DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER II. STATUS, TYPIFICATION, AND PRIORITY OF NAMES
SECTION 2. TYPIFICATION
Article 7
7.1.
The application of names of
taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of
nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The application of names
of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by means of types when
the names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.7).
7.2.
A nomenclatural type (typus)
is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached,
whether as the correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is
not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon.
7.3.
A new name published as an
avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum) for an older name is
typified by the type of the older name (see Art. 33.4; but see
Art. 33 Note 2).
Ex. 1.
Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a nomen novum for
M. laevis O. Berg (1862), an illegitimate homonym of
M. laevis G. Don (1832). The type of
M. lucida is therefore the type of
M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely,
Spruce 3502 (BR).
7.4.
A new name formed from a
previously published legitimate name (stat. nov., comb. nov.) is, in
all circumstances, typified by the type of the basionym, even though it
may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to
include that type (but see
Art. 48.1 and 59.6).
Ex. 2.
Pinus mertensiana Bong. was transferred to the genus
Tsuga by Carrière, who, however, as is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combination
T. mertensiana to another species of
Tsuga, namely
T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. The combination
Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière must not be applied to
T. heterophylla but must be retained for
P. mertensiana when that species is placed in
Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under
Art. 49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the basionym, and hence the type, of the name.
Ex. 3.
Delesseria gmelinii J. V. Lamour. (1813) is a legitimate replacement name for
Fucus palmetta S. G. Gmel. (1768), the change of epithet being necessitated by the simultaneous publication of
D. palmetta (Stackh.) J. V. Lamour. (see
Art. 11 Note 1). All intended combinations based on
D. gmelinii (and not excluding the type of
F. palmetta; see
Art.
48.1) have the same type as
F. palmetta, even though the material possessed by Lamouroux is now assigned to a different species,
D. bonnemaisonii C. Agardh (1822).
7.5.
A name that is
illegitimate under Art.
52 is typified either by the
type of the name that ought to have been adopted under the rules (automatic typification), or
by a different type designated or definitely indicated by the author of
the illegitimate name. However, if no type was designated or definitely indicated and the type
of the earlier name was included (see Art. 52.2) in a subordinate taxon that did not include
the evidently intended type of the illegitimate name, typification is not automatic.
Automatic typification does not apply to names
sanctioned under
Art. 15.
Ex. 4.
Bauhinia semla Wunderlin (1976) is illegitimate
under
Art. 52 (see
Art. 52 Ex. 10),
but its publication as a replacement name for
B. retusa Roxb. (1832) non Poir. (1811) is
definite indication of a different type (that of
B. retusa) from that of the name (
B. roxburghiana Voigt, 1845),
which ought to have been adopted.
Ex. 5.
Hewittia bicolor Wight & Arn. (1837), the type
of
Hewittia Wight & Arn., is illegitimate under
Art. 52 because,
in addition to the illegitimate intended basionym
Convolvulus bicolor Vahl (1794) non Desr.
(1792), the legitimate
C. bracteatus Vahl (1794) was cited as a synonym. Wight & Arnott's
adoption of the epithet "
bicolor" is definite indication that the type of
H. bicolor,
and therefore the type of
Hewittia, is the type of
C. bicolor, and not that of
C. bracteatus
whose epithet ought to have been adopted.
Ex. 6.
Gilia splendens, when validly published by
Mason & Grant (in Madroño 9: 212. 1948), included, as "a long-tubed form of the species",
G. splendens subsp.
grinnellii based on
G. grinnellii Brand (1907) and is
thus superfluous and illegitimate. Although Mason & Grant, believing that
G. splendens
was already validly published, did not indicate its type, it is not automatically that of
G.
grinnellii; the specimen that has since been adopted as the conserved type could have been
selected as lectotype.
7.6.
The type of an autonym is the same as that of the name from which it is derived.
7.7.
A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis
(Art. 32.1(d))
is to be typified by an element selected from the context of the
validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has
definitely designated a different type (but see Art. 10.2). However, the type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1 May 1753 (see
Art. 13.1) is to be determined in accordance with the indication or descriptive and other matter accompanying its valid publication (see
Art. 32, 33,
34, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45).
Ex. 7.
Since the name
Adenanthera bicolor
Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to Rumphius (Herb. Amboin.
3: t. 112. 1743), the type of the name, in the absence of the specimen
from which it was figured, is the illustration referred to. It is not
the specimen, at Kew, collected by Moon and labelled
"Adenanthera bicolor", since Moon did not definitely designate the latter as the type.
Ex. 8.
Echium lycopsis L.
(Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or diagnosis
but with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724),
in which a
"Lycopsis" species was discussed with no description or
diagnosis but with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin
(Pinax: 255. 1623). The accepted validating description of
E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen
from the context of his work. Consequently the Sherard specimen in the
Morison herbarium (OXF), selected by Klotz (in Wiss. Z.
Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9: 375-376.
1960), although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The
first acceptable choice is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray
and Bauhin, of
"Echii altera species" in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620.
1583), suggested by Gibbs (in Lagascalia 1: 60-61. 1971) and formally
made by Stearn (in Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973).
7.8.
Typification of names adopted in one of the works specified in
Art. 13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned (Art.
15), may be effected in the light of anything associated with the name in that work.
7.9.
The typification of names of morphotaxa of plant fossils
(Art. 1.2), of fungal anamorphs (Art.
59), and of any other analogous taxa at or below the rank of genus does not differ from that indicated above.
Note 1.
See also
Art. 59 for details regarding typification of names in certain pleomorphic fungi.
7.10.
For purposes of priority (Art.
9.17, 9.18, and
10.5), designation of a type is achieved only by effective publication (Art. 29-31).
7.11.
For purposes of priority (Art.
9.17, 9.18,
and
10.5),
designation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely
accepted as such by the typifying author, if the type element is
clearly indicated by direct citation including the term "type" (typus)
or an equivalent, and, on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification
statement includes the phrase "designated here" (hic designatus) or an
equivalent.
Note 2.
Art. 7.10 and 7.11 apply only to the designation of
lectotypes (and their equivalents under
Art. 10), neotypes, and epitypes; for the indication of
a holotype see
Art. 37.
Ex. 9.
Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907) originally comprised two species,
C. minor and
C. elegans. Vischer (1933) transferred the former to
Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained the latter in
Chlorosarcina. He did not, however, use the term "type" or an equivalent, so that his action does not constitute typification of
Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a type, as "LT.", was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov 1962), who selected
Chlorosarcina elegans.
* Ex. 10.
The phrase "standard
species" as used by Hitchcock & Green (in Anonymous, Nomencl. Prop.
Brit. Botanists: 110-199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to "type",
and hence type designations in this work are acceptable.
Recommendation 7A
7A.1.
It is strongly recommended
that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, especially the
holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection
with a policy of giving bona fide researchers access to deposited
material, and that it be scrupulously conserved.
(c) 2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated
10.03.2007
.
