DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
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.
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
ed. 8, by the inclusion of the epithet in parentheses immediately after the name of the genus, in Steudel's
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.
Combinations not validly published: Rafinesque's statement under
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
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
Ex. 3. Erioderma polycarpum
Vain. (Etude Lich. Brésil 1: 202. 1890) is validly
published since Vainio clearly linked the subspecific epithet to the specific epithet by an asterisk.
Tuckerman (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 168, 1877) described “Erioderma velligerum
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.
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 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.
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
Art. 32 Ex. 10
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
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
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
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.
is neither cited nor indicated in any way in
the protologue of Stephani & Spruce.
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
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.
In transferring Ectocarpus mucronatus
D. A. Saunders to
Kjeldsen & 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
(D. A. Saunders) Kjeldsen & H. K. Phinney by giving
a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication of the
For the purpose of this Code,
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.
When proposing "Cylindrocladium infestans
", Peerally (in Mycotaxon 40: 337. 1991) cited the basionym as
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.
The new combination Conophytum marginatum
(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
(Willd.) F. Seym. (Fl. New England: 308. 1969) was published as a new combination "Based on
L. var. nigra
Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2: 1013. 1800." Willdenow treated these plants in the genus
and publication was in 1799, not
1800; these errors are treated as bibliographic errors of citation and
do not prevent valid publication of the new combination.
The new combination Agropyron desertorum
H. L. Yang (in Kuo, Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 9(3): 113. 1987) was unknowingly but validly published by Yang, who wrote
... var. pilosiusculum
Meld. in Norlindh, Fl. Mong. Steppe. 1: 121. 1949”, which
constitutes a full and direct reference to the basionym, A. desertorum
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).
Ciferri (in Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 7: 86-89. 1954), in proposing 142 new combinations in
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
(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,
Nyl.; Grummann's combination was not validly published.
The publication of a name for a taxon previously known under a misapplied name must be valid under
procedure is not the same as publishing an avowed substitute
(replacement name, nomen novum) for a validly published but
), the type of which is necessarily the same as that of the name which it replaced
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
Hook. & Arn., and not a nomen novum as stated by Robinson; hence,
does not apply.
Ex. 18. Juncus bufonius
" (Hermann in U.S. Forest Serv., Techn. Rep. RM-18: 14. 1975) was published as a "nom. et stat. nov." for
"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
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:
- 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
- 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;
- 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
- 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.
(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
(Baker) R. M. Tryon.
(a) 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,
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
was not validly published by Koyama.
(b) The combination Lasiobelonium corticale
was proposed by Raitviir (1980) with a full and direct reference to
in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 96. 1822). This, however, is not the place of valid publication of the basionym, which, under the
operating in 1980, was in Mérat (Nouv. Fl. Env. Paris, ed. 2, 1: 22. 1821), and under the current
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
(Pers. : Fr.) Raitv.
(c) The intended new combination Mirabilis laevis
proposed by Murray (in Kalmia 13: 32. 1983) with a full and direct reference to “Mirabilis glutinosa
A. Nels., 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
(Standl.) A. E. Murray.
(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
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.
" was not validly published by Brown (Prodr.: 337. 1810) since he misapplied the term "sectio" to a rank higher than genus.
" 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
Sequential use of the same rank-denoting term in a taxonomic sequence does not
represent misplaced-rank denoting terms.
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
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
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
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
Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 1: 240. 1821), sanctioned in the same work, is the validly published basionym of the generic name
(Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871) (see Art. 33 Ex.
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."
2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated