CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

Article 33

33.1. A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless the author definitely associates the final epithet with the name of the genus or species, or with its abbreviation.

Ex. 1. Combinations validly published: In Linnaeus’s Species plantarum the placing of the epithet in the margin opposite the name of the genus clearly associates the epithet with the name of the genus. The same result is attained in Miller’s Gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, by the inclusion of the epithet in parentheses immediately after the name of the genus, in Steudel’s Nomenclator botanicus by the arrangement of the epithets in a list headed by the name of the genus, and in general by any typographical device which associates an epithet with a particular generic or specific name.

Ex. 2. Combinations not validly published: Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia that “Le type de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn.” (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not constitute valid publication of the combination B. ciliata, since Rafinesque did not definitely associate the epithet ciliata with the generic name Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is not to be attributed to Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867) on the basis of their listing of “Cnidium peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under Eulophus.

Ex. 3. Erioderma polycarpum subsp. verruculosum Vain. (Étude Lich. Brésil 1: 202. 1890) is validly published since Vainio clearly linked the subspecific epithet to the specific epithet by an asterisk.

Ex. 4. Tuckerman (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 168, 1877) described “Erioderma velligerum sub-sp. nov.”, but did not associate the subspecific epithet with the epithet of any species name. His statement that his new subspecies was “very near E. chilense”, from which he provided distinguishing features, does not effect valid publication of his intended subspecies name.

33.2. Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new combination, a new generic name with a basionym, or a nomen novum. Thus, errors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, or in author citation (Art. 46), do not affect valid publication of such names.

Ex. 5. The name “Persicaria runcinata (Hamilt.)” was included in a list of names by Masamune (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 51: 234. 1937) with no further information. The name Polygonum runcinatum was validly published by D. Don (Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 73. 1825) and ascribed there to “Hamilton mss”. The mention by Masamune of “Hamilt.” is regarded as an indirect reference through Buchanan-Hamilton to the name published by Don, and the combination Persicaria runcinata (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Masam. must be accepted as validly published.

Ex. 6. The new binomials in Miller’s The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8 (1768) that adopt epithets used by Linnaeus are regarded as new combinations, e.g., Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill., based on Cactus ficus-indica L. (see Art. 32 Ex. 10).

Ex. 7. In Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871) the statement that the author intended to adopt at generic rank the subdivisions of Agaricus then in use, which at the time were those of Fries, and the general arrangement of the work, which faithfully follows that of Fries, provide indirect reference to Fries’s earlier names of “tribes”. Therefore, names such as Hypholoma (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. and H. fasciculare (Huds. : Fr.) are accepted as being based on the corresponding Friesian names (here: A. “tribus” Hypholoma Fr. : Fr. and A. fascicularis Huds. : Fr.) although Kummer did not explicitly refer to Fries.

33.3. Before 1 January 1953, if, for a presumed new combination, no reference to a basionym is given but the epithet of a previously and validly published name that applies to the same taxon is adopted and that name is neither cited nor indicated in any way, the new combination is validly published as such if, and only if, it would otherwise be a validly published name. This provision also applies to a new generic name presumed to be based on the epithet of an earlier validly published name of a subdivision of a genus.

Ex. 8. Scaevola taccada was validly published by Roxburgh (1814) by reference to an illustration in Rheede (Hort. Malab. 4: t. 59. 1683) that appears to be its sole basis. As the name applies to the species previously described as Lobelia taccada Gaertn. (1788), it is treated as a new combination, S. taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb., not as the name of a new species, even though L. taccada is neither cited nor indicated in any way in Roxburgh’s protologue.

Ex. 9. Brachiolejeunea was published by Stephani & Spruce (in Hedwigia 28: 167. 1889) for a taxon that had previously been described as Lejeunea subg. Brachiolejeunea Spruce (in Trans. & Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 15: 75, 129. 1884) but without any reference to Spruce’s earlier publication. Because Stephani & Spruce provided a description of B. plagiochiloides that under Art. 42 is a descriptio generico-specifica of a monotypic genus the name would be validly published as a new genus. It is, however, to be treated as a new generic name based on Spruce’s subgeneric name, even though L. subg. Brachiolejeunea is neither cited nor indicated in any way in the protologue of Stephani & Spruce.

Ex. 10. When Sampaio published “Psorama murale Samp.” (in Sampaio & Crespo in Bol. Real Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 27: 142. 1927), he adopted the epithet of Lichen murale Schreb. (1771), a name applied to the same taxon, without indicating that name directly or indirectly. He cited Lecanora saxicola Ach. in synonymy. Psorama murale is to be treated as a new combination based on Lichen murale because otherwise it would be a validly published but illegitimate replacement name for Lecanora saxicola.

33.4. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, a new generic name with a basionym, or an avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum) based on a previously and validly published name is not validly 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 reference and date (but see Art. 33.5 and 33.7). On or after 1 January 2007, a new combination, a new generic name with a basionym, or an avowed substitute is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced synonym is cited.

Ex. 11. In transferring Ectocarpus mucronatus D. A. Saunders to Giffordia, Kjeldsen & H. K. Phinney (in Madroño 22: 90. 27 Apr 1973) cited the basionym and its author but without reference to its place of valid publication. They later (in Madroño 22: 154. 2 Jul 1973) validly published the binomial G. mucronata (D. A. Saunders) Kjeldsen & Phinney by giving a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication of the basionym.

Note 1. For the purpose of this Code, a page reference (for publications with a consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue is printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that of the protologue.

Ex. 12. When proposing “Cylindrocladium infestans”, Peerally (in Mycotaxon 40: 337. 1991) cited the basionym as “Cylindrocladiella infestans Boesew., Can. J. Bot. 60: 2288-2294. 1982”. As this refers to the pagination of Boesewinkel’s entire paper, not of the protologue of the intended basionym alone, the combination was not validly published by Peerally.

Ex. 13. The new combination Conophytum marginatum subsp. littlewoodii (L. Bolus) S. A. Hammer (Dumpling & His Wife: New Views Gen. Conophytum: 181. 2002), being made prior to 1 January 2007, was validly published even though Hammer did not cite the basionym (Conophytum littlewoodii) but only indicated it by citing its bibliographic reference.

33.5. For names published on or after 1 January 1953, errors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation (Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 33.4), do not preclude valid publication of a new combination, new generic name with a basionym, or nomen novum.

Ex. 14. Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) F. Seym. (Fl. New England: 308. 1969) was published as a new combination “Based on Mespilus arbutifolia L. var. nigra Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800.” Willdenow treated these plants in the genus Pyrus, not Mespilus, and publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors are treated as bibliographic errors of citation and do not prevent valid the publication of the new combination.

Ex. 15. The new combination Agropyron desertorum var. pilosiusculum (Melderis) H. L. Yang (in Kuo, Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 9(3): 113. 1987) was unknowingly but validly published by Yang, who wrote “Agropyron desertorum ... var. pilosiusculum Meld. in Norlindh, Fl. Mong. Steppe. 1: 121. 1949”, which constitutes a full and direct reference to the basionym, A. desertorum f. pilosiusculum Melderis, despite the error in citing the rank-denoting term.

33.6. 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 (but see Art. 33.7).

Ex. 16. Ciferri (in Mycopathol. 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 Petrak’s lists or in the index of fungi; none of these combinations was validly published. Similarly, Grummann (Cat. Lich. Germ.: 18. 1963) introduced a new combination in the form Lecanora campestris f. “pseudistera (Nyl.) Grumm. c.n. - L. p. Nyl., Z 5: 521”, in which “Z 5” referred to Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. Univ. 5: 521. 1928), who gave the full citation of the basionym, Lecanora pseudistera Nyl.; Grummann’s combination was not validly published.

Note 2. The publication of a name for a taxon previously known under a misapplied name must be valid under Art. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. This procedure is not the same as publishing an avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum) for a validly published but illegitimate name (Art. 58.1), the type of which is necessarily the same as that of the name which it replaced (Art. 7.3).

Ex. 17. Sadleria hillebrandii Rob. (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 Art. 32-45 were satisfied (for valid publication, prior to 1935, simple reference to a previous description or diagnosis in any language was sufficient), the name is validly published. It is, however, to be considered the name of a new species, validated by Hillebrand’s description of the taxon to which he misapplied the name S. pallida Hook. & Arn., and not a nomen novum as stated by Robinson; hence, Art. 7.3 does not apply.

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

33.7. On or after 1 January 1953, in any of the following cases, a full and direct reference to a work other than that in which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published is treated as an error to be corrected, not affecting the valid publication of a new combination, a new generic name with a basionym, or nomen novum:

(a) when the name cited as the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published earlier than in the cited publication, but in that cited publication, in which all conditions for valid publication are again fulfilled, there is no reference to the actual place of valid publication;

(b) when the failure to cite the place of valid publication of the basionym or replaced synonym is explained by the later nomenclatural starting point for the group concerned, and in particular by the backward shift of the starting date for some fungi;

(c) when an intended new combination or new generic name with a basionym would otherwise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegitimate) nomen novum; or

(d) when an intended new combination, new generic name with a basionym, or nomen novum would otherwise be the validly published name of a new taxon.

Ex. 19. (a) The combination Trichipteris kalbreyeri was proposed by Tryon (1970) with a full and direct reference to “Alsophila Kalbreyeri C. Chr. Ind. Fil. 44. 1905”. This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended basionym, which had previously been published, with the same type, by Baker (1891; see Art. 6 Ex. 1). As Christensen provided no reference to Baker’s earlier publication, Tryon’s error of citation does not affect the valid publication of his new combination, which is to be cited as T. kalbreyeri (Baker) R. M. Tryon.

Ex. 20. The intended new combination “Machaerina iridifolia” was proposed by Koyama (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69: 64. 1956) with a full and direct reference to “Cladium iridifolium Baker, Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”. However, C. iridifolium had been proposed by Baker as a new combination based on Scirpus iridifolius Bory (1804). As Baker provided an explicit reference to Bory, Art. 33.7(a) does not apply and the combination under Machaerina was not validly published by Koyama.

Ex. 21. (b) The combination Lasiobelonium corticale was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with a full and direct reference to Peziza corticalis in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the basionym, which, under the Code operating in 1980, was in Mérat (Nouv. Fl. Env. Paris, ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821), and under the current Code is in Persoon (Observ. Mycol. 1: 28. 1796). Raitviir’s error of citation, being partly explained by the backward shift of the starting date for ascomycetes and partly by the absence of a reference to Mérat in Fries’s work, does not negate valid publication of the new combination, which is to be cited as L. corticale (Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.

Ex. 22. (c) The intended new combination Mirabilis laevis subsp. glutinosa was proposed by Murray (in Kalmia 13: 32. 1983) with a full and direct reference to “Mirabilis glutinosa A. Nelson, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 92 (1904)” as “basionymum”. This, however, cannot be a basionym because it is an illegitimate later homonym of M. glutinosa Kuntze (1898); it is also the replaced synonym of Hesperonia glutinosa Standl. (1909). Under Art. 33.7(c) Murray validly published a new combination based on H. glutinosa because otherwise he would have published a nomen novum for M. glutinosa. The name is therefore to be cited as M. laevis subsp. glutinosa (Standl.) A. E. Murray.

Ex. 23. (d) The nomen novum Agropyron kengii was proposed by Tzvelev (1968) with a full and direct reference to “Roegneria hirsuta Keng, Fl. ill. sin., Gram. (1959) 407”. This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the intended replaced synonym, which was subsequently validly published by Keng (1963). As Tzvelev also provided a Latin description and indicated a single gathering as the type, the nomen novum was validly published as such because it would otherwise have been the validly published name of a new taxon.

33.8. On or after 1 January 1953, if an author claims to be publishing a new combination, new generic name with a basionym, or avowed substitute, but fails to provide the full information required under Art. 33.4, as qualified by Art. 33.5 and 33.7, the name is not validly published even though the author may have at the same time provided other information that would have resulted in valid publication as the name of a new taxon.

33.9. A name given to a taxon of which the rank is at the same time, contrary to Art. 5, denoted by a misplaced term is not validly published. Such misplacements include forms divided into varieties, species containing genera, and genera containing families or tribes.

33.10. Only those names published with the rank-denoting terms that must be removed so as to achieve a proper sequence are to be regarded as not validly published. In cases where terms are switched, e.g., family-order, and a proper sequence can be achieved by removing either or both of the rank-denoting terms, names at neither rank are validly published unless one is a secondary rank (Art. 4.1) and one is a principal rank (Art. 3.1), e.g., family-genus-tribe, in which case only names published at the secondary rank are not validly published.

Ex. 24. “Sectio Orontiaceae” was not validly published by Brown (Prodr.: 337. 1810) since he misapplied the term “sectio” to a rank higher than genus.

Ex. 25. “Tribus Involuta” and “tribus Brevipedunculata” (Huth in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20: 365, 368. 1895) are not validly published names, since Huth misapplied the term “tribus” to a rank lower than section, within the genus Delphinium.

Note 3. Sequential use of the same rank-denoting term in a taxonomic sequence does not represent misplaced-rank denoting terms.

Ex. 26. Danser (in Recueil Trav. Bot. Néerl. 18: 125-210. 1921) published ten new names of subspecies in a treatment of Polygonum in which he recognized subspecies (indicated by Roman numerals) within subspecies (indicated by Arabic numerals). These do not represent misplaced rank-denoting terms, so Art. 33.9 does not apply and the new names are validly published.

33.11. Situations where the same rank-denoting term is used at more than one non-successive position in the taxonomic sequence represent informal usage of rank-denoting terms. Names published with such rank-denoting terms are treated as unranked (see Art. 35.1 and 35.3).

Ex. 27. Names published with the term “series” by Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1-3. 1862-1883) are treated as unranked because this term was used at seven different hierarchical positions in the taxonomic sequence. Therefore, the sequence in Rhynchospora (3: 1058-1060. 1883) of genus-“series”-section does not contain a misplaced rank-denoting term.

33.12. An exception to Art. 33.9 is made for names of the subdivisions of genera termed tribes (tribus) in Fries’s Systema mycologicum, which are treated as validly published names of subdivisions of genera.

Ex. 28. Agaricus “tribus” Pholiota Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 1: 240. 1821), sanctioned in the same work, is the validly published basionym of the generic name Pholiota (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871) (see Art. 33 Ex. 7).

Recommendation 33A

33A.1. The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym or replaced synonym 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.”.