Movatterモバイル変換

Preamble

Pre.1-Pre.6

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE

PREAMBLE

1. Botany requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature used by bota-
nists in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms which denote the
ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the scientific
names which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of plants. The
purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is not to indicate its characters
or history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its taxonomic
rank. This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming taxo-
nomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error
or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is the avoid-
ance of the useless creation of names. Other considerations, such as absolute
grammatical correctness, regularity or euphony of names, more or less pre-
vailing custom, regard for persons, etc., notwithstanding their undeniable
importance, are relatively accessory.

2. The Principles form the basis of the system of botanical nomenclature.

3. The detailed Provisions are divided into Rules, set out in the Articles, and
Recommendations. Examples (Ex.) are added to the rules and recommenda-
tions to illustrate them.

4. 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 main-
tained.

5. The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to
bring about greater uniformity and clearness, especially in future nomencla-
ture; names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be re-
jected, but they are not examples to be followed.

6. The provisions regulating the modification of this Code form its last divi-
sion.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 01 –

______________________________________________________________________

Pre.7-Pre.10

Preamble

7. The rules and recommendations apply to all organisms treated as plants
(including fungiand blue-green algae but excludingother prokaryotic
groups¹), whether fossil or non-fossil². Special provisions are needed for cer-
tain groups of plants: The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated
Plants-1980 was adopted by the International Commission for the Nomencla-
ture of Cultivated Plants; provisions for the names of hybrids appear in Ap-
pendix I.

8. The only proper reasons for changing a name are either a more profound
knowledge of the facts resulting from adequate taxonomic study or the neces-
sity of giving up a nomenclature that is contrary to the rules.

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

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

—————

1) For thenomenclature of other prokaryotic groups, seethe International Code of Nomencla-
ture of Bacteria.

2)   In this Code, the term"fossil" is applied to a taxon when its name is based on a fossil type and
       the term"non-fossil" is applied to a taxon when its name is based on a non-fossil type (see Art.
      13.3).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 02 –

______________________________________________________________________

Principles

I-VI

DIVISIONI. PRINCIPLES

PrincipleI

Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature.

The Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups treated as plants
whether or not these groups were originally so treated(seePre. 7).

PrincipleII

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

PrincipleIII

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

PrincipleIV

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.

PrincipleV

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

PrincipleVI

The Rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 03 –

______________________________________________________________________

1-3

Ranks

DIVISIONII.RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTERI. RANKS OF TAXA,

AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM

Article1

1.1. Taxonomic groups of any rank will, in this Code, be referred to astaxa
(singular:taxon).

Article2

2.1. Every individual plant is treated as belonging to a number of taxa of con-
secutively subordinate rank, among which the rank of species (species) is basal.

Article3

3.1. The principal ranks of taxa in ascending sequence are: species (species),
genus (genus), family (familia), order (ordo), class (classis), division (divisio),
and kingdom (regnum). Thus, except for some fossil plants (seeArt. 3.2), each
species is assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.

3.2. The principalranks of nothotaxa (hybrid taxa) are nothospecies and
nothogenus. These are the same rank as species and genus, only the terms
denoting the ranks differing in order to indicate the hybrid character (see
Appendix I).

3.3. Because of the fragmentary nature of the specimens on which the species
of some fossil plants are based, the genera to which they are assigned are not
assignable to a family, although they may be referable to a taxon of higher
rank. Such genera are known as form-genera (forma-genera).

Ex.1. Form-genera:Dadoxylon Endl. (Coniferopsida),Pecopteris (Brongn.) Sternb. (Pteropsida),
Stigmaria Brongn. (Lepidodendrales),Spermatites Miner (seed-bearing plants).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 04 –

______________________________________________________________________

Ranks

4-5

Ex. 2. The following are, however,not form-genera:Lepidocarpon D. Scott (Lepidocarpaceae),
Macrocarpon M. Benson (Sigilariaceae),Siltaria Traverse (Fagaceae).

Note1. Art.59 provides for form-taxa for asexual forms (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic
fungi at any rank.

3.4. As in the case of certain pleomorphic fungi, the provisions of this Code do
not prevent the publication and use of names of form-genera of fossils.

Article4

4.1. If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required, the terms for these are
made either by adding the prefixsub- to the terms denoting the ranks or by the
introduction of supplementary terms. A plant maythus be assigned to taxa of
the following ranks (in descending sequence):regnum, subregnum, divisio,
subdivisio, classis, subclassis, ordo, subordo, familia, subfamilia, tribus, subtribus,
genus, subgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, subspecies, varietas,
subvarietas, forma, subforma.

4.2. Further supplementary ranks may be intercalated or added, provided that
confusion or error is not thereby introduced.

4.3. The subordinate ranks of nothotaxa are the same as the subordinate ranks
of non-hybrid taxa, except that nothogenus is the highest rank permitted (see
Appendix I).

Note 1. Throughoutthis Code the phrase "subdivision of a family" refers only to taxaof arank
between family and genusand"subdivision of a genus"refers only to taxaof arank between genus
and species.

Note2. Forthe designation of certain variants of species in cultivation, seeArt. 28Notes 1and2.

Note3. In classifying parasites, especially fungi, authors who do not give specific, subspecific, or
varietal value to taxa characterized from a physiological standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a
morphological standpoint may distinguish within the species special forms (formae speciales)
characterized by their adaptation to different hosts, but the nomenclature of special formsis not
governed by the provisions of this Code.

Article5

5.1. The relative order of the ranks specified in Arts.3 and4 must not be
altered(see Arts.33.4and33.5).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 05 –

______________________________________________________________________

6	Definitions

CHAPTERII. RANKS OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

Article6

6.1. Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts.29-31.

6.2. Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Arts.32-45
orH.9 (see also Art.75).

6.3. A legitimate name is one that is in accordance with the rules.

6.4. An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in Arts.18.3 or
63-65 (see also Art. 21Note 1 and Art. 24Note 1). A name which according to
this Code was illegitimate when published cannot become legitimate later
unless it is conservedor sanctioned.

6.5. The correct name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position,
and rank is the legitimate name which must be adopted for it under the rules
(see Art.11).

Ex. 1. The generic nameVexillifera Ducke (1922), based on the single speciesV. micranthera, is
legitimate because it is in accordance with the rules. The same is true of the generic nameDussia
Krug & Urban ex Taubert (1892), based on the single speciesD. martinicensis. Both generic
names are correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni
Veg. 19: 291. 1924), however, unitedVexillifera Ducke andDussia Krug & Urban ex Taubert in a
single genus; when this treatment is accepted the latter name is the only correct one for the genus
with this particular circumscription. The legitimate nameVexillifera may therefore be correct or
incorrect according to different concepts of the taxa.

6.6. 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).

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 Arts
21,23, and24).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 06 –

______________________________________________________________________

Typification

Ex. 2. Combinations:Gentiana lutea, Gentiana tenella var.occidentalis, Equisetum palustre var.
americanum, Equisetum palustre f.fluitans, Mouriri subg.Pericrene, Arytera sect.Mischarytera.

6.8. Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under Arts.
19.4,22.2, and26.2, whether they were formally created or not.

SECTION2. TYPIFICATION

Article7

7.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is deter-
mined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The applica-
tion of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by types when the
names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art.10.5).

7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon
is permanently attached, whether as a correct name or as a synonym. The
nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative ele-
ment of a taxon.

7.3. A holotype is the one specimen orillustration used by the author or
designated by him as the nomenclatural type. As long as a holotype is extant, it
automatically fixes the application of the name concerned.

Note 1. Any designation 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. 7.4). Ifthe author included only
one element, that one must be accepted as the holotype. If a new name is based on a previously
published description of the taxon, the same considerations apply to material included by the
earlier author(see Arts. 7.14-7.16).

7.4. If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name, or when the holo-
type has been lost or destroyed,orwhenthe material designated as type is
found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or,if permissible (Art.
7.9), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated. A lectotype always
takes precedence over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 7.10. An isotype,
if such exists, must be chosen as the lectotype. If no isotype exists, the lectotype
must be chosen from among the syntypes, if such exist. If neither an isotype nor
a syntype nor any of the original material¹ is extant, a neotype may be se-
lected.

——————

1)   For the purposes of this Code, "original material" includes illustrations examined by an
       author prior to publication of a name and associated by the author with the concept of the
       named taxon.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 07 –

______________________________________________________________________

7	Typification

7.5. A lectotype is a specimen orillustration selected from the original mate-
rial to serve as a nomenclatural type when no holotype was indicated at the

time of publication or as long as it is missing. When two or more specimens
have been designated as types by the author of a specific or infraspecific name
(e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.), the lectotype must be cho-
sen from among them.

7.6. An isotype is any duplicate¹ of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

7.7. A syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited by the author when
no holotype was designated, or any one of two or more specimens simultane-
ously designated as types.

7.8. A paratype is a specimen or illustration cited in the protologue that is
neitherthe holotype nor anisotype, nor one of thesyntypes iftwo or more
specimens were simultaneously designatedas types.

7.9. A neotype is a specimen orillustration selected to serve as nomencla-
tural type as long as all of the material on which the name of the taxon was
based is missing(see also Art. 7.10).

7.10. 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 taxo-
nomically from the destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to preserve the
usage established by the previous typification (see also Art.8.5).

7.11. A new name published as an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for an
older name is typified by the type of the older name (see Art.33.2; but see Art.
33Note 1).

Ex. 1. Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a nomen novum forM. laevis O. Berg
(1862), an illegitimate homonym ofM. laevis G. Don (1832). The type ofM. lucida is therefore the
type ofM. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely, Spruce 3502.

7.12. A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name (stat.
nov.,comb. nov.) is, in all circumstances, typified by the type of the basionym
(see Art.55.2).

Ex. 2. Iridaea splendens (Setch. & Gardner) Papenf.,I. cordata var.splendens (Setch. & Gardner)
Abbott, andGigartina cordata var.splendens (Setch. & Gardner) Kim all have the same type as
their basionym,Iridophycus splendens Setch. & Gardner, namely, Gardner 7781 (UC 539565).

——————

1)  Hereand elsewhere,the word duplicate is given its usual meaning in herbarium curatorial
       practice. It is part of a single gathering made by a collector at one time. However, the possi-
       bility of a mixed gathering must always be considered by an author choosing a lectotype, and
       corresponding caution used.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 08 –

______________________________________________________________________

Typification

7.13. A name which was nomenclaturally superfluous when published (see Art.
63) is automatically typified by the type of the name which ought to have been
adopted under the rules, unless the author of the superfluous name has defi-
nitely indicated a different type.Automatic typification does not apply to
names sanctioned under Art.13.1(d).

7.14. The type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural
starting-point later than 1753 (see Art.13) is to be determined in accordance
with the indication or description and other matter accompanying its valid
publication (see Arts.32-45).

7.15. When valid publication is by reference to a pre-starting-point descrip-
tion, the latter must be used for purposes of typification.

7.16. Aname validly published by reference to a previously and effectively
published description or diagnosis(Art.32.3) is to be typified by an element
selected from the context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the
validating author has definitely designated a different type.

Ex. 3. Since the nameAdenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to Rum-
phius, Herbarium Amboinense 3: t. 112, the type of the name, in the absence of the specimen from
which it was figured, is the illustration referred to. It is not the specimen, at Kew, collected by
Moon and labelled"Adenanthera bicolor", since Moon did not definitely designate the latter as
the type.

Ex. 4. Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl. 12. 1754) was published without a description but with refer-
ence to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit. ed. 3. 227. 1724), in which a "Lycopsis" species was discussed
with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax 255. 1623), but also with no description.
The accepted validating description ofE. 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 (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 is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of "Echii altera species"
in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt. 620. 1583), suggested by P. E. Gibbs (Lagascalia 1: 60-61. 1971)
and formally made by W. T. Stearn (Ray Soc. Publ. 149, Introd. 65. 1973).

7.17. A change of the listed type of a conserved generic name (see Art.14 and
App. III) can be effected only by a procedure similar to that adopted for the
conservation of generic names.

Ex. 5. Bullock and Killick(Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the type ofPlectran-
thus LHér. be changed fromP. punctatus (L.f.) LHér. toP. fruticosus LHér. This proposal was
approved by the appropriate Committees and by an International Botanical Congress.

7.18. The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or
below is the specimen whose figure accompanies or is cited in the valid publi-
cation of the name (see Art.38). If figures of more than one specimen were
given or cited when the name was validly published, one of those specimens
must be chosen as the type.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 09 –

______________________________________________________________________

7	Typification

7.19. The typification of names of form-genera of plant fossils (Art.3.3), of
fungal anamorphs (Art.59), and of any other analogous genera or lower taxa
does not differ from that indicated above.

Note2. See also Art.59 for details regarding typification of names in certain pleomorphic fungi.

7.20. Typification of names adopted in one of the works specified in Art.
13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned,may be effected in the light of anything asso-
ciated with the name in that work.

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

Recommendation7A

7A.1. It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, espe-
cially the holotype, be deposited in apublic herbarium or other public collection and that it be
scrupulously conserved.

Recommendation7B

7B.1. Ifno holotype wasindicatedby the original author and if no syntypes are extant, the lecto-
type should be chosen from among duplicatesof the syntypes (isosyntypes), if such exist. If neither
an isotype,nor asyntype, nor an isosyntype is extant, a paratype, if such exists, may be chosen as
lectotype.

7B.2. Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be carried out with
an understanding of the authors 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 authors own her-
barium or may not even have survived, and conversely, that not all the material surviving in the
authors herbarium was necessarily used in describing the taxon.

7B.3. Designationof 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 species or specimen
cited or of a specimen collected by the person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as
unscientific and productive of possible future confusion and further changes.

7B.4. Inchoosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name should be given
preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue. Such indications are manuscript
notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recognizable figures, and epithets such astypicus,genui-
nus, etc.

7B.5. Incases where two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the
original description, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular,
if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, the residue or part of
it should be designated as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the
original description or diagnosis(see Art.8.1).

7B.6. Forthe name of a fossil species, the lectotype, when one is needed, should, if possible, be a
specimen illustrated at the time of thevalid publication of the name (Art. 7.18).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 10 –

______________________________________________________________________

Typification

7B.7. When a combination in a rank of subdivision of a genus has been published under a generic
name that has not yet been typified, the lectotype of the generic name should be selected from the
subdivision of the genus that was designated as nomenclaturally typical, if that is apparent.

Recommendation7C

7C.1. In selecting a neotype particular care and critical knowledgeshould be exercised,because
the reviewer usually has no guide except personal judgement as to what best fits the protologue,
and if this selection proves to be faulty, it will inevitably result in further change.

Article8

8.1. The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be followed,
but his choice is superseded if(a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any
of the original material is rediscovered; it may also be superseded if(b) it can
be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue¹ and another ele-
ment is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (c) that it was
based on a largely mechanical method of selection, or(d) that it is contrary to
Art.9.2.

Ex. 1. Authors following the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Canon 15 (Bull. Torrey
Bot. Club 34: 172. 1907), designated as the type"the first binomial species in order" eligible under
certain provisions. This method of selection has been considered to be largely mechanical. Thus
the first lectotypification ofDelphinium L., byBritton (in Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S. ed. 2,2:
93. 1913),who followed the American Code and choseD. consolidaL., has been superseded by
the choice ofD. peregrinum L. by Hitchcock & Green (Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists 162. 1929).
As Linnaeus describedDelphinium as having "germina tria vel unum", the unicarpellateD. conso-
lida is not in "serious conflict with the protologue". It could not otherwise be displaced as the type,
even though the tricarpellateD. peregrinum would seem a better choice for the type of the name
ofa genus assigned by its author to "Polyandria Trigynia".

8.2. For purposes of priority under Art. 8.1, designation of a type is achieved
only by effective publication (Arts.29-31).

8.3. For purposes of priority under Art. 8.1, designation of a type is achieved
only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, and if the
type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term "type" or
an equivalent.

Ex. 2. The phrase "standard species" as used by Hitchcock & Green (Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Bota-
nists 110-199. 1929) and by the same authors in the Cambridge Rules (1935) (in which it is subor-
dinate to the words "species lectotypicae propositae") is now regarded as equivalent to "type", and
hence lectotypifications in these works are acceptable.

——————

1)   Protologue (fromthe Greekprotos, first;logos, discourse): everything associated with a
       name at its valid publication, i.e., diagnosis, description, illustrations, references, synonymy,
       geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 11 –

______________________________________________________________________

9	Typification

Ex. 3. When originally described,Stapelia L. included two species,S. variegata andS. hirsuta.
Haworth (Syn. Pl. Succ. 19, 40. 1812) transferred the former to his new genusOrbea, retaining the
latter inStapelia. As he did not use the term "type" or an equivalent, his action does not constitute
lectotypification under Art. 8.1. The first lectotypification ofStapelia acceptable under Art. 8.1
appears to be that by Hitchcock & Green (Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists 137. 1929), who choseS.
variegata.

8.4. On or after 1 Jan. 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 or institution in which the type is conserved is
specified.

8.5. A neotype selected under Art.7.10 may be superseded if it can be shown
to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.

Article9

9.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species or infra-
specific taxon is a single specimen orillustration except in the following case:
for small herbaceous plants and for most non-vascular plants, the type may
consist of more than one individual, which ought to be conserved permanently
on one herbarium sheet or in one equivalent preparation (e.g., box, packet, jar,
microscope slide).

9.2. If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet or preparation con-
tains parts belonging to more than one taxon (Art.7.4), the name must remain
attached to that part (lectotype) which corresponds most nearly with the origi-
nal description.

Ex. 1. The holotype of the nameRheedia kappleri Eyma, which applies to a polygamous species, is
a male specimen collected by Kappler (593a in U). The author designated a hermaphroditic speci-
men collected by the Forestry Service of Surinam as a paratype (B. W. 1618 in U).

Ex. 2. The type of the nameTillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is Lorentz 128 in BM;
this, however, proved to be a mixture. L. B. Smith (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in
accordance with this rule in designating one part of Lorentzs gathering as the lectotype.

9.3. If it is impossible to preserve a specimen as the type of a name of a spe-
cies or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil plants, or if such a name is without a
type specimen, the type may be anillustration.

9.4. One whole specimen used in establishing a taxon of fossil plants is to be
considered the nomenclatural type. If this specimen is cut into pieces (sections
of fossil wood, pieces of coal-ball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in estab-
lishing the diagnosis ought to be clearly marked.

9.5. Type specimens of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and
cannot be living plants or cultures.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 12 –

______________________________________________________________________

Typification

Recommendation9A

9A.1. Whenever practicable a living culture should be prepared from the holotype material of the
name of a newly described taxon of fungi or algae and deposited in a reputable culture collection.
(Such action does not obviate the requirement for a holotype specimen under Art. 9.5.).

Article10

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. 10.3). For purposes of
designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e., it is
considered as the fuIl equivalent of its type.

10.2. If in the protologue of the name of a genus or of any subdivision of a
genus referenceis made tothe name(s) ofone or more definitely included
species, the type must be chosen from among the types of these names. Ifsuch
a referenceis lacking, a type must be otherwise chosen,butthe choice is to be
superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type is not conspecific
with any of the material associated with the protologue.

10.3. By conservation(Art.14.8), the type of the name of a genus can be a
specimenor illustration used by the author in the preparation of the proto-
logue, other than the type of a name of an included species.

Ex. 1. The General Committee has approved conservation ofPhysconia Poelt with the specimen
"Germania, Lipsia inTilia, 1767, Schreber sub "Lichen pulverulentus" (M)." as the type.

10.4. The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is the
same as that of the generic name on which it is based (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 based on a generic name is the
same as that of the corresponding alternative name (Arts.18.5 and19.8).

10.5. 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 based
on generic names (see Art.16). The type of such a name is the same as that of
the generic name on which it is based.

Note 1. For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera see Art.22.

Recommendation10A

10A.1. If the element selected under Art. 10.3 is the type of a species name, that name may be
cited as the type of the generic name. If the element selected is not the type of a species name the
type element should be cited and, optionally, a parenthetical reference to its correct name may be
given.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 13 –

______________________________________________________________________

11-13

Priority

SECTION3. PRIORITY

Article11

11.1. Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription,
position, and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being
made for 9 families and 1 subfamily for which alternative names are permitted
(see Arts.18.5 and19.7). However, the use of separate names forthe form-
taxa of fungi and for form-genera of fossil plants is allowed under Arts.3.3 and
59.5.

11.2. 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 (see Art.14) or where Arts.13.1(d),19.3,58, or59
apply.

11.3. For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combina-
tion of the final epithet¹ of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon in the
same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is as-
signed, except(a) in cases of limitation of priority under Arts.13.1(d) and14,
or(b) if the resulting combination would be invalid under Art.32.1(b) or ille-
gitimate under Art.64, or(c) if Arts.22.1,26.1,58, or59 rule that a different
combination is to be used.

11.4. The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the
rank of family (but see Rec.16B).

Article12

12.1. A name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly pub-
lished (see Arts.32-45).

SECTION4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

Article13

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

——————

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

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 14 –

______________________________________________________________________

Starting points

Non-fossil plants:

(a) Spermatophyta and Pteridophyta, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species
Plantarum ed. 1).

(b) Musci (theSphagnaceae excepted), 1 Jan. 1801 (Hedwig, Species Mus-
corum).

(c) Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Planta-
rum ed. 1).

(d) Fungi (including Myxomycetes and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May 1753
       (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1). Names in the Uredinales, Ustilagi-
       nales, and Gasteromycetes adopted by Persoon (Synopsis Methodica
       Fungorum, 31 Dec. 1801) and names ofother fungi (excluding Myxo-
       mycetes) adopted by Fries (Systema Mycologicum, vols. 1 (1 Jan. 1821) to
       3,with additional Index (1832), and Elenchus Fungorum, vols. 1-2), are
       sanctioned, i.e., are treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and
       competing synonyms. For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens
       shall be considered as applying to their fungal component.

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

       Nostocaceae homocysteae, 1 Jan. 1892 (Gomont, Monographie des
       Oscillariées, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 7, 15: 263-368; 16: 91-264). The two
       parts of Gomonts"Monographie", which appeared in 1892 and 1893 res-
       pectively, are treated as having been published simultaneously on 1 Jan.
       1892.

       Nostocaceae heterocysteae, 1 Jan. 1886 (Bornet & Flahault, Révi-
       sion des Nostocacées hétérocystées, 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 Jan. 1886.

Desmidiaceae, 1 Jan. 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae).

Oedogoniaceae, 1 Jan. 1900 (Hirn, Monographie und Iconographie der
Oedogoniaceen, Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1)).

Fossil plants:

(f)   All groups, 31 Dec. 1820 (Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, Versuch 1:
       1-24. t. 1-13). Schlotheim, Petrefactenkunde, 1820, is regarded as pub-
       lished before 31 Dec. 1820.

13.2. The group to which a name is assigned for the purposes of this Article is
determined by the accepted taxonomic position of the type of the name.

Ex. 1. The genusPorella and its single species,P. pinnata, were referred by Linnaeus (1753) to the
Musci; if the type specimen ofP. pinnata is accepted as belonging to the Hepaticae, the names
were validly published in 1753.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 15 –

______________________________________________________________________

14	Conservation

Ex. 2. The lectotype ofLycopodium L. (1753) isL. clavatum L (1753) and the type specimen of
this is currently accepted as a pteridophyte. Accordingly, although the genus is listed by Linnaeus
among the Musci, the generic name and the names of the pteridophyte species included by Lin-
naeus 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. Fossil material is distinguished
from non-fossil material by stratigraphic relations at the site of original occur-
rence. In cases of doubtful stratigraphic relations, provisions for non-fossil
taxa apply.

13.4. Generic names which first appear in Linnaeus Species Plantarum ed. 1
(1753) and ed. 2 (1762-63) are associated with the first subsequent description
given under those names in Linnaeus Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6
(1764) (see Art.41). The spelling of the generic names included in the Spe-
cies Plantarum ed. 1 is not to be altered because a different spelling has been
used in the Genera Plantarum ed. 5.

13.5. The two volumes of Linnaeus Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753), which
appeared in May and August, 1753, respectively, are treated as having been
published simultaneously on the former date (1 May 1753).

