A GUIDE TO BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
DIVISION II. RULES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION
It is obvious from the title that there is a distinction between EFFECTIVE publication (how the publication is distributed, or how "effective" the publication is) versus VALID publication (the form of the nomenclatural proposal and its publication).
SECTION I. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
29.1. Names cannot be proposed verbally, even if at a scientific meeting.
Note the specific dismissal of microfilm, thereby rendering INEFFECTIVE all names in American theses and dissertations. The question remains whether these same names, subsequently proposed in effective publication, then constitute later homonyms. Conventional wisdom does not allow dissertation names to preclude later effectively published names. It is judicious to include a paragraph in dissertations disclaiming all new names and combinations. They may also be noted as nomina provisioniae (or nomen provisiorum).
30.1. Note the late date. Indelible autograph does not mean letters or memoranda, but EFFECTIVELY PUBLISHED, printed, fascimile long-hand.
Ex: C.G. Lloyd had his own journal (Mycological Notes) published for several years, and distributed it to those who sent him specimens or as a gift. This still constitutes effective publication for it was printed, and disseminated through the mycological community. Also important is the "clout" that Lloyd had, for better or for worse, in his time.
Ex: Franz Petrak published a series of lists of fungi described after the end of Saccardo's Sylloge Fungorum, and in some cases, transferred names. Several editions of these lists (especially during WW II) were mimeographed, and, even though widely distributed, do not constitute effective publication.
Ex: Several publications by the staff of the National Fungus Collections ("Names of fungi proposed by Ellis," etc.) do not constitute effective publication, even if names are proposed or transferred within.
Ex: A couple publications by William Bridge Cooke were mimeographed. These are not effectively published, for they appear AFTER 1 Jan. 1953.
30.2. This should be part of 30.1.
30.3. Again, notice the late dates.
January 1, 1953: Tradesmen's catalogues and non-scientific newspapers.
January 1, 1973: seed-exchange lists (not seed catalogues).
31.1. The word EXSICCATI ("from the dried") is used in two senses:
1) European workers use the word for any dried specimen.
2) The nomenclatural use for the distribution of numerous, identically labelled duplicates of specimens to subscribers, usually in multiple sets (decades, centuries, etc.).
In most cases, the labels of the individual specimens were not accompanied by separately published materials. In these cases where the only proposal of the name is on the esxiccata label, this does not constitute effective publication AFTER 1 Jan. 1953.
Ex: Most esxiccati sets do not have separate publications: Ellis and Everhart, Solheim, Rabenhorst, etc. Lundell and Nannfeldt, "Fungi Suecici" has separately published labels, and these (not the exsiccate labels) constitute effective publication.
Note also the problems inherent in exsiccati for typification, given multiple sets. The taxonomist must make sure to examine as many distributions of the exsiccate as possible, and then to be scrupulous in citing only those which have been examined.
Recommendation 30A.1. The problem here is the definition of "ephemeral," or "multiplied in restricted and uncertain numbers," etc.. How does this affect small, regional journals, many foreign journals, newsletters (does publication of a new name in a published abstract of a paper to be delivered at a later meeting constitute effective publication? And if so, what is the date of the proposal? Would a Latin description and citation of a type specimen normally appear in an abstract?)
31.1. The date of effective publication is that date on which the journal is mailed from the printer (and therefore becomes officially "available.") Most reputable journals publish these dates, or list them on the cover of the journal.
Ex: The January-February, 1990, issue of Mycologia was dated February 27, 1990, and arrived at the Editor's office on March 2 (thereby confirming the date on the cover). The GENERAL mailing, however, arrived at the Editor's desk on March 26, a full month later. Which date is the effective date?
| SOURCES FOR DATES OF OLD PUBLICATIONS All French volumes of the late 17th and 18th centuries required the King's seal. This was granted only after listing of the title in "Bibliographie de la France." This listing is an EARLY date, before the royal imprimatur and effective distribution. The Linnaean Society of London kept records of all works received. It is necessary to allow time for shipment from publisher to the Society. Academie de Sceances, Paris, recorded all publications from Paris. "Heinrich's Leipzig Messe" from Gottingen kept records of German books. IAPT: Index Nominum Genericorum is good source for generic names. IAPT: List of genera published between 1753 and 1774. Stafleu and Cowan, Taxonomic Literature, 2nd edition. Records of the printing company usually show the date on which the journal was mailed. The Editor or Managing Editor sometimes keep records of date of receipt. Libraries almost always keep such records. Example: see introduction to reprinted works of Charles Horton Peck
|
31.2. This deals with "PREPRINTS." These were individual articles delivered from the printer to the investigator BEFORE they appeared in the journal itself. In older works, this could be up to a year in advance. Moreover, in very old publications (i.e. Bulliard's Histoire) the plates were distributed first, then the text followed, sometimes a matter of years later.
Note that the preprint must be FOR SALE, not merely a give-away. The effective date of publication is the day on which the preprint is offered for sale.
Recommendation 31A.1. Self-explanatory.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES
Two types of names must be considered: new proposals (not nomina nova), and new combinations.
32.1. The following criteria allow valid publication:
1) Effective publication (Arts. 29-31).
2) Conformity to articles 16-27 (and H6-7 for hybrids): the rank and formation of the name itself.
3) Provision of a LATIN DIAGNOSIS (not description or circumscription), OR reference to a previously validly published description or diagnosis (for new combinations). Without the Latin diagnosis, the name is NOT VALIDLY PUBLISHED, and is termed a nomen nudum (abbreviated nom. nud.). A name may be proposed without a Latin diagnosis, but the name dates from the date it is furnished with the Latin diagnosis. Before that date it is a nomen nudum. The name is to be attributed to the author who furnishes the LAST requirement for valid publication.
4) Conformity to articles 33-45 (specific restrictions on valid publication).
32.2. The process of registration is not yet clear, although this rule indicates that there will be more than one bureau through which registration can be effectuated. Registration is not to be confused with approval or sanction. The latter would mean a tribunal, the former merely a bureau. This appears to be another accommodation in advance of Names in Current Usage.
Recently a web page has been established as a two-year trial for plant name registration. It can be viewed: <http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/IAPT/registration/> This webpage merely acts as an experiment, open to review and criticism.
32.3. Definition of the diagnosis.
32.4/32.5. Indirect reference is required and then defined.
32.6. Note that the incorrect termination must be a LATIN TERMINATION. A "vulgar" termination (French, German, etc.) does not fall within this article, and the name is to be discarded.
32.7. Autonyms and priority.
32.8. The new ICBN Appendix V, which lists selected publications which are rejected, and specifies the basis on which each is rejected. Often it is inconsistent use of binomial nomenclature, but for others, only certain nomenclatural ranks are affected.
32.8/32.9. The process for additions to Appendix V are the same as those for conservation. The General Committee's approval can be taken as approval until the next regularly scheduled nomenclature session of an international congress.
Recommendation 32A.1. Note that a name CAN be validly published by such a reference, but SHOULD NOT be so.
Recommendation 32B.1. - 32F.1. Self-explanatory.
Although not a hard-and-fast rule, a conventional format for proposal of new names has evolved. In it, there is usually a discussion of the need for a new taxonomic entity, then the formal "proposal" of the new name. This is followed by rigid format:
[For the INTRODUCTION OF A NEW NAME:]
Rosa alba Jones, sp. nov.
Latin diagnosis [Art. 36]
Citation of type specimen [Art. 37]
Description in vulgar language [?Art. 32]
Citation of other specimens examined [convention]
[For the PROPOSAL OF A NEW COMBINATION]:
Nasturtium alba (Jones) Smith, comb. nov.
Basionym: Rosa alba Jones. 1885. J. Bot. France 35: 419. [Art. 33]
33.1. A combination is not validly published unless the author DEFINITELY UNITES the epithet with the species or genus name. No oblique reference will suffice.
33.2 Reference to the BASIONYM must be full and complete. See especially the footnote.
EX: When Alessio (1985. Boletus Dill. Ex L., p. 469) published the new combination Krombholziella corsica (Rolland) Alessio, he was careful to cite the basionym, Boletus corsicus Rolland (1896. Bull. Soc. Mycol. France 12: 1).
33.3. Errors in bibliographic or author citations do not invalidate publication.
Ex: The printer may misspell Petersen as "Peterson," which does not invalid the new nomenclatural proposal. The error should be corrected.
Ex:. In a proposal for a new combination, the date of publication of the basionym may be incorrectly cited. This does not invalidate the new combination, but is an error which should be corrected.
33.4. Reference to some index is not sufficient, but only a clear and direct reference to the ORIGINAL LITERATURE CITATION of the basionym.
33.5. See Arts. 3, 4.
33.6. Special article for mycology.
Recommendation 33A.1. This would seem to contradict 33.2 in allowing the possibility of a less than full reference.
Note the repeated use of "merely," a direct effort to trivialize actions contrary to this article.
The major problem with this article is that the actions of the originating author must be interpreted by a later author. This leaves room for differences of opinion.
34.1
(a). It would seem absurd for an author to propose a name which he/she did NOT accept, but several motives can be identified. First, the author proposed the name satirically (see publications by C.G. Lloyd). Second, the name was proposed as an alternative name (i.e., William Alphonso Murrill used the American Code of Nomenclature, but understood that names he preferred would be different if genus names operated from the Internationl Code. He therefore gave both names.).
(b). Such names are often abbreviated with nom. prov by the originating author.
Fictitious Ex: An author plans to propose a new name in the future, but needs to mention the plant in a current paper. The plant is named as Rosa alba, nom. prov." in anticipation of its formal introduction at a later date.
Fictitious Ex: An author knows that he/she disagrees with the rank at which a certain taxon is treated, but the present publication is judged to be an inappropriate place to make the formal change in rank. Rosa alba, stat. prov. violates this article. (c). When a name is introduced as a synonym, a later author can refer to it as Rosa alba Smith, PRO SYN.
(d).
Ex: When Bentham indicated that the species included in Helianthus by de Cassini should be included under Viguera, he violated this article, for he merely mentioned the subordinate taxa without naming them individually.
34.2. Examples of truly simultaneous name proposals are few. The article specifically states alternative names FOR THE SAME TAXON, but fails to disclose whose opinion of taxonomic synonymy is to be used. Implication indicates that the originating author introduced two names for the same taxon IN HIS/HER OPINION (in which case one of the names would be superfluous except for this article). But if Linnaeus introduced two names for the same taxon IN MY OPINION (but not Linnaeus's), then the article creates chaos.
Recommendation 34A. Although the recommendation seeks to reduce introduction of confusing and not validly published names, it is often necessary to cite such unpublished names, especially when this name appears on herbarium specimens, or has been cited in previous literature.
35.1 Date, 1.JAN.1953. Clear indication of rank
When a binomial is introduced, there is rarely a question of the rank of the epithet. When a mononomial is introduced, however, it could be at the genus or infrageneric rank.
35.2. Very obscure rule. Such names can function normally except in cases of priority, for priority requires a clear indication of rank, so the name can compete against others AT THE SAME RANK.
35.3. Self-explanatory.
35.4. This operates when an author explains his use of symbols or infrageneric rank indications in the introduction to a series, but does not reiterate this in each of the subsequent chapters.
36.1. DATE, 1.JAN.1935. Latin diagnosis or description, or direct reference to a Latin diagnosis or description.
Covers all plants except all algae and all fossils.
36.2. DATE, 1.JAN.1958. Latin diagnosis or description for all non-fossil algae..
36.3. Note future date (1 Jan 1996). Fossil plant names must be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis (or direct reference to same). In former ICBNs, any language was allowed.
Recommendation 36A.1. For non-fossil plants, a full Latin DESCRIPTION is recommended, IN ADDITION to a Latin DIAGNOSIS.
37.1. DATE, 1.JAN.1958. Clear statement of type.
37.2. This is the concept of IMPLICIT HOLOTYPE. A specimen need not be designated explicitly, but a reference to literature where A SINGLE SPECIMEN is cited will suffice. The article is more restrictive than my interpretation of implicit holotype.
37.3. This elaborates more on implicit holotypes. Before an implicit holotype is acceptable, its literature reference must furnish minimum information. But the list of required information is open to opinion.
37.4. DATE, 1.JAN.1990. Use of word "typus" or "holotypus."
37.5. DATE, 1.JAN.1990. Citation of herbarium in which the type resides.
Note 1. See representative pages from Index Herbariorum [Herbaria of the World]. Included in this publication are acronyms of herbaria, and usually major collections housed. An accompanying series of Index Herbariorum [Index of collectors] summarizes the locations of collections throughout the world. Ancillary to both series is Stafleu and Cowan, Taxonomic Literature, second edition, which gives details for most botanical collectors and authors.
Recommendation 37A.1. This is part of the convention furnished here under Article 33.1.
38.1. DATE, 1.JAN.1912. New names for fossils must be accompanied by an illustration, or reference to previously published illustration.
39.1. DATE, 1.JAN.1958. Non-fossil algae must be accompanied by an illustration or citation to previously published illustration.
Recommendation 39A.1. Self-explanatory.
Hybrids are not covered in this tutorial
This article is supplementary to Article 36. So for families, genera, and species names, a diagnosis or description is necessary for valid publication. There is no indication as to the language required, so a Latin diagnosis (cfr. Art. 36) can suffice.
42.1. The concept of DESCRIPTIO GENERICO-SPECIFICA. A genus and species can be described simultaneously.
42.2. A monotypic genus is one for which only a single binomial has been proposed, regardless of indications that other species belong here.
42.3. DATE, 1.JAN.1908. This should be under article 41 or 36. An illustration WITH ANALYSIS can substitute for a diagnosis or description (including LATIN) for names BEFORE this date.
42.4. Definition of an analysis. An analysis is a group of illustrations depicting details of the habit, furnishing aids to identification of the taxon.
43.1. Self-explanatory.
44.1. DATE, 1.JAN.1908. Same sense as Art. 42.2.
44.2. Same implication as Art. 42.2.
45.1 Piece-meal publication. Valid publication is effected when the final requirement is fulfilled.
DATE, 1.JAN.1973. After this date a complete reference is required to the places where piecemeal publication were accomplished.
45.2. Another statement regarding registration of names after 1 January 2000. If piece-meal valid publication is not satisfied by that date of registration, the name must be submitted anew with all requirements fulfilled. A web site for trial registration can be viewed at <http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/IAPT/registration.
45.3. This includes only correction of orthographic errors, not correction, for example, of vulgar suffixes.
45.4. Illegitimate names are not considered in this section of the ICBN.
Validly published homonyms, WHETHER LEGITIMATE OR NOT, will cause rejection of their later homonyms.
45.5. Self-explanatory.
Recommendation 45A.1. Self-explanatory.
Recommendation 45B.1. Self-explanatory.
Recommendation 45C.1. Self-explanatory.
45.5
Note 2. Note that any earlier homonym, whether legitimate or not, still devalidates the later homonym. There is no mention of the pre-starting date homonym.
The statement about animal names transferred to the plant kingdom is most binding in the fungi and algae where several taxa of protista have been found to be in these divisions. Especially in these groups, then, the taxonomist has a duty to search out old animal names that might be transferred before proposing a new plant name.
Recommendation 45A.1. It is advisable to follow an established format to satisfy this recommendation (and for practicality also). That format is as follows:
Proposed name Author status
Basionym (if necessary)
Latin diagnosis or description
Type specimen: Location, date, collector, accession number, herbarium
English description
Discussion
Specimens examined
Recommendation 45C. In the best fulfillment of this, reprints should not be sent out without the date of publication indicated. This might best be done by rubber stamp, if the publisher did not do it anyway.
SECTION 3. AUTHOR CITATIONS AND LITERATURE
Many of recommendations or regulations in the next series of articles are included in the separate appendix on nomenclatural conventions.
46.1. Fulfillment of this article requires only post-starting date authors to be cited. Most journals will require that the author's name be cited the first time the taxon is mentioned in the text, but not afterward.
Recommendation 46A.1. The thrust of this is that almost any citation can be used as long as it avoids confusion. The reason that the rules are so specific is to avoid just such confusion as abbreviations. If Michaux is abbreviated by some authors as M., Mi., Mich., Michx., etc., then confusion will result. Moreover, several different names may be confused with one another [EX from ICBN: Michaux versus Micheli].
Stafleu and Cowan's Taxonomic Literature, second edition (usually referred to as TL2) provides a proposed standard abbreviation for all included authors. While current authors are not included, classic and older obscure authors are so. Other sources are also available (i.e. Hawksworth's Mycologists Handbook, etc.).
The ICBN draws attention to Brummitt & Powell's Authors of plant names (1992). Brummitt has long been a nomenclaturist, but this publication is not as exhaustiuve as TL II.
Note the obvious exceptions to the rule which are given.
Recommendation 46C.1. Cite two authors joined by et or & (i.e. Berk. & Curt.).
Recommendation 46C.2. Cite three or more authors as et alia (et al.).
46.2. This covers ONLY the case of an author publishing a name in the published work of another author, having never used that name before. Two instances are common:
a) A collection of papers edited by a single editor.
Ex: Petersen as editor of Evolution in the Higher Basidiomycetes, where Singer described several new species of Melanophyllum. These should be cited as M. braziliense Singer in Petersen, for Petersen is the editor of record for book. A librarian will not find the citation under Singer, but under Petersen b) A single author proposes a name in the published work of multiple authors.
Ex: Smith proposed Cantharellus wilsonii in a publication by Smith and Morse. It should be cited as C. wilsonii Smith in Smith and Morse.
An additional situation arises when an author uses a name employed by an earlier investigator in the latter's notes, journals, herbarium labels, etc.. If the publishing author wishes to cite the investigator, he may do so by using apud.
Ex: Berkeley used Klotzsch's notes and name, Cantharellus canadensis which had not been previously published. The name may be cited as C. canadensis Kl. apud Berk.. When the name is transferred to Gomphus, it bcomes G. canadensis (Kl. apud Berk.) Petersen.
Article 46.4. This covers two occurrences.
a) a pre-starting date author whose proposed name has been devalidated.
Ex: Hydnum repandum L. ex Fr.; Rosa alba Tourn. ex Will. b) a post starting-date author who did not complete the steps for valid publication, but whose proposed name is used by a later author validly.
EX: Roger Heim notoriously omitted Latin diagnoses, and his names were therefore often invalidly published. If a later author uses Heim's proposed name (and wishes to cite him for it), the name should be cited as Heim ex Smith
The first instance can also be accommodated by the use of square brackets (see Rec. 46E).
46.5. When the pre-starting date author otherwise validly published the name, but the name was devalidated by legislation about starting dates (see Art. 13), then that author may be cited with per.
Ex: Agaricus bisporus Per. per Fr.
Mycologists have addopted use of ":" for names used in sanctioning publications. Four alternatives are open for pre-starting date authors, then:
a) use of ex (invalidly published or devalidated)
b) use of square brackets (invalidly published or devalidated)
c) use of per (validly published, but devalidated)
d) use of ":" (pre-starting date fungi, later sanctioned)
Recommendation 46D.1. Another use of this conept is the taxon name followed by mihi (= "me") or nobis (the empirial "we" or "us"). This was voguish in late 19th and early 20th century, but current practice uses the author’s full name, or an unmistakable abbreviation.
Recommendation 46E. Square brackets for pre-starting date authors.
Articles 47 and 48 distinguish two different types of emendation processes. a) emendaion of taxonomic characters, but not exclusion of the type; and b) "considerable" changes in taxonomic characters. There is room for interpretation in this.
Recommendation 47A.1. There are several closely related situations treated here. All can be included in the term "emendavit" (usually abbreviated emend.) followed by the emending author's name.
a) Mut. char. (= mutatis characteribus): the taxonomic characters have been changed. Not to be confused with the addition of new characters, such as enlarged circumscription, which need no annotation
b) "p. p." (= pro parte): this taxon is only one portion of the mentioned taxon. [EX: Vaginata = Amanita p.p.]
c) "excl. ----- " (= exclusis -----): this taxon is meant to be used in the a sense which excludes a specific name(s).
d)"s. ampl." (= sensu amplo) or "s. str." (= sensu stricto): this name is being used in a taxonomically broad (or narrowest) sense. This usage does not specify WHAT exact sense, but only the wide or narrow sense of the author.
In short, an author cannot accept a taxon excluding its type. When the author does so, that sense of the taxon must be considered as a later homonym, and therefore illegitimate. The later homonym must be ascribed to the later author, not to the author of the original name.
Exclusion of the type can only be done by conservation of the name (ICBN Appendices II, III, IV). Even in this situation, though, the conserving author's name is attached, not the author of the original name.
This deals with two separate situations:
a) Changes in rank (genus or lower). When a change in rank is effectuated, the original author of the name is placed in parentheses (round brackets), and the author of the combination outside the parentheses.
Clarity is established (and Art. 35 fulfilled) if the combining author also states "stat. nov.". He/she dares not state "sp. nov.," for it is not a new species, just a new name substituting for an old one.
b) When a taxon is transferred in position, the original author of the name is placed in parentheses, and the recombining author outside.
Clarity is established if the recombining author states "comb. nov.". He/she also gets closer to Article 33.
SECTION 4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 50A. Publication of a name as synonym. Two instances:
a) Mere mention of the name in a narrative about another taxon;
b). Citation of a name in synonymy under another name (usually with an incorrect author citation).
NOTE: The second sentence of the article: this is not the same as the apud situation covered above. The situation here deals with the use of a manuscript name only as a synonym, and the use of "ex" is recommended. That make two different situations in which ex may be used (i.e. pre-starting date author citation; synonyms from manuscript names).
Recommendation 50B: "Nom. nud." (= nomen nudum) should be added to names without Latin diagnosis, statement of type, etc..
Invalid names (by convention only) are often cited entirely in square brackets. This includes invalid for any reason, including devalidation, and be effectively used for pre-starting date polynomials where desired.
Recommendation 50C. Two kinds of homonyms are distinguished:
a) Citation of a later homonym followed by the earlier homonym which devalidates it demands the use of "non" (see example in ICBN);
b) Citation of an earlier homonym followed by a later homonym demands the use of "nec" (see example in ICBN).
Sometimes both terms must be used in the same situation.
A misidentification is a taxonomic mistake, but leads to a nomenclatural one. The recommendation is to place such mistakes AFTER the citation of synonymy.
This article really complements Art. 48, for when a misapplication of a name takes place, the type of that name is automatically excluded, creating a later homonym under Art. 48. In that article, the author misapplying the name should be cited after his homonym. In recommendation 50D he need not be cited, but merely the use of "auct. non" demanded.
Recommendation 50E. "nom. cons." (= nomen conservandum); conserved name.
Recommendaion 50F. Deals with two situations:
a) a name in synonymy should be cited exactly as the original author proposed it, with explanatory notes in parentheses;
b) a name modified from its original citation should be followed by a full reference to its original citation, in quotation marks.
