TAXON - 2024 - Turland - Synopsis of Proposals On Nomenclature Madrid 2024 A Review of The Proposals To Amend The

TAXON 73 (1) • February 2024: 325–404 Turland & Wiersema • Synopsis of Proposals
NOMENCLATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Synopsis of Proposals on Nomenclature – Madrid 2024: A review of the

proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants submitted to the XX International Botanical Congress
Nicholas J. Turland (Rapporteur-général)1 & John H. Wiersema (Vice-rapporteur)2
1 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 6–8, 14195 Berlin, Germany
2 Department of Botany, NMNH - MRC 166, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012, U.S.A.
Address for correspondence: Nicholas J. Turland, [email protected]
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13114
First published as part of this issue.
NOTICE Each registered member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled

to one personal vote in the sessions (Div. III Prov. 5.9). Personal votes
Individual members of the International Association for Plant Tax- can neither be transferred nor accumulated; one person never re-
onomy (IAPT) are entitled to participate in the preliminary guiding vote ceives more than one personal vote. A member of the Nomenclature
(so-called “mail vote”) on proposals to amend the International Code of Section may be the official delegate of one or more institutions,
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (hereafter “Code”; Turland thereby carrying institutional votes, which range from one to seven
& al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) submitted to the XX International per institution, but no one person is allowed to carry more than
Botanical Congress, Madrid, 2024, as stated in Div. III Prov. 2.5 of 15 votes including the one personal vote.
the Code. Authors of these proposals and members of the nine Perma- The Committee on Institutional Votes has published its report
nent Nomenclature Committees (see Div. III Prov. 7.1) are also entitled together with the list of institutional votes at the Madrid Congress
to vote, but no institutional votes (Div. III Prov. 3) are allowed. The (Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13110). In-
IAPT office is sending a ballot (voting form) by email to those IAPT structions are provided under: “How to exercise institutional votes
members who have email addresses on file, the authors for correspon- at the Nomenclature Section of the XX IBC, Madrid, 2024”. Institu-
dence of the proposals, and the secretaries of the Permanent Nomencla- tions entitled to vote will receive formal notification by letter from the
ture Committees. A printed copy of the ballot is being sent to IAPT Rapporteur-général and Vice-rapporteur in the first half of 2024. This
members who have no email address on file. If you are entitled to vote letter will be sent by email from the IAPT office to the correspondents
but do not receive a ballot, you may request an electronic or printed listed for the institutions in Index Herbariorum. Institutions should
copy from the IAPT office at the following address. An electronic copy therefore check that their information given in Index Herbariorum
of the ballot should be filled out, saved, and sent by email to the IAPT is current and submit corrections (see https://sweetgum.nybg.org
office at [email protected]. Alternatively, a printed copy may be /science/ih/how-to-update-index-herbariorum/).
filled out and sent by airmail to: IAPT office, Plant Science and Biodi- At the Madrid Congress, the Nomenclature Section will be
versity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, SK- broadcast live on the internet for the first time (see Knapp & al. in
845 23 Bratislava, Slovakia. All ballots must be received no later than Taxon: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13127). Observation of each
31 May 2024, so that they may be included in the tabulation to be made day’s sessions will be possible, but interactive commenting and vot-
available to members of the Nomenclature Section of the Congress. ing will not be possible (see Division III Prop. H under the proposals
The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take below). Observers must register in advance to access the live broad-
definitive action on the proposals, will be held in the Villanueva cast, and this registration is independent of registration for the Con-
Pavilion, Real Jardín Botánico, Plaza de Murillo 2, Madrid 28014, gress. Full details will be provided on the Nomenclature Section
Spain, from Monday, 15 July 2024 (beginning at 08:30 hours) to page of the Congress website (https://ibcmadrid2024.com/?seccion=
Friday, 19 July 2024 (see https://ibcmadrid2024.com/?seccion= nomenclature&subSeccion=nomenclature).
nomenclature&subSeccion=nomenclature).
Each person registered for at least one full day of the Congress is INTRODUCTION
entitled to register as a member of the Nomenclature Section.
Registration for the Congress should be done in advance (see This Synopsis repeats the exact wording of the proposals, along
https://ibcmadrid2024.com/index.php?seccion=registrationArea& with reference to the published justification. The numbered sequence
subSeccion=registrationInfo); the confirmation received will be of proposals extends from 001 to 433. The comments by the Rappor-
the evidence of eligibility for Nomenclature Section registration, teurs were drafted during a working meeting in Washington,
which will start during a welcome reception on Sunday, 14 July, D.C. from 25 September to 1 October 2023 followed by 14 online
at 17:00–20:00 hours in the Villanueva Pavilion. Nomenclature meetings, generally lasting four to five hours each, between 3 October
Section registration will continue on Monday, 15 July beginning and 20 November 2023. The Rapporteurs have endeavoured to out-
at 08:00 hours in the Villanueva Pavilion. line the foreseeable consequences of each of the proposals,
Proposals to Amend the Code and related articles edited by Nicholas J. Turland & John H. Wiersema | © 2024 International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
Version of Record 325

19968175, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.13114 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [29/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Turland & Wiersema • Synopsis of Proposals TAXON 73 (1) • February 2024: 325–404
irrespective of their personal opinions on desirability. The comments The numbering of new paragraphs in the Code follows that
are the result of a consensus between the Rapporteur and the Vice- given in the published proposals in Taxon and is preliminary
rapporteur, and both have equal responsibility for them. (e.g. Art. 9.9bis, Art. 10.1ter, Art. 45.n5, etc.). This system is not of
As noted on the voting form, there are four voting options: course intended to bind the future Editorial Committee in any way.
“yes”, “no”, “ed.c.” and “s.p.c.” All proposals accepted by the Con-
gress will be reviewed by the Editorial Committee prior to the pro- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
duction of the Madrid Code, and any necessary editorial changes
will be made; consequently, a “yes” vote only implies approval in We thank the International Association for Plant Taxonomy for
principle of the proposal, not necessarily of its exact wording. Unless financial support for the Rapporteurs’ meeting held in Washington,
otherwise noted, an “ed.c.” vote instructs the Editorial Committee to D.C. in September–October 2023. We also thank the Department
consider inclusion in the Code of material in the proposal but does of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, in particular Warren Wagner,
not necessarily require it to do so. An “s.p.c.” vote refers the proposal for hospitality and facilities provided during the Rapporteurs’ meet-
to a Special-purpose Committee to review the matter, either during ing. Linda in Arcadia, David Mabberley, John McNeill and Paul
the Nomenclature Section in Madrid or, more likely, before the next van Rijckevorsel provided helpful comments. Robert Andersen
Congress in 2029; it implies the desire to establish such a Committee. (Secretary of the Nomenclature Committee for Algae), Patrick Heren-
In order to make the result of the ballot as meaningful as possible, in- deen (Secretary of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils), Niels
structions have been added in several cases as to how special expres- Klazenga (Secretary of the Nomenclature Committee on Bryophytes)
sions of opinion, by means of “ed.c.” votes, will be interpreted. and Tom May (Secretary of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi)
All proposals that relate to particular groups of organisms were are thanked for eliciting opinions on relevant proposals from their re-
referred to the relevant Permanent Nomenclature Committees in or- spective Committees. Paul van Rijckevorsel’s “Overview of editions
der that the Committees can give their opinions prior to the Nomen- of the Code” (https://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/index.htm) facili-
clature Section. These opinions are recorded under the respective tated tracing the history of provisions of the Code.
proposals, with votes cited in the format “#yes : #no : #abstain”.
The numbers of voting members were: Nomenclature Committee PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CODE
for Algae 16; Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes 15; Nomen-
clature Committee for Fossils 12; Nomenclature Committee for Preamble
Fungi 15. A Committee is considered to support a proposal when Prop. A (051 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 448) Amend Pre. 7 as
more than 50% of the votes cast are “yes” votes. follows (new text in bold):
Five Special-purpose Committees (SPCs) were established at the “7. The provisions regulating the governance of this Code form
Shenzhen Congress in 2017 (Wilson in Taxon 68: 160–162. 2019). its last Division (Div. III). These provisions are not retroactive.”
Two have published reports: the SPC on Virtual Participation in the Prop. B (195 – Mosyakin in Taxon 72: 442) Amend the Pream-
Nomenclature Section (Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1397–1398 [pro- ble by adding the following text after Pre. 14:
posals]; 1399–1401 [report]. 2021) and the SPC on DNA Sequences as “Potentially sensitive content disclaimer and limitation of
Types (Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 965–973. 2023 [discussion paper]; liability
Lehtonen & Thiele in Taxon 72: 1137–1142. 2023 [report]; Thiele Scientific names of algae, fungi, and plants were created and
& al. in Taxon 72: 1143–1145; 1146–1148. 2023 [proposals]). The modified over the centuries by many authors of various national, eth-
SPC on Typification and the SPC on Lists of Available Names did nic, cultural, religious, political, historical, and other backgrounds,
not become active. The SPC on Pleomorphic Fungi was renamed as identities, origins, and traditions. Such names reflect the rich but also
the SPC on Names of Fungi with the Same Epithet established at the complicated and sometimes controversial history of scientific explo-
XI International Mycological Congress in San Juan in 2018 (May rations and biological nomenclature.
& al. in IMA Fungus 9: xxii–xxvii. 2018; Wilson, l.c. 2019). Anyone using the scientific names of taxa governed by this
The General Committee has published seven reports since the Code should be aware that this Code is not intended for judging, eval-
Shenzhen Congress containing recommendations – subject to a deci- uating, changing, rejecting, or censoring such names because of eth-
sion at the Madrid Congress – on proposals to conserve, protect or re- ical, cultural, religious, political, social, ideological, and/or other
ject names, proposals to suppress works, and requests for decisions principles, criteria, and procedures, except for those explicitly pre-
(Wilson in Taxon 70: 1360–1362. 2021; 71: 216–218; 1315–1318. scribed in this Code (see Preamble 1, 12, Art. 51.1).
2022; 72: 422–424; 905–907; 1112–1114; 1353–1354. 2023). Re- The authors and editors of this Code and anyone using scientific
ports relevant to the Madrid Nomenclature Section have also been names of organisms in accordance with this Code in good faith and
published by the Committee on Institutional Votes (Ulloa Ulloa for lawful purposes shall not be held responsible for any discomfort,
& al., l.c.; see Notice above) and the Registration Committee inconvenience, offense, mental and/or emotional distress, or other
(Loizeau & al. in Taxon 72: 1134–1136. 2023; see Art. 42 under possible negative consequences potentially caused by some scientific
the proposals below). names of taxa to any person or group of people who may consider
The proposals in this Synopsis are arranged in the sequence of such names objectionable, offensive, or inappropriate.
the provisions of the Code that they affect. Within each of the provi- The use of scientific names of taxa in accordance with this Code
sions, the proposals have been lettered sequentially (e.g. Art. 9 Prop. in good faith and for lawful purposes should not be viewed as mani-
A–Z, AA–ZZ, AAA–GGG) in the order in which the Rapporteurs be- festation, support, or endorsement of any cultural, religious, political,
lieve they might usefully be discussed by the Section. Needless to say, social, racial, or other views, concepts, prejudices, and/or ideologies
the Section, or its President, is completely free to adopt another se- that may be deemed objectionable, offensive, or inappropriate to
quence for its deliberations. some people or groups of people.”
326 Version of Record

Prop. C (349 – Mosyakin in Taxon 72: 1149) Amend the Pream- 5A.1. For purposes of standardization, the following abbrevia-
ble by adding after Pre. 14 the following text: tions are recommended: cl. (class), ord. (order), fam. (family),
“Non-Discrimination Statement tr. (tribe), gen. (genus), sect. (section), ser. (series), sp. (species),
Authors and editors of this Code recognize the importance of var. (variety), f. (forma). The abbreviations for additional ranks cre-
principles of human rights, equal rights and opportunities, diversity, ated by the addition of the prefix sub-, or for nothotaxa with the pre-
inclusivity, and representation, especially with regard to authors fix notho-, should be formed by adding the prefixes, e.g. subsp.
and users of scientific names governed by this Code. (subspecies), nothosp. (nothospecies), but subg. (subgenus) not
Authors and users of scientific names governed by “subgen.”
this Code shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their Editorially, in Art. 24 Ex. 1 change “subforma” to “subform”
race, colour, ethnicity, national origin, disability, age, sex and and in Art. 36 Ex. 13 change “second forma” to “second form”.
sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, social status, Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A addresses a minor
cultural identity, and/or political beliefs, and shall have equal rights inconsistency.
under this Code, including the rights to propose amendments to
this Code. Chapter II
Preferential or discriminatory treatment, rejection or censoring Prop. A (340 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147) Amend the title
of names governed by this Code because of the aforementioned char- of Chapter II as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
acteristics of their authors, or because of actual or assumed associa- strikethrough):
tion of such names with any cultural, religious, political, social, “STATUS, TYPIFICATION, APPLICATION, AND PRIOR-
ethnic, national, or racial concepts, beliefs, or ideologies, is not al- ITY OF NAMES”
lowed, except for the cases explicitly regulated by this Code Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is essentially editorial and
(e.g. the preferential status of the Latin alphabet and the Latin and En- part of a set of proposals that would provide for the future valid pub-
glish languages in nomenclature).” lication of names of certain taxa other than vascular plants or bryo-
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A seems to be a useful addi- phytes without nomenclatural types (so-called “type-less names”;
tion, the acceptance of which does not seem to pose any issues. see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). The Nomenclature Committee for
Prop. B and C, although not changing the rules themselves, Algae does not support Prop. A (votes 1 : 14 : 1).
would add a dimension to the Code that is not currently present,
which users may or may not feel is needed. Article 6
Prop. A (136 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 703) Amend the foot-
Principles note to Art. 6.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
Prop. A (339 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147) Amend Principle strikethrough):
II as follows (new text in bold): [footnote to Art. 6.1] “1 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the
“The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined term “illustration” designates a work of art or a photograph depicting
by means of nomenclatural types where typification is technically a feature or features of an organism a species or infraspecific taxon
feasible, and by means of a description based on a reference (see also Art. 10.4 and 43.2), e.g. a drawing, a picture of a herbarium
DNA sequence where it is not.” specimen, or a scanning electron micrograph, but not a habitat
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals photograph.”
that would provide for the future valid publication of names of certain Prop. B (196 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 443) Amend Art. 6.1 as fol-
taxa other than vascular plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
types (so-called “type-less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). “6.1. Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art.
The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. A 29–31. Except in specified cases (Art. 6.1, 8.1 and any reference to
(votes 0 : 15 : 1). a type in this Code, 9.4(a), 9.9, 9.19, 9.22, Rec. 9A.1, 9A.3, 9B.1,
and Art. 10.4, 40.7, and 46.9) or where the use of unpublished text
Article 4 or illustrations is explicitly or implicitly permitted, text and illus-
Prop. A (350 – Proćków & Drábková in Taxon 72: 1150) Add a trations1 must be effectively published to be taken into account for
new Article after Art. 4.3: the purposes of this Code.”
“4.3bis. A rank of a taxon between subtribe (subtribus) and ge- Prop. C (341 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147) Amend Art.
nus is supergenus.” 6 Note 1 as follows (new text in bold):
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A, together with Art. 19 “Note 1. For nomenclatural purposes, valid publication creates a
Prop. B, would establish a formal category in the Code for what name, and sometimes also an autonym (Art. 22.1 and 26.1), but does
seems to be best dealt with informally. Applying the same name un- not itself imply any taxonomic circumscription beyond inclusion of
changed at different ranks may create difficulties in determining the the type or reference DNA sequence (see Art. X.1) of the name
intended rank of what are currently considered generic names if this (Art. 7.1).”
was not explicitly indicated, and could retroactively affect valid pub- This is the first of several instances where the phrase “or DNA
lication (Art. 37.1). There could also be problems adhering to a hier- reference sequence” should be added after “type”. If this proposal
archical classification (Art. 2.1) if segregate genera under a is accepted, the Editorial Committee is asked to deal with subsequent
supergenus were, e.g., to be treated in different subtribes. instances, including but not limited to Art. 9, 10, 22, 26,
40, 48 and 52.
Recommendation 5A Prop. D (242 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 677) Amend Art.
Prop. A (426 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1186) In Rec. 6.3 as follows, incorporating the definition of “designation” from the
5A.1 change “f. (forma)” to “f. (form)”. Glossary (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):

“6.3. In this Code, unless otherwise explicitly indicated or im- name, which is its basionym. A name at new rank (status novus,
plicitly used otherwise, the word “name” means a name that has stat. nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate, previously pub-
been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate (see lished name at a different rank, which is its basionym. The basio-
Art. 12; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14). The word “designation” is nym does not itself have a basionym; it provides the final epithet1,
used for what appears to be a name but that (1) has not been val- name, or stem of the new combination or name at new rank. (See also
idly published and hence is not a name in the sense of this Code or Art. 41.2).”
(2) is not to be regarded as a name (Art. 20.4 and 23.6). The term Prop. J (056 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 449) Amend the first sen-
“potential name” may be used for what appears to be a name be- tence of Art. 6.10 as follows (new text in bold):
fore its status as a name or designation has been determined.” “6.10. A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or
In addition, we recommend that the Editorial Committee use name at new rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name validly pub-
“designation” as infrequently as possible when referring to a name lished in accordance with Art. 41 and based on a legitimate, previ-
that is not validly published, as opposed to a type designation. We ously published name, which is its basionym.”
prefer “name that has not been validly published” instead of “desig- Prop. K (057 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450) Amend Art. 6.10 as
nation that has not been validly published”. follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
Prop. E (053 – Malik & al. in Taxon 70: 449) Amend Art. “6.10. A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or
6 Note 2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): name at new rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name based on
“Note 2. When the same name, based on the same type, has been a legitimate, previously published name, which is its basionym.
published independently at different times, perhaps by the same or The new name is based on the earlier name if (1) the earlier name
different authors, then only the earliest of these “isonyms” has no- provides the final epithet1, name, or stem of the new name, (2) the
menclatural status. The name is always to be cited from its original new name is validly published in accordance with Art. 41, and (3)
place of valid publication, and later isonyms may be disregarded the type of the earlier name is not explicitly excluded (see Art.
(but see Art. 14.14).” 48.1). The basionym does not itself have a basionym; it provides
The definition of isonym might be amended accordingly in the the final epithet1 , name, or stem of the new combination or name
Glossary. at new rank. (See see also Art. 41.2).”
Prop. F (054 – Malik & al. in Taxon 70: 449) Add a new Exam- Prop. L (296 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 947) Amend Art.
ple after Art. 6 Note 2: 6.10 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
“Ex. n. The name Bignonia tomentosa Thunb. was indepen- “6.10. A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or
dently published by Thunberg in three different places (Murray, Syst. name at new rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name based on
Veg., ed. 14: 563. May–Jun 1784; Fl. Jap.: 252. Aug 1784; in Nova a legitimate, previously published name, which is its basionym. The
Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal. 4: 39. late 1784–1785). The two later basionym does not itself have a basionym; it provides the final epi-
names have the same diagnostic phrase name as B. tomentosa in its thet1, name, or stem of the new combination or name at new rank.
original place of valid publication and therefore include its type A new combination or name at new rank cannot be the basionym
(Art. 52.2(e), 52.3). Consequently, the two later names were nomen- of a later new combination or name at new rank; in this case, the
claturally superfluous when published (Art. 52.1) and are to be auto- basionym of all the later names is the earliest name that provides
matically typified (Art. 7.5) by the type of B. tomentosa Thunb. the final epithet, name, or stem of the later names (See see also
(in Murray, l.c.). Because the three names are the same and based Art. 41.2).”
on the same type, they are isonyms, the later two of which may be Prop. M (245 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 678) Amend Art.
disregarded.” 6 Note 5 as follows and delete Art. 6 Ex. 13 (deleted text in
Prop. G (408 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181) Amend Art. 6.4 by strikethrough):
adding the word “nomenclaturally” before “superfluous” (new text “Note 5. A new combination can at the same time be a name at
in bold): new rank (comb. & stat. nov.); a nomenclatural novelty with a basio-
“6.4. An illegitimate name is one that is designated as such in nym need not be either of these.”
Art. 18.3, 19.6, 52–54, F.3.3, or F.6.1 (see also Art. 21 Note 1 and “Ex. 13. Centaurea jacea subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Greuter,
Art. 24 Note 2). A name that according to this Code was illegitimate “comb. in stat. nov.” (in Willdenowia 33: 55. 2003), based on
when published cannot become legitimate later unless Art. 18.3 or C. weldeniana Rchb. (Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 213. 1831), was not a new
19.6 so provide; unless it is conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. combination because C. jacea var. weldeniana (Rchb.) Briq.
F.2), or sanctioned (Art. F.3); or unless the name is nomenclaturally (Monogr. Centaurées Alpes Marit.: 69. 1902) had been published pre-
superfluous under Art. 52 and its intended basionym is conserved or viously; nor was it a name at new rank, due to the existence of C. amara
protected.” subsp. weldeniana (Rchb.) Kušan (in Prir. Istraž. Kral. Jugoslavije 20:
Prop. H (063 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 451) Amend Art. 6.9 as fol- 29. 1936); it was nevertheless a nomenclatural novelty.”
lows (deleted text in strikethrough): Prop. N (001 – Choi & al. in Taxon 69: 623) Add a new Note and
“6.9. The name of a new taxon (e.g. genus novum, gen. nov., a new Example under Art. 6.11:
species nova, sp. nov.) is a name validly published in its own right, “Note 6. A replacement name for a legitimate name, for which a
i.e. one not based on a previously validly published name; it is not legitimate name at new rank (Art. 6.10) could be published, can be
a new combination, a name at new rank, or a replacement name.” legitimate provided that its rank differs from that of the replaced syn-
Prop. I (055 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 449) Amend Art. 6.10 as fol- onym. Such a replacement name would, however, be contrary to Rec.
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): 21B.4 or 24B.2.”
“6.10. A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or “Ex. n. Bidaria indica M. A. Rahman & Wilcock (in Blumea 34:
name at new rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name for a taxon 99. 1989) was published as an explicit substitute (“nom. et stat. nov.”)
below the rank of genus based on a legitimate, previously published for the legitimate name Gymnema montanum var. beddomei Hook. f.

(Fl. Brit. India 4: 32. 1883), even though the epithet beddomei was synonym, unless the earlier new combination or name at new rank is
available at specific rank in Bidaria. Because the ranks of the replace- the illegitimate name being replaced by a replacement name.”
ment name and replaced synonym differ, and names have no priority If this proposal is rejected, we recommend that the Editorial
outside the rank at which they are published (Art. 11.2), B. indica is Committee delete Art. 41 Ex. 25. If the proposal is accepted, we rec-
not illegitimate under Art. 52.1.” ommend the following changes [Prop. V] to Art. 6.12 and Art.
Prop. O (058 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450) Amend the first sen- 41 Ex. 25.
tence of Art. 6.11 as follows (new text in bold): Prop. V (298 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 947) Amend Art.
“6.11. A replacement name (nomen novum, nom. nov.) is a new 6.12 and Art. 41 Ex. 25 as follows (new text in bold):
name validly published in accordance with Art. 41 as an explicit “6.12. A name not explicitly proposed as a substitute for an ear-
substitute (avowed substitute) for a legitimate or illegitimate, previ- lier name is nevertheless a replacement name either (a) if it is vali-
ously published name, which is its replaced synonym.” dated solely by reference to that earlier name, which is its replaced
Prop. P (060 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450) Amend Art. 6.11 as fol- synonym, or (b) under the provisions of Art. 7.5.”
lows (new text in bold): [Art. 41] “Ex. 25. (a) The intended new combination “Machae-
“6.11. A replacement name (nomen novum, nom. nov.) is a new rina iridifolia” was proposed by Koyama (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 69:
name published as an explicit substitute (avowed substitute; but see 64. 1956) with a full and direct reference to “Cladium iridifolium
Art. 6.12 and 6.13) for a legitimate or illegitimate, previously pub- Baker, Flor. Maurit. 424 (1877)”. However, C. iridifolium had been
lished name, which is its replaced synonym. The replaced synonym, proposed by Baker as a new combination based on Scirpus iridifolius
when legitimate, does not provide the final epithet, name, or stem of Bory (Voy. Îles Afrique 2: 94. 1804). Under Art. 6.10 and 6.n1,
the replacement name (see also Art. 41.2 and 58.1).” C. iridifolium cannot serve as the basionym or replaced synonym
Prop. Q (059 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450) Amend Art. 6.12 as of M. iridifolia. Because Baker provided an explicit reference to
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): Bory, Art. 41.8(a) does not apply and the combination under
“6.12. A name not explicitly proposed as a substitute for an ear- Machaerina was not validly published by Koyama.”
lier name is nevertheless a replacement name either (a) if it is (a) val- Prop. W (299 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948) Add a new
idly published in accordance with Art. 41 and validated solely by Article to Art. 6 and delete the last sentence of Art. 6.11 as follows
reference to that earlier name or (b) treated as a replacement name (deleted text in strikethrough):
under the provisions of Art. 7.5.” “6.n2. The replaced synonym, when legitimate, may not provide
Prop. R (061 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450) Amend Art. 6.13 as fol- the final epithet, name, or stem of the replacement name (see also Art.
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): 41.2 and 58.1).”
“6.13. A name not explicitly proposed as a substitute for an ear- “6.11. A replacement name (nomen novum, nom. nov.) is a new
lier name and not covered by Art. 6.12 may be treated either as a re- name published as an explicit substitute (avowed substitute) for a le-
placement name or as the name of a new taxon if in the protologue1 gitimate or illegitimate, previously published name, which is its re-
both (a) a potential replaced synonym is cited all requirements of placed synonym. The replaced synonym, when legitimate, does not
Art. 41 for valid publication of a replacement name are met and provide the final epithet, name, or stem of the replacement name
(b) all requirements for valid publication of the name of a new taxon (see also Art. 41.2 and 58.1).”
are independently met. Decision on the status of such a name is to be Prop. X (398 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179) Convert the second
based on predominant usage and is to be effected by means of appro- sentence of Art. 48.1 into a new Article in Art. 6 as follows and delete
priate type designation (Art. 9 and 10).” Art. 48 Note 1 (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
Prop. S (137 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 703) Amend the foot- “6.n. (a) Unless an author explicitly excluded the type of the
note to Art. 6.13 as follows (new text in bold): apparent basionym or replaced synonym of a name, that name will
[footnote to Art. 6.13] “1 Protologue (from Greek πρώτος, pro- not fail to be a new combination, name at new rank, or replace-
tos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything associated with a name ment name merely because (1) its author applied it erroneously
at its valid publication, e.g. description, diagnosis, illustrations, hab- to a taxon now considered not to include that type and/or (2) its au-
itat photographs (see Art. 6.1 footnote), references, synonymy, thor attempted to designate a type that is contrary to the rules.
geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and (b) Similarly, when If an author who adopts a name refers to an
comments.” apparent basionym or replaced synonym but explicitly excludes its
Prop. T (197 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 443) Amend the definition type, the name of a new taxon is considered to have been published
of protologue in the footnote to Art. 6.13 (new text in bold, deleted that must be attributed solely to that author; however, if the relevant
text in strikethrough): requirements for valid publication of the name of a new taxon are
[footnote to Art. 6.13] “1 Protologue (from Greek πρώτος, pro- not satisfied, then no name is published even if the requirements
tos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything associated with a name of Art. 41 are satisfied.”
at as part of its valid publication, e.g. description, diagnosis, illustra- (c) For this purpose, exclusion of the type is defined in Art.
tions, references, synonymy, geographical data, citation or reference 48.1 and 48.2.”
of specimens, discussion, and comments. It also includes all “Note 1. Misapplication of a new combination, name at new
illustrations published, cited, or referenced in the publication rank, or replacement name to a different taxon, but without explicit
(including unpublished illustrations).” exclusion of the type of the basionym or replaced synonym, is dealt
Prop. U (297 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 947) Add a new with under Art. 7.3–7.4.”
Article to Art. 6: If this proposal is accepted, some of the language in Art. 7.3 and
“6.n1. A new combination or name at new rank cannot be the re- 7.4 is redundant and can be deleted.
placed synonym of a later new combination or name at new rank, be- Prop. Y (301 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948) Add a new
cause the basionym of the earlier name would be the actual replaced Note to Art. 6:

“Note n. A replacement name may be published for a legitimate clause and deleting the second added clause might achieve the au-
replaced synonym if it is not possible to publish a legitimate new thors’ desired clarity; those in agreement should vote “ed.c.”
combination or name at new rank because the new name would be Prop. M, Art. 21 Prop. A, Art. 24 Prop. B and Art. 32 Prop. B
an illegitimate later homonym or could not be validly published (such form a set of proposals that would eliminate the interpretation con-
as a tautonym).” veyed in three different Notes that a rank-denoting term is not part
Prop. Z (400 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179) Add a new Note in of a combination. This interpretation is based on Art. 21.1 and
Art. 6 as follows: 24.1, where in each case the rank-denoting term is excluded from
“Note n. If an author who publishes a potential name on or after the definitions of what constitutes the name. Deletion of the wording
1 January 1953 (a) refers to an apparent basionym or replaced syno- from the three Notes would allow an alternative interpretation, that
nym, (b) does not exclude its type, and (c) does not satisfy Art. 41, the the rank-denoting term is part of the name, which would eliminate
name of a new taxon is considered to have been published (if it meets the category of nomenclatural novelty with a basionym that is neither
the conditions for valid publication as such).” a new combination nor name at new rank mentioned in Art. 6 Note
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A (see also Prop. S), would ex- 5 and Ex. 13. Some may consider this an improvement and/or a
clude habitat photographs, which generally lack sufficient morpho- simplification.
logical detail, from being considered as illustrations under the Prop. N, which would add considerations of priority and legiti-
Code. Otherwise, these could be original material and potentially ob- macy to Art. 6.11, seems out of place in the context of this Article,
ligate lectotypes, which would be undesirable. which is a definition of replacement name. Its Example could be con-
Prop. B would exhaustively expand the cross-referencing al- sidered for inclusion under Art. 11.2 or 52.2.
ready evident in Art. 6.1. It may be referred to the Editorial Prop. O would add a reference to a requirement for valid publi-
Committee. cation in the definition of replacement name in Art. 6.11 (see also
Prop. C is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the Prop. J). No such reference has been proposed for Art. 6.9 (names
future valid publication of names of certain taxa other than vascular of new taxa), nor should it be, because such requirements are ac-
plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural types (so-called “type- counted for elsewhere (Chap. V). The same considerations apply as
less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). The Nomenclature Com- in Prop. J.
mittee for Algae does not support Prop. C (votes 1 : 14 : 1). Prop. P seems to be a useful addition.
Prop. D would provide formal definitions for entities that are not Prop. Q proposes two additions to Art. 6.12. Considerations in-
considered names in the sense of the Code. The last sentence seems volving the first addition are similar to those already discussed under
more like a Recommendation than part of a rule. The term “potential Prop. J and O; the second addition would provide a more precise
name” seems to be a harmless addition to the Code, but is it needed? wording than is currently present in the Article, avoiding any conflict
Prop. E does not change the meaning of Art. 6 Note 2, but would with Art. 7.5(b). Those who support only the second addition should
make the wording more explicit. vote “ed.c.”
Prop. F proposes a new Example, which would be automatically Prop. R would adjust clause (a) of Art. 6.13 to make it more par-
referred to the Editorial Committee. allel to clause (b), which appears useful, although the non-parallel
Prop. G would add more consistent wording without any change reference to Art. 41 here brings up the same considerations already
in meaning. It could be a useful clarification. mentioned under Prop. J and O. Whether moving part of the final
Prop. H would delete a clause from Art. 6.9, intending to avoid sentence of Art. 6.13 into a new Recommendation (Rec. 6A Prop.
confusion surrounding the usage of “based on” in this clause. The A) is accepted or rejected does not seem critical to its application.
proposal would implicitly define a name of a new taxon as not one Prop. S relates to Prop. A, the acceptance of which would make
of the alternatives mentioned in the last phrase, but it overlooks the it necessary to specify habitat photographs apart from illustrations in
category of nomenclatural novelties mentioned in Art. 6 Note the definition of protologue, and should be voted accordingly.
5, which are similarly not names of new taxa. Prop. T would expand the listing of protologue elements with re-
Prop I would include the more detailed Glossary definitions of gard to illustrations. Whereas the current listing (using “e.g.”) is not
the terms “new combination” and “name at new rank” directly in intended to be exhaustive, this expansion, which would include pre-
Art. 6.10. Although the meaning is unchanged, some might prefer viously published or unpublished illustrations, may not be considered
this more explicit wording. necessary or desirable.
Prop J would add a reference to a requirement for valid publica- Prop. U and V could have unwanted consequences if replace-
tion in the definition of new combination and name at new rank in ment names in current use are found to have been based on new com-
Art. 6.10 (see also Prop. O). No such reference has been proposed binations, e.g. where the reference to a basionym was cryptic and
for Art. 6.9 (names of new taxa), nor should it be, because such re- therefore overlooked.
quirements are accounted for elsewhere (Chap. V). Perhaps removal Prop. W seems to be an unnecessary splitting of Art. 6.11.
of the “new” before “name” would prevent the potential misreading Prop. X is part of a set of proposals involving also Art. 7 and
the proposer seeks to avoid; those in favour of this should vote “ed.c.” 48 (Art. 6 Prop. X, Art. 7 Prop. H, Art. 48 Prop. A, B and C) that
Prop. K is an extension of Prop. J, and would restructure the would more explicitly deal with the effects of inclusion
wording of Art. 6.10 to incorporate exceptions treated elsewhere in vs. exclusion of a type on homonymy, misapplication, new combina-
the Code, unnecessarily complicating the definitions provided. tions or replacement names. While parts of Prop. X are dealt with by
Prop. L would provide a fuller explanation of part of Art. 6.10 existing provisions (Art. 7.3, 7.4 and 48.1), other content is new, such
that may be preferred by some. However, the introduction of the word as the new text in clauses (a)(2) and (b). See Art. 40 Prop. Q for an
“later” overlooks the complication that would arise when a new com- alternative to the new text in clause (a)(2). An alternative to the
bination or name at new rank was published simultaneously with its new text in clause (b) would be a modification to the middle sentence
basionym. Replacing “a later” with “another” in the first added of current Art. 48.1 to read: “[…], the name of a new taxon is

considered to have been published, provided all requirements for or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most
valid publication of such a name are fulfilled, that must be attrib- typical or representative element of a taxon. The terms nomencla-
uted solely to that author.” While some may support the new arrange- tural type, type, typify (including typified and typifying), and
ment advocated by Prop. X, those who do not support the typification are technical terms used in this Code and are not to
restructuring of content from other provisions but wish to have the be interpreted as meaning typical in normal linguistic use.”
new content of Prop. X considered in this alternative fashion should Add the following definition to the Glossary:
vote “ed.c.” See Art. 48 Prop. H for a more inclusive alternative to “typify. [Not defined] – to attach a nomenclatural type to a name
the new text in clause (b). of a taxon; the process of which is typification (Art. 7–10, F.5.4, and
Prop. Y, like Prop. N, seems out of context in Art. 6, where the F.5.5) (see also automatic typification, nomenclatural type, and type
definition of replacement name is provided in Art. 6.11, and would designation).”
be better placed under Art. 11, where Art. 11.4 deals with the situa- Prop. E (138 – Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704) Amend the first sen-
tion discussed. tence of Art. 7.2 as follows (new text in bold):
Prop. Z would provide a new Note in Art. 6 to account for the “7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the
fact that names published as apparent new combinations or replace- name of a taxon is permanently attached (unless it is superseded, de-
ment names can potentially be validly published as names of new stroyed, lost, or missing), whether as the correct name or as a
taxa if the requirements of Art. 41 are not otherwise fulfilled. The synonym.”
Note has some merit, but would appear to be more useful in Art. Prop. F (025 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1379) Add a
41, but this could be determined by the Editorial Committee. How- new Note after Art. 7.2 and a new entry to the Glossary:
ever, it interacts with Art. 41 Prop. L, which changes the require- “Note 0. A name of a taxon may have a type (see Art. 7.1) but has
ments for valid publication of new combinations or replacement no circumscription. The taxon itself has a circumscription but
names and could allow names to be validly published as such and no type.”
not as names of new taxa. “circumscription. [Not defined] – an indication of the elements
(e.g. subordinate taxa, synonyms, specimens, illustrations) that are
Recommendation 6A (new) included in a taxon.”
Prop. A (062 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450) Add a new Recommen- Prop. G (139 – Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704) Amend Art. 7.3, 7.4,
dation 6A.1 as follows: and 10.9 as follows (new text in bold):
“6A.1. The decision on typification under Art. 6.13 should be “7.3. A new combination or a name at new rank (Art. 6.10) is
based on predominant usage of the name.” typified automatically by the type of the basionym even though it
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is discussed under Art. may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not
6 Prop. R. to include that type (but see Art. 48.1).”
“7.4. A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typified automatically
Article 7 by the type of the replaced synonym even though it may have been
Prop. A (342 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147) Amend Art. 7.1 applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that
as follows (new text in bold): type (but see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).”
“7.1. The application of names of taxa at the rank of family or “10.9. The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a
below is determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of family is automatically the same as that of the generic name from
names of taxa), except as provided by Art. X.1. The application which it is formed (see Art. 18.1). For purposes of designation or ci-
of names of taxa at the higher ranks is also determined by means of tation of a type, the generic name alone suffices, i.e. it is considered
types when the names are formed from a typified generic name as the full equivalent of its type. The type of a name of a family or
(see Art. 10.10) or by reference sequences when the names are subfamily not formed from a generic name is the same as that of the
formed from type-less generic names (see Art. X.7).” corresponding alternative name (Art. 18.5 and 19.8).”
Prop. B (002 – Lidén in Taxon 69: 624) Amend Art. 7.2 as fol- Make a conforming amendment to the definition of “automatic
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): typification” in the Glossary.
“7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the Prop. H (399 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179) If Prop. 398 [Art.
a name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct 6 Prop. X] is accepted, amend Art. 7.3 and 7.4 as follows (new text
name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
the most typical or representative element of a taxon.” “7.3. A new combination or a name at new rank (Art. 6.10) is
Prop. C (003 – Lidén in Taxon 69: 624) As an alternative to typified by the type of the basionym even though it may have been
Prop. 002, amend Art. 7.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that
in strikethrough): type (but see Art. 48.1 6.n).”
“7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the “7.4. A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typified by the type of
a name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct the replaced synonym even though it may have been applied errone-
name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily ously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art.
the most typical or representative element of a taxon. This does not 41 Note 3 and 48.1 6.n).”
imply that any element of the taxon is more typical of the taxon Prop. I (106 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383) Amend Art. 7.8 and
than any other.” Art. 9 Note 3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
Prop. D (065 – Tindall in Taxon 70: 451) Amend Art. 7.2 as fol- strikethrough):
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): “7.8. A name of a new taxon validly published solely by refer-
“7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagno-
name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name sis (Art. 38.1(a)) (and not by a reproduction of such a description or

diagnosis) is to be typified by an element selected from the entire and, on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes
context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless there are the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent. On or
no such elements or the validating author has definitely designated after 1 January 2026, only the phrase “designated here” or “here
a different type in the protologue (indication or usage by the vali- designated” (hic designatus) or its exact translation into another
dating author is insufficient to establish a type), but not by an ele- modern language is permitted.”
ment explicitly excluded by the validating author (see also Art. 7.9).” Prop. P (253 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 681) Amend Art.
[Art. 9] “Note 3. For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements 7.11 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
from the entire context of the validating description are considered as “7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), des-
original material, unless the validating author has definitely desig- ignation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted
nated a different type.” as such by the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated
Prop. J (257 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 683) Add the fol- by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent,
lowing new sentence at the end of Art. 7.8 (new text in bold): and, on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes
“7.8. A name of a new taxon validly published solely by refer- the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent a sim-
ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagno- ilar expression demonstrating the author’s intent to designate a
sis (Art. 38.1(a)) (and not by a reproduction of such a description or type there.”
diagnosis) is to be typified by an element selected from the entire Prop. Q (358 – Wiersema & McNeill in Taxon 72: 1153) Add a
context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validat- new Note after Art. 7.11:
ing author has definitely designated a different type, but not by an el- “Note 2bis. The effective typification of a name necessarily es-
ement explicitly excluded by the validating author (see also Art. 7.9). tablishes the same typification for all names sharing the same basio-
However, if the name is first typified on or after 1 January nym (Art. 7.3) or replaced synonym (Art. 7.4) and that basionym or
2026, the original material is to be determined in accordance with replaced synonym.”
Art. 9.4 without regard to the preceding sentence.” Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals
Prop. K (249 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679) Amend Art. that would provide for the future valid publication of names of certain
7.9 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): taxa other than vascular plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural
“7.9. A name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomencla- types (so-called “type-less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A).
tural starting-point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be typ- The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. A
ified by an element selected from the context of its protologue valid (votes 1 : 14 : 1).
publication (Art. 32–45).” Prop. B and C are alternative proposals that attempt to avoid the
Prop. L (066 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 452) Amend Art. 7.10 as fol- implication in Art. 7.2 that a most representative element of any taxon
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): exists. Prop. B would simply delete the second sentence, whereas
“7.10. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), des- Prop. C would replace it with an alternative wording. Prop. C seems
ignation Designation of a type is not achieved unless made in an to have the advantage of preserving the existing information.
only by effective publication.” Prop. D represents another alternative wording to the final sen-
Prop. M (067 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 452) Amend Art. 7.11 as tence of Art. 7.2 and would emphasize the distinction between the
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): usage of “type” and derivative terms in the Code and similar expres-
“7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), des- sions in common speech, e.g. “typical”. If such a change is consid-
ignation Designation of a type is not achieved only if unless the type ered desirable and to what extent, either Prop. C or Prop. D or both
is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, if the type ele- could be supported. If the proposal is accepted, the decision on add-
ment is clearly indicated by direct citation by including the term ing “typify” to the Glossary would be automatically referred to the
“type” (typus) or an equivalent and on or after 1 January 2001, if Editorial Committee.
the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here” Prop. E would make a point that could be similarly achieved
(hic designatus) or an equivalent.” through a cross-reference to the relevant Articles in Art. 9 and 10.
Make a conforming change in Art. F.5.4. However, the proposed addition actually diminishes the concept of
Prop. N (088 – Nachychko in Taxon 70: 1378) Amend Art. 7.11 a type being a permanent foundation for a name. Is this addition re-
as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): ally necessary?
“7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), Prop. F seems to be a useful addition, which would reinforce an
designation of a type is achieved only if (a) the type is definitely ac- important distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Adding
cepted as such by the typifying author, if (b) the type element is “circumscription” to the Glossary also makes sense, because the
clearly indicated by direct citation including the a term that is or con- word is employed several times throughout the Code.
tains the word element “type” (typus;) or an equivalents in other Prop. G suggests some useful additions, which would empha-
modern languages and abbreviations permitted; see also Art. size that typification is indeed automatic in Art. 7.3, 7.4 and 10.9
7 *Ex. 16), and, (c) on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification and would make the latter more consistent with its counterpart for in-
statement includes the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or dicating generic types in Art. 10.1.
an equivalent.” Prop. H is contingent on acceptance of Art. 6 Prop. X and is dis-
Prop. O (198 – Majumdar & al. in Taxon 72: 444) Add the fol- cussed there.
lowing sentence to Art. 7.11 (new text in bold): Prop. I would restrict the exception to selecting a type under Art.
“7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), des- 7.8, i.e. when the validating author has “definitely designated a dif-
ignation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted ferent type”, requiring that it be designated in the protologue and that
as such by the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated mere indication of a type (e.g. under Art. 40.3) or use of a single el-
by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent, ement (Art. 9.1(b)) is not enough. The author argues that this is the

intention of Art. 7.8, based on a review of earlier versions of the rule. “7A.2. It is strongly recommended, insofar as possible, that du-
It is not entirely clear whether such a change would be free of un- plicate material on which the name of a taxon is to be based, espe-
wanted consequences. cially of the holotype but also of a neotype or epitype, be
Prop. J would eliminate the restrictions on the typification of conserved in different herbaria, collections, or institutions, preferably
names falling under Art. 7.8 after 2025, allowing the original material in different areas of the world.”
to be determined more broadly under Art. 9.4. Likely this would ap- Prop. D (199 – Majumdar & al. in Taxon 72: 444) Add a new
ply to only a few cases and might not merit adding another date- paragraph to Rec. 7A:
limited provision to the Code. “7A.2. The phrase “designated here” or the equivalents permit-
Prop. K seeks to make Art. 7.9 consistent with Art. 9 Note 2, but ted by Art. 7.11 should be written in the Latin alphabet.”
given that the latter is a Note and the former an Article, the change Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would recommend the depo-
would be better made in the reverse to make them consistent. Those sition of holotype material in herbaria located where a taxon is native.
wishing to instruct the Editorial Committee to resolve this incongru- This seems to be prudent advice.
ity should vote “ed.c.” Prop. B similarly would recommend where type material of
Prop. L and M, in the elimination of the opening clause, would newly described taxa should be deposited, without limiting this to
both extend the application of Art. 7.10 and 7.11 from lectotypes, just the holotype. This may be a more pragmatic approach. Addition-
neotypes and epitypes and their equivalents under Art. 10 to also inally, the focus here is on “countries of origin” rather than “native geo-
clude holotypes. While this might be unproblematic in the case of graphical distribution”. Either way, a distinction in meaning may not
Art. 7.10 (Prop. L), Prop. M would presumably add the requirement really exist between the two phrasings.
to indicate “designated here” or an equivalent for holotype designa- Prop. C would offer helpful advice to facilitate the long-term
tions after 2000, which would have destabilizing consequences for preservation of type material. A similar Recommendation, avoiding
names published after that date. keeping all one’s eggs in a single basket, is part of Rec. 40A Prop.
Prop. N attempts to more precisely delineate what could be con- E and, in principle, parallels the archiving of electronic material in
sidered as acceptable equivalents to usage of the terms “type (typus)” digital repositories in Rec. 29A.2(b).
in Art. 7.11. While the proposed change might add some clarity, by Prop. D seems consistent with a similar recommendation in Rec.
retaining the word “equivalents” before the added phrase “in other 40A.4 concerning “details of the type specimen”. However, Art. 7.11
modern languages”, it still permits unspecified equivalents to the implicitly allows an equivalent of “designated here” to be in any lan-
word “type” in those languages to be considered acceptable. guage (or any modern language under Art. 7 Prop. O), whereas Prop.
Prop. O would make stricter the requirement to use the phrase D could conflict by recommending use of the Latin alphabet. See also
“designated here” by permitting, instead of an unspecified equivalent comments under Rec. 40A Prop. C.
of “designated here”, only direct translations in other modern lan-
guages after 2025. One can again question whether it is worth adding Recommendation 7B (new)
another date-limited provision to the Code. Prop. A (026 – Prado & al. in Taxon 69: 1380) Add a new Rec-
Prop. P deals with the same issue as Prop. O, but rather than ommendation after Article 7 and a new entry to the Glossary:
eliminating expressions equivalent to “designated here” from consid- “7X.n. When citing designations of lectotype and neotype (and
eration it would place the focus on the need to demonstrate an au- their equivalents under Art. 10) that were achieved before 1 January
thor’s intent to designate a type. 2001 in a non-explicit manner (i.e. without the use of the words
Prop. Q would clarify how acts of typification apply from basio- “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (Art. 9.23) and “designated here” (Art.
nyms to their new combinations and replaced synonyms to their re- 7.11) or their equivalents), authors should use the phrase “non-
placement names and similarly in the reverse order. This is not explicitly designated by” (or an equivalent) after the kind of type,
otherwise noted in the Code, and seems to be a useful addition. e.g. “lectotype, non-explicitly designated by [author(s)]” followed
by the bibliographic reference or date.”
Recommendation 7A “non-explicit typification. [Not defined] – a designation of lecto-
Prop. A (254 – Knapp & al. in Taxon 72: 682) Add a new Rec- type or neotype (or its equivalent under Art. 10) that was achieved be-
ommendation to Rec. 7A: fore 1 January 2001 in a non-explicit manner; that is, without the use
“7A.2. Insofar as possible the herbarium, collection, or institu- of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” and “designated here” or
tion in which the holotype is deposited should be within the native their equivalents (Rec. 7X.n).”
geographical distribution of the taxon.” Prop. B (069 – Renner in Taxon 70: 453) Add a new Recom-
Prop. B (091 – Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1379) Amend Rec. 7A.1 mendation 7B to read as follows:
as follows (new text in bold): “7B.1. It is strongly recommended that the protologue of the
“7A.1. It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a new taxon at the rank of species or below include at least
name of a taxon is based, especially the holotype, be deposited in a one photograph of the mounted holotype with its label.”
public herbarium or other public collection with a policy of giving Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would recommend using
bona fide researchers access to deposited material, and that it be scru- specified terms to label acts of non-explicit lecto- or neotypification.
pulously conserved. Authors publishing names of new species or Those who feel that this distinction is useful will presumably vote
infraspecific taxa are encouraged to deposit some type material accordingly.
(holotype, isotypes, and/or paratypes) in one or more herbaria, Prop. B would recommend what is good taxonomic practice, ei-
collections, or other specialized institutions in the country or ther including a photograph of the holotype in the protologue or pro-
countries of origin of the newly described taxon.” viding a link to an image in an open-access online digital herbarium
Prop. C (360 – Gavade & Lekhak in Taxon 72: 1154) Add a new (which could show more detail). Those who feel that publishing holo-
paragraph under Rec. 7A: type photographs “would improve the utility of type material for

current and future researchers” and should be recommended in the part, multiple parts, or the whole of one or more individual or-
Code should support this proposal. See also comments under Rec. ganisms. A specimen is usually mounted on a single herbarium sheet
40A Prop. E. or in an equivalent preparation, such as a box, packet, jar, or micro-
scope slide (for fossil-taxa see Art. 8.n).”
Article 8 Prop. H (143 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706) Add a sen-
Prop. A (004 – Schwartsburd & al. in Taxon 69: 624) Insert a tence to the footnote to Art. 8.2 (new text in bold):
Note after Art. 8.1: [footnote to Art. 8.2] “2 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the
“Note 0. The term “type-species”, often found in taxonomic, term “gathering” is used for a collection presumed to be of a single
systematic, and phylogenetic works, is not used in this Code. A type taxon made by the same collector(s) at the same time from a
is never a collective entity. The same applies to “type-genus”, “type- single locality. The possibility of a mixed gathering is always to be
subspecies”, and “type-variety”.” considered, especially when designating a type. For most fossils, a
Prop. B (093 – Renner in Taxon 70: 1380) Amend Art. 8.1 as collection of a sample of sediment or rock is not presumed to be
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): of a single fossil-taxon, but is a set of gatherings, each gathering
“8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a consisting of an individual of a fossil-taxon.”
species or infraspecific taxon is either a single specimen conserved Prop. I (098 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1381) Amend the
in one herbarium or other collection or institution, or a published or footnote of Art. 8.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
unpublished illustration, or an assembled nuclear genome or infor- strikethrough):
mative parts thereof accessioned in a public repository (but see [footnote to Art. 8.2] “2 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the
Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4, 40.5, and Art. 40 Ex. 6).” term “gathering” is used for a collection presumed to be of a single
Prop. C (140 – Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704) Amend Art. 8.1 as fol- taxon made by the same collector(s) at the same time from a
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): single locality. The If specimens lack information on collector,
“8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype see Art. 7.2) of a date, or locality, this does not necessarily preclude their being
name of a species or infraspecific taxon is a holotype (Art. 9.1), part of the same gathering, but the possibility of a mixed gathering
lectotype (Art. 9.3), neotype (Art. 9.8), or conserved type (Art. is always to be considered, especially when designating a type.”
14.9), any of which may be supported by an epitype (Art. 9.9). Prop. J (163 – Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 71: 1326) Amend
Such a type is either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium Art. 8 Ex. 3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
or other collection or institution, or a published or unpublished illus- strikethrough):
tration (but see Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4, 40.5, and Art. 40 Ex. 6).” “Ex. 3. The protologue of “Echinocereus sanpedroensis” (Rau-
Make a conforming amendment to the definition of “nomencla- donat & W. Rischer (in Echinocereenfreund 8(4): 88–97. 1995) was
tural type” in the Glossary. based on a “holotype” consisting of meets the requirements of Art.
Prop. D (329 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art. 8.1 38.1 for valid publication of the name, including indication of the
as follows (new text in bold): type (Art. 40.1) as “Holotypus: Mexico, Edo Sonora, Rancho
“8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a San Pedro, Ri. 263, cult. W. Rischer Mai 1995 (ZSS), AX 16502”.
species or infraspecific taxon is either a single specimen conserved That the designated type specimen comprises a complete plant with
in one herbarium or other collection or institution, or a published or roots, a detached branch, an entire flower, a flower cut in halves, and
unpublished illustration (but see Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4, 40.5, two fruits that, according to the label, were taken from the same culti-
and Art. 40 Ex. 6); a holotype may also be an effectively published vated individual at different times and preserved, in alcohol, in a single
DNA sequence (see Art. X.1).” jar. Because this material was collected at more than one time, it be-
Prop. E (097 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1381) Amend Art. longs to more than one gathering and cannot be accepted as a type.
8.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): Raudonat & Rischer’s name is not validly published under Art. 40.2.,
“8.2. For the purpose of typification, a specimen (a) is a gather- and must, therefore, represent more than one gathering, does not
ing2, or part of a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon, affect the status of the name, as there was no indication of more
disregarding admixtures (see Art. 9.14). It may, that consists of a sin- than one gathering in the protologue in which all the requirements
gle organism, parts of one or several organisms, or of multiple small for valid publication were fully met.”
organisms and (b). A specimen is usually a single preparation Prop. K (375 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1168) Amend Art.
mounted on (i.e. a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent prepara- 8 Ex. 3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
tion, such as a box, packet, jar, or microscope slide) or, to the extent “Ex. 3. The protologue of “Echinocereus sanpedroensis”
permitted by Art. 8.3, multiple preparations.” (Raudonat & W. Rischer (in Echinocereenfreund 8(4): 88–97.
Prop. F (305 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 949) Amend the 1995) states “Holotypus: Mexico, Edo Sonora, Rancho San Pe-
first sentence of Art. 8.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text dro, Ri. 263, cult. W. Rischer Mai 1995 (ZSS), AX 16502”. While
in strikethrough): the protologue contains no additional information as to the con-
“8.2. For the purpose of typification a specimen is a gathering2, tents of this was based on a “holotype”, it consisting consists of a
or part of a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon (but complete plant with roots, a detached branch, an entire flower, a
see Art. 9.14), disregarding admixtures (see Art. 8.n9.14).” flower cut in halves, and two fruits that, according to the label, were
Prop. G (142 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 705) Amend Art. taken from the same cultivated individual at different times and pre-
8.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): served, in alcohol, in a single jar. Because this material was collected
“8.2. For the purpose of typification a specimen is a gathering1, at more than one time, it belongs to more than one gathering and can-
or part of a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon, dis- not be accepted as a type. Raudonat & Rischer’s name is not validly
regarding admixtures (see Art. 9.14). It may consist of a single organ- published under Art. 40.2, even though there is nothing in the pro-
ism, parts of one or several organisms, or of multiple small organisms tologue indicating the holotype is more than one gathering.”