Ex. 2. The generic namesThea L Sp. Pl. 515 (May 1753) andCamellia L Sp. Pl. 698 (Aug. 1753),
Gen. Pl. ed. 5. 311 (1754) are treated as having been published simultaneously in May 1753. Under
Art.57 the combined genus bears the nameCamellia, since Sweet (Hort. Suburb. Lond. 157.
1818), who was the first to unite the two genera, chose that name, citingThea as a synonym.

13.6. Names of anamorphs of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle do not, ir-
respective of priority, affect the nomenclatural status of the names of the cor-
related holomorphs (see Art.59.4).

Article14

14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of fami-
lies, genera, and species entailed by the strict application of the rules, and
especially of the principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art.13,
this Code provides, inAppendices II andIII, lists of names that are conserved
(nomina conservanda) and must be retained as useful exceptions.

Note 1. The rules on conserved names also apply to names at any rank sanctioned under Art.
13.1(d).

14.2. Conservation aims at retention of those names which best serve stability
of nomenclature (see Rec.50E). Conservation of specific names is restricted to
species of major economic importanceand to cases provided for by Arts. 14.3
and 69.3(see also Art.13.1(d)).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 16 –

______________________________________________________________________

Conservation

14.3. The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by
nomenclatural types.When typification of the species name cited as the type
of a conserved generic name is in dispute, the type of the specific name may be
conserved, and listed in Appendix IIIA , so that the application of the generic
name is not in doubt.

14.4. A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other
names in the same rank based on the same type (nomenclatural synonyms,
which are to be rejected) whether these are cited in the corresponding list of
rejected names or not, and against those names based on different types (taxo-
nomic synonyms) that are cited in that list¹. A conserved name of a species is
conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all combinations
based on the rejected names.

14.5. When a conserved name competes with one or more other names based
on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest
of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art.57.1, except for
names sanctioned under Art.13.1(d)and for some conserved family names
(Appendix IIB), which are conserved against unlisted names.

Ex. 1. If the genusWeihea Sprengel (1825) is united withCassipourea Aublet (1775), the com-
bined genus will bear the prior nameCassipourea, althoughWeihea is conserved andCassipourea
is not.

Ex. 2. IfMahonia Nutt. (1818) is united withBerberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the
prior nameBerberis, althoughMahonia is conserved.

Ex. 3. Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonymNasturtium Miller
(1754) and the nomenclatural synonymCardaminum Moench (1794); consequently if reunited with
Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the nameRorippa.

14.6. When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier name
based on a different type, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art.11, if it is
considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the no-
men conservandum except when the earlier rejected name is a homonym of the
conserved name.

Ex. 4. The generic nameLuzuriaga Ruiz & Pavón (1802) is conserved against the earlier names
Enargea Banks & Sol. ex Gaertner (1788) andCallixene Comm. ex A. L. Juss. (1789). If, however,
Enargea Banks & Sol. ex Gaertner is considered to be a separate genus, the nameEnargea is
retained for it.

14.7. A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may not be
restored for a taxon which includes the type of the corresponding conserved
name.

——————

1)   The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of
       Nomenclature of Bacteria use the terms "objective synonym" and "subjective synonym" for
       nomenclatural and taxonomic synonym, respectively.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 17 –

______________________________________________________________________

14	Conservation

Ex. 5. Enallagma Baillon (1888) is conserved againstDendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against
Amphitecna Miers (1868); ifEnallagma andAmphitecna are united, the combined genus must
bear the nameAmphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved againstDendrosicus.

14.8. A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by
the author or determined by application of the Code (see Art.10.3). A name

with a type so conserved (typ. cons.) is legitimate even if it would otherwise be
illegitimate under Art.63. When a name is conserved with a type different
from that of the original author, the author of the name as conserved, with the
new type, must be cited.

Ex. 6. Bulbostylis Kunth (1837), nom. cons. (nonBulbostylis Steven 1817). This is not to be cited as
Bulbostylis Steven emend. Kunth, since the type listed was not included inBulbostylis by Steven
in 1817.

14.9. A conserved name,with its corresponding autonyms,is conserved against
all earlier homonyms.An earlier homonym of a conserved or sanctioned name
is not made illegitimate by that conservation or sanctioning but is unavailable
for use; if legitimate, it may serve as basionym of another name or combination
based on the same type (see also Art.68.3).

Ex. 7. The generic nameSmithia Aiton (1789), conserved againstDamapana Adanson (1763), is
thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonymSmithia Scop. (1777).

14.10. A namemay be conserved in order to preserve a particular orthography
or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of priority
to the author who validly published it, not toan author who later introduced
the conservedspellingor gender.

Ex. 8. The spellingRhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved against the ori-
ginal spellingRhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be cited asRhodymenia Grev.
(1830).

Note 2. The date of conservation or sanctioning does not affect the nomenclatural status of the
conserved or sanctioned name, whose priority depends on its date of valid publication. When two
or more conserved or sanctioned names are considered to be synonyms, the first to have been
validly published has priority. When two or more homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of
them can be used, the later being illegitimate under Art.64.

14.11. The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for ad-
ditions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against its conserva-
tion. Such proposals must be submitted to the General Committee (seeDivi-
sion III), which will refer them for examination to the committees for the
various taxonomic groups.

14.12. Entries of conserved names cannot be deleted.Similarly, aname once
sanctioned remains sanctioned,even if elsewhere in the sanctioning works the
sanctioning author does not recognize it.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 18 –

______________________________________________________________________

Conservation

Article15

15.1. When a proposal for the conservation (or rejection under Art.69) of a
name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Com-
mittee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention (or rejection) of that
name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical
Congress.

Recommendation15A

15A.1. When a proposal for the conservation or rejection of a name has been referred to the
appropriate Committee for study, authors should follow existing usage as far as possible pending
the General Committees recommendation on the proposal.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 19 –

______________________________________________________________________

16	Higher taxa

CHAPTERIII. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO

THEIR RANK

SECTION1. NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY

Article16

16.1. Names of taxa above the rank of family are automatically typified if they
are based on generic names (see Art.10.5); for such automatically typified
names, the name of a subdivision which includes the type of the adopted name
of a division, the name of a subclass which includes the type of the adopted
name of a class, and the name of a suborder which includes the type of the
adopted name of an order, are to be based on the generic name equivalent to
that type, but without the citation of an authors name.

16.2. Where one of the word elements-monado-,-cocco-, -nemato-, or-clado
as the second part of a generic name has been omitted before the termination
-phyceae- or-phyta, the shortened class or division name is regarded as based
on the generic name in question if such derivation is obvious or is indicated at
establishment of the group name.

Ex. 1. Raphidophyceae Chadefaud ex P. C. Silva (1980) was indicated by its author to be based on
Raphidomonas F. Stein (1878).

Note 1. The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the rank of family (Art.
11.4).

Recommendation16A

16A.1. The name of a division is taken either from distinctive characters of the division (descrip-
tive names) or from a name of an included genus; it should end in-phyta, unless it is a division of
fungi, in which case it should end in-mycota.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 20 –

______________________________________________________________________

Higher taxa

16A.2. The name of a subdivision is formed in a similar manner; it is distinguished from a divi-
sional name by an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the termination-phytina, unless it is a subdivi-
sion of fungi, in which case it should end in-mycotina.

16A.3. The name of a class or of a subclass is formed in a similar manner and should end as fol-
lows:

(a) In thealgae:-phyceae (class) and-phycidae (subclass);

(b) In thefungi:-mycetes (class) andmycetidae (subclass);

(c) Inother groups of plants:-opsida (class) and-idae (subclass).

16A.4. When a name has been published with aLatin termination not agreeing with this recom-
mendation, the termination may be changed to accord with it, without change of authors name or
date of publication.

Recommendation16B

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

Article17

17.1. The name of an order or suborder is taken either from distinctive charac-
ters of the taxon (descriptive name) or from a legitimate name of an included
family based on a generic name (automatically typified name). An ordinal
name of the second category is formed byreplacing the termination-aceae by
-ales. A subordinal name of the second category is similarly formed, with the
termination-ineae.

Ex. 1. Descriptive names of orders:Centrospermae, Parietales, Farinosae; of a suborder:Enantio-
blastae.

Ex. 2. Automatically typified names:Fucales, Polygonales, Ustilaginales; Bromeliineae, Malvi-
neae.

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

17.3. When the name of an order or suborder based on a name of a genus has
been published with an improperLatin termination, this termination must be
changed to accord with the rule, without change of the authors name or date
of publication.

Recommendation17A

17A.1. Authors should not publish new names of orders for taxa of that rank which include a
family from whose name an existing ordinal name is derived.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 21 –

______________________________________________________________________

18	Families

SECTION2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES

Article18

18.1. The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is
formedfrom the genitive singular of a legitimate name of an included genusby
replacing the genitive singular inflection (Latin-ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated
Greek-ou, -os, -es, -as, or-ous, including the latters equivalent-eos) withthe
termination-aceae.For generic names of non-classical origin, when analogy
with classical names is insufficient to determine the genitive singular,-aceae is
added to the full word. For generic names with alternative genitives the one
implicitly used by the original author must be maintained.

Ex. 1. Family names based on a generic name ofclassicalorigin:Rosaceae (fromRosa,Rosae),
Salicaceae (fromSalix,Salicis),Plumbaginacae (fromPlumbago,Plumbaginis),Rhodophyllaceae
(fromRhodophyllus,Rhodophylli),Rhodophyllidaceae (fromRhodophyllis,Rhodophyllidos),
Sclerodermataceae (fromScleroderma,Sclerodermatos),Aextoxicaceae (fromAextoxicon,Aex-
toxicou,Potamogetonaccae (fromPotamogeton,Potamogetonos).

Ex. 2. Family names based on a generic name of non-classical origin:Nelumbonaccae (fromNe-
lumbo,Nelumbonis, declined by analogy withumbo,umbonis),Ginkgoaceae (fromGinkgo,
indeclinable).

18.2. Names intended as names of families, but published with their rank de-
noted by one of the terms"order" (ordo) or"natural order" (ordo naturalis)
instead of"family", are treated as having been published as names of families.

18.3. A name of a familyor subdivision of a family based on an illegitimate
generic name is illegitimate unless conserved. Contrary to Art.32.1(b) such a
name is validly published if it complies with the other requirements for valid
publication.

Ex. 3. Caryophyllaceae, nom. cons. (fromCaryophyllus Miller non L.);Winteraceae, nom. cons.
(fromWintera Murray, an illegitimate synonym ofDrimys Forster & Forster f.).

18.4. When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin
termination, the termination must be changed to conform with the rule, with-
out change of the authors name or date of publication (see Art.32.5).

Ex. 4. "Coscinodisceae" Kütz. is to be accepted asCoscinodiscaceae Kütz. and not attributed to De
Toni, who first used the correct spelling (Notarisia 5: 915. 1890).

Ex. 5. "Atherospermeae" R. Br. is to be accepted asAtherospermataceae R. Br. and not attributed
to Airy Shaw (in Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl. ed. 7. 104. 1966), who first used the correct spelling, or to
Lindley, who used the spelling"Atherospermaceae" (Veg. Kingd. 300. 1846).

Ex. 6. However, Tricholomées Roze (Bull. Soc. Bot. France 23: 49. 1876) is not to be accepted as
Tricholomataceae Roze, because it has a French rather than a Latin termination. The nameTri-
cholomataceae was later validated by Pouzar (1983; seeApp. II).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 22 –

______________________________________________________________________

Subdivisions of families

18.5. The following names, sanctioned by long usage, are treated as validly
published:Palmae (Arecaceae; type,Areca L.);Gramineae (Poaceae; type,Poa
L.);Cruciferae (Brassicaceae; type,Brassica L.);Leguminosae (Fabaceae; type,
Faba Miller (=Vicia L. p.p.));Guttiferae (Clusiaceae; type,Clusia L.);Umbel-
liferae (Apiaceae; type,Apium L.);Labiatae (Lamiaceae; type,Lamium L.);
Compositae (Asteraceae; type,Aster L.). When thePapilionaceae (Fabaceae;
type,Faba Miller) are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the
Leguminosae, the namePapilionaceae is conserved againstLeguminosae (see
Art.51.2).

18.6. The use, as alternatives, of the names indicated in parentheses in Art.
18.5 is authorized.

Article19

19.1. The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is
formedin the same manner as the name of a family(Art.18.1)but by using the
termination-oideaeinstead of-aceae.

19.2. A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination-eae, and a
subtribe similarly with the termination-inae.

19.3. 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 based on
the generic name equivalent to that type, but not followed by an authors name
(see Art.46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art.6.8; see also Art.7.18).

Ex. 1. The type of the family nameRosaceae A. L. Juss. isRosa L. and hence the subfamily and
tribe which includeRosa are to be calledRosoideae andRoseae.

Ex. 2. The type of the family namePoaceae Barnhart (nom. alt.,Gramineae A. L. Juss. – see Art.
18.5) isPoa L. and hence the subfamily and tribe which includePoa are to be calledPooideae and
Poëae.

Note 1. This provision applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that include the type of
the adopted name of the family (but see Rec. 19A).

Ex. 3. The subfamily including the type of the family nameEricaceae A. L. Juss.(Erica L.) is
calledEricoideae, and the tribe including this type is calledEriceae. However, the correct name of
the tribe including bothRhododendron L., the type of the subfamily nameRhododendroideae
Endl., andRhodora L. isRhodoreae G. Don (the oldest legitimate name), and notRhododen-
dreae.

Ex. 4. The subfamily of the familyAsteraceae Dumort. (nom. alt.,Compositae Giseke) including
Aster L., the type of the family name, is calledAsteroideae, and the tribe and subtribe including
Aster are calledAstereae andAsterinae, respectively. However, the correct name of the tribe
including bothCichorium L., the type of the subfamily nameCichorioideae Kitamura, andLactuca
L. isLactuceae Cass., notCichorieae, while that of the subtribe including bothCichorium and
Hyoseris L. isHyoseridinae Less., notCichoriinae (unless theCichoriaceae A. L. Juss. are ac-
cepted as a family distinct fromCompositae).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 23 –

______________________________________________________________________

Genera

19.4. The first valid publication of a name of a subdivision of a family that does
not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the family automatical-
ly establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts.32.6 and57.3).

19.5. The name of a subdivision of a family may not be based on the same
generic name as is the name of the family or of any subdivision of the same
family unless it has the same type as that name.

19.6. When a name of a taxon assigned to one of the above categories 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 the rule,
without change of the authors name or date of publication (see Art.32.5).

Ex. 5. The subfamily name "Climacieae" Grout (Moss Fl. N. Amer. 3: 4. 1928) is to be changed to
Climacioideae with rank and authors name unchanged.

19.7. When thePapilionaceae are included in the familyLeguminosae (nom.
alt.,Fabaceae; see Art.18.5) as a subfamily, the namePapilionoideae may be
used as an alternative toFaboideae.

Recommendation19A

19A.1. If a legitimate name is not available for a subdivision of a family which includes the type of
the correct name of another taxon of higher or lower rank (e.g., subfamily, tribe, or subtribe), but

not of the family to which it is assigned, the new name of that taxon should be based on the same
generic name as the name of the higher or lower taxon.

Ex. 1. Three tribes of the familyEricaceae, none of which includes the type of that family name
(Erica L.), arePyroleae D. Don,Monotropeae D. Don, andVaccinieae D. Don. The names of the
later-described subfamiliesPyroloideae (D. Don) A. Gray,Monotropoideae (D. Don) A. Gray,
andVaccinioideae (D. Don) Endl. are based on the same generic names.

SECTION3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA

Article20

20.1. The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number, or a word
treated as such, and is written with a capital initial letter (see Art.73.2). It may
be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an absolute-
ly arbitrary manner.

Ex. 1. Rosa, Convolvulus, Hedysarum, Bartramia, Liquidambar, Gloriosa, Impatiens, Rhododen-
dron, Manihot, Ifloga (an anagram ofFilago).

20.2. The name of a genus may not coincide with a technical term currently
used in morphology unless it was published before 1 Jan. 1912 and accom-
panied by a specific name published in accordance with the binary system of
Linnaeus.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 24 –

______________________________________________________________________

Genera

Ex. 2. The generic nameRadicula Hill (1756) coincides with the technical term"radicula" (radicle)
and was not accompanied by a specific name in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.
The name is correctly attributed to Moench (1794), who first combined it with specific epithets,
but at that time he included in the genus the type of the generic nameRorippa Scop. (1760).Radi-
cula Moench is therefore rejected in favour ofRorippa.

Ex. 3. Tuber Wigg. : Fr., when published in 1780, was accompanied by a binary specific name
(Tuber gulosorum Wigg.) and is therefore validly published.

Ex. 4. The generic namesLanceolatus Plumstead (1952) andLobata V. J. Chapman (1952) coin-
cide with technical terms and are therefore not validly published.

Ex. 5. Names such asRadix, Caulis, Folium, 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.

Ex. 6. The generic nameUva ursi Miller (1754) as originally published consisted of two separate
words unconnected by a hyphen, and is therefore rejected; the name is correctly attributed to
Duhamel (1755) asUva-ursi (hyphened when published).

Ex. 7. However, names such asQuisqualis (formed by combining two words into one when origi-
nally published),Sebastiano-schaueria, andNeves-armondia (both hyphenated when originally
published) are validly published.

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

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

(a) Words not intended as names.

Ex. 8. Anonymos Walter (Fl. Carol. 2, 4, 9, etc. 1788) is rejected as being a word applied to 28
°ifferent genera by Walter to indicate that they were without names.

Ex. 9. Schaenoides andScirpoides, as used by Rottbøll (Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 14, 27. 1772) to
indicate unnamed genera resemblingSchoenus andScirpus which he stated (on page 7) he in-
tended to name later, are token words and not generic names.Kyllinga Rottb. andFuirena Rottb.
(1773) are the first legitimate names of these genera.

(b) Unitary designations of species.

Ex. 10. Ehrhart (Phytophylacium 1780, and Beitr. 4: 145-150. 1789) proposed unitary names for
various species known at that time under binary names, e.g.Phaeocephalum forSchoenus fuscus,
andLeptostachys forCarex leptostachys. These names, which resemble generic names, should not
be confused with them and are to be rejected, unless they have been published as generic names by
a subsequent author; for example, the nameBaeothryon, employed as a unitary name of a species by
Ehrhart, was subsequently published as a generic name by A. Dietrich.

Ex. 11. Necker in his Elementa Botanica, 1790, proposed unitary designations for his"species
naturales". These names, which resemble generic names, are not to be treated as such, unless they
have been published as generic names by a subsequent author; for exampleAnthopogon, em-
ployed by Necker for one of his"species naturales", was published as a generic name by Rafi-
nesque:Andropogon Raf. non Nutt.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 25 –

______________________________________________________________________

21	Subdivisions of genera

Recommendation20A

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

(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

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

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

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

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

(f) To avoid adjectives used as nouns.

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

(h) Not to dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected with botany or at least with natural
science.

(i) To give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemorate a man or a
woman (see Rec.73B).

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

Article21

21.1. The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name
and a subdivisional epithet connected by a term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.)
denoting its rank.

21.2. The epithet is either of the same form as a generic name, or a plural ad-
jective agreeing in gender with the generic name and written with a capital
initial letter (see Art.32.5).

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 prefixEu-.

Ex. 1. Costus subg.Metacostus; Ricinocarpos sect.Anomodiscus; Sapium subsect.Patentinervia;
Valeriana sect.Valerianopsis; Euphorbia sect.Tithymalus; Euphorbia subsect.Tenellae; Arenaria
ser.Anomalae; but notCarex sect.Eucarex.

Note 1. The use within the same genus of the same epithet in names of subdivisions of the genus,
even in different ranks, based on different types is illegitimate under Art.64.

Note 2. The names of hybrids with the rank of a subdivision of a genus are formed according to
the provisions of Art.H.7.

Recommendation21A

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 specific epithet, its epithet should be
placed in parentheses between the two; when desirable, its rank may also be indicated.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 26 –

______________________________________________________________________

Subdivisions of genera

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

Recommendation21B

21B.1. The epithet of a subgenus or section is preferably a substantive, that of a subsection or
lower subdivision of a genus preferably a plural adjective.

21B.2. Authors, when proposing new epithets for subdivisions of genera, should avoid those in the
form of a substantive when other co-ordinate subdivisions of the same genus have them in the
form of a plural adjective, and vice-versa. They should also avoid, when proposing an epithet for a
subdivision of a genus, one already used for a subdivision of a closely related genus, or one which
is identical with the name of such a genus.

Article22

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, but not followed by an authors name
(see Art.46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art.6.8; see also Art.7.21).

Note 1. This provision applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that include the type of
the adopted name of the genus (but see Rec. 22A).

22.2. The first valid publication of a name of a subdivision of a genus that does
not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus automatically
establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts.32.6 and57.3).

Ex. 1. The subgenus ofMalpighia L. which includes the lectotype of the generic name (M. glabra
L.) is calledMalpighia subg.Malpighia, and notMalpighia subg.Homoiostylis Niedenzu.

Ex. 2. The section ofMalpighia L. including the lectotype of the generic name is calledMalpighia
sect.Malpighia, and notMalpighia sect.Apyrae DC.

Ex. 3. However, the correct name of the section of the genusRhododendron L. which includes
Rhododendron luteum Sweet, the type ofRhododendron subg.Anthodendron (Reichenb.) Reh-
der, isRhododendron sect.Penthanthera G. Don, the oldest legitimate name for that section, and
notRhododendron sect.Anthodendron.

22.3. The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat un-
changed the correct name of the genus, except when the two names have the
same type.

22.4. When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus is identical with or derived
from the epithet of one of its constituent species, the type of the name of the
subdivision of the genus is the same as that of the species name, unless the
original author of the subdivisional name designated another type.

Ex. 4. The type ofEuphorbia subg.Esula Pers. isE. esula L.; the designation ofE. peplus L. as
lectotype by Croizat (Revista Sudamer. Bot. 6: 13. 1939) is rejected.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 27 –

______________________________________________________________________

Species

Ex. 5. The type ofLobelia sect.Eutupa Wimmer isL. tupa L.

22.5. When the epithet of a subdivision of a genus is identical with or derived
from the epithet of a specific name that is a later homonym, it is the type of
that later homonym, whose correct name necessarily has a different epithet,
that is the nomenclatural type.

Recommendation22A

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 a name of one of its
subordinate sections.

Ex. 1. Instead of using a new name at the subgeneric level, Brizicky raisedRhamnus sect.Pseudo-
frangula Grubov to the rank of subgenus asRhamnus subg.Pseudofrangula (Grubov) Briz. The
type of both names is the same,R. alnifolia LHér.

SECTION4. NAMES OF SPECIES

Article23

23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of
the genus followed by a single specific epithetin the form of an adjective, a
noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, but not a phrase in the ablative
(see Art. 23.6(c)). If an epithet consists 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 (see Art.73.9).

23.2. The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source what-
ever, and may even be composed arbitrarily(but see Art.73.1).

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

23.3. Symbols forming part of specific epithets proposed by Linnaeusdo not
invalidate the relevant names but must be transcribed.

Ex. 2. Scandix pecten ♀ L. is to be transcribed asScandix pecten-veneris; Veronica anagallis ∇ L.
is to be transcribed asVeronica anagallis-aquatica.

23.4. The specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name with or
without the addition of a transcribed symbol (tautonym).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 28 –

______________________________________________________________________

Species

Ex. 3. Linaria linaria, Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum.

23.5. The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a substan-
tive, agrees grammatically with the generic name (see Art.32.5).

Ex. 4. Helleborus niger, Brassica nigra, Verbascum nigrum; Vinca major, Tropaeolum majus;
Rubus amnicola ("amnicolus"), the specific epithet being a Latin substantive;Peridermium bal-
sameum Peck, but alsoGloeosporium balsameae J. J. Davis, both derived from the epithet of
Abies balsamea, the specific epithet of which is treated as a substantive in the second example.

23.6. The following are not to be regarded as specific epithets:

(a) Words not intended as epithets.

Ex. 5. Viola"qualis" Krocker (Fl. Sites. 2: 512, 517. 1790);Urtica"dubia?" Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-
Arab. cxxi. 1775), the word"dubia?" being repeatedly used in that work for species which could not
be reliably identified.

Ex. 6. Atriplex"nova" Winterl (Index Horti Bot. Univ. Pest. fol. A. 8, recto et verso. 1788), the
word"nova" being here used in connection with four different species ofAtriplex.

Ex. 7. However, inArtemisia nova A. Nelson (Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 274. 1900),nova was
intended as a specific epithet, the species having been newly distinguished from others.

(b) Ordinal adjectives used for enumeration.

Ex. 8. Boletus vicesimus sextus, Agaricus octogesimus nonus.

(c) Epithets published in works in which the Linnaean system of binary
      nomenclature for species is not consistently employed. Linnaeus is re-
      garded as having used binary nomenclature for species consistently from
      1753 onwards, although there are exceptions, e.g.Apocynum fol. andro-
     saemi L. (Sp. Pl. 213. 1753=Apocynum androsaemifolium L. Syst. Nat. ed.
      10: 946. 1759).

Ex. 9. Abutilon album Hill (Brit. Herb. 49. 1756) is a descriptive phrase reduced to two words, not
a binary name in accordance with the Linnaean system, and is to be rejected: Hills other species
wasAbutilon flore flavo.

Ex. 10. Secretan (Mycographie Suisse. 1833) introduced a large number of new specific names,
more than half of them not binomials, e.g.Agaricus albus corticis, Boletus testaceus scaber, Bole-
tus aereus carne lutea. He is therefore considered not to have consistently used the Linnaean
system of binary nomenclature and none of the specific names, even those with a single epithet, in
this work are validly published.

Ex. 11. Other works in which the Linnaean system of binary nomenclature is not consistently
employed: Gilibert, Fl. Lit. Inch. 1781;Gilibert, Exerc. Phyt. 1792; Miller, Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4.
1754; W. Kramer, Elench. Veg. 1756.

(d) Formulae designating hybrids (see Art.H.10.3).

Recommendation23A

23A.1. Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epithets
should be in the form of substantives in the genitive (clusii, porsildiorum, saharae) or of adjectives
(clusianus, dahuricus) (see also Art.73, Recs.73C andD).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 29 –

______________________________________________________________________

24	Infraspecific taxa

23A.2. The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to designate two different
species of the same genus should be avoided (e.g.Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliver andL. hemsleyi
Franchet).

Recommendation23B

23B.1. In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also with the following suggestions:

(a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible.

(b) To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin.

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

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

(e) To avoid those which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm).

(f) To avoid those which express a character common to all or nearly all the species of a genus.

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

(h) To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus.

(i)   Not to adoptepithets from unpublished names found in correspondence, travellers notes,
       herbarium labels, or similar sources, attributing them to their authors, unless these authors
       have approved publication.

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

SECTION5. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES

(INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)

Article24

24.1. The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a
species and an infraspecific epithet connected by a term denoting its rank.

Ex. 1. Saxifraga aizoon subf.surculosa Engler & Irmscher. This can also be cited asSaxifraga
aizoon var.aizoon subvar.brevifoliaf.multicaulis subf.surculosa Engler & Irmscher; in this way a
full classification of the subforma within the species is given.

24.2. Infraspecific epithets are formed as those of species and, when adjectival
in form and not used as substantives, they agree grammatically with the generic
name (see Art.32.5).

Ex. 2. Trifolium stellatum formananum (notnana).

24.3. Infraspecific epithets such astypicus, originalis, originarius, genuinus,
verus, andveridicus, purporting to indicate the taxon containing the typeof the
name of the next higher taxon, are not validly publishedunless they repeat the
specific epithet because Art.26 requires their use.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 30 –

______________________________________________________________________

Infraspecific taxa

25-26

24.4. The use of a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet is not
admissible. Contrary to Art.32.1(b), names so constructed are validly pub-
lished but are to be altered to the proper form without change of the authors
name or date of publication.

Ex. 3. "Salvia grandiflora subsp.S. willeana" Holmboe is to be cited asSalvia grandiflora subsp.
willeana Holmboe.

Ex. 4. "Phyllerpa prolifera var.Ph. firma" Kütz. is to be altered toPhyllerpa prolifera var.firma
Kütz.

24.5. Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear the same epithets;
those within one species may bear the same epithets as other species (but see
Rec. 24B).

Ex. 5. Rosa jundzillii var.leioclada andRosa glutinosa var.leioclada; Viola tricolor var.hirta in
spite of the previous existence of a different species namedViola hirta.

Note 1. The use within the same species of the same epithet for infraspecific taxa, even if they are
of different rank, based on different types is illegitimate under Art.64.3.

Recommendation24A

24A.1. Recommendations made for specific epithets (Recs.23A,B) apply equally to infraspecific
epithets.

Recommendation24B

24B.1. Authors proposing new infraspecific epithets should avoid those previously used for
species in the same genus.

Article25

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. In fungi, a holo-
morph (see Art.59.4) also includes its correlated form-taxa.

Ex. 1. WhenMontia parvifolia (DC.) Greene is treated as containing two subspecies, the nameM.
parvifolia applies to the sum of these subordinate taxa. Under this taxonomic treatment, one must
writeM. parvifolia (DC.) Greene subsp.parvifolia if only that part ofM. parvifolia which includes
its nomenclatural type and excludes the type of the name of the other subspecies (M. parvifolia
subsp.flagellaris (Bong.) Ferris) is meant.

Article26

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, but not followed by an authors
name (see Art.46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art.6.8; see also Art.
7.21).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 31 –

______________________________________________________________________

27	Infraspecific taxa

Ex. 1. The combinationLobelia spicata var.originalis McVaugh, applying to a taxon which in-
cludes the type of the nameLobelia spicata Lam., is to be replaced byLobelia spicata Lam. var.
spicata.

Note 1. This provision applies only to the names of those subordinate taxa that include the type of
the adopted name of the species (but see Rec. 26A).

26.2. The first valid publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon that does
not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species automati-
cally establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts.32.6 and57.3).

Ex. 2. The publication of the nameLycopodium inundatum var.bigelovii Tuckerman (1843)
automatically established the name of another variety,Lycopodium inundatum L. var.inundatum,
the type of which is that of the nameLycopodium inundatum L.

Ex. 3. Utricularia stellaris L. f. (1781) includesU. stellaris var.coromandeliana A. DC. (1844) and
U. stellaris L. f. var.stellaris (1844) automatically established at the same time. WhenU. stellaris is
included inU. inflexa Forsskål (1775) as a variety the correct name of the variety, under Art.57.3,
isU. inflexa var.stellaris (L. f.) P. Taylor (1961).

Recommendation26A

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 epithet and type as the subspecies 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 epithet and type as a name of one of
its subordinate varieties.

26A.3. A taxon of lower rank than variety which includes the type of the correct name of a subspe-
cies 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 epithet and type as the name of the sub-
species or variety. On the other hand, a subspecies or variety which does not include the type of the
correct name of the species should not be given a name with the same epithet as the name of one
of its subordinate taxa below the rank of variety.

Ex. 1. Fernald treatedStachys palustris subsp.pilosa (Nutt.) Epling as composed of five varieties,
for one of which (that including the type ofS. palustris subsp.pilosa) he made the combinationS.
palustris var.pilosa (Nutt.) Fern., there being no legitimate varietal name available.

Ex. 2. There being no legitimate name available at the rank of subspecies, Bonaparte made the
combinationPteridium aquilinum subsp.caudatum (L.) Bonap., using the same epithet that
Sadebeck had used earlier in the combinationP. aquilinum var.caudatum (L.) Sadeb. (both names
based onPteris caudata L.). Each name is legitimate, and both can be used, as by Tryon, who
treatedP. aquilinum var.caudatum as one of four varieties under subsp.caudatum.

Article27

27.1. The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat
unchanged the epithet of the correct name of the species to which the taxon is
assignedunless the two names have the same type.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 32 –

______________________________________________________________________

Cultivated plants

SECTION6. NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION

Article28

28.1. Plants brought from the wild into cultivation retain the names that are
applied to the same taxa growing in nature.

28.2. Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as
provided inAppendix I (see also Arts.40, and50).

Note 1. Additional, independent designations for plants used in agriculture, forestry, and horticul-
ture (and arising either in nature or cultivation) are dealt with in the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, where regulations are provided for their formation and use.
However, nothing precludes the use for cultivated plants of names published in accordance with
the requirements of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

Note 2. Epithets published in conformity with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
may be used as cultivar epithets under the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants, when this is considered to be the appropriate status for the groups concerned.
Otherwise, cultivar epithets published on or after 1 January 1959 in conformity with the Inter-
national Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants are required to be fancy names markedly
different from epithets of names in Latin form governed by the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (see that Code, Art. 27).

Ex. 1. Cultivar names:Taxus baccata 'Variegata' orTaxus baccata cv. Variegata (based onT.
baccata var.variegata Weston),Phlox drummondii 'Sternenzauber',Viburnum ×bodnantense
"Dawn".

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 33 –

______________________________________________________________________

29	Effective publication

CHAPTERIV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

SECTION1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

Article29

29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed
matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to
botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not
effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of
names in collections or gardens open to the public, or by the issue of microfilm
made from manuscripts, type-scripts or other unpublished material.

Ex. 1. Cusson announced his establishment of the genusPhysospermum in a memoir read at the
Société des Sciences de Montpellier in 1770, and later in 1782 or 1783 at the Société de Médecine
de Paris, but its effective publication dates from 1787 in the Mémoires de la Société Royale de
Médecine de Paris 5(1): 279.

29.2. Publication by indelible autograph before 1 Jan. 1953 is effective.

Ex. 2. Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr. was effectively published in July 1850 in an autograph cata-
logue placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich, Catalogus Plantarum Hispanicarum ... ab A. Blanco
lectarum. Paris, July 1850, folio).

Ex. 3. H. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914-1915), a work lithographed from the handwritten
manuscript, is effectively published.

29.3. For the purpose of this Article, handwritten material, even though repro-
duced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography, offset, or
metallic etching), is still considered as autographic.

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

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 34 –

______________________________________________________________________

Effective publication

30-31

Recommendation29A

29A.1. It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing new names and descriptions of
new taxa in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular that which is multiplied in restrict-
ed and uncertain numbers, where the permanence of the text may be limited, where the effective
publication in terms of number of copies is not obvious, or where the printed matter is unlikely to
reach the general public. Authors should also avoid publishing new names and descriptions in
popular periodicals, in abstracting journals, or on correction slips.

Article30

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

Ex. 1. Individual parts of Willdenows Species Plantarum were published as follows: 1(1), 1797;
1(2), 1798; 2(1), 1799; 2(2), 1799 or January 1800; 3(1) (to page 850), 1800; 3(2) (to page 1470),
1802; 3(3) (to page 2409),1803 (and later than Michauxs Flora Boreali-Americana); 4(1) (to page
630), 1805; 4(2), 1806; these dates, which are partly in disagreement with those on the title-pages of
the volumes, are accepted as the correct dates of effective publication.

30.2. When separates from periodicals or other works placed on sale are
issued in advance, the date on the separate is accepted as the date of effective
publication unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.

Ex. 2. Publication in separates issued in advance: the names of theSelaginella species published by
Hieronymus in Hedwigia 51: 241-272 (1912) were effectively published on 15 Oct. 1911, since the
volume in which the paper appeared states (p. ii) that the separate appeared on that date.

Recommendation30A

30A.1. The date on which the publisher or his agent delivers printed matter to one of the usual
carriers for distribution to the public should be accepted as its date of effective publication.

Article31

31.1. The distribution on or after 1 Jan. 1953 of printed matter accompanying
exsiccata does not constitute effective publication.

Note 1. If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the exsiccata, this constitutes
effective publication.

Ex. 1. Works such as Schedae operis . . . plantae finlandiae exsiccatae, Helsingfors 1. 1906, 2. 1916,
3. 1933, 1944, or Lundell & Nannfeldt, Fungi exsiccati suecici etc., Uppsala 1-. . ., 1934-. . ., distrib-
uted independently of the exsiccata, whether published before or after 1 Jan. 1953, are effectively
published.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 35 –

______________________________________________________________________

32	Valid publication

SECTION2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

Article32

32.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted)
must(a) be effectively published (see Art. 29) on or after the starting-point
date of the respective group (Art.13.1);(b) have a form which complies with
the provisions of Arts.16-27 and Arts.H.6-7;(c) be accompanied by a de-
scription or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished description or diagnosis (except as provided in Art.H.9); and(d) com-
ply with the special provisions of Arts.33-45.

Ex. 1. Egeria Néraud (in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot. 25, 28. 1826), published without a de-
scription or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one, was not validly published.

Ex. 2. The nameLoranthus macrosolen Steudel originally appeared without a description or
diagnosis on the printed labels issued about the year 1843 with Sect. II. no. 529, 1288, of Schimpers
herbarium specimens of Abyssinian plants; it was not validly published, however, until A. Richard
(Tent. Pl. Abyss. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.

Ex. 3. In Sweets 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. New names appearing in that work are
therefore not validly published, except in some cases where reference is made to earlier descrip-
tions or to validly published basionyms.

32.2. A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the opinion of its
author distinguishes the taxon from others.

32.3. For the purpose of valid publication of a name,reference to a previously
and effectively published description or diagnosis may bedirect or indirect
(Art. 32.4). For namespublished on or after 1 Jan. 1953 it must, however, be
full and direct as specified in Art. 33.2.

32.4. An indirect reference is a clear indication, by the citation of the authors
name or in some other way, that a previously and effectively published descrip-
tion or diagnosis applies.

Ex. 4. Kratzmannia Opiz (in Berchtold & Opiz, Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398. 1836) is pub-
lished with a diagnosis, but it was not definitely accepted by the author and is therefore not validly
published. It is accepted definitely in Opiz (Seznam 56. 1852), but without any description or
diagnosis. The citation of"Kratzmannia O." includes an indirect reference to the previously
published diagnosis in 1836.

Ex. 5. Opiz published the name of the genusHemisphace (Bentham) Opiz (1852) without a
description or diagnosis, but as he wrote"Hemisphace Benth." he indirectly referred to the pre-
viously effectively published description by Bentham (Labiat. Gen. Spec. 193. 1833) ofSalvia sect.
Hemisphace.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 36 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

Ex. 6. The new combinationCymbopogon martini (Roxb.) W. Watson (1882) is validated by the
addition of the number"309", which, as explained at the top of the same page, is the running-
number of the species (Andropogon martini Roxb.) in Steudel (Syn. Pl. Glum. 1: 388. 1854).
Although the reference to the basionymAndropogon martini is indirect, it is perfectly unam-
biguous.

32.5. Names published with an incorrect Latin termination but otherwise in
accordance with this Code are regarded as validly published; they are to be
changed to accord with Arts.17-19,21,23, and24, without change of the
authors name or date of publication(see also Art.73.10).

32.6. Autonyms (Art.6.8) are accepted as validly published names, dating
from the publication in which they were established (see Arts.19.4,22.2,26.2),
whether or not they appear in print in that publication.

Note 1. In certain circumstances an illustration with analysis is accepted as equivalent to a descrip-
tion (see Arts.42 and44).

Note 2. For names of plant taxa that were originally not treated as plants, see Art.45.4.

Recommendation32A

32A.1. A name should not be validated solely by a reference to a description or diagnosis pub-
lished before 1753.

Recommendation32B

32B.1. The description or diagnosis of any new taxon should mention the points in which the taxon
differs from its allies.

Recommendation32C

32C.1. Authors should avoid adoption of a name which has been previously but not validly pub-
lished for a different taxon.

Recommendation32D

32D.1. In describing new taxa, authors should, when possible, supply figures with details of struc-
ture as an aid to identification.

32D.2. In the explanation of the figures, it is valuable to indicate the specimen(s) on which they
are based.

32D.3. Authors should indicate clearly and precisely the scale of the figures which they publish.

Recommendation32E

32E.1. The description or diagnosis of parasitic plants should always be followed by an indication
of the hosts, especially those of parasitic fungi. The hosts should be designated by their scientific
names and not solely by names in modern languages, the applications of which are often doubtful.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 37 –

______________________________________________________________________

33	Valid publication

Article33

33.1. A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless the
author definitelyassociates thefinal epithetwith the name of the genus or
species, or with its abbreviation.

Ex. 1. C ombinations validly published: In Linnaeuss Species Plantarum the placing of the epithet
in the margin opposite the name of the genus clearlyassociates the epithet with the name of the
genus. The same result is attained in Millers Gardeners Dictionary, ed. 8, by the inclusion of the
epithet in parentheses immediately after the name of the genus, in Steudels Nomenclator Botani-
cus by the arrangement of the epithets in a list headed by the name of the genus, and in general by
any typographical device which associatesan epithet with a particular generic or specific name.

Ex. 2. C ombinations not validly published: Rafinesques statement underBlephilia that"Le type
de ce genre est laMonarda ciliata Linn." (J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not
constitutevalid publication of the combinationBlephilia ciliata, since he did notdefinitely as-
sociate the epithetciliata with the generic nameBlephilia. Similarly, the combinationEulophus
peucedanoides is not to be ascribed to Bentham on the basis of the listing of"Cnidium peucedano-
ides, H. B. et K." underEulophus (in Bentham & Hooker, Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867).

33.2. A new combination, or an avowed substitute (nomen novum), published
on or after 1 Jan. 1953, for a previously and validly published name is not valid-
ly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym)
or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated
and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication
with page or plate reference¹ and date.Errors ofbibliographic citation and
incorrect forms of authorcitation (seeArt.46) do not invalidate publication of
a new combinationor nomen novum.

Ex. 3. In transferringEctocarpus mucronatus Saund. toGiffordia, Kjeldsen & Phinney (Madroño
22: 90. 27 Apr. 1973) cited the basionym and its author but without reference to its place of valid
publication. They later (Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul. 1973) validated the binomialGiffordia mucronata
(Saund.) Kjeldsen & Phinney by giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication
of the basionym.

Ex. 4. Aronia arbutifolia var.nigra (Willd.) Seymour (1969) was published as a new combination
"Based onMespilus arbutifolia L. var.nigra Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800." Willdenow treated
these plants in the genusPyrus, notMespilus, and publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors
are treated as bibliographic errors of citation and do not invalidate the new combination.

Ex. 5. The combinationTrichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (Contr. Gray Herb. 200: 45.
1970) with a full and direct reference toAlsophila kalbreyeri C. Chr. (Index Filic. 44. 1905). This,
however, was not the place of valid publication of the basionym, which had previously been pub-
lished, with the same type, by Baker (Summ. New Ferns 9. 1892). Tryons bibliographic error of
citation does not invalidate this new combination, which is to be cited asTrichipteris kalbreyeri
(Baker) Tryon.

——————

1) A page reference (for publications with a consecutive pagination) is here understood to
     mean a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym was validly published or on which
     the protologue is printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coex-
     tensive with that of the protologue.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 38 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

Ex. 6. The combinationLasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with a full and
direct reference toPeziza corticalis Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This, however, was 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 present Code is in Persoon (Obs. Mycol. 1:
28. 1796). Raitviirs bibliographic error of citation does not invalidate the new combination, which
is to be cited asLasiobelonium corticale (Pers.) Raitviir.

33.3. Mere reference to the Index Kewensis, the Index of Fungi, or any work
other than that in which the name was validly published does not constitute a
full and direct reference to the original publication of a name.

Ex. 7. Ciferri (Mycopath. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86-89. 1954), in proposing 142 new combinations in
Meliola, omitted references to places of publication of basionyms, stating that they could be found
in Petraks lists or in the Index of Fungi; none of these combinations was validly published. Simi-
larly, Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ. 18. 1963) introduced a new combination in the formLecanora
campestns f. "pseudistera (Nyt.) Grumm. c.n. –L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521", in which "Z 5" referred to
Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. Univ., vol. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the basionym,
Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.; Grummanns combination is not validly published.

Note 1. The publication of a name for a taxon previously known under a misapplied name must be
valid under Arts.32-45. This procedure is not the same as publishing an avowed substitute
(nomen novum) for a validly published but illegitimate name (Art.72.1(b)), the type of which is
necessarily the same as that of the name which it replaced (Art.7.11).

Ex.8. Sadleria hillebrandii Robinson (1913) was introduced as a"nom. nov." for"Sadleria pallida
Hilleb. Fl. Haw. Is. 582. 1888. Not Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. 75. 1832." Since the requirements of
Arts.32-45 were satisfied (for valid publication prior to 1935, simple reference to a previous
description in any language is sufficient), the name is validly published. It is, however, to be
considered the name of a new species, validated by the citation of the misapplication ofS. pallida
Hooker & Arn. by Hillebrand, and not a nomen novum as stated; hence, Art.7.11 does not apply.

Ex.9. Juncus bufonius var.occidentalis F. J. Herm. (U.S. Forest Serv. Techn. Rep. RM-18: 14.
1975) was published as a"nom. et stat. nov." forJ. sphaerocarpus"auct. Am., non Nees". Since
there is no Latin diagnosis, designation of type, or reference to any previous publication providing
these requirements, the name is not validly published.

33.4. A name given to a taxon whose rank is at the same time denoted by a
misplaced term (one contrary to Art.5) is treated as not validly published,
examples of such misplacement being a form divided into varieties, a species
containing genera, or a genus containing families or tribes.

Ex. 10. The name sectioOrontiaceae was not validly published by R. Brown (Prodr. 337. 1810)
since he misapplied the term "sectio" to taxa of a rank higher than genus.

Ex.11. The names tribusInvoluta Huth and tribusBrevipedunculata Huth (Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20:
365, 368. 1895) are not validly published, since Huth misapplied the term"tribus" to ataxon ofa
ranklower than section, within the genusDelphinium.

Ex.12. Gandoger, in his Flora Europae (1883-1891), applied the term species ("espèce") and used
binary nomenclature for two categories of taxa of consecutive rank, the higher rank being equiva-
lent to that of species in contemporary literature. He misapplied the term species to the lower rank
and the names of these taxa ("Gandogers microspecies") are not validly published.

33.5. An exception to Art. 33.4 is made for names of the subdivisions of genera
termed tribes (tribus) in Friess Systema Mycologicum, which are treated as
validly published names of subdivisions of genera.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 39 –

______________________________________________________________________

34	Valid publication

Ex.13. Agaricus tribusPholiota Fr. (1821) is a validly published basionym for the generic name
Pholiota (Fr.) P. Kummer (1871).

Recommendation33A

33A.1. The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym or replaced syn-
onym should immediately follow a proposed new combination or nomen novum. 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."

Article34

34.1. A name is not validly published(a) when it is not accepted by the author
in the original publication;(b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the
future acceptance of the group concerned, or of a particular circumscription,
position, or rank of the group (so-called provisional name);(c) when it is

merely cited as a synonym;(d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa
included in the taxon concerned.

34.2. Art. 34.1( a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or
other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet published and accepted by the author.
Art. 34.1(b) does not apply to names for anamorphs of fungi published in
holomorphic genera in anticipation of the discovery of a particular kind of
teleomorph (see Art. 59,Ex. 2 ).

Ex. 1. (a) The name of the monotypic genusSebertia Pierre (ms.) was not validly published by
Baillon (Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept it. Although he gave a
description of the taxon, he referred its only speciesSebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.) to the genus
Sersalisia R. Br. asSersalisia ?acuminata; under the provision of Art. 34.2 this combination is
validly published. The nameSebertia Pierre (ms.) was later validly published by Engler (1897).

Ex. 2. (a) The names listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium Amboinen-
se defended by Stickman (1754) were not accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not
validly published.

Ex. 3. (a) (b) The generic nameConophyton Haw., suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ. 82. 1821)
forMesembryanthemum sect.Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ. 81. 1821) in the words"If this section
proves to be a genus, the name ofConophyton would be apt", was not validly published, since
Haworth did not adopt that generic nameor accept that genus. The correct name for the genus is
Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).

Ex. 4. (c) Acosmus Desv. (in Desf., Cat. Pl. Horti Paris. 233. 1829), cited as a synonym of the
generic nameAspicarpa Rich., was not validly published thereby.

