CHAPTER V. REJECTION OF NAMES

Article 51

51.1. A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known (but see Art. 56.1), or because it has lost its original meaning, or (in pleomorphic fungi with names governed by Art. 59) because the morph represented by its type is not in accordance with that of the type of the generic name.

Ex. 1. The following changes are contrary to the rule: Staphylea to Staphylis, Tamus to Thamnos, Thamnus, or Tamnus, Mentha to Minthe, Tillaea to Tillia, Vincetoxicum to Alexitoxicum; and Orobanche rapum to O. sarothamnophyta, O. columbariae to O. columbarihaerens, O. artemisiae to O. artemisiepiphyta.

Ex. 2. Ardisia quinquegona Blume (1825) is not to be changed to A. pentagona A. DC. (1834), although the specific epithet quinquegona is a hybrid word (Latin and Greek) (contrary to Rec. 23A.3(c)).

Ex. 3. The name Scilla peruviana L. (1753) is not to be rejected merely because the species does not grow in Peru.

Ex. 4. The name Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.) Litv. (1911), based on Polycnemum oppositifolium Pall. (1771), 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 (Pall.) Bunge, having all its leaves opposite.

Ex. 5. Richardia L. (1753) is not to be changed to Richardsonia, as was done by Kunth (1818), although the name was originally dedicated to the British botanist, Richardson.

Ex. 6. The name Sphaeria tiliae Pers. (Syn. Meth. Fung.: 84. 1801) is not to be rejected because the holotype represents an anamorphic fungus, whereas the type of Sphaeria Haller 1768, that of S. fragiformis Pers., is a teleomorphic fungus. The epithet may therefore be used in the combination Rabenhorstia tiliae (Pers.) Fr. (Summ. Veg. Scand.: 410. 1849) for the anamorph of Hercospora tiliae Tul. & C. Tul. (Sel. Fung. Carp. 2: 154. 1863).