A GUIDE TO BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTERS I AND II
CHAPTER I. RANKS OF TAXA, AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM
At first introduction, the word TAXON (plural = TAXA) may be difficult to understand. It applies to all ranks, and simultaneously avoids them. The term was introduced by Lanjouw at Utrecht and Stockholm in 1950.
Ex: The word "auto" is used in a generic sense, while "Chevrolet," "mustang," and "minivan" are more specific. Nonetheless, the word "auto" is defined for us by its usage in conversation, where we instantaneously appeal to a mental "pop down" menu of possible meanings for the word, and integrate the correct guess into our thinking. Thus, the "auto in the Indy-500" brings a different sense of the word than "the vintage auto on display," just as "the taxon of ferns we saw last week" versus "this taxon comprises both dioecious and monoecious species."
In older codes, the lowest rank was individual, but now individuals are considered to belong to taxa. (note that "taxa" is here used for all hierarchal ranks to which species belong). This idea integrates with the taxonomic concept of the individual and the difficulty over ramets versus genets.
SPECIES, as a rank, is the narrow point on the nomenclatural hour glass. Species is the highest rank typified by a specimen and bearing a binomial name. Species is also the lowest of "principal" ranks, so the wording of the ICBN here is "basal," not "basic."
The definition of SPECIES is not furnished, because it is taxonomic, and is the opinion of the worker. Especially in these days, it is important to define one's species concept (i.e. morphological, biological, phylogenetic, ecological, concensus, etc.) so that all participants have this information at the beginning of the discussion.
PRINCIPAL RANKS include pre-Linnaean concepts as well as modern. By casting the articles in this way (see Art. 4), and by language, the ICBN encourages use of principal ranks, and discourages use of subordinate ranks.
Older Codes used phylum instead of divisio.
Here is the insertion of rules dealing with conventional systems (fossil plants, hybrids, etc.). For fossils, for example, it may be possible to place fossil remnants in genera, but not in species, or in families, but not in genera, etc. Reference to hybrids is mentioned under various articles, but Appendix I deals with them separately.
In addition to fossils, Imperfect Fungi are also placed in FORM-TAXA. The fungi often exhibit complex life-cycles in which the sexually reproductive stage (the teleomorph) is accompanied by an asexual stage (the anamorph), with the entire life-cycle known as the holomorph. Often, however, the anamorph is collected separate from the teleomorph, and over the years, these anamorphic stages have been placed in form-taxa (remember that the Linnaean system of taxonomy is based on the sexual reproductive organs - normally thought of as flowers).
With the advent of molecular analyses, the struggle to identify the relationships of fungal anamorphs to their teleomorphs may be eased, for the DNA of these two stages ought not to differ. Such matches should identify these anamorph-teleomorph pairs, but that time is still several years in the future.
[Ex: Aspergillus and Penicillium are form-genera, and apply only to the asexual phase of the life cycle (thereby not conforming to the Linnaean system of sexual taxonomy). When sexually reproductive phases are found, their names are part of normal - sexual - nomenclature and therefore are not form-taxa. See Art. 59.]
Other terms are used, which create confusion unless they are closely defined and their relative rank is explicitly stated. [Ex: stirps, clone, race, strain, etc.]
Interfamilial hybrids are not recognized, so nothogenera are the highest hybrid rank allowed.
FORMAE SPECIALES are restricted to parasites, not necessarily fungi. The ICBN does not deal with this rank.
When the order of ranks is altered [Ex: when a section is described within a series], the names proposed may be considered illegitimate (seeArt. 6), and may be rejected on this basis. If a later author corrects the order of ranks, and otherwise conforms to the rules, the name will be attributed to that author.
See Art. 33.5 for exception for fungi.
CHAPTER II. NAMES OF TAXA (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
In a proposal made to the Stockholm Congress (1950), there appears the following table of terms:
ADMISSIBLE NAMES vs. INADMISSIBLE NAMES (Chapter III of ICBN)
NOT VALIDLY PUBLISHED NAMES vs. VALIDLY PUBLISHED NAMES (Chapter IV of ICBN)
IMPRIORABLE NAMES vs. PRIORABLE NAMES (ss Sprague) (Arts. 11-15)
ILLEGITIMATE NAMES vs. LEGITIMATE NAMES (Chapters V-VI of ICBN)
The whole system may be looked upon as a successively finer filter. All names published before 1753 are inadmissible, but the mesh becomes progressively smaller.
The system has also been compared to a competition, in which only one name can win the race for "correctness."
In order to be ADMISSIBLE, a name must conform to the Linnaean system of binomial nomenclature. This implies that the name must have been published in or after Species Plantarum, and be in recognizable binomial form. (see Art. 23.6)
Ex: Secretan, in 1833, introduced several new species, of which several were cast as polynomials. Because of this, ALL Secretan names are inadmissible.
Ex: All names introduced by the Bauhins in the 17th century were polynomials. Thus, even though they were cited liberally by Linnaeus, they are inadmissible. But note that they may be used for typification, because they form part of the Linnaean protologue.
Two-word names which do not conform to Linnaean nomenclature are called "biverbals," not binomials.
6.1. EFFECTIVE publication is a subset within VALID publication. See Arts. 29-31.
6.2. VALID publication (Arts. 32-45) deals with specific accoutrements which must accompany the introduction of a name. In order to be validly published, a name need not be effectively published.
6.3-4. LEGITIMATE, in the sense of this article, includes PRIORABLE. The oldest (= priorable), validly published name must prevail.
LEGITIMATE also includes conformity to certain rules intrinsic to the name itself (homonyms, tautonyms, superfluous names, etc.).
6.5. By using LEGITIMATE here, the ICBN summarizes the entire filter system. The CORRECT name, being legitimate, must also be priorable, valid, and admissible (see Principle IV).
6.6. This is the definition of "name" only within the restrictions of the ICBN. Outside the ICBN, the word can mean whatever the user wishes.
Note that here, legitimate is not the limiting factor, but VALID PUBLICATION.
6.7. Self-explanatory.
6.8. AUTONYMS are constructed at any principal rank and extend to the next lowest principal rank. The cited articles (22.3; 26.3) take this up for various ranks. Autonyms are formed only when other names are not available for the appropriate rank(s). In the following table, note that species epithets and generic names remain the same for lower autonymic ranks, while the autonyms under family change their endings.
AUTONYMIC NAMES FOR PRINCIPAL RANKS
SPECIES ALBA GENUS ROSA FAMILY ROSACEAE SUBSPECIES ALBA SUBGENUS ROSA SUBFAMILY ROSOIDEAE VARIETAS ALBA SECTIO ROSA TRIBUS ROSEAE FORMA ALBA SUBSECTIO ROSA SUBTRIBUS ROSINAE
Ex: Under Tricholoma saponaceum (Fr.) Kummer are the following varieties:
- T. saponaceum (Fr.) Kummer var. saponaceum (no author citation after the autonymic varietal epithet).
- T. saponaceum var. ardosiacum Bresadola (because this variety is based on a different type specimen than the autonymic variety, the authors of the species name are deleted)
- T. saponaceum var. lavedanum Rolland (same note as above)
[For background, see Appendix X; "A short history of the type method."]
Although Articles 7-10 purport to cover typification, the type method, typification procedures, and type are encountered throughout the ICBN, both implicitly and explicitly [Ex: Art. 37 requires citation of a type for valid publication].
7.1. This section takes up Principle II. Correct names are based on circumscription, position, and rank (Art. 6.5). In previous ICBNs, there was confusion over the competition between CIRCUMSCRIPTION (this can be traced to the historical concept of differentium) and TYPE (if the type did not conform to the circumscription). Thus this friction was historical, for Linnaeus relied on the circumscription, while the American Code (and subsequent) has been based on the type method.
Among the accoutrements which must accompany the proposal of a new name (i.e. of a taxon new to science) is a Latin diagnosis or description. A DIAGNOSIS is a concise statement of the characters through which the proposed taxon can be separated from others with similar characters. It is often only a few words long. A DESCRIPTION is usually thought of as an extended diagnosis, the principal characters of the plant, but not everything known about it. The diagnosis or description should not be confused with CIRCUMSCRIPTION, for which there are no language requirements, and which fully presents all taxonomic information about the taxon.
From the use of "families or below" it would seem that Art. 7.1 deals with the entire hierarchy of ranks, but Art. 10 extends the type method to ranks between genus and species.
7.2. There is a distinction between NOMENCLATURAL TYPES (also referred to as taxonomic types), and "biological types." The latter extends from a Goethe concept of archetypes, hypothesized to be real plants bearing the primoridal characteristics of all of its successors (a German Romantic and primitive pre-evolution construct). Not only does science reject the idea of biological types, but the ICBN cannot deal with them, for they would be taxonomic. The second sentence of 7.2 treats this problem explicitly.
Two "mechanical" methods of chosing types have been rejected by modern ICBNs.
1) The erstwhile "American Code" of the early 20th century directed that the choice of a type for a taxon (i.e. a type species for a genus) should be biased in favor of the FIRST subunit (i.e. the first species) listed by the originating author. This became known as "the first species rule," but its use makes selection of a type mechanical. Modern ICBNs have dismissed mechanical means of typification, and the "First species rule" has been outlawed. See "Guide for the Determination of Types."
Ex: F.S. Earle employed the American Code, which included the "First Species Rule" for a guide to typification. Accordingly, he selected Lepiota procera [basionym = Agaricus procera] as type of the genus name. Some years later, Singer proposed use of A. procera as type of the new genus Macrolepiota, contesting that Earle’s selection of A. procera was mechanical ("First Species Rule"). Singer selected L. colubrina as type of Lepiota. While Singer operated within the ICBN, his actions precipitated nomenclatual confusion which exists to this day. 2) "The Residue Method" (another American Code concept). Its idea was as follows: When a taxon name was introduced with more than one subordinate unit [Ex: a genus with more than one species], and none of the subordinate units was chosen as explicit type, all subordinate units are candidates for selection as lectotype (see below). Over subsequent years, however, one or more subordinate units may have been transferred out of the original taxon, in which case a "residue" remains. The lectotype of the taxon ( in this case, the type species of the genus) should be chosen from this "residue," so as not to disturb present nomenclatural and taxonomic alignment. This, again, is a "mechanical" method, and the ICBN avoids it.
7.3. Introduction of the concept of NOMEN NOVUM, an avowed total substitute for an older name. Obviously, the replaced name must be flawed in some way.
Ex: When Craterellus cantharellus is transferred to Cantharellus based on taxonomic characters (and therefore a taxonomic, not nomenclatural act) the resulting name is Cantharellus cantharellus, a tautonym and therefore outlawed by the code. When placed in Cantharellus, the species must seek a new epithet (a nomenclatural act).
Substitution for an invalidly published prior name is not a substitution, since the older name was not validly published.
Fictitious Ex: Brown proposed a new species which he called Aesclepias highlandensis, but did not furnish a Latin diagnosis. The name, therefore, is INvalidly published. A later author can give the combination another species epithet and cite the protologue of the original proposal. This is not a substitution, the original epithet was flawed, and the binomial combination must be attributed to the later author, who fulfilled the requirements of the ICBN.
7.4. Types follow their names, regardless of position and rank. Types have no bearing on priorability, validity, or legitimacy of their names.
7.5. Understanding of this paragraph depends on understanding of Art. 52, based on the old Art. 63, which many nomenclaturalists considered a bad article. The idea of automatic typification is an arbitrary act, especially when a consideration is necessary about what name "ought to have been adopted" in place of a superfluous name.
The gist of 7.5 is that a new type for even a superfluous name cannot be selected when the originating author explicitly designated a type.
The last line refers to FUNGI, for which the concept of SANCTION holds. See notes under Art. 13.
7.6. AUTONYMS (see also Art. 6.8; 22.3, 26.3). Just as the hierarchy of autonyms is created upon the introduction of a name of principal rank, the typification of those autonyms is also created simultaneously.
7.7. Here is the concept of PROTOLOGUE. When a name is introduced, there is a body of information which accompanies it, and another body of information which the introducing author does NOT use in print. The protologue consists of materials either in print (i.e. circumscription, specimens cited, illustrations, etc.) or SPECIFICALLY referred to by the introducing author (i.e previously publications, previous illustrations, notes in litt., etc.). If the introducing author does not SPECIFICALLY point to those sources, they cannot be used as part of the protologue.
Conversely, the introducing author may point AWAY from certain sources, and these become part of a negative protologue - those items which must be avoided.
Ex: E.M. Fries (Systema Mycologicum I: 125, 1821) sanctioned the name Agaricus aquosus Bulliard, citing Bulliard's plate 17 only. On the same page, Fries sanctioned the name Agaricus dryophilus and listed Agaricus aquosus as Bulliard as a synonym, citing Bulliard's plate 434 only.
Thus, Bulliard's plate 17 becomes part of the positive protologue of Fries's sanction of Agaricus aquosus, while Bulliard plate 434 becomes part of the negative protologue - to be avoided when dealing with this sanctioning process.
How does the protologue play a role in later taxonomic or nomenclatural acts? The name Agaricus aquosus Bull.: Fr. Has been placed in the genus Collybia by most modern authors. But when such a later author wishes to ascertain Fries's intent, not merely his bibliographical act of sanctioning the name, Fries's protologue must be consulted.There we are directed to his taxonomic concept.
7.7-7.11 These paragraphs all deal with RETROACTIVE TYPIFICATION of names originated (or sanctioned) on or before respective starting dates.
7.7 directs that CIRCUMSCRIPTIONS appearing in pre-starting date literature, and cited by a starting date author as a [partial or complete] source of the name, must be treated as part of the PROTOLOGUE, and must be "used" for purposes of typification.
Ex: E.M. Fries (Systema Mycologicum I: 195, 1821) sanctions the name Agaricus angustus Persoon, directing the reader to Persoon's Synopsis Methodica Fungorum, p 345.1801. There is found Persoon's description, which must be used in the typification process for this name.
The term "used" is not defined here, but cannot include using the description as type of a species (not a preserved specimen or illustration).
No direction is given as to whether even older descriptions can be so used, or whether we are limited to only those references cited by the originating or sanctioning author.
Ex: E.M. Fries (Systema mycologicum I: 419. 1821) sanctions the name Hydnum niveum Persoon (Synopsis, p. 563. 1801.) There, Persoon directs us to his own Tentamen Dispositiones. p. 30. 1797, where the name appears as Odontia nivea Pers.. Fries DOES NOT direct us to Persoon's (1797) earlier publication, but only to Persoon's 1801 description. Whether Persoon's earlier description can be used as part of FRIES'S protologue is not taken up.
Here the starting date or sanctioning author neither designates a type, nor furnishes a description, but merely cites a previous (pre-starting date or pre-sanctioning date) publication. If that previous publication includes an illustration, it can be chosen as the type (example 1), if not, then it must be taken into account in choosing a type (i.e. a specimen from the herbarium of that previous author, etc.). Thus, even a direct reference to a pre-starting date or pre-sanctioning data author or publication can be used as part of the protologue.
7.8. Specifically for fungi, this paragraph seemingly duplicates Art. 13.1(d). Art. 7.8 seems sloppily written, and appears to widen the protologue to "anything associated with the name in that work."
RECOMMENDATIONS: This recommendation was part of what was formerly called "Guide for the Determination of Types," published separate from the ICBN.
REC. 7A.1. It is not recommended to keep TYPE material in private herbaria. In the scientific principle of reproducibility of data, all workers should have access to type specimens from which they can gather parallel data to those cited by the originating author. Private herbaria have a tendency to be inaccessible because of the personalities of their owners or obscure location, etc.. It is best to present the type specimen to a recognized herbarium, and then cite this location in the proposal of the new name. Most well-curated herbaria have special storage areas for type specimens, for they bear special importance.
Some herbaria loan only a portion of type material (i.e. MICH, K), and often do not reproduce notes and other materials with the type. Usually, the borrower is not informed of this, and the practice sometimes leads to faulty judgements. The borrower must request ALL pertinent information in, with, or about the specimen to be sure of full disclosure.
If the holotype specimen comprises more than one herbarium sheet, or more than one individual (especially true of fungi, bryophytes, etc.), and if these duplicates of the holotype (ISOTYPES) are distributed to other herbaria, this should be cited in the original proposal of the new taxon. It is often tempting to submit one or more isotypes to public institutions, but to keep one representative in the private herbarium.
M.A. Donk was fond of saying that the true type material was the part that was flushed down the sink when the introducing author washed his slides.
The recommendation is another attempt to avoid arbitrary methodology.
This article deals ONLY with species and infraspecific taxonomic ranks. Article 10 deals with typification of supraspecific ranks.
8.1. Note that the type is not of a species, but of a "name of a species."
Article 9.1 clearly states that the [holo]type must be "the one specimen," but Art. 8.1 is more permissive with "small herbaceous plants" and "non-vascular plants."
The rule concerning the type specimen is contaminated by how this specimen should be preserved ("permanently," on one herbarium sheet or equivalent).
Not taken up here is the problem of EXSICCATI, duplicates of single specimens segregated into sets and distributed by subscription. In such cases, a new taxon may be based on all distributions, those known to the later author and those not known. All examples of that specimen are candidates for LECTOTYPIFICATION, as are all specimens gathered by the compiler before distribution of the exsiccati. If the compiler knew that the taxon was new (perhaps wrote this on the label, etc.) then only the distribution of THAT specimen is a candidate for type status. But see Art. 31.1 for an important date.
Ex: Libert distributed a whole series of exsiccati, of which at least one specimen represented a new taxon (Clavaria luteo-ochracea Lib.). When Petersen examined a single packet of the exsiccati distribution, he examined only a portion of the type, but the rest of the distribution is unknown and only partially stated.
Ex: Ellis and Everhart distributed an exsiccati, including a specimen representing a new species name. When several packets bearing the same label are examined, this distribution is found to be a mixed collection. Care must be taken to clearly state which packets constitute the lectotype, and which are spurious.
8.2. This has led to real controversy between yeast taxonomists and the ICBN. MANY yeasts have been typified by living cultures, contrary to the ICBN, and contrary to a resolution passed at IMC2 (Tampa). The example deals with a yeast name.
See also 8B.1, 8B.2. Recommendation 8B.2 assumes that "the nomenclatural type is a culture permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive state," while Art. 8.2 states the types "must be preserved permanently and cannot be living..." This seeming contradiction has been purposely left in to aid the yeast taxonomists.
Recommendations 8B.1, 8B.2. The remedy is preservation of the type (non-living), circumscription including an illustration, and distribution of "ex typus" cultures.
8.3; Recs. 8A.1, 8A.2. In many algae, intracellular arrangement of the pyrenoids and/or chloroplasts is important for identification. Preserved material cannot show these features, but a good illustration can serve as the type (termed an ICONOTYPE). The problem with all iconotypes is that they can no longer be examined for new characters (i.e. DNA, ultrastructure, etc.).
The most important phrase in this article is "If it is impossible-" It is only under limited conditions that an illustration can be used as a type, certainly not in indiscriminate situations.
[Ex: Kees Bas, the European expert on Amanita wishes to designate a plate from Bulliard (1785-1802) as the iconotype for A. vaginata, but that plate cannot be used for spore or hyphal characters, which may be of importance to taxonomy in the group.]
8.4. Circumscriptions of fossil plants must be illustrated (Art. 38.1), and the type must be the one specimen (or one of the specimens) illustrated.
8.5. Just because the organism belongs to "form taxa," it does not escape the normal typification process. At the same time, because fossils are often fragmentary, the Article singles out "one whole specimen," not the aggregate of many small fragments, as the nomenclatural type.
Throughout the tutorial on this Article, the term "originating author" is used. This is, of course, no reference to "originating" the taxon, but only to "originating" the name. Likewise, the term "original material" refers to the protologue material [specimen(s), illustrations, notes, etc.] in the hands of the "originating author" at the time of the "origination" of the new name.
9.1 The link between taxonomy and nomenclature is the type method. The type is circumscribed (a taxonomic act), but serves to represent the name (a nomenclatural act). The strength of the bond between the type and the name, therefore, is important as a measure of the credibility of the representation of the name. Like chemical bonds, various valences can be established. HOLOTYPE is the strongest possible bond (like triple bond); LECTOTYPE is like double bond; NEOTYPE like single bond.
Former ICBNs referred to "… the one specimen or other element..." but the current ICBN restricts sources of typification to specimen or illustration.
"...Used by the author or designated by him..." includes two concepts: 1) type material may not have been in the originating author's hands to qualify as HOLOTYPE; and 2) no comment is made concerning EXPLICIT TYPIFICATION vs. IMPLICIT TYPIFICATION.
"… Automatically ..." does not take into account the following: 1) a mixed type (see 7.4; 9.2); or 2) misapplied names (misidentification of the type; a portion of the type does not conform to the circumscription; etc.).
Ex: The type of Scytinopogon (diagnosed, in part, by spiny spores) was cited by Corner (1950, 1970) as S. angulispora (Pat.) Corner. = Clavaria angulispora Patouillard. 1888.
HT: FH - herb. Patouillard, Orenoque, no date, Gaillard, s.n.
= Scytinopogon angulispora (Pat.) Corner
Petersen (1984) found the type specimen to be smooth-spored, and to represent a Clavulina (also so annotated by Corner). The type specimen of the type species of Scytinopogon, therefore, did not conform to its own circumscription (by Patouillard), nor to the circumscription of the genus for which it served as type.
Because a type specimen cannot include a circumscription, the species name must be transferred out of Scytinopogon (does not fit circumscription of the genus) into Clavulina (fits circumscription of the genus). Because C. angulispora is the type of Scytinopogon, transfer of the generic type results in unification of two genera (Clavulina and Scytinopogon).
Because these elements are discordant, the species assemblage with spiny spores (now NOT including C. angulispora!) must be split away under a new genus name, with a new type species.]
Note 1. This note probes the INTENT of the originating author. Four concepts obtain:
1. EXPLICIT TYPIFICATION: the originating author explicitly cites a single specimen as type or holotype.
2. The originating author included only one element, thus the taxon is MONOTYPIC, and the type may be cited as a MONOTYPE.
3. The originating author gave enough data from which to locate only a single specimen, although more than one specimen may exist. This can be interpreted as IMPLICIT TYPIFICATION.
Ex: Charles Horton Peck often mentioned only a fragmentary date and/or location in the introduction of a new name, such as "Aug., Menands." When the Peck herbarium is searched, only one specimen collected in Menands in August can be located, and it is accepted as IMPLICIT HOLOTYPE. This in spite of other possible specimens from other localities and from other months] 4. When several subordinate taxa were included in the original taxon, but later authors have transferred all subordinate taxa except one, that one should be chosen as SCHIZOTYPE. This concept is an extension of the "residue method," and was not adopted, but has usefulness. The following table summarizes the situation with regard to explicit vs implicit typification:
EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT TYPIFICATION
EXPLICIT IMPLICIT Holotype Monotype Lectotype Schizotype Neotype ----
9.2-9.7. This is a partial hierarchy of type status, except for holotype.
(See Appendix X, "Glossary of 'Type' Terminology" for background)
9.2 A LECTOTYPE can be chosen only from original material in the hands of the originating author at the time the name of the taxon was introduced. "Original material" can include one or more specimens or illustrations explicitly cited by the originating author, all in hand before the name of the taxon was proposed (in manuscript form, not necessarily finally published). All this is taken from a separate publication "A guide to herbarium taxonomy," published many years ago. It links herbarium practice to nomenclature.
9.3. ISOTYPE
Ex: When the "Flora Amazonica" project sent expeditions to Brazil, they were instructed to prepare 11 duplicates of every specimen, if possible. These would bear the same label data, including collection number, and subsequently, if established as the type of a new taxon, would be cited as ISOTYPES.
9.4. When two or more specimens were cited by the originating author, but not as types, or when two or more specimens were cited as types (with equal status), they are SYNTYPES, but never when they were cited unequally.
Ex: When such words are used as: "the description was based on examination of specimens 10128, 10357, 10872-." These specimens are clearly syntypes Ex: Even if these specimens were cited only in the "specimens examined" section of the protologue, they would still be syntypes.
Ex: But when the words are something like this: "the description was based on examination of specimens 10128, 10357, 10872, but specimens 20321 and 42345 were also examined." This constitutes an UNequal citation, and only the first three specimens are candidates for syntypification.
9.5. PARATYPES are usually considered as "other specimens cited" when a type was explicitly chosen by the originating author. Because they were seen by the originating author, they are often spoken of as "authentic specimens," although that term has a slightly different meaning (ANY specimen identified by the originating author, regardless of date of collection, can be considered an "authentic" specimen).
In order to qualify as PARATYPE the specimen must have been cited, not merely in the originating author's possession at the time of name introduction.
9.6 A NEOTYPE may be a specimen or illustration, always chosen by a later author from material not cited by the originating author at the time of name introduction. The originating author becomes a "later author" as soon as the originating publication appears, with no more authority than anyone else. Thus, the originating author must select a lectotype or neotype if this is done subsequent to the originating publication - he cannot "reselect" a holotype, or change the choice of that specimen for any reason.
NEOTYPE implies the concept of retroactive typification (later authors typifiying taxa not their own). This was the friction point which prevented adoption of the type method by the Europeans until 1930.
A NEOTYPE cannot be chosen if appropriate original material is still extant. Selection of a type from extant original material would result in a lectotype, not a neotype.
9.7. Here is mentioned a potential problem in typification. When a type specimen (regardless of status), for a variety of reasons no longer bears structures essential to the correct identification of the organism, while still bearing other, non-essential structures (i.e. flowers without stamens; fungus basidioma without hymenium, etc.), it can no longer serve as a type, but Art. 9.7 makes provision by designation of an EPITYPE. An epitype is especially useful when the holotype or lectotype is an illustration from which microscopic characters cannot be seen.
Ex: Schweinitz's fungus types (at PHIL) sometimes exhibit small pieces of fruitbody, but no pileus, and therefore no hymenium.In such a case, another carefully chosen specimen may be designated as epitype, but the epitype never takes higher status than the holotype or lectotype or even neotype.
Selection by a monographer or expert of REPRESENTATIVE SPECIMENS, faithful to the remaining portions of the holotype, but well-documented and preserved, is to be recommended (but not mentioned in the ICBN). The idea is close to the epitype, but may be used even when a holotype exists. [see Example under Art. 8.3]
Fictitious Ex: The holotype of Marasmius scorodonius consists only of a small fragment, not showing all characters necessary for identification. A representative specimen can be named, with adequate material (perhaps even deposited in several herbaria), so that other workers can test the "later worker's" concept of the species.) Representative specimens might also be vouchers for cultures, etc.
