DIVISION II.  RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

Article 45

45.1. The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is that on which the last is fulfilled. However, the name must always be explicitly accepted in the place of its validation. A name published on or after 1 January 1973 for which the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and direct reference (Art. 33.4) is given to the places where these requirements were previously fulfilled (but see Art. 33.6).

Ex. 1. "Clypeola minor" first appeared in the Linnaean thesis Flora monspeliensis (1756), in a list of names preceded by numerals but without an explanation of the meaning of these numerals and without any other descriptive matter; when the thesis was reprinted in vol. 4 of the Amoenitates academicae (1759), a statement was added explaining that the numbers referred to earlier descriptions published in Magnol's Botanicon monspeliense. However, "Clypeola minor" was absent from the reprint, being no longer accepted by Linnaeus, and was not therefore validly published.
Ex. 2. When proposing "Graphis meridionalis" as a new species, Nakanishi (in J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 75. 1966) provided a Latin description but failed to designate a holotype. Graphis meridionalis M. Nakan. was validly published when Nakanishi (in J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 265. 1967) designated the holotype of the name and provided a full and direct reference to his previous publication.

45.2. A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 32.7 and 60) does not affect its date of valid publication.

Ex. 3. The correction of the erroneous spelling of Gluta "benghas" (Linnaeus, Mant. Pl.: 293. 1771) to G. renghas L. does not affect the date of publication of the name even though the correction dates only from 1883 (Engler in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).

45.3. For purposes of priority only legitimate names are taken into consideration (see Art. 11, 52-54). However, validly published earlier homonyms, whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection of their later homonyms, unless the latter are conserved or sanctioned (but see Art. 15 Note 1).

45.4. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is treated as belonging to a group of plants other than algae or fungi, the authorship and date of any of its names are determined by the first publication that satisfies the requirements for valid publication under this Code. If the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements of the pertinent non-botanical Code for status equivalent to valid publication under the present Code (but see Art. 54, regarding homonymy). However, a name generated in zoological nomenclature in accordance with the Principle of Coordination is not considered validly published under the botanical Code unless it appears in print and is applied to an accepted taxon.

Ex. 4. Amphiprora Ehrenb. (1843), an available 1 name for a genus of animals, was first treated as belonging to the algae by KŁtzing (1844). Amphiprora has priority in botanical nomenclature from 1843, not 1844.
Ex. 5. Petalodinium Cachon & Cachon-Enj. (in Protistologia 5: 16. 1969) is available under the International code of zoological nomenclature as the name of a genus of dinoflagellates. When the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae, its name retains its original authorship and date even though the original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis.
Ex. 6. Labyrinthodyction Valkanov (in Progr. Protozool. 3: 373. 1969), available under the International code of zoological nomenclature as the name of a genus of rhizopods, is considered to have been validly published in 1969 if the taxon is treated as belonging to the fungi even though the original publication lacked a Latin description or diagnosis.
Ex. 7. Protodiniferaceae Kof. & Swezy (in Mem. Univ. Calif. 5: 111. 1921, "Protodiniferidae"), available under the International code of zoological nomenclature, is validly published as a name of a family of algae with its original authorship and date but with the original termination changed in accordance with Art. 18.4 and 32.7.
Ex. 8. Pneumocystis P. DelanoŽ & DelanoŽ (in Comp. Rend. Acad. Hebd. Sťances Acad. Sci. 155: 660. 1912) was published for a "protozoan" genus with a description expressing doubt as to its generic status, "Si celui-ci doit constituer un genre nouveau, nous proposons de lui donner le nom de Pneumocystis Carinii". Under Art. 34.1(b) Pneumocystis would not be validly published, but Art. 11.5.1 of the International code of zoological nomenclature allows for such qualified publication at that time and therefore Pneumocystis is an available name under the ICZN and, as provided by Art. 45.4, validly published under this Code.
Ex. 9. Pneumocystis jirovecii Frenkel (in Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 43: 16. 1976, 'jiroveci'), treated as a protozoan, was published with only an English description and without designation of a type, but these conditions are no obstacle to availability under Art. 72.3 and Rec. 13B of the International code of zoological nomenclature. Therefore, when considered the name of a fungus, P. jirovecii, with modified termination (Art. 60.11), is accepted as validly published under Art. 45.4. Subsequent publication of a Latin diagnosis by Frenkel (J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 46 Suppl.: 91S. 1999), who treated the species as a fungus, was necessary under the edition of the ICBN in operation at that time, but is no longer so; hence, under this Code, P. jirovecii has priority from 1976, not 1999.

Ex. 10. Fibrillanosema crangonycis Galbreath & al. (in Int. J. Parasitol. 34: 241-242. 2004), was described as belonging to the Microsporidia, which until recently were considered to constitute a protozoan phylum. Its name is available under the International code of zoological nomenclature and is considered to be validly published when treated as a fungus although it lacks a Latin description or diagnosis.

Recommendation 45A

45A.1. A new name should be followed by a direct citation indicating its novel status, including the word "novus" (-a, -um) or its abbreviation, e.g. genus novum (gen. nov.), species nova (sp. nov.), combinatio nova (comb. nov.), nomen novum (nom. nov.), or status novus (stat. nov.).

Recommendation 45B

45B.1. Authors should indicate precisely the dates of publication of their works. In a work appearing in parts the last-published sheet of the volume should indicate the precise dates on which the different fascicles or parts of the volume were published as well as the number of pages and plates in each.

Recommendation 45C

45C.1. On separately printed and issued copies of works published in a periodical, the name of the periodical, the number of its volume or parts, the original pagination, and the date (year, month, and day) should be indicated.

 

(c) 2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated  15.03.2007 .