INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE  online
 contents  |  subject index  | index to scientific names  |  glossary  |  contact  |  regnum vegetabile 
frameset version

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

Article 42

42.1. The names of a genus and a species may be validly published simultaneously by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only generic or specific, if all of the following conditions obtain: (a) the genus is at that time monotypic; (b) no other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type; and (c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the requirements for valid publication. Reference to an earlier description or diagnosis is not acceptable in place of a descriptio generico-specifica.

42.2. For the purpose of Art. 42, a monotypic genus is one for which a single binomial is validly published, even though the author may indicate that other species are attributable to the genus.

Ex. 1. Nylander (1879) described the new species "Anema nummulariellum" in a new genus "Anema" without providing a generic description or diagnosis. Since at the same time he also transferred Omphalaria nummularia Durieu & Mont. to "Anema", none of his names was validly published. They were later validated by Forsell (1885).
Ex. 2. The names Kedarnatha P. K. Mukh. & Constance (1986) and K. sanctuarii P. K. Mukh. & Constance, the latter designating the single, new species of the new genus, are both validly published although a Latin description was provided only under the generic name.
Ex. 3. Piptolepis phillyreoides Benth. (1840) was a new species assigned to the monotypic new genus Piptolepis published with a combined generic and specific description, and both names are validly published.
Ex. 4. In publishing "Phaelypea" without a generic description or diagnosis, P. Browne (Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 269. 1756) included and described a single species, but he gave the species a phrase-name not a validly published binomial. Art. 42 does not therefore apply and "Phaelypea" is not a validly published name.

42.3. Prior to 1 January 1908 an illustration with analysis, or for non-vascular plants a single figure showing details aiding identification, is acceptable, for the purpose of this Article, in place of a written description or diagnosis.

42.4. For the purpose of Art. 42, an analysis is a figure or group of figures, commonly separate from the main illustration of the plant (though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding identification, with or without a separate caption.

Ex. 5. The generic name Philgamia Baill. (1894) was validly published, as it appeared on a plate with analysis of the only included species, P. hibbertioides Baill., and was published before 1 January 1908.
 

(c) 2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated  14.03.2007 .