DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING
TO THEIR RANK
SECTION 5. NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF
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, not followed by an author
Art. 46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art.
6.8; see also Art. 7.6).
The variety which includes the type of the name
Lam. is to be named Lobelia spicata
Lam. var. spicata
Art. 24 Ex. 3
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. A name of an infraspecific
taxon that includes the type (i.e. the holotype or all syntypes or the
previously designated type) of the adopted, legitimate name of the
species to which it is assigned is not validly published unless its
final epithet repeats the specific epithet unaltered. For the purpose
of this provision, explicit indication that the nomenclaturally typical
element of the species is included is considered as equivalent to
inclusion of the type, whether or not it has been previously designated
(see also Art. 24.3).
The intended combination "Vulpia myuros
(Soy.-Will.) Maire & Weiller" was not validly published in Maire (Fl. Afrique N. 3: 177. 1955) because it included
L., Sp. 1, p. 74 (1753) sensu stricto" in synonymy, Festuca myuros
L. being the basionym of
(L.) C. C. Gmel.
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 3. 1753) recognized two named varieties under
. Since S. europaea
has no holotype
and no syntypes are cited, both varietal names are validly published
irrespective of the facts that the lectotype of
designated by Jafri and Rateeb (in Jafri & El-Gadi, Fl. Libya 58: 57. 1979), can be attributed to
L. (1753) and that the latter
name was subsequently lectotypified by Piirainen (in Ann. Bot. Fenn.
28: 82. 1991) by the same specimen as the species name.
Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 779-781. 1753) recognized 13 named varieties under
. Since M. polymorpha
L. has neither
a holotype nor syntypes, all varietal names are validly published, and
indeed the lectotype subsequently designated (by Heyn in Bull. Res.
Council Israel, Sect. D, Bot., 7: 163. 1959) is not part of the
original material for any of the varietal names of 1753.
26.3. The first instance of valid
publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon under a legitimate
species name automatically establishes the corresponding autonym (see
also Art. 32.8 and 11.6).
The publication of the name Lycopodium inundatum
Tuck. (in Amer. J. Sci. Arts 45: 47. 1843) automatically established the name of another variety,
L. var. inundatum,
the type of which is that of the name
Ex. 6. Utricularia stellaris
L. f. (1782) includes
A. DC. (Prodr. 8: 3. 1844) and U. stellaris
L. f. var.
(1844) automatically established at the same time. When U. stellaris
is included in
Forssk. (1775) as a variety, the correct name of that variety, under Art. 11.6
(L. f.) P. Taylor (1961).
Pangalo (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23: 258. 1930) when describing
Pangalo distinguished two varieties, C. mixta
Pangalo and var. stenosperma
together encompassing the entire circumscription of the species. Since
neither a holotype nor any syntypes were indicated for
both varietal names were validly published (see Art.
26.2). Merrick & Bates (in Baileya 23: 96, 101. 1989), in the
absence of known type material, neotypified
by an element that can be attributed to C. mixta
. As long as their choice of neotype is followed, the correct name for that variety is
not C. mixta
. When it is treated as a variety of
Huber (1867), as was done by Merrick & Bates, its correct name under
(Pangalo) Merrick & D. M. Bates; a combination based on
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 final 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 final epithet
and type as a name of one of its subordinate varieties.
26A.3. A taxon of rank lower than
variety which includes the type of the correct name of a subspecies 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 final epithet and type as the name of the subspecies 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 final epithet as a name of one of its subordinate taxa below
the rank of variety.
Ex. 1. Fernald treated Stachys palustris subsp.
pilosa (Nutt.) Epling (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih.
8: 63. 1934) as composed of five varieties, for one of which (that
including the type of
S. palustris subsp. pilosa) he made the combination S. palustris var.
pilosa (Nutt.) Fernald (in Rhodora 45: 474. 1943), there being no legitimate varietal name available.
There being no legitimate name available at the rank of subspecies, Bonaparte made the combination
(L.) Bonap. (Notes Ptérid. 1: 62. 1915), using the same final epithet that Sadebeck had used earlier in the combination
(L.) Sadeb. (in Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. Beih. 14(3): 5. 1897), both combinations being based on
L. Each name is legitimate, and both can be used, as by Tryon (in Rhodora 43: 52-54. 1941), who treated
as one of four varieties under subsp.
(see Art. 34.2
26B.1. When publishing a name of an infraspecific taxon that will also establish an autonym, the author should mention this autonym in the publication.
2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated