s quotation is the title of a
publication serving afterwards as its substitution
with fixation of its priority-date.
    b) Additions or alterations of suffixes to
higher group names, correction of other names,
emendation and elevation of groups do not
authorize the rejection of the name of the ori-
ginal author or its removal from its first place
behind the persistent name ;  e. g.:
    b ¹) in emendations: Phyllanthus L. 1737 ampl.
Muell. arg. (not Phyllanthus Muell. arg. 1866);
Arum L. 1737 restrict. Schott 1829 excl. § Ari-
sarum & § Dracunculus L. 1737 (shortly Arum L.,
not Arum Schott) ;
    b ²) in corrections e. g.: Gleditsia L.1742 corr.
Scop. 1777 = Gleditschia L. (not Gleditschia
Scop.), Carbeni & Karbeni Ad. 1763 corr. BHgp.
1873 = Carbenia Ad. (not Carbenia BHgp., who
themselves only quote Ad.), Platostoma Beauv.
corr. Bth. = Platystoma Beauv. (not Bth.), Ex-
ocarpos Lab. corr. Pers. = Exocarpus Lab. (not
Pers.) ;
    b ³) in elevations: Lotononis DC. 1825 (§ Ono-
nidis em. E. & Z. 1835 = Leobordea Delile 1833;
such it is not allowed prioritatis causa to write :
Lotononis E. & Z. 1835) ; Macodes Bl. 1825 § em.
Ldl. 1840 (in short Macodes Bl., not Macodes
Ldl.). 14)
    c) The quotations of obsolete authors accord-
ing to § 1 are to be put in the second place
like those of synonyms or are to be omitted,
e. g. Eryngium L. „Tourn.“, Alnus L. „Tourn.“ =
Eryngium L., Alnus L.
    d) The publishing author is to be quoted
before any manuscript-author and this second
quotation may also be omitted, e. g. Lam. „Comm.“,
DC. „Comm.“, Baill. „Thouars“, Quivisia Juss.
„Comm.“ 1789 = Arabella Baill. „Comm.“ 1873
or Quivisia Juss.  = Arabella Baill. (not Quivisia
Comm. 1789 = Arabella Comm. 1873).
    e) If a genus is deprived of its original base
and its name was taken up again for other
species (genus revolutum), only the citation of the

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 2 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

§ 48 &
Commen-
tar

§ 51

—

—

§ 41—46

—

—

§ 48 add.

§ 51bis

—

§ 46 add.

Neu

R. III-II: 163—164 &
186—188

R. I p. V

R. III-II 164 &
188—189
Neu

R. III-I Noten 11 &
218—221, 235—238

ABZ.: 157 (19-20)

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

renewer is to be valid and not that of the
author who by error joined a species with it,
e. g. Fusanus BHgp. 1883 (R. Br. 1810 „L.“ sed
non L.) = Mida A. Cunn. 1838 ; Agyneja M. arg.
1866 (Vent. 1800 sp. err., non L.) = Diplomorpha
Griff 1854, for what can also be written Fusanus
BHgp. „R.Br.“ , Agyneja M. arg. „Vent.“ or Fu-
sanus sp. err. R. Br., Agyneja sp. err. Vent. or as
follows sub f.
    f) Alterations which are not authorized by
priority or correction &c. whether for names,
quotations of groups or their author-quotation
are to be put between „  “ e. g. later incorrect
spellings „Bougainvillaea Choisy“ , „Buginvillaea
Brongn.“ , „Bugenvillea Endl.“ , „Buginvillia
Blanco“ , &c. ;   or for later incorrect treatments
of a genus f. i. beside Alsine L. 1737 (pro Stellaria
L. 1753): Alsine „Hall. 1742/5“ = genera multa
confusa ; Alsine „L. 1753“ = Alsine 1737 & Co-
rium ; Alsine „Scop. 1772“ = Arenaria ; Alsine
„DC. 1805“ = Alsine 1737 & Holosteum ; Alsine
„Rchb. 1832“ = Corium. 15)

    g) Each binom composed of a genus-name
and a species-name, whether it be a new-one or
formed by translation of a species-name, re-
ceives at first place the quotation of that
author who first published completely (in toto)
the binom;  e. g. Matthiola tristis R. Br. (L. sub
Cheirantho).   If also the author of the synonym
is quoted that shortened synonym must follow
as all synonyms do, e. g. Matthiola tristis R. Br.
(L.) and it may also be omitted like the quo-
tations of authors who only amended or corrected
(cfr. § 6 d).
    h) If a group is moved to a lower rank under
the same name, the author who first made that
change, is to be quoted, if the name persists
at all; cfr. § 18.
    i) The changing of a species-name does not
authorize the change of the author’s quotation
of its varieties.
    k) Different spelling of a genus name does
not authorize a change of the author’s quo-
tations of the species nor does it affect priority. 16)

     § 6. Publication.
    a) The names of groups are validly and irre-
vocably published since the day, when they
have been characterized in a printed publication
by synonyms or indication of a type or author’s
quotation replacing a former publication or by
description or plate or by their combination.

    b) A name without any of these characters
is nomen nudum (nomen tantum) and not valid ;
it begins to be valid when an author clears
it up, f. i. Duania Hask. 1844 (Norh. 1790 n. n.)
= Homalanthus Juss. 1824 ; Plutonia Miq. 1855
(Norh. 1790 n. n.) = Phaleria Jack 1822.
    c) Imperfectly characterized names but ca-
pable of recognition are nomina seminuda 17),

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 3 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

§ 45 & 46

—

—

§ 36-5 &
47 ³

§ 42

—

—

§ 53, 54
§ 56

—

§ 54

—

§ 46 add.

§ 48 add.

§ 64 add.

—

§ 64 add.

§ 72 ¹ & 4
add.

§ 73 12 & 14

§ 53, 54
56 add.
& em.

dto.

dto.

R. I p. XLII 17)

Rev. III-II: 186/7

R. I p. CIII 18)

Rev. I p. CCXXIV—
CCXLVI, div. No-
tizen
R. I p. LXXVIII & CIII

R. III-II: 198

R. III-I CCCLVII
III-II: 166 & 198
Bull. herb. Boiss.
II: 467

ABZ.: 187 (35)

Neu

Neu

R. I p. LXXXVII—
XCIII; R. III-II: 165
& 189—194

dto.

dto.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

which in case of priority are to be valid according
to § 6 a.
    d) A species-name is not looked upon as
published or as a new binom unless it had
received a genus-name as well as a specific
one in combination.
    e) Obsolete names 18) according to § 1 do not
become renewed, if only reprinted as syno-
nyms (nomina inapplicata).
    f) Publications of obsolete manuscripts and
renovations of obsolete works without new
additions remain obsolete. 19)
    g) It is an abuse to publish nomina inedita
without admitting them as valid. If in the
same time 2 or more synonyma inedita are
published to the same group, all are to be
rejected.
    h) Legal publication is implied up to the
present in the sale or the distribution, among
the leading public collections, of numbered
specimens, accompanied by printed or auto-
graph tickets, bearing the date of the sale or
distribution.
    i) This rule (h) should be invalidated by a
competent Congress, also gardeners’ catalogues
and exchange lists should no more be valid
as publications of this kind.
    k) A competent Congress should invalidate
from a fixed date, all publications which appear
in such volumes of periodicals, societies’ papers
and other books, that do not contain in each
volume indices of its generic names and syno-
nyms, and it should in like manner invalidate
all systematic monographs, which do not give
simultanous indices of its species and syno-
nyms. ²º)
    l) Names from anonymous and pseudonymous
publications shall in future not be quoted. ²¹)

    m) Publications without author-quotations or
which by principle do not give author-quotations
shall also not be quoted for their nomenclature. ²²)

     § 7. Emendation and Division.
    a) If there exist several types ²³) or if a group
in its first constitution is not clear, its name
is to be valid only for the clear uniform
(compact) majority.
    b) If there exist originally two equal parts of
a group its name is to be valid for the first
part if not yet named, otherwise for the second
then nameless part.
    c) If there exists originally a typical section,
the name is to be valid for that part of the
group.
    d) If a name is valid ex parte minore of the
types, it receives the quotation and publishing
date of the author who separated that minority.
    e) If there was no compact majority or clear
division or if the original group consisted
mainly of parts of remote families (Genera
vitiosa) the group name is to be valid for

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 4 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

§ 58 &
60 ¹ ²

§ 35

—

§ 57 & 62

—

—

—

—
—

—

§ 53, 54,
56 add.
& em

dto.

—

—

§ 58 add.

dto.

§ 60 ¹ ²
62 add.,
§ 72 ³

§ 53 p.p.

§ 60-4

§ 60-5

§ 60-6

§ 60-7
§ 60-8

§ 60-9

R. I p. LXXXVII—
XCIII; R. III-II: 165
189 & 194

dto.