Ex. 5. (c) Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch. (in Kunth, Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843), cited as a
synonym underMyogalum boucheanum Kunth, was not validly published thereby; when trans-
ferred toOrnithogalum, this species is to be calledO. boucheanum (Kunth) Ascherson (1866).

Ex. 6. (c) Erythrina micropteryx Poeppig was not validly published by being cited as a synonym of
Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (1850); the species concerned, when placed underErythrina, is to
be calledE. poeppigiana (Walp.) Cook (1901).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 40 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

Ex. 7. (d) The family nameRhaptopetalaceae Pierre (Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. May
1897), which was accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera,Brazzeia,Scytopetalum,
andRhaptopetalum, was not validly published, as Pierre gave no description or diagnosis; the
family bears the later nameScytopetalaceae Engler (Oct. 1897), which was accompanied by a
description.

Ex. 8. (d) The generic nameIbidium Salisb. (Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812) was published
merely with the mention of four included species. As Salisbury supplied no generic description or
diagnosis, hisIbidium is not validly published.

34.3. When, on or after 1 Jan. 1953, two or more different names (so-called
alternative names) are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the
same author, none of them is validly published. This rule does not apply in
those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different
ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within a species or for subdivisions of a
genus within a genus (see Recs.22A.1-2,26A.1-3).

Ex. 9. The species ofBrosimum described by Ducke (Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23-29.
1922) were published with alternative names underPiratinera added in a footnote (pp. 23-24). The
publication of these names, being effected before 1 Jan. 1953, is valid.

Ex. 10. Euphorbia jaroslavii Polj. (Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 15:
155. tab. 1953) was published with an alternative name,Tithymalus jaroslavii. Neither name was
validly published. However, one of the names,Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a different translitera-
tion of the initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961), who effectively published it with
a new reference to the earlier publication and simultaneously rejected the other name.

Ex. 11. Description of"Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp.tumidum S. R. Hill var.tumidum, subsp.
et var. nov." (Brittonia 32: 474. 1980) simultaneously validated bothM. bicuspidatum subsp.
tumidum S. R. Hill andM. bicuspidatum var.tumidum S. R Hill.

Note 1. The name of a fungal holomorph and that of a correlated anamorph (see Art.59), even if
validated simultaneously, are not alternative names in the sense of Art. 34.3. They have different
types and do not pertain to the same taxon: the circumscription of the holomorph is considered to
include the anamorph, but not vice versa.

Ex. 12. Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929), the name of a fungal holomorph, and the simulta-
neously published name of a correlated anamorph,Helicosporium elinorae Linder, are both valid,
and both can be used under Art.59.5.

Recommendation34A

34A.1. Authors should avoid publishing or mentioning in their publications unpublished names
which they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for theseunpublished names have
not formally authorized their publication (see Rec.23B.1(i)).

Article35

35.1. A new name or combination published on or after 1 Jan. 1953 without a
clear indication of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 41 –

______________________________________________________________________

36	Valid publication

35.2. A new name or combination published before 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear
indication of 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.64.4). If it is a new name, it may serve as a
basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent combinations or avowed substi-
tutes in definite ranks.

Ex. 1. The groupsSoldanellae,Sepincoli,Occidentales, etc., were published without any indication
of rank under the genusConvolvulus by House (Muhlenbergia 4: 50. 1908). These names are
validly published but they are not in any definite rank and have no status in questions of priority
except that they may act as homonyms.

Ex. 2. In the genusCarex, the epithetScirpinae was published for an infrageneric taxon of no
stated rank by Tuckerman (Enum. Caric. 8. 1843); this was assigned sectional rank by Kükenthal
(in Engler, Pflanzenr. 38 (IV.20): 81. 1909) and if recognized at this rank is to be cited asCarex
sect.Scirpinae (Tuckerman) Kükenthal.

35.3. If in a given publication prior to 1 Jan. 1890 only one infraspecific rank is
admitted it is considered to be that of variety unless this would be contrary to
the statements of the author himself in the same publication.

35.4. 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 consid-
ered 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 published together
with the first instalment.

Article36

36.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of plants, the
algae and all fossils excepted, published on or after 1 Jan. 1935 must be ac-
companied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously
and effectively published Latin description or diagnosis (but see Art.H.9).

Ex. 1. The namesSchiedea gregoriana Degener (Pl. Hawaiiensis, fam. 119. 1936, Apr. 9) andS.
kealiae Caum & Hosaka (Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Mus. 11(23): 3. 1936, Apr. 10) were
proposed for the same plant; the type of the former is a part of the original material of the latter.
Since the nameS. gregoriana is not accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis it is not
validly published; the laterS. kealiae is legitimate.

36.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae published on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied by a Latin de-
scription or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished Latin description or diagnosis.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 42 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

37-38

Recommendation36A

36A.1. Authors publishing names of new taxa of non-fossil plants should give or cite a full descrip-
tion in Latin in addition to the diagnosis.

Article37

37.1. Publication on or after 1 Jan. 1958 of the name of a new taxon of the rank
ofgenus or below is valid only when theholotype of the name is indicated (see
Arts.7-10; but see Art. H.9,Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids).

37.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, inclusion of
reference (direct or indirect) to a single type of a name of a species is accept-
able as indication of the holotype (see also Art.22.4; but see Art. 37.4).

37.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, citation of a single
element is acceptable as indication of the holotype (but see Art. 37.4). Mere
citation of a locality without concrete reference to a specimen does not how-
ever constitute indication of a holotype. Citation of the collectors name and/or
collecting number and/or date of collection and/or reference to any other
detail of the type specimen or illustration is required.

37.4. For the name of a new taxon published on or after 1 Jan. 1990, indication
of the holotype must include one ofthe words "typus" or "holotypus", or its
abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language.

37.5. For thename of a new species or infraspecifictaxon published on or
after 1 Jan. 1990 whosetype is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the
herbarium or institution in whichthe type is conserved mustbe specified.

Note 1. Specification of the herbarium or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as
given in the Index Herbariorum.

Recommendation37A

37A.1. The indication of the nomenclatural type should immediately follow the description or
diagnosis and shoulduse the Latin word"typus" or"holotypus".

Article38

38.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of fossil plants of
specific or lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1912 must be accompanied
by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters, in addition to the
description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively pub-
lished illustration or figure.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 43 –

______________________________________________________________________

39-40

Valid publication

Article39

39.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil
algae of specific or lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be ac-
companied by an illustration or figure showing the distinctive morphological
features, in addition to the Latin description or diagnosis, or by a reference to
a previously and effectively published illustration or figure.

Recommendation39A

39A.1. The illustration or figure required by Art. 39 should be prepared from actual specimens,
preferably including the holotype.

Article40

40.1. In order to be validly published, names of hybrids of specific or lower
rank with Latin epithets must comply with the same rules as names of non-
hybrid taxa of the same rank.

Ex. 1. The nameNepeta ×faassenii Bergmans (Vaste Pl. ed. 2. 544. 1939) with a description in
Dutch, and in Gentes Herb. 8: 64 (1949) with a description in English, is not validly published, not
being accompanied by or associated with a Latin description or diagnosis. The nameNepeta
×faassenii Bergmans ex Stearn (1950) is validly published, being accompanied by a Latin descrip-
tion with designation of type.

Ex. 2. The nameRheum×cultorum Thorsrud & Reis. (Norske Plantenavr. 95. 1948), beingthere a
nomen nudum, is not validly published.

Ex. 3. The nameFumaria ×salmonii Druce (List Brit. Pl. 4. 1908) is not validly published, because
only its presumed parentageF. densiflora ×F. officinalis is stated.

Note 1. For names of hybrids of the rank of genus or subdivision of a genus, see Art.H.9.

40.2. For purposes of priority, names in Latin form given to hybrids are subject
to the same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa of equivalent rank.

Ex. 4. The name ×Solidaster Wehrh. (1932) antedates the name ×Asterago Everett (1937) for the
hybridAster ×Solidago.

Ex. 5. The name ×Gaulnettya W. J. Marchant (1937) antedates the name ×Gaulthettya Camp
(1939) for the hybridGaultheria ×Pernettya.

Ex. 6. Anemone ×hybrida Paxton (1848) antedatesA.×elegans Decne. (1852), pro sp., as the bino-
mial for the hybrids derived fromA. hupehensis ×A. vitifolia.

Ex. 7. In 1927, Aimée Camus (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 33: 538) published the name ×Agro-
elymus as thename of a nothogenus, without a Latin diagnosis or description, mentioning only the
names of the parents involved (Agropyron andElymus). Since this name was not validly published
under the Code then in force (Stockholm 1950), Jacques Rousseau, in 1952 (Mém. Jard. Bot.
Montréal 29: 10-11), published a Latin diagnosis. However, the date of valid publication of the
name ×Agroelymus under this Code (Art.H.9) is 1927, not 1952, and the name also antedates
×Elymopyrum Cugnac (Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Ardennes 33: 14. 1938) which is accompanied by a
statement of parentage and a description in French but not Latin.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 44 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

Article41

41.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a family must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis of the family, or(b) by a reference (direct or
indirect) to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a
family or subdivision of a family.

Ex. 1. The name "Pseudoditrichaceae fam. nov." was not validly published by Steere and Iwatsuki
(Canad. J. Bot. 52: 701. 1974) as there was no Latin diagnosis, description, or reference to either,
but only mention of the single included genus and species (see Art.34.1(e)), "Pseudoditrichum
mirabile gen. et sp. nov.", for both of which the name was validated under Art.42 by a single Latin
diagnosis.

41.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a genus must be accompanied
(a) by a description or diagnosis of the genus (but see Art.42), or(b) by a
reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively published descrip-
tion or diagnosis of a genus or subdivision of a genus.

Ex.2. Validly published generic names:Carphalea A. L. Juss., accompanied by a generic descrip-
tion;Thuspeinanta T. Durand, accompanied by a reference to the previously described genus
Tapeinanthus Boiss. (non Herbert);Aspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch, based on a previously de-
scribed section,Anthyllis sect.Aspalathoides DC.;Scirpoides Scheuchzer ex Séguier (Pl. Veron.
Suppl. 73. 1754), accepted there but without a generic description, validated 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).

Note 1. An exception to Art. 41.2 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 on those dates (see Art.13.4).

Note 2. In certain circumstances, an illustration with analysis is accepted as equivalent to a generic
description (see Art.42.2).

41.3. In order to be validly published, a name of a species must be accompa-
nied(a) by a description or diagnosis of the species (but see Arts.42 and44),
or(b) by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or
diagnosis of a species or infraspecific taxon, or(c), under certain circumstan-
ces, by reference to a genus whose name was previously and validly published
simultaneously with its description or diagnosis. A reference as mentioned
under (c) is acceptable only if neither the author of the name of the genus nor
the author of the name of the species indicate that more than one species
belongs to the genus in question.

Ex. 3. Trilepisium Thouars (1806) was validated by a generic description but without mention of a
name of a species.Trilepisium madagascariense DC. (1828) was subsequently proposed without a
description of the species. Neither author gave any indication that there was more than one species
in the genus. Augustin-Pyramus de Candolles specific name is therefore validly published.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 45 –

______________________________________________________________________

42-43

Valid publication

Article42

42.1. The names of a genus and a species may be simultaneously validated 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 obtain:(a) the genus is at that time monotypic;(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. Reference to an earlier description or
diagnosis is not accepted as provision of such a description or diagnosis.

Note 1. In this context 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. 1. The namesKedarnatha Mukherjee & Constance (Brittonia 38: 147. 1986) andKedarnatha
sanctuarii Mukherjee & Constance, the latter designating the only species in the new genus, are
both validly published although a Latin description is provided only under the generic name.

Ex. 2. Piptolepis phillyreoides Bentham is a new species assigned to the monotypic new genus
Piptolepis published with a combined generic and specific description.

Ex. 3. In publishingPhaelypea without a generic description, P. Browne (Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica
269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave the species a phrase-name and did
not provide a valid binomial. Art. 42 does not therefore apply andPhaelypea is not validly pub-
lished.

42.2. Prior to 1 Jan. 1908 an illustration with analysis, or for non-vascular
plants a single figure showing details aiding identification, is acceptable, for the
purpose of this Article, in place of a written description or diagnosis.

Note 2. An analysis in this context is a figure or group of figures, commonly separate from the
main illustration of the plant (though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding
identification, with or without a separate caption.

Ex. 4. The generic namePhilgamia Baillon (1894) was validly published, as it appeared on a plate
with analysis of the only included species,P. hibbertioides Baillon, and was published before 1 Jan.
1908.

Article43

43.1. 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.

Ex. 1. Binary designations for six species ofSuaeda, includingSuaeda baccata andS. vera, were
published with diagnoses and descriptions by Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab. 69-71. 1775), but he
provided no diagnosis or description for the genus: these specific names were therefore, like the
generic name, not validly published by him.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 46 –

______________________________________________________________________

Valid publication

44-45

Ex. 2. In 1880, Müller Argoviensis (Flora 63: 286) published the new genusPhlyctidia with the
speciesP. hampeana n. sp.,P. boliviensis (=Phlyctis boliviensis Nyl.),P. sorediiformis (=Phlyctis
sorediiformis Kremp.),P. brasiliensis (=Phlyctis brasiliensis Nyl.), andP. andensis (=Phlyctis
andensis Nyl.). These specific names are, however, not validly published in this place, because the
generic namePhlyctidia was not validly published; Müller gave no generic description or diagnosis
but only a description and a diagnosis of the new speciesP. hampeana. This description and di-
agnosis cannot validate the generic name as a descriptio generico-specifica under Art.42 since the
new genus was not monotypic. Valid publication of the namePhlyctidia was by Müller (1895), who
provided a short generic diagnosis. The only species mentioned here wereP. ludoviciensis n. sp.
andP. boliviensis (Nyl.). The latter combination was validly published in 1895 by the reference to
the basionym.

Note 1. This Article applies also to specific and other epithets published under words not to be
regarded as generic names (see Art.20.4).

Ex. 3. The binary combinationAnonymos aquatica Walter (Fl. Carol. 230. 1788) is not validly
published. The correct name for the species concerned isPlanera aquatica J. F. Gmelin (1791),
and the date of the name, for purposes of priority, is 1791. The species must not be cited asPla-
nera aquatica (Walter) J. F. Gmelin.

Ex. 4. The binary combinationScirpoides paradoxus Rottb. (Descr. Pl. Rar. Progr. 27. 1772) is not
validly published sinceScirpoides in this context is a word not intended as a generic name. The
first validly published name for this species isFuirena umbellata Rottb. (1773).

Article44

44.1. The name of a species or of an infraspecific taxon published before 1
Jan. 1908 is validly published if it is accompanied only by an illustration with
analysis (see Art. 42,Note 2).

Ex. 1. Panax nossibiensis Drake (1896) was validly published on a plate with analysis.

44.2. Single figures of non-vascular plants showing details aiding identification
are considered as illustrations with analysis (see Art. 42,Note 2).

Ex. 2. Eunotia gibbosa Grunow (1881), a name of a diatom, was validly published by provision of a
single figure of the valve.

Article45

45.1. The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When the various con-
ditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is that on
which the last is fulfilled. However, the name must always be explicitly ac-
cepted in the place of its validation. A name published on or after 1 Jan. 1973
for which the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously
fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and direct reference(Art.33.2) is
given to the places where these requirements were previously fulfilled.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 47 –

______________________________________________________________________

45	Valid publication

Ex. 1. Clypeola minor firstappeared in the Linnaean thesis Flora Monspeliensis (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 explaining that the numbers referred to earlier descrip-
tions published in Magnols Botanicon Monspeliense. However,Clypeola minor was absent from
the reprint, being no longer accepted by Linnaeus, andthe name is not therefore validly published.

Ex. 2. When proposingGraphis meridionalis as a new species, in 1966. Nakanishi (J. Sci. Hiro-
shima Univ., ser. B (2), 11: 75) provided a Latin description but failed to designate a holotype.
Graphis meridionalis Nakanishi was validly published only in 1967 (J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., ser.
B (2), 11: 265) when he designated the holotype of the name and provided a full and direct re-
ference to the previous publication.

45.2. A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art.73) does not
affect its date of valid publication.

Ex. 3. The correction of the orthographic error inGluta benghas L. (Mant. 293. 1771) toGluta
renghas L. does not affect the date of publication of the name even though the correction dates
only from 1883 (Engler in A. DC. & C. DC., Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).

45.3. For purposes of priority only legitimate names are taken into considera-
tion (see Arts.11,63-65). However, validly published earlier homonyms,
whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection of their later homonyms, unless
the latter are conservedor sanctioned(but see Art. 14Note 2).

45.4. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is
treated as belonging to a group of plants other than algae, the authorship and
date of any of its names are determined by the first publication that satisfies
the requirements for valid publication under this Code. If the taxon is treated
as belonging to the algae, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements
of the pertinent non-botanical code for status equivalent to valid publication
under the botanical Code (but see Art.65, regarding homonymy).

Ex. 4. Amphiprora Ehrenb. (1843) is an available¹ name for a genus of animals first treated as
belonging to the algae by Kützing (1844).Amphiprora has priority in botanical nomenclature from
1843, not 1844.

Ex. 5. Petalodinium J. Cachon & M. Cachon (Protistologica 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 retains its original authorship and date even
though the original publication lacked a Latin diagnosis.

Ex. 6. Labyrinthodyction Valkanov (Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969), although available under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the name of a genus of rhizopods, is not valid
when the taxon is treated as belonging to the fungi because the original publication lacked a Latin
diagnosis.

Ex. 7. Protodiniferidae Kofoid & Swezy (Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921), available under the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, is validly published as a name of a family of algae
with its original authorship and date but with the termination-idae changed to-aceae (in accord-
ance with Arts.18.4 and32.5).

——————

1) The word"available" in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is equivalent to
"validly published" in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 48 –

______________________________________________________________________

Citation

Recommendation45A

45A.1. Authors using new names in works written in a modern language (floras, catalogues, etc.)
should simultaneously comply with the requirements of valid publication.

Recommendation45B

45B.1. Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In a work ap-
pearing in parts the last-published sheet of the volume should indicate the precise dates on which
the different fascicles or parts of the volume were published as well as the number of pages and
plates in each.

Recommendation45C

45C.1. On separately printed and issued copies of works published in a periodical, the name of the
periodical, the number of its volume or parts, the original pagination, and the date (year, month,
and day) should be indicated.

SECTION3. CITATION OF AUTHORS' NAMES FOR PURPOSES OF PRECISION

Article46

46.1. For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate and complete,
and in order that the date may be readily verified, it is necessary to cite the
name of the author(s) who validly published the name concerned unless the
provisions for autonyms apply (Arts.19.3,22.1, and26.1; see also Art.16.1).

Ex. 1. Rosaceae A. L. Juss.,Rosa L.,Rosa gallica L.,Rosa gallica var.eriostyla R. Keller,Rosa
gallica L. var.gallica.

46.2. When a nameof a taxonand its description or diagnosis (or reference to
a description or diagnosis)are supplied by one author but published in a work
by another author, the word "in"is to be used to connect the names of the two
authors.When it is desirable tosimplifysuch a citation, the name of the author
who supplied the description or diagnosisis to be retained.

Ex. 2. Viburnum ternatum Rehder in Sargent, Trees and Shrubs 2: 37 (1907), orV. ternatum
Rehder;Teucrium charidemi Sandw. in Lacaita, Cavanillesia 3: 38 (1930), orT. charidemi Sandw.

46.3. When an author who validly publishes a name ascribes it to another per-
son,e.g. to an author who failed to fulfil all requirements for valid publication
of the name orto an author who published the name prior to the nomenclatu-
ral starting point of the group concerned (see Art.13.1), the correct author
citation is the name of thevalidating author, but the name of the other person,
followed by the connecting word "ex", may be inserted before the name of the
validating author(see also Rec.50A.2). The same holds for names of garden
origin ascribed to "hort.",meaning "hortulanorum".

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 49 –

______________________________________________________________________

46	Citation

Ex. 3. Gossypium tomentosum Seemann orG. tomentosum Nutt. ex Seemann;Lithocarpus poly-
stachyus (A. DC.) Rehder orL. polystachyus (Wall. ex A. DC.) Rehder;Orchis rotundifolia Pursh
orO. rotundifolia Banks ex Pursh;Carex stipata Willd. orC. stipata Muhlenb. ex Willd.;Gesneria
donklarii Hooker orG. donklarii hort. ex Hooker.

Ex. 4. Lupinus L. orLupinus Tourn. ex L.;Euastrum binale Ralfs orE. binale Ehrenb. ex Ralfs.

Ex. 5. The nameLichen debilis, which was validly published by Smith (1812) with "Calicium debile.
Turn. and Borr. Mss." cited as a synonym, is not to be attributed to "Turner & Borrer ex Smith"
(see also Rec.50A.2).

Recommendation46A

46A.1. Authors names put after names of plants may be abbreviated, unless they are very short.
For this purpose, particlesshould be suppressed unless they are an inseparable part of the name,
and the first lettersshould be given without any omission (Lam. for J. B. P. A. Monet Chevalier de
Lamarck, but De Wild. for E. De Wildeman).

46A.2. If a name of one syllable is long enough to make it worth while to abridge it, the first
consonants onlyshould be given (Fr. for Elias Magnus Fries); if the name has two or more sylla-
bles, the first syllable and the first letter of the following oneshould be taken, or the two first when
both are consonants (Juss. for Jussieu, Rich. for Richard).

46A.3. When it is necessary to give more of a name to avoid confusion between names beginning
with the same syllable, the same systemshould be followed. For instance, two syllablesshould be
given together with the one or two first consonants of the third; or one of the last characteristic
consonants of the namebe added (Bertol. for Bertoloni, to distinguish it from Bertero; Michx. for
Michaux, to distinguish it from Micheli).

46A.4. Given names or accessory designations serving to distinguish two botanists of the same
nameshould be abridged in the same way (Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu, Gaertner f. for
Gaertner filius, J. F. Gmelin for Johann Friedrich Gmelin, J. G. Gmelin for Johann Georg Gme-
lin, C. C. Gmelin for Carl Christian Gmelin, S. G. Gmelin for Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin, Müll. Arg.
for Jean Müller of Aargau).

46A.5. When it is a well-established custom to abridge a name in another manner, it isadvisable
to conform to it (L. for Linnaeus, DC. forAugustin-Pyramus de Candolle, St.-Hil. for Saint
Hilaire, R. Br. for Robert Brown).

Recommendation46B

46B.1. In citing the author of the scientific name of a taxon, the romanization of the authors
name(s) given in the original publication should normally be accepted. Where an author failed to
give a romanization, or where an author has at different times used different romanizations, then
the romanization known to be preferred by the author or that most frequently adopted by the
author should be accepted. In the absence of such information the authors name should be ro-
manized in accordance with an internationally available standard.

46B.2. Authors of scientific names whose personal names are not written in Roman letters should
romanize their names, preferably (but not necessarily) in accordance with an internationally
available standard and, as a matter of typographic convenience, without diacritical signs. Once
authors have selected the romanization of their personal names, they should use it consistently
thereafter. Whenever possible, authors should not permit editors or publishers to change the
romanization of their personal names.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 50 –

______________________________________________________________________

Citation

47-48

Recommendation46C

46C.1. When a name has been published jointly by two authors, the names of both should be cited,
linked by means of the word"et" or by an ampersand (&).

Ex. 1. Didymopanax gleasonii Britton et Wilson (or Britton & Wilson).

46C.2. When a name has been published jointly by more than two authors, the citation should be
restricted to that of the first one followed by"et al."

Ex. 2. Lapeirousia erythrantha var.welwitschii (Baker) Geerinck, Lisowski, Malaisse & Symoens
(Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique 105: 336. 1972) should be cited asL. erythrantha var.welwitschii
(Baker) Geerinck et al.

Recommendation46D

46D.1. Authorsshould cite their own namesafter each new name they publish; the expression
"nobis" (nob.) or a similar reference to themselvesshouldbe avoided.

Article47

47.1. An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a
taxon without the exclusion of the type does not warrant the citation of the
name of an author other than the one who first published its name.

Examples: see under Art.51.

Recommendation47A

47A.1. When an alteration as mentioned in Art. 47 has been considerable, the nature of the
change may be indicated by adding such words, abbreviated where suitable, as"emendavit"
(emend.) (followed by the name of the author responsible for the change),"mutatis characteribus"
(mut. char.),"pro parte" (p. p.),"excluso genere" or"exclusis generibus" (excl. gen.),"exclusa
specie" or"exclusis speciebus" (excl. sp.),"exclusa varietate" or"exclusis varietatibus" (excl. var.).
"sensu amplo" (s. ampl.),"sensu lato" (s. l.),"sensu stricto" (s. str.), etc.

Ex. 1. Phyllanthus L. emend. Müll. Arg.;Globularia cordifolia L. excl. var. (emend. Lam.).

Article48

48.1. When an author adopts an existing name but explicitly excludes its origi-
nal type, he is considered to have published a later homonym that must be
ascribed solely to him. Similarly, when an author who adopts a name refers to
an apparent basionym but explicitly excludes its type, he is considered to have
published a new name that must be ascribed solely to him. Explicit exclusion
can be effected by simultaneous explicit inclusion of the type in a different
taxon by the same author (see also Art.59.6).

Ex. 1. Sirodot (1872) placed the type ofLemanea Bory (1808) inSacheria Sirodot (1872); hence
Lemanea, as treated by Sirodot (1872), is to be cited asLemanea Sirodot non Bory and not as
Lemanea Bory emend. Sirodot.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 51 –

______________________________________________________________________

49-50

Citation

Ex. 2. The nameAmorphophallus campanulatus, published by Decaisne, was apparently based on
Arum campanulatum Roxb. However, the type of the latter was explicitly excluded by Decaisne,
and the name is to be cited asAmorphophallus campanulatus Decne., not asAmorphophallus
campanulatus (Roxb.) Decne.

Note 1. Misapplication of a new combination to a different taxon, but without explicit exclusion of
the type of the basionym, is dealt with under Arts.55.2 and56.2.

Note 2. Retention of a name in a sense that excludes the type can be effected only by conservation
(see Art.14.8).

Article49

49.1. When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank but retains its
name or epithet, the author of the earlier, epithet-bringing legitimate name
(the author of the basionym) must be cited in parentheses, followed by the
name of the author who effected the alteration (the author of the new name).
The same holds when a taxon of lower rank than genus is transferred to an-
other genus or species, with or without alteration of rank.

Ex. 1. Medicago polymorpha var.orbicularis L. when raised to the rank of species becomesMedi-
cago orbicularis (L.) Bartal.

Ex. 2. Anthyllis sect.Aspalathoides DC. raised to generic rank, retaining the epithetAspalatho-
ides as its name, is cited asAspalathoides (DC.) K. Koch.

Ex. 3. Cineraria sect.Eriopappus Dumort. (Pl. Belg. 65. 1827) when transferred toTephroseris
(Reichenb.) Reichenb. is cited asTephroseris sect.Eriopappus (Dumort.) Holub (Folia Geobot.
Phytotax. Bohem. 8: 173. 1973).

Ex. 4. Cistus aegyptiacus L. when transferred toHelianthemum Miller is cited asHelianthemum
aegyptiacum (L.) Miller.

Ex. 5. Fumaria bulbosa var.solida L. (1753) was elevated to specific rank asF. solida (L.) Miller
(1771). The name of this species when transferred toCorydalis is to be cited asC. solida (L.)
Clairv. (1811), notC. solida (Miller) Clairv.

Ex. 6. However,Pulsatilla montana var.serbica W. Zimmerm. (Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni
Veg. 61: 95. 1958), originally placed underP. montana subsp.australis (Heuffel) Zam., retains the
same author citation when placed underP. montana subsp.dacica Rummelsp. (see Art.24.1) and
is not cited as var.serbica (W. Zimmerm.) Rummelsp. (Feddes Repert. 71: 29. 1965).

Ex. 7. Salix subsect.Myrtilloides C. Schneider (Ill. Handb. Laubholzk. 1: 63. 1904), originally
placed underS. sect.Argenteae Koch, retains the same author citation when placed underS. sect.
Glaucae Pax and is not cited asS. subsect.Myrtilloides (C. Schneider) Dorn (Canad. J. Bot. 54:
2777. 1976).

Article50

50.1. When a taxon at the rank of species or below istransferred from the
non-hybrid category to the hybrid category ofthe same rank (Art.H.10.2), or
vice versa, the authorcitationremainsunchanged but may be followed by an
indication in parentheses of the originalcategory.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 52 –

______________________________________________________________________

Citation

Ex. 1. Stachys ambigua Smith was published asthe name of a species. If regarded asapplying to a
hybrid, itmay be cited asStachys ×ambigua Smith (pro sp.).

Ex. 2. The binary nameSalix ×glaucops Andersson was published as the name of a hybrid. Later,
Rydberg (Bull. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 270. 1899)considered the taxonto be a species. If this view
is accepted, the namemay be cited asSalix glaucops Andersson (pro hybr.).

SECTION4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITATION

Recommendation50A

50A.1. In the citation of a name published as a synonym, the words"as synonym" or"pro syn."
should be added.

50A.2. When an author has published as a synonym a manuscript name of another author, the
word"ex" should be used in citations to connect the names of the two authors (see alsoArt.46.3).

Ex. 1. Myrtus serratus, a manuscript name of Koenig published by Steudel as a synonym ofEuge-
nia laurina Willd., should be cited thus:Myrtus serratus Koenig ex Steudel, pro syn.

Recommendation50B

50B.1. In the citation of a nomen nudum, its status should be indicated by adding the words
"nomen nudum" or"nom. nud."

Ex. 1. Carex bebbii Olney (Car. Bor.-Am. 2: 12. 1871), published without a diagnosis or descrip-
tion, should be cited as a nomen nudum.

Recommendation50C

50C.1. The citation of a later homonym should be followed by the name of the author of the
earlier homonym preceded by the word"non", preferably with the date of publication added. In
some instances it will be advisable to cite also any other homonyms, preceded by the word"nec".

Ex. 1. Ulmus racemosa Thomas, Amer. J. Sci. Arts 19: 170 (1831), non Borkh. 1800;Lindera
Thunb., Nov. Gen. Pl. 64 (1783), non Adanson 1763;Bartlingia Brongn., Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 10:
373 (1827), non Reichenb. 1824 nec F. Muell. 1882.

Recommendation50D

50D.1. Misidentifications should not be included in synonymies but added after them. A misap-
plied name should be indicated by the words"auct. non" followed by the name of the original
author and the bibliographic reference of the misidentification.

Ex. 1. Ficus stortophylla Warb. in Warb. & De Wild., Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, B, Bot. ser. 4, 1: 32
(1904).F. irumuensis De Wild., Pl. Bequaert. 1: 341 (1922).F. exasperata auct. non Vahl: De Wild.
& T. Durand, Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, B, Bot. ser. 2, 1: 54 (1899); De Wild., Miss. Em. Laurent 26
(1905); T. Durand & H. Durand, Syll. Pl. Congol. 505 (1909).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 53 –

______________________________________________________________________

50	Citation

Recommendation50E

50E.1. If a generic or specific name is accepted as a nomen conservandum (see Art.14 andApp.
III) the abbreviation"nom. cons." should be addedin a full citation.

Ex. 1. Protea L., Mant. Pl. 187 (1771), nom. cons., non L. 1753;Combretum Loefl. (1758), nom.
cons. (syn. priusGrislea L. 1753).

50E.2. If it is desirable to indicate the sanctioned status of the names of fungi adopted by Persoon
or Fries (see Art.13.1(d)),": Pers." or": Fr." should be added to the citation.

Ex. 2. Boletus piperatus Bull. : Fr.

Recommendation50F

50F.1. I f a name iscited with alterations from the form as originally published, it is desirable that
in full citations the exact original form should be added, preferably betweensingle or double
quotation marks.

Ex. 1. Pyrus calleryana Decne. (Pyrus mairei H. Léveillé, Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12: 189.
1913,"Pirus").

Ex. 2. Zanthoxylum cribrosum Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 1: 946 (1825),"Xanthoxylon". (Zanthoxylum
caribaeum var.floridanum (Nutt.) A. Gray, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 23: 225. 1888,"Xanthoxylum").

Ex. 3. Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson, Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496 (1967),"solomonensis".

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 54 –

______________________________________________________________________

Remodelling of taxa

51-52

CHAPTERV. RETENTION, CHOICE, AND REJECTION OF

NAMES AND EPITHETS

SECTION1. RETENTION OF NAMES OR EPITHETS WHEN TAXA

ARE REMODELLED OR DIVIDED

Article51

51.1. An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a
taxon does not warrant a change in its name, except as may be required (a) by
transference of the taxon (Arts.54–56), or (b) by its union with another taxon
of the same rank (Arts.57,58), or (c) by a change of its rank (Art.60).

Ex. 1. The genusMyosotis as revised by R. Brown differs from the original genus of Linnaeus, but
the generic name has not been changed, nor is a change allowable, since the type ofMyosotis L.
remains in the genus; it is cited asMyosotis L. or asMyosotis L. emend. R. Br. (see Art.47, Rec.
47A).

Ex. 2. Various authors have united withCentaurea jacea L. one or two species which Linnaeus
had kept distinct; the taxon so constituted is calledCentaurea jacea L. sensu amplo orCentaurea
jacea L. emend. Cosson & Germ., emend. Vis., or emend. Godron, etc.; any new name for this
taxon, such asCentaurea vulgaris Godron, is superfluous and illegitimate.

51.2. An exception to Art.51.1 is made for the family namePapilionaceae (see
Art.18.5).

Article52

52.1. When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name, if
correct, must be retained for one of them. If a type was originally designated
the generic name must be retained for the genus including that type. If no type
has been designated, a type must be chosen (seeRec.7B).

Ex. 1. The genusDicera Forster & Forster f. was divided by Rafinesque into the two generaMisi-
pus andSkidanthera. This procedure is contrary to the rules: the nameDicera must be kept for
one of the genera, and it is now retained for that part ofDicera including the lectotype,D. dentata.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 55 –

______________________________________________________________________

53-54

Transference of taxa

Ex. 2. Among the sections which have been recognized in the genusAesculus L. areAesculus sect.
Aesculus, sect.Pavia (Miller) Walp., sect.Macrothyrsus (Spach) K. Koch, and sect.Calothyrsus
(Spach) K. Koch, the last three of which were regarded as distinct genera by the authors cited in
parentheses. In the event of these four sections being treated as genera, the nameAesculus must
be kept for the first of them, which includesAesculus hippocastanum L, the type of the generic
name.

Article53

53.1. When a species is divided into two or more species, the specific name, if
correct, must be retained for one of them. If a particular specimen, descrip-
tion, or figure was originally designated as the type, the specific name must be
retained for the species including that element. If no type has been designated,
a type must be chosen (seeRec.7B).

Ex. 1. Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (1887) was based on specimens which represented at least two
species in the opinion of Munz, who basedA. shockleyi Munz (1932) on one of the specimens cited
by Watson, retaining the nameA. beckwithii for the others (one of which may be designated as
lectotype ofA. beckwithii).

Ex. 2. Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus L (1753) was originally treated by Linnaeus as consisting of
two varieties: var.flava ("flavus") and var.fulva ("fulvus"). In 1762 he recognized these as distinct
species, calling themH. flava andH. fulva. The original specific epithet was reinstated for one of
these by Farwell (Amer. Midl. Naturalist 11: 51. 1928) and the two species are correctly namedH.
lilioasphodelus L. andH. fulva (L.) L.

53.2. The same rule applies to infraspecific taxa, for example, to a subspecies
divided into two or more subspecies, or to a variety divided into two or more
varieties.

SECTION2. RETENTION OF EPITHETS OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF

GENUS ON TRANSFERENCE TO ANOTHER GENUS OR SPECIES

Article54

54.1. When a subdivision of a genus is transferred to another genus or placed
under another generic name for the same genus without change of rank, the
epithet of its formerly correct name must be retained unless one of the fol-
lowing obstacles exists:

(a) The resulting combination has been previously and validly published for a
subdivision of a genus based on a different type;

(b) The epithet of an earlier legitimate name of the same rank is available
(but see Arts.13.1(d),58,59);

(c) Arts.21 or22 provide that another epithet be used.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 56 –

______________________________________________________________________

Transference of taxa

Ex. 1. Saponaria sect.Vaccaria DC. when transferred toGypsophila becomesGypsophila sect.
Vaccaria (DC.) Godron.

Ex. 2. Primula sect.Dionysiopsis Pax (1909) when transferred to the genusDionysia becomes
Dionysia sect.Dionysiopsis (Pax) Melchior (1943); the nameDionysia sect.Ariadne Wendelbo
(1959), based on the same type, is not to be used.

Article55

55.1. When a species is transferred to another genus or placed under another
generic name for the same genus without change of rank, the epithet of its
formerly correct name must be retained unless one of the following obstacles
exists:

(a) The resulting binary name is a later homonym (Art.64) or a tautonym
(Art.23.4);

(b) The epithet of an earlier legitimate specific name is available (but see
Arts.13.1(d),58,59).

Ex. 1. Antirrhinum spurium L. (1753) when transferred to the genusLinaria must be called
Linaria spuria (L.) Miller (1768).

Ex. 2. Spergula stricta Sw. (1799) when transferred to the genusArenaria must be calledArenaria
uliginosa Schleicher ex Schlechtendal (1808) because of the existence of the nameArenaria stricta
Michx. (1803), referring to a different species; but on further transfer to the genusMinuartia the
epithetstricta must be used and the species calledMinuartia stricta (Sw.) Hiern (1899).

Ex. 3. Conyza candida L. (1753) was illegitimately renamedConyza limonifolia Smith (1813) and
Inula limonifolia Boiss. (1843). However, the Linnaean epithet must be retained and the correct
name of the species, in the genusInula, isL. candida (L.) Cass. (1822).

Ex. 4. When transferringSerratula chamaepeuce L. (1753) to his new genusPtilostemon, Cassini
renamed the speciesP. muticus Cass. (1826, "muticum"). Lessing rightly reinstated the original
specific epithet, creating the combinationPtilostemon chamaepeuce (L.) Less. (1832).

Ex. 5. Spartium biflorum Desf. (1798) when transferred to the genusCytisus by Spach in 1849
could not be calledC. biflorus, because this name had been previously and validly published for a
different species by LHéritier in 1791; the nameC. fontanesii given by Spach is therefore legiti-
mate.

Ex. 6. Arum dracunculus L. (1753) when transferred to the genusDracunculus was renamed
Dracunculus vulgaris Schott (1832), as use of the Linnaean epithet would create a tautonym.

Ex. 7. Melissa calamintha L. (1753) when transferred to the genusThymus becomesT. calamintha
(L.) Scop. (1772); placed in the genusCalamintha it may not be calledC. calamintha (a tautonym)
but has been namedC. officinalis Moench (1794). However, whenC. officinalis is transferred to
the genusSatureja, the Linnaean epithet is again available and the name becomesS. calamin-
tha (L.) Scheele (1843).

Ex. 8. Cucubalus behen L. (1753) was legitimately renamedBehen vulgaris Moench (1794) to
avoid the tautonymBehen behen. If the species is transferred to the genusSilene, it may not retain
its original epithet because of the existence of aSilene behen L. (1753). Therefore, the substitute
nameSilene cucubalus Wibel (1799) was created. However, the specific epithetvulgaris was still
available underSilene. It was rightly reinstated in the combinationSilene vulgaris (Moench)
Garcke (1869).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 57 –

______________________________________________________________________

56-57

Union of taxa

55.2. On transference of a specific epithet under another generic name, the
resulting combination must be retained for the species to which the type of the
basionym belongs, and attributed to the author who first published it, even
though it may have been applied erroneously to a different species (Art.7.12; but
see Arts.48.1 and59.6).

Ex. 9. Pinus mertensiana Bong. was transferred to the genusTsuga by Carrière, who, however, as
is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combinationTsuga mertensiana to
another species ofTsuga, namelyT. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. The combinationTsuga mertensiana
(Bong.) Carrière must not be applied toT. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. but must be retained for
Pinus mertensiana Bong. when that species is placed inTsuga; the citation in parentheses (under
Art.49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the type of the name.

Article56

56.1. When an infraspecific taxon is transferred without change of rank to
another genus or species, the final epithet of its formerly correct name must be
retained unless one of the following obstacles exists:

(a) The resulting ternary combination, with a different type, has been pre-
viously and validly published for an infraspecific taxon of any rank;

(b) The epithet of an earlier legitimate name at the same rank is available (but
see Arts.13.1(d),58,59);

(c) Art.26 provides that another epithet be used.

Ex. 1. Helianthemum italicum var.micranthum Gren. & Godron (Fl. France 1: 171. 1847) when
transferred as a variety toH. penicillatum Thibaud ex Dunal retains its varietal epithet, becoming
H. penicillatum var.micranthum (Gren. & Godron) Grosser (in Engler. Pflanzenr. 14 (IV.193):
115. 1903).

56.2. On transference of an infraspecific epithet under another specific name,
the resulting combination must be retained for the taxon to which the type of
the basionym belongs, and attributed to the author who first published it, even
though it may have been applied erroneously to a different taxon (Art.7.12;
but see Arts.48.1 and59.6).

SECTION3. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN TAXA OF THE SAME RANK ARE UNITED

Article57

57.1. When two or more taxa of the same rank are united, the earliest legiti-
mate name or (for taxa below the rank of genus) the final epithet of the earliest
legitimate name is retained, unless another epithet or a later name must be
accepted under the provisions of Arts.13.1(d),14,16.1,19.3,22.1,26.1,27,
55.1,58, or59.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 58 –

______________________________________________________________________

Union of taxa

Ex. 1. Schumann (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III, 6: 5. 1890), uniting the three genera
Sloanea L. (1753),Echinocarpus Blume (1825), andPhoenicosperma Miq. (1865), rightly adopted
the earliest of these three generic names,Sloanea L., for the resulting genus.

57.2. The author who first unites taxa bearing names of equal priority must
choose one of them, unless an autonym is involved (see Art.57.3). As soon as
that choice is effectively published (Arts.29-31), the name thus chosen is
treated as having priority.

Ex. 2. If the two generaDentaria L. (1 May 1753) andCardamine L. (1 May 1753) are united, the
resulting genus must be calledCardamine because that name was chosen by Crantz (Cl. Crucif.
Emend. 126. 1769), who was the first to unite the two genera.

Ex. 3. R. Brown (in Tuckey, Narr. Exp. Congo 484. 1818) appears to have been the first to unite
Waltheria americana L. (1 May 1753) andW. indica L. (1 May 1753). He adopted the nameW.
indica for the combined species, and this name is accordingly to be retained.

Ex. 4. Baillon (Adansonia 3: 162. 1863), when uniting for the first timeSclerocroton integerrimus
Hochst. (Flora 28: 85. 1845) andSclerocroton reticulatus Hochst. (Flora 28: 85. 1845), adopted the
epithetintegerrimus in the name of the combined taxon. Consequently this epithet is to be re-
tained irrespective of the generic name (Sclerocroton, Stillingia, Excoecaria, Sapium) with which it
is combined.

Ex. 5. Linnaeus in 1753 simultaneously published the namesVerbesina alba andV. prostrata.
Later (1771), he publishedEclipta erecta, a superfluous name becauseV. alba is cited in syn-
onymy, andE. prostrata, based onV. prostrata. The first author to unite these taxa was Roxburgh
(Fl. Ind. 3: 438. 1832), who did so under the nameEclipta prostrata (L.) L., which therefore is to
be used if these taxa are united and placed in the genusEclipta.

Ex. 6. When the generaEntoloma (Fr. ex Rabenb.) P. Kummer (1871),Leptonia (Fr.) P. Kummer
(1871),Eccilia (Fr.) P. Kummer (1871),Nolanea (Fr.) P. Kummer (1871), andClaudopus Gillet
(1876) are united, one of the generic names simultaneously published by Kummer must be used
for the whole, as was done by Donk (Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg ser. 3, 18(1): 157. 1949) who
selectedEntoloma. The nameRhodophyllus Quélet (1886), introduced to cover these combined
genera, is superfluous.

57.3. An autonym is treated as having priority over the name or names of the
same date and rank that established it.

Note 1. When the final epithet of an autonym is used in a new combination under the require-
ments of Art.57.3, the basionym of that combination is the name from which the autonym is
derived.

Ex. 7. Heracleum sibiricum L. (1753) includesH. sibiricum subsp.lecokii (Godron & Gren.)
Nyman (1879) andH. sibiricum subsp.sibiricum (1879) automatically established at the same time.
WhenH. sibiricum is included inH. sphondylium L. (1753) as a subspecies, the correct name for
the taxon isH. sphondylium subsp.sibiricum (L.) Simonkai (1887), not subsp.lecokii, whether or
not subsp.lecokii is treated as distinct.

Ex. 8. The publication ofSalix tristis var.microphylla Andersson (Salices Bor.-Amer. 21. 1858)
created the autonymS. tristis Aiton (1789) var.tristis. IfS. tristis, including var.microphylla, is
recognized as a variety ofS. humilis Marshall (1785), the correct name isS. humilis var.tristis
(Aiton) Griggs (Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci. 4: 301. 1905). However, if both varieties ofS. tristis are
recognized as varieties ofS. humilis, then the namesS. humilis var.tristis andS. humilis var.
microphylla (Andersson) Fernald (Rhodora 48: 46.1946) are both used.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 59 –

______________________________________________________________________

58-59

Pleomorphic fungi

Ex. 9. In the classification adopted by Rollins and Shaw,Lesquerella lasiocarpa (Hooker ex A.
Gray) S. Watson is composed of two subspecies, subsp.lasiocarpa (which includes the type of the
name of the species and is cited without an author) and subsp.berlandieri (A. Gray) Rollins & E.
Shaw. The latter subspecies is composed of two varieties. In this classification the correct name of
the variety which includes the type of subsp.berlandieri isL. lasiocarpa var.berlandieri (A. Gray)
Payson (1922), notL. lasiocarpa var.berlandieri (cited without an author) orL. lasiocarpa var.
hispida (S. Watson) Rollins & E. Shaw (1972), based onSynthlipsis berlandieri var.hispida S.
Watson (1882), since publication of the latter name established the autonymSynthlipsis berlan-
dieri A. Gray var.berlandieri which, at varietal rank, is treated as having priority over var.hispida.

Recommendation57A

57A.1. Authors who have to choose between two generic names should note the following sugges-
tions:

(a) Of two names of the same date, to prefer that which was first accompanied by the description
of a species.

(b) Of two names of the same date, both accompanied by descriptions of species, to prefer that
which, when the author makes his choice, includes the larger number of species.

(c) In cases of equality from these various points of view, to select the more appropriate name.

Article58

58.1. When a non-fossil taxon of plants, algae excepted, and a fossil (or subfos-
sil) taxon of the same rank are united, the correct name of the non-fossil taxon
is treated as having priority (seePre.7and Art.13.3).

Ex. 1. IfPlatycarya Siebold & Zucc. (1843), a non-fossil genus, andPetrophiloides Bowerbank
(1840), a fossil genus, are united, the namePlatycarya is accepted for the combined genus, al-
though it is antedated byPetrophiloides.

Ex. 2. The generic nameMetasequoia Miki (1941) was based on the fossil type ofM disticha
(Heer) Miki. After discovery of the non-fossil speciesM. glyptostroboides Hu & Cheng, conserva-
tion ofMetasequoia Hu & Cheng (1948) as based on the non-fossil type was approved. Otherwise,
any new generic name based onM. glyptostroboides would have had to be treated as having
priority overMetasequoia Miki.

SECTION4. NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE

Article59

59.1. In ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi (including Ustilaginales)
with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as a meiotic sexual morph
(teleomorph), the correct name covering the holomorph (i.e., the species in all
its morphs) is – except for lichen-forming fungi – the earliest legitimate name
typified by an element representing the teleomorph, i.e. the morph character-
ized by the production of asci/ascospores, basidia/basidiospores, teliospores, or
other basidium-bearing organs.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 60 –

______________________________________________________________________

Pleomorphic fungi

59.2. For a binary name to qualify as a name of a holomorph, not only must its
type specimen be teleomorphic, but also the protologue must include a diagno-
sis or description of this morph (or be so phrased that the possibility of refer-
ence to the teleomorph cannot be excluded).

