Article 34

34.1. A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name), except as provided for in Art. 59; (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; (d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. Art. 34.1(a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.

Ex. 1. (a) "Sebertia", proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a monotypic genus, was not validly published by Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept the genus. Although he gave a description of it, he referred its only species "Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)" to the genus Sersalisia R. Br. as S. ? acuminata, which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 34.1, last sentence. The name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (1897).
Ex. 2. (a) The designations listed in the lefthand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium amboinense defended by Stickman (1754) were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not validly published.
Ex. 3. (a) Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in Mag. Neusten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809), even though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory's request, Flörke included Bory's diagnosis (and name) making Bory the author of the name under Art. 46.2. The acceptance or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not, therefore, relevant for valid publication.

Ex. 4. (a) (b) The designation "Conophyton", suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82. 1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words "If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt", was not a validly published generic name since Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).

Ex. 5. (b) "Pteridospermaexylon" and "P. theresiae" were published by Greguss (in Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952) for a genus and species of fossil wood. As Greguss explicitly stated "Vorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen ..." [provisionally I designate it by the names ...], these are provisional names and as such are not validly published.
Ex. 6. (b) The designation "Sterocaulon subdenudatum" proposed by Havaas (in Bergens Mus. Årbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published in spite of it being presented as a new species with a Latin diagnosis, since on both pages it was indicated to be "ad int."
Ex. 7. (c) "Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch." was not validly published by Kunth, (Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) when he cited it as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth; the combination under Ornithogalum L. was validly published later: O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).
Ex. 8. (d) The family designation "Rhaptopetalaceae" was not validly published by Pierre (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. Mai 1897), who merely mentioned the constituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., "Scytopetalum", and Rhaptopetalum Oliv., but gave no description or diagnosis; the family bears the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897), accompanied by a description.
Ex. 9. (d) The generic designation "Ibidium" was not validly published by Salisbury (in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812), who merely mentioned four included species but supplied no generic description or diagnosis.
Ex. 10. (final sentence) Aponogetonaceae Planch. (in Bot. Mag.: ad. t. 4894. 1856) was validly published by reference to the description of "Aponogétacées" (Planchon in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 1: 119. 1844) even though Hooker indicated taxonomic doubt when he wrote (pp. [4-5]) "M. Planchon ... suggests that Aponogeton should form a suborder of Alismaceae, or probably a new order, Aponogetaceae".

34.2. When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names based on the same type are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author (so-called alternative names), none of them is validly published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within a species or for subdivisions of a genus within a genus (see Rec. 22A.1-2 and 26A.1-3).

Ex. 11. The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23-29. 1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl. added in a footnote (pp. 23-24). The publication of both sets of names, being effected before 1 January 1953, is valid.
Ex. 12. "Euphorbia jaroslavii" (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, "Tithymalus jaroslavii". Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a different transliteration of the initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961), who effectively published it with a reference to the earlier publication and simultaneously rejected assignment to Tithymalus.
Ex. 13. Description of "Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill var. tumidum, subsp. et var. nov." (in Brittonia 32: 474. 1980) simultaneously validated both M. bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill and M. bicuspidatum var. tumidum S. R. Hill.
Ex. 14. Hitchcock (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507-508. 1969) used the name Bromus inermis subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct reference to its basionym, B. pumpellianus Scribn. Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties, one of which he named B. inermis var. pumpellianus (without author citation but clearly based on the same basionym and type). In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.
Note 1. The name of a fungal holomorph and that of a correlated anamorph (see Art. 59), even if proposed simultaneously, are not alternative names in the sense of Art. 34.2, and both are validly published. They have different types, and the circumscription of the holomorph is considered to include the anamorph, but not vice versa.
Ex. 15. Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929), the name of a fungal holomorph, and the simultaneously published name of a correlated anamorph, Helicosporium elinorae Linder, are both validly published, and both can be used under Art. 59.5.

Recommendation 34A

34A.1. Authors should avoid mentioning in their publications previously unpublished names that they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for these unpublished names have not formally authorized their publication (see Rec. 23A.3(i)).


(c) 2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated  13.03.2007 .