We also recommend that the Editorial Committee move this Ex- “8.n. For the purpose of typification of names of fossil-taxa, a
ample to Art. 40. specimen is an individual of a fossil-species or infraspecific fossil-
Prop. L (149 – Bhattacharjee & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 71: taxon selected from a sample of sediment or rock or subsample or
707) Add a new Example under Art. 8 Note 1 (which could be preparation thereof. A specimen is usually contained on or in a slab
amended editorially to state “the same or different gatherings”): of rock, box, vial, or micropalaeontology slide, or mounted on a scan-
“Ex. n. The specimens of “Pantling 215” in BM, BR, K, L, P, ning electron microscope stub or microscope slide. Each specimen is
and W, collected from Senchal, India in July 1892 by Robert Pan- treated as a separate gathering. A sample (or subsample or prepara-
tling, are types of Goodyera hemsleyana King & Pantl. (in J. Asiat. tion thereof) may contain multiple individuals (i.e. specimens) of
Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 64: 342. 1896) and belong to the same the same fossil-taxon as well as other fossil-taxa (see also Art. 40.n).”
gathering. However, the specimens of “Pantling 215” in AMES “Note n. Macrofossils are often discovered by splitting rocks to
and L, also collected from Senchal by Pantling, belong to a different reveal a fossil organ on both parts of the rock (or the entire fossil itself
gathering of the same species made in July 1898 after publication of and a mould). These are usually referred to as “part” and “counter-
the name. The number 215 represents the species number rather than part”; they are parts of the same specimen, not separate specimens,
the collecting number of Pantling.” and often complementary to each other in their structural details.
Prop. M (099 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1382) Amend Art. For the purpose of typification, both part and counterpart, where
8.3 and its footnote as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in available, comprise the type specimen.”
strikethrough): “Ex. n1. The specimen designated as the holotype of the fossil
“8.3. A specimen may be mounted as more than one preparation, spore Striatella jurassica Mädler (in Fortschr. Geol. Rheinl. Westfalen
as long as the parts Multiple preparations that otherwise meet the 12: 192. 1964) was mounted on a microscope slide as a strew mount
requirements in Art. 8.2 do not qualify as a single specimen un- together with other individuals of the same and other taxa. The material
less the preparations are (a) clearly labelled as being part of that on the slide represents a subsample of the residue, which in turn is a
same specimen, or (b) housed together (e.g. in a single folder) subsample of a single rock sample from the Thurau 1 core from the
and either the housing or one of the preparations bears a single, Lower Jurassic of Germany. The holotype is indicated by microscope
original label in common applicable to all such preparations. Mul- coordinates (21:117.7) and a collection inventory number (TK 3154)
tiple preparations from a single gathering that are not clearly labelled on the slide as well as in the protologue. Additionally, four surrounding
as being part of a single specimen do not meet one of these condi- dots were added later to indicate the location of this specimen. This in-
tions are duplicates1, irrespective of whether the source was one indi- dication was translated into a more widely used England Finder refer-
vidual or more than one.” ence (N19/4). Besides this holotype, the slide also contains the
[footnote to Art. 8.3] “1 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the holotype of Ephedripites tortuosus Mädler (l.c.: 194. 1964),
word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning in curatorial practice. TK3159. Other palynomorphs on the same slide conforming to the cir-
A Each duplicate is a separate specimen that is part of a single cumscription of S. jurassica, but not explicitly cited in the protologue,
gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon.” comprise other parts of the original material, i.e. they are independent
Prop. N (144 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706) Add a sen- uncited specimens (see photograph of this example in Gravendyck
tence to the footnote to Art. 8.3 (new text in bold): & al. in Palynology 45: 727, fig. 5Ab. 2021).”
[footnote to Art. 8.3] “1 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the “Ex. n2. The fossil-species Diplotropis claibornensis Herendeen
word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning in curatorial practice. & Dilcher (in Syst. Bot. 15: 527, fig. 1 and 2. 1990) was described
A duplicate is part of a single gathering of a single species or infra- based on a fossil that consists of part and counterpart. Both part
specific taxon. For most fossils, a single gathering consists of an and counterpart comprise the specimen that was designated as the
individual of a fossil-taxon, and hence there are no duplicates.” holotype.”
Prop. O (200 – Mosyakin & Tsymbalyuk in Taxon 72: 445) Prop. R (304 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 949) Add a new
Amend the footnote to Art. 8.3 as follows (new text in bold): Article in Art. 8 as follows, incorporating and amending the defini-
[footnote to Art. 8.3] “1 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the tion of “admixture” from the Glossary:
word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning in curatorial practice. “8.n. An admixture is automatically disregarded irrespective of
A duplicate is part of a single gathering of a single species or infra- Art. 9.14, and does not prevent the gathering, or part thereof, from be-
specific taxon. However, separately preserved samples or prepa- ing a specimen or type specimen (Art. 8.2). An admixture is a minor
rations of pollen, spores, and/or other microscopic or small ingredient mixed into a specimen, used for components of a pre-
parts taken from herbarium or other specimens of sumed gathering that represent a taxon or taxa other than that
non-microscopic organisms for specific purposes (e.g. for DNA presumed by the collector.”
extraction, anatomical, micromorphological, or biochemical Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A suggests a new Note that
studies) are not considered duplicates.” would most likely fit better elsewhere in the Code, perhaps under
Prop. P (100 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1382) Add a new Art. 10.1. However, is it desirable to introduce terms into the Code (in-
Note after Art. 8.3: cluding the Glossary, see Gloss. Prop. G) that are not used there?
“Note n. Multiple preparations do not constitute a single speci- Prop. B is part of a set of proposals (with Rec. 8A Prop. C and D
men merely by being labelled with the same collection information. and Art. 40 Prop. J) relating to the acceptance of DNA sequences as no-
Preparations of a single gathering housed at different herbaria or menclatural types that were published prior to and independently from
other collections or institutions are always considered separate spec- those of the Special-purpose Committee on DNA Sequences as Types
imens (duplicates) even if they are clearly labelled as being part of a (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A), which should be consulted as alterna-
single specimen (e.g. “part 1 of 2”, “part 2 of 2”).” tives. The latter set of proposals is much more comprehensive in terms
Prop. Q (145 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706) Add a new of necessary amendments to provisions throughout the Code, some of
paragraph to Art. 8 with a Note and two Examples: which are not accounted for by the set including Prop. B. While there

are no restrictions on the organisms covered by this set of proposals, proposal with some amending to better account for these issues
those of the Committee would effectively apply only to microalgae should vote “ed.c.”
and microfungi, and while the types involved could only be based on Prop. P would add a new Note to account for a hypothetical case
nuclear DNA, no such restriction appears in the Committee’s proposals. that appears to be counter-intuitive and of which no examples have
Prop C would expand the treatment of what constitutes a nomen- been provided.
clatural type for the name of a species or infraspecific taxon, which is Prop. Q would add a new Article defining a specimen as it
currently mentioned only parenthetically and partially in Art. 8.1. applies to fossil-taxa, together with a Note and two Examples. Spec-
Prop. D is part of a set of proposals alternative to Prop. B provid- imens of fossil-taxa have important distinctions from those of non-
ing for the future valid publication of names of microscopic algae or fossils that are not adequately covered by Art. 8.2. These additions
microfungi with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. seek to better accommodate the needs of palaeobotanists. The No-
A). Prop. D should be amended to delete “effectively published” menclature Committee for Fossils supports Prop. Q (votes 12 : 0 : 0).
from the added text. A DNA sequence serving as type does not need Prop. R would incorporate the definition of the term “admix-
to be effectively published; neither do specimens and illustrations. ture”, now in the Glossary, in a new Article. Whereas in the Glossary
Those who support the overall set of proposals but favour this amend- this is considered to be “especially a minor ingredient”, the new Ar-
ment should vote “ed.c.” The Nomenclature Committee for Algae ticle would definitively state that an admixture “is a minor ingredi-
does not support Prop. D (votes 0 : 15 : 1). ent”. While this difference in meaning from the Glossary version
Prop. E suggests an alternative wording to Art. 8.2, with no de- may have unforeseen implications for some groups, those who think
tectable change in its meaning. Those who find the proposed wording this would make a useful addition should vote accordingly.
preferable should vote accordingly.
Prop. F is discussed further under Prop. R. However, the addi- Recommendation 8A
tion of “but see Art. 9.14” appears to suggest that a type specimen Prop. A (104 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383) Amend Rec. 8A.2 as
may consist of more than one species or infraspecific taxon, disre- follows (deleted text in strikethrough):
garding admixtures, but as Art. 9.14 indicates, such a preparation “8A.2. When an illustration is designated as the type of a name
cannot serve as a type specimen. under Art. 40.5, the collection data of the illustrated material should
Prop. G seeks to improve the wording of the second sentence of Art. be given (see also Rec. 38D.2).”
8.2 to better reflect reality, because some combinations (e.g. one part of Prop. B (027 – Gnanasekaran & Arisdason in Taxon 69: 1380)
one organism, multiple larger organisms) found on specimens are not Amend Rec. 8A.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
covered by the current wording. The new Article it references, pertaining strikethrough):
solely to specimens of fossil-taxa, is discussed in Prop. Q. The Nomen- “8A.4. When a single specimen designated as type
clature Committee for Fossils supports Prop. G (votes 12 : 0 : 0). holotype, lectotype, neotype, or epitype is mounted as multiple
Prop. H would clarify the concept of a gathering, to better de- preparations, this should be stated in the protologue publication con-
scribe the situation as it pertains to fossils, which differs from that taining the type designation, and the preparations appropriately
of non-fossils. The Nomenclature Committee for Fossils supports labelled.”
Prop. H (votes 12 : 0 : 0). Prop. C (095 – Renner in Taxon 70: 1380) Add a new Rec. 8A.5:
Prop. I would add to the definition of gathering in the footnote to “8A.5. When the type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a
Art. 8.2, emphasizing that not all parts of a gathering may be similarly name of a species or infraspecific taxon is an assembled nuclear ge-
labelled. No problems from this addition are foreseen. nome or informative parts thereof, the original or typifying
Prop. J suggests corrections to Art. 8 Ex. 3, considering it to rep- author(s) should provide detailed information on the source of the
resent valid publication, and would be automatically referred to the material that gave rise to the genome and, in the case of a holotype,
Editorial Committee. The corrections are supported by a proposed explain why at least one specimen cannot be preserved and why for-
new Note in Art. 38 (see Art. 38 Prop. A). mal naming of the taxon is nevertheless needed.”
Prop. K makes the opposite interpretation to Prop. J on the status Prop. D (096 – Renner in Taxon 70: 1381) Add a new Rec. 8A.6:
of Art. 8 Ex. 3, considering it not to represent valid publication, and “8A.6. When publishing the name of a new species or infraspe-
would also be automatically referred to the Editorial Committee. It is cific taxon with an assembled nuclear genome or informative parts
supported by amendments to Art. 9 and 40 (see Art. 9 Prop. K). thereof as the type, authors should document potentially diagnostic
Prop. L would add a new Example to show that an apparent col- characters of the taxon as completely as possible.”
lecting number does not necessarily denote the same gathering. It Prop. E (006 – Singh Deo & Majumdar in Taxon 69: 625) Add a
would be automatically referred to the Editorial Committee. new paragraph to Rec. 8A:
Prop. M would extensively reword Art. 8.3 and its footnote for “8A.n. For bryophytes (Marchantiophyta, Bryophyta, and An-
various reasons explained in the text accompanying the proposal. thocerotophyta), dissected parts of the holotype specimen such as
Those who find the new wording to be an improvement should vote leaves, anatomical sections, and fertile parts including sex organs
accordingly. should be preserved permanently on labelled glass microscope slides
Prop. N is a necessary corollary to Prop. H, and would account and kept together with the holotype.”
for the concept of a duplicate not applying to fossils. The Nomencla- Prop. F (028 – Katagiri & Majumdar in Taxon 69: 1381) Add a
ture Committee for Fossils supports Prop. N (votes 12 : 0 : 0). new paragraph to Rec. 8A:
Prop. O would eliminate from consideration as duplicates cer- “8A.n. The unauthorized division of a type specimen should be
tain parts extracted from herbarium specimens for specific purposes, prevented to avoid a loss of the type specimen. Such action most
but it would leave the status of some other potentially removed parts, likely complicates the work of future generations and the resulting re-
such as plant fragments (e.g. “kleptotypes”) or seeds and other prop- duced collections may give a misleading concept of the species.
agules (in seed herbaria), open to question. Those who support the When found, such “kleptotype” specimens should not be destroyed

but preserved as duplicates. Formal notification of the existence and “9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is
location of these specimens should also be published.” the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated
Prop. G (146 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706) Add a new designated by the author(s) in the protologue as the nomenclatural
paragraph to Rec. 8A: type or (b) used by the author(s) in preparing the protologue when
“8A.n1. If a specimen is prepared on a microscope slide, it is no type was indicated designated. As long as the holotype is extant, it
strongly recommended that its location be indicated by means of fixes the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).”
England Finder reference (Graticules Ltd. in J. Sci. Instrum. 39: Prop. B (029 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1382) Add a
250. 1962; Riding in Palynology 45(S1): 92–93. 2021) or equivalent new Example after Art. 9.1:
unambiguous reference (e.g. single-grain mounts or permanent ink “Ex. n. In the protologue of Calycanthus praecox L. (Sp. Pl.,
circling; see Art. 8 Ex. n1).” ed. 2: 718. 1762), Linnaeus did not designate a type and cited only
Prop. H (147 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706) Add a new one element, an illustration by Kaempfer (Amoen. Exot. Fasc.: 879.
paragraph to Rec. 8A: 1712); he also stated that the plant was unknown to him (“Ignota
“8A.n2. In the case of palaeopalynology, it is recommended that mihi”). This is evidence establishing that Linnaeus, when preparing
at least a subsample of rock or sediment or residue from which the the protologue, used only Kaempfer’s illustration, which must there-
type was selected be deposited in the public collection along with fore be accepted as the holotype.”
the type, thereby permitting future preparations that could interpret Prop. C (330 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art. 9.1
or replace degraded type material.” as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
Prop. I (150 – Bokil in Taxon 71: 707) Add a new paragraph to “9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is
Rec. 8A: the one specimen, or illustration (but see Art. 40.4), or DNA se-
“8A.n. Authors describing new taxa for which distinguishing quence (see Art. X.1) either (a) indicated by the author(s) as the no-
characters are not clearly visible to the naked eye should provide ac- menclatural type or (b) used by the author(s) when no type was
curate drawings or microphotographs of those characters or paste dis- indicated. As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the application
sected parts onto the type specimens.” of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would make a useful correc- Prop. D (366 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157) Amend Art. 9.1 as
tion to Rec. 8A.2. follows (new text in bold):
Prop. B would extend the application of Rec. 8A.4 from holo- “9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is
types to later-designated types, which seems logical. the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated
Prop. C and D are part of a set of proposals (with Art. 8 Prop. B by the author(s) as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author(s)
and Art. 40 Prop. J) relating to the acceptance of DNA sequences as when no type was indicated. A single specimen or illustration cited
nomenclatural types. Their acceptance is dependent on the outcome in the protologue of a name of a new taxon published on or after
of this set of proposals or the alternatives of the Special-purpose 1 January 1958 and before 1 January 1990 is the holotype. As
Committee on DNA Sequences as Types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name con-
A). See comments under Art. 8 Prop. B. cerned (but see Art. 9.15).”
Prop. E would create a recommendation on the curation of bryo- Prop. E (367 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157) If Prop. 366 [Art.
phyte specimens. The Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes com- 9 Prop. D] is rejected, amend Art. 9.1 as follows (new text in bold):
ments that (1) keeping microscope slides physically together with a “9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is
specimen is bad practice: it is bad for the microscope slide as well as the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated
for the specimen; (2) microscope slides only last a few years, and the by the author(s) as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author(s)
tissues start to deteriorate immediately, so making “permanent” slides when no type was indicated. Except as provided in Art. 9.1(b), a
does nothing for preserving the specimen; and (3) even if the proposal single specimen or illustration cited in the protologue, without
was more practical, it might be better suited to herbarium procedures or the use of the word “type” or “holotype” or one of their equiva-
loan agreements than to a nomenclatural Code. The Committee for lents, is not the holotype. As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes
Bryophytes does not support Prop. E (votes 2 : 9 : 4). the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15).”
Prop. F would add a new Recommendation. Those who feel this Prop. F (008 – Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 627) Convert Art.
to represent sound advice that should be included in the Code should 9 Note 1 to an Article and amend it as follows (new text in bold, de-
vote accordingly. leted text in strikethrough):
Prop. G and H provide new Recommendations on the curation “9.1bis. Any designation of the type made by the original au-
of specimens of fossil-taxa. These additions support the needs of pa- thor(s), if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication
laeobotanists. The Nomenclature Committee for Fossils supports of the name of the taxon in the protologue, is final (but see Art.
Prop. G (votes 12 : 0 : 0) and Prop. H (votes 12 : 0 : 0). 9.11, 9.15, and 9.16). Mention of a single specimen or gathering
Prop. I attempts to promote better preparation and depiction of or illustration does not by itself constitute designation of the holo-
type specimens so as to reduce the need for future destructive han- type (but see Art. 40.3 for names published on or after 1 January
dling of such specimens. While the aims of this proposal may be 1958). However, if there is evidence in the protologue or elsewhere
worthwhile, the wording needs some editorial adjustment to make it to establish that only one (either cited or uncited) specimen or
clear that the phrase “drawings or microphotographs of those charac- illustration was used (Art. 9.1(b)) and no additional, uncited spec-
ters” pertains to the type specimens. imens or illustrations (which may have been lost or destroyed)
could have been used, that specimen or illustration must be ac-
Article 9 cepted as the holotype. If the author used only one specimen or illus-
Prop. A (007 – Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 627) Amend Art. 9.1 tration, either cited or uncited, when preparing the account of the new
as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): taxon, it must be accepted as the holotype, but the possibility that the

author used additional, uncited specimens or illustrations (which may “9.n. If a designation an indication of holotype, designation of
have been lost or destroyed) must always be considered. If a name of a lectotype, neotype, or epitype, or other citation of an isotype, syn-
new taxon is validly published solely by reference to a previously pub- type, or paratype made in the protologue of the name of a taxon is
lished description or diagnosis, the same considerations apply to spec- later found to contain errors (e.g. in locality, date, collector, collecting
imens or illustrations used by the author(s) of that description or number, herbarium code, specimen identifier, or citation of an illus-
diagnosis (see Art. 7.8; but see Art. 7.9).” tration), these errors are to be corrected provided that the intent of
Editorially amend Art. 9 Ex. 1 and 2 as follows (changes not the original author(s) (or designating or citing author(s), if applica-
shown) and add a new Example: ble) is not changed. However, omissions of required information un-
“Ex. 1. When Tuckerman published Opegrapha oulocheila der Art. 40.6–40.8 (in the case of a holotype) or Art. 7.11 and 9.21–
Tuck. (Lich. Calif.: 32. 1866) he referred to “the single specimen, 9.23 (in the case of a lectotype, neotype, or epitype) are not
from Schweinitz’s herbarium (Herb. Acad. Sci. Philad.) before me”. correctable.”
Even though the term “type” or its equivalent was not used in the pro- Prop. J (165 – Lin & Sun in Taxon 71: 1326) Move Art. 9.2 to
tologue, Tuckerman’s statement is evidence to establish that he used after Art. 9.23 and amend it as follows (new text in bold, deleted text
only that specimen (in PH barcode 00007529), which is therefore the in strikethrough) and add new Examples:
holotype.” “9.n. If a designation of holotype, lectotype, neotype, or epi-
“Ex. 2. In the protologue of Coronilla argentea L. (Sp. Pl.: 743. type made in the protologue publication containing the type desig-
1753), Linnaeus cited an illustration by Alpini (Pl. Exot.: 16. 1627) nation of the name of a taxon is later found to contain errors (e.g. in
and did not designate a type. Although no uncited specimens or illus- locality, date, collector, collecting number, herbarium code herbar-
trations are known to exist, making Alpini’s illustration the only ex- ium or collection or institution or its abbreviation, specimen iden-
tant element of original material, it is not the holotype because it tifier, or citation of an illustration), these errors are to be corrected
cannot be established that Linnaeus used only this one element when provided that the intent of the original author(s) is not changed (see
preparing the protologue; he rarely cited specimens and could have also Art. F.5.8). However, omissions of required information under
used a specimen that was subsequently lost or destroyed (he is known Art. 7.11, 9.21–9.23, 40.6–40.8, and F.5.4 are not correctable.”
to have discarded specimens). Moreover, the mention of the illustra- “Ex. n1. The name Cremanthodium campanulatum var. flavi-
tion does not by itself constitute designation of the holotype. Alpini’s dum S. W. Liu & T. N. Ho (in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 39: 558. 2001)
illustration was designated as the lectotype of C. argentea by Greuter was validly published with the holotype designated as “Rock 17919
(in Ann. Mus. Goulandris 1: 44. 1973).” (holotype, here designated, GH)”, but no specimen with this collect-
“Ex. 2bis. In the protologue of Stellaria radians L. (Sp. Pl.: 422. ing number exists in GH. However, a specimen of J. F. Rock 17919
1753), Linnaeus cited no specimens, but he did cite a single illustra- with the author’s written label exists in A and matches all other details
tion (“Amm. ruth. 83. t. 10.”) referring to species number 83 on page in the protologue. Therefore, the erroneous herbarium in the designa-
64 and “Tab. X” in Amman (Stirp. Rar. Ruth. 1739). The Amman il- tion of holotype is to be corrected.”
lustration is not the holotype because, as was commonly the case, “Ex. n2. The name Capparis trichocarpa B. S. Sun (in Acta
Linnaeus also used at least one uncited specimen in preparing the Phytotax. Sin. 9: 113. 1964) was validly published with a gathering
protologue: Gmelin s.n., Herb. Linn. No. 584.3 (LINN), which was “C. W. Wang 73796” in PE designated as the type, but in the herbar-
designated by Lazkov (in Taxon 53: 1053. 2004) as the lectotype.” ium PE there are two duplicates of this gathering. Li & al. (in Bull.
Prop. G (363 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1156) Amend the second Bot. Res., Harbin 28: 265. 2008) designated one of these specimens
sentence of Art. 9 Note 1 as follows (deleted text in strikethrough): as the lectotype: “China. Yunnan: Fo-hai (= Menghai), alt. 1520 m,
“Note 1. […]. If the author used only one specimen or illustra- March 1936, C. W. Wang 73796 (lectotype, PE Herb. Bar Code
tion, either cited or uncited, when preparing the account of the new No. 00029137, designated here, PE!; isolectotype, PE!)”. However,
taxon, it must be accepted as the holotype, but the possibility that the collection date on the label of the lectotype specimen is May
the author used additional, uncited specimens or illustrations (which 1936. Therefore, the erroneous date in the designation of lectotype
may have been lost or destroyed) must always be considered. […].” is to be corrected.”
In addition, if Prop. 008 [Prop. F] is accepted, delete “(which “Ex. n3. The name Camellia drupifera Lour. (Fl. Cochinch.:
may have been lost or destroyed)” in the new Art. 9.1bis. 411. 1790) lacks original material. Ming & Bartholomew (in Wu
Prop. H (102 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383) Amend Art. 9.2 as & al., Fl. China 12: 411. 2007) designated a single specimen as the
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): neotype: “China. Guangxi: Liucheng Xian, Satang Forest Station in
“9.2. If a designation an indication of holotype under Art. 9.1 or cultivation, Jul 1956, Huang Tso-Chieh [Huang Zuo-Jie] 2042 (neo-
type under Art. 40 made in the protologue of the name of a taxon is type designated here, PE) based on the holotype of C. vietnamensis
later found to contain errors (e.g. in locality, date, collector, collecting T. C. Huang ex Hu (Acta Phytotax. Sin. 10: 138. 1965)”. However,
number, herbarium code, specimen identifier, or citation of an illustra- no specimen with this collecting number exists in PE. A specimen
tion), these errors are to be corrected provided that the intent of the collected by Huang Zuo-Jie with the collecting number 2043, anno-
original author(s) is not changed (and these errors do not prevent tated with “Camellia vietnamensis Hu et Huang” and “type” by Hu
valid publication of the name under Art. 40). However, omissions on 26 April 1963, was found in PE and matches all other details in
of required information under Art. 40.6–40.8 are not correctable.” the type designation. Therefore, the erroneous collecting number
If Prop. 007 [Prop. A] is adopted, “indication” should not re- in the designation of neotype is to be corrected.”
place “designation” and “indication of” should be inserted before Prop. K (376 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1169) Amend Art.
“type under Art. 40”. 9.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough) and add
Prop. I (103 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383) Move Art. 9.2 to the a new Article in Art. 40:
end of Art. 9 and amend it as follows (new text in bold, deleted text “9.2. If a designation of holotype (or indication of type under
in strikethrough): Art. 40) made in the protologue of the name of a taxon is later found

to contain errors (e.g. in locality, date, collector, collecting number, which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis
herbarium code, specimen identifier, or incorrect citation of an illus- validating the name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes)
tration), these errors are to be corrected provided that the intent of the of the name at its valid publication; and (d) the isotypes or isosyn-
original author(s) is not changed. However, omissions of required in- types1 of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen
formation under Art. 40.6–40.8 are not correctable.” by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the
“40.n. Except as expressly provided in this Code (e.g. Art. 9.14), author of the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9, and F.3.9).”
a name of a new taxon is not validly published if external evidence Prop. O (202 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 446) Reorder and reword
reveals that the internal evidence in the protologue failed to meet Art. 9.4 as follows and add a new Note:
the requirements for valid publication (i.e. Art. 32–45, F.4, F.5, and “9.4. Original material comprises the following elements: (a) the
H.9). For example, even if not apparent from the protologue, a name holotype and its isotypes; (b) other specimens cited in the protologue
of a new taxon is not validly published if the indicated type consists of the name (i.e. syntypes and paratypes) and isosyntypes1; (c) any il-
of more than one gathering, or for names published on or after lustrations published as part of the protologue; and (d) those speci-
1 January 2007, is an illustration (except as permitted by Art. 41.5), mens and illustrations (both unpublished and published prior to
or if the purported validating description or diagnosis in a referenced publication of the protologue) that the author associated with the
earlier publication is inadequate under Art. 38. In contrast, errors in taxon, and that were available to the author prior to, or at the time
the indication of the type described in Art. 9.2 do not prevent the valid of, preparation of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with anal-
publication of the name of a new taxon. However, omissions of the ysis (Art. 38.7 and 38.8) validating the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9,
required information to validly publish a name (e.g. Art. 40.6–40.8) and F.3.9).”
are not correctable.” “Note n. Original material under Art. 9.4(a) or (b) need not be
Prop. L (030 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383) Amend Art. 9.3 as fol- seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): or the author of the name.”
“9.3. (a) A lectotype is one specimen or illustration designated Prop. P (255 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 683) Amend Art.
from the original material (Art. 9.4) as the nomenclatural type, in 9.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
conformity with Art. 9.11 and 9.12 9.3(b), if one or more of the fol- “9.4. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises
lowing conditions is met: (1) the name was published without a the following elements: (a) those specimens and illustrations (both
holotype;, or if (2) the holotype or previously designated lectotype unpublished and published prior to publication of the protologue)
is lost or destroyed;, or if (3) a type is found to belong to more than that the author were associated with the taxon by, and that were
one taxon (see also Art. 9.14); or (4) the requirements of Art. available to, (1) the publishing author(s) prior to, or at the time of,
9.17 or Art. 9.19 permitting designation of a lectotype are met. publication of the protologue or (2) other authors(s) to whom
For sanctioned names (Art. F.3), a lectotype may be selected desig- the description or diagnosis may have been ascribed (or
nated from among elements associated with either or both the proto- unequivocally associated) prior to, or at the time of, preparation
logue and the sanctioning treatment (Art. F.3.9). of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with analysis (Art. 38.7
(b) If the requirements in Art. 9.3(a) are met, a lectotype (or, and 38.8) validating the name; (b) any illustrations published as part
if permissible under Art. 9.8, a neotype as a substitute for it) may of the protologue; (c) the holotype and those specimens which even if
be designated. Designation is effective only if it is made in an not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the
effective publication (Art. 29–31) and conforms with the require- name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name
ments of Art. 7.11, 9.12, and, if applicable, 9.22, 9.23, and F.5.4.” at its valid publication; and (d) the isotypes or isosyntypes of the
In addition, delete Art. 9.11; at the end of Art. 9.14 and 9.19 and name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either
after “lectotypification” in Art. 9.17 add “(see Art. 9.3(b))”. the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of
Prop. M (009 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 69: 628) Amend Art. the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9, and F.3.9).”
9.4(a) and (b) (new text in bold): Prop. Q (256 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 683) Add the fol-
“9.4. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises lowing new Note after Art. 9.4:
the following elements: (a) those specimens and illustrations (both “Note n. Under Art. 46, the author(s) of a name are either the
unpublished and published prior to publication of the protologue; il- publishing author(s) (or at least one of them) or the person(s) to
lustrations of fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) that the author associ- whom the name is ascribed (or unequivocally associated). A speci-
ated with the taxon, and that were available to the author prior to, men or illustration need not be seen by either the publishing
or at the time of, preparation of the description, diagnosis, or illustra- author(s) or the person(s) to whom the description or diagnosis is as-
tion with analysis (Art. 38.7 and 38.8) validating the name; (b) any cribed (or unequivocally associated) in order to be original material
illustrations published as part of the protologue (fossils excepted: under Art. 9.4(c) or 9.4(d).”
see Art. 8.5); …” Prop. R (361 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1155) Add the following
Prop. N (201 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 445) Amend Art. 9.4 as fol- sentence at the end of Art. 9.4:
lows (new text in bold): “9.4. […]. If an author cites an element with an expression of
“9.4. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises doubt (e.g. the citation of a specimen or illustration with a question
the following elements: (a) those uncited specimens and uncited il- mark), the element may be treated as a syntype (if it is a specimen),
lustrations (both unpublished and published prior to publication of an element under Art 9.4(a) (if it is an illustration) or not as original
the protologue) that the author associated with the taxon, and that material. Decision on the status of such an element is to be effected by
were available to the author prior to, or at the time of, preparation means of the appropriate type designation.”
of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with analysis (Art. 38.7 Prop. S (352 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1151) Delete Art.
and 38.8) validating the name; (b) any illustrations published as part 7.8 and convert Art. 9 Note 3 into an Article as follows (new text in
of, or cited in, the protologue; (c) the holotype and those specimens bold, deleted text in strikethrough):

