A GUIDE TO BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER III - NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK
SECTION I -NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
Preliminary note: Because articles are grouped according to rank, articles 16-17 (higher than family) reflect the same concepts as articles 18-19 (families and infra-family), again in articles 20-22 (genera), again in article 23 (species), again in articles 24-27 (infra-species), and again in article 28 (cultivated plants).
16.1. Typification above the family rank is automatic ONLY if the name is based on a genus name. In that case, the genus serves as type for the suborder, order, subdivision, and division.
The genus name serves as type, WITHOUT CITATION OF THE GENUS AUTHOR'S NAME. The genus name is symbolic of the type.
16.2. A technical issue.
Note 1. Phylum is an old term mandated in the ICBN until some years ago. Divisio was substituted in attempt to conform with zoological terminology, but enough resistence resulted to force a compromise. Nonetheless, the two terms denote the SAME rank and cannot be used to denote different ranks.
Note 2. Note that priority, as a principle, does not extend higher than family. Other provisions of the ICBN do so.
RECOMMENDATION 16A
Recommendation 16A.1. The name of a division should be based on: 1) distinctive characters (this is a Linnaean sentiment); or 2) an included genus. Compare Art. 17.1 where ICBN dictates names of families or of lower rank.
Endings: -phyta for green plants; -mycota for fungi.
Recommendation 16A.2. Subdivision endings: - phytina for green plants; -mycotina for fungi. [hence Basidiomycotina, a subdivision of Mycota]
Recommendation 16A.3. Class endings: -phyceae for algae; -mycetes for fungi [hence Heterobasidiomycetes, a class of the Basidiomycotina]; -opsida for green plants.
Subclass endings: -phycidae for algae; -mycetidae for fungi [hence Hymenomycetidae, a subclass of the Homobasidiomycetes]; -idae for green plants.
Recommendation 16A.4. Note that there must be a Latin termination to correct. If there is only a vernacular termination, the name is not validly published.
RECOMMENDATION 16B
Recommendation 16B.1. Choose the oldest typified generic name as the stem of supra-family ranks. This is a recommendation (not an article) because priority does not extend higher than family rank.
17.1. The principle of priority does not apply to ranks higher than family, but name construction does so. Names of these ranks can be derived in two ways, but since the ICBN does not deal with nomenclature of such ranks, the door is open for name construction on other bases also. For example, the name of an order could be derived from a person's name, either because a genus was named in honor of a person, or because the author of the order name wishes to do this.
The examples are instructive.
17.2. These ranks apparently are to be accepted prima facie as substituting for order names. No flexibility is left for the author who has used one of these ranks to substitute for a family (not order), for example.
17.3. See Art. 16, Recommendation 16A.4. The key here is incorrect LATIN termination.
Recommendation 17A.1. Violation of this recommendation would lead to homonymic order names. These would not be prohibited because the ICBN does not deal with nomenclature of orders, so it can be only a recommendation.
SECTION 2. NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES AND SUBTRIBES
18.1. This would seem to leave no room for interpretation. The examples are instructive.
18.2. These ranks come from a particular era of floristics. It surely has potential to cause confusion when two senses of "order" are introduced (see Art. 17).
18.3. Here is a distinction between LEGITIMATE and VALIDLY PUBLISHED. A family name based on an ILLEGITIMATE genus name is ILLEGITIMATE, even if validly published. Its illegitimacy is based on this article. As usual, this illegitimacy can be overturned by conservation.
18.4. Because the ICBN deals with nomenclature of family rank, this wording can be put into an article, not merely in a recommendation (see Rec. 16A.4; Art. 17.3). Examples are instructive.
Note example 6: When the termination of the family name is NOT LATIN, then the name must be discarded as not validly published.
18.5, 6. Alternative family names.
19.1. See Art. 18.1.
19.2. See Art. 18.1.
19.3. All infra-familial units based on the same type retain the same name-stem, and are to be considered as autonyms. (see separate page diagram). Note 1 specifies applicability only to autonyms.
Example 3 is especially lucid.
19.4. Publication of a second, different infra-familial unit reveals the previous, assumed autonyms of the typical name lineage.
19.4.
Fictitious example: The Rosaceae is based on Rosa, with R. alba as its type.One cannot introduce the Rosaceae, based on Rosa, typified by Rosa flava. This would create homonyms at all autonymic ranks.
19.6. See Art. 18.3.
19.7 Mirrors Art. 17.3, 18.4.
19.8. Specific for this name.
Recommendation 19A.1. This assumes that the earliest legitimate name in the assigned rank will be used. Only if NO legitimate name is available does the recommendation pertain.
Recommendation 19A.2. The type of a family name is really a specimen (families are typified by genera, which are typified by species, in turn by a specimen). As always, the type follows its name when rank is changed.
SECTION 3. NAMES OF GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA
20.1. Genus names can be composed with complete flexibility, as long as they conform to number and declension.
Ex. Subramanian constructed generic names for Deuteromycetes from Sandskrit roots, fixed with Latinized terminations.
20.2. So two restrictions appear: 1) genus names cannot be formed from technical terms after 1 Jan 1912; and 2) even such old names must have been accompanied by the name of an included species in the binomial mode.
20.3. Such two-word genus names are REJECTED (this is the same language as for illegitimate names). It is possible, under certain circumstances, to join two words with a hyphen.
20.4. Self-explanatory.
Recommendation 20A.1.
a) So it is possible NOT to Latinize a genus name.
b) There are no languages which cannot be transliterated into Roman alphabet.
c) Not to be combined within the genus name root; not pertaining to the termination.
d) To do so would create a near-tautonym, which would be confusing.
e) Particularly, collectors otherwise not connected to science.
21.1. No specific direction to use the genus name, because this would only be for the autonymic hierarchy. For non-autonymic hierarchies, some other infra-generic epithet must be used, not usually based on a species epithet.
21.2. Self-explanatory.
21.3. This prohibits use of "eu-" for it would be for the autonymic (typical) hierarchy.
Note 1. This is very specific to this situation (see Art. 64). Technically, it would not produce homynyms, for ranks would differ.
Note 2. Hybrids.
Recommendation 21A.1. This belongs under articles on citation.
Recommendation 21B.1. Self-explanatory.
Recommendation 21B.2. Two ideas: 1) infra-generic epithets should agree in case; and 2) it is best not to use infra-generic epithets which are similar to others, even of other closely related genera, for fear of confusion.
Recommendation 21B.3. The type follows its name; in this case a name of a subdivision of a genus when rank is changed.
22.1.Here is the formal introduction of the term AUTONYM at the infrageneric rank. Note that autonymic infrageneric names are not followed by an author's name, for they were not "authored" in the strict sense.
Fictitious Ex. When Rosa was described, it automatically included subgenus Rosa, tribe Rosa, section Rosa and subsection Rosa. All the infrageneric rank names are cited as without author, since only the genus was "authored." All the rest are autonyms.
Note 1. Reinforces that this autonymic hierarchy pertains ONLY to names of infrageneric ranks which include the type species of the genus.
22.2. (SEE SEPARATE SHEET) When the taxonomist decides to base an infrageneric group on a species NOT the type of the genus, a new autonymic hierarchy is established, with the infrageneric rank decided upon as the highest rank.
Fictitious Ex. In Rosa, there is an autonymic hierarchy based on R. alba as type (as shown in the example under 22.1 above). But if Rosa nigra is chosen to serve as the type for a different, distinct group at subgenus rank, to be named subgenus Nigricantes, then a NEW autonymic hierarchy is established, with subgenus Nigricantes as its highest rank. Thus there is subg. Nigricantes, tribe Nigricantes, section Nigricantes and subsection Nigricantes, all based on R. nigra as type.
22.3 Self-explanatory.
22.4. There is no direction to repeat the epithet of a constituent species as the name for an infrageneric group typified by it.
Ex. Just because a distinct subgenus is proposed with Rosa nigra as its type, there is direction to name the new subgenus Nigricantes. Indeed, the new subgenus could be named subg. Fuscophylla.
Nonetheless, especially when the species epithet is already in place, the name of the infrageneric unit may be based upon the species epithet. IF SO, then Article 22.4 applies. Two principles pertain.
1) If the name of the infrageneric rank is identical with (BUT NOT DERIVED FROM) the epithet of one of the constituent species, the rule is arbitrary and open to question.
2) If the name of the infrageneric group is DERIVED FROM the epithet of a constituent species, the rule is logical.
22.5. Types must follow their names. If the species epithet is a later homonym, its type remains constant. If that epithet (a later homonym) is repeated for a subdivision of a genus, it is still served by its type. As a later homonym, the epithet is illegitimate, and another name (perhaps new) must be found for the infrageneric group repeating that epithet.
22.6. Because later homonyms are illegitimate, and types follow their names, both the name of the subdivision and its type must change.
Recommendation 22A.1.
Fictitious Ex. The genus Rosa includes two subgenera, Rosa and Nigricantes. When the SECTION to which Rosa nigra belongs is cited, that section should be called by the same name as the subgenus to which its type (R. nigra) belongs - thus section Nigricantes. It would appear that when the subgeneric name Nigricantes was proposed, it established an autonymic hierarchy INCLUDING section Nigricantes. The recommendation seems superfluous.
Recommendation 22A.2.
Fictitious Ex. The genus Rosa includes three sections, Rosa, Nigricantes, and Flavicorolla (all placed within the genus AND SUBGENUS Rosa). If it is considered that sections Nigricantes and Flavicorolla should be represented by a new subgeneric name, that name ought to repeat either Nigricantes or Flavicorolla, although this is not a rule.
23.1. Self-explanatory except for reference to polynomials.
Throughout the ICBN, polynomials are inadmissible. In fact, whole books have been banned because they include a few trinomials (ICBN Appendix V). But here, we are instructed to hyphenate or to join these words, and NOT to dismiss the name. The key is the form in which the Latin words are used (note that names with a phrase in ablative case cannot be used).
23.2. In early codes there was a ban on names derived from "barbarous tongues." In other articles, we are instructed to LatinIZE names - to treat them as Latin. The same holds true here.
23.3. This rule is intriguing, for it alludes to symbols used by Linnaeus, but does not furnish a source for their meaning. Moreover, it does not direct a consistent way in which the symbols are to be transcribed (there must be a standard reference, but I do not know it.).
23.4. Outlaw of TAUTONYMS. A tautonym is defined, however, as not only the genus and species name repeated exactly, but also that the species epithet can include the transcription of a symbol.
Unanswered is whether a name is tautonymic if it is PROPOSED with a portion of the epithet repeating the generic name. The rule only applies to names originated as tautonyms, whose status is not changed by addition of a symbol transcription.
23.5. Self-explanatory.
23.6. It is necessary to search the res gestae for the intent of the author in cases of doubt.
(a), (b) and (d) are self-explanatory.
(c). There must be instances in which a choice is difficult between works not consistently using the Linnaean system of binomial nomenclature, and those in which a three-word name should be united or hyphenated (see Art. 23.1).
23.7. No instruction is given for two possibilities: 1) Linnaean names corrected by some other author; or 2) names left uncorrected by Linnaeus.
23.8. Echo of "common usage."
Recommendation 23A.1.: For many Americans, the suffix -anus is repugnant for its alleged anatomical reference. This nuance is rarely understood by non-English speakers. Conversely, however, foreigners are familiar with our word "eye," and its pronunciation. Out of deference, they avoid using the suffix -i or -ii, for it sounds as though they were referring to the person's eye. They choose, therefore, to use -anus for they miss the point of that suffix.
Recommendation 23A.2. Self-explanatory.
Recommendation 23A.3. Echoes Rec. 20A.
Recommendation 23B. Self-explanatory.
(b). An unwritten convention is to limit specific epithets to six syllables.
(i). This attribution uses the conventional word "apud" (see Appendix on nomenclatural conventions)
SECTION 5 - NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES (INFRASPECIFIC TAXA)
ARTICLES 24 AND 25 ARE TECHNICAL, AND NOT COVERED HERE
26.1. Infraspecific autonyms do not have authors unless made explicit.
26.2. Autonyms are typified by one specimen, which serves the entire hierarchy. (See separate handout sheets).
Recommendations 26A.1, A.2, and A.3. In all cases of autonyms, types follow their names.
27.1. This article avoids creation of homonyms (identical names with different types).
SECTION 6 - NAMES OF PLANTS IN CULTIVATION (ARTICLE 28) IS NOT COVERED IN THIS TUTORIAL
