CHAPTER II. STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES

SECTION 1. STATUS DEFINITIONS

Article 6

6.1. Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 29, 30, 31.

6.2. Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Art. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 or H.9 (see also Art. 61).

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

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

Note 2. When the same name, based on the same type, has been published independently at different times by different authors, then only the earliest of these so-called “isonyms” has nomenclatural status. The name is always to be cited from its original place of valid publication, and later “isonyms” may be disregarded.

Ex. 1. Baker (Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 5: 189. 1891) and Christensen (Index Filic: 44. 1905) independently published the name Alsophila kalbreyeri as a substitute for A. podophylla Baker (1881) non Hook. (1857). As published by Christensen, Alsophila kalbreyeri is a later “isonym” of A. kalbreyeri Baker, without nomenclatural status (see also Art. 33 Ex. 19).

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

6.4. An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in Art. 18.3, 19.5, or 52, 53, 54 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and Art. 24 Note 2). A name which according to this Code was illegitimate when published cannot become legitimate later unless it is conserved or sanctioned.

Ex. 3. Anisothecium Mitt. (1869) when published included the previously designated type of Dicranella (Müll. Hal.) Schimp. (1856). When Dicranella was conserved with a different type, Anisothecium did not thereby become legitimate.

Ex. 4. Skeletonemopsis P. A. Sims (1995) was illegitimate when published because it included the original type of Skeletonema Grev. (1865). When Skeletonema was conserved with a different type, Skeletonemopsis nevertheless remained illegitimate and had to be conserved in order to be available for use.

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

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

Ex. 5. The generic name Vexillifera Ducke (1922), based on the single species V. micranthera, is legitimate. The same is true of the generic name Dussia Krug & Urb. ex Taub. (1892), based on the single species D. martinicensis. Both generic names are correct when the genera are thought to be separate. Harms (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 19: 291. 1924), however, united Vexillifera and Dussia in a single genus; the latter name is the correct one for the genus with this particular circumscription. The legitimate name Vexillifera may therefore be correct or incorrect according to different taxonomic concepts.

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

Ex. 6. Combinations: Mouriri subg. Pericrene, Arytera sect. Mischarytera, Gentiana lutea, Gentiana tenella var. occidentalis, Equisetum palustre var. americanum, Equisetum palustre f. fluitans.

6.8. Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under Art. 22.3 and 26.3, whether or not they appear in print in the publication in which they are created (see Art. 32.8, Rec. 22B.1 and 26B.1).