“7.8. A name of a new taxon validly published solely by refer- “Ex. n. Lavalle (in Darwiniana 41: 68. 2003) cited “SINTIPOS”
ence to a previously and effectively published description or diagno- (syntypes) of the name Marattia cicutifolia Kaulf. (Enum. Filic.: 32.
sis (Art. 38.1(a)) (and not by a reproduction of such a description or 1824). However, they cannot be syntypes because they were not cited
diagnosis) is to be typified by an element selected from the entire in the protologue of that name, where Kaulfuss cited only the locality
context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validat- “Habitat in Brasilia”. Instead, they are original material because they
ing author has definitely designated a different type, but not by an el- satisfy the definition of that term as given in Art. 9.4(a).”
ement explicitly excluded by the validating author (see also Prop. X (034 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1384) Amend
Art. 7.9).” Art. 9.6 as follows (new text in bold):
“Note 3. 9.n. For names falling under Art. 7.8 a name of a new “9.6. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when
taxon validly published solely by reference to a previously and ef- there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simulta-
fectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)) (and neously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note
not by a reproduction of such a description or diagnosis), only el- 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof (see also Art. 40
ements from the entire context of the validating description or diag- Note 2), is considered citation of the included specimens.”
nosis are considered as original material (but not including Prop. Y (035 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1384) Add a
elements explicitly excluded by the validating author), unless the new first sentence to Art. 9 Ex. 6 (new text in bold, deleted text in
validating author has definitely designated a different type.” strikethrough):
Prop. T (353 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1151) Amend Art. “Ex. 6. In the protologue of Campanula pulla L. (Sp. Pl.: 163.
9 Note 3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): 1753), Linnaeus cited “Burs. IV. 21”, referring to a specimen in
“Note 3. For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from the Burser Herbarium (UPS), in addition to an illustration
the original material is determined under Art. 9.4 as if the author in Bauhin (Prodr.: 35. 1620). This single specimen is a syntype be-
context of the validating description or diagnosis are considered as cause it was cited in the protologue and there is no holotype. In
original material had validly published the name by publishing Similarly, in the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (Sp. Pl.: 539.
the description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has defi- 1753), two specimens are cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and
nitely designated a different type.” γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These specimens, held in
Prop. U (355 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152) Amend Art. the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.”
9 Note 3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): Prop. Z (105 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383) Amend Art. 9.6 as fol-
“Note 3. For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
the context of the validating description are considered as original “9.6. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when
material. However, if unless the validating author has definitely des- there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simulta-
ignated a different element as the type in the protologue (indication neously designated indicated in the protologue as types (see also
or usage by the validating author is insufficient to establish a Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof,
type), the original material is determined in accordance with is considered citation of the included specimens.”
Art. 9.4 without regard to the previous sentence.” Conforming changes are needed in Art. 9.7, the Examples and
Prop. V (356 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152) Replace Note under Art. 9.6 and 9.7, and Rec. 9A.1.
“validating” with “publishing” in Art. 9 Note 3 as follows (new text Prop. AA (011 – Hassemer & al. in Taxon 69: 630) Add the fol-
in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): lowing text to Art. 9.8 (new text in bold):
“Note 3. For names falling under Art. 7.8, only elements from “9.8. A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as
the context of the validating description are considered as original nomenclatural type if no original material exists, or as long as it is
material, unless the validating publishing author has definitely des- missing (see also Art. 9.16 and 9.19(c)). A neotype designated on
ignated a different type.” or after 1 January 2025 must be a specimen, except for names
If all of the foregoing proposals [Prop. 352, 353, 355 and of non-fossil microscopic algae and non-fossil microfungi, for
356 (Prop. S–V) and Prop. 354 (Rec. 9A Prop. D)] are accepted, which the type may be an effectively published illustration if
Art. 7.8 and Art. 9 Note 3 will be deleted, and a new Article in Art. there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it
9 would read as follows: is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features
“9.n. For a name of a new taxon validly published solely by ref- attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.”
erence to a previously and effectively published description or diag- Prop. BB (031 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383) Amend Art. 9.8 as
nosis (Art. 38.1(a)) (and not by a reproduction of such a description follows:
or diagnosis), original material is determined under Art. 9.4 as if “9.8. (a) A neotype is one specimen or illustration designated to
the author of the validating description or diagnosis had validly pub- serve as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art. 9.8(b), if one
lished the name by publishing the description or diagnosis (but not or more of the following conditions is met: (1) no original material
including elements explicitly excluded by the publishing author). exists, or as long as it is missing; (2) the holotype or previously des-
However, if the publishing author has designated a different element ignated lectotype has been lost or destroyed and it can be shown that
as the type in the protologue (indication or usage by the validating au- all the other original material differs taxonomically from the lost or
thor is insufficient to establish a type), the original material is deter- destroyed type; in this case, a neotype may be designated only to pre-
mined in accordance with Art. 9.4 without regard to the previous serve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art.
sentence.” 9.18); or (3) the requirements of Art. 9.17 (see also Art. 9.14) or
Prop. W (010 – Prado & al. in Taxon 69: 629) Add a new Note Art. 9.19 permitting designation of a neotype are met.
and a new Example after Art. 9.6: (b) If the requirements in Art. 9.8(a) are met, a neotype may be
“Note 4bis. Specimens not cited in the protologue that are orig- designated. Designation is effective only if it is made in an effective
inal material according to Art. 9.4(a) are not syntypes.” publication (Art. 29–31) and conforms with the requirements of Art.

7.11 and, if applicable, 9.22, 9.23, and F.5.4. A lectotype always lectotype, or neotype that the epitype supports is explicitly cited
takes precedence over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 9.8(a) (see Art. 9.20).”
(2) and 9.19(c).” Prop. FF (107 – Lírio & al. in Taxon 70: 1384) Insert a new Ex-
In addition, delete Art. 9.13 and 9.16; at the end of Art. 9.14 and ample following Art. 9.9
9.19 and after “neotypification” in Art. 9.17 add “(see Art. 9.8(b))”; “Ex. 9bis. Martínez-Laborde & al. (in Phytotaxa 220: 96. 2015)
and in Art. 9.18 make conforming changes, i.e. change “selected” to designated a specimen with pistillate flowers (Balansa 2342,
“designated”. P00080325) as the lectotype of Hennecartia omphalandra J. Poiss.
Prop. CC (036 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1385) Amend Art. 9.8 as (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 32: 41. 1885). Although fruits and stami-
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): nate flowers are important diagnostic characters for this species, the
“9.8. A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected designated vegetative organs and pistillate flowers in the lectotype are also
to serve as nomenclatural type if (a) the name was published with- clearly diagnostic. Therefore, according to Art. 9.9, an epitype is
out any no original material exists, or as long as it if the original ma- not necessary because the type can be critically identified in order
terial is missing lost or destroyed, (b) the previously designated to precisely apply the name to a taxon.”
neotype is lost or destroyed, (c) the previously designated neotype Prop. GG (108 – Steudel in Taxon 70: 1385) Add a sentence to
is found to belong to more than one taxon (see also Art. 9.14), or Art. 9.9 (new text in bold):
(d) the conditions in (see also Art. 9.16 or and 9.19(c) are met).” “9.9. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as
Conforming amendments to other Articles: amend Art. 9.13 to an interpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously
use the wording of clause (a) as proposed here; in Art. 9.13, 9.16, designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly
and 9.18, replace “selected” with “designated”. published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically
Prop. DD (032 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383) Amend Art. 9.9 as identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a
follows: taxon. More than one epitype may be designated if the identifica-
“9.9. (a) An epitype is one specimen or illustration designated to tion of a taxon needs two or more characters that cannot be
serve as an interpretative type, in conformity with Art. 9.9(b), if ei- shown in a single specimen. Designation of an epitype is not ef-
ther (1) the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, fected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype sup-
or all original material associated with a validly published name, is ports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).”
demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for pur- Prop. HH (331 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art.
poses of the precise application of the name to a taxon or (2) the re- 9.9 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
quirements of Art. 9.17 (see also Art. 9.14) or Art. 9.9(c) “9.9. An epitype is a specimen, or illustration, or (solely for
permitting designation of an epitype are met. names with a DNA sequence as a holotype) a DNA sequence.
(b) If the requirements in Art. 9.9(a) are met, an epitype may be An epitype is selected to serve as an interpretative type when the
designated. Designation is effective only if it is made in an effective holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original
publication (Art. 29–31) and meets all of the following conditions: material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably
(1) the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epitype supports is ex- ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the pre-
plicitly cited; (2) the designation conforms with the requirements of cise application of the name to a taxon. Designation of an epitype is
Art. 7.11 and, if applicable, 9.23 and F.5.4; and (3) the herbarium, not effected unless the holotype, lectotype, or neotype that the epi-
collection, or institution in which the epitype is conserved is speci- type supports is explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).”
fied or, if the epitype is a published illustration, a full and direct bib- Prop. II (151 – Prado & al. in Taxon 71: 708) Add a new Article
liographic reference (Art. 41.5) to it is provided. with a new Example after Art. 9.9 and a new entry to the Glossary:
(c) The author who first designates an epitype must be followed; “9.9bis. A typotype is a specimen from which a type illustration
a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is was prepared. It need not be part of the original material as defined by
lost or destroyed (see also Art. 9.17). A lectotype or neotype sup- Art. 9.4, and it may be selected as an epitype (Art. 9.9) to support the
ported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. type illustration.”
9.19 or, in the case of a neotype, in accordance with Art. 9.18. If it “Ex. n. In the protologue of Aristolochia arborescens L. (Sp. Pl.:
can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonom- 960. 1753), Linnaeus cited a single illustration, “Aristolochia polyr-
ically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be rhizos, auriculatis foliis, Virginiana” (in Plukenet, Phytographia:
proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also t. 78, fig. 1. 1691), which is original material and was selected as
Art. 57).” the lectotype by Reveal & Jarvis (in Taxon 58: 978. 2009). The illus-
In addition, delete Art. 9.20 and 9.21; at the end of Art. 9.14 and tration was drawn from a specimen housed in the Sloane Herbarium
after “epitypification” in Art. 9.17 add “(see Art. 9.9(b))”. in BM (Herb. Sloane 95: 105). The specimen is a typotype because it
Prop. EE (037 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1385) Amend Art. 9.9 as was used to prepare the illustration, but it is not part of the original
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): material because it was not available to Linnaeus.”
“9.9. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected desig- In the Glossary:
nated to serve as an interpretative type when if (a) the holotype, “typotype. A specimen from which a type illustration was pre-
lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original material pared. It need not be part of the original material as defined by Art.
associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambigu- 9.4, and it may be selected to serve as an epitype (Art. 9.9) to support
ous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise ap- the type illustration.”
plication of the name to a taxon, (b) the previously designated Prop. JJ (365 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157) Amend Art. 9.10 and
epitype is lost or destroyed, or (c) the previously designated epi- Art. 9 Note 6 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
type is found to belong to more than one taxon (see also Art. “9.10. The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1, 9.3 and
9.14). Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the holotype, 9.5–9.9) as denoting a type, in a sense other than that in which it is

so defined, is treated as an error to be corrected (for example, the use otherwise an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a
of the term lectotype to denote what is in fact a neotype). The use of syntype or isosyntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype, or isosyn-
the term holotype on or after 1 January 2001 to denote a lectotype is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the, or oth-
type for a single specimen cited in a protologue of a name of a erwise a paratype if such exists. If none of the above specimens
new taxon published prior to 1 January 1958 is to be corrected, exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited speci-
notwithstanding the requirement of Art. 7.11 to include the mens and cited and uncited illustrations that comprise the remaining
phrase “designated here”.” original material, if such exist.”
“Note 6. Except as noted in Art. 9.10, a A misused term may be Prop. OO (306 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950) Amend Art.
corrected only if the requirements of Art. 7.11 (for correction to 9.14 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for correction “9.14. When a A type (herbarium sheet or equivalent prepara-
to holotype) does not apply.” tion) that is later found to contain contains parts belonging to more
In addition, add “(but see Art. 9.10)” at the end of Art. 7.11. than one taxon (see Art. 9.11) must nevertheless be accepted (sub-
Prop. KK (070 – Jocou in Taxon 70: 453) Add a new Example ject to Art. 9.19 and 9.20), but may be further narrowed (by way
after Art. 9 Note 6: of a subsequent typification) the name must remain attached to the
“Ex. n. Bohley & al. (in Syst. Bot. 42: 138. 2017) cited the spec- part (specimen as defined in Art. 8.2) that corresponds most nearly
imen Balansa 2263 (G) as the “type” and “holotype” of Cypselea with the original description or diagnosis.”
meziana K. Müll. (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 42(Beibl. 97): 72. 1908). How- Prop. PP (307 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950) Add a new
ever, this use of the term holotype cannot be corrected to lectotype sentence to Art. 9.14 (new text in bold):
because the requirement of Art. 7.11 to include, on or after 1 January “9.14. When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation)
2001, the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent was not met. As a contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the
consequence, designation of a lectotype was not achieved until Jocou name must remain attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art.
& Minué (in Phytotaxa 461: 69. 2020) wrote “Lectotype (designated 8.2) that corresponds most nearly with the original description or di-
here)” selecting a specimen from the same Balansa gathering in P.” agnosis. However, on or after 1 January 2026, a type that remains
Prop. LL (012 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 630) Modify mixed must be narrowed to a part that preserves the traditional
Art. 9.12 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): and current usage of the name insofar as possible.”
“9.12. In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if Prop. QQ (309 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950) Add a new
such exists, or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype if such exists. sentence at the end of Art. 9.14 and delete Art. 9.19 clause (b) (new
If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype is extant, the lectotype must be text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
chosen from among the paratypes if such exist. If none of the above “9.14. When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation)
specimens exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the illus- contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the
trations and uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations name must remain attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art.
that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.” 8.2) that corresponds most nearly with the original description or di-
Prop. MM (166 – Meneguzzo & al. in Taxon 71: 1327) Insert a agnosis. Any later designation from this type contrary to this rule
new Note and two new Examples after Art. 9.12 as follows: has no standing.”
“Note n. Upon designation of a lectotype, the remaining type “9.19. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and
specimens among the original material retain their former category F.5.4) a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–9.13
of type (except duplicates of the lectotype, i.e. isolectotypes). They must be followed, but that choice is superseded if (a) the holotype
should be cited as “remaining syntype(s)”, “remaining iso- or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is found to
syntype(s)”, or “remaining paratype(s)”.” exist; the choice may also be superseded if it can be shown that (b)
“Ex. n. Cleistes castaneoides Hoehne (in Arq. Bot. Estado São it is contrary to Art. 9.14 or (c) it is in serious conflict with the proto-
Paulo 1: 42. 1939) was published with two syntypes, Hoehne s.n. logue […].”
in SP accession No. 28697 and Luederwaldt s.n. in SP accession Prop. RR (310 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950) Add a new
No. 28995. Meneguzzo & Van den Berg (in Willdenowia 50: 140. Note after Art. 9.14:
2020) designated Hoehne s.n. as the lectotype of the name, and the “Note n. Article 9.14 does not apply to illustrations. An illustra-
other type specimen, Luederwaldt s.n., is categorized as a remaining tion that contains parts belonging to more than one taxon cannot be a
syntype.” type, and any prior indication or designation of such an illustration as
“Ex. n. Vanilla organensis Rolfe (in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 32: 452. a type is not effective unless the prior indication or designation lim-
1896) was described based on the syntype gatherings Gardner ited the type to one taxon.”
632, Miers s.n., Glaziou 11620, and Glaziou 14320. Soto Arenas Prop. SS (038 – Chakrabarty & al. in Taxon 69: 1386) Add a
& Cribb (in Lankesteriana 9: 385. 2010) designated Gardner 632 new Example under Art. 9.17:
in K-L as the lectotype. Duplicates of this gathering deposited in “Ex. n. Brooker & al. (in Boland & al., Forest Trees Australia,
GH, NY, and US are isolectotypes. All the specimens of the remain- ed. 4: 314. 1984) designated a first-step lectotype for the name Euca-
ing gatherings in several other herbaria are categorized as remaining lyptus oreades R. T. Baker (in Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 24:
syntypes.” 596. 1900), fulfilling the requirements of Art. 7.11 by citing “Type:
Prop. NN (362 – Proćków & Proćków in Taxon 72: 1155) Near Lawson, New South Wales, Apr. 1899, R. T. Baker and H. G.
Amend Article 9.12 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in Smith.” No herbarium was specified, but this was not a requirement
strikethrough): in 1984 (see Art. 9.22). Bean (in Telopea 12: 316. 2009), noting that
“9.12. In lectotype designation, a part of the holotype (if it is R. T. Baker & H. G. Smith was a single gathering represented by five
taxonomically mixed) that is not in conflict with the validating specimens, one in K and four in NSW, designated the specimen
description or diagnosis must be chosen if such exists, or NSW325376 as the second-step lectotype.”

Prop. TT (311 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950) Amend Art. “9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and
9.17 as follows (new text in bold): F.5.4) an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be desig-
“9.17. A designation of a lectotype, neotype, or epitype (in each nated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed or a previously
case, excluding illustrations) that later is found to refer to a single designated epitype is ambiguous and an additional epitype needs
gathering but to more than one specimen must nevertheless be ac- to be designated for nomenclatural stability (see also Art. 9.17). A
cepted (subject to Art. 9.19 and 9.20), but may be further narrowed lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be superseded in
to a single one of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypi- accordance with Art. 9.19 or, in the case of a neotype, in accordance
fication, neotypification, or epitypification (see also Art. 9.14).” with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it sup-
Prop. UU (141 – Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704) Add a new Note after ports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies,
Art. 9.19: the name may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type
“Note n. Supersession is automatic if the holotype is found to ex- (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).”
ist. In all other cases, it is effected by designating a new lectotype, if Prop. AAA (315 – Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 952)
appropriate original material is available, or a neotype. Upon super- Amend Art. 9.20 as follows (new text in bold):
session, the earlier designated element ceases to be the type.” “9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and
Prop. VV (312 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 951) Amend Art. F.5.4) an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be desig-
9.19 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): nated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed (see also Art.
“9.19. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and 9.17). A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be super-
F.5.4) a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with the relevant rules seded in accordance with Art. 9.19 or, in the case of a neotype, in ac-
of Art. 9 9.11–9.13 must be followed, but that choice unless a new cordance with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the
replacement type is designated in conformity with the relevant type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor
rules of Art. 9. Any lectotype or neotype (other than a neotype 9.19 applies, the name may be proposed for conservation with a con-
under Art. 9.16) is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of served type if this will best serve nomenclatural stability (Art.
a neotype, any of the original material is found to exist; the choice 14.9; see also Art. 57).”
designation may also be superseded if it can be shown that […].” Prop. BBB (068 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 452) Amend Art. 9.21 as
Prop. WW (313 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 951) Amend follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
Art. 9.19 clause (c) as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in “9.21. Designation of an epitype is not effected achieved unless
strikethrough): the herbarium, collection, or institution in which the epitype is con-
“9.19. […] (c) it is in serious conflict with the protologue, in served is specified or, if the epitype is a published illustration, a full
which case an element that is not in serious conflict with the protolo- and direct bibliographic reference (Art. 41.5) to it is provided.”
gue is to be chosen designated; a lectotype may only be superseded Make conforming changes in Art. 9.9, 9.22 and 9.23.
by an a non-conflicting element of the original material that does not Prop. CCC (332 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art.
seriously conflict with the protologue, if such exists; if none exists 9.21 as follows (new text in bold):
it may be superseded by a neotype that does not seriously conflict “9.21. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the her-
with the protologue.” barium, collection, or institution in which the epitype is conserved
Prop. XX (314 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 951) Delete Art. is specified or, if the epitype is a published illustration, a full and di-
9 Ex. 15 (deleted text in strikethrough): rect bibliographic reference (Art. 41.5) to it is provided or, if the epi-
“Ex. 15. (b) Navarro & Rosúa (in Candollea 45: 584. 1990) des- type is a DNA sequence, both (a) the identifier issued for the
ignated a sheet in G-DC as lectotype of Teucrium gnaphalodes epitype sequence by a recognized online repository (see App. X
L’Hér. (Stirp. Nov.: 84. 1788), but this preparation contains more and Art. X.1) is cited, and (b) selected informative portions of
than one gathering and a heterogeneous mixture of more than one the epitype sequence are specified.”
species, not all of which matched L’Héritier’s diagnosis. Ferrer- Prop. DDD (089 – Nachychko in Taxon 70: 1378) Amend Art.
Gallego & al. (in Candollea 67: 38. 2012) superseded the previous 9.23 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
lectotype in choosing one of the specimens on the same preparation “9.23. On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification, neotypifi-
that corresponds most nearly with the original diagnosis.” cation, or epitypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon
Prop. YY (013 – Mazumdar & al. in Taxon 69: 631) Amend Art. is not effected unless indicated by use of the term “lectotypus”, “neo-
9.20 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): typus”, or “epitypus”, its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern
“9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and language, or abbreviations of these (see also Art. 7.11 and 9.10).”
F.5.4) an epitype must be followed;, but that choice is superseded Prop. EEE (014 – Lendemer in Taxon 69: 631) Add a new par-
if it is in serious conflict with the protologue, in which case an el- agraph to Article 9 as follows:
ement that is not in conflict with the protologue is to be chosen. A “9.24. On or after 1 January 2025, epitypification of a name of a
a different epitype may also be designated only if the original epitype species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless the author desig-
is lost or destroyed (see also Art. 9.17). A lectotype or neotype sup- nating the epitype states that the type being supported is “demonstra-
ported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. bly ambiguous” (or an equivalent).”
9.19 or, in the case of a neotype, in accordance with Art. 9.18. If it Prop. FFF (110 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 70: 1386) Add a
can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonom- new Note to Art. 9:
ically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be “Note n. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype irrespective
proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also of whether or not it is cited in the protologue or seen by the author(s)
Art. 57).” of the name. An isosyntype does not have to be seen by the
Prop. ZZ (109 – Steudel in Taxon 70: 1385) Amend Art. 9.20 as author(s) of the name; if it is cited in the protologue, it is instead a
follows (new text in bold): syntype (Art. 9.6). Duplicates of lectotypes, neotypes, and epitypes

are isolectotypes, isoneotypes, and isoepitypes, respectively, irre- citations involving isotypes, syntypes or paratypes. These latter do
spective of whether or not they were cited or seen by the typifying not involve corrections to nomenclatural acts and would therefore
author(s).” have no impact on the application of names.
Prop. GGG (303 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948) Add a Prop. J is similar to Prop. I, but would not include correction of
new Note to Art. 9: citations involving isotypes, syntypes or paratypes. Those who fa-
“Note n. Because a new combination, name at new rank or re- vour extending Art. 9.2 as it relates to lectotypes, neotypes or epi-
placement name is typified by the type of its basionym (Art. 7.3) or types should vote for one or the other of these proposals,
replaced synonym (Art. 7.4; but see Art. 7.5), the original material depending on whether or not they favour the additional, and arguably
is that of the basionym or replaced synonym. A lectotype may not unnecessary, expansion of Prop. I to cover isotype, syntype and para-
be designated from among elements cited or used by the author of type citations. The three Examples of Prop. J would be referred to the
the later name that are not original material, although such an element Editorial Committee.
may be designated as a neotype if no original material exists.” Prop. K would support the interpretation of Art. 8 Prop. K by
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals both modifying Art. 9.2 and adding a new Article under Art. 40.
seeking to make clearer the circumstances under which a holotype The latter Article, in permitting external evidence to override the in-
can exist. The use of “designated” vs. “indicated” would restore the ternal evidence present in the protologue, has the potential to be no-
usage of the 2012 Melbourne Code, to avoid mention of a single el- menclaturally destabilizing, e.g. if a name, otherwise considered
ement prior to 1958 (as per Art. 40.3) being taken as creating a validly published with its holotype specified to be in a certain herbar-
holotype. ium (Art. 40.7), was revealed not to be validly published by external
Prop. B would provide an Example of the use of a single element evidence showing that its holotype was never deposited there. Such
having created a holotype. It would be automatically referred to the transgressions have historically been disregarded, so impugning
Editorial Committee. them now would be disruptive. See Art. 38 Prop. A for a contrasting
Prop. C is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the approach.
future valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi Prop. L, along with Prop. BB and DD, is part of a set of pro-
with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The No- posals that would rewrite and restructure the Articles defining lecto-
menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. C (votes 0 : types, neotypes and epitypes in order to indicate those conditions,
15 : 1). currently elaborated in other Articles, where one of these types can
Prop. D would offer a more explicit alternative to the parenthet- be designated. Given the complexity of these changes, it cannot be
ical cross-reference that Prop. F would employ to deal with the same stated with confidence that these newly formulated Articles would
issue. It would provide a clearer solution to the interpretation of be free of unwanted consequences.
whether or not mention of a single element under Art. 40.3 (second Prop. M, by excluding illustrations from the original material of
sentence) creates a holotype between 1958 and 1989 inclusive. names of fossil-taxa, would solve a paradox in the neotypification of
Should both proposals be accepted, the more explicit and arguably such a name. Otherwise, a neotype cannot be designated because
preferable wording of Prop. D would replace the cross-reference in original material exists, and Art. 8.5 precludes designation of an illus-
Prop. F. tration as the lectotype. The Nomenclature Committee for Fossils
Prop. E is contingent on the rejection of Prop. D and would rule supports Prop. M (votes 12 : 0 : 0).
that mention of a single element under Art. 40.3 (second sentence) Prop. N would slightly alter Art. 9.4 to make it more explicit
never creates a holotype, which seems a less favourable how cited or uncited specimens or illustrations relate to original ma-
interpretation. terial. The new wording seems to be an improvement.
Prop. F is part of a set of proposals seeking to make clearer the Prop. O would basically reorganize Art. 9.4 and add a Note,
circumstances under which a holotype can exist. It would make placing its various component elements into a more ranked and per-
the conditions for concluding that an author “used only one specimen haps more understandable order in a manner similar to that of Art.
or illustration” more stringent and clearer, i.e. that there must now be 9.12. Because it concerns chiefly the organization rather than the
“evidence [for this] in the protologue or elsewhere”. Should Prop. D content of the Article, it would be independent of the other proposals
be accepted, its new wording would need to be incorporated here. on Art. 9.4.
The Examples would be referred to the Editorial Committee. Prop. P would address an issue arising from a recent change in
Prop. G would remove the possibility that there might have been Shenzhen to Art. 9.4(a) that has created uncertainty over the meaning
“lost or destroyed” specimens or illustrations from consideration as of “the author”, thereby eliminating from the original material any
to whether a holotype existed because an author “used only one spec- specimens or illustrations used to prepare the description or diagnosis
imen or illustration”. The proposer concludes that these can only be if these were not available to the publishing author. This has forced
“unknown possibilities”, but this is an erroneous conclusion, because neotypes to be designated on such material that would otherwise be
evidence can exist that such materials did exist and such evidence lectotypes. The adjustment would bring this part of the Article back
should be taken into account in determining this issue. in line with prior Codes.
Prop. H would make the point that errors that would otherwise Prop. Q would add a Note that parallels the Note proposed in
prevent valid publication should not be corrected under Art. 9.2. Prop. O, both accommodating text removed from Art. 9.4 and
However, it is difficult to imagine circumstances where this might thought to be unnecessary there, with its terminology amended to
be desirable, and the wording used makes such an interpretation am- align with that used in Prop. P. However, the new first sentence of this
biguous anyway. Note seems unnecessary and irrelevant to the Article itself, so the
Prop. I would extend the application of the corrections specified Note in Prop. O seems preferable.
in Art. 9.2 for holotype designations to those involving lectotypes, Prop. R would exclude any elements cited with doubt from con-
neotypes or epitypes, but it would also include corrections of sideration under clauses (a)–(d) of Art. 9.4, where they would