Neu

Rev. I p. LXXXIX—
XC, 585

R. III-II: 194—195

dto. 194

R. III-I p. CCLXLIV
& CCCVIII; R. III-II
143—149 & 197

R. I p. III &
CXLIII—CLII
R. III-II: 42

R. I p. XCI

R. I p. XCVI

R. I p. XCVII

R. I p. XXV &
XCVII & 657

R. I p. XCVII
—XCIX

R. I p. XCIX

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

the next publication of a clear part of that
group.
    f) But if at the constitution of a group named
sections were founded the principal name can
only persist for a then nameless part.
    g) The artificial reconstruction of types by
a first species in minority is prohibited. 24)
    h) Descriptio praestat herbario. 25) If a de-
scription does not coincide with the original in
a herbarium, the description is to be preferred.
    § 8. Homonyms and preoccupied names.
    a) The same name cannot be valid twice in
the same rank. The later homonym is to be
replaced by an equivalent name, the next in
priority, if the older homonym is to be valid. 26)

    b) The same specific name may be given in
different genera.
    c) The same variety-name may exist in different
species.
    d) Names of species and varieties can only
compete with names belonging to the same
species.
    e) Only by a resolution of a competent Con-
gress existing synonyms could invalidate future
renewed homonyms.   As such are to be re-
jected N o m i n a O n c e f a l s a : names substituted
for valid names on account of an invalid ho-
monym.
    f) When a group-name is moved in the same
rank to another group or a group otherwise
named, the name is maintained in case of priority
whether as a single name or as forming a bi-
nom, unless the same specific name exists there
already as a binom (preoccupied name) ; then
another specific name is to be chosen 27) the
next in priority or if there is none, a new one.
    g) Names of fossil genera not sufficiently
known (genera non satis nota fossilia) have in
case of priority always the preference over
other competing homonyms.

    § 9. Particular names to be rejected.
    Besides names of §§ 1–8 and 10–18 are still
to be rejected :
    a) Names of genera not given in the nomina-
tive singular.
    b) Technical botanical terms as substantives
that were hitherto in universal use, if taken as
generic names, provided they were not intro-
duced after 1753 simultaneously with a specific
name.
    c) Nomina usualia; that are single names in-
stead of binoms, thus isolated specific names
in form of generic names.
    d) Names of numerals for species.
    e) Names of genera with more than 6 syl-
lables (nomina sesquipedalia L.) ; names of
species and of groups above genera with more
than 8 syllables. 28)
    f) Names of genera and species, established
on monstrosities, e. g. Peloria.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 5 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

—

§ 59

§ 53

§ 58

§ 60 ¹
Commentar
§ 28 p. p.

dto.
§ 38 p. p.

§ 66

§ 60 ¹º

§ 60 ¹¹

§ 60 ¹¹

§ 53

§ 66 add.
§ 27 add.

R. I p. XCIX—C

R. I p. C—CI

R. I p. CII

R. III-II: 188—189

ABZ.: 185 (33)

Neu

R. I p. 777

R. I p. LXXIX
R. III-II: 64 & 98

R. I p. LI—LV &
LXXVII & CV—CXX

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    g) Double names for genera; but the following
are valid :
    g ¹) old ever valid names, e. g. Quisqualis,
Baccaurea, Rosmarinus ;
    g ²) personal names contracted into a current
word (Petrosimonia, Nunnezharoa) ; such words
are to be written without hyphen as also
Rosmarinus, Pseudacacia (not Petro-Simonia,
not Pseud-Acacia);
    g ³) vernacular names introduced in place
of latin (generic) ones, even if the hyphen to be
put between, is wanting ;  they shall be written
as one word.
    h) The species-like second half of older se-
parable names for genera, if the first word can
stand alone and is not the name of a higher
group ; then the first word is to be taken.

    i) The second half of double species-names,
f. i. Alisma Plantago (aquatica), Coix Lacryma (Jobi).
    i ¹) But parasites can receive the specific
names of the host-plant, such admissible trinoms,
f. i. Puccinia Cirsii lanceolati.
    i ²) False trinoms are to be avoided, by se-
parating the variety-name from the specific name
with a sign or word and by intercalating correctly
after the specific name its author-quotation ;
e. g. Prunus virginiana L. β (either forma or var.)
leucocarpa S. Wats. (not Prunus virginiana leuco-
carpa Sudworth „Wats.“)
    k) Plural names of genus-sections.

    l) Nomina hybridogenerica, that are generic
names corruptly confounded for hybrids, e. g.
for Hippeastrum × Clivea: Hippoclivea, for
Agrostis × Calamagrostis: Agrocalamagrostis. 29)

     § 10. Names which are not to be rejected.
    a) Nobody is authorized to change a name
because it is badly chosen or disagreeable, or
another is preferable or better known, or for
any other motive, either contestable or of little
import.

    b) In emending groups according § 7 their
names persist (cfr. § 5).
    c) In elevating a group its name persists if
it retains priority and is not preoccupied (§ 8),
with the author-quotation according to § 5 and
eventual changing of the suffix according to § 3.

    d) On account of a zoological name no botani-
cal-one can be rejected.
    e) „Name is name.“ Homonymous binoms,
e. g. Cuminum Cyminum L., Pinus Pinea L. and
contradictory names (Nomina inepta) are not
desirable, but can never be rejected.
    § 11. The differences for names with equal
etymology of genera and lower groups.
    a) Names can be corrected in Latin.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 6 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

—

—

§ 60 sub 4
durch Com-
mentar an-
nuliert

§ 33 corr.

§ 73-6

§ 27 add.

§ 27
§ 60 add.

§ 27 add.

dto.

§ 60 add.

§ 28 ¹ ²

R. I: CVII

R. III-II: 184—186

R. III-I p. CCCLVI

R. I p. LXXVII

R. I p. LI & CIX

R. I: LXXVII

dto.

R. I: CV & CXII

R. I p. LXXIX
& XCVI; R. III-I:
Noten 32, 37, 55, 56

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    b) Final syllables with or without final conso-
nant e. g. -us, -a, -um, -os, -as, oe, -on, -eus,
-ea -eum -ius -ia -i um -aea -eia -aeia -oiea,
their variation: complement or absence are no
conditions for different names, ³º) with the
exception of -ium if proved ³¹) or classical final
of diminutive e. g. Corium (κοριον): Coris,
Bellium: Bellis, Glaucium: Glaux.

    c) The orthographical licence ends and a
new name arises, as soon as the word is trans-
formed or augmented as follows:

    c ¹) Adding a syllable with new or different
inner consonant or the syllable’s substitution if
contracted, e. g. Senecio Lessingii and lessingi-
ana, Psychotria martiusiana and martiana for
two species;   Dianthera and Diplanthera, Draco-
cephalum and Dracontocephalum, Dicrostylis
and Dicranostylis, Lepistemon and Lepido-
stemon, Nemastylis and Nematostylis for two
genera.

    c ²) Modification of the word by at least one
different inner ³²) consonant e. g. Pterigophyllum
and Pteridophyllum, Lepidanthus and Lepi-
santhus ³³) for always two different genera.
    c ³) Prefixes, e. g. Gaya and Neogaya, Fon-
tainea and Desfontainea, Urvillea and Dur-
villea, Boeckelera and Bisboeckelera, Scopolia
and Parascopolia, etc.
    c 4) Suffixes with at least one inner consonant,
e. g. -ina, -elia, -ana, -aria, -ites, -odes, -opsis, etc.

    c 5) Permutation, e. g. the anagrams Gerardia,
Dargeria, Gerdaria.
    c 6) Abbreviation, e. g. Ferdinanda and Ferdi-
nandusa, Trinia and Triniusia, Cavanilla and
Cavanillesia, Cambessedea and Cambessedesia
for always two genera.
    c 7) Translations, e. g. Engelmannia and Angel-
andra, Bonapartea and Calomeria.
    d) If a name ending in x (= cs, chs) is aug-
mented by other finals, though with grammatical
alteration, it forms only a different orthography,
no new name, e. g. Hydrothrix = Hydrotriche,
Murex = Muricia, Tamarix = Tamariscus.

    e) Bilingual names, e. g. Liquidambar, Chei-
ranthus, Tamarindus, Bakeropteris, Engler-
astrum, Gayophytum, Thalianthus, also verna-
cular names, e. g. Alöe, Coffea, Oryza, Yucca,
Brunella, Scorzonera are not desirable, but
never prohibited. Their monoglott translations
are valid for different names, e. g. Fimbristylis
and Lomatostylis, Retiporus and Dictyoporus,
Gansblum and Chenanthus, § Eucarduus and
§ Euacantha, § Eucaprifolium and Euaego-
phyllum Clements. 34)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 7 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

§ 66

§ 14, 39
& 40

§ 34

—

§ 27

§ 66 ²

—

§ 33bis

§ 27 add.