9.8. Note that in using a typification title counter to the ICBN, the situation is to be corrected. Designation of an incorrect type counter to the ICBN may lead to taxonomic implications (see Example under Art. 9.1).
9.9. Here is a summary of the hierarchy of types. It could be considered as redundant to the preceding articles. But it also describes the process of typification. See also the table under article 9.1 above and the Glossary of Type Terminology in this tutorial.
9.10. In many cases, the type (holo-) consists of more than one individual. Sometimes they are mounted on a single herbarium sheet (i.e. mosses, etc.), or are several basidiomata in a single box, or even several herbarium sheets with identical data on all (isotypes). When these are found to constitute a mixed collection, that part which most closely matches the original description (?and protologue?) should be retained as type. Names of taxa are based on types, but when the type is in question, the description (really circumscription) must serve to determine the type.
Ex: Ellis and Everhart collected fungi with the intent of distributing exsiccati. When a single specimen could not be divided adequately, a second specimen (of multiple fruitbodies) was added to fill out the distribution. Sometimes, the second collection was not the same taxon as the first, and the full distribution of the exsiccati was of a mixed collection under a single number. The later author is directed to selected a lectotype (or neotype) from the material most closely matching the circumscription.
9.10. Deals with mixed types. Selection of a substitute type must be made to conform with the original description (not illustration, protologue, etc.).
9.11. Even in cases where multiple types are available, if the original material is lost or destroyed, and the remaining material does not match the circumscription, a neotype may be designated.
9.12. This would seem to set a NEOTYPE above PARATYPES, when the paratypes do not match the original sense of the taxon. How is that sense established in the absence of holotype material? It cannot be gained totally from the circumscription, because names are based on types, not on circumscriptions.
If the original author, however, described the type, or a later author examined it and described it, either in print or in notes, then a clear understanding of the original HOLOTYPE can be gathered. If the paratypes disagree with this understanding, then a NEOTYPE must be chosen.
Inherent here is preservation of "common usage." This idea occurs sporadically through the ICBN, and is a response to "capricious" name changes which subordinate popular common Latin names into synonymy under unknown, obscure names in an attempt to be nomenclaturally correct. If preservation of "common usage" is an aim of the ICBN, then complaints can be reduced.
9.13. The foremost point is that the first designation of LECTO- or NEOTYPE must be followed, not necessarily the best designation, unless the restrictions pertain.
"In serious conflict" is taken up in Rec. 9A.5, which editorializes more than expected. Another word, "misinterpretation" could be substituted here.
No direction is given in a situation where a previous selection of a lecto- or neotype was poor, but no better material has survived. Presumably, the later author should question the previous selection, and direct the anticipation of future better material.
9.14. Another regulation: January 1, 1990 - designation of a lectotype or neotype must be accompanied by a citation of the herbarium or institution in which the specimen is deposited. Otherwise, it is not required to follow the designated type.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARTICLE 9
These recommendations, as other in the ICBN, have come down from "A Guide to the Determination of Types." This text was part of ICBNs subsequent to Stockholm, but eventually, for arguable reasons, its items were scattered to several places in the ICBN as recommendations, thus attaining some status in the Code. In my opinion, since typification is one of the most common acts performed or researched by taxonomists, the "Guide" might be perpetuated as its own text.
All recommendations under Art. 9 call for later authors to divine the intent of the originating author, rather than short-cutting the typification process for convenience. The hierarchy of type is covered by consecutive recommendations, first lectotypes, then neotypes.
9A.1. Before 1930, the type method was used only in the United States, and before 1903, used by no one. Therefore there is a host of names for which there are no types. How could an originating author who knew nothing of types or "type" terminology be expected to have designated a type? Thus the example deals with situations in which a type was never explicitly designated (and thus calls for designation of a lectotype or neotype).
9A.2. In "American Codes" around the turn of the 20th century, the "First Species Rule" was explicit. It directed that, in the absence of explicit designation of a holotype, the first species listed in the genus by the originating author (or the first specimen cited under a species, etc.) was to be adopted as type for the taxon.
Ex: In the fungi, The Genera of Fungi (Clement and Shear), a seminal source of citations of generic lectotypes (as merely types), followed the first species rule. Any or all of its [lecto-]types can be overturned, for they were based on a mechanical and arbitrary methodology.
This recommendation applies directly to the "first species rule." The ICBN judges such methods for selecting a type to be "mechanical," and therefore to be avoided. Types should be selected only after thorough research on the originating author's style (Rec. 9A.1) and on the taxonomic group (Rec. 9A.2).
9A.2; 9A.3. Thse examples amplify the same point on mechanical type selection. A selected type may be overturned MERELY because it was selected arbitrarily or mechanically, but this should not be arbitrary in itself.
9A.3. A type cannot be designated "in litt.," that is, in notes, herbarium labels, manuscripts, letters, etc.. A name proposed without a type is not validly published (see Art. 37.4), and the name cannot be considered typified unless the herbarium or museum in which the type resides is stated (Art. 37.5). If this error is made, a later author can rectify it, and claim authorship of the name.
9A.4. While this method may address the originating author's intent, it is as arbitrary as other condemned methods.
9A.5. If a later author selects a mixed specimen as lecto- or neotype, the selection must be revised, but not necessarily totally discarded. A portion of the mixed specimen may be chosen.
Ex: Müller (1789) coined the name Clavaria inaequalis, and produced a plate of the fungus. Fries (and Persoon and Linnaeus before him) all regarded C. inaequalis as synonymous with, or hardly separable from Clavaria fusiformis, and other names for similar organisms were also proposed (C. dissipabilis, C. helvola, etc.). Because Müller offered no microscopic characters, the true identity of the organism in his plate could not be ascertained. The name C. inaequalis, although the earliest name for such a fungus, persisted for many years with several interpretations, none for common fungi.
Corner (1950) stated that because no one could tell what Müller meant, and because at least four different other names had gained popularity for such fungi, and because C. inaequalis had never become popular, he (Corner) was dropping C. inaequalis as a nomen confusum, in favor of the four other names for distinct organisms. Moreover, all those organisms were placed (by Corner) in Clavulinopsis, not Clavaria.
Petersen found a species of Clavaria in the southern Appalachians which looked like Müller's figure and circumscription, and was apparently undescribed in the literature. He also found a specimen in Karsten's herbarium (Helsinki). He resurrected the name C. inaequalis for the taxon, and typified it by a specimen from Finland (Müller's name was based on Danish material). Later, a specimen was found in herb. Fries (Uppsala, Sweden) under the name C. inaequalis, making neotypification even more stable.
Corner published a vehement apologia, claiming that Petersen's sense of C. inaequalis was synonymous with C. luteo-alba, which, he said, he had learned at the knee of George Massee, the mycologist who had proposed it. Petersen answered that C. luteo-alba had not hitherto been typified, and designated a neotype based on a Massee specimen, and clearly distinct from C. inaequalis.