otherwise unequivocally be included, but would leave the status of conditions. While this would add another layer of complexity to these
such elements as either original material or not original material sub- two provisions, some might believe this to be a worthwhile addition.
ject to “the appropriate type designation” presumably on this or an- Prop. HH is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the fu-
other element. This seems to create additional unnecessary ture valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi with
uncertainty rather than eliminating it. DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The Nomencla-
Prop. S would merge the content of current Art. 7.8, focusing on ture Committee for Algae does not support Prop. HH (votes 1 : 14 : 1).
typification of names “validly published solely by reference to a pre- Prop. II would introduce a new term (“typotype”) to the various
viously and effectively published description or diagnosis”, and Art. type definitions in Art. 9. What the proposers define as a typotype is
9 Note 3 into a new Article, additional to Art. 9.4 that otherwise de- currently referenced, although unnamed, in Rec. 8A.1, where it is re-
fines original material, focused on the original material of such commended that such a specimen “should be used to help determine
names. No practical differences exist in the effect of this realignment, the application of the name”. The proposers state that addition of an
and the reasons provided for it do not seem compelling, but those Article defining this term would “promote good practice for epitype
who find this reorganization desirable should vote accordingly. selection”, but Rec. 8A.1 already encourages the use of typotypes in
Prop. T would provide an alternative to the transfer of Art. 7.8 to much the same way as an epitype would be used. Rather than add a
Art. 9 advocated in Prop. S, by expanding Note 3 seeking to better in- new Article that might promote inappropriate epitypification when
dicate what the original material would be from “the entire context of the primary type is not demonstrably ambiguous, the term typotype
the validating description or diagnosis” (Art. 7.8). could be added to Rec. 8A.1 and the Glossary; those who prefer this
Prop. U proposes changes to Art. 9 Note 3 that would define option should vote “ed.c.”
original material for names falling under Art. 7.8 when a different el- Prop. JJ would allow correction of usage of the term “holotype”
ement, from those employed by the describing author(s), was desig- to “lectotype” for names published before 1958 without the need for
nated as type by the validating author. This original material would authors to indicate their intent to typify by stating “designated here”
come into play only if the designated type was somehow lost or de- or an equivalent phrase. It would permit names to be lectotypified af-
stroyed. The current Code does not explicitly cover this issue. ter 2000 by authors incorrectly citing a single specimen as the holo-
Prop. V would make a reasonable adjustment to the wording of type of the name. Difficulty may arise in determining whether “a
Art. 9 Note 3. The same change ought to be made in Art. 7.8 if Prop. single specimen” is “cited in a protologue”, because if such a citation
S was rejected. actually represented a gathering or a part thereof, e.g. multiple dupli-
Prop. W proposes a Note that would state what should be obvi- cate specimens in the same herbarium, there would be no basis for
ous from Art. 9.6, i.e. that specimens not cited in the protologue are correction of the term “holotype”.
not syntypes. The Example, which might address the concern of Prop. KK proposes a new Example, which would be automati-
the authors, would be referred to the Editorial Committee. cally referred to the Editorial Committee.
Prop. X would provide a useful cross-reference in Art. 9.6 to Art. Prop. LL offers improved wording to Art. 9.12 to better account
40 Note 2, which provides some criteria for determining whether or for illustrations that are part of the protologue as original material.
not a specimen or gathering has been mentioned. The cross-reference Prop. MM would add a Note seeking to explain how the status of
seems better placed at the end of the Article, however. type specimens among the original material is affected by designa-
Prop. Y would add a sentence to an existing Example and would tion of a lectotype, although it is implied that isolectotypes do not re-
be automatically referred to the Editorial Committee. tain their former status. It could be argued that all type specimens
Prop. Z would change “designated” to “indicated” in Art. 9.6 retain their former status upon designation of a lectotype, e.g. if a
and elsewhere. The existing cross-reference in the Article would ap- syntype is designated as the lectotype, it is indeed the lectotype but
pear to already cover any issue surrounding the use of this term with- does not lose its syntype status, and if the type is later changed by
out the proposed change. conservation, the former lectotype is still a syntype. The Note would
Prop. AA would restrict neotypes in the same way that holotypes also introduce and recommend use of some additional terminology,
are currently restricted in Art. 40.5, preventing neotypification on an e.g. “remaining syntype(s)”, which some might consider useful, al-
illustration (except in microscopic algae or microfungi) on or after though a Recommendation would be misplaced in a Note.
1 Jan 2025 (the date should now be changed to 1 Jan 2026). Prop. NN would fill a void in the priority of lectotype selection,
Prop. BB is discussed under Prop. L. i.e. what to do in the case of a taxonomically mixed holotype (Art.
Prop. CC and Prop. EE would reformulate the rules concerning 9.14), which has previously not been considered here or in Art.
neotypes and epitypes, respectively, elaborating the various condi- 9.14, so it seems a useful addition.
tions, some newly explained, in which a neotype or epitype can be se- Prop. OO would provide a useful clarification of what procedure
lected. Those who consider these formulations to be more useful than should be undertaken when a type is taxonomically mixed. Whereas
the current provisions should vote accordingly. it only specifies “a subsequent typification”, this should more pre-
Prop. DD would amalgamate all of the rules concerning epi- cisely be “a subsequent lectotypification, neotypification, or epitypi-
types into a single Article. Those who consider this restructuring to fication”, according with current Art. 9 Ex. 13 and avoiding what
be more user-friendly than the previous arrangement of these provi- could be seen as a subsequent “holotypification”.
sions should vote accordingly. Prop. PP would address a perceived potential conflict between
Prop. EE is discussed under Prop. CC. Art. 9.14 and Rec. 9A.4. Whereas the former requires correspon-
Prop. FF would provide an Example of when an epitype should dence with the descriptive material, the latter recommends preserving
not be selected. It would be automatically referred to the Editorial current usage. However, because one deals with a pre-existing type
Committee. and the other with a type that does not yet exist, the two situations
Prop. GG and Prop. ZZ would modify the rules regarding epi- are not comparable. It would also add yet another date-limited Article
types to allow for designation of multiple epitypes under certain to the Code.

Prop. QQ, which would move an indirectly indicated condition provisions of the Code, to “achieved”. Because the terms are synon-
for supersession of a type from Art. 9.19 to Art. 9.14, where it is more ymous, no real difference would result other than consistency of
directly resolved as simply being an ineffective typification, would usage.
provide a clearer presentation of the issue. Prop. CCC is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the
Prop. RR would add a new Note, but it would assign properties future valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi
to illustrations that are not covered elsewhere in the Code, namely with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The No-
that a mixed illustration cannot be a type. As such, this would need menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. CCC (votes
to be introduced as an Article, but without further knowledge of the 1 : 14 : 1).
impact of such a change, it would likely be destabilizing to nomencla- Prop. DDD would provide a more precise wording for Art. 9.23.
ture, e.g. rendering past typifications on mixed illustrations ineffec- A similar change is proposed for Art. 40.6 (see Art. 40 Prop. N).
tive or, if the only original material for a name was a mixed Prop. EEE would force an author epitypifying a name to state that
illustration, creating a conundrum, because it could not be a lectotype the supported type was “demonstrably ambiguous” or use an equiva-
nor could a neotype be designated. lent phrase. In Rec. 9B.2, it is already recommended that an author
Prop. SS offers a useful Example of a second-step typification should actually state in what way such a supported type is ambiguous
that would be automatically referred to the Editorial Committee. in order to justify selection of an epitype. Forcing the author to attach a
Prop. TT would add wording seeking to qualify that Art. 9.17 particular phrase rather than an explanation misses the point of the
does not apply to illustrations, but this should be already apparent Recommendation. Besides, determining what would be an equivalent
from the current wording of the text (using “gathering”, “specimen”), expression to “demonstrably ambiguous” could be problematic.
so there seems to be no need for this addition. Prop. FFF describes several categories of type, and would be in-
Prop. UU would outline procedures for effecting supersession serted as a Note somewhere in Art. 9. Because it covers various types
under Art. 9.19. The first sentence of the proposed Note suggests that scattered throughout the Article, a proper place for it seems elusive.
supersession is automatic only when the holotype is found to exist, Alternatively, any included items not already explicitly stated in
but this would also apply when a missing previously designated Art. 9 could be added to the appropriate entries in the Glossary. Those
lectotype or neotype was found. This sentence could be amended favouring this approach should vote “ed.c.”
as: “Supersession is automatic if the missing type (holotype, or Prop. GGG, although it would provide useful guidance delineat-
previously designated lectotype or neotype) is found to exist.” ing the original material for new combinations, names at new rank or
The final sentence could also be worded more concisely as: “When replacement names, seems unnecessarily verbose. The issue could be
a type is superseded, it ceases to be the type.” to avoid confusion dealt with in a more concise, parallel and sufficient way by following
when more than one element had been designated as type for a name the format already established in Notes 2 and 3 under Art. 9.4
over time. Those who favour amending the Note as suggested should (e.g. “Note n. For names falling under Art. 7.3 or 7.4, only ele-
vote “ed.c.” ments from the context of the protologue of the basionym or re-
Prop. VV would modify Art. 9.19, adding precision, but it could placed synonym are original material.”). Those who prefer this
be improved editorially to eliminate some redundant wording. Those option should vote “ed.c.”
who support the acceptance of this proposal after such editorial ad-
justment should vote “ed.c.” Recommendation 9A
Prop. WW would alter the wording of Art. 9.19 without any ap- Prop. A (101 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383) Amend Rec. 9A.1 as
parent change in meaning, except for the qualification that a newly follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
selected neotype “does not seriously conflict with the protologue”, “9A.1. Typification of names for which no published without
which would seem to be intuitively understood without the need for a holotype was designated should only be carried out with an under-
an explicit statement. standing of the author’s method of working; in particular it should
Prop. XX would delete Art. 9 Ex. 15, which does appear to be prob- be realized that some of the material used by the author in describ-
lematic. It would be automatically referred to the Editorial Committee. ing the taxon may not be in the author’s herbarium or may not even
Prop. YY would create a mechanism for superseding an epitypi- have survived, and conversely, that not all the material surviving
fication if the original epitype was “in serious conflict with the proto- in the author’s herbarium was necessarily used in describing the
logue”. However, there is no requirement in Art. 9.9, which provides taxon.”
the basis for epitype generation, that an epitype agree with the proto- Prop. B (308 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950) Amend Rec.
logue of the supported name, so accepting this proposal could man- 9A.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
date supersession of properly designated epitypes, possibly with “9A.4. When the original material consists of two or more het-
destabilizing consequences. erogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original de-
Prop. ZZ is discussed under Prop. GG. scription or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected
Prop. AAA would add wording to Art. 9.20 underscoring that a designated so as to preserve current and traditional usage insofar
name supported by a epitype with which it is not in taxonomic agree- as possible (but see Art. 9.12). In particular, if If another author
ment should only be proposed for conservation if “this will best serve has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, one of
nomenclatural stability”. However, any proposal for conservation the remaining elements should be designated as the lectotype pro-
that does not serve nomenclatural stability would be dead on arrival vided that this element is not in serious conflict with the original de-
at the Nomenclature Committees, so at best this new addition may scription or diagnosis protologue (see Art. 9.19(c)).”
serve to discourage the submission of such proposals, which might Prop. C (039 – Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 1386) Add a new par-
be a laudable achievement. agraph to Rec. 9A:
Prop. BBB would standardize the usage of either “effected” or “9A.5. Preference should be given to carrying out those lectoty-
“achieved”, as they pertain to type designations in six different pifications where the application of the name is in doubt.”

Prop. D (354 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152) Add a new Prop. C would caution against what most would view as unwel-
Recommendation to Rec. 9A as follows: come and nomenclaturally destabilizing neotypifications or
“9A.n. For names falling under Art. 7.8, if there are no extant el- epitypifications.
ements in the context of the validating description or diagnosis and Prop. D takes an alternative and more negative approach in com-
the validating author did not definitely designate a different type, parison to Prop. B to encourage neotype selection from the type
later authors should consider any specimens and illustrations cited locality.
in the protologue when designating a type.”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would provide a useful re- Recommendation 9C
wording of Rec. 9A.1. Prop. A (071 – Bramhadande & Nandikar in Taxon 70: 454)
Prop. B would appear to provide a more precise wording for Add a new paragraph to Rec. 9C:
Rec. 9A.4, and the only real difference seems to be adding “tradi- “9C.2. In the case that a choice of holotype, lectotype, neotype,
tional” usage to the “current usage” recommended to be preserved. or epitype is based on web-sourced, digital images of specimens, the
The two usages can sometimes be in conflict, but because the pro- author(s) designating the type should notify the curator of the herbar-
posal qualifies this adding “insofar as possible”, this may not be an ium, collection, or institution to update the labelling of the specimen
issue. and thereby reduce the chances of further nomenclatural amendments
Prop. C seems like good advice but, in the absence of some spe- or inadvertent retypification.”
cialized knowledge of the groups involved, could have undesirable Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would recommend that when
consequences. a type is designated based solely on the viewing of online images, the
Prop. D would add a Recommendation suggesting that for institution where the type is curated should be notified by authors to
names validly published solely by reference to a previously and effec- allow updated labelling of the specimens involved. However, there is
tively published description or diagnosis (Art. 7.8) if original mate- currently no parallel Recommendation covering the same situation in
rial does not exist a later author should consider elements in the relation to specimens examined directly.
protologue in type designation. Such a designation would constitute
a neotype, although this is not so stated in the proposal. Article 10
Prop. A (083 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 908) Amend Art. 10.1 as fol-
Recommendation 9B lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
Prop. A (015 – Chakrabarty & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 69: “10.1. The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a
632) Add a new paragraph to Rec. 9B: genus is the type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art.
“9B.3. Authors should examine the specimen or illustration or at 10.4). For purposes of designation or citation indication of a type,
least its digital image before designating it as a lectotype, neotype, or the species name alone suffices, i.e. it is considered as the full equiv-
epitype.” alent of its type (see also Rec. 40A.3).”
Prop. B (016 – Nandikar in Taxon 69: 632) Add a new para- Prop. B (087 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 909) Add a new Note after
graph to Rec. 9B: Art. 10.1 as follows:
“9B.3. In selecting a neotype it is recommended that the speci- “Note n. Because the type of a name of a genus or subdivision of
men be chosen from as close as possible to the type locality that is a genus is the type of a name of a species, any change in the type
cited in the protologue, or which can be inferred from the protologue. of that species name (e.g. by lectotypification or conservation) also
If no type locality is cited in the protologue, the neotype should be a affects the application of the generic name or subdivisional name.”
specimen that best matches the protologue.” Prop. C (168 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1329) Add a new par-
Prop. C (316 – Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 952) Add a agraph to follow Art. 10.1 or 10.7, supported by an Example:
new Recommendation in Rec. 9B: “10.1bis. For purposes of choosing, designating, selecting, or
“9B.3. Neotypes and/or epitypes should not be designated for conserving a type of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus
long-forgotten and/or taxonomically obscure names that are not in (Art. 10.2, 10.5–10.7 and 14.9) or inclusion, or exclusion, of the type
current use, especially if such names may compete in terms of prior- of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus (Art. 22, 48 and 52), a
ity with currently accepted names.” species name that does not have a type is to be treated (until a type is
Prop. D (167 – Kar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 71: 1328) Add designated for it) as if it does have a type.”
a new paragraph to Rec. 9B: “Ex. n. The protologue of Decarinium Raf. (Neogenyton:
“9B.n. Authors designating a neotype should indicate why they 1. 1825) indicated Croton glandulosus L. as the type. Because only
have selected a neotype from elsewhere, if the neotype is not from in 1920 was a specimen selected as the lectotype of C. glandulosus,
the locality of a replaced type.” until 1920 there was no specimen or illustration that was the type of
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A states what should be obvi- Decarinium (because Art. 8.1 allows only a specimen or illustration
ous, although one might wish that Rec. 9A.2 was also being followed as the type of a name of a species and Art. 10.1 requires that the type
at the same time. of a name of a genus must be the type of a name of a species, except as
Prop. B reflects what is generally considered good practice. provided for in Art. 10.4, this means that Decarinium had no type un-
However, the second sentence seems to imply that a neotype that til 1920). Nevertheless, when the protologue of Geiseleria Klotzsch
“best matches the protologue” is of secondary importance to a neo- (in Arch. Naturgesch. 7: 254. 1841) included C. glandulosus in the
type from near the type locality, but this runs seemingly counter to circumscription of the new genus, this is to be treated for the purposes
Rec. 9B.1, which considers that a neotype should be an element that of Art. 52.1 as inclusion of the type of Decarinium, and Geiseleria is
“best fits the protologue”. Moreover, the first sentence assumes that a illegitimate (see Art. 58 Ex. 4).”
neotype is a specimen, which although good practice is not a require- Prop. D (169 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1329) Add a new par-
ment for names of non-fossil taxa. agraph after Art. 10.1 or 10.7, supported by a Note:

“10.1ter. If a change is made to the typification of the name of a simultaneously published species names definitely included (see
species that for purposes of designation or citation of the type of Art. 10.3) in the protologue. For a sanctioned name (Art. F.3), the
a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus is considered as the full choice of type may also be made from among the types of species
equivalent of its type (Art. 10.1), as provided in this Code (Art. 9 and names definitely included in the sanctioning treatment.
14.9), the typification of that name of a genus or subdivision of a ge- (c) If the type was not established under (a) and cannot be estab-
nus automatically changes accordingly.” lished under (b), it is to be chosen otherwise, but the choice is to be
“Note n. Art. 10.1ter governs not only a new (first-time) or dif- superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type is not con-
ferent type (replacement type, superseding type, conserved type) of specific with any of the material associated with either the protologue
the species name, but the whole of how a name is typified. Typifica- or the sanctioning treatment.”
tion also includes selecting part of a specimen (Art. 9.14), narrowing A further option would be to integrate Art. 10.8 here (as a sepa-
a gathering to a specimen (Art. 9.17), designating a supporting epi- rate clause following clause (a)).
type (Art. 9.9) or a change in the supporting epitype (Art. 9.20).” Prop. G (152 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 709) In Art. 10.2, 10.3,
Prop. E (084 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 908) Amend Art. 10.2 as fol- and 40.3 replace “the holotype or lectotype” by “the type” or “the
lows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): type(s)” as appropriate.
“10.2. If in the protologue of a name of a genus or of any subdi- Prop. H (085 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 909) Amend Art. 10.3 as
vision of a genus (excluding sanctioned names: Art. F.3) the holo- follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
type or lectotype type of one or more previously or simultaneously “10.3. For the purposes of Art. 10.2, definite inclusion of the
published a single species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. type of a species name of a species is effected by citation of, or refer-
10.3), or indicated (Art. 10.8, 40.1, and 40.3) or designated as ence (direct or indirect) to, a validly published species name, whether
the type, that is the original type that fixes the application of accepted or synonymized by the author, or by citation of the holotype
the name and is final. If a name of a genus or of any subdivision or previously designated lectotype of a previously or simultaneously
of a genus has no original type (but see Art. 40.1), a type may be published species name.”
designated, but that the type must be chosen designated from Prop. I (033 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383) Amend the first sen-
among these the types of any species name(s) definitely included tence of Art. 10.5 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
in the protologue, unless (a) the type was indicated (Art. 10.8, strikethrough):
40.1, and 40.3) or designated by the author of the name; or (b) the “10.5. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and
name was sanctioned (Art. F.3), in which case the type may also be F.5.4) a type of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus in an ef-
chosen designated from among the types of species names definitely fective publication (Art. 29–31) must be followed, but the designa-
included in the sanctioning treatment (but see Art. 10.5). If no type tion choice may be superseded if the author used a largely
of a previously or simultaneously published species name was defi- mechanical method of selection (Art. 10.6). […].”
nitely included, a type must may be otherwise chosen designated, In addition, delete Art. 7.10.
but the designation is to be superseded if it can be demonstrated that Prop. J (086 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 909) Amend the first sen-
the selected type is not conspecific with any of the material associ- tence of Art. 10.5 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
ated with either the protologue or the sanctioning treatment.” strikethrough):
The proposed amended Art. 10.2 would read as follows: “10.5. If there is no original type, Tthe author who first desig-
“10.2. If in the protologue of a name of a genus or of any subdivi- nates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a type of a name of a genus or sub-
sion of a genus (excluding sanctioned names: Art. F.3) the type of a sin- division of a genus in conformity with Art. 10.2 must be followed,
gle species name is definitely included (see Art. 10.3), or indicated (Art. but the choice designation may be superseded if the author used a
10.8, 40.1, and 40.3) or designated as the type, that is the original type largely mechanical method of selection (Art. 10.6).”
that fixes the application of the name and is final. If a name of a genus Prop. K (359 – Wiersema & McNeill in Taxon 72: 1153) Add a
or of any subdivision of a genus has no original type (but see Art. 40.1), new Article to follow Art. 10.8:
a type may be designated, but that type must be designated from among “10.8bis. When the name of a new species was validly published
the types of any species name(s) definitely included in the protologue, solely by reference to a description or diagnosis of a genus under Art.
unless the name was sanctioned (Art. F.3), in which case the type may 38.12, making that genus monotypic (see Art. 38.6), the type of the
also be designated from among the types of species names definitely in- generic name is the same as that of the species name, unless a differ-
cluded in the sanctioning treatment (but see Art. 10.5). If no type of a ent type has definitely been designated for the species name.”
species name was definitely included, a type may be otherwise desig- If this proposal is accepted, a cross-reference to the resulting Ar-
nated, but the designation is to be superseded if it can be demonstrated ticle should be added to Art. 10.2 and likely also Art. 38.12 and its
that the selected type is not conspecific with any of the material associ- Ex. 21, with some modification to the Example also possibly desirable.
ated with either the protologue or the sanctioning treatment.” Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would replace “citation”
Prop. F (170 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330) Rearrange and with “indication” in Art. 10.1, but in that case should a similar
rephrase Art. 10.2 so that it reads: change, which has not been proposed, be made also in Art. 10.9
“10.2. The type of a name of a genus or of a subdivision of a ge- and elsewhere in Art. 10? The proposer notes that “indicated”, “des-
nus, published as the name of a new taxon (Art. 6.9), is to be estab- ignated”, “selected” and “chosen” (without mentioning “cited”) are
lished as follows: used with respect to types in Art. 10 and considers the first two to
(a) The type is established if it is designated in the protologue, be the correct terms.
otherwise indicated (Art. 40.3) in the protologue, or determined by Prop. B would clarify the effect of a change in the type of a spe-
Art. 10.8. cies name on the application of a generic or subdivisional name for
(b) If the type was not established under (a), it is to be chosen which it is the type. This is not otherwise explained in the Code, so
(but see Art. 10.5–10.7) from among the types of previously or would be a useful addition.

Prop. C would state what is otherwise generally believed or un- Prop. B (017 – Kumar & al. in Taxon 69: 633) Add a new Exam-
derstood but is nowhere indicated in the Code. The proposal could be ple after Art. 11.4:
regarded as slightly pedantic, but those who feel it is useful to include “Ex. n. When Aeginetia acaulis (Roxb.) Walp. (in Repert. Bot.
this information should vote accordingly. If the proposal is accepted, Syst. 3: 481. 1844) and A. pedunculata Wall. (in Pl. Asiat. Rar. 3:
the Example would be referred to the Editorial Committee. 13. 1831) are considered to apply to the same species, A. acaulis is
Prop. D covers the same issue as Prop. B, although in a less the correct name because it is the combination of the final epithet
concise way. of Orobanche acaulis Roxb. (Pl. Coromandel 3: 89. 1820), the earli-
Prop. E, together with Prop. H and J, would provide an improved est legitimate name of the taxon at specific rank, with Aeginetia L.,
rewording of Art. 10.2, 10.3 and 10.5, where in Art. 10.2 the concept the correct name of the genus to which the species is assigned.”
of the “original type” of a genus, a term currently used in seven places Prop. C (258 – Elbrächter & al. in Taxon 72: 684) Delete
in the Code (such as in Art. 22.2, Art. 48.2 and Art. 52.2), is first de- Art. 11.7:
fined (see Art. 22 Prop. A and Art. 48 Prop. D, which seek to elimi- “11.7. For purposes of priority, names of fossil-taxa (diatom
nate the use of this term altogether). In a manner analogous to species taxa excepted) compete only with names based on a fossil type.”
name typification, the revised wording follows a more understand- Prop. D (259 – Elbrächter & al. in Taxon 72: 685) Delete
able “holotype”, “lectotype” and “neotype” progression. There is a Ex. 30 from Art. 11:
problem, however, with the addition of “(excluding sanctioned “Ex. 30. Reid (in Nova Hedwigia 29: 429–462. 1977) indicated
names: Art. F.3)” in the first sentence of the proposal. A that his new fossil-species Votadinium calvum was the resting cyst of
sanctioned name could already have an original type at the time of the non-fossil dinoflagellate Peridinium oblongum (Auriv.) Cleve
sanctioning, or the sanctioning treatment may actually be the protolo- (in Kongl. Svenska Vetensk. Acad. Handl., n.s., 32(8): 20. 1900). Vo-
gue where such a type is created. There is nothing about the sanction- tadinium calvum can be used as the correct name for the cyst fossil-
ing process itself that would impact whether or not a generic or species because it has a fossil type and therefore does not compete
subdivisional name has an original type. So it would be wrong to ex- for priority with P. oblongum.”
clude sanctioned names from this part of the Article. Those in favour Some of the present authors are of the opinion that the zoologi-
of this proposal with this parenthetical phrase deleted should vote cally connoted term “dinoflagellate” (as used in the present Example)
“ed.c.” should be removed from the Code. The equivalent botanical terms are
Prop. F would provide an alternative to Prop. E, following a sim- “Dinophyta” or “Dinophyceae”, so “dinophyte” would be the pre-
ilar progression in its wording, although without the term “original ferred term to use in the Code.
type”. Whether the wording of the amended Article is preferable to Prop. E (260 – Elbrächter & al. in Taxon 72: 685) Amend Art.
that it Prop. E is a matter of opinion. 11.8, its Ex. 35, and the caption of Art. 13.1(f) as follows (new text
Prop. G would have the effect of including species names with in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
previously designated neotypes (and previously conserved types), “11.8. Names of organisms (diatoms and dinoflagellates ex-
along with those having holotypes and lectotypes, among those to cepted) based on a non-fossil type are treated as having priority over
be considered in typifying a generic or subdivisional name when such names at the same rank based on a fossil type where these names are
types were included in its protologue. Species names with neotypes treated as synonyms for a non-fossil taxon.”
were not previously mentioned either in Art. 10.2, 10.3 or 40.3. “Ex. 35. The non-fossil species Gonyaulax ellegaardiae K. N.
Prop. H is discussed under Prop. E. Mert.ens & al. (in J. Phycol. 51: 563. 2015) was indicated in the pro-
Prop. I is contingent upon acceptance of Art. 9 Prop. L, BB and tologue to produce a cyst corresponding to the fossil-species Spinife-
DD. See comments under Art. 9 Prop. L. rites pachydermus (M. Rossignol) P. C. Reid (in Nova Hedwigia 25:
Prop. J is discussed under Prop. E. 607. 1974). Both names were correct because Mertens & al. (l.c.) did
Prop. K would establish a means for generic names published not treat them as synonyms. However, if these names are treated as
without inclusion of a validly published species name to be automat- synonyms for the non-fossil species, S. pachydermus, based on a
ically typified if the first species name published, per Art. 38.12, in fossil type, G. ellegaardiae is treated as having has priority because
that genus was not otherwise typified. This avoids the need for a for- Art. 11.8 excepts dinoflagellates even though it is antedated by
mal generic typification, which would have to adopt the same ele- S. pachydermus.”
ment anyway, and the waste of time and effort that this would require. “13.1. […] Fossil organisms (diatoms and dinoflagellates
excepted):”
Article 11 Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would require a taxon to
Prop. A (250 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679) Amend Art. have a “particular circumscription” when its correct name is deter-
11.3 and 11.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in mined under Art. 11.3 and 11.4. A taxon is a taxonomic group
strikethrough): (Art. 1.1) and must therefore have a particular circumscription. It
“11.3. For any taxon from with a particular circumscription at seems unnecessary to state this in Art. 11.3 and 11.4 because the cor-
the rank of family to genus, inclusive, the correct name is the earliest rect name would be determined in the same way irrespective of the
legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of pri- circumscription.
ority by conservation or protection (see Art. 14 and F.2) or where Art. Prop. B suggests a new Example for Art. 11.4. It would be auto-
11.7, 11.8, 19.4, 19.5, 56, 57, F.3, or F.7 apply.” matically referred to the Editorial Committee.
“11.4. For any taxon with a particular circumscription below Prop. C–E seek to eliminate a contradiction between Art. 11.7
the rank of genus, the correct name is the combination of the final ep- and 11.8 and would exclude dinoflagellates (“dinophytes”), like dia-
ithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, with toms, solely for the purposes of priority from being treated as fossil
the correct name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, ex- organisms, thereby eliminating the dual nomenclature between
cept […].” fossil and non-fossil names currently applied to this taxonomic

group. These proposals intentionally avoid equating other differences Zygopetalum, originally ‘Zygopetalon’, has since been conserved.
in the Code regarding valid publication (Art. 43 and 44) in the treat- By this conservation, ‘Zygopetalon’sect. Zygosepalon became Zygo-
ment of fossil and non-fossil dinoflagellate names, although Art. petalum sect. Zygosepalon. Conservation of the name with the spell-
44 Prop. A would eliminate one such difference. See also the critique ing Zygopetalum sect. ‘Zygosepalum’ would restore the harmonious
of these proposals, with alternative recommendations, by Head & al. terminations of the generic name and sectional epithet.”
(in Taxon: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13128). The Nomenclature Prop. B (154 – Prado & al. in Taxon 71: 709) Amend the last
Committee for Algae does not support Prop. C (votes 0 : 13 : 1), Prop. sentence of Art. 14.4 as follows (new text in bold):
D (votes 6 : 2 : 6) or Prop. E (votes 0 : 13 : 1), in each case with 14 “14.4. […] A conserved name of a species is conserved against
members voting. The Nomenclature Committee for Fossils does all names listed as rejected, and against all new combinations and re-
not support Prop. C (votes 0 : 12 : 0), Prop. D (votes 0 : 12 : 0) or placement names based on the rejected names.”
Prop. E (votes 0 : 12 : 0), but it does support the alternative recom- Prop. C (176 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 71: 1333) Add a
mendations by Head & al. (votes 12 : 0 : 0). The alternative recom- cross-reference to the first sentence of Art. 14.12 (new text in bold)
mendations were submitted too late for inclusion as proposals in and amend Art. 14.14 as follows (deleted text in strikethrough):
this Synopsis but may be introduced as new proposals at the Nomen- “14.12. The lists of conserved names will remain permanently
clature Section (Div. III Prov. 5.7). open for additions and changes (but see Art. 14.14).”
“14.14. The places of publication cited for conserved names of
Article 12 families in App. IIB are treated as correct in all circumstances and
Prop. A (244 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 677) Amend Art. consequently are not to be changed, except under the provisions of
12.1 as follows (new text in bold): Art. 14.12, even when otherwise such a name would not be validly
“12.1. A potential name of a taxon has no status under this Code published or when it is a later isonym.”
unless it is validly published (see Art. 6.3; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14).” Prop. D (124 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 1394) Add a sentence
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would add a new term “po- at the end of Art. 14.15:
tential name” to the Code. See comments under Art. 6 Prop. D, which “14.15. […] Conservation of spelling and gender (Art. 14.11),
would define the term. once it takes effect, applies retroactively, as does legitimacy of con-
served names (Art. 14.1) (but see Art. 52.n).”
Article 13 If this is accepted, it may be a good idea to add a Note to Art. 6.5
Prop. A (266 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 688) Delete the second sen- along the lines of “No name can become illegitimate by the later typ-
tence of Art. 13.1(f) as follows (deleted text in strikethrough): ification or later conservation of another name” or in Art. 14 (some-
“Fossil organisms (diatoms excepted): where): “Conservation of a name cannot cause another name to
(f) All groups, 31 December 1820 (Sternberg, Flora der Vor- become illegitimate.”
welt, Versuch 1: 1–24, t. 1–13). Schlotheim’s Petrefactenkunde Prop. E (427 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1186) Amend
(1820) is regarded as published before 31 December 1820.” Art. 14 Note 4 clause (c) as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A originates from a new biblio- strikethrough):
graphic finding proving that Schlotheim’s Petrefactenkunde was in- “(c) Conservation of names in for the 1952 Stockholm Code in-
deed published before 31 December 1820, hence there is no longer clude: (1) those of the Special Committee for Phanerogamae and Pte-
a need to rule that it is “regarded” as so published. The Nomenclature ridophyta, which became effective on 1 June 1940 under the
Committee for Fossils supports Prop. A (votes 10 : 2 : 0). authority of the VI IBC held in Amsterdam in 1935 (see Bull. Misc.
Inform. Kew 1940: 81–134); (2) those of the Special Committee for
Article 14 Fungi, which became effective on 20 July 1950 at the VII IBC in
Prop. A (175 – Meneguzzo & Prado in Taxon 71: 1331) Amend Stockholm (see Regnum Veg. 1: 549–550. 1953); (3) those of the
Art. 14.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough) Special Committee on Palaeobotanical Nomenclature, which also
and add a new Example: became effective on 20 July 1950 at the VII IBC in Stockholm (see
“14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes Regnum Veg. 1: 548. 1953), but were omitted from both the
entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the Stockholm Code and the 1961 Paris Code.”
principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art. 13 and Prop. F (125 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 1395) Add a new Art.
F.1, this Code provides, in App. II–IV, lists of names of families, gen- 14.16 (or add a sentence at the end of Art. 14.15):
era, subdivisions of genera, and species, and infraspecific taxa that “14.16. Once it has taken effect, conservation applies retroac-
are conserved (nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E.1). Conserved tively (but see Art. 48.2(c), 52.2(b), and 52.n).”
names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegit- Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A represents a renewed attempt
imate. The name of a subdivision of a genus or of an infraspecific to introduce the possibility of unrestricted conservation of any name
taxon may be conserved with a conserved type and listed in App. at the rank of family and below. A proposal (Barkworth & al. in
III and IV, respectively, when it is the basionym or replaced synonym Taxon 64: 1339. 2015; Art. 14 Prop. A) with the same intended effect
of a name of a genus or species that could not continue to be used in failed to gain support at the Shenzhen Congress.
its current sense without conservation.” Prop. B would allow “all combinations based on the rejected
“Ex. n. Reichenbach (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 10: 668. 1852) names” in Art. 14.4 to include both new combinations and replace-
published Zygopetalon sect. Zygosepalon Rchb. f. Later, he pub- ment names. However, in this context “combinations” can mean only
lished a new generic name Zygosepalum Rchb. f. (in Ned. Kruidk. new combinations, because otherwise an illegitimate replacement
Arch. 4: 330. 1859), its termination -alum likely agreeing with the name conserved against its replaced synonym would be conserved
contemporary spelling of Zygopetalum Hook. (in Bot. Mag. 54: ad against itself. It was always the intention that “combinations” in
t. 2748. 1827, as ‘Zygopetalon’). The orthographical variant Art. 14.4 and “combination” in Art. 14.7 meant “new

combination(s)”, evident from the discussion at the Sydney Congress synonym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a
(Greuter & Voss in Englera 2: 54–55. 1982) of the proposal that orig- taxon now considered not to include that reference sequence (but
inally added this wording to the Code. At that time, referring to a see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).”
combination being based on an earlier name meant that it had a basio- “X.5. The reference sequence of an autonym of a type-less name
nym. The proposal should be amended so that only “new” is inserted is the same as that of the name from which it is derived.”
before “combinations” in Art. 14.4 (and likewise in Art. 14.7) and “X.6. The reference sequence of a name of a genus or of any
“and replacement names” is not added. Those who agree should vote subdivision of a genus erected to accommodate only species with
“ed.c.” type-less names at time of publication is the reference sequence of
Prop. C would allow Art. 14.14 to be more effective in protect- a name of one of those species. For purposes of designation or cita-
ing the family names in App. IIB against being needlessly replaced tion of a reference sequence, the species name alone suffices, i.e. it
by earlier isonyms through conservation proposals. is considered as the full equivalent of its reference sequence (see also
Prop. D concerns retroactivity of conservation and is linked to Rec. 40A.3).”
Prop. F (which is an alternative) and Art. 52 Prop. L. Prop. D seeks “X.7. The reference sequence of a name of a family or of any
to establish that conservation actions with respect to spelling, gender subdivision of a family is the same as that of the generic name from
and illegitimacy would have retroactive effect. The effect on spelling which it is formed (see Art. 18.1), if the generic name has a desig-
and gender seems uncontroversial, and this would seem to be already nated reference sequence (Art. X.8). For purposes of designation or
apparent in Art. 14.11 (“A name so conserved is to be attributed with- citation of a reference sequence, the generic name alone suffices.”
out change of date to the author who validly published it, not to an au- “X.8. In order to be validly published a type-less name must (a)
thor who later introduced the conserved spelling or gender.”). The be published in an approved journal (see App. Y, Art. X.9(b)) and (b)
effect on illegitimacy, if newly made retroactive, would impact other be accompanied in the protologue by (1) citation of the identifier is-
provisions of the Code (see the discussion by Wiersema & al. in sued for the reference sequence by a recognized online repository
Taxon 65: 644. 2016). Article 52 Prop. L seeks to undo the impact (see App. X and Art. X.9(a)), (2) specification of selected informa-
this would have on superfluity by amending Art. 52. The entire objective portions of the reference sequence, (3) a statement as to why it
tive here seems to be to make the historical treatment of later- is believed that the taxon is novel and unnamed, and (4) an explana-
conserved names as if it was correct by current rules, but this has tion of why a type specimen could not be isolated, cultured, or other-
no apparent impact on today’s nomenclature. wise prepared.”
Prop. E would correct an omission of a group of names of fossil- “X.9. The General Committee, after seeking advice from rele-
taxa from Art. 14 Note 4, clarifying their date of conservation. vant specialist Committees and international societies, has the powers
The Nomenclature Committee for Fossils supports Prop. E (votes to (a) appoint one or more localized or decentralized, open and acces-
12 : 0 : 0). sible electronic repositories to issue the identifiers required by Art.
Prop. F is a less detailed alternative to Prop. D, with essentially X.8(b)(1) (see App. X), (b) ratify a list of approved journals for valid
the same impact. It is discussed under Prop. D. publication of names with DNA sequences as types (see App. Y), and
(c) cancel or alter such appointments or ratifications at its discretion.”
Chapter II new Article Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals
Prop. A (343 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147) Add a new (Prin. Prop. A, Chap. II Prop. A, Art. 6 Prop. C, Art. 7 Prop. A,
Section “Type-less names” to Chapter II with the following new Ar- Chap. II new Art. Prop. A, Art. 38 Prop. D, Art. 39 Prop. A, Art.
ticles and Note: 40 Prop. C, Art. 44 Prop. C and Div. III Prop. Y) that would provide
“X.1. On or after 1 January 2026, when typification is not tech- for the future valid publication of names of certain taxa other than
nically feasible, a name of a taxon other than a vascular plant or bryo- vascular plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural types (so-called
phyte may be published without a type, the application of the name “type-less names”) by fixing their application using DNA reference
instead being fixed using a DNA reference sequence (Art. X.9).” sequences. This would only be possible, on or after 1 January 2026,
“Note 1. For the purposes of Art. X.1, typification is regarded as “when typification is not technically feasible”, which would be the
technically not feasible if and only if physical specimens, illustra- case “only if physical specimens, illustrations, or cultures cannot rea-
tions, or cultures cannot reasonably be obtained using technologies sonably be obtained using technologies available at the time of pub-
available at the time of publication. Preservation of a specimen or cul- lication”, with some further limitation on what could be considered
ture is not considered unfeasible if a type specimen or culture could unfeasible. The set of proposals would create an alternative pathway
not be obtained merely for reasons of inconvenience, lack of access, for valid publication of names of these organisms independent of that
or if a specimen or culture was lost or otherwise not collected or pre- for other names requiring type indication (Art. 40). This would not
pared when it could have been.” impact the typification provisions in the Code, but would allow for
“X.2. A reference sequence of a type-less name is that sequence the DNA reference sequence to substitute for a description or diagno-
to which the name of the taxon is permanently attached, whether as sis. Stringent requirements would have to be satisfied (see Art. X.8)
the correct name or as a synonym. The reference sequence is not nec- in the valid publication of such names, some of these overseen by
essarily the most typical or representative sequence of a taxon.” the General Committee. Apart from a minor issue (see Art. 39 Prop.
“X.3. The reference sequence of a new combination or name at A), no fundamental nomenclatural problems are foreseen from ac-
new rank (Art. 6.10) based on a type-less name is the reference se- ceptance of this set of proposals. An alternative set of proposals
quence of the basionym even though it may have been applied erro- (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A), with effectively the same taxonomic
neously to a taxon now considered not to include that reference coverage, seeks the same objective through modification of typifica-
sequence (but see Art. 48.1).” tion rules to permit reference DNA sequences to serve as types. The
“X.4. The reference sequence of a replacement name (Art. 6.11) objective is to overcome the obstacle that taxa detected and character-
for a type-less name is the reference sequence of its replaced ized using DNA sequences, but unable to be isolated, cultured or

illustrated, are currently unnameable. Those voting may choose to and was accompanied by a species name published in accordance
support one or the other of these sets of alternative proposals, or nei- with the binary system of Linnaeus.”
ther. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. Prop. D (370 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1159) Submit the
A (votes 1 : 14 : 1). The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi does not generic names or designations in Table 1B [see Wiersema & al.,
support this set of proposals as a whole (votes 3 : 12 : 0). Some mem- l.c.] to the General Committee, which will refer them for examination
bers of the latter Committee who voted “no” indicated that they could to the specialist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see
support such an innovation, depending on modifications to the pro- Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9 and 7.10). In order to retain those names that
posals potentially resulting from deliberations of the Special-purpose best serve stability of nomenclature, a Committee recommendation
Committee on DNA Sequences as Types for Fungi that is to report to as to whether or not any of these “names” or any spelled exactly alike
the XII International Mycological Congress in Maastricht in should be treated as validly published may then be put forward to an
August 2024. International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a bind-
ing decision with retroactive effect.
Article 19 Prop. E (371 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1166) Add the fol-
Prop. A (155 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 710) Amend Art. 19.1 lowing Note under Art. 20:
and 19.3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): “Note n. Editions of the Code prior to the Madrid Code of 2025
“19.1. The name of a subdivision of a family is a plural adjec- included a provision precluding the valid publication after 1911 of
tive used as a noun; it is formed in the same manner as the name of a the name of a genus that coincided with a technical term in use in
family (Art. 18.1) but by adding the an appropriate termination (see morphology at the time of publication. While publication of such
Art. 19.3) -oideae instead of -aceae.” names is not recommended (see Rec. 20A.1(n)), in the interest of no-
“19.3. The name of a tribe or subtribe is formed in the same man- menclatural stability under the current Code binding decisions on the
ner as the name of a subfamily (Art. 19.1), except that the termination valid publication status for each case or any with identical spelling
is -oideae for a subfamily, -eae for a tribe, and -inae (but not -viri- where this former provision applied are listed in App. VI and take ret-
nae) for a subtribe.” roactive effect.”
A further option would be to join Art. 19.3 to 19.1. Prop. F (072 – Prado & al. in Taxon 70: 454) Amend Art. 20.3
Prop. B (351 – Proćków & Drábková in Taxon 72: 1150) Add a (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
new Article after Art. 19.3: “20.3. The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless
“19.3bis. The name of a supergenus is identical to the generic these words are must consist of one word (which may be formed by
name from which the supergenus name is derived.” combining two or more words into one), or of two words joined
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would require names of sub- by a hyphen (but see Art. 60.12 for names of fossil-genera and
divisions of families at ranks other than subfamily, tribe or subtribe to Art. H.6.2 for names of bigeneric hybrids).”
be automatically typified names formed from a generic name, not de- Replace Ex. 7 and 8 with the following three Examples:
scriptive names, which is theoretically still possible under the current “Ex. 7. Names validly published that consisted of one word when
rules. Should, for example, a name of a “supertribe” be published, its originally published: Quisqualis L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 556. 1762, ‘Qvisqva-
termination would, however, not be specified by the Code. lis’) (formed by combining two words into one); Asplenium L. (Sp. Pl.:
Prop. B is discussed under Art. 4 Prop. A. 1078. 1753); Mnium Hedw. (Sp. Musc. Frond.: 188. 1801).”
“Ex. 8. Designation not validly published (Art. 32.1(c)) because
Article 20 it was composed of two separate words not connected by a hyphen:
Prop. A (205 – Stephan in Taxon 72: 447) Amend Art. 20.1 as “Uva ursi” (Miller, Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: Uva ursi. 1754); the cor-
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): responding name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Ar-
“20.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, bust. 2: 371. 1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).”
or a word treated as such, and is written with an initial capital letter “Ex. 8bis. Names validly published that consisted of two words
(see Art. 60.2). It may be taken from any source whatever, and may hyphenated when originally published: Neves-armondia K. Schum.
even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art. 60.1) in an absolutely ar- (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. 1: 302. 1897), Se-
bitrary manner, but it must not end in -virus.” bastiano-schaueria Nees (in Martius, Fl. Bras. 9: 158. 1847), and
Prop. B (417 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184) Add the following Solms-laubachia Muschl. ex Diels (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edin-
at the end of Art. 20.1 (new text in bold): burgh 5: 205. 1912).”
“20.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, Prop. G (111 – Majumdar in Taxon 70: 1386) Amend Art. 20.3
or a word treated as such, and is written with an initial capital letter and Art. 60 Note 6 (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough)
(see Art. 60.2). It may be taken from any source whatever, and may and delete Art. 60.12:
even be composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner, but it must “20.3. The name of a genus may not consist of two or more
not end in -virus. Names containing one or more orthographical words, unless these words are joined by a hyphen, which is in all
errors are not composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner and cases treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen
are correctable under Art. 60.1. They are not to be considered (but see Art. 60.12 for names of fossil-genera).”
names not validly published under Art. 32.1(c).” [Art. 60] “Note 6. Art. 60.11 refers only to epithets (in
Prop. C (369 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1159) Rearrange combinations), not to names of genera (for names of fossil-genera
and amend Art. 20.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in see Art. 60.12 20.3) or taxa at higher ranks; a non-fossil generic name
strikethrough): published with a hyphen can be changed only by conservation (Art.
“20.2. The name of a genus published before 1 January 1912 14.11; see also Art. 20.3; but see Art. H.6.2).”
may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at “60.12. The use of a hyphen in the name of a fossil-genus is in all
the time of publication unless it was published before 1 January 1912 cases treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen.”

Prop. H (261 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 687) Amend Art. 20.4 as dispersed pollen; Insulapollenites Leffingwell (l.c.: 48. 1970) was
follows (new text in bold) and add two new Examples: created in the same work as a form-genus for fossil dispersed pollen;
“20.4. The following are not to be regarded as generic names: both generic names are treated as validly published at the rank of
(a) Words not intended as names. genus.”
(b) Unitary designations of species. Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would slightly reword Art.
(c) Designations representing fossil spore, pollen, or other 20.1 to use the same language as Art. 23.2 with regard to the arbitrary
microfossil groupings (substituting at generic level in artificial formation of names or epithets.
systems of classification) that are usually followed by an epithet. Prop. B (which is related to Art. 60 Prop. A–D) would provide
(d) Designations representing microfossils (substituting at support for correcting the spellings of generic names that might oth-
generic level in artificial systems of classification) intended to erwise have been considered arbitrarily formed but contain what
be distinct in rank from the fossil-genus names used by authors could be interpreted as orthographical errors. Seemingly it would
in the same work.” have the same effect as the more concise Art. 20 Prop. A, although
“Ex. n1. “Leiotriletes” (Naumova in Trudy XVII Sess. Prop. B would provide a more elaborate justification but with no par-
Mezhdunar. Geol. Kongr. 1937(1): 357. 1940 [“1939”]) was pub- allel proposal giving the same justification for correcting the spelling
lished as a “name” for a subgroup of fossil spores in an artificial clas- of specific epithets in Art. 23.2.
sification of microfossils (“Group Azonotriletes Luber of Class Prop. C–E and Prop. I (with Rec. 20A Prop. B) comprise a set of
Irrimales Naumova” in Naumova, l.c. 1940). Naumova explicitly proposals that would eliminate the application of Art. 20.2 (prohibit-
stated that “in the description of the spores and pollen a binary no- ing valid publication of generic names that “coincide with a Latin
menclature is adopted: the «generic» names are given to the author’s technical term in use in morphology at the time”) to generic names
subgroups; and the names of «families», to groups”. “Leiotriletes” published after 1911. Previous attempts to sunset or eliminate this
was not therefore a generic name, although it was used in binary com- provision, which has been plagued with difficulties of interpretation
binations such as “L. minutissimus” (Naumova in Izv. Akad. Nauk (see Linda in Arcadia & Lücking in Taxon 65: 903–905. 2016), at the
S.S.S.R., Ser. Geol. 1949(4): 52. 1949). As a fossil-generic name, 2017 Shenzhen Congress failed largely due to an absence of evidence
Leiotriletes was later validly published based on different fossil spore on the impact this might have on nomenclatural stability. An exhaus-
materials by various researchers nearly simultaneously and indepen- tive search for all cases where this provision has been or could have
dently: Leiotriletes Naumova (in Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk Akad. Nauk been applied was conducted, such that the impact of limiting the cov-
S.S.S.R. 143: 20, 17 [rank]. 27 Oct 1953) and Leiotriletes Naumova erage of Art. 20.2 only to names published before 1912, as proposed
ex R. Potonié & Kremp (in Geol. Jahrb. 69: 120. 31 Mar 1954).” in Prop. C, can now be predicted and mitigated. The mechanism for
“Ex. n2. In the author’s artificial classification of fossil cocco- resolving any post-1911 applications of this provision would be to
liths, “Lophodolithus” (Deflandre in Ann. Paléontol. 40: 146. authorize (in Prop. D and E) a one-time batch of binding decisions
1954) was published with the rank of “manipula” for some fossil coc- (~30 essential + ~55 optional), at the discretion of Nomenclature
coliths (then classified as fossil protists of Coccolithophorida or now Committees, on a defined set of relevant generic names (see
algae of Prymnesiophyceae); at the same time, the genera Clathroli- Table 1B in Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1158–1167. 2023). The
thus Deflandre (l.c.: 168. 1954) and Pyxolithus Deflandre (l.c.: 170. need for this provision, originally believed to be necessary to prevent
1954), explicitly published with the rank of genus in the same work, accidental valid publication of generic names used in the early 20th
are considered as validly published generic names. As a genus, century pharmacopoeia (Greuter in Lindon & al. in PhytoKeys 150:
“Lophodolithus” was validly published later: Lophodolithus Deflandre 241. 2020), no longer exists, so these proposals would create a com-
ex Bramlette & Sullivan (in Micropaleontology 7: 145. 1961).” prehensive and workable procedure for its removal.
Prop. I (373 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1167) Delete Art. Prop. F would modify Art. 20.3 to eliminate any false impres-
20 Ex. 4–6; insert a new clause in Art. 20.4 (new text in bold): sion that a generic name formed from two words combined into one
“20.4. The following are not to be regarded as generic names: is not admissible. It would also serve to eliminate any doubt about
[…] the treatment of generic names formed from more than two words.
(n) Some words that have been widely used in pharmaco- If the proposal is accepted, its three Examples would be referred to
poeia or as descriptive morphological terms: Balsamum, Bulbus, the Editorial Committee.
Caulis, Cortex, Flos, Herba, Lignum, Oleum, Radix, Spina.” Prop. G would automatically remove hyphens from any generic
Prop. J (262 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 687) Add a new paragraph name validly published with a hyphen. This is already the case for
to Art. 20 with two new Examples: fossil-generic names (Art. 60.12), and five generic names in other
“20.n. Names with their rank denoted by the terms “pseudo- groups have had to be conserved solely to achieve this removal, so
genus”, proposed for artificial fossil-taxa, or “form(a)-genus”, “or- this proposal would obviate the need for any additional similar con-
gan(o)-genus”, “sporogenus”, or “morphogenus”, or their equivalents servation proposals and uniformly treat all generic names with regard
in modern languages, once permissible under past editions of this to hyphenation.
Code, are treated as having been published at the rank of genus.” Prop. H, along with Art. 23 Prop. K and Art. 36 Prop. B, is part of
“Ex. n3. Cycadeorhachis Stopes (Cretac. Fl. 2: 53. 1915), orig- a set of proposals relating to fossil-taxa that would clarify the status of
inally published with the rank-denoting term “pseudo-genus”, is trea- artificial binary designations in the (mostly mid-1900s) palaeobotani-
ted as published at the rank of fossil-genus, reflecting the author’s cal literature arising from artificial groupings of fossil spore, pollen
intention to consider “rachises of Cycadean foliage”, on which the and other microfossil taxa. Prop. H would eliminate these “names”
name was based, as an artificial fossil-taxon with no clear relations for artificial non-generic groups or subgroups, treating them as desig-
with other fossil-taxa.” nations not to be regarded as generic names; Art. 23 Prop. K has the
“Ex. n4. Maceopolipollenites Leffingwell (in Spec. Pap. Geol. same objective in relation to species designations. The Nomenclature
Soc. Amer. 127: 29. 1970) was published as an organ-genus for fossil Committee for Fossils does not support Prop. H (votes 0 : 12 : 0).

Prop. I is discussed under Prop. C. “22.2. A name of a subdivision of a genus that includes the type
Prop. J and Art. 23 Prop. N would clarify the status of names of (as specified in Art. 52.2(a)–(d) i.e. the original type or all elements
fossil-taxa formerly published using now obsolete generic or specific eligible as type or the previously designated type) of the adopted, le-
rank-denoting terms that existed in previous Codes. Prop. J would gitimate name of the genus is not validly published unless its epithet
treat names published using certain rank-denoting terms, repeats the generic name unaltered. […].”
e.g. “pseudogenus” or “morphogenus”, as having been published at “26.2. A name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type
the rank of genus; Art. 23 Prop. N deals with names that would be (as specified in Art. 52.2(a)–(d) i.e. the holotype or all syntypes or
treated as having been published at the rank of species. The Nomen- the previously designated type) of the adopted, legitimate name of
clature Committee for Fossils does not support Prop. J (votes 0 : the species to which it is assigned is not validly published unless its
12 : 0). final epithet repeats the specific epithet unaltered. […].”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would make two adjustments
Recommendation 20A to Art. 22.2. The first (together with Art. 48 Prop. D) would eliminate
Prop. A (112 – Pillon & Hopkins in Taxon 70: 1388) In Rec. usage of “original type” from three Articles (Art. 22.2, 48.2 and 52.2)
20A.1 delete clause (b) and amend clause (c) as follows (deleted text on the grounds that it is not defined (but see Art. 10 Prop. E, which
in strikethrough): includes a definition) and not uniformly used. The second (together
“20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the with Art. 48 Prop. E) would make explicit what should be apparent
following: already from Art. 7.3 and 7.4, i.e. that new combinations and replace-
[…] ment names are typified by the types of their basionyms and replaced
(b) Avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin language. synonyms. It is debatable whether or not Prop. A, while sacrificing
(c) Not make names that are very long or difficult to pronounce the current conciseness and fluency of Art. 22.2, adds anything to im-
in Latin.” prove its understanding.
Prop. B (372 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1166) Add the fol- Prop. B would replace the parenthetical statements identifying
lowing new clause to Rec. 20A.1 (new text in bold): the elements involved in inclusion of the type of (1) a genus for sub-
“20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the divisions of genera in Art. 22.2 or (2) a species for infraspecific taxa
following: in Art. 26.2 by an identical reference to Art. 52.2(a)–(d) in both Arti-
[…] cles. In the course of incorporating, through this reference, the miss-
(n) Not publish names for genera that coincide with technical ing but necessary inclusion of the previously conserved type (Art.
terms currently in use in morphology.” 52.2(c)) or illustrations of types (Art. 52.2(d)) for additional consid-
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A and Rec. 23A Prop. A would eration, Prop. B would remove the prior enumeration of elements for-
remove some Recommendations for forming generic names and spe- merly specific to generic types (“the original type or all elements
cific epithets in Latin that are said to be a “hindrance to increasing the eligible as type or the previously designated type”) and to species
use of vernacular names, eponyms from diverse origins, and words types (“the holotype or all syntypes or the previously designated
from indigenous languages”. type”) from the respective Article. One might argue that including
Prop. B is discussed under Art. 20 Prop. C. an illustration of a type is, in essence, inclusion of the type itself, so
this part is unnecessary. Therefore, an alternative approach to solve
Article 21 this problem would be to simply modify in each case the “or the pre-
Prop. A (246 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 678) Amend Art. viously designated type” to read “or the previously designated or
21 Note 1 as follows (deleted text in strikethrough): conserved type”. Those who prefer this alternative approach should
“Note 1. Names of subdivisions of the same genus, even if they vote “ed.c.”
differ in rank, are homonyms if they have the same epithet but are
based on different types (Art. 53.3), because the rank-denoting term Article 23
is not part of the name.” Prop. A (073 – Garland in Taxon 70: 455) Amend Art. 23.1 and
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is discussed under Art. Art. 23 Ex. 1 as follows (new text in bold):
6 Prop. M. “23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting
of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the
Article 22 form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition,
Prop. A (174 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330) Rephrase the but not a phrase in the ablative case (see also Art. 23.6 and
first sentence of Art. 22.2 so that it reads (new text in bold, deleted 23.7). […]”
text in strikethrough): “Ex. 1. Adiantum capillus-veneris, Atropa bella-donna, Cornus
“22.2. A name of a subdivision of a genus that of which the sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Embelia sarasinorum,
protologue includes the type, previously or simultaneously Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Impatiens noli-tangere,
established, (i.e. the original type or all elements eligible as type, Papaver rhoeas, Spondias mombin (an indeclinable epithet), Uromyces
for the name itself (Art. 10.2), or, if it has one, its basionym fabae, but not Solanum “fructu-tecto” (Cavanilles, Icon. 4:
(Art. 7.3), or its replaced synonym (Art. 7.4 and 7.5), or the previ- 5. 1797).”
ously designated type) of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus is Prop. B (156 – George in Taxon 71: 711) Amend the first sen-
not validly published unless its epithet repeats the generic name tence of Art. 23.1 as follows (new text in bold):
unaltered.” “23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting
Similar considerations should also apply to Art. 26.2. of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the
Prop. B (394 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177) Amend Art. 22.2 and form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, an adverb, or a word
26.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): in apposition (see also Art. 23.6). […]”