§ 73

R. III-I p. CCCXXI
R. III-II: 184—186

R. III-I Note 145

R. I p. LXXVII

R. III-I CCCLIV
—CCCLVI

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

      § 12. Orthography.
    a) Corrections of names are permitted with
or without the quotation of the corrector at
second place (cfr. § 5).
    b) The scientific names of plants are latin
or latinized with exception of gardeners modifi-
cations (Satus = seedling, Mistus = halfbreed,
Lusus = sport), which receive fancy-names,
e. g. Pelargonium zonale forma Mistress Pollak.

    c) Proper nouns, also those of specific names,
are to be written with an initial capital;   all
other specific names without initial capital,
e. g. Ranunculus asiaticus and R. Flammula L.,
Centaurea Lippii L., but Tulipa gesneriana and
breyniana L.

    d) The sex of the adjectival names of species,
varieties and forms conforms always to the
genus-name, even if combined with words like
subsp., var. or f.

    e) When the name of a genus, subgenus,
or section is taken from the name of a person,
it is composed in the following manner:
    e ¹) Do not alter or shorten the name, even
not shorten any final vowel, and add: 1. -a
if the name terminates in a vowel, but names
terminating in -a get -aea; 2. -ia if the name
terminates in a consonant, but names termi-
nating in -er get -era.

    e ²) The spelling of the syllables unaffected
by this final, is preserved without alteration,
even with letters or diphtongs now employed
in certain languages, but not in Latin.   Never-
theless ä, ö, ü of the German languages
become ae, oe, and ue, and accents 35) can be
omitted.

    f) When a name is drawn from a vernacular
language, it is to be maintained just as it was
made, even in the case of the spelling having
been misunderstood by the author, and justly
deserving to be critized.

    g) For other names § 12 h–m holds good
to ensure a uniform orthography and clear
coordination of corrected homonyms instead of
distant incorrected ones, and to avoid the
validity of several homonyms only differing
by inequal orthography. 36)

    h) Vowels and finals of Greek origin and
French ou are to be latinized:

    h ¹) α = a, ας = as, ε = e, η = e, but as
final η = a, 37) ης = es, ις = is, ον = um,
ος = os, υ (Υ) = y, ον = on, αι = ae, αυ = au,
ει = i, ευ = eu, οι = oe, ου = u, also the French

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 8 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

§ 73

§ 73-5

§ 73 ¹‾²

§ 73 ²

§ 73-6

R. III-I p. CCCLIV
—CCCLVI

Neu

R. III-I p. CCCLV

Meist neu
R. III-I p. CCCLIV
ABZ.: 161 (24)

R. III-I p. CCCLVI

Neu

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

ou = u with exception of ou in personal names;
ωδης and οειδης = odes. 38)
    h ²) υ only in classical exceptions = u, e. g.
Cupressus.
    η as final only in classical exceptions and
after c = e, e.g. Daphne, Crambe, Peuce, syce
(but Phaca, theca).
    όδους becomes always odon, e.g. Leont-
odon.
    h ³) If i (ι) of diphthongs became by estab-
lished custom the consonant j and stands between
two vowels write j (not i, not y) e.g.: Najas,
Leucojum, Thuja, Majorana, Papaja, Soja,
Satureja, Brabejum, Semejandra, Lejophyl-
lum. 39)

    i) Diphthongs. Write separately the vowels
of unisant diphthongs: ae, oe, ue (not æ, ä,
œ, ö, ø, ü) and reject the sign ¨ above vowels,
whether it be the German ö = oe,  ä = ae,  ü
= ue or the French ü for u of other languages,
or the trema.   Substitute in dissonant diphthongs
for this sign a short line above vowels f.i.:
Staēlia, Daīs, Nereīdea, Roēllea, Ruēllea,
Geūnsia, Boōpsis, Zoōgloea (not Zoö of U.S.
Americans, Microūla.

    k) Consonants of Greek origin are to be
latinized:
    k ¹) θ th (not d, not t),   κ =  c, ξ = x
(not z),   φ = ph (not f),   χ = ch (not x, not c);
γγ = ng,   γκ = nc, γχ = nch. 40)
    k ²) Reject  H  h  of Greek origin, but non
ch, ph, th, Rhacoma, Rhamnus, Rheum, Rhin-,
Rhiz-, Rhodo-, Rhoeo, Rhus and their compound
names.
    k ³) rr in the connection of a double word
of Greek origin becomes simple r, e. g. Pachy-
rhizus.
    l) Combination of two words:
    l ¹) Combine latinized double word, of Greek
origin, if there are not classical exceptions
(e. g.: Peucedanum, Origanum, Menyanthes,
Polymnia and sub l 4–8), with -o- (e. g. Mitro-
not a, e;   Harpo- not a, e;   Scapho- not e, i, y);

    l ²) if the first half is shortened the uniting
vowel is not to be changed or given, e. g.:
Stigma- instead of Stigmato-, Caly- instead of
Calyco-, Lepi- instead of Lepido-;
    l ³) if the second half begins with a vowel,
the uniting vowel falls out, e. g.: Stigmanthus,
Stigmat-anthus.
    l 4) Chamae, Deca, Hepta, Hexa, Penta, Tetra,
Meta, Para, Hyper, Anti, Epi do not receive
the uniting vowel -o-, but they drop their
final vowel (ae, a, i) before vowels.   Exceptions
are Penthorum, Pentstemon, Ephedra with
phonetically neglected h and  t.

    l 5) Aci, Amphi, Hasi, Chori(s), Lysi,   Meli,
Peri, Di, Tri, Hu, Eu and all words to be

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 9 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—
—

—

§ 73-7

§ 73-8

§ 73-9

—

—

—

—

§ 73-9
—

§ 73-9

Neu

Neu

R. III-I p. CCCLVI

dto. & R. I p. CV

R. III-I p. CCCLVI
R. III-II: 166

Neu

Neu

Neu

Neu

R. III-I p. CCCLVI
ABZ.: 161 (24)
Neu

Neu
R. III-I p. CCCLVI
R. III-II: 166

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

fixed with y, e. g. Poly, Oxy, Platy do not
receive the uniting vowel -o-, but they keep
their final vowel even before vowels of the
second half of the name. 41)
     l 6) Eu- is not to be changed in Ev-, f. i.:
Euonymus (not Evonymus). 42)
     l 7) h is not to drop at the union of words
if it is valid otherwise, e. g.: Enhydra, En-
halus (not Enydra, not Enalus), Euhierochloa
(not Euierochloa).
    l 8) Write the combinations of syn (συν) be-
fore l = syl; before b,  m, p = sym; before  s
and  z = sy, zy; otherwise syn.
    l 9) Unite latin compound words with i, ex-
cept if there are in the midst dissonant vowels
or if the meaning of the word would be altered,
f. i.: hederiger, glechomifolia, spiciformis, gos-
sypifolia (neither ae nor ii); but salviaefolia,
hordeiformis; caricaeformis (Carica) aside the
different cariciformis (Carex).

    m) Particular cases of words. Write:
    aegyptius or aegyptiacus (not egypt.)
    Astero (from αστηρ star) instead of Astro
(often vox hybrida of latin astrum with second
Greek word-half); but Astronia (from αστρον
sensu strictiore constellation) 43)
    caerul- (not coerul-, cerul-)
    Calo (Cal- before vowels) for Καλος Καλλος =
(not Cali-, Calli-, Cally-, Callo-, Call- or with
K) 43)
    Caly- and Calyco for Καλυξ, Calyx, Calix
(not Cali-, Calo-, Cally-, Calico or with K) 43)
    -carpus, -ceras , -chilus , -lobus, petalum 44)
instead of the variations of § 11 b
    -carya (καρυα, nut-tree), if name of a woody
plant (instead of caryum)
   -caryum (καρυον, nut), if name for the fruit
(instead of carya)
    -chlaena (instead of -laena)
    cirrus, cirrosus (not cirrh., cirh., cirosus)
    Elaeo (not Eleo), but Heleo, Helod (not Elo,
Elod)
    -folium at genus-names (instead of -ius, -ia)
    Hapalo-, Haplo-, Herpo-, Holo-, Homalo-,
Homo-, Hoplo-, Hormo- (not Apalo-, Aplo-,
Erpo-, Olo-, Omalo-, Omo-, Oplo-, Ormo-) 45)
    laevi (not levi)
    litoralis (not littoralis)
    Nano (not Nanno) 46)
    nepalensis (not napaul., nipaul.)
    Neuro-, Pleuro- (not Nevro, not Plevro)
    Oreo- (not Oro-) 46)
    silv-, silvestris, etc. (not sylv.)
    sinensis (not chinensis)
    Spondyl- (not Sphondyl-) 46)
    sulfureus (not sulphureus)
      stemma (στεμμα, corona) not stema, stemum

    -stemon (στημων, stamen) not stema, stemum

    zeylanicus (not ceylonicus)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 10 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

§ 29

—

§ 37

—

—

§ 53-5

§ 53-4

§ 37 corr.
& add.

§ 37 add.

dto.

ABZ. : 119 (9)

R. I p. XCII

Neu

R. III-I Note 268
R. III-II: 163 & 186

R. III-I p. CCCIC
R. III-II: 163 & 186

dto.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

      § 13. Typical sections of genera
    a) are not to bear the name of the genus;
f. i. Gerbera § Gerbera is rejectable. Such ho-
monyms of sections are to be replaced by the
next existing genus-synonym if that homonym
has priority of typical section-names formed
from the valid genus-name with one of the pre-
fixes Eu-, Archi-, Auto-, Proto-, Typo- or with
the suffix -typus.

    b) Typical section names formed from the
genus-name with these affixes are to be replaced
by another name if the genus has received
another name; the then typical section is to be
named from the new name by use of such an
affix.
    c) Such typical section-names with an affix
cannot be elevated to genus-names.

      § 14. Typical varieties
    a) are designated with normalis, genuinus,
verus, typicus, (e, a, um). In any later alteration
of the species-name another of the 4 designations
of the typical variety is to be taken eventually.
    b) Names with affixes of § 13 are to be re-
jected for typical varieties, f. i. Festuca rubra α
genuina Gr. & G. (et non eurubra Hack.), Triticum
repens α typicum (et non α eurepens Aschs. &
Graeb.) 47)
      § 15. Hybrids.
    a) Undoubtful hybrids are designated by the
names and signs of the parents (♀ ♂) in alpha-
betical order united by the sign ×; for in-
stance:
    Digitalis lutea ♀ × purpurea ♂ Koelreuter
    Digitalis lutea ♂ × purpurea ♀ Gaertner
    b) Thereto is to be added the citation of the
first experimenter or detector and if the names
were changed, put the citation in (  ).
    c) If there a specific name is given to an
undoubtful hybrid, it is to rank as a synonym
with a × behind, f. i.: Triticum ovatum ♀ × vul-
gare ♂ Gr. & G. = Aegilops triticoides × Req.

    d) Hybrids of doubtful origin are named in
the same manner as species.   They are distin-
guished by the absence of a number, and by
the sign × being prefixed to the generic name
(× Salix capreola Kern. =  ? Salix aurita ×
caprea Wimm.).
    e) In alphabetic lists hybrids shall be registered
under 3 names:
    1. the single name (× Salix capreola Kern.),
    2. the double name of their parents in alpha-
betic order (S. aurita × caprea Wimm.),
    3. this double name without alphabetic order
(S. caprea × aurita = S. a. × c.)
    f) Omit the arbitrary prefixes sub, per, super,
semi, paene, plus 48) in these double names,
and use such prefix-names only for varieties, e. g.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 11 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Cirsium subcanum × rivulare = C. canum × rivulare var. subcanum.
C. supercanum × rivulare = C. canum × rivulare var. supercanum.
Verbascum phlomodes × perpyramidatum = V. phlomodes × pyramidatum var. perpyramidatum.
V. perphlomodes × pyramidatum = V. phlomodes × pyramidatum var. perphlomodes.

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—
—

—

§ 55

—

—

—

§ 51

—

—

—

—

—

§ 76

dto.
dto.

dto.

§ 55 add.

dto.

dto.

dto.

§ 58-4 em.

§ 73-12

dto.

§ 73-11

dto.

R. III-II: 167; 200
—201

dto.
dto.

dto.

R. I p. XCIII/IV &
CLIII/VI;
R. III-I p. CCCCV;
R. III-II: 149—153
& 189

dto.

dto.

dto.

R. III-II: 165 & 195

R. III-I p. CCCLVII

dto.

R. III-I p. CCCVI

dto.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

      § 16. Anamorphoses.
    a) The same connected species of anamor-
phosis (Status) receive the same specific name,
the oldest since 1753.
    b) Species of anamorphosis are to be quoted
alternatively and to be classed together under
the status summus (perfectus).
    c) The names of anamorphic genera are not
to be changed by the recognition, that a species
belongs to a status superior.
    d) The generic name of a status cannot replace
the generic name of a status superior or in-
ferior.
    § 17. Uniting groups and Priority in place.
    a) In case two or more groups of the same
nature are united into one, the name of the
oldest is preserved.
    b) A deviation from strict priority is neces-
sary for genera published on the same day and
united afterwards:

    b ¹) if they had no species-names at their first
publication, the genus-name, to which in 1753
or afterwards was put the first specific name
is legitimate;

    b ²) if they had also their first species on
the same day, the genus-name having received
most species on that day must be preferred;
it is of no consequence in this decision, whether
the species of that day may be afterwards
altered or united or not.

    b ³) if they first got an equal number of
species on the same day or if they did not
receive any legal specific names, the generic
name which is to receive a necessary correc-
tion or emendation must be rejected.

    § 18. At degradation of a group, its name
can be applied with diagnostic restriction, or
it can be rejected, if in its new position it would
lead to misconception.
     § 19. Registration of plant-names. See
§ 6 k as to obligatory registration.   Moreover it
is recommended for arrangements of names :

    a) If species are named in the indices put
them under the genus-name.
    b) Do not forget author-quotations and the
names of subgenera in indices.

    c) Do not put synonyms in separate indices.

    d) Distinguish synonyms by more narrow
types or by putting them or their pagination
in parentheses or by indenting them.   If print
in italics for contradistinction from other names

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 12 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

—

—

—

§ 73-11

§ 73-15

dto.

§ 73-11b

§ 73-10

§ 73-16

R. III-I p. CCCVI

R. III-II p. 198; Bull.
Boiss. 1894: 467

dto.

R. III-II p. 198

R. I p. CCCVI

R. III-II p. 199

R. III-I § 22
p. CCCLXXVII
—CCCLXXXVI

[ Figure 1 ]

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

in the index is inavoidable, use italics only
for synonyms.

    e) The names of higher groups should have
larger or more visible print.

    f) It is advisable to render prominent all
newly published names (for new genera, spe-
cies, varieties or new denominations) in the in-
dices by different types for these names or
the respective numbers of pages or by some
other means.
    g) To the last published sheet of each volume
a statement of the exact dates of the publication
of the several sheets or parts together with
their numbers of pages shall be added.
    h) Supplemental inserenda and corrigenda at
the end of a volume should be printed on one
page only of the sheet for the purpose of
having these addenda in the original cut out
and inserted each in its proper place.
    i) Do not separate in the indices I and J, 49)
but distinguish the consonant J.
    k) If competing names (homonyms, synonyms)
are quoted, state them in chronological order;
the dates may be put before the author’s quot-
ations or before the names, if the alphabetic
order is against chronological order. 50)
    § 20. Systematic biological signs are re-
commended if ever used :

         [ Figure 2 ]

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 13 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

§ 71

§ 70
Ersatz

dto.

dto. em.

dto.

—

—

—

§ 70
Ersatz

R. III-I Noten 218
& 235

Journal de botanique
1900: LXII/IV
Deutsche Botan.
Wochenschr. 1900
Nr. 12

dto.

dto.

dto.

Neu

Exposé pour les
Congrès bot. p. 3;
ABZ. 1902; 163
Fussnote & 165

Neu

J. de bot. 1900
p. LXIII—LXIV
D.Bot.W.1900 Nr. 12

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

      § 21. Reform of Laws. 51).
    a) The annulments and alterations of the
existing laws shall have no retroactive force
and shall be applicable only to new or sub-
sequently renewed denominations after the date
of the publication of the resolution in question
passed by the competent congress. Names
before that date shall be entitled to admission
according to former right.

    b) These laws can only be reformed by a
competent Congress convoked for that purpose
5–6 years before-hand (e. g. in 1905 at Vienna
of Austria, in 1911 at Paris) with two prepara-
tory directors to elect at each Congress for
the next-one.
    c) All members of the Congress have con-
sultative votes.

d) Only the following competent members,
if present, have resolving votes:
    I ª ) Authors of motions, each with one vote
for each motion in formal accord with the Paris
code or with its continuation the Codex brevis,
if that motion is sent two years before the
Congress session to the preparatory directors in
at least 60 copies in print with arguments
and as far as possible with the statistically
proved profit of the new proposition.
    I b ) If a motion was not new or not accepted
by the Congress, the author loses his vote
received by that motion.
    I c ) Propositions to the Codex brevis are to
be considered only new if they are also new to
the Code of 1867 and to the Codex emendatus.
    I d ) Corrections of style give no right of
vote. 52)
    I e ) Additions to the Code, which are al-
ready formerly published keep Jus quaesitum for
Meliorationes necessariae and Meliorationes
utiles.  Such older meliorations have right to
be valid and must be taken in consideration
even if not sent to the Congress or to its
preparers 53).
    I f ) The number of votes for one person who
has fournished the Congress with many motions,
shall not exceed the half of all competent votes
present.
    I g ) The regulations I ª–f shall be omitted
as soon as the preparatory Congress of Vienna
in 1905 and a following competent Congress
shall have approved the reformed Codex.
    II) Delegates of academies 54) and similar
institutions each with one vote.
    III) Delegates of botanical societies, each
with one vote for every 100 or last beginning
100 of members;   these votes can only be re-
presented by one or more orderly members of
each society.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 14 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Lois . . .

Codex em.

Rev., etc.

—

—

—

—

—
—

§ 70

dto.

dto.

§ 70
Ersatz

dto.

dto.

dto.

dto.
dto.

§ 70 add.

R. III-I Note 112
p. CCCCXII

dto.

J. de bot. 1900
p. LXIII—LXIV
D.Bot.W.1900 Nr. 12

dto.

dto.

dto.

dto.
dto.

R. III-I 166
& 197—198

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    IV) Authors of at least one independent
work of systematic botany, exclusive of in-
augural dissertations.
    V) The actual editors of botanical perio-
dicals but only one editor for each of such
periodicals. 55)
    VI) The authors of a monograph or pro-
fessional enumeration in systematic botany,
which treats at least of 20 species or genera
on a printed sheet of not less than 16 pages
in 8°, 8 pages in 4º, 4 pages in folio.   Gar-
deners’ lists are not sufficient.

d ²) New propositions shall be expressed in
French, English and German language (Italian
being provisionally suppressed).

    e) The propositions according to paragraph I
shall be examined and annotated in a Codex
brevis, which is to be published 1 1/2 year be-
fore the opening of the Congress; then objec-
tions with statistical arguments could be pre-
pared, which are to be sent to the preparing
directors of the Congress three months before
its opening. Then the referee could prepare
a report of it for the Congress.
    f) The referee for the motions and the editor
of the Codex brevis shall be authorities in
botanical legislation.
    g) Votations at the Congress, which differ
from the opinion of the referee must be twice
reconsidered on two consecutive days.
    h) To receive legal force the motions must
be adopted by the Congress with a majority
of at least 2/3 of all competent votes.
    i) Propositions not revolutionary to the Code,
which are presented for the first time during
the session of the Congress, must be printed
and distributed at least one day before the
session; their admission to deliberation can
only be permitted if a 3/4 majority of the com-
petent votes agrees therewith.

    k) If such members of a Congress, as be-
long to one country sensu latiore, should have
the majority, their votes shall be reduced to
one third, but not those of I f.

