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 Kützing (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. Delanoë & Delanoë
(in Comp. Rend. Acad. Hebd. Séances 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.).
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.
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
.