Although extremely disturbed, Corner had no choice in this matter. Both taxa had been duly neotypified by appropriate specimens.
Another manipulation of types which has been accomplished revolves around the neotypification of a taxon using the type of another taxon, thus locking the two names into both taxonomic and nomenclatural synonymy.
Fictitious Ex: Rosa alba was described validly, with a holotype specimen designated. Rosa dubia, although validly published, was taxonomically uncertain because no type had been designated. Controversy waged over the true identity of the plant. Finally, one author chose a neotype for R. dubia as the holotype specimen of R. alba. Thus the two names became TYPONYMS (different names based on the same type specimen), and thus nomenclatural synonyms as well as taxonomic synonyms.
Conversely, if a typification (holo- lecto- or neo-) can be shown to be contrary to the ICBN, a proposal can be made to change it. The botanical community then accepts and/or rejects what it wishes.
Ex: Banker (1902) based his selection of a type specimen for Hydnum on the (incomplete) literature at his disposal, and selected H. imbricatum as type. Later (1907), when he had seen all the pertinent literature (notably Linnaeus, 1753), he reversed his own action, now selecting H. repandum as type. This action was taken based on Fries's protologue (a concept not mentioned in this article). Thus, Banker is the originating author for purposes of typification, and also a later author correcting the errors of the originating author. The mycological community (notably Rudi Maas Geesteranus versus Kenneth Harrison) was divided on this issue for many years, until Petersen (1972) proposed conservation of Hydnum with H. repandum as its type. Duly approved, all parties were forced to conform to the conserved sense of the genus name.
9B.1. Because NEOTYPES are selected by later authors, often with no first-hand knowledge of the introducing author's intent, special care is required.
Because of the nature of the document, the ICBN cannot mention loss of credibility by the later author when his choice of neotype is not accepted, or explicitly replaced. It is the acceptance by the botanical community which governs all facets of a worker's reputation, not some commission or ruling body.
Article 10 deals with typification above species rank (infrageneric, generic, infrafamilial, familial).
10.1. Here is introduced the idea that the type of a genus (or subdivision of a genus) is a SPECIMEN. "The type of a name of a genus ...is the type of the name of a species."
Citation of the name of the type species, however, is held to suffice. This leads to misinterpretation when the author does not use the species name in the same sense as its type, whether inadvertant or on purpose. A conventional symbol is sometimes used to inform the reader that the type specimen of the name has been seen. That symbol is [!]. The square brackets enclose material not essential to the reader, but which the author deems important. The exclamation point indicates "I have seen the type specimen and I agree with its circumscription."
10.2. Although not calling it such, Art. 10.2 invokes the "Residue method," a traditional methodology. The following examples illustrate the idea.
Ex: In the fungi, the sanctioning author (Fries or Persoon) includes three species in the genus, but Linnaeus, from whom the genus name came, included seven. Because seven species names are included in the protologue of the sanctioning work, the ICBN tells us that they are all candidates for lectotypification, but the genus circumscription by the sanctioning author should limit the choice taxonomically. Moreover, typification should be made to preserve common usage.
10.3. Indirect typification. Explicit typification can be subtituted by citation of a validly published name which was previously typified. REFERENCE to former explicit typification is approved. Citation of a name which was NOT typified does not serve as an adequate substitute.
10.4. The concept of CONSERVATION is introduced. For more on this topic, see Art. 14, and the enormous ICBN Appendices II and III. Conservation is the only way a genus can be typified by an illustration. Although seemingly contrary to Art. 10.1, typification of a generic name directly by a specimen skips the species name which the type ought to typify. Art. 10.1 directs that the type specimen of a genus must be the type specimen of an included species name, but Art. 10.4 skips the "included species name."
Conservation of a genus name can be performed regardless of the type. In this case, the author proposing conservation of a genus name can choose some SPECIMEN or illustration NOT included by the author of the genus name in his protologue.
Rec. 10A.1. When this is done, if the conserved type specimen is the type of a species name, then the species name can be cited as the type of the genus (because the species name substitutes for the type specimen). If the type specimen of the conserved genus name is NOT the type of a species, then this specimen should be cited separately, and its correct name given.
10.5. Priority governs typification. The first author to make a choice of type (in accordance with restrictions in the article) must be followed. But again, mechanical choices are outlawed.
10.6. The principle of typification by a specimen extends to family rank. to represent a family. Article 18.5 lists families NOT based on generic names. Thus the type of the Compositae is Aster, because it is the type of the alternative name, Asteraceae.
Again the ICBN excuses itself from nomenclature higher than family, except where the order name is AUTOMATICALLY based on a genus name.
Fictitious example: Magnoliaceae, with type genus Magnolia, which is typified by the type specimen of its type species.]
In our society, "priority" usually indicates a hierarchy of exigency (i.e. this task takes priority over another). In botanical nomenclature, however, "priority" takes an earlier, more neutral meaning: that which is prior. So "priority" deals with the age of a plant name. When was it published; under what circumstances?
As with the rest of the ICBN, the first articles (Arts. 11, 12) lay down blanket philosophy, while succeeding articles restrict these principles.
11.1. Two ideas are stated here:
1. Circumscription, position and rank are the three restrictive factors in arriving at the "correct" name ("correct" is not defined here, but see Arts. 6.5, 11.2).
There are exceptions to these restrictive factors: families with alternative names (see Art. 18.5).
2. There can be "correct" names for non-sexual PARTS of organisms: form-genera and form-species for fossils and Deuteromycetes (see Arts. 3.3, 59.5).
11.2. This would seem redundant, but in 11.3 and 11.4 rank will be modified for family-to-genus versus lower-than-genus through lower-than-species. The examples are instructive.
A name has no priority outside its own rank. So, combining points in Art. 11: a) the earliest legitimate name must be used for any taxon regardless of rank; b) BUT - no homonyms are allowed at any combination of infraspecific ranks. When names of taxa are transferred, this must be watched carefully.
According to the ICBN itself, when rank is changed, any new available name could be applied to the new rank. The recommendation states that the old name should be retained unless it violates the ICBN itself.
When names of taxa of higher than genus are transferred, the stem is to be retained, and the Latin termination changed. This does not refer to conserved names, which are conserved only in their conserved ranks and not in any other rank.
11.3. A definition of "correct," this time for ranks of family to genus (see also Art. 6.5). When compared to Art. 11.3, it is obvious that names of ranks from family to (AND INCLUDING) genus are not regulated as heavily as those below genus rank.
11.4. Another restatement of "correct," this time for ranks below genus, and this time with considerable regulation.
All names below genus are composed of a combination. Contrary to popular belief, such combinations can extend for several epithets (see Art. 6.7), but for species, the combination consists of a genus name plus a species epithet (followed by some indication of authorship).
Ex: Marasmius subgenus Rotalis Ramaria subg. Echinoramaria sect. Dendrocladium
Astragalus vulpinus var. hirsuta
Mimulus scirpus subsp. laevis var. viridis
The "correct name" is a combination of the earliest ("priorable") final epithet (see footnote), of appropriate rank and position. If the earliest final epithet is not in the correct position it should be transferred.
Several factors impinge on this rule of priority:
1. Rules concerning later starting dates may "devalidate" the correct combination; conservation, sanction or rejection may eliminate the correct combination from competition;
2. The combination must meet requirements for valid publication (see special form for names under Art. 32.1d and its sources);
3. The combination must not be a homonym (see Art. 53) or tautonym; or
4. The combination must meet specific regulations in the enumerated articles (autonyms, anamorphs).
11.5. In the competition between two "equal" names, two acts are required: 1) acceptance of one name; 2) explicit rejection of the other(s). In this way, the process resembles the "residue method."
Note the last sentence. When two taxon names of the same date are united, the uniting auhor has his choice of names, and MUST BE FOLLOWED thereafter.
These are common-sense ideas, but to some degree violate the rules about arbitrary choice of names.
11.7. When a fossil is discovered in the living state, the name based on the living state has priority over the name based on the fossil state. There is a matter of judgement of qualifications for fossil state.
This reinforces the concept of fossil names as artifactual ("form names"). It also takes into account the concept of "common usage" which would surely favor the recent taxon name.
11.9. The rules of priority do not apply higher than family rank, but it is recommended that such names comply.
12.1. The word "status" is not defined here. Inadmissible names have no status, but the article centers on valid publication. The implication is that ILLEGITIMATE NAMES HAVE STATUS, but are disqualified on other grounds.
SECTION 4. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY
13.1. It may be remembered that a series of botanical congresses fought over the starting date - 1753 versus 1735 - the famous Kuntze versus Engler debate (see appendix on chronology of botanical congresses). Now, in Article 13, many restrictions are placed on this principle. This results from debates before and during the Vienna Congress of 1905.
Note some confusion about the difference between starting "dates" and the published works which ARE TREATED as though published on those dates. For many years, this Article read "starting points," an even more confusing term. The guiding principle for the nomenclaturalists at Vienna dealt with published works - the most acceptable early publication which summarized the plant group (i.e. for the fungi, Fries's Systema Mycologicum and Persoon's Synopsis Methodica Fungorum). The implication of the dates on which they were published was not well thought out.
For example, Fries's Systema was published over an eleven year period, with the Elenchus Fungorum published in the middle. All were accepted as "the starting point." Controversy arose, however, about names proposed AFTER 1821, but BEFORE 1832. Were they valid or not? Moreover, without careful dating of Fries's first volume, were other names published in 1821 valid or not?
Thus the restrictions within Art. 13(d) became more and more complex. Finally, at the Sydney Congress, it was decided to return to Linnaeus's Species Plantarum (1 May 1753, by legislation) as starting date, but granting to names adopted by Persoon or Fries a status of "sanctioned." These would be protected as though they had been conserved, so no earlier synonym or homonym could compete.
Ex: Because Fries (1821. Systema Mycologicum) sanctioned Bulliard’s (1788, Histoire des Champignons) name Boletus aereus, the name must cited with Fries’s name attached. Correctly cited (see appendix on nomenclatural conventions), the name is Boletus aereus Bulliard: Fries. The citation recognizes the later starting point for nomenclature of fungi. It is incorrect to cite the name as Boletus aereus Bulliard, for such a citation does not recognize Fries’s sanctioning role.
Ex: The name Agaricus cervinus Schaeffer (1774) was sanctioned by Fries (1821) and should be cited as A. cervinus Schaeffer: Fries. The name is protected against the prior homonym Agericus cervinus Hoffmann (1789), a name not sanctioned.
Until the Sydney Congress, all names prior to adopted starting points were considered DEVALIDATED (a Donk term, chiefly used for fungi). That is, those names were like pre-Linnaean, inadmissible, names.
Post-Sydney, however, there are two categories of starting point restrictions.
I. Traditional pre-starting point names: Mosses, Nostocaceae. Pre-NOT VALIDLY PUBLISHED, that is, devalidated. This is "blanket" judgement - ALL names before the starting point are devalidated, all names in the starting point literature are validly published.
II. SANCTIONED VS. NON-SANCTIONED: Pre-starting point names NOT adopted by the sanctioning authors IN SANCTIONING PUBLICATIONS are validly published if they are Linnaean or post-Linnaean and fulfill the other requirements of the ICBN. All pre-later-starting point names adopted by the sanctioning authors IN SANCTIONING PUBLICATIONS are sanctioned. Sanctioned status is very similar to that of CONSERVED NAME.
So the rules are different for mosses than for fungi.
Plant groups whose names start with Linnaeus are (a) Spermatophyta and Pteridophyta, (b) Sphagnaceae and Hepaticae, (c) Fungi, (d) and Algae (with notable exceptions).
Plant groups with later starting dates are (a) Musci, (b) certain algae, and (c) fossils.
There is also potential here for confusion in the TYPIFICATION process. There are two philosophies about typification in this regard:
1. The type (specimen) must be chosen from the herbarium of the introducing author, regardless of whether that publication was pre- or post-starting date. In this way, typification honors history. This extends, when no appropriate specimens can be found, to the topotype area of the introducing author.
2. The type (specimen) must be chosen from the herbarium of the first author who validly published the name. While not historically correct, it honors nomenclatural correctness. This extends to the topotype area of the post-starting date author.
Ex: The name of a moss was introduced by Linnaeus (1753), and adopted by Hedwig (1801). Should a type specimen be sought from southern or central Sweden (Linnaeus), or from Germany (Hedwig)?
13.2. Here is a potential source of great confusion. The starting date of the name of a plant is that which governs the plant group in which the taxonomist places the plant concerned. This may move around, dictated by the taxonomists who deal with the plant. For example, there are facultative lichenizing fungi, but lichens are considered to be governed by the starting date of their fungal component. See example 1 in ICBN.
Ex: If Lycopodium clavatum were accepted AS A MOSS, then its starting date would be considerably later (1 Jan 1801).
Ex: Many species of aquatic hyphomycetes (Deuteromycetes, Fungi) were described as algae. The starting date for these organisms is dictated by to which group they are considered to belong.
13.3. It is necessary to circumscribe the fossil state. If the type specimen is a fossil, then the name represents a fossil. If the type specimen is non-fossil, then the name represents a non-fossil, even though there may be fossil and extant material in either case. In doubtful cases, the name should be treated as non-fossil (this in order to be as conservative as possible; see Art. 11.7).
13.4. This article links generic names with their circumscriptions, only doubtfully a nomenclatural act. Linnaeus did not describe genera in Species Plantarum, for that was not the mission of the book, so ONLY those genera are linked to descriptions in Genera Plantarum (1st and 2nd editions).
Generic names which ORIGINATED in Genera Plantarum are not covered by this article.
Orthography from Species Plantarum is to be followed.
13.5. Here is an accommodation to the discrepancy of publication dates. Because a few names could have been introduced BETWEEN these volumes, they are treated as though they appeared simultaneously.
Although generic names are involved in the example, the article is not restricted to genus names.
13.6. Because the holomorph and teleomorph includes/is the sexual stage, these names fall under the Linnaean system. Names of FORM-TAXA do not represent sexual organisms, so their names cannot infringe on the holomorph (or teleomorph) names.
CONSERVATION (APPENDICES II, III)
14.1. The rationale for conserving names (all ranks through family) is of historic tradition. Conservation aims at stability (see also 14.2). It also avoids strict application of the rules, especially Article 13.
The usual reason for conserving a name (NOMEN CONSERVANDUM) is discovery of an earlier, obscure name for the same group. Thus, most proposals are made to conserve a later name over an earlier name, but it is also a means of overcoming strict application of the rules about priority.
14.2 An expansion of the justification for conservation. Perhaps a move in the direction of "Names in Current Usage".
14.3. Names may be conserved in order to establish or retain their types, thus leading to further stability of nomenclature.
If a species name is represented by a conserved type, the name is taxonomically tied to that specimen, and the sense of the genus of which the species is type is secured. Thus species names can be conserved with SPECIFIED TYPE.
14.4. Conserved names of families or genera extend to all others typified by the same genus or species. Names of species can be conserved only over LISTED REJECTED names.
The list of conserved species names was opened only recently, and was restricted to those names representing organisms of "major economic importance," and in cases where typification was in doubt (see Art. 14.3). This justification has been significantly expanded (see opening paragraph to Appendix IV, perhaps a move toward "Names in Current Usage").
Over what are conserved genus and family names protected?
1. All names based on the same type specimen/species (i.e. TYPONYMS), whether explicitly on the list of rejected names or not; and
2. All synonymous names explicitly stated in the list of rejected names.
Conserved species names are protected against all LISTED rejected names, and all combinations based on those LISTED rejected names (not unlisted names).
Ex: When Krombholzia (fungi, 1881) was found to be a later homonym of Krombholzia (vascular plants, 1876), the genus name Krombholziella was proposed to substitute for the later homonymic genus name. But when Amanita Pers. (fungi, 1797) was found to be a later homonym of Amanita Boehm (vascular plants, 1760), Amanita Persoon was conserved over its earlier homonym (see ICBN Appendix III).
14.5. A conserved name is NOT PROTECTED against other names not based on the same type, or not listed as explicitly rejected. In other words, a conserved name must compete for priority against non-typonyms.
BUT - names protected under Article 15 [fungi] are sanctioned, not conserved, and are therefore protected against ALL names, listed and unlisted.
[The word "competes" is used here. I know of no other place in the ICBN where it is used. Competes for what? For correctness.]
14.6. A later name is conserved against an earlier name only when the names are considered to be synonyms. If they are not CONSIDERED synonyms, (some taxonomists may consider them so, others may not) then the earlier name can be used for the separate genus or family. As usual, nomenclature must follow taxonomy.
14.7. Here and in Art. 14.4, there is the implication that combinations can be based on rejected names. This is technically true, for proper combinations could have been formulated BEFORE conservation occurred. After conservation, no combinations should be formulated based on the rejected name, except as the rejected name can be resurrected under Art. 14.6.
This article tangentially repeats Art. 14.3, in that application of conserved names is determined by nomenclatural types. A rejected name cannot be resurrected or applied to a typonym of a conserved name.
14.9. Here is licence to establish a new type for a conserved name. It is possible to conserve a name (genus or family) with a type NOT INCLUDED by the original author.
NOTE: When this is done, the name is attributed to the first author who included the conserved type. Notice the example in ICBN. This is tantamount to conserving "Bulbostylis sensu Kunth."
14.10. A conserved name (AND ALL ITS AUTONYMS) is protected against all earlier HOMONYMS (and all their autonyms). Note that in the next sentence, conserved names are groups with sanctioned names, although this is not done elsewhere.
Here follows a strange passage. The rejected earlier homonym and its autonyms are not rendered illegitimate by conservation or sanction against them - they are simply unavailable. Such names, if legitimate, may be used as basionyms of other names based on the same type. Art. 55.3 is easier to understand, although not less strange. See the example there.
14.11. This reflects ideas which occur in the articles on orthography. Generally - change the orthography and get on with it, without changing the original author or original date of the name.
Note 3. [Ex: If a Congress approves conservation of the genus name Rosa in 1969, that date has no influence on nomenclature. Rosa, published in 1753, must compete for priority based on that date, not the date of conservation.]
In a competition between two conserved names, the prior name is correct.
14.11 (see also Division III). This is procedural. In reality, a taxonomist/nomenclaturalist must publish the proposal for conservation, in highly stylized format in the offical journal of the IAPT, Taxon. The Secretary for the appropriate nomenclatural committee is obliged to distribute the proposal to his/her committee. Once considered by the appropriate plant group committee, that decision is reported in Taxon. If the proposal is accepted by the ppropriate special committee, it is passed on to the General Committee: if defeated, it proceeds no further.The Secretary of the General Committee circulates the accepted proposal and the "lower court" decision to the General Committee (composed of the secretaries of all plant group committees plus some ad hoc members). If approved by the General Committee, the name can be used as though conserved until the next Congress (see Art. 15.1). Only a decision of the nomenclature section of an international botanical congress can authorize permanent conservation of a name.
14.12. Once a name is conserved or sanctioned, it is so in perpetuity.
14.14. The procedural breaking point is the General Committee. Action in lower committees is not to be obeyed, but if conservation has been approved by the General Committee, it is to be obeyed until the next Nomenclature Session of an International Congress. Theoretically, some proposals for conservation could be declined in the Nomenclature Session after approval by the General Committee, and thus reverse some published reports based on General Committee action.
SANCTION [SPECIFICALLY FUNGI]
15.1 Because Fries's sanctioning works comprise five volumes and 11 years, names accepted in Systema Mycologicum vol. 1 may have been explicitly or implicitly rejected in some subsequent volume, based on Fries's taxonomic judgement. Nomenclaturely, however, a sanctioned name remains so, even in the face of subsequent rejection.
15.2. Pre-sanction homonyms: not illegitimate, but "unavailable." See also Art. 14.10.
15.3, 15.4, Note 1, 15.5. Competition between "equal" sanctioned names is governed by normal rules of conservation.
15.6. In fact, conservation (Art. 14) and explicit rejection (Art. 56.1) override sanction in all cases.