————————

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 15 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

New commentaries and

supplementary quotations.

_____

La vérité est en marche.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    ¹) T h e a d v a n t a g e s o f 1737 a s a s t a r t i n g -
p o i n t o f n o m e n c l a t u r e , in: Gärtnerisches
Centralblatt, Berlin, 1899 p. 68–72;   Allgemeine
Botan. Zeitschrift, Karlsruhe, 1899 p. 67–68;
Le Monde des Plantes 1899 p. 43–44; Bulletin
of the Torrey Botan. Club, NewYork, 1899
p. 488–492; Journal of Botany, London, 1900
p. 7–11; see also The Botanical Gazette,
Chicago, March 1899 p. 221–224.
    ²) Nomina delenda ex ignorantium initio 1753;
l. c.
    ³) The numbers of pages quoted to Rev. III(2)
till to 201 are always those of the introduction.
    4) E. g. for Fungi, Algae, Lichenes, Musci,
Orchidaceae, Proteaceae, etc.; that is also im-
possible to be carried out, as shown in Rev.
III(2) : 543.
    5) See § 6.
    6) See § 4.
    7) See § 9 & § 10.
    8) ABZ. = Allgemeine Botanische Zeitschrift
1900: 101–191 (The numbers in parenthesis
are those of the separate copies) “Revision of
nomenclature of higher groups of plants, and
about several thousands of corrections to Eng-
ler’s’ register of phanerogams”.
    9) As e. g. the  4. Berlin thesis; thereby
wrecked the first international commission of
nomenclature which was elected by the Genoa-
Congress 1892 for Engler’s Index inhonestans.
    ¹º) On the meeting of naturalists 1894 in Vienna
the botanists refused the principle of prescription
with 50 years.   Then it was renewed in the Berlin
April-nomenclature-rules, alias Berlin swindle
rules projected by professor Karl Schumann. But
these private rules of the Berlin botanic Museum,
which are not adapted to the Paris Code, but
are like the work of a scholar of the fifth class,
are only established pro forma and they are
mostly used as a phrase only to justify preten-
tedly the newest Berlin extremely arbitrary
nomenclature.   They were only used with the
mental reservation that all works with different
nomenclature should be excluded like standing
in an Index librorum prohibitorum;   thus well

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 16 -

web-edition, 2014 © Paul van Rijckevorsel
(all rights reserved)

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

acquired rights (Jus quaesitum) of many bota-
nists were violated and thus was proceeded
mostly unscientifically and illegally. If executed
honestly at least still 350 phanerogamic genus-
names were to be accepted, which were already
preferred legally by other authors.   See Rev.
III(2): 58—132; Engler bot. Jahrb., Beiblatt 63;
ABZ. 118 (8); Botan. Centralblatt LXXIX: 409
sub 3. That is sufficiently proved: these rules
of the Berlin botanic Museum are perfidious
and stupid.

    ¹º b = 54) These swindle-rules of professor K.
Schumann, which he calls always abusively
“Berlin rules” are executed in Engler’s “Pflanzen-
reich” (Conspectus regni vegetabilis) a work
degenerating into Jordanisme (cfr. Marantaceae,
Myrsinaceae) and published with subvention
of the Berlin academy; but that is a nuisance
and without value for science. At that time
Mr. Engler was the only ordinary member of
that academy having a right of vote and being
at the same time competent in systematic
botany. Sapienti sat. 49 from 51 members
were no botanistes and the other botaniste was
no systematist. As that academy does not
rectify their resolutions, although every of its
ordinary members was instructed by my prints
with Engler’s other critic circumstances, that
B e r l i n a c a d e m y became an a c a d e m y
a g a i n s t s c i e n c e .
    That instance shows also the value to give
academies right of voting in the reformation
of nomenclature (see § 21 II), a proposition not
made by me at first; under certain circumstances
the d e s t r u c t o r s of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l
C o d e c o u l d b e h e l p e d t h e r e b y t o b e-
c o m e v i c t o r s.
    ¹¹) Otherwise still many of such names were
to be changed prioritis causa.
    ¹²) For more instances see the families 164,
214, 215, 235.
    ¹³) The Italian language was refused by the
botanical Congress at Paris in 1900 (see Compte
rendu sommaire page 12 par Perrot, secrétaire
du Congrès;  it is strange, that this resolution
was omitted in the Actes du Congrès : 463 ! !).
But a competent Congress should admit the
Italian language, as did also the Congress of
geographers in London 1895 (Rev. III(II): 197).

    14) It seems to me now more right to post-
pone in that case the sign §, because only
adjunctions can be omitted.   If written : § A. DC.
1844 em. Hk. f. “em.” can be referred to DC.
or to 1844; but at “§ em.” exists no doubt.

    “em.” is commonly not to interpret with
“emendavit” but with e m e n d a t i o n e Hookeri,
etc., because the emendation is often fortuitous
and without intention;  also “corr.” = c o r r e c -

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 17 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

t i o n e and not “correxit”, especially as authors
incline sometimes to Reformatio in pejus.

    15) That manner is to be recommended to dis-
tinguish such false quotations from true syno-
nyms and to characterize them as superfluous
and perplexing, as also the authors’ quotations
in „ “ under § 5 b & c & d.   We omitted even
on principle in our Lexicon the bulk of wrong
group-quotations, for instance also if anyone
put a species into a wrong genus, also the
variations of orthography below the valid and
corrected genus-name, whereas the oldest syno-
nyms are always to be found there.   In some
works authors are even careless cited for
a genus although the author has not established
that genus nor joined a new species thereto,
but only put by mistake a wrong species in
it, for instance Platycarpum Spr. in the work
of Engler and Prantl.

    It is a great abuse that such authors are
often cited to a genus who never established
that genus and were only confusing it ;
eventually the wrong species name or the sub-
stitution “sp. en.” should never be omitted in
the quotation ;   otherwise arise so many wrong
author’s quotations.

    16) For instance Rhynchospora with Ryncho-
spora, Heleocharis and Eleocharis by Mr. C. B.
Clarke; see J. Urban, Symbolae antillanae II:
163–164.
    17) The technical term “Nomina seminuda” is
precisely characterized l. c. for the first time by
myself, but was afterwards eccentrically
confounded with n. n. (nomen nudum) by the
Berlin school.   See Botan. Centralblatt LXXIX:
407.
    18) l. c. occurs “ante-Linnean names”; but now
Linnean names from Systema I are no more
valid; hence the simple expression: obsolete.
The different determinations of often plentifully
quoted obsolete names (see Linnaeus, Adanson,
Bubani) require a separate lexicon.

    19) Ruppius flora jenensis edit. Haller 1745,
Rumpf herb. amboinense edit. Burmann 1741/1755
are admitted as emendated by the editors.
But to be rejected are e. g. Feuillée’s German
edition 1756–1758, the counterfeits and post-
humous works of Boerhaave, Vaillant, Plumier,
Petiver, Herrera, Hernandez &c., which were
partly intended to be taken into consideration.
    ²º) That strong prohibition is necessary as
the excessive literary production can no more
be overlooked, but if that prohibition should
not be admitted, that paragraph (k) would be
transposed to § 19.
    ²¹) In anonymous and pseudonymous publi-
cations are often to be found excesses or dis-

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 18 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

order;   for instance the phantastic renamings
unfortunately quoted by DC. and BHgp. of
all genera of Conifers by “Johannes Senilis”
(a Mr. J. Nelson, as D. Jackson’s Guide to the
Lit. Bot. indicates).
    Also the Kew tree list (see Journal of botany
1895: 29) is such an anonymous work, edited
and elaborated by George Nicholson under the
direction of Sir William Thiselton-Dyer:   In that
Kew tree list are to be found e. g. new genera-
names as Hoilbrenckia hortul. and besides 30
species of Hedera seven more new ones
all belonging to Hedera Helix L. (see Index
Kew. suppl. I: 197); these can only be quoted
as Hedera elegantissima, H. baccifera . . . Dyer
& Nicholson “hortul.”.   But such anonymous
excesses should in future no more be encou-
raged by quotation.
    ²²) For instance in the second edition of
Sturm’s Flora by Ernst H. L. Krause are created
a bulk of useless synonyms by contraction of
all Crucifers in one genus, of all species of
Lathyrus in Pisum (inversely it might be right),
&c.   With few exceptions no author-quotations
are given and that principle of not citing authors
is maintained.

    ²³) For instance several species or subspecies
or synonyms for the genera, several genera
for the families. The regulations of the original
articles 53, 54, 56 are defective and scarcely
concise. The new redaction is valid for all
groups, e. g. varieties, species, genera, families
and is, although more embracing, at the same
time shorter and more precise as well as
proved by practice.
    24) In the U. S. of North America is that the
newest fashion, whereby indeed the beginning
with Linnaeus is transgressed, any fixed begin-
ning of nomenclature is dropped, and quite
another nomenclature must arise, which is to
be constructed out of minority-types standing
casually at first.   Each beginning of the nomen-
clature may it be 1735 or 1737 or 1753 results,
if rules are consistently applied, in a very
different nomenclature;   but without any fixed
starting-point it will be quite impossible to
receive a stable nomenclature. But stability
in nomenclature is the chief purpose of the
Code. — See Underwood in Mem. Torr. Bot.
Club 1899: 250–251.  The Bot. Gazette 1902 II :
156, &c. Deutsche bot. Wochenschrift 1900: 34.
    It is a pity that our American botanical friends
of U. S. A. practise promptly their new incon-
siderate rules and neglect afterwards contrary
facts.   Thus they maintain their Rochester reso-
lutions although I proved in my Rev. III(II) § 28–30
that 20 000–30 000 names were still to be
changed by these resolutions, which they,
contrary to scientific principles, will not do.   For-
merly the Bulletin of the Torrey botanical Club
reported always about my Revisio gen. I/II,

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 19 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

III(I), but about my Revisio III(II) indicating the
facts against the Rochester resolutions, which
I had sent them ad referendum, they did not
refer.  Then professor Underwood abstained
from all reports and critiques in Bull. Torr. Club.
But lately in another publication of that Club:
Torreya, such reports and critiques have begun
anew, and the editors of the Bulletin having
been changed;  there is hope of amelioration
and revocation of their incapable Rochester
resolutions.

    25) Out of Linnaeus Philosophia botanica;
see Journal de botanique 1902: 138.   The
recognition by the herbarium is not valid if in
contradiction to the description.
    26) As according to § 5 every name of a
section may serve also if elevated to the next
higher group, also section-names compete in
case of elevation with generic names.  In the
contrary case of degradation of a genus-name
to a section-name, it can serve there even if it
would be older as the genus-name; for it is
then no more in the same rank.   See also § 2 g.

    27) Therewith is also rejected the “Kew rule”,
which was never admitted by the Laws.   Com-
monly is only spoken trom one Kew rule, but
there exist two, by which the Royal Kew Her-
barium departs from the international laws :

     1) The commonly called Kew rule or rather
K e w o b s c u r a t i o n p r i n c i p l e t h a t pro-
hibits t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f b i n o m s a n d
a l s o t h e t r a n s l o c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c
n a m e s, which principle hides the oldest
specific name if established at first below an
other genus-name.   This obscuration is against
the wish of the founder of the Kew Index:
Charles Darwin, who left a fund for it with
the desire to create a modern work like Steudel’s
Nomenclator. In Steudel’s work the oldest
specific name is easily to be found because
(contrary to the Kew Index) all synonyms are
put below the specific name valid in this book.
Furthermore the confusion is enhanced by
omitting the authors-quotation of the oldest
specific name behind the transferred name;   by
which manner the correcting authors are put
in the position of having committed a scien-
tific fault; for instance in the first supplement
to the Kew Index: Dendrocalamus maximus
OK. 1891 = Dendrocalamus Hamiltonii Nees &
Arn. 1868;   but the oldest specific name is
Bambusa maxima Ham. 1832 and the correct
denomination in shortened form is Dendro-
calamus maximus OK. (Ham. 1832) = Dendro-
calamus Hamiltonii Nees & Arn. 1868.   See also
OK. Rev. gen. I p. V & p. CXLVII—CLII.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 20 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    2) The K e w f a l s i f i c a t i o n p r i n c i p l e
t h a t commands t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f b i-
n o m s a n d a l s o t h e t r a n s l o c a t i o n o f
s p e c i f i c n a m e s i n f a v o r o f B H g p.
(= Bentham and Hooker genera plantarum).
Thereat a specific name mentioned by BHgp.
with another genus-name under the genus-
name adopted by BHgp. shall be considered
as combined with the adopted name; and that
with the wrong author’s quotation of BHgp.
and with the wrong date for the binom;
for instance: Heptapleurum octophyllum BHgp.
(1867) as it was published 1893 in the Index
Kewensis; whereas in BHgp. is only to be
found for it: Agalma octophyllum Seemann
(1864) and Paratropia cantoniensis Hk. & Arn.
(1841).   But it must be written: Heptapleurum
octophyllum OK. 1891 (Aralia octophyllum
Lour. 1790) or shortened Heptapleurum octo-
phyllum OK. (Lour. 1790).   Mr. D. Jackson has
only formed in 1893 the same binom a second
time.   His quotation of BHgp., as well as the
date of 1867 belonging thereto must be characte-
rized as fictions, servilely made by Mr. D. Jack-
son.   After having abandoned his programma
to apply priority as he had proclaimed it for-
merly in accordance with Darwin’s legacy and
making such inadmissible concessions to the
Kew authorities Mr. D. Jackson made the Kew
Index to a servile book. The Kew falsification
principle was already disapproved by Alphonse
de Candolle, A. Cogniaux and others (see Rev.
gen. III(II): 186–187) and is also not admitted
by other English (see Journal of botany 1903:
102).
    The first Kew principle is in contradiction
to the second and both Kew principles are a
shame for the Royal Kew Herbarium !
    28) Whereto οι and ω = oe and o e. g. in Coelo-
and -odes are worth only for one syllable. See
§ 12 h and note 38.
    29) Such names would be admissible as
names of sections or genera; but a hybrid is
neither a section nor a genus and cannot
receive therefore a generic name. Such name-
formations could also be called nomina jocosa
hybrida.
    ³º) That are finals or terminations with
one or more syllables but without any inner
consonant.   The terminations with inner con-
sonant are called suffixes, which cause always
a new name ;  see § 11 c 4.

    ³¹) The proof that -ium is diminutive is neces-
sary, -ium can such be only valid for classical
names or if declared as diminutive at the giving
of the name.   In the cryptogams, particularly
the microscopical mushrooms (e. g. -spora,
-sporium!) and in algae -ium beside other finals
cannot be accepted as diminutive; also other-
wise -ium was mostly not used as diminutive,
f. i. -phyllium at the Araceae where the largest

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 21 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

leaves are often found.   In names like Macro-
carpium, Macrochaetium, Macromitrium, Macro-
podium, Megaclinium the diminutive is im-
possible as Contradictio in adjecto.   In names
with -ius, -ia, -ium the diminutive is doubtful.

    ³²) For names with inequal etymology an
inner single consonant is also sufficient for a
different name, e.g. Maria, Marica, Marila, Ma-
ripa: whereagainst a final consonant is without
importance according to § 11 b for the difference
of names.
    ³³) Lepisanthes is an irregular formation and
exception from the rule like the classic names
Diosanthus Theophrastos, Trichosanthes L. and
more of such recent names, which are valid
now a Lepisanthus aside Lepanthes Lepidian-
thus, Dianthus aside Disanthus.

    34) The most extreme linguistic purificator
Mr. F. E. Clements (Nebraska University Stu-
dies III(I) : 1—84) surpasses even Mr. Saint-Lager
several times.   A. de Candolle estimated at
± 12 000 the change of names to be made
according to Mr. Saint-Lager.   Clements does
not permit any but pure latin and pure
greek names; that would be a reformation
nevermore to be executed and quite impossible.
He makes e. g. the crass substitutions for the
quoted 5 names.   As to Tetrandra which he
changes into Tetraner he takes Tesserandra
for the same name.   Personal bilingual names
as Englerastrum, which became very modern,
are also prohibited by him, moreover all names
with suffixes as Monardella, Agardhina, Lenzites,
all anagrams as Narthecium (Anthericum),
Ifloga (Filago);   only thereby would result
the change of names of many thousands
species and several hundreds of genera. But
it would be better not to form such names in
future and also to avoid bilingual names by
adding according to Clements to the radical
word if Greek the suffixes -idium, -otes, -yllium
or the prefix Micro and if Latin -elia, -ola,
-ule.   Mr. Clements gives only instances but
from his change of phanerogamic genus-
names I could not accept 170 and had them
still to insert as synonyms in the Lexicon.
The linguists forget mostly § 10 e:   “Name is
name” and misuse the limited right for cor-
rections.

    35) The old formulation prohibits for é and è
all accents;   but one cannot well omit them in
words as Feuilléea, Féea, Lennéa;   there being
also still other accents (see § 12 i) that rule can
be only optional.

    36) With persons the orthographic variation of

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 22 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

a name are different names; but that manner
cannot be applied to plants, because it is
against § 66 of the Laws of 1867 and it is
impossible to introduce that manner, as it would
result in an irreparable confusion.   Just as
the same name cannot exist twice among
plants (such differing also from mankind-names)
also names of different orthography cannot.
The correction of names is moreover an old
botanical common law (custom) which is here
regulated for the first time. T h e r e a r e o n l y
t a k e n i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u c h c a s e s o f
o r t h o g r a p h y i n w h i c h b o t a n i s t s w e r e
d i f f e r i n g.
    37) Masc. -ος, fem. -η, neutr. -ος = -us, -a,
-um; such the final η becomes a;   also e. g.
coma (κoμη), spatha (σπαθη), theca (θηκη),
chorda (χορδη) etc. are of good latin;  also
androgynus (such in botanical variations -gynus,
-gyna, -gynum, but incorrectly -gyne); -chloa
is more used as chloë.   Thus for uniform
orthography the final -a for final η is more
correct and better than -e, and only in classical
exceptions with -e sub h².   It happens also
that the interior -η became -a, f. i. πληγη= plaga.

