CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION

Article 30

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

Ex. 1. Salvia oxyodon Webb & Heldr. was effectively published in an indelible autograph catalogue placed on sale (Webb & Heldreich, Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum ... ab A. Blanco lectarum, Paris, Jul 1850, folio).

Ex. 2. The Journal of the International Conifer Preservation Society, vol. 5[1]. 1997 (“1998”), consists of duplicated sheets of typewritten text with handwritten additions and corrections in several places. The handwritten portions, being indelible autograph published after 1 January 1953, are not effectively published. Intended new combinations (“Abies koreana var. yuanbaoshanensis”, p. 53) for which the basionym reference is handwritten are not validly published. The entirely handwritten account of a new taxon (p. 61: name, Latin description, statement of type) is treated as unpublished (see also Rec. 34A.1).

30.2. For the purpose of this Article, indelible autograph is handwritten material reproduced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography, offset, or metallic etching).

Ex. 3. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914-1915), is a work lithographed from a handwritten text.

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

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

Note 1. If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the exsiccata, it is effectively published.

Ex. 4. The printed labels of Fuckel’s Fungi rhenani exsiccatae (1863-1874) are effectively published even though not independently issued. The labels antedate Fuckel’s subsequent accounts (e.g., in Jahrb. Nassauischen Vereins Naturk. 23-24. 1870).

Ex. 5. Vězda’s Lichenes selecti exsiccati (1967-) were issued with printed labels that were also distributed independently as printed fascicles; the latter are effectively published and new names appearing in Vězda’s exsiccata are to be cited from the fascicles.

30.5. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of education for the purpose of obtaining a degree is not effectively published unless it includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the Code for effective publication) or other internal evidence that it is regarded as an effective publication by its author or publisher.

Note 2. The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effectively published.

Ex. 6.Meclatis in Clematis; yellow flowering Clematis species - Systematic studies in Clematis L. (Ranunculaceae), inclusive of cultonomic aspects” a “Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor ... van Wageningen Universiteit” by Brandenburg, was effectively published on 8 June 2000, because it bore the ISBN 90-5808-237-7.

Ex. 7. The thesis “Comparative investigations on the life-histories and reproduction of some species in the siphoneous green algal genera Bryopsis and Derbesia” by Rietema, submitted to Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen in 1975, is stated to have been printed (“Druk”) by Verenigde Reproduktie Bedrijven, Groningen and is therefore effectively published.

Ex. 8. The dissertation “Die Gattung Mycena s.l.” by Rexer, submitted to the Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, was effectively published in 1994 because it bore the statement “Druck: Zeeb-Druck, Tübingen 7 (Hagelloch)”, referring to a commercial printer. The generic name Roridomyces Rexer, typified by Agaricus roridus Scop., and combinations in Mycena are therefore validly published. The generic name Roridella E. Horak (Röhrlinge und Blätterpilze in Europa: 509. 2005), also published with A. roridus Scop. as type, is illegitimate (Art. 52.1).

Ex. 9. The thesis by Demoulin, “Le genre Lycoperdon en Europe et en Amérique du Nord”, defended in 1971, does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as effectively published. Even if photocopies of it can be found in some libraries, new species of Lycoperdon, e.g., “L. americanum”, “L. cokeri”, and “L. estonicum”, introduced there, were validly published in the effectively published “Especes nouvelles ou méconnues du genre Lycoperdon (Gastéromycetes)” (Demoulin in Lejeunia, n.s., 62: 1-28. 1972).

Ex. 10. The dissertation “Nasa and the conquest of South America - Systematic Rearrangements in Loasaceae Juss.” submitted in June 1997 to the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München by Weigend is not effectively published as it does not include an ISBN, the name of any printer or publisher or distributor, or any statement that it was intended to be effectively published under the Code, even though 40 copies were distributed, all the other formalities for the publication of new taxa were met, and statements were made implying effective publication but not mentioning the Code, such as that although “the majority of names will be published elsewhere ... for some ... groups new names are here provided”. The names intended to be published in the thesis were validly published in Taxon 55: 463-468. 2006.

Ex. 11. Montanoa imbricata V. A. Funk was validly published in “The systematics of Montanoa (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)” (Funk in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 36: 116. 1982), not in Funk’s dissertation “The Systematics of Montanoa Cerv. (Asteraceae)” submitted to the Ohio State University in 1980, nor in facsimile copies of the dissertation printed from microfiche and distributed, on demand, by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, beginning in 1980.

Recommendation 30A

30A.1. It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing new names and descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa (nomenclatural novelties) in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular printed matter that is multiplied in restricted and uncertain numbers, in which the permanence of the text may be limited, for which effective publication in terms of number of copies is not obvious, or that is unlikely to reach the general public. Authors should also avoid publishing new names and descriptions or diagnoses in popular periodicals, in abstracting journals, or on correction slips.

Ex. 1. Kartesz provided an unpaged, printed insert titled “Nomenclatural innovations” to accompany the electronic version (1.0) of the Synthesis of the North American flora produced on compact disk (CD-ROM; distribution through an electronic medium in terms of Art. 29.1). This insert, which is effectively published under Art. 29 and 30, is the place of valid publication of 41 new combinations, which also appear on the disk, in an item authored by Kartesz: “A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland” (e.g., Dichanthelium hirstii (Swallen) Kartesz in Kartesz & Meacham, Synth. N. Amer. Fl., Nomencl. Innov.: [1]. Aug 1999). Kartesz’s procedure is not to be recommended, as the insert is unlikely to be permanently stored and catalogued in botanical libraries and so reach the general public.

30A.2. To aid availability through time and place, authors publishing nomenclatural novelties should give preference to periodicals that regularly publish taxonomic articles, or else printed copies of a publication (even if also distributed electronically) should be deposited in at least ten, but preferably more, botanical or other generally accessible libraries throughout the world including a name-indexing centre appropriate to the taxonomic group.

30A.3. Authors and editors are encouraged to mention nomenclatural novelties in the summary or abstract, or list them in an index in the publication.