This is the famous traditional "superfluous names" article 63 with which Donk so thoroughly disagreed. Like testimony at a trial, even though erased from the formal transcript, reaches the jury anyway, so names exist in the literature, even though they may be synonyms or homonyms, or typonyms, etc.. According to the ICBN, there is only one correct name for each plant, thereby rendering all other names superfluous.
These names are what Donk would call typonyms: different names based on the same type specimen. Such names may be accepted or not accepted by the taxonomist or nomenclaturalist, but they should not be rejected as illegitimate.
Note 1. This clearly settles inclusion of the type by omission or commission, so that unless the citation of the name specifies that the type is not to be included, that name is superfluous.
Note 2. This partially reverses the article. Although the name (combination) may be superfluous when proposed, it is potentially correct if the taxonomist wishes to accept the new name (based on taxonomic evidence) later.
Likewise, by manipulation of the types (of taxa not originally provided with type specimens), a later taxonomist can "create" superfluous names which are therefore rejected.
All in all, the instances covered by this article are covered elsewhere more logically.
Later homonyms are interpreted as being based on different types, including orthographic variants. Whether or not the earlier homonym is used commonly or included only as a synonym, the later homonym must be rejected.
The infrageneric or infraspecific names as homonyms are covered in an earlier article. Again the homonym rule is based on different types, regardless of the rank involved.
A rerun of the preceding articles but at infraspecific rank. An interesting twist in this article, however, lies in the homonym AT ANY INFRASPECIFIC LEVEL, not just the level at which the transfer takes place.
Fictitious Ex: Rosa alba var. grandiflora is transferred as a variety under Prunus floribunda subsp. grandiflora.The transferred variety must be given a new name, even though the homonym is created at different nomenclatural ranks.
CHAPTER VI. NAMES OF PLEOMORPHIC FUNGI AND FOSSIL FORM-GENERA
For many years, article 59 was a blight to mycologists. New terminology was proposed to allow greater clarification. The following: anamorph = imperfect state (Deuteromycetes); synanamorph = more than one distinguishable imperfect state; teleomorph = perfect state ("sexually reproducing state"); holomorph = entire life cycle, both sexually and asexually reproducing. Because the teleomorph and holomorph are sexually reproducing states, the name of the holomorph (being the same as the name for the teleomorph) takes precedence over any names for anamorphs.
The first problem here is the definition of the "perfect state." Such fungi as the Ustilaginales, where there may be no perfect state at all are difficult, although they are widely thought to be parallel to the Uredinales. In many of the imperfect Ascomycetes there may be no known perfect state either. Finally, just because there appear to be basidia, which are the sexual organs, there may not be meiosis, creating a technical problem (see, for example, the "asexual state" of Xerula radicata and Volvariella volvacea).
Although the name of the holomorph must take precedence over the anamorph, the ICBN does not prevent names being given to imperfect states, especially in works specifically referring to them. In fact (parag. 2), the ICBN encourages such names by not discouraging them at the time of publication of the teleomorphic state. This would seem to violate the "only one correct name" dogma. The ICBN thereby encourages the coining of "incorrect names."
Ex: Aspergillus flavus is an anamorph, with an anamorphic type specimen.Talaromyces monoascus is a teleomorph, with a sexual type specimen. When the perfect state of Aspergillus flavus is found to be T. monoascus, the teleomorph name is within Linnaean nomenclature (sexually reproducing state) while A. flavus is a FORM-SPECIES (Deuteromycete).
The holomorph name is the same as the teleomorph, thus T. monoascus.
CHAPTER VII. ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES AND EPITHETS AND GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES
This entire chapter is highly technical, but straightforward. It needs no further embellishment from me. This tutorial ends here.
FOR FURTHER MATERIAL, SEE ATTACHED EXERCISES AND APPENDICES