59.3. If these requirements are not fulfilled, the name is that of a form-taxon
and is applicable only to the anamorph represented by its type, as described or
referred to in the protologue. The accepted taxonomic disposition of the type
of the name determines the application of the name, no matter whether the
genus to which a subordinate taxon is assigned by the author(s) is holomorphic
or anamorphic.

59.4. The priority of names of holomorphs at any rank is not affected by the
earlier publication of names of anamorphs judged to be correlated morphs of
the holomorph.

59.5. The provisions of this article shall not be construed as preventing the
publication and use of binary names for form-taxa when it is thought necessary
or desirable to refer to anamorphs alone.

Note 1. When not already available, specific or infraspecific names for anamorphs may be pro-
posed at the time of publication of the name for the holomorphic fungus or later. The epithets
may, if desired, be identical, as long as they are not in homonymous combinations.

59.6. As long as there is direct and unambiguous evidence for the deliberate
introduction of a new morph judged by the author(s) to be correlated with the
morph typifying a purported basionym, and this evidence is strengthened by
fulfilment of all requirements in Arts.32-45 for valid publication of a name of a
new taxon, any indication such as"comb. nov." or"nom. nov." is regarded as a
formal error, and the name introduced is treated as that of a new taxon, and
attributed solely to the author(s) thereof. When only the requirements for valid
publication of a new combination (Arts.33,34) have been fulfilled, the name is
accepted as such and based, in accordance with Art.55, on the type of the
declared or implicit basionym.

Ex. 1. The namePenicillium brefeldianum Dodge, based on teleomorphic and anamorphic mate-
rial, is a valid and legitimate name of a holomorph, in spite of the attribution of the species to a
form-genus. It is legitimately combined in a holomorphic genus asEupenicillium brefeldianum
(Dodge) Stolk & Scott.P. brefeldianum is not available for use in a restricted sense for the ana-
morph alone.

Ex. 2. The nameRavenelia cubensis Arthur & Johnston, based on a specimen bearing only uredi-
nia (an anamorph), is a valid and legitimate name of an anamorph, in spite of the attribution of the
species to a holomorphic genus. It is legitimately combined in a form-genus asUredo cubensis
(Arthur & Johnston) Cummins.R. cubensis is not available for use inclusive of the teleomorph.

Ex. 3. Mycosphaerella aleuritidis was published as"(Miyake) Ou comb. nov., syn.Cercospora
aleuritidis Miyake" but with a Latin diagnosis of the teleomorph. The indication"comb. nov." is
taken as a formal error, andM. aleuritidis Ou is accepted as a validly published new specific name
for the holomorph, typified by the teleomorphic material described by Ou.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 61 –

______________________________________________________________________

60-61

Change of rank

Ex. 4. Corticium microsclerotium was published in 1939 as"(Matz) Weber, comb. nov., syn.Rhiz-
octonia microsclerotia Matz" with a description, only in English, of the teleomorph. Because of
Art.36, this may not be considered as the valid publication of the name of a new species, and soC.
microsclerotium (Matz) Weber must be considered a validly published and legitimate new combi-
nation based on the specimen of the anamorph that typifies its basionym.C microsclerotium
Weber, as published in 1951 with a Latin description and a teleomorphic type, is an illegitimate
later homonym of the combinationC. microsclerotium (Matz) Weber (1939), typified by an ana-
morph.

Ex. 5. Hypomyces chrysospermus Tul. (Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 4, 13: 16. 1860), presented as the
name of a holomorph without the indication"comb. nov." but with explicit reference toMucor
chrysospermus (Bull.) Bull. andSepedonium chrysospermum (Bull.) Fr., which are names of its
anamorph, is not to be considered as a new combination but as the name of a newly described
species, with a teleomorphic type.

Recommendation59A

59A.1. When a new morph of a fungus is described, it should be published either as a new taxon
(e.g., gen. nov., sp. nov., var. nov.) whose name has a teleomorphic type, or as a new anamorph
(anam. nov.) whose name has an anamorphic type.

59A.2. When in naming a new morph of a fungus the epithet of the name of a different, earlier
described morph of the same fungus is used, the new name should be designated as the name of a
new taxon or anamorph, as the case may be, but not as a new combination based on the earlier
name.

SECTION5. CHOICE OF NAMES WHEN THE RANK OF A TAXON IS CHANGED

Article60

60.1. In no case does a name have priority outside its own rank(but see Art.
64.4).

Ex. 1. Campanula sect.Campanopsis R Br. (Prodr. 561. 1810) as a genus is calledWahlenbergia
Roth (1821), a name conserved against the taxonomic synonymCervicina Delile (1813), and not
Campanopsis (R Br.) Kuntze (1891).

Ex. 2. Magnolia virginiana var.foetida L. (1753) when raised to specific rank is calledMagnolia
grandiflora L. (1759), notM. foetida (L.) Sarg. (1889).

Ex. 3. Lythrum intermedium Ledeb. (1822) when treated as a variety ofLythrum salicaria L.
(1753) has been calledL. salicaria var.glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. Ross. 2: 127. 1843), and hence may not
be calledL. salicaria var.intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne (Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1: 327. 1881).

Article61

61.1. When a taxon at the rank of family or below is changed to another such
rank, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one available in the new rank.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 62 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

62-63

Recommendation61A

61A.1. When a family or subdivision of a family is changed in rank and no earlier legitimate name
is available in the new rank, the name should be retained, and only its termination (-aceae,-oideae,
-eae,-inae) altered, unless the resulting name would be a later homonym.

Ex. 1. The subtribeDrypetinae Pax (1890) (Euphorbiaceae) when raised to the rank of tribe was
namedDrypeteae (Pax) Hurusawa (1954); the subtribeAntidesmatinae Pax (1890) (Euphorbia-
ceae) when raised to the rank of subfamily was namedAntidesmatoideae (Pax) Hurusawa (1954).

61A.2. When a section or a subgenus is raised in rank to a genus, or the inverse change occurs, the
original name or epithet should be retained unless the resulting name would be contrary to this
Code.

61A.3. When an infraspecific taxon is raised in rank to a species, or the inverse change occurs, the
original epithet should be retained unless the resulting combination would be contrary to this
Code.

61A.4. When an infraspecific taxon is changed in rank within the species, the original epithet
should be retained unless the resulting combination would be contrary to this Code.

SECTION6. REJECTION OF NAMES AND EPITHETS

Article62

62.1. An epithet or a legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it is
inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better
known, or because it has lost its original meaning, or (in pleomorphic fungi
with names governed by Art.59) because the generic name does not accord
with the morph represented by its type.

Ex. 1. The following changes are contrary to the rule:Staphylea toStaphylis, Tamus toThamnos,
Thamnus, orTamnus, Mentha toMinthe, Tillaea toTillia, Vincetoxicum toAlexitoxicum; and
Orobanche rapum toO. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae toO. columbarihaerens, O. artemisiae to
O. artemisiepiphyta. All these modifications are to be rejected.

Ex. 2. Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) is not to be changed toA. pentagona A. DC. (1834),
although the specific epithetquinquegona is a hybrid word (Latin and Greek) (see Rec.23B.1(c)).

Ex. 3. The nameScilla peruviana L. is not to be rejected merely because the species does not grow
in Peru.

Ex. 4. The namePetrosimonia oppositifolia (Pallas) Litv., based onPolycncmum oppositifolium
Pallas, is not to be rejected merely because the species has leaves only partly opposite, and partly
alternate, although there is another closely related species,Petrosimonia brachiata (Pallas) Bunge,
having all its leaves opposite.

Ex. 5. Richardia L. is not to be changed toRichardsonia, as was done by Kunth, although the
name was originally dedicated to the British botanist, Richardson.

Article63

63.1. A name, unless conserved (Art.14) or sanctioned under Art.13.1(d), is
illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 63 –

______________________________________________________________________

63	Rejection

published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its
author,definitely included theholotype or all syntypes or the previously desig-
nated lectotype of a name which ought to have been adopted, or whose epithet
ought to have been adopted, under the rules (but see Art.63.3).

Ex. 1. The generic nameCainito Adanson (1763) is illegitimate because it was a superfluous name
forChrysophyllum L. (1753) which Adanson cited as a synonym.

Ex. 2. Chrysophylum sericeum Salisb. (1796) is illegitimate, being a superfluous name for
C. cainito L. (1753), which Salisbury cited as a synonym.

Ex. 3. On the other hand,Salix myrsinifolia Salisb. (1796) is legitimate, being explicitly based upon
S. myrsinites of Hoffmann (Hist. Salic. Ill. 71. 1787), a misapplication of the nameS. myrsinites L.

Ex. 4. Picea excelsa Link is illegitimate because it is based onPinus excelsa Lam. (1778), a super-
fluous name forPinus abies L. (1753). UnderPicea the proper name isPicea abies (L.) H. Kar-
sten.

Ex. 5. On the other hand,Cucubalus latifolius Miller andC. angustifolius Miller (1768) are not
illegitimate names, although these species are now united with the species previously namedC.
behen L. (1753):C. latifolius Miller andC. angustifolius Miller as circumscribed by Miller did not
include the type ofC. behen L., which name he adopted for another independent species.

Note 1. The inclusion, with an expression of doubt, of an element in a new taxon, e.g. the citation
of a name with a question mark, does not make the name of the new taxon nomenclaturally super-
fluous.

Ex. 6. The protologue ofBlandfordia grandiflora R Br. (1810) includes, in synonymy, "Aletris
punicea.Labill. nov. holl. 1.p. 85.t. 111 ?", indicating that the new species might be the same as
Aletris punicea previously published by Labillardière (1805).Blandfordia grandiflora is neverthe-
less a legitimate name.

Note 2. The inclusion, in a new taxon, of an element that was subsequently designated as the
lectotype of a name which, so typified, ought to have been adopted, or whose epithet ought to have
been adopted, does not in itself make the name of the new taxon illegitimate.

63.2. The inclusion of a type (see Art.7) is here understood to mean the cita-
tion of the type specimen, the citation of an illustration of the type specimen,
the citation of the type of a name, or the citation of the name itself unless the
type is at the same time excluded either explicitly or by implication.

Ex.7. Explicit exclusion of type: When publishing the nameGalium tricornutum, Dandy (Wat-
sonia 4: 47. 1957) citedG. tricorne Stokes (1787) pro parte as a synonym, but explicitly ex-
cluded the type of the latter name.

Ex.8. Exclusion of type by implication:Cedrus Duhamel (1755) is a legitimate name even though
Juniperus L. was cited as a synonym; only some of the species ofJuniperus L were included in
Cedrus by Duhamel, and the differences between the two generawere discussed,Juniperus (inclu-
dingthetype ofits name) being recognized in the same work as an independent genus.

Ex.9. Tmesipteris elongata Dangeard (Botaniste 2: 213.1891) was published as a new species but
Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited as a synonym. However, on the following page (214),T.
truncata (R. Br.) Desv. is recognized as a different species and on p. 216 the two are distinguished
in a key, thus showing that the meaning of the cited synonym was either"P. truncatum R. Br. pro
parte" or"P. truncatum auct. non R. Br."

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 64 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

Ex.10. Solanum torvum Sw. (Prodr. 47.1788) was published with a new diagnosis butS. indicum
L. (1753) was cited as a synonym. In accord with the practice in his Prodromus, Swartz indicated
where the species was to be inserted in the latest edition [14, Murray] of the Systema Vegetabi-
lium.S. torvum was to be inserted between species 26(S. insanum) and 27 (S. ferox); the num-
ber ofS. indicum in this edition of the Systema is 32.S. torvum is thus a legitimate name; the type
ofS. indicum is excluded by implication.

63.3. A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous when published is not
illegitimate if its basionym is legitimate, or if it is based on the stem of a legiti-
mate generic name. When published it is incorrect, but it may become correct
later.

Ex.11. Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. (1788), based onAgrostis radiata L (1759), was nomenc1aturally
superfluous when published, since Swartz also citedAndropogon fasciculatus L. (1753) as a syn-
onym. It is, bowever, the correct name in the genusChloris forAgrostis radiata whenAndropogon
fasciculatus is treated as a different species, as was done by Hackel (in A. DC. & C. DC., Monogr.
Phan. 6: 177. 1889).

Ex.12. The generic nameHordelymus (Jessen) Jessen (1885), based on the legitimateHordeum
subg.Hordelymus Jessen (Deutschl. Gräser 202. 1863), was superfluous when published because
its type,Elymus europaeus L., is also the type ofCuviera Koeler (1802).Cuviera Koeler has since
been rejected in favour of its later homonymCuviera DC., andHordelymus (Jessen) Jessen can
now be used as a correct name for the segregate genus containingElymus europaeus L.

Note 3. Inno case does a statement of parentage accompanying the publication of a name for a
hybrid make the name superfluous(see Art.H.5).

Ex.13. The namePolypodium ×shivasiae Rothm. (1962) was proposed for hybrids betweenP.
australe andP. vulgare subsp.prionodes, while at the same time the author acceptedP. ×font-
queri Rothm. (1936) for hybrids betweenP. australe andP. vulgare subsp.vulgare. Under Art.
H.4.1,P. ×shivasiae is a synonym ofP. ×font-queri; nevertheless, it is not a superfluous name.

Article64

64.1. A name, unless conserved (Art.14) or sanctioned under Art.13.1(d), is
illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it is spelled exactly like a name
based on a different type that was previously and validly published for a taxon
of the same rank.

Note 1. Even if the earlier homonym is illegitimate, or is generally treated as a synonym on taxo-
nomic grounds, the later homonym must be rejected.

Ex. 1. The nameTapeinanthus Boiss. ex Bentham (1848), given to a genus ofLabiatae, is a later
homonym ofTapeinanthus Herbert (1837), a name previously and validly published for a genus of
Amaryllidaceae.Tapeinanthus Boiss. ex Bentham is therefore rejected. It was renamedThuspei-
nanta by T. Durand (1888).

Ex. 2. The nameAmblyanthera Müll. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym of the validly published
Amblyanthera Blume (1849) and is therefore rejected, althoughAmblyanthera Blume is now
considered to be a synonym ofOsbeckia L. (1753).

Ex. 3. The nameTorreya Arnott (1838) is a nomen conservandum and is therefore not to be
rejected because of the existence of the earlier homonymTorreya Raf. (1818).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 65 –

______________________________________________________________________

64	Rejection

Ex. 4. Astragalus rhizanthus Boiss. (1843) is a later homonym of the validly published nameAstra-
galus rhizanthus Royle (1835) and it is therefore rejected, as was done by Boissier in 1849, who
renamed itA. cariensis.

64.2. A sanctioned name is illegitimate if it is a later homonym of another
sanctioned name (see also Art. 14Note 2).

64.3. When two or more generic, specific, or infraspecific names based on
different types are so similar that they are likely to be confused¹ (because
they are applied to related taxa or for any other reason) they are to be treated
as homonyms.

Ex. 5. Names treated as homonyms:Astrostemma Bentham andAsterostemma Decne.;Pleuripe-
talum Hooker andPleuropetalum T. Durand;Eschweilera DC. andEschweileria Boerl.;Skytan-
thus Meyen andScytanthus Hooker.

Ex. 6. The three generic namesBradlea Adanson,Bradleja Banks ex Gaertner, andBraddleya
Vell., all commemorating Richard Bradley,are treated as homonyms because only one can be used
without serious risk of confusion.

Ex. 7. Kadalia Raf. andKadali Adanson (bothMelastomataceae) are treated as homonyms
(Taxon 15: 287. 1966);Acanthoica Lohmann andAcanthoeca W. Ellis (both flagellates) are
sufficiently alike to be considered homonyms (Taxon 22: 313. 1973);Solanum saltiense S. L. Moore
andS. saltense (Bitter) C. Morton should be treated as homonyms (Taxon 22: 153. 1973).

Ex. 8. Epithets so similar that they are likely to be confused if combined under the same generic or
specific name:chinensis andsinensis; ceylanica andzeylanica; napaulensis,nepalensis, andnipa-
lensis; polyanthemos andpolyanthemus; macrostachys andmacrostachyus; heteropus andhetero-
podus; poikilantha andpoikilanthes; pteroides andpteroideus; trinervis andtrinervius; macrocar-
pon andmacrocarpum; trachycaulum andtrachycaulon.

Ex. 9. Names not likely to be confused:Rubia L. andRubus L;Monochaete Doell andMono-
chaetum (DC.) Naudin;Peponia Grev. andPeponium Engler;Iria (Pers.) Hedwig andIris L.;
Desmostachys Miers andDesmostachya (Stapf) Stapf;Symphyostemon Miers andSymphostemon
Hiern;Gerrardina Oliver andGerardiina Engler;Durvillaea Bory andUrvillea Kunth;Pelto-
phorus Desv. (Gramineae) andPeltophorum (Vogel) Bentham (Leguminosae);Senecio napaei-
folius (DC.) Schultz-Bip. andS. napifolius MacOwan (the epithets being derived respectively from
Napaea andNapus);Lysimachia hemsleyana Oliver andL hemsleyi Franchet (see, however, Rec.

23A.2);Euphorbia peplis L. andE peplus L.;Acanthococcus Lagerh., an alga, andAcanthococos
Barb. Rodr., a palm (see Taxon 18: 735. 1969).

Ex. 10. Names ruled (by the Berlin Congress, 1987) as not likely to be confused:Cathayeia Ohwi
(1931) andCathaya Chun & Kuang (1962), for which the General Committee, upon unanimous
advice from the Committee for Spermatophyta, noted thatCathayeia (Flacourtiaceae) is a nomen-
clatural synonym ofIdesia Maxim. (1866), nom. cons., and hence cannot be used, that even if used
it is unlikely to appear in the same context asCathaya (fossilPinaceae), and that the two names
have a different number of syllables (Taxon 36: 429. 1987);Cristella Pat. (1887; Fungi) and
Christella H. Léveillé (1915; Pteridophyta), which were regarded by the Committee for Fungi and
Lichens, by the Committee for Pteridophyta and, upon their advice, by the General Committee
(Taxon 35: 551. 1986) not to be confusable since the older name is in disuse for taxonomic reasons,
since the taxa are not closely related, and since the etymology of the names is different.

——————

1)   When it is doubtful whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused, a request for a
       decision may be submitted to the General Committee (seeDivision III) which will refer it for
       examination to the committee or committees for the appropriate taxonomic group or groups.
       A recommendation may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress, and, if
       ratified, will become a binding decision(see Ex. 10).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 66 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

Ex. 11. Names conserved against earlier names treated as homonyms (see App. III):Lyngbya
Gomont (vs.Lyngbyea Sommerf.);Columellia Ruiz & Pavón (vs.Columella Lour.), both comme-
morating Columella, the Roman writer on agriculture;Cephalotus Labill. (vs.Cephalotos Adan-
son);Simarouba Aublet (vs.Simaruba Boehmer).

64.4. The names of two subdivisions of the same genus, or of two infraspecific
taxa within the same species, even if they are of different rank, are treated as
homonyms if they have the same epithet and are not based on the same type.
The same epithet may be used for subdivisions of different genera, and for
infraspecific taxa within different species.

Ex. 12. Verbascum sect.Aulacosperma Murb. (1933) is allowed, although there was already a
Celsia sect.Aulacospermae Murb. (1926). This, however, is not an example to be followed, since it
is contrary to Rec.21B.2).

Ex. 13. The namesAndropogon sorghum subsp.halepensis (L.) Hackel andA. sorghum var.
halepensis (L.) Hackel (in A. DC & C.DC., Monogr. Phan. 6: 502. 1889) are legitimate, since both
have the same type and the epithet may be repeated under Rec.26A.1.

Ex. 14. Anagallis arvensis var.caerulea (L.) Gouan (Fl. Monsp. 30. 1765), based onA. caerulea L.
(1759), makes illegitimate the combinationA. arvensis subsp.caerulea Hartman (Sv. Norsk Exc.-
F1. 32.1846), based on the later homonymA. caerulea Schreber (1771).

64.5. When two or more homonyms have equal priority, the first of them that
is adoptedin an effectively published text (Arts.29-31) by an author who
simultaneously rejects the other(s) is treated as having priority. Likewise, if an
authorin an effectively published text substitutes other names for all but one of
these homonyms, the homonym for the taxon that is not renamed is treated as
having priority.

Ex. 15. Linnaeus simultaneously published bothMimosa 10cinerea (Sp. Pl. 517. 1753) and
Mimosa 25cinerea (Sp. Pl. 520. 1753). In 1759, he renamed species 10Mimosa cineraria and
retained the nameMimosa cincrea for species 25;Mimosa cinerea is thus a legitimate name for
species 25.

Ex. 16. Rouy & Foucaud (Fl. France 2: 30. 1895) published the nameErysimum hieraciifolium var.
longisiliquum, with two different types, for two different taxa under different subspecies. Only one
of these names can be maintained.

Article65

65.1. Consideration of homonymy does not extend to the names of taxa not
treated as plants, except as stated below:

(a) Later homonyms of the names of taxa once treated as plants are illegi-
timate, even though the taxa have been reassigned to a different group of
organisms to which this Code does not apply.

(b) A name originally published for a taxon other than a plant, even if valid-
      ly published under Arts.32-45 of this Code, is illegitimate if it becomes a
      homonym of a plant name when the taxon to which it applies is first
      treated as a plant (see also Art.45.4).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 67 –

______________________________________________________________________

66-69

Rejection

Note 1. The International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria provides that a bacterial name is
illegitimate if it is a later homonym of a name of a taxon of bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, or
viruses.

Article66

66.1. [Article 66, dealing with illegitimate names of subdivisions of genera, was
deleted by the Berlin Congress, 1987.]

Article67

67.1. [Article 67, dealing with illegitimate specific and infraspecific names, was
deleted by the Berlin Congress, 1987.]

Article68

68.1. A specific name is not illegitimate merely because its epithet was ori-
ginally combined with an illegitimate generic name, but is to be taken into
consideration for purposes of priority if the epithet and the corresponding
combination are in other respects in accordance with the rules.

Ex. 1. Agathophyllum A. L. Juss. (1789) is an illegitimate name, being a superfluous substitute for
Ravensara Sonn. (1782). Nevertheless the nameA. neesianum Blume (1851) is legitimate. Because
Meisner (1864) citedA. neesianum as a synonym of his newMespilodaphne mauritiana but did not
adoptthe epithetneesiana, M. mauritiana is a superfluous name and hence illegitimate.

68.2. An infraspecific name, autonyms excepted (Art.26.1), may be legitimate
even if its final epithet was originally placed under an illegitimate name.

68.3. The names of species and of subdivisions of genera assigned to genera
whose names are conservedor sanctioned later homonyms, and which had
earlier been assigned to the genera under the rejected homonyms, are legiti-
mate under the conservedor sanctioned names without change of authorship
or date if there is no other obstacle under the rules.

Ex. 2. Alpinia languas J. F. Gmelin (1791) andAlpinia galanga (L) Willd. (1797) are to be accep-
ted althoughAlpinia L. (1753), to which they were assigned by their authors, is rejected and the
genus in which they are now placed isAlpinia Roxb. (1810), nom. cons.

Article69

69.1. A name may be ruled as rejected if it has been widely and persistently
used for a taxon or taxa not including its type. A name thus rejected, or its
basionym if it has one, is placed on a list of nomina rejicienda(Appendix IV).
Along with the listed names, all combinations based on them are similarly
rejected, and none is to be used.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 68 –

______________________________________________________________________

Rejection

70-72

69.2. The list of rejected names will remain permanently open for additions
and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied by a
detailed statement of the cases both for and against its rejection. Such pro-
posals must be submitted to the General Committee (seeDivision III), which
will refer them for examination to the committees for the various taxonomic
groups (see also Art.15 and Rec.15A).

69.3. A name of a genus or species that has been widely and persistently used
for a taxon or taxa not including its type and would, but for Art.69.4, be the
correct name of another taxon may also be conserved or rejected under Art.
14¹.

Note 1. The name proposed for conservation can be either the name that has been misapplied or a
later homonym or synonym against which the misapplied name is rejected.

69.4. A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not
including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage
unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art.14.1 or69.1 has been
submitted and rejected.

Article70

70.1. [Article 70, dealing with discordant elements, was deleted by the Leningrad
Congress, 1975.]

Article71

71.1. [Article 71, dealing with monstrosities, was deleted by the Leningrad Congress,
1975.]

Article72

72.1. A name rejected under Arts.63-65 or69 is replaced by the name that has
priority (Art.11) in the rank concerned. If none exists in any rank a new name
must be chosen:(a) the taxon may be treated as new and another name pub-

lished for it, or(b) if the illegitimate name is a later homonym, an avowed
substitute (nomen novum) based on the same type as the rejected name may
be published for it. If a name is available in another rank, one of the above
alternatives may be chosen, or(c) a new combination, based on the name in
the other rank, may be published.

——————

1)   The Berlin Congress (1987) ruled that names of genera and species previously rejected, or
       recommended for rejection, under Art.69 are to be reconsidered by the Nomenclature Com-
       mittees concerned which may, when appropriate, recommend conservation of the name that
       will best serve stability. Such names are to be listed in the appropriate Appendix of the Code.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 69 –

______________________________________________________________________

72	Rejection

72.2. Similar action is to be taken if transfer of an epithet of a legitimate name
would result in a combination that cannot be validly published under Arts.21.3
or23.4.

Ex. 1. Linum radiola L. (1753) when transferred to the genusRadiola may not be namedRadiola
radiola (L.) H. Karsten (1882), as that combination is invalid (see Arts.23.4 and32.1(b)). The next
oldest name,L multiflorum Lam. (1779), is illegitimate, being a superfluous name forL. radiola
L. UnderRadiola, the species has been given the legitimate nameR. linoides Roth (1788).

Note 1. When a new epithet is required, an author may adopt an epithet previously given to the
taxon in an illegitimate name if there is no obstacle to its employment in the new position or sense;
the resultant combination is treated as the name of a new taxon or as a nomen novum, as the case
may be.

Ex. 2. The nameTalinum polyandrum Hooker (1855) is illegitimate, being a later homonym ofT.
polyandrum Ruiz & Pavón (1798). When Bentham, in 1863, transferredT. polyandrum Hooker to
Calandrinia, he called itCalandrinia polyandra. This name is treated as having priority from 1863,
and should be cited asCalandrinia polyandra Bentham, notC. polyandra (Hooker) Bentham.

Ex. 3. Cenomyce ecmocyna Achar. (1810) is a superfluous name forLichen gracilis L. (1753), and
so isScyphophora ecmocyna Gray (1821), the type ofL. gracilis still being included. However,
when proposing the combinationCladonia ecmocyna, Leighton (1866) explicitly excluded that type
and thereby published a new, legitimate name,Cladonia ecmocyna Leighton.

Recommendation72A

72A.1. Authors should avoid adoption of the epithet of an illegitimate name previously published
for the same taxon.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 70 –

______________________________________________________________________

Orthography

CHAPTERVI. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS AND

GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES

SECTION1. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS

Article73

73.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the
correction of typographic or orthographic errorsand the standardizations
imposed by Arts.73.8 (compounding forms),73.9 (hyphens), and 73.10 (ter-
minations: seealso Art.32.5).

Ex. 1. Retention of original spelling: The generic namesMesembryanthemum L. (1753) and
Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be
altered toMesembrianthemum andAmarantus respectively, although these latter forms are
philologically preferable (see Bull. Misc. Inform. 1928: 113, 287). –Phoradendron Nutt. is not to
be altered toPhoradendrum. –Triaspis mozambica Adr. Juss. is not to be altered toT. mossam-
bica, as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895). –Alyxia ceylanica Wight is not to be
altered toA. zeylanica, as in Trimen (Handb. Fl. Ceyl. 3: 127. 1895). –Fagus sylvatica L. is not to
be altered toF. silvatica. The classical spellingsilvatica is recommended for adoption in the case of
a new name (Rec. 73E), but the mediaeval spellingsylvatica is not treated as an orthographic
error. –Scirpus cespitosus L. is not to be altered toS. caespitosus.

Ex. 2. Typographic errors:Globba brachycarpa Baker (1890) andHetaeria alba Ridley (1896) are
typographic errors forGlobba trachycarpa Baker andHetaeria alta Ridley respectively (see J. Bot.
59: 349. 1921). –Thevetia nereifolia Adr. Juss. ex Steudel is an obvious typographic error forT.
neriifolia.

Ex. 3. Orthographic error:Gluta benghas L. (1771), being an orthographic error forG. renghas,
should be cited asG. renghas L., as has been done by Engler (in A. DC. & C. DC., Monogr. Phan.
4: 225. 1883); the vernacular name used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is"Renghas", not"Ben-
ghas".

Note 1. Art.14.10 provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of a generic name.

Ex. 4. Bougainvillea (see Appendix IIIA, Spermatophyta, no. 2350).

73.2. The words"original spelling" in this Article mean the spelling employed
when the name was validly published. They do not refer to the use of an initial
capital or small letter, this being a matter of typography (see Arts.20.1 and
21.2, Rec.73F).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 71 –

______________________________________________________________________

73	Orthography

73.3. The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if
the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the first letter of the name.

Ex. 5. The spelling of the generic nameLespedeza is not to be altered, although it commemorates
Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392. 1934).–Cereus jamacaru DC.
may not be altered toC. mandacaru, even ifjamacaru is believed to be a corruption of the vernacu-
lar name "mandacaru".

73.4. The lettersw andy, foreign to classical Latin, andk, rare in that lan-
guage, are permissible in Latin plant names.Other letters and ligatures foreign
to classical Latin that may appear in Latin plant names, such as the Germanß
(doubles), are to be transcribed.

73.5. When a name or epithet has been published in a work where the letters
u,v ori,j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with
modern practices (one of those letters is not used or only in capitals), those
letters should be transcribed in conformity with modern botanical usage.

Ex. 6. Uffenbachia Fabr., notVffenbachia; Taraxacum Zinn, notTaraxacvm; Curculigo Gaertner,
notCvrcvligo.

Ex. 7. Geastrum hygrometricvm Pers. andVredo pvstvlata Pers. (1801) should be written respec-
tivelyGeastrum hygrometricum andUredo pustulata.

Ex. 8. Bromus iaponicus Thunb. (1784) should be writtenBromus japonicus.

73.6. Diacritical signs are not used in Latin plant names. In names (either new
or old) drawn from words in which such signs appear, the signs are to be sup-
pressed with the necessary transcription of the letters so modified; for example
ä, ö, ü become respectivelyae, oe, ue; é, è, ê becomee, or sometimesae; ñ

becomesn; ø becomesoe; å becomesao.The diaeresis,indicating that a vowel
is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as inCephaëlis,
Isoëtes), and the ligatures-æ- and-œ- indicating that the letters are to be
pronounced together(Arisæma,Schnus), are permissible.

73.7. When changes made in orthography by earlier authors who adopt per-
sonal, geographic, or vernacular names in nomenclature are intentional latin-
izations, they are to be preserved, except for terminations covered by Art.
73.10.

Ex. 9. Valantia L. (1753),Gleditsia L. (1753), andClutia L. (1753), commemorating Vaillant,
Gleditsch, and Cluyt respectively, are not to be altered toVaillantia,Gleditschia, andCluytia;
Linnaeus latinized the names of these botanists deliberately as"Valantius","Gleditsius", and
"Clutius".

Ex. 10. Zygophyllum billardierii DC. was named for J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la Billardière).
The intended latinization is"Billardierius" (in nominative), but that termination is not acceptable
under Art. 73.10 and the name is correctly spelledZ. billardierei DC.

73.8. The use ofa compounding formcontrary toRec.73G in anadjectival
epithet is treated asan error to be corrected.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 72 –

______________________________________________________________________

Orthography

Ex. 11. Pereskia opuntiaeflora DC. is to be cited asP. opuntiiflora DC.However, inAndromeda
polifolia L. (1753), the epithet is a pre-Linnean plant name ("Polifolia" Buxb.) used in apposition
and not an adjective; it is not to be corrected to "poliifolia".

Ex. 12. Cacalia napeaefolia DC. andSenecio napeaefolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip. are to be cited as
Cacalia napaeifolia DC. andSenecio napaeifolius (DC.) Schultz-Bip. respectively; the specific
epithet refers to the resemblance of the leaves to those of the genusNapaea (notNapea), and the
substitute (connecting) vowel-i should have been used instead of the genitive singular inflection
-ae.

73.9. The use of a hyphenin a compound epithet is treated as an error to be
correctedby deletion of the hyphen, except ifan epithet is formed ofwords
that usually stand independently, whena hyphen is permitted(see Arts.23.1
and23.3).

Ex. 13. Deletion of the hyphen:Acer pseudoplatanus L., notA. pseudo-platanus; Ficus neoëbuda-
rum Summerh., notF. neo-ebudarum; Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vitt., notL. atro-purpureum;
Croton ciliatoglandulifer Ortega, notC. ciliato-glandulifer; Scirpus sect.Pseudoëriophorum
Jurtzer, notS. sect.Pseudo-eriophorum.

Ex.14. Hyphen permitted:Aster novae-angliae L.,Coix lacryma-jobi L.,Peperomia san-felipensis
J. D. Smith,Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Sprengel,Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. (Art. 23.3).

Note2. Art. 73.9 refers only to epithets (in combinations), not to names of genera or taxa in
higher ranks; a generic name published with a hyphen can be changed only by conservation.

Ex.15. Pseudo-salvinia Piton (1940).

73.10. The use ofa termination (for example-i,-ii,-ae,-iae,-anus,or-ianus)
contrary to Rec.73C.1 is treated as an error to be corrected (see also Art.
32.5).

Ex. 16. Rosa pissarti Carrière (Rev. Hort. 1880: 314) is a typographic error forR. pissardi (see
Rev. Hort. 1881: 190), which in its turn is treated as an error forR. pissardii (see Rec. 73C.l(b)).

Note 3. If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet derived from a personal name is
inappropriate for the sex and/or number of the person(s) whom the name commemorates, the
termination is to be corrected in conformity with Rec.73C.1.

Ex. 17. Rosa ×toddii was named by Wolley-Dod (J. Bot. 69, suppl. 106. 1931) for "Miss E. S.
Todd"; the epithet is to be corrected totoddiae.

Ex. 18. Astragalus matthewsii, dedicated by Podlech and Kirchhoff (Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml.
München 11: 432. 1974) to Victoria A. Matthews, is to be corrected toA. matthewsiae Podlech &
Kirchhoff; it is not therefore a later homonym ofA. matthewsii S. Watson (see Agerer-Kirchhoff
& Podlech in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 12: 375. 1976).

Ex. 19. Codium geppii O. C. Schmidt (Biblioth. Bot. 23(91): 50. 1923), which commemorates "A.
& E. S. Gepp", is to be corrected toC. geppiorum.

Recommendation73A

73A.1. When a new name or epithet is to be derived from Greek, the transliteration to Latin
should conform to classical usage.

73A.2. The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letterh.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 73 –

______________________________________________________________________

73	Orthography

Recommendation73B

73B.1. When a new name for a genus, subgenus, or section is taken from the name of a person, it
should be formed as follows:

(a) When the name of the person ends in a vowel, the letter-a is added (thusOttoa after Otto;
Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name ends in-a, when-ea is added (e.g.Collaea after
Colla), or in-ea (asCorrea), when no letter is added.

(b) When the name of the person ends in a consonant, the letters-ia are added; when the name
ends in-er,the terminations-ia and-aare both in use (e.g.Sesleria after Sesler andKernera
after Kerner).

(c) In latinizedpersonal names ending in-us this termination is dropped (e.g.Dillenia after
Dillenius)before applying the procedure described under (a) and (b).

(d) The syllables not modified by these endings retain their original spelling, unless they contain
letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritical signs (see Art.73.6).

Note 1. Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix, or be modified by anagram or abbre-
viation. In these cases they count as different words from the original name.

Ex. 1. Durvillaea andUrvillea; Lapeirousia andPeyrousea; Englera,Englerastrum, andEnglerel-
la; Bouchea andUbochea; Gerardia andGraderia; Martia andMartiusia.

Recommendation73C

73C.1. Modern personal names may be given Latin terminations and used to form specific and
infraspecific epithets as follows(but see Rec. 73C.2):

(a) If the personal name ends in a vowel or-er, substantive epithets are formed by adding the
       genitive inflection appropriate to thesex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g.,scopo-
      li-i for Scopoli (m),fedtschenko-i for Fedtschenko (m),glaziou-i for Glaziou (m),lace-ae for
       Lace (f),hooker-orum for the Hookers), except when the name ends in-a, in which case
       adding-e (singular) or-rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g.triana-e for Triana (m)).

(b) If the personal name ends in a consonant (except-er), substantive epithets are formed by
       adding-i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to thesex and number
       of the person(s) honoured (e.g.lecard-ii for Lecard (m),wilson-iae for Wilson (f),ver-
      lot-iorum for the Verlot brothers,braun-iarum for the Braun sisters).

(c) If the personal name ends in a vowel, adjectival epithets are formed by adding-an- plus the
       nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g.,Cyperus
      heyne-anus for Heyne,Vanda lindley-ana for Lindley,Aspidium bertero-anum for Bertero),
       except when the personal name ends in-a in which case-n- plus the appropriate inflection is
       added (e.g.balansa-nus (m),balansa-na (f), andbalansa-num (n) for Balansa).

(d) If the personal name ends in a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed by adding-i- (stem
       augmentation) plus-an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection
       appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g.Rosa webb-iana for Webb,Desmodium
      griffith-ianum for Griffith,Verbena hassler-iana for Hassler).

Note 1. The hyphens in the above examples are used only to set off the total appropriate termina-
tion.

73C.2. Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing a well-established latinized form,
should be given their appropriate Latin genitive to form substantive epithets (e.g.alexandri from
Alexander or Alexandre,augusti from Augustus or August or Auguste,linnaei from Linnaeus,
martii from Martius,beatricis from Beatrix or Béatrice,hectoris from Hector). (However, modern
personal names are subject to the provisions of Art.73.10.) Treating modern names as if they were
in Third Declension should be avoided (e.g.munronis from Munro,richardsonis from Richard-
son).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 74 –

______________________________________________________________________

Orthography

73C.3. In forming new epithets based on personal names the original spelling of the personal
name should not be modified unless it contains letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritical
signs (see Arts.73.4 and73.6).

73C.4. Prefixes and particles ought to be treated as follows:

(a) The Scottish patronymic prefix"Mac","Mc" or"M", meaning"son of", should be spelled"mac"
and united with the rest of the name, e.g.macfadyenii after Macfadyen,macgillivrayi after
MacGillivray,macnabii after McNab,mackenii after MKen.

(b) The Irish patronymic prefix"O" should be united with the rest of the name or omitted, e.g.
obrienii,brienianus after OBrien,okellyi after OKelly.

(c) A prefix consisting of an article, e.g. le, la, l, les, el, il, lo, or containing an article e.g. du, de la,
des, del, della, should be united to the name, e.g.leclercii after Le Clerc,dubuyssonii after
DuBuysson,lafarinae after La Farina,logatoi after La Gato.

(d) A prefix to a surname indicating ennoblement or canonization should be omitted, e.g.candol-
      lei after de Candolle,jussieui after de Jussieu,hilairei after Saint-Hilaire,remyi after St.
       Rémy; in geographical epithets, however,"St." is rendered assanctus (m) orsancta (f), e.g.
      sancti-johannis, of St. John,sanctae-helenae, of St. Helena.

(e) A German or Dutch prefix when it is normally treated as part of the family name, as often
       happens outside its country of origin, e.g. in the United States, may be included in the epithet,
       e.g.vonhausenii after Vonhausen,vanderhoekii after Vanderhoek,vanbruntiae after Mrs.
       Van Brunt, but should otherwise be omitted, e.g.iheringii after von Ihering,martii after von
       Martius,steenisii after van Steenis,strassenii after zu Strassen,vechtii after van der Vecht.

Recommendation73D

73D.1. An epithet derived from a geographical name is preferably an adjective and usually takes
the termination-ensis,-(a)nus,-inus, or-icus.

Ex. 1. Rubus quebecensis (from Quebec),Ostrya virginiana (from Virginia),Eryngium amorgi-
num (from Amorgos),Polygonum pensylvanicum (from Pennsylvania).

Recommendation73E

73E.1. A new epithet should be written in conformity with the original spelling of the word or
words from which it is derived and in accordance with the accepted usage of Latin and latinization
(see Art.23.5).

Ex. 1. sinensis (notchinensis).

Recommendation73F

73F.1. All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written with a small initial letter, although
authors desiring to use capital initial letters may do so when the epithets are directly derived from
the names of persons (whether actual or mythical), or are vernacular (or non-Latin) names, or are
former generic names.

Recommendation73G

73G.1. A compound name or an epithet which combines elements derived from two or more
Greek or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable, in accordance with classical usage
(see Art.73.8). This may be stated as follows:

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 75 –

______________________________________________________________________

74	Orthography

(a) In a true compound, a noun or adjective in non-final position appears asa compounding form
generally obtained by

(1) removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin-ae, -i, -us, -is; Greek-os, -es, -as,
-ous and the latters equivalent-eos) and

(2) before a consonant,adding a connecting vowel (-i-forLatin elements,-o-for Greek
elements).

(3) Exceptions are common, and one should review earlier usages of a particular compound-
ing form.

(b) A pseudocompound is a noun or adjectival phrase treated as if it were a single compound
       word. In a pseudocompound, a noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a word
       with a case ending, not as a modified stem. Examples are:nidus-avis (nest of bird),Myos-otis
       (ear of mouse),cannae-folius (leaf of canna),albo-marginatus (margined with white), etc.In
      epithets where tingeing is expressed, the modifying initial colour often is in the ablative be-
      cause the prepositione,ex, is implicit, e.g.,atropurpureus(blackish purple) fromexatro
      purpureus (purple tinged with black). Others have been deliberately introduced to reveal
       etymological differences when different word elements have the same compounding forms,
       such astubi- from tube (tubus,tubi, stemtubo-) or from trumpet (tuba,tubae, stemtuba-)
       wheretubaeflorus can only mean trumpet-flowered; alsocarici- is the compounding form
       from both papaya (carica,caricae, stemcarica-) and sedge (carex,caricis, stemcaric-) where
      caricaefolius can only mean papaya-leaved. The latter use of the genitive singular of thefirst
      declension for pseudocompounding is treated as an error to be corrected unless it makes an
       etymological distinction.

(c) Some common irregular forms are used in compounding. Examples arehydro- andhydr-
       (Hydro-phyllum) where the regular noun stem ishydat-; calli- (Calli-stemon) where the
       regular adjective stem iscalo-; andmeli- (Meli-osma,Meli-lotus) where the regular noun stem
       ismelit-.

Note 1. The hyphens in the above examples are given solely for explanatory reasons. For the use
of hyphens in botanical names and epithets see Arts.20.3,23.1, and73.9.

Recommendation73H

73H.1. Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of the host plant should be
spelled in accordance with the accepted spelling of this name; other spellings are regarded as
orthographic variants to be corrected (see Art.75).

Ex. 1. Phyllachora anonicola Chardon is to be altered toP. annonicola, since the spellingAnnona
is now accepted in preference toAnona. –Meliola albizziae Hansford & Deighton is to be altered
toM. albiziae, since the spellingAlbizia is now accepted in preference toAlbizzia.

Recommendation73I

73I.1. The etymology of new names and epithets should be given when the meaning of these is not
obvious.

Article74

[Article 74, dealing with variant spellings of Linnaean generic names, was
deleted by the Sydney Congress, 1981 (but see Art.13.4).]

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 76 –

______________________________________________________________________

Gender

75-76

Article75

75.1. Only one orthographic variant of any one name is treated as validly pub-
lished, the form which appears in the original publication except as provided in
Art.73 (orthographic and typographic errors), Art.14.10 (conserved spel-
lings), and Art.32.5 (incorrect Latin terminations).

Note 1. Orthographic variants are the various spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a
name or epithet (including typographic errors), only one type being involved.

75.2. If orthographic variants of a name appear in the original publication, the
one that conforms to the rules and best suits the recommendations of Art.73 is
to be retained; otherwise the first author who, in an effectively published text
(Arts.29-30), explicitly adopts one of the variants, rejecting the other(s), must
be followed.

75.3. The orthographic variants of a name are to be automatically corrected to
the validly published form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in
print, it is to be treated as if it were printed in its corrected form.

Note 2. In full citations it is desirable that the original form of an automatically corrected ortho-
graphic variant of a name be added (Rec.50F).

75.4. Confusingly similar names based on the same type are treated as ortho-
graphic variants.(For confusingly similar namesbased on different types, see
Art.64.3.)

Ex. 1. Geaster Fr. (1829) andGeastrum Pers. (1794) : Pers. (1801) are similar names with the
same type (Taxon 33: 498. 1984); they are treated as orthographic variants despite the fact that
they are derived from two different nouns,aster (asteris) andastrum (astri).

SECTION2. GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES

Article76

76.1. A generic name retains thegender assigned by itsauthor, unless this is
contrary to botanical tradition. The following names must be treated as femi-
ninein accordance with botanicaltradition, irrespective of classical usage or
the authors original usage:Adonis, Diospyros, Hemerocallis, Orchis, Stachys,
andStrychnos.Lotus andMelilotus must be treated as masculine.

Note 1. Botanical tradition usually maintains the classicalgender ofa Greek or Latin word, when
this was well established.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 77 –

______________________________________________________________________

Gender

Ex. 1. Although their ending suggests masculine gender,Cedrus andFagus are feminine like most
other classical tree names; similarly,Rhamnus is feminine, despite the fact that Linnaeus gave it
masculine gender.Eucalyptus, a neologism, is also feminine, retaining the gender assigned by its
author.Phyteuma (neuter),Sicyos (masculine), andErigeron (masculine) are other names for
which botanical usage has reestablished theclassical gender despite another choice byLinnaeus.

The classical gender ofAtriplex varied (e.g. feminine in Columella, neuter in Pliny)and Linnaeus
choice of femininegenderstands.

76.2. Compoundgeneric names take the gender of the lastwordin the nomi-
native case in the compound. If the termination is altered, however, the
genderis altered accordingly.

(a) Modern compounds ending in-codon,-myces,-odon,-panax,-pogon,
      -stemon, and other masculine wordsare masculine,irrespective of the fact
       that the generic namesAndropogon L. andOplopanax (Torrey & A. Gray)
       Miq. were originally treated as neuter by their authors.

(b) Similarly, all modern compounds ending in-achne,-chlamys,-daphne,
      -mecon,-osma (the modern transcription of the feminine Greek word
      osmé) and other feminine wordsare feminine,irrespective of the fact that
      Dendromecon Bentham andHesperomecon E. Greene were originally
       ascribed the neuter gender. An exception is made in the case of names
       ending in-gaster, which strictly speaking ought to be feminine, but which
      are treated as masculine in accordance with botanical tradition.

(c) Similarly, all modern compounds ending in-ceras,-dendron,-nema,
      -stigma,-stoma and other neuter wordsare neuter,irrespective of the fact
       that Robert Brown and Bunge respectively madeAceras andXanthoceras
       feminine. An exception is made for names ending in-anthos (or-anthus)
       and-chilos (-chilus or-cheilos), which ought to be neuter, since that is the
       gender of the Greek wordsanthos andcheilos,but are treated as mascu-
       lineare in accordance with botanical tradition.

Ex. 2. Compound generic namesin which the termination of the last word is altered:Stenocarpus,
Dipterocarpus, and all other modern compounds ending in the Greek masculine-carpos (or
-carpus), e.g.Hymenocarpos,are masculine; those in-carpa or-carpaea, however,are feminine,
e.g.Callicarpa andPolycarpaea; and those in-carpon,-carpum, or-carpiumare neuter, e.g.
Polycarpon,Ormocarpum, andPisocarpium.

76.3. Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names or adjectives used
as generic names, whose gender is not apparent, take the gender assigned to
them by their authors.If the original author failed to indicate the gender, the
next subsequent author may choose a gender, and his choice, if effectively
published (Arts.29-31), is to be accepted.

Ex. 3. Taonabo Aubletis feminine: Aublets two species wereT. dentata andT. punctata.

Ex. 4. Agati Adanson was published without indication of gender: the feminine gender was as-
signed to it by Desvaux (J. Bot. Agric. 1: 120. 1813), who was the first subsequent author to adopt
the namein an effectively published text, and his choiceis to to be accepted.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 78 –

______________________________________________________________________

Gender

Ex. 5. Boehmer (in Ludwig, Def. Gen. Pl. ed. 3. 436. 1760) and Adanson (Fam. Pl. 2: 356. 1763)
failed to indicate the gender ofManihot.Crantz (Inst. Rei Herb. 1: 167. 1766) was the first author
who, by publishing the namesManihot gossypiifolia, etc.,indicated the gender ofManihot, and
Manihotis thereforeto be treated as feminine.

76.4. Generic names ending in-oides or-odesare treated as feminine and
those ending in-ites as masculine, irrespective of the gender assigned to them
by the original author.

Recommendation76A

76A.1. When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the gender of the new generic name
or names should be that of the generic name that is retained.

Ex. 1. WhenBoletus is divided, the gender of the new generic names should be masculine:Xero-
comus,Boletellus, etc.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 79 –

______________________________________________________________________

Div.III.1-Div.III.2

Modification of Code

DIVISIONIII. PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CODE

Div.III.1. Modification of the Code. The Code may be modified only by action
of a plenary session of an International Botanical Congress on a resolution
moved by the Nomenclature Section of that Congress.¹

Div.III.2. Nomenclature Committees. Permanent Nomenclature Committees
are established under the auspices of the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy. Members of these committees are elected by an International
Botanical Congress. The Committees have power to co-opt and to establish
subcommittees; such officers as may be desired are elected.

(1) General Committee, composed of the secretaries of the other commit-
        tees, the rapporteur-général, the president and the secretary of the Inter-
        national Association for Plant Taxonomy, and at least 5 members to be
        appointed by the Nomenclature Section. The rapporteur-général is
        charged with the presentation of nomenclature proposals to the Interna-
        tional Botanical Congress.

(2) Committee for Spermatophyta.

(3) Committee for Pteridophyta.

(4) Committee for Bryophyta.

(5) Committee for Fungi and Lichens.

(6) Committee for Algae.

(7) Committee for Hybrids.

(8) Committee for Fossil Plants.

(9) Editorial Committee, charged with the preparation and publication of the
        Code in conformity with the decisions adopted by the International Bo-
        tanical Congress. Chairman: the rapporteur-général of the previous Con-
        gress, who is charged with the general duties in connection with the edi-
        ting of the Code.

——————

1)   In the event that there should not be another International Botanical Congress, authority
       for the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature shall be transferred to the Interna-
       tional Union of Biological Sciences or to an organization at that time corresponding to it. The
       General Committee is empowered to define the machinery to achieve this.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 80 –

______________________________________________________________________

Modification of Code

Div.III.3-Div.III.4

Div.III.3. The Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical Con-
gress. Its officers are:(1) the president of the Nomenclature Section, elected
by the organizing committee of the International Botanical Congress in ques-
tion;(2) the recorder, appointed by the same organizing committee;(3) the
rapporteur-général, elected by the previous Congress;(4) the vice-rapporteur,
elected by the organizing committee on the proposal of the rapporteur-géné-
ral.

Div.III.4. The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two kinds:(a) a prelimi-
nary guiding mail vote and(b) a final and binding vote at the Nomenclature
Section of the International Botanical Congress.

Qualifications for voting:

(a) Preliminary mail vote:

(1) The members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

(2) The authors of proposals.

(3) The members of the nomenclature committees.

Note 1. No accumulation or transfer of personal votes is permissible.

(b) Final vote at the sessions of the Nomenclature Section:

(1) All officially enrolled members of the Section. No accumulation or
transfer of personal votes is permissible.

       (2) Official delegates or vice-delegates of the institutes appearing on a list
        drawn up by the Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical
        Congress and submitted to the General Committee for final approval;
        such institutes are entitled to 1-7 votes, as specified on the list.¹ Transfer
        of institutional votes to specified vice-delegates is permissible, but no
        single person will be allowed more than 15 votes, his personal vote in-
        cluded. Institutional votes may be deposited at the Bureau of Nomencla-
        ture to be counted in a specified way for specified proposals.

——————

1) The Sydney Congress directed that no single institution, even in the wide sense of the term,
shall be entitled to more than 7 votes.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 81 –

______________________________________________________________________

H.1-H.3

Hybrids

APPENDIXI

NAMES OF HYBRIDS

ArticleH.1

H.1.1. Hybridity is indicated by the use of the multiplication sign ×, or by the
addition of the prefix"notho-"¹ to the term denoting the rank of the taxon.

ArticleH.2

H.2.1. A hybrid between named taxa may be indicated by placing the multipli-
cation sign between the names of the taxa; the whole expression is then called
a hybrid formula.

Ex. 1. Agrostis L. ×Polypogon Desf.;Agrostis stolonifera L. ×Polypogon monspeliensis (L.)
Desf.;Salix aurita L. ×S. caprea L.;Mentha aquatica L. ×M. arvensis L. ×M spicata L.;Polypo-
dium vulgare subsp.prionodes Rothm. × subsp.vulgare.

RecommendationH.2A

H.2A.1. It is usually preferable to place the names or epithets in a formula in alphabetical order.
The direction of a cross may be indicated by including the sexual symbols (♀: female; ♂: male) in
the formula, or by placing the female parent first. If a non-alphabetical sequence is used, its basis
should be clearly indicated.

ArticleH.3

H.3.1. Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a
name.For nomenclatural purposes,the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated by
placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or
before the epithetin the name of an interspecific hybrid, or by prefixing the
term"notho-" (optionally abbreviated"n-") to the term denoting the rank of the
taxon (see Arts.3.2and4.3). All such taxa are designated nothotaxa.

——————

1) From the Greeknothos, meaning hybrid.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 82 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H.4

Ex. 1. (The putative or known parentage is found in Art. H.2, Ex.1.) ×Agropogon P. Fourn.;
×Agropogon littoralis (Smith) C. E. Hubb.;Salix ×capreola Kerner ex Andersson;Mentha ×smith-
iana R. A. Graham;Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp.mantoniae (Rothm.) Schidlay.

H.3.2. A nothotaxon cannot be designated unless at least one parental taxon is
known or can be postulated.

H.3.3. The epithetin the name of a nothospecies is termed a collective epithet.

H.3.4. For purposes of homonymy and synonymy the multiplication sign and
the prefix"notho-" are disregarded.

Ex. 2. ×Hordelymus Bacht. & Darevskaja (1950) ( =Elymus L. ×Hordeum L.) is a later homonym
ofHordelymus (Jessen) Jessen (1885).

Note 1. Taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa.

Ex. 3. The true-breeding tetraploid raised from the artificial crossDigitalis grandiflora L. ×D.
purpurea L. may, if desired, be referred to asD. mertonensis Buxton & Darl.;Triticum aestivum
L. is treated as a species although it is not found in nature and its genome has been shown to be
composed of those ofT. monococcum,Aegilops speltoides, andA. squarrosa; the taxon known as
Phlox divaricata subsp.laphamii (Wood) Wherry is believed by Levin (Evolution 21: 92-108. 1967)
to be a stabilized product of hybridization betweenP. divaricata L. subsp.divaricata andP. pilosa
subsp.ozarkana Wherry;Rosa canina L., a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid origin, is
treated as a species.

Note 2. The term"collective epithet" is used in the International Code of Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants-1980 to include also epithets in modern language.

RecommendationH.3A

H.3A.1. The multiplication sign in the name of a nothotaxon should be placed against the initial
letter of the name or epithet. However, if the mathematical symbol is not available and the letterx
is used instead, a single letter space may be left between it and the epithet if this helps to avoid
ambiguity. The letterx should be in lower case.

ArticleH.4

H.4.1. When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a nothotaxon
is circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be recog-
nized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated parent taxa
(i.e. not only theFı but subsequent filial generations and also back-crosses and
combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct name correspond-
ing to a particular hybrid formula; this is the earliest legitimate name (see Art.
6.3) in the appropriate rank (Art.H.5), and other names to which the same
hybrid formula applies are synonyms of it.

Ex. 1. The namesOenothera ×wienii Renner ex Rostański (1977) andO. ×hoelscheri Renner ex
Rostański (1968) are both considered to apply to the hybridO. rubricaulis ×O. depressa; the types
of the two nothospecific names are known to differ by a whole gene-complex; nevertheless, the
later name is treated as a synonym of the earlier.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 83 –

______________________________________________________________________

H.5-H.6

Hybrids

Note 1. Variation within nothospecies and nothotaxa of lower rank may be treated according to
Art.H.12 or, if appropriate, according to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated
Plants-1980.

ArticleH.5

H.5.1. The appropriate rank of a nothotaxon is that of the postulated or known
parent taxa.

H.5.2. If the postulated or known parent taxa are of unequal rankthe appro-
priate rank of the nothotaxonis the lowest of these ranks.

Note 1. When a taxon is designated by a name in a rank inappropriate to its hybrid formula, the
name is incorrect in relation to that hybrid formula but may nevertheless be correct, or may be-
come correct later (see also Art. 63Note 3).

Ex. 1. The combinationElymus ×laxus (Fries) Melderis & D. McClintock, based onTriticum
laxum Fries, was published for hybrids with the formulaE. farctus subsp.boreoatlanticus (Si-
monet & Guinochet) Melderis ×E. repens (L.) Gould, so that the combination is in a rank inap-
propriate to the hybrid formula. It is, however, the correct name applicable to all hybrids between
E. farctus (Viv.) Melderis andE repens.

Ex. 2. Radcliffe-Smith incorrectly published the nothospecific nameEuphorbia ×cornubiensis for
E. amygdaloides L. ×E. characias subsp.wulfenii (Koch) A. R. Sm., although the correct designa-
tion for hybrids betweenE. amygdaloides andE. characias isE. ×martini Rouy; later, he remedied
his mistake by publishing the combinationE. ×martini nothosubsp.cornubiensis (A. R. Sm.) A. R.
Sm. However, the nameE. ×cornubiensis is potentially correct for hybrids with the formulaE.
amygdaloides ×E. wulfenii.

RecommendationH.5A

H.5A.1. When publishing a name of a new nothotaxon at the rank of species or below, authors
should provide any available information on the taxonomic identity, at lower ranks, of the known
or postulated parent plants of the type of the name.

ArticleH.6

H.6.1. A nothogeneric name (i.e. the name at generic rank for a hybrid be-
tweenrepresentatives of two or more genera) is a condensed formula or is
equivalent to a condensed formula.

H.6.2. The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid is a condensed formula in
which the names adopted for the parental genera are combined into a single
word, using the first part or the whole of one, the last part or the whole of the
other (but not the whole of both) and, if desirable, a connecting vowel.

Ex. 1. ×Agropogon P. Fourn. (=Agrostis ×Polypogon); ×Gymnanacamptis Asch. & Graebner
(=Anacamptis ×Gymnadenia); ×Cupressocyparis Dallimore (=Chamaecyparis ×Cupressus);
×Seleniphyllum Rowley (=Epiphyllum ×Selenicereus).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 84 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H.7

Ex. 2. ×Amarcrinum Coutts (1925) is correct forAmaryllis L. ×Crinum L., not ×Crindonna Ra-
gion. (1921). The latter name was proposed for the same nothogenus, but was formed from
the generic name adopted for one parent (Crinum) and a synonym (Belladonna Sweet) of the generic
name adopted for the other (Amaryllis). Being contrary to Art. H.6, it is not validly published
under Art.32.1(b).

Ex. 3. The name ×Leucadenia Schlechter is correct forLeucorchis E. Meyer ×Gymnadenia R.
Br., but if the generic namePseudorchis Séguier is adopted instead ofLeucorchis, ×Pseudadenia
P. Hunt is correct.

Ex. 4. ×Aporophyllum Johnson when first published was defined asAporocactus × members of
the"Orchid Cacti". The latter constitute the epicacti ("epiphyllums" of horticulture) — a complex
descended from 4 or 5 separate genera. This name is hence not validly published (32.1(b))
because it conflicts with Art. H.6.3. For the bigeneric hybridAporocactus ×Epiphyllum a different
name applies(×Aporepiphyllum Rowley).

Ex. 5. Boivin (1967) published ×Maltea for what he considered to be the intergeneric hybrid
Phippsia ×Puccinellia. As this is not a condensed formula, the name cannot be used for that
intergeneric hybrid, for which the correct name is ×Pucciphippsia Tzvelev (1971). Boivin did,
however, provide a Latin description and designate a type; consequently,Maltea is a validly
published generic name and is correct if its type is treated as belonging to a separate genus, not to
a nothogenus.

H.6.3. The nothogeneric name of an intergeneric hybrid derived from four or
more genera is formed from the name of aperson to which is added the termi-
nation-ara; no such name may exceed eight syllables. Such a name is regarded
as a condensed formula.

Ex. 6. ×PotinaraCharlesworth & Co. (=Brassavola ×Cattleya ×Laelia ×Sophronitis).

H.6.4. The nothogeneric name of a trigeneric hybrid is either(a) a condensed
formula in which the three names adopted for the parental genera are com-
bined into a single word not exceeding eight syllables, using the whole or first
part of one, followed by the whole or any part of another, followed by the
whole or last part of the third (but not the whole of all three) and, if desirable,
one or two connecting vowels, or(b) a name formed like that of a nothogenus
derived from four or more genera, i.e., from a personal name to which is added
the termination-ara.

Ex. 7. ×SophrolaeliocattleyaHurst (=Cattleya ×Laelia ×Sophronitis); ×VascostylisTakakura
(=Ascocentrum ×Rhynchostylis ×Vanda); ×Rodrettiopsis Moir (=Comparettia ×Ionopsis ×
Rodriguezia); ×WilsonaraCharlesworth & Co. (=Cochlioda ×Odontoglossum ×Oncidium).

RecommendationH.6A

H.6A.1. When anothogeneric name is formed from the name of a person byadding the termina-
tion-ara, that person should preferably bea collector, grower, or student of the group.

ArticleH.7

H.7.1. The name of a nothotaxon which is a hybrid between subdivisions of a
genus is a combination of an epithet, which is a condensed formula formed in
the same way as a nothogeneric name (Art.H.6.2), with the name of the genus.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 85 –

______________________________________________________________________

H.8-H.9

Hybrids

Ex. 1. Ptilostemon nothosect.Platon Greuter (Boissiera 22: 159. 1973), comprising hybrids
betweenPtilostemon sect.Platyrhaphium Greuter andP. sect.Ptilostemon; Ptilostemon notho-
sect.Plinia Greuter (Boissiera 22: 158. 1973), comprising hybrids betweenPtilostemon sect.
Platyrhaphium andP. sect.Cassinia Greuter.

ArticleH.8

H.8.1. When the name or the epithetin the name of a nothotaxon is a con-
densed formula (Arts.H.6 andH.7), the parental names used in its formation
must be those which are correct for the particular circumscription, position,
and rank accepted for the parental taxa.

Ex. 1. If the genusTriticum L. is interpreted on taxonomic grounds as includingTriticum (s. str.)
andAgropyron Gaertner, and the genusHordeum L. as includingHordeum (s. str.) andElymus
L, then hybrids betweenAgropyron andElymus as well as betweenTriticum (s. str.) andHor-
deum (s. str.) are placed in the same nothogenus, ×Tritordeum Asch. & Graebner (1902). If,
however,Agropyron is separated generically fromTriticum, hybrids betweenAgropyron and
Hordeum (s. str. or s. lat.) are placed in the nothogenus ×AgrohordeumA. Camus (1927). Similar-
ly, ifElymus is separated generically fromHordeum, hybrids betweenElymus andTriticum (s. str.
or s. lat.) are placed in the nothogenus ×Elymotriticum P. Fourn. (1935). If bothAgropyron and
Elymus are given generic rank, hybrids between them are placed in the nothogenus ×Agroelymus
A. Camus (1927); ×Tritordeum is then restricted to hybrids betweenHordeum (s. str.) andTriti-
cum (s. str.), and hybrids betweenElymus andHordeum are placed in ×Elyhordeum Mansf. ex
Tsitsin & Petrova (1955), a substitute name for ×Hordelymus Bacht. & Darevskaja (1950) non
Hordelymus (Jessen) Jessen (1885).

H.8.2. Names ending in-ara for nothogenera, which are equivalent to con-
densed formulae (Art.H.6.3-H.6.4), are applicable only to plants which are ac-
cepted taxonomically as derived from the parents named.

Ex. 2. IfEuanthe is recognized as a distinct genus, hybrids simultaneously involving its only
species,E. sanderiana, and the three generaArachnis,Renanthera, andVanda must be placed in
×Cogniauxara Garay & H. Sweet; if on the other handE. sanderiana is included inVanda, the
same hybrids are placed in ×Holttumara hort. (Arachnis ×Renanthera ×Vanda).

ArticleH.9

H.9.1. In order to be validly published, the name of a nothogenus or of a
nothotaxon with the rank of subdivision of a genus (Arts.H.6 andH.7) must be
effectively published (see Art.29) with a statement of the names of the parent
genera or subdivisions of genera, but no description or diagnosis is necessary,
whether in Latin or in any other language.

Ex. 1. Validly published names: ×Philageria Masters (1872), published with a statement of paren-
tage,Lapageria ×Philesia; Eryngium nothosect.Alpestria Burdet & Miège, pro sect. (Candollea
23: 116. 1968), published with a statement of its parentage,Eryngium sect.Alpina × sect.Cam-
pestria; ×Agrohordeum A. Camus (1927) (=Agropyron Gaertner ×Hordeum L.), of which
×Hordeopyron Simonet (1935,"Hordeopyrum") is a later synonym.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 86 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H.10

Note 1. Since the names of nothogenera and nothotaxa with the rank of a subdivision of a genus
are condensed formulae or treated as such, they do not have types.

Ex. 2. The name ×Ericalluna bealei Krüssm. (1960) was published for plants which were thought
to be variants of the crossCalluna vulgaris ×Erica cinerea. If it is considered that these are not
hybrids, but are forms ofErica cinerea, the name ×Ericalluna Krüssm. remains available for use if
and when known or postulated plants ofCalluna ×Erica should appear.

Ex. 3. ×Arabidobrassica Gleba & Fr. Hoffm. (Naturwissenschaften 66: 548. 1979), a nothogeneric
name which was validly published with a statement of parentage for the result of somatic hybridi-
zation by protoplast fusion ofArabidopsis thaliana withBrassica campestris, is also available for
intergeneric hybrids resulting from normal crosses betweenArabidopsis andBrassica, should any
be produced.

Note 2. However, names published merely in anticipation of the existence of a hybrid are not
validly published under Art.34.1(b).

ArticleH.10

H.10.1. Names of nothotaxa at the rank of species or below must conform with
the provisions(a) in the body of the Code applicable to the same ranks and(b)
in Art.H.3. Infringements of Art.H.3.1 . are treated as errors to be corrected.

H.10.2. Taxa previously published as species or infraspecific taxa which are
later considered to be nothotaxa may be indicated as such, without change of
rank, in conformity with Arts.3 and4 and by the application of Art.50 (which
also operates in the reverse direction).

H.10.3. The following are considered to be formulae and not true epithets:
designations consisting of the epithets of the names of the parents combined in
unaltered form by a hyphen, or with only the termination of one epithet
changed, or consisting of the specific epithet of the name of one parent com-
bined with the generic name of the other (with or without change of termina-
tion).

Ex. 1. The designationPotentilla atrosanguinea-pedata published by Maund (Bot. Gard. 5: no.
385, t. 97. 1833) is considered to be a formula meaningPotentilla atrosanguinea Lodd. ex D. Don ×
P. pedata Nestler.

Ex. 2. Verbascum nigro-lychnitis Schiede (Pl. Hybr. 40. 1825) is considered to be a formula,Ver-
bascum lychnitis L. ×V. nigrum L.; the correct binary name for this hybrid isVerbascum ×schie-
deanum Koch (1844).

Ex. 3. The following names include true epithets:Acaena ×anserovina Orch. (1969) (fromanseri-
nifolia andovina);Micromcria ×benthamineolens Svent. (1969) (frombenthamii andpineolens ).

Note 1. Since the name of a nothotaxon at the rank of species or below has a type, statements of
parentage play a secondary part in determining the application of the name.

Ex. 4. Quercus ×deamii Trel. was described asQ. alba L. ×Q. muehlenbergii Engelm. However,
progeny grown from acorns from the type tree led Bartlett to conclude that the parents were in
factQ. macrocarpa Michx. andQ. muehlenbergii. If this conclusion is accepted, the nameQ.
×deamii applies toQ. macrocarpa ×Q. muehlenbergii and not toQ. alba ×Q. muehlenbergii.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 87 –

______________________________________________________________________

H.11-H.12

Hybrids

RecommendationH.10A

H.10A.1. In forming epithets for nothotaxa at the rank of species and below, authors should avoid
combining parts of the epithets of the names of the parents.

RecommendationH.10B

H.10B.1. Whencontemplating the publication of newnamesfor hybrids between named infraspe-
cific taxa, authors should carefully consider whether they are really needed, bearing in mind that
formulae, though more cumbersome, are more informative.

ArticleH.11

H.11.1. The name of a nothospecies of which the postulated or known parent
species belong to different genera is a combination of a nothospecific (collec-
tive) epithet with a nothogeneric name.

Ex. 1. ×Heucherella tiarelloides(Lemoine) Wehrh. ex Stearn (considered to beHeuchera ×brizo-
ides hort. ×Tiarella cordifolia L., for whichHeuchera ×tiarelloidesLemoine is incorrect).

Ex. 2. WhenOrchis fuchsii Druce was renamedDactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó the name ×Or-
chicoeloglossum mixtum Asch. & Graebner (for its hybrid withCoeloglossum viride (L.) Hart-
man) became the basis of the necessary new combination ×Dactyloglossum mixtum (Asch. &
Graebner) Rauschert (1969).

H.11.2. The epithet of an infraspecific nothotaxon, of which the postulated or
known parental taxa are assigned to different taxa at a higher rank, may be
placed subordinate to the name of a nothotaxon at that higher rank (see Art.
24.1). If this higher-ranking nothotaxon is a nothospecies the name of the sub-
ordinate nothotaxon is a combination of its epithet with the nothospecific name
(but see Rec.H.10B).

Ex. 3. Mentha ×piperita L. nothosubsp.piperita (=M. aquatica L ×M spicata L subsp.spicata);
Mentha ×piperita nothosubsp.pyramidalis (Ten.) R. Harley (=M. aquatica L. ×M. spicata subsp.
tomentosa (Briq.) R. Harley).

ArticleH.12

H.12.1. Subordinate taxa within nothotaxa of specific or infraspecific rank may
be recognized without an obligation to specify parent taxa at the subordinate
rank. In this case non-hybrid infraspecific categories of the appropriate rank
are used.

Ex. 1. Mentha ×piperita formahirsuta Sole;Populus ×canadensis var.serotina (Hartig) Rehder
andP. ×canadensis var.marilandica (Poiret) Rehder (see also Art. H.4,Note 1).

Note 1. As there is no statement of parentage at the rank concerned there is no control of circum-
scription at this rank by parentage (compare Art.H.4.).

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 88 –

______________________________________________________________________

Hybrids

H.12

Note 2. It is not feasible to treat subdivisions of nothospecies by the methods of both Art.H.10
and H.12.1 at the same rank.

H.12.2. Names published at the rank of nothomorph¹ are treated as having
been published as names of varieties (see Art.50).

——————

1)   Previous editions of the Code (1978, Art.H.10, and the corresponding article in earlier
       editions) permitted only one rank under provisions equivalent to H.12. That rank was equiva-
       lent to variety and the category was termed "nothomorph".

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988 — Berlin Code

– 89 –

______________________________________________________________________

[ Not present in this edition ]

[ sic ]

[8]ページ先頭