    38) E. g. όμφαλοδης; rarely also όμφαλοειδης;
λιμνωδης, rarely λιμνοειδης ; έλωδης (never -οειδης).
All these words were at first also adjectives,
and are thus also good for specific names.
See also Rev. gen. III(I) note 50.

    39) These are exceptions: λευκο-ιον (Viola
alba) became Leucojum ; ει does not exist in
good latin and in most latin lexicons, and be-
came mostly -l;   but leio (such better lejo)
never became lio;   for Thuja are 7 variations of
orthography to be found.
    40) Clements l. c. 58. Instances of wrong for-
mations of words: Angkalanthus, Stiloxerus,
Ogcerostylus and Oxerostylus, Aggeianthus,
Zanthoxylum instead of Anchalanthus, Stylon-
cerus, Oncerostylus, Angianthus, Xanthoxylum.
    41) Whereas after -y  the uniting vowel -o-
always is missing (the relatively few exceptions
are mistakes) and -y never drops, that is not
always the case with  i, e. g. Ophis, Archi,
Blepharis are variable.   But with -e- the varia-
bility is so great, that the chief rule of l ¹ is
necessary. Mr. F. E. Clements who recom-
mends only pure latin or greek names, has also
always corrected this variable -e- into -o-.
    42) There are ± 300 names with Eua-, Eue-,
Eui-, Euo-, Euu- and only ± 25 with Ev- be-
fore vowels, and these are all already corrected
into Eu.
    43) Also in order that by the corrections
K: C;  Ha, He, Ho: A, E, O names of equal
etymology and competing with another are
placed in the alphabetic order side by side,
and not distant one from the other, as e. g.
also Astero-carpus, -chlaena, -gyna, -phyllum,

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 23 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

-phytum, -stemma, -tricha and the same names
with Astro- ;  likewise at Rha, Rhe, Rhi, Rho,
Rhy : Ra, Re, Ri, Ro, Ru, Ry, whereby moreover
i : u : y were changed and the confusion was
scarcely more to be overlooked.
    44) With these cases we have begun in our
lexicon to show that the uniformity of finals may
easily to be executed for such combined names
which occur more often.   By resolution of a
Congress that list could be enlarged, e. g. with
-anthus, -phyllum, -spermum, &c.—There exist
8 variations for finals of Polycarpus, 14 of
-phyllum, 11 of -anthus ; cfr. Rev. gen. I p.
CVII—CVIII.

    45) These greek and other different ortho-
graphics are partly original from antiquity and
partly result from the practice of botanists;
they became regulated according to established
custom regarding the uniformity of orthography.
    46) In these 3 cases both are right;  for the
uniform orthography the more usual case is
recommended.
    47) Festuca varia α genuina Gr. & G. was
changed Festuca varia α euvaria 1. genuina
Hack.   Eurepens, eurubra, euovina, &c. are ugly
new bilingual names like pseudorubra, pseud-
ovina, which are to be rejected in case of pri-
ority, but can not be preferred ; they could at
best be subordinated e. g. α “genuina (typica)
subvar. euvaria, but never set over. Triticum
ovatum var. euovatum, Triticum caudatum var.
eucaudatum Aschs. & Graeb., &c., are inapt.
“Eu” should be used neither for subfamilies
nor for subspecies and only be retained for
subgenera.

    48) For instance Ernst H. C. Krause for hybrids
of Rubus.
    49) I and J are often confounded in registers.
The consonant j was written in antique latin
as i;   from that usage many modern humanists
like not to turn.   Moreover in the Italian lan-
guage i is used in other ways, e. g. (see Di-
zionario di Rigutini & Bulle) for ii ; whence arise
some Italian variations in latin plant names.

    50) Bad registers sometimes obscure priority
(Rev. gen. III(II): 199); they make partly impossible
the scientific use of some works, because they
require from the learned man more time, than he
can spare in the modern excess of literary pro-
ductions (See also ABZ. 187 [35] and Bull. Boiss.
1894: 468). Bad registers cause also defective
works because only perfect registers etablish
an exact base for further investigations.   For
that reason these recommendations are more im-
portant than many superfluous recommendations
of the Laws of 1867, which can easily be spared
from the Codex brevis.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 24 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

    51) Thereto exist two different projects :
    1) In the Codex emendatus § 70, for which
were stated the motives in Rev. gen. III(I) note
112 and page CCCCI/II and in Rev. III(II): 166
& 197—199.   By these the competence of the
members of the Congress were more restricted;
the definite resolution of a Congress should
probably more return to it. From its propo-
sitions are particularly inserted into § 21 the
competents sub d/IV and V and VI; also the
addition sub k, which is directed against sur-
prises by local majorities; by that addition
Congresses become really international and
uniform.

    2) The new project published in the Journal
de botanique 1900 pag. LXII—LXIV, which was
submitted to the botanical Congress at Paris of
1900.   That project is the result of my pro-
position in the Deutsche Botan. Wochenschrift
1900 Nr. 3 for a Nomenclature-Congress. Then
Professor R. von Wettstein gave supplementary
propositions (Oesterreich. Botan. Zeitschrift 1900
Nr. 9). All these were treated in a paper “Ex-
posé sur les Congrès pour la nomenclature
botanique with 6 propositions” (Geneva 1900,
Romet, 15 pages), and that with the opinions
and recommendations of ten authorities was
submitted to the botanical Congress at Paris
of 1900. That Congress accepted only partly
my propositions and elected a bureau for pre-
paring the C o n g r e s s o f N o m e n c l a t u r e
i n V i e n n a 1 9 0 5, t h a t I h a d p r o p o s e d
f i r s t ; b u t t h e p o w e r s o f t h a t b u r e a u
w e r e m u c h r e s t r i c t e d b y t h e C o n g r e s s
a f t e r l o n g d e b a t e s.
    After that the Parisian bureau had arranged
against its powers (Actes du Congrès bot. 1900:
462—463) arbitrarily a mysterious anonymous
plebiscitum with election (statistic missing) of a
second international commission; whereas the
power of that bureau was only “N o m i n a t i o n
from here to July 1901 b y t h e p r i n c i p a l
b o t a n i c a l s o c i e t i e s a n d g r e a t b o t a n i c a l
i n s t i t u t i o n s i n s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s o f
a C o m m i s s i o n t o b e c h a r g e d w i t h t h a t
r e g u l a t i o n (of the Nomenclature). Thus that
international commission was falsified.   The first
mission of that bureau should be finished in
July 1901 but was partly protracted till April
1902 and is not yet finished.  Moreover that
bureau has committed several other irregulari-
ties, e. g. published 3 circular letters without
any date (!) and one in contradiction to the
others;   it charmed away the exclusion of the
Italian language resolved by the Paris Congress
1900 (see note 13 page XLV) and its general
secretary Prof. Perrot had committed already for-
merly irrégularities of election and illoyal signa-
ture;   so that I protested against these mani-
pulations and against the second international
commission for botanical nomenclature in All-

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 25 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

gemeine Botan. Zeitschrift 1901: 49—61 and
1902: 163—166.

   “T h e m e m b e r s o f t h a t c o m m i s s i o n
h a v e t o a p p o i n t t h e r e p o r t e r s for the
different questions of nomenclature to be stu-
died and f o r t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e
m o d e s h o w t o p r o c e e d i n v o t i n g. (Actes
du Congrès 1900: 463). Thus the members of
that second commission have only right for
preparatory consultation and also at the Con-
gress no more right, and by no means a resolving
vote. T h e c o n t r a r y c o n v e n t i o n o f t h e P a r i s
b u r e a u w i t h P r o f. R. v o n W e t t s t e i n i n
V i e n n a as to the v o t i n g modes is n o t
v a l i d , as that examination of voting modes
was reserved by the Congress only to the
members of the Commission; thus the Paris
bureau has violated also in that case its power
received from the Paris Congress.
    In the Paris bureau are to be found neither
authorities in nomenclature nor legislative experts
competent in nomenclature. If now that bureau
has chosen botanists in that commission, they
became not expert or competent by that elec-
tion. Indeed in that commission experts in
nomenclature are missing, as already the editor
of the Journal of botany 1902: 167 blamed it,
and most of the members have not yet done
anything in the regulation of nomenclature.
Experts in nomenclature are only those who dealt
specially with the laws of nomenclature of
1867 and who were capable of adapting new
rules to these laws.

    But if others than experts decide we will be-
come a so-called “Congress of men voting like
beasts”, the resolutions of which are commonly
without any value and disappear in short time
as the experience showed with the resolutions
of the Genoa-Congress, or which resolutions
enlarge the Chaos if they are not executable
and notwithstanding maintained by cliques.
Authority of systematic botany and practise
of legislative experts in nomenclature will rarely
be found together.
    Moreover I have few modified and supplied
to my propositions of 1900 in regard to the
Codex brevis for reaching at least still a com-
promise at the Vienna Congress in 1905.
    Now there is no doubt more that this Congress
will not become competent for definitive re-
solutions in nomenclature and the decisions
must be adjourned for 5 years, also that the
second international commission will only find
slight approbation. But only a fully recog-
nized international commission can restablish
international order. It will remain only for that
commission to add to its other consultations
also the advice: to recommend for the main-
taining of provisory order the publication at
a low prize of our “Lexicon generum phane-

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 26 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

rogamarum inde ab anno MDCCXXXVII cum
nomenclatura legitima internationali”, as such
a Lexicon was already recommended in the
Exposé sur les Congrès pour la nomenclature
botanique by John Briquet, Hans Schinz, Tom
von Post, Alfred Cogniaux, Moritz Fünfstück,
Carl Müller (Charlottenburg - Berlin), Gotthold
Leimbach, a lexicon which we will publish
(± 900 pages) bound to a charge of at most
12 sh. = 3 $.
   It may not be forgotten, that there is now
more d a n g e r than ever for the international
nomenclature b y f o u r c l i q u e s.
    1) T h e c l i q u e o f E n g l e r , who scoffs at
the regulation by a Congress (Rev. gen. III(II)
page 68) renouncing to have his rules sanc-
ioned by a “so called” general botanic Con-
gress. Nevertheless he was “elected” with 8 of
his collaborators into the second international
commission for the Congress, though by a
mysterious manner. One of his collaborators
(Briquet) has caused or participated to the
arrangement of that falsified commission and
another of his collaborators (R. von Wettstein)
has caused or participated to give illegal right
of voting to the members of this commission
in favor of Engler. English and American bo-
tanists did not receive the circulars for the
Congress in English language and were thus
repulsed from a Congress that could thereby
become partial. See also ABZ. 1902 : 164.
    2) T h e K e w c l i q u e , which recognizes
only the Kew Index. The present director of
the Royal Kew Herbarium and Gardens Sir
William Thiselton Dyer is perfectly innocent
as to the servile Kew Index with its Kew
obscuration principle and Kew falsification
principle (see note 27, page XLVIII) because
Sir William never was a collaborator of the
Kew-Index. Even he declared its names as no
standard-ones. In an presidential address
given at Ipswich 1895 in the botanic section
of the British Association (see Journal of
botany 1896 : 306) he had proclaimed: “It is
a mistake to suppose that the Kew Index
expresses any opinion as to the validity of the
names themselves.” But when I invited him
to attach himself to international tendencies
of nomenclature, I received the strange ans-
wer: “We have our own nomenclature.” Thereby
he comes in contradiction with himself and
his former proclamation. Likewise Mr. O. Jack-
son and Mr. Th. Durand as editors of the
supplement to the Kew Index refuse in its
prospectus to acknowledge the nomenclature
of the Index Kewensis. That index is only
a good work for quotations with a systematic
somewhat out of date, but with slight value
as to nomenclature. In the new supplements all
misnames of plants from all authors are quoted
without but all from the bulk of such mis-
names given by Jackson and by Durand; that

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 27 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

is also not in harmony with scientific exactitude.
Moreover the Kew Index is pretty unreliable
and incomplete. (See Journal of botany 1896:
298—307; Deutsche bot. Wochenschrift 1899:
4—7, Allgemeine Botan. Zeitschrift 1902: 98
bis 100, 1903: 101—105; Botan. Centralblatt XC:
685.)
    3) T h e F r e n c h c l i q u e Malinvaud — Le
Jolis — Levier, who tried to charm away the
priority out of the Paris Code (see Rev. gen. III(II):
13—14, 25—30, 43—58); but the priority is
the base of that Code. One of these nomen-
clature-charmers Mr. Malinvaud, general secretary
of the botanic society of France has caused
(see Le Monde des Plantes 1903: 21) that this
society did not participate of the international
commission for nomenclature and that it has
no part with an artifical agitation which menaces
to end with the bankrupt of the laws of nomen-
clature.   Well, it would scarcely possible to
expose more to shame these laws and the
botanic society of France as Mr. Malinvaud
has done it. Indeed that society as godmother
of these laws of 1867 is obliged morally to
take care of the further existance of these laws,
which she has caused; but that will be im-
possible with Mr. Malinvaud, for that would be
to set the fox to keep one’s geese. The botanic
society of France is rather obliged to participate
directly of a reformation of the laws of bota-
nical nomenclature. That these laws not be
needy of reformation, can only be pretented
by men who do not know these laws by practice.

    4) T h e c l i q u e o f s o m e A m e r i c a n s
(see note 24) who maintain their inexecutable
Rochester resolutions although it is proved that
by these rules still 20 000—30 000 names are
to be changed (see Rev. gen. III(I) p. CCLXIV
and III(II): 134—153 of the introduction). If
these American botanists would not attach them-
selves to international order, we can speak of
a botanical Tammany-ring.
    51 b) Another perverter of nomenclature mentio-
ned sub 51 ³ Dr. E. Levier, who even was elec-
ted — it is not known with how few votes and
by whom — into the international commission,
has discharged against me a pamphlet of 12
narrow printed pages, after that his last furious
articles were refused from the Bulletin de
l’herbier Boissier and from the Botan. Centralblatt.

    I renounce, of course, to enter in details;
I want only to hang deeper that pamphlet, as
he had it sent to the members of the inter-
national commission and to my friends, such
I could look in it.   That doctor, whose capacity
in nomenclature is to be seen by the fact that
he, notwithstanding his interminable tittletattle,
could not join an only paragraph to the laws,
that doctor pretends that I had called him a

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 28 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

“Schafskopf” (sheep’s head). But the matter
is, that he in a letter conditionally to be
published had called himself a “Schafskopf”,
which denomination he falsified afterwards into
“Schäfer” (shepherd) in the Botan. Centralblatt
(see Rev. gen. III(II): 55). The conditions for
the publication were honestly realized by him.
I recognize therefor his honesty if arriving.
But I had characterized him l. c. 58 as a Ver-
dreh-Genie (Genius in perverting), about which
he prudently was silent.
    In the combats that myself as the principal
defender of the Paris Code had to fight since
ten years against the widely spread corruption
in botany, I met not rarely with such male-
factors; their just and strong designation was
only duty. That such designations occur several
times is no wonder and nevermind a discul-
pation for a single malefactor.

    52) My French additions to the Codex emen-
datus were corrected several times, as last by
Dr. Morot in de Journal de Botanique.   The
French text of the Codex brevis was corrected
by a botanist of Geneva, who improved too much
the occurring text of the Code of 1867 and the
meliorations of Dr. Morot.   It seems therefor
difficult to please all with good style and I
preferred several times the original old text. If
there will be any doubt about the sense, the
comparation with the text of the two other
languages will decide. For revision of the
Codex text I have to thank Dr. Rendle from the
British Museum and to the keeper of DC.’s
Herbarium M. Buser.
    53) That is a matter of course according to
common law (especially that of domains).
If for instance anyone brought into order an
uncultivated ground he receives Jus quaesitum
for his work of sometimes many years and for
his expenses; that is to say: right that his
necessary melioralions and utile melorations
are recognized. Only deteriorations and their
expenses can be rejected.

    It is also a matter of course that all rules
formerly published in accordance with the
Code of 1867 can not be rejected if not the
deterioration has been proved. But as the
Paris bureau was so horribly naive to neglect
all formerly published meliorations of the late
A. de Candolle, etc., who can no more submit
his propositions to the Congress of 1905,
I have protested l. c. against that naivety and
I have added § 21 d I e. To send in former
publications with meliorations in many copies
is also sometimes impossible, if they are out
of print or if the meliorations are included in
great works too expensive for being distributed
gratis.

    A Congress has even not the right to replace

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 29 -

____________________________________________________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

capriciously with other propositions the formerly
published meliorations; it would thereby only
produce another chaos as that which we have
cleared up by the Codex brevis and its appli-
cation in our lexicon generum phanerogamarum,
the first lexicon of its kind since Linnaeus
against arbitrariness in nomenclature. As the
b o t a n i c a l C o n g r e s s i n V i e n n a o f 1 9 0 5
c a n n o t m o r e b e c o m e c o m p e t e n t f o r
d e f i n i t i v e r e s o l u t i o n s, b u t s t i l l c a n
b e c o m e a p r e p a r a t o r y C o n g r e s s f o r
t h e n e x t c o m p e t e n t C o n g r e s s , that
Congress in 1905 instead of producing a new
chaos with new arbitrarities, should recommend
the provisory acceptance of our lexicon during
a truce of 5 years at least ; there with also
botanists may disaccustom themselves the chro-
nical arbitrariness of nomenclature in a longer
period. Quot capita tot sensus. Of course
systematical differences will not be to avoid,
because thereon exist no rules; such differences
can only be decided by capable practice and
scientific contraction of plantgroups by scrupu-
lous consideration of all intermediate forms.

    54) = ¹º b.
    55) That paragraph was formerly also for
publications of botanical societies, but societies
received new votes by paragraph II and III.

    56) The Codex brevis was an absolute ne-
cessity ; for bringing it in accord with the
wishes of the international commission I offered
in 1902 the corredaction to professor R. von
Wettstein and through him to Dr. J. Briquet ;
but the achievement of the Codex brevis was
left to me alone.

SAN RENO, le 28 Mars (28th of March) 1903

DR. OTTO KUNTZE.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Otto Kuntze, Codex brevis maturus, 1903

- 30 -

____________________________________________________________________________________