Prop. C (207 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 449) Add a Note to Prop. G (157 – George in Taxon 71: 711) Amend the first sen-
Art. 23.1 supported by an Example: tence of Art. 23.5 as follows (new text in bold) and add a new
“Note. n. An epithet in apposition need not match the generic Example:
name in gender or number but must be in the same case (the nomina- “23.5. The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used
tive case, Art. 20.1). If an epithet in apposition is composed from as a noun, agrees with the gender of the generic name; when the ep-
more than one word, this may be a compound (with a noun in final ithet is a noun in apposition or a genitive noun, it retains its own gen-
position, see Art. 60.10bis, Rec. 60G) that serves semantically as if der and termination irrespective of the gender of the generic name;
it were an adjective, or it may be composed of words that can stand when the epithet is an adverb, it retains its spelling irrespective
independently, in which case the additional word(s) relate(s) gram- of the gender of the generic name. […]”
matically not to the generic name but to the noun in apposition; an ad- “Ex. 7bis. Names with an adverb for an epithet: Acrostichum
ditional word may be in the form of an adjective, a noun in the deorsum H. Karst., Brachyotum seorsum Wurdack, Caladenia
genitive, or a word in apposition.” postea Hopper & A. P. Br., Phaca unde Rydb., Rubus satis L. H.
“Ex. n. Examples of epithets in apposition. In the form of com- Bailey.”
pounds: Bactrodesmium betulicola, Calocedrus macrolepis, Boras- Prop. H (115 – Garland & Prado in Taxon 70: 1389) Amend
sus pinnatifrons. Composed of words that usually stand Art. 23.5 as follows (new text in bold) and add an Example:
independently: Strychnos nux-blanda: “nux” in the nominative, “23.5. The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used
“blandus, -a, -um” an adjective to “nux”; Planchonella dies-reginae: as a noun, agrees with the gender of the generic name; when the ep-
“dies” in the nominative, “regina” in the genitive; Palaquium regina- ithet is a noun in apposition or a genitive noun or a noun and its ac-
montium: “regina” in the nominative, “mons” in the genitive (plural). companying adjective in the genitive case, it retains its own gender
In Arenaria mons-cragus, both “mons” and “cragus” (a geographical and termination irrespective of the gender of the generic name. Epi-
name) are nouns in the nominative.” thets not conforming to this rule are to be corrected (see Art. 32.2)
Prop. D (114 – Maity & Dash in Taxon 70: 1388) Amend Art. to the proper form of the termination (Latin or transcribed Greek)
23.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough), add of the original author(s). In particular, the usage of the word element
a new Example under it, and delete Rec. 23A.3(d): -cola as an adjective is a correctable error.”
“23.2. The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from “Ex. n. Correctable errors in Latin epithets that consist of a noun
any source whatever and may even but may not be composed arbi- and its accompanying adjective in the genitive case: Agrostophyllum
trarily (but see also Art. 60.1). In a name published on or after montis-jayani Ormerod (in Orchadian 17: 379. 2013, ‘montis-jaya-
1 January 2026, the specific epithet may not be formed of two num’); Loranthus cycnei-sinus Blakely (in Proc. Linn. Soc. New
or more hyphenated words.” South Wales 47: 392. 1922, ‘Cycneus-Sinus’); Salicornia sinus-per-
[Art. 23] “Ex. n. Cycas pschannae R. C. Srivast. & L. J. Singh sici Akhani (in Pakistan J. Bot. 40: 1638. 2008, ‘sinus-persica’).”
(in Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Pl. Biol. 2(8): 35. 2015) and Kobresia Prop. I (216 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451) Add a new rule to
rcsrivastavae Jana (in Indian J. Fundam. Appl. Life Sci. 2: 256. Art. 23 (or possibly to Art. 60) supported by three Examples:
2012) have specific epithets unpronounceable in Latin, due to the pres- “23.5bis. In a specific epithet composed of what originally were
ence of consecutive consonants at the beginning of the epithets. These words that in (botanical) Latin usually stand independently (for a
epithets were formed from abbreviated names of scientists P. S. compound see Art. 60.10, 60.10bis/ter), whether separated by a hy-
Channa and R. C. Srivastava, respectively. Such arbitrary formations phen or not, these words must relate correctly to each other with re-
of specific epithets are not permitted on or after 1 January 2026.” gard to Latin grammar. In particular, in an epithet derived from a
“23A.3. In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also geographical or personal name that consists of a noun in the genitive
with the following: in non-final position and an adjective in final position, the adjective
[…] must be changed to the corresponding noun in the genitive. If the ad-
(d) Avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words.” jective itself is not derived from a name but from general Latin and a
Prop. E (203 – Stephan in Taxon 72: 447) Amend Art. 23.2 and corresponding noun is not available in Latin, the adjective must be
Art. 24.2 as follows (new text in bold), and delete Rec. 60F.1: maintained but must agree (in gender, case and number) with the
“23.2. The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from noun in the genitive.”
any source whatever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but “Ex. n1. Correctable errors in epithets derived from a personal
see Art. 60.1). All specific epithets are to be written with an initial or geographical name that at valid publication consisted of a noun in
lower-case letter (see Art. 60.2).” the genitive and an adjective: Centaurea carolipaui Fern. Casas &
“24.2. Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets Susanna (in Fontqueria 1: 2. 1982, ‘carolipauana’), honouring
and, when adjectival in form and not used as nouns, they agree gram- Carlos Pau; Calamintha caroli-henrici Kit Tan & Sorger (in Pl.
matically with the generic name (see Art. 23.5 and 32.2). All infra- Syst. Evol. 155: 100. 1987, ‘caroli-henricana’), honouring Karl
specific epithets are to be written with an initial lower-case Heinz Rechinger; Agrostophyllum montis-jayae Ormerod (in Orcha-
letter (see Art. 60.2).” dian 17: 379. 2013, ‘montis-jayanum’), after Mt Jaya; Dracontia
“60F.1. All specific and infraspecific epithets should be written montis-mortis Karremans & Bogarín (in Syst. Bot. 38: 307. 2013,
with an initial lower-case letter.” ‘montis-mortense’), after the Cerro de la Muerte.”
Prop. F (204 – Stephan in Taxon 72: 447) Amend Art. 23.4 as “Ex. n2. In Syzygium montis-veneti Craven (in Blumea 66: 74.
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): 2021, ‘montis-venetus’), after the Blue Mountain, ‘venetus’ is the
“23.4. Any The specific epithet, with or without the addition of a nominative case of an adjective that (correctly) agrees in gender with
transcribed symbol, published prior to 1 January 2026, may not ex- the noun in the genitive (“mons” is masculine), not with the generic
actly repeat the generic name (a designation formed by such repeti- name (which is neuter). The Latin adjective “venetus, -a, -um”
tion is a tautonym).” (in the sense used here: “blue”) has no corresponding Latin noun

(the plural noun Veneti refers to a people): here, the adjective is to be McKown (in Bot. Gaz. 85: 57. 1928); Ribes non-scriptum (Berger)
maintained but adjusted to its genitive: ‘veneti’.” Standl. (in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 8: 140. 1930); Sola-
“Ex. n3. Not to be altered is the epithet in Loranthus cycneus- num fructu-tecto Cav. (Icon. 4: 5. 1797); Vitis novae-angliae Fernald
sinus Blakely (in Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 47: 392. 1922, (in Rhodora 19: 146. 1917).”
‘Cycneus-Sinus’) because this can be a correctly formed epithet in Prop. M (206 – Zamora in Taxon 72: 448) Add a new Article un-
apposition (the fourth declension noun “sinus” has the same nomina- der Art. 23 (preferably after Art. 23.5) and one or more of the follow-
tive form as the genitive). This form is not recommended, but there is ing Examples:
no evidence that the epithet is incorrectly formed.” “23.n. When the final epithet of a name can be interpreted as be-
Prop. J (074 – Garland in Taxon 70: 455) As an alternative to longing to two different grammatical categories (e.g. an adjective and
Prop. 073 [Art. 23 Prop. A], add a new clause to Art. 23.6 and a a noun), both being correct under the rules, a subsequent author may
new Example as follows: choose (directly or indirectly) one of those categories, and the first
[23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as spe- such choice to be effectively published (Art. 29–31) is to be
cies names:] followed.”
“(x) Designations consisting of a generic name followed by an “Ex. n1. The final epithet in Ruellia hybrida Pursh (Fl. Amer.
epithet in the form of a phrase in the ablative case (but see Art. 23.7).” Sept. 2: 420. 1813) may be considered either as a noun in apposition
“Ex. 11bis. Solanum “fructu-tecto” (Cavanilles, Icon. 4: or a feminine adjective, neither option being indicated in the protolo-
5. 1797) is a generic name followed by an epithet in the form of a gue. When the final epithet was combined as Dipteracanthus ciliosus
phrase in the ablative case. It is not to be regarded as a species name.” var. hybridus (Pursh) Nees (in Candolle, Prodr. 11: 123. 1847), Nees
Prop. K (264 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 687) Amend Art. 23.6 as chose to treat it as an adjective, and his choice is to be followed.”
follows (new text in bold) and add a new Example: “Ex. n2. The final epithet in Erigeron florifer, as so spelled by
“23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as spe- Hooker (Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 20. 1834), could be interpreted as a mascu-
cies names: line adjective or a noun in apposition, because this information was
(a) Designations consisting of a generic name followed by a not provided in the protologue. The final epithet was subsequently com-
phrase name (Linnaean “nomen specificum legitimum”) commonly bined in Haplopappus (as ‘Aplopappus’) by Hooker & Arnott (Bot.
of one or more nouns and associated adjectives in the ablative case, Beechey Voy.: 351. 1839) and in Stenotus by Torrey &
but also including any single-word phrase names in works in which Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 2: 238. 1842), but no choice of either form was per-
phrase names of two or more words predominate. formed there. The first choice was made by Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad.
(b) Other designations of species consisting of a generic name Arts 16: 84. 1880), who published the combination Townsendia florifer,
followed by one or more words not intended as a specific epithet. thus treating the final epithet as a noun in apposition. This choice was
(c) Designations of species consisting of a generic name fol- subsequently followed in, e.g., T. florifer var. communis M. E. Jones
lowed by two or more adjectival words in the nominative case. (in Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 2, 5: 697. 1895) and T. florifer var. wat-
(d) Formulae designating hybrids (see Art. H.10.2). sonii (A. Gray) Cronquist (in Leafl. W. Bot. 6: 49. 1950, ‘Watsoni’).
(e) Designations formed as a combination of the name of the The epithet “florifer” is therefore treated as a noun in apposition and
fossil pollen (sub)group followed by an epithet.” is not to be altered to the adjectival “florifera” or “floriferum” in combi-
“Ex. n5. “Leiotriletes minutissimus” (Naumova in Izv. Akad. nations under feminine or neuter generic names.”
Nauk S.S.S.R., Ser. Geol. 1949(4): 52. 1949), originally proposed “Ex. n3. When Peziza lachnoderma Berk. (in Hooker, Bot. Ant-
for fossil sporomorphs (erroneously treated as spores), is not a arct. Voy., III, Fl. Tasman. 2: 274. 1859) was published, Berkeley
fossil-species name (although labelled “sp. nov.”), because it is did not indicate whether the final epithet was a noun in apposition or
formed as a combination of the fossil pollen subgroup “Leiotriletes” a feminine adjective, and both interpretations are possible. A combina-
(Naumova in Trudy XVII Sess. Mezhdunar. Geol. Kongr. 1937(1): tion made by Rehm (in Ber. Naturhist. Augsburg 26: 76. 1881), cur-
357. 1940 [“1939”]) and the sporomorph epithet “minutissimus”. rently accepted in Dasyscyphus, did not effect a choice because, at
The name of this microfossil, now treated in the algal group Acritar- that time, Rehm combined the final epithet under a feminine ortho-
cha, was first validly published as Leiosphaeridia minutissima Jan- graphical variant of the generic name, “Dasyscypha”. The first choice
kauskas (Mikrofoss. Dokembr. S.S.S.R.: 79. 1989). Although was made by Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 3: 446. 1898), who effectively
Jankauskas wrongly transferred “Leiotriletes minutissimus” to the published the combination Atractobolus lachnoderma (Berk.) Kuntze
fossil-genus Leiosphaeridia Eisenack (in Palaeontographica, under a masculine generic name, unambiguously using the final epi-
Abt. A, Paläozool. 110: 2. 1958), he otherwise met the conditions thet as a noun in apposition, a choice that is to be followed.”
for valid publication of the name of a new fossil-taxon.” Prop. N (263 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 687) Add a new paragraph
Prop. L (075 – Garland in Taxon 70: 455) If either Prop. 073 or to Art. 23:
Prop. 074 [Art. 23 Prop. A or J] is accepted, amend Art. 23.7 and Art. “23.n. Names with their rank denoted by the terms “form(a)-
60 Ex. 41 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): species”, “organ(o)-species”, “sporospecies”, “species praedicta”,
“23.7. Names in which Linnaeus used phrases in the ablative “sporomorpha” (if the epithet is associated with a generic name,
case Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets (“nomina not an artificial spore group designation), “morphospecies”, or their
trivialia”) are to be corrected in accordance with later usage by equivalents in modern languages, once permissible under past edi-
Linnaeus himself (but see Art. 23.6(c)).” tions of this Code, are treated as having been published at the rank
[Art. 60] “Ex. 41. Hyphen to be maintained: Athyrium austro- of species.”
occidentale Ching (in Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occid. Sin. 6: 152. 1986); Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A and Prop. J are alternatives
Enteromorpha roberti-lamii H. Parriaud (in Botaniste 44: 247. and would prevent a phrase in the ablative case from being used as
1961), in which the given name and surname stand independently be- a specific or infraspecific epithet, except those published by Lin-
cause they are separately latinized; Piper pseudo-oblongum naeus and allowed under Art. 23.7. Under the current rules, a few

names (see Garland in Taxon 70: 648–652. 2021) such as Solanum be correct (named after Cygnet Bay, with sinus a nominative noun
fructu-tecto Cav. are validly published, apparently contrary to botan- in apposition and cycneus an adjective agreeing with its gender),
ical tradition and editions of the Code from Berlin to Melbourne, but some might find the proposed addition useful. If Prop. H is accepted,
they would become not validly published if Prop. A or J was the associated Example would be referred to the Editorial Committee.
accepted. Prop. I attempts to address the same issue as Prop. H, i.e. epithets
Prop. B, Prop. G and Art. 24 Prop. A would make explicit what consisting of a genitive noun with an accompanying adjective, but
could be considered as implicit in Art. 23.1, 23.2, 23.5 and 24.2, would add a new Article and three Examples, which the author sug-
i.e. that specific and infraspecific epithets may be adverbs, in which gests could otherwise be placed in Art. 60, although some might con-
case their termination is independent of the gender of the generic sider this unnecessarily complex even for that part of the Code.
name and an improper Latin or transcribed Greek termination is cor- Prop. J is discussed under Prop. A.
rectable under Art. 32.2. See comments under Prop. G. Prop. K would not be necessary if Art. 20 Prop. H were to be ac-
Prop. C would add a Note and an Example explaining epithets in cepted, because Art. 35.1 already establishes that the name of a spe-
apposition, in particular those that consist of more than one word, and cies could not exist (i.e. would not be validly published) unless the
how they should be treated grammatically. Although some might find corresponding generic name was validly published, and Prop. H
this content helpful, it might not be important enough to include in would prevent the fossil pollen (sub)group names in question from
the Code. being regarded as generic names. The Nomenclature Committee for
Prop. D would eliminate both arbitrarily composed specific (and Fossils does not support Prop. K (votes 0 : 12 : 0).
infraspecific) epithets and, if they were published after 2025, epithets Prop. L could be considered independently from Prop. A or
containing hyphens. It is not entirely clear what is arbitrary and what Prop. J. By restricting Art. 23.7 to epithets that are phrases in the ab-
is not, so this part of the proposal, which has no date limitation, could lative case, the “but see” cross-reference to Art. 23.6(c) would cease
create doubts as to the validly published status of some existing to be necessary. This seems to simplify the Article without changing
names. If this part of the proposal were instead date-limited, the same its effect. The two names included in Art. 23 Ex. 22 are the only ones
uncertainties would apply to future names. to which Art. 23.7 applies, and there are no names with epithets in
Prop. E would make it a rule, rather than a Recommendation, to other cases except the nominative, to which Art. 23.6(c) applies.
write specific and infraspecific epithets with a lower-case initial let- Prop. M would provide a mechanism, similar to that employed in
ter. It could be argued that disobeying the rule when publishing a Art. 11.5 and Art. 62.3 (using the first subsequent effectively pub-
new name would fail to meet the requirement of Art. 32.1(c) and such lished choice), for establishing how a final epithet, which on first us-
a name would not be validly published (the form of the name would age could be interpreted as either an adjective or a noun, is to be
not comply with Art. 23.2 or 24.2), although the author apparently treated in later combinations. The proposer provides evidence of
believes that matters of typography (Art. 60.2) fall outside of this re- the uncertainty and alternative spellings that persist in such cases,
quirement. This is not the first attempt to make the initial lower-case and proposes a workable solution. Although no mention of the appli-
letter mandatory: at the Shenzhen Congress, a proposal (Rijckevorsel cation of this new rule to infraspecific epithets was made, a cross-
in Taxon 65: 404. 2016; Art. 23 Prop. B) was rejected (Lindon & al. reference from Art. 24.2 to this provision would seem to be all that
in PhytoKeys 150: 109. 2020) apparently from fear of making exist- would be required to establish this. If Prop. M is accepted, its three
ing names not validly published. The only difference in the present Examples would be referred to the Editorial Committee.
Prop. E is that it includes a cross-reference to Art. 60.2. Prop. N is discussed under Art. 20 Prop. J, and would treat
Prop. F would alter the wording of Art. 23.4 to permit the valid names published using certain rank-denoting terms, e.g. “form(a)-
publication of tautonyms, in which the specific epithet exactly re- species”, “sporospecies” or “sporomorpha”, as having been pub-
peats the generic name, after 2025. The proposer argues that this lished at the rank of species. The Nomenclature Committee for
and other proposed revisions would “simplify the Code”, but would Fossils does not support Prop. N (votes 0 : 12 : 0).
adding yet another date-limited provision affecting valid publication
be a simplification? Such a tautonym, although acquiring priority Recommendation 23A
only after 2025, may have been already published, though not validly, Prop. A (113 – Pillon & Hopkins in Taxon 70: 1388) Amend
over a century ago, perhaps by the same author(s) to whom the new Rec. 23A.3 clause (b) as follows (deleted text in strikethrough):
name is ascribed, thereby creating confusion on its valid “23A.3. In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also
publication date. with the following:
Prop. G is connected with Prop. B (see comments there) and Art. […]
24 Prop. A. The current wording in Prop. G: “it [an adverb] retains its (b) Avoid epithets that are very long or difficult to pronounce in
spelling irrespective of the gender of the generic name”, could be in- Latin.”
terpreted to mean that an originally improper termination of an ad- Prop. B (177 – Mosyakin in Taxon 71: 1333) Add a new clause
verb would have to be retained. To avoid this interpretation, an to Rec. 23A.3 as follows (new text in bold):
improved wording would be “its termination is independent of “23A.3. In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also
the gender of the generic name”. Those who consider that adverbs with the following:
should be explicitly regulated in Art. 23 and favour this amendment (a) Use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
should vote “ed.c.” for Prop. G. […]
Prop. H, like Prop. G, would account for another category of (k) Not dedicate species to persons quite unconnected with
specific epithets in Art. 23.5, in this case a genitive noun with an ac- botany, mycology, phycology, or natural science in general, or
companying adjective. Although epithets with an improper Latin or the practitioners thereof.”
transcribed Greek termination are correctable under Art. 32.2, and Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is discussed under Rec. 20A
‘Loranthus Cycneus-Sinus’ [see accompanying Ex. n.] appears to Prop. A.

Prop. B would extend to specific epithets the Recommendation “Note 2. Names of infraspecific taxa within the same species,
that already applies to generic names (Rec. 20A.1(h)), with additional even if they differ in rank, are homonyms if they have the same final
wording to avoid any implication that species should not be dedicated epithet but are based on different types (Art. 53.3), because the rank-
to persons connected with the practitioners of botany, mycology, etc. denoting term is not part of the name.”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is discussed under Art.
Recommendation 23B (new) 23 Prop. B and G.
Prop. A (208 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450) Add a new Rec- Prop. B is discussed under Art. 6 Prop. M.
ommendation to Art. 23 supported by an Example:
“23A.2bis/23B.1. In forming specific epithets, authors should Article 29
avoid the use of a word in apposition when an accepted Latin adjec- Prop. A (333 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art. 29.1
tive or noun in the genitive is available. An epithet in apposition as follows (new text in bold):
should preferably be reserved for descriptive epithets that, by tradi- “29.1. Publication (with the exception of DNA sequences used
tion, semantically serve as if adjectives (e.g. aesculicola, brevicalyx, for typification; see Art. X.1) is effected, under this Code, by distri-
chrysolepis, crassipes, leucothrix, longifrons, microglochin, rhodo- bution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the gen-
xylon, salicicola) and to commemorate words that do not lend them- eral public or at least to scientific institutions with generally
selves well to latinization (especially vernacular names).” accessible libraries. Publication is also effected by distribution on
“Ex. n1. Examples of nouns for which accepted Latin forms are or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in Portable Document
available and that need not be used: elephanti (or elephantis), Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an online publi-
elephantorum (or elephantum), elephantinus, -a, -um, rather than ele- cation with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an In-
phas; draconis, draconteus, -a, -um rather than draco; jovis rather ternational Standard Book Number (ISBN).”
than jupiter; macrostachyus, -a, -um rather than macrostachys; mar- Prop. B (317 – Govaerts & Kirk in Taxon 72: 953) Add a new
garitaceus, -a, -um, rather than margarita.” Article to Art. 29 to allow for effective publication by
Prop. B (209 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450) Add a new Rec- registration only:
ommendation to Art. 23 or Art. 60 supported by an Example: “29.1bis. On or after 1 January 2026, publication is also effected
“23B.2/60D.2. When forming names for species of significant for new combinations, names at new rank (Art. 6.10), and replace-
importance to indigenous people in its area of occurrence, authors ment names (Art. 6.11) by registration of the new combination, name
should consider adopting a widely used vernacular name as an epithet at new rank, or replacement name at a recognized nomenclatural re-
(as a noun in apposition, Art. 23.1).” pository (Art. 42). The date of effective publication of such registered
“Ex. n2. Examples of vernacular names commemorated as epi- names will be the date they first appear on the repository website.”
thets in apposition: Tabernanthe iboga, Diospyros kaki, Agave ka- Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals
ratto, Pistacia khinjuk, Dimocarpus longan, Zea mays, Amomum that would provide for the future valid publication of names of micro-
mioga, Mimosa saman, Enterolobium timboüva.” scopic algae or microfungi with DNA sequences as types (see
Prop. C (210 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450) Add a new Rec- Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). Prop. A is unnecessary for reasons given
ommendation to Art. 23 or Art. 60 supported by an Example: under Art. 8 Prop. D. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does
“23B.3/60D.3. When adopting vernacular names as specific ep- not support Prop. A (votes 1 : 14 : 1).
ithets, authors should consider using the vernacular name in its pure Prop. B and Art. 41 Prop. I would permit nomenclatural novel-
form (as a noun in apposition), with minimum transliteration, rather ties other than names of new taxa to be effectively and validly pub-
than in a latinized form (Rec. 23A.3(a) notwithstanding).” lished by registration at a recognized nomenclatural repository. This
“Ex. n3. The latinization of the epithet in Cedrela mahagoni, would permit a new format of electronic publication, aside from
from “mahogany” (itself presumed to be derived from “m’oganwo”), PDF. The implications of this are discussed further under Art.
has occasionally caused confusion.” 41 Prop. I. The aim is to streamline what is “largely a technical matter
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would recommend on what of no intrinsic scientific merit”, i.e. publishing new combinations,
in the author’s opinion would be the appropriate use of a word in ap- names at new rank and replacement names when the taxonomic as-
position as a specific epithet. Some might question whether such a pects of such naming are dealt with in other publications. The authors
Recommendation really improves the utility of the Code. recognize the possibility of opening the floodgates to countless no-
Prop. B would urge authors to adopt vernacular names as spe- menclatural novelties devoid of peer-review and unsupported by tax-
cific epithets in particular cases. This is similarly encouraged in onomic evidence in associated publications, but they point out that
Rec. 38F Prop. A. such unscientific bulk output is already possible under the current
Prop. C would advise against attempting to latinize vernacular rules. The idea seems to be that the benefits would outweigh the
names. This could perhaps be combined editorially with Prop. B if drawbacks. Unless nomenclatural repositories for algal or plant
both proposals were accepted. names were recognized under Art. 42, the proposal would apply
only to fungal names (see Art. F.5), for which Fungal Names
Article 24 (https://nmdc.cn/fungalnames/), Index Fungorum (http://www
Prop. A (158 – George in Taxon 71: 711) Amend Art. 24.2 as .indexfungorum.org/) and MycoBank (https://www.mycobank.org/)
follows (new text in bold): are currently recognized nomenclatural repositories.
“24.2. Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets
and, when adjectival in form and not used as nouns or adverbs, they Article 30
agree grammatically with the generic name (see Art. 23.5 and 32.2).” Prop. A (178 – Doweld in Taxon 71: 1335) Delete Art. 30 Note
Prop. B (247 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679) Amend Art. 1, amend Art. 30.3, and revise Ex. 5–7 accordingly (new text in bold,
24 Note 2 as follows (deleted text in strikethrough): deleted text in strikethrough):

“Note 1. An electronic publication may be a final version even if of Botany (ISSN 1756-1051, online, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756
details, e.g. volume, issue, article, or page numbers, are to be added -1051.2013.00102.x). That paper was later declared as “retracted”
or changed, provided that those details are not part of the content by the publisher and has not appeared in the printed version of the
(see Art. 30.3).” journal (ISSN 0107-055X, print). Despite the retraction, the paper re-
“30.3. Content of an electronic publication includes that which mains effectively published under Art. 29 and 30 and the species
is visible on the page, e.g. text, tables, illustrations, etc., but it ex- name remains validly published.”
cludes volume, issue, article, and page numbers, etc.;, but it also Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A aims to make life easier for
excludes external sources accessed via a hyperlink or URL nomenclatural indexers, who currently may have to update records
(Uniform Resource Locator).” of nomenclatural novelties if preliminary pagination in “online first”
“Ex. 5. A paper describing the new genus Partitatheca and its journal articles is replaced with final pagination. Prop. A would shift
four constituent species, accepted for the Botanical Journal of the forward the date of effective publication to the date on which the final
Linnean Society (ISSN 0024-4074, print; ISSN 1095-8339, online), pagination was added, even though journals generally do not record
was placed online on 1 February 2012 as an “Early View” PDF doc- that date, instead recording the date on which the article was effec-
ument with preliminary pagination (1–29). This was not evidently tively published, i.e. when the version with final content (page num-
the version considered final by the journal’s publisher although be- bers are excluded from content) became available online. We would
cause, in the document itself, it was declared the “Version of Record” likely never know the precise dates of publication of an unknown
(an expression defined by the standard NISO-RP-8-2008). Later, in number of articles published since 2012, and it is uncertain how
the otherwise identical electronic version published together with rapidly, if at all, journals would adapt to the new rule, so the problem
the printed version on 27 February 2012, the volume pagination could grow even larger in the future.
(229–257) was added. A correct citation of the generic name is: Par- Prop. B seeks to make it clearer that electronic material, once ef-
titatheca D. Edwards & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 168 (online): [2 of fectively published, may not be altered or retracted, and any such at-
29], 230. 1 27 Feb 2012, or just “… 168 (online): 230. 1 Feb 2012.” tempts have no effect on the publication.
“Ex. 6. The new combination Rhododendron aureodorsale was Prop. C would add a new Note and Example to make it explicit
made in a paper in Nordic Journal of Botany (ISSN 1756-1051, on- that effectively published electronic material remains effectively pub-
line; ISSN 0107-055X, print), first effectively published online on lished even if retracted by its publisher. It could be inferred from cur-
13 March 2012 in “Early View”, the “Online Version of Record pub- rent Art. 30.4 that retraction is a form of alteration and is therefore not
lished before inclusion in an issue”, with a permanent Digital Object permitted, but acceptance of Prop. B would make this explicit, in
Identifier (DOI) but with preliminary pagination (1-EV to 3-EV). which case the Note of Prop. C could be unnecessary although the
When the printed version was published on 20 April 2012, the pagi- Example would be a helpful addition. This could be decided by
nation of the electronic version was changed to 184–186 and the date the Editorial Committee, and those who agree should vote “ed.c.”
of the printed version was added, so the earlier electronic version
with preliminary pagination was not effectively published. The Article 31
combination can be cited as Rhododendron aureodorsale Prop. A (251 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 680) Amend Art.
(W. P. Fang ex J. Q. Fu) Y. P. Ma & J. Nielsen in Nordic J. Bot. 31.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
30 (online): 184. 13 Mar 20 Apr 2012 (DOI: https://doi.org/10 “31.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the
.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01438.x).” printed matter or electronic material became available is first distrib-
“Ex. 7. Two new Echinops species, including E. antalyensis, uted as an effective publication in accordance with as defined in
were described in Annales Botanici Fennici (ISSN 1797-2442, on- Art. 29 and 30. In the absence of proof establishing some other date,
line; ISSN 0003-3847, print) in a paper effectively published in its de- the one appearing in the printed matter or electronic material must be
finitive form on 13 March 2012 as an online PDF document, still with accepted as correct.”
preliminary pagination ([1]–4) and the watermark “preprint”. When Prop. B (040 – Paul & Paszko in Taxon 69: 1387) Add a new
the printed version was published on 26 April 2012, the online docu- paragraph after Art. 31.3:
ment was repaginated ([95]–98) and the watermark removed, so the “31.4. When the date of effective publication of a work cannot
earlier electronic version with preliminary pagination was not ef- be determined precisely to the day, it should be regarded for nomen-
fectively published. A correct citation of the name is: E. antalyensis clatural purposes as the last day of the time period that can be demon-
C. Vural in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 49 (online): 95. 13 Mar 26 Apr 2012.” strated with certainty (except dates stated in Art. 13).”
Prop. B (428 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1186) Amend If the above is accepted, as an illustration, the following Exam-
Art. 30.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): ple may serve:
“30.4. The content of a particular electronic publication must “Ex. n. Pulsatilla ×janczewskii Zapał. was published in parallel
may not be altered or retracted after it is effectively published. in: (a) Rozpr. Wydz. Mat.-Przyr. Akad. Umiejętn., Dział B, Nauki
Any such alterations are not themselves effectively published and Biol. 8B(48B): 200. 1909, (b) Consp. Fl. Galic. Crit. 2: 244. 1908,
have no effect on the original publication. Corrections or revisions and (c) Bull. Int. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Cl. Sci. Math. 1908(5): 448.
must be issued separately to be effectively published.” 1908 (issue dated 3 Jun 1908). None of these sources indicated that
Prop. C (159 – Prado & al. in Taxon 71: 711) Add a new Note the name had already been published elsewhere. From external evi-
and Example in Art. 30: dence, Paszko & al. (in PhytoKeys 155: 53–85 & suppl. material.
“Note n. Electronic material that has been effectively published 2020) dated source (a) as having become available no later than
remains effectively published even if retracted by its publisher.” Jul–Aug 1908 and source (b) as available no later than Aug–Oct
“Ex. n. Bauhinia saksuwaniae Mattapha & al. was effectively 1908. Therefore, for nomenclatural purposes, the dates should be re-
published in a paper first placed online on 11 December 2013 as a garded as: (a) 31 Aug 1908, (b) 31 Oct 1908, and (c) 3 Jun 1908,
PDF document accessible through the website of the Nordic Journal respectively.”

Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A seeks to better define the Article 61 Ex. 3 becomes Art. 32 Ex. 3.
date of effective publication by replacing “became available”, which Article 32.3, 32.4, Ex. 3–5 and Notes 3 and 4 remain unchanged
is not defined but is perhaps self-explanatory, with a more precise but become Art. 32.7, Art. 32.8, Ex. 4–6 and Notes 4 and
phrase containing “distributed”, a word used in Art. 29.1 for both 5, respectively.
printed matter and electronic material. It seems reasonable that “first Here is the result:
distributed” can include the stage at which “the publisher or pub- [Article 32.1 and Note 1 unchanged.]
lisher’s agent delivers printed matter to one of the usual carriers for “32.2. Only one variant of any one name is treated as validly
distribution to the public” and therefore not conflict with Rec. 31A.1. published: the form that appears in the original publication, except
Prop. B would offer an arbitrary method of assigning a precise as provided in Art. 60, 61, and F.9 (typographical or orthographical
date of effective publication to a work that cannot be dated to the errors and standardizations), Art. 14.11 (conserved spellings), Art.
day. However, the new rule could be difficult to apply in practice be- F.3.2 (spelling of sanctioned names), and Art. 16–19, 21, 23, and
cause for many works, especially books, a time period during which 24 (rank-determining terminations). Application of the aforemen-
publication took place can hardly be “demonstrated with certainty”. tioned Articles does not lead to a change of author citation or date.
There is also the potential for disruption of priority if established cus- 32.3. Variants of a name, only one nomenclatural type being in-
tom (see Pre. 13) has led to a different conclusion. volved, are the various spellings of a name or its final epithet. Vari-
ants also result from the use of different but related stems for
Recommendation 31B adding a termination or forming a compound, or from the use of dif-
Prop. A (116 – Dutta & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 70: 1390) ferent terminations as long as the category, either adjective or sub-
Amend Rec. 31B.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strike- stantive, remains the same.
through) and delete Rec. 31B.2: Note 2. For compounds, variants do not include words in which
“31B.1. The date of effective publication should be clearly indi- the order of the compounding words is inverted, which are to be trea-
cated as precisely as possible (day, month, year) within a publication ted as synonyms, not homonyms.
the printed matter or electronic material. In printed matter not Ex. 1. Nelumbo Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 76. 1763) and ‘Nelumbium’
already published as electronic material, the date should con- (Jussieu, Gen. Pl.: 68. 1789) are variants of a generic name based on
form to Rec. 31A.1. When a publication is issued in parts, this date Nymphaea nelumbo L., formed by using either a termination of the
should be indicated in each part.” second or third declension of substantives. Similarly Musineon Raf.
“31B.2. In electronic material, the precise dates (year, month, (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 91: 71. 1820) and ‘Musenium’
and day) of effective publication should be included.” (Nuttall in Torrey & Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1: 642. 1840) are variants
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would combine Rec. 31B.1 in termination, both with Seseli divaricatum Pursh as type.
and 31B.2 to recommend indicating the day, month and year of effec- Ex. 2. The epithet of Selaginella apus Spring (in Martius,
tive publication within both printed matter and electronic material. Fl. Bras. 1(2): 119. 1840) is a noun in apposition, so that apus cannot
The additional suggestion for printed matter not already published be treated as a variant of the adjective apodus, used in Lycopodium
electronically is aimed at reducing any gap between the date included apodum L. (Sp. Pl.: 1105. 1753). Spring cited L. apodum as a syno-
within the printed matter and the date of its actual distribution. nym of S. apus, but instead he should have adopted the former epithet
and published “S. apoda”; consequently S. apus was nomenclatu-
Article 32 rally superfluous when published and is illegitimate under Art. 52.1.
Prop. A (419 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184) Restructure Art. 32.4. If variants of a name of a new taxon or replacement name
32 by adding amended content from Art. 61 as detailed below: appear in the original publication, the one that conforms to the rules
Article 32.1 and Note 1 remain unchanged. and best suits the recommendations of Art. 60 is to be retained. If
Article 61.1 becomes Art. 32.2; “32.2” (at the end) is replaced the variants conform and suit equally well, the first author who, in
by “16–19, 21, 23, and 24”; “orthographical” in qualification of “var- an effectively published text (Art. 29–31), explicitly adopts one of
iant” is deleted here and elsewhere except in Art. 60 or elsewhere the variants and rejects the other(s) must be followed (see also
when it is not used with the same restricted meaning. Note that I find Rec. F.5A.2).
the reference to Art. 6.10 in Art. 61.1 uselessly confusing and Art. 32.5. Any variant of a name not conforming to the validly pub-
14.8 is an Article to which I am radically opposed, but, if it stays, lished form of that name is to be changed to that form without change
those references can be editorially added. of authorship or date. Whenever such a variant appears in a publica-
Article 32 Ex. 1 and 2 would be better placed under Art. 21.2. tion, it is to be treated as if it appeared in its changed form.
Article 32 Note 2 may be deleted. This Note is anyway errone- Note 3. In full citations it is desirable that the original form of a
ous because the reference to Art. 32.2 stands for Art. 21.2. changed variant of a name be added (Rec. 50F).
Article 61.2 becomes Art. 32.3 and is followed by a new Art. 32.6. Confusingly similar names that are not variants as defined
32 Note 2 clarifying the case of compounds with inverted elements. in Art. 32.3, but are based on the same type, are nevertheless treated
Article 61 Ex. 1 becomes Art. 32 Ex. 1 and Art. 61 Ex. 2 be- as variants (for confusingly similar names based on different types,
comes Art. 32 Ex. 2. see Art. 53.2–53.4).
Article 61.3 becomes Art. 32.4. Ex. 3. ‘Geaster’ (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 3: 8, 1829) and Geastrum
Article 61.4 becomes Art. 32.5 with the addition at the end of the Pers. (in Neues Mag. Bot. 1: 85, 1794): Pers. (Syn. Meth. Fung.:
first sentence of “without change of authorship or date” that comes 131, 1801) are similar names with the same type (see Taxon 33:
from present Art. 31.2 and the replacement of “corrected” by “chan- 498. 1984); they are treated as variants despite the fact that they are
ged” (also in Art. 61 Note 1, which becomes Art. 32 Note 3). derived from two different nouns, aster (asteris) and astrum (astri).”
Article 61.5 becomes Art. 32.6, with the formulation adapted by [Followed by Art. 32.7, Art. 32.8, Ex. 4, Ex. 5, Ex. 6, Note 4 and
referring to the new Art. 32.2. Note 5, i.e. the current Art. 32.3 onward unchanged.]

Prop. B (248 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679) Move Art. “35.2. A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly pub-
32 Note 1 to the end of Art. 32.1 and amend it as follows (new text lished unless the author definitely associates the final epithet with
in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): the name of the genus or species, or with its abbreviation (see Art.
“32.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (auto- 60.14). This association can be achieved typographically by the
nyms excepted) must: (a) be effectively published (Art. 29–31) on or position of the final epithet in the text, by use of a symbol, or by
after the starting-point date of the respective group (Art. 13.1 and the epithet agreeing with the gender of the generic name.”
F.1.1); (b) be composed only of letters of the Latin alphabet, except “Ex. n. Andropogon brevifolius Sw. was assigned to Schizachy-
as provided in Art. 23.3, 60.4, 60.7, and 60.11–14; and (c) have a form rium Nees (in Martius, Fl. Bras. Enum. Pl. 2(1): 332. 1829) when
that complies with the provisions of Art. 16–27 (but see Art. 21.4 and Nees described that genus as new: “Hujusce generis species, praeter
24.4) and Art. H.6 and H.7 (see also Art. 61). The However, the use of enumeratas, sunt et Andropogon brevifolius, Sw. (Pollinia Spr.) …
typographical signs, numerals, or letters of a non-Latin alphabet in the [Species of this genus, besides those enumerated, are also Andropo-
arrangement of taxa (such as Greek letters α, β, γ, etc. in the arrange- gon brevifolius, Sw. (Pollinia Spr.) …]”. However, Nees did not asso-
ment of varieties under a species) does not prevent valid publication ciate the final epithet of the species name with Schizachyrium and did
because rank-denoting terms and devices are not part of the name.” not therefore validly publish a new combination. Schizachyrium
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A, in combination with Art. brevifolium (Sw.) Nees ex Buse (in Miquel, Pl. Jungh.: 359. 1854)
61 Prop. A, would transfer, with some modification, the present con- was validly published when Buse wrote “… a Schiz. brevifolio Nees
tent of Art. 61 to Art. 32. The aim of the proposer seems to be to restrict (i. e. Andr. brevifolio Sw.) …”, thereby referring to the basionym and
the usage of “orthographical variants” in Art. 61 to exclude what in the definitely associating the final epithet with Schizachyrium.”
Code represent “orthographical errors”, which are to be consolidated Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would clarify the meaning of
in Art. 32. This new arrangement does not appear to create any differ- “definitely associated” in Art. 35.2 by suggesting three ways in
ences in interpretation or application of the relevant provisions, so which this can be achieved. As currently worded, without a qualify-
users must decide whether or not the new structure is preferred. ing “for example”, Prop. A could be misunderstood that these are
Prop. B is discussed under Art. 6 Prop. M. the only three ways. It might also seem strange that more obvious
ways, e.g. writing out a binomial in full, are not mentioned at all.
Article 33 The authors note that the four current Examples under Art. 35.2 do
Prop. A (429 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187) Amend not explain the full meaning of “definitely associated”. Perhaps add-
Art. 33.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): ing suitable Examples would be preferable to amending the Article.
“33.1. The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When
the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously Article 36
fulfilled, the date is that on which the last is fulfilled. However, the Prop. A (042 – Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 1388) Add a new Ex-
name must always be explicitly accepted in the place of its valid pub- ample under Art. 36.1:
lication. A name published on or after 1 January 1973 for which “Ex. n. (b) The intended new combination “Henckelia membra-
When the various conditions for valid publication are not simulta- nacea (Bedd.) Janeesha & Nampy comb. nov.” was included by Ja-
neously fulfilled, a name is not validly published unless full and di- neesha & Nampy (in Rheedea 30: 77. 2020) in the synonymy of
rect reference (Art. 41.5) is given to the place(s) where these H. missionis (Wall. ex R. Br.) A. Weber & B. L. Burtt (in Beitr. Biol.
requirements were previously fulfilled; this reference must be full Pflanzen 70: 350. 1998). “Henckelia membranacea” was not there-
and direct (Art. 41.5) on or after 1 January 1973 (but see also fore validly published.”
Art. 41.7).” Prop. B (265 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 688) Add a new Note and a
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would adjust Art. 33.1 to new Example after Art. 36.3:
permit names published between 1953 and 1972, inclusive, to be val- “Note n1. Names published and accepted simultaneously for the
idly published by reference, not necessarily full and direct, to previ- same fossil pollen, spore, or other microfossil remains (so-called
ous publications where other requirements for valid publication, sporomorphs) are not alternative names as defined by Art. 36.3 if
such as provision of a description or diagnosis, may have been ful- one is a designation formed by combining a sporomorph group with
filled. This would remove an apparent conflict with Art. 38.13, which a sporomorph epithet.”
requires that a “reference to a previously and effectively published “Ex. n6. Bolchovitina (in Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk Akad. Nauk
description or diagnosis” be “full and direct” after 1952. However, S.S.S.R. 145: 1–183. 1953) employed two parallel systems of classi-
Art. 38.13 applies only to names that are validly published by refer- fication of fossil spores and pollen, one natural (assigning microfos-
ence to a description or diagnosis, not to those where this requirement sils to extant genera) and another artificial (combining pollen or
was previously fulfilled. Nevertheless, for names published between spore group designations with an epithet). Ginkgo tripartita Bolcho-
1953 and 1972, the relationship between the requirements in Art. vitina (l.c.: 62. 1953) and “Dolichotrilistrium tripartitum”
38.13 and Art. 33.1 could be made clearer by amending the second (Bolchovitina, l.c.: 62. 1953), based on the same type, are not alterna-
sentence of Art. 38.13 as follows: “For names published on or after tive names as defined by Art. 36.3, because “D. tripartitum” (al-
1 January 1953, for which the requirement for a description or di- though labelled “sp. nov.”), resulting from combining the fossil
agnosis was not previously fulfilled (see Art. 33.1), it must, how- pollen subgroup “Dolichotrilistrium” (Naumova in Trudy XVII Sess.
ever, be full and direct as specified in Art. 41.5.” Those who favour Mezhdunar. Geol. Kongr. 1937(1): 358. 1940 [“1939”]) and the spor-
Prop. A together with this amendment should vote “ed.c.” omorph epithet “tripartitum”, is not the name of a fossil-species (see
Art. 23.6(e)). Ginkgo tripartita was therefore validly published by
Article 35 Bolchovitina.”
Prop. A (041 – Welker & Prado in Taxon 69: 1387) Add a new Prop. C (430 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187) Amend
sentence to Art. 35.2 (new text in bold) and a new Example: Art. 36.3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):

“36.3. When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different “Note 1bis. Provided the protologue meets all the requirements
names based on the same type are accepted simultaneously for the for valid publication (i.e. Art. 32–45, F.4, F.5, and H.9), the name
same taxon by any one and the same author and accepted as alterna- of a new taxon is validly published even if the provision of inaccurate
tives by that author in the same publication (so-called alternative or inadequate information in the protologue is later discovered,
names), none of them, if new, is validly published. This rule does e.g. failure to deposit the type in the herbarium, collection, or institu-
not apply in those cases where the same combination is simulta- tion specified, or that the type represents more than one gathering.”
neously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa or for Prop. B (324 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 956) Add a new
subdivisions of a genus (see Rec. 22A.1, 22A.2, and 26A.1–3), nor sentence to Art. 38.1 (new text in bold):
where suprageneric names formed from the same generic name “38.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon
are simultaneously used at different ranks (see Rec. 19A.1 and (see Art. 6.9) must (a) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis
19A.2), nor to names provided for in Art. F.8.1.” of the taxon (see also Art. 38.7 and 38.8) or, if none is provided in the
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A proposes a new Example un- protologue, by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effec-
der Art. 36.1. The proposal would be automatically referred to the tively published description or diagnosis (except as provided in Art.
Editorial Committee. 13.4 and H.9; see also Art. 14.9 and 14.14); and (b) comply with
Prop. B, together with Art. 20 Prop. H and Art. 23 Prop. K, is part the relevant provisions of Art. 32–45 and F.4–F.5. The description
of a set of proposals relating to fossil-taxa that would seek to clarify the or diagnosis in the protologue (or referenced in the protologue)
status of artificial binary designations in the (mostly mid-1900s) pa- is the validating description or diagnosis.”
laeobotanical literature arising from artificial groupings of fossil spore, Prop. C (334 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art. 38.1
pollen and other microfossil taxa. It would establish that the binary des- and 39.2 as follows (new text in bold) and add a new Note after Art. 38.1:
ignations defined in Art. 20 Prop. H and Art. 23 Prop. K cannot be con- “38.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon
sidered as alternative names of fossil-species, but by virtue of the (see Art. 6.9) must (a) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis
former not being “names” in the sense of Art. 6.3, they could not, by of the taxon (see also Art. 38.7 and 38.8) or, if none is provided in the
the definition of alternative names in Art. 36.3, be treated as such any- protologue, by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effec-
way. It seems unnecessary to have a separate Note to explain what tively published description or diagnosis (except as provided in Art.
should already be apparent from these definitions. The Nomenclature 13.4, 39.2(b), and H.9; see also Art. 14.9 and 14.14); and (b) comply
Committee for Fossils does not support Prop. B (votes 0 : 12 : 0). with the relevant provisions of Art. 32–45 and F.4–F.5.”
Prop. C would delete some unnecessary language from Art. 36.3 “Note 1bis. For the purposes of Art. 38.1, if the type of a name of
and extend the coverage of the first sentence to alternative names in- a new taxon is a DNA sequence, the sequence itself is treated as a de-
volving different sets of authors, where at least one author is common scription or diagnosis.”
to both sets, such that any “names” that were new would not be val- “39.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon
idly published. The proposal would also extend the exception in the published on or after 1 January 2012 must be accompanied (a) by a
second sentence to suprageneric names used at different ranks and Latin or English description or diagnosis, or by a reference (see
formed from the same generic name, allowing them to be simulta- Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published Latin or English
neously validly published with the same type. description or diagnosis (for fossils see also Art. 43.1), or (b), on or
after 1 January 2026, by both (1) citation of an identifier issued
Article 37 for the holotype sequence by a recognized online repository (see
Prop. A (319 – Govaerts in Taxon 72: 954) Add a new Article Art. X.1(b)(1) and App. X) and (2) specification of selected infor-
after Art. 37.4 to clarify infraspecific ranks: mative portions of the holotype sequence (Art. X.1(b)(2)).”
“37.4bis. If in one whole publication (Art. 37.5) no general Prop. D (344 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148) Add a new Note
statement is made by the author on the different infraspecific ranks after Art. 38.1:
used in that publication, statements on ranks associated with individ- “Note 1bis. For the purposes of Art. 38.1, if a name is type-less,
ual infraspecific names can be used instead to assign rank throughout the reference sequence itself is treated as a description.”
the publication as long as they do not result in misplaced terms con- Prop. E (268 – Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 689) Add a new
trary to Art. 5 (see Art. 37.6). If no statement is made or the words Article to Art. 38 to define description:
“variety” or “form” or their linguistic equivalents are merely used in- “38.1.bis. A description of a taxon is a statement describing a
formally rather than as formal rank-denoting terms, upper-case Latin feature or features of an individual taxon. A validating description
letters must be interpreted as denoting subspecies, lower-case Greek (Art. 38.1) need not be diagnostic. A description is considered insuf-
letters as varieties, and lower-case Latin letters as forms as long as ficient for the requirements of Art. 38.1 if (a) an identical statement is
they do not result in misplaced terms or contradict any general state- used in the same work (publication as a whole, see Art. 37.5) for a
ment made in the whole publication.” species description within the same genus or for an infraspecific
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would provide a mechanism taxon description within the same species, (b) the description applies
for determining the ranks of infraspecific taxa in works where they only to a single individual plant or specimen rather than the taxon, or
would otherwise be unranked. In the absence of any clear internal in- (c) the description is limited to habit, height, stem width, stem cir-
dication of rank, the use of certain categories of letters would be con- cumference, or a combination of these. Statement (c) could however
sidered to denote particular ranks, which is claimed, by the be sufficient as a diagnosis under Art. 38.2.”
proposers, to retain current practice. Prop. F (043 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1388) Amend
Art. 38.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
Article 38 “38.2. A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the
Prop. A (164 – Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 71: 1326) Add a opinion of its author(s) distinguishes the taxon from other its nearest
new Note after Art. 38.1: allied taxon or taxa.”

The entry for “diagnosis” in the Glossary is to be modified “Ex. n. Mimosa monjollo Vell. (Fl. Flumin. Icon. 11: ad t. 26.
accordingly. 1831) was validly published based on an illustration. When Martius
Prop. G (267 – Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 689) Amend published the new combination Enterolobium monjollo (Vell.) Mart.
Art. 38.2 as follows (new text in bold): (in Flora 20(2 Beibl.): 117. 1837, ‘mongollo’), he implicitly consid-
“38.2. A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the ered the illustration as diagnostic, i.e. an illustration with analysis,
opinion of its author distinguishes the taxon from all other taxa being and accepted it to validate the name. Martius’s position has become
compared to it.” established practice, which must therefore be followed.”
Prop. H (323 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955) Amend Art. Prop. M (217 – Mosyakin & al. in Taxon 72: 452) Amend Art.
38 voted Ex. 3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in 38.4 as follows (new text in bold):
strikethrough): “38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement sat-
“*Ex. 3. In Don, Sweet’s Hortus britannicus, ed. 3 (1839), is a isfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”
catalogue of plants in tabular form. for each listed Each species or whether a name was accepted by its author in the original pub-
appears on a single line with one of various abbreviations for lication (Art. 36.1), a request for a decision may be submitted to the
its habit, the flower colour, and the duration of the flowers plant, General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the special-
and a translation into the English name of the specific epithet are ist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov.
given in tabular form. In many cases, the same abbreviations 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A Committee recommendation as to whether or
are listed for more than one species in a genus genera the flower not the name concerned is validly published may then be put forward
colour and duration may be identical for all species and clearly their to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a
mention is not intended as a validating description or diagnosis. binding decision with retroactive effect. These binding decisions are
Names of new taxa appearing in that work are not therefore validly listed in App. VI.”
published, except in some those cases where reference is made to Prop. N (218 – Prado & al. in Taxon 72: 454) Amend Art. 38.4
an earlier validating descriptions or diagnoses description or diag- (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
nosis. This voted Example is limited to Don’s publication and “38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement sat-
other similar catalogues.” isfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”,
Prop. I (269 – Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 690) Amend a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee,
Art. 38 Note 2 (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): which will refer it for examination to the specialist committee for the
“Note 2. Whereas a A diagnosis must comprise one or more de- appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A
scriptive statements on how the new taxon differs from one or more General Committee recommendation as to whether or not the name
other taxa (Art. 38.2 and 38.3), a validating description (Art. 38.1) concerned is validly published is to be treated as a binding decision
need not be diagnostic. A statement on how one or more existing subject to ratification by a later may then be put forward to an In-
taxa differ from the new taxon is not sufficient to satisfy Art. 38.2.” ternational Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15, 34.2, 53.4,
Prop. J (374 – Earp & Mosyakin in Taxon 72: 1167) Amend Art. and 56.3) and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with takes
38.3 as follows (new text in bold): retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VI.”
“38.3. The requirements of Art. 38.1(a) are not met by state- Prop. O (243 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 677) Amend the
ments describing properties such as purely aesthetic features, eco- second sentence of Art. 38.4 as follows (new text in bold):
nomic, medicinal or culinary use, cultural significance, cultivation “38.4. […] A Committee recommendation as to whether or not
techniques, geographical origin, or geological age; or by statements the potential name concerned is validly published may then be put
indicating local or indigenous vernacular names (even descrip- forward to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will
tive ones); or by statements citing non-descriptive traditional become a binding decision with retroactive effect. […].”
knowledge.” Prop. P (325 – Kovalchuk in Taxon 72: 957) Amend Art. 38.4 as
Prop. K (076 – Pastore & al. in Taxon 70: 456) Amend Art. 38.4 follows (new text in bold):
as follows (new text in bold): “38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement sat-
“38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”,
isfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis” or whether a reference to a previously and effectively published
or whether an illustration with analysis is acceptable in its place description or diagnosis satisfies the requirements of Art. 38.13
(Art. 38.7 and 38.8), a request for a decision may be submitted to and 38.14, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General
the General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the spe- Committee, which will refer it for examination to the specialist com-
cialist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III mittee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9,
Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A Committee recommendation as to and 7.10). A Committee recommendation as to whether or not the
whether or not the name concerned is validly published may then name concerned is validly published may then be put forward to an
be put forward to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a bind-
will become a binding decision with retroactive effect. These binding ing decision with retroactive effect. These binding decisions are
decisions are listed in App. VI.” listed in App. VI.”
Prop. L (077 – Pastore & al. in Taxon 70: 456) Add a new Arti- Prop. Q (179 – Pastore & al. in Taxon 71: 1336) Add a new Ex-
cle with a new Example after Art. 38.4: ample after Art. 38.7:
“38.4bis. When the established practice has been to treat a de- “Ex. n. The generic name Torrentia Vell. (Fl. Flumin. Icon. 8:
scriptive statement as satisfying the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for t. 149. 1831) and that of its only included species, T. quinquenervis
a “description or diagnosis” or whether an illustration with analysis Vell., were validly published in 1831 without description or diagno-
is acceptable in its place (Art. 38.7 and 38.8), this practice is to be sis by a plate with analysis providing details of the bracts, the ray flo-
continued if it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability.” ret pappus, and the stigma. Written descriptions of these names were

not published until 50 years later (Vellozo in Arch. Mus. Nac. Rio de Those who feel that the intended meaning of the term is implicit en-
Janeiro 5: 348. 1881).” ough already, and could be sufficiently covered by an added Glossary
Prop. R (078 – Iamonico & al. in Taxon 70: 457) Add a new Ex- entry (note that “description” itself is not currently defined in any Ar-
ample after Art. 38.14: ticle) can vote “ed.c.”
“Ex. 23. The name Statice tenoreana was originally proposed by Prop. C is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the fu-
Gussone (Enum. Pl. Inarim.: 268. 1855) without any description or ture valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi
diagnosis but citing “S. minuta. Ten. Syll. p. 593 (non Lin.)”. How- with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). It would
ever, Tenore (Syll. Pl. Fl. Neapol.: 593. 1833) did not include any de- add a new Note in Art. 38 accompanying a change in Art. 39.2, which
scription of S. minuta, which was provided only later (Tenore, would stipulate the acceptable language of a description or diagnosis
Fl. Napol. 5: 338. 1835–1838), along with a reference to page after 2011, both changes aiming to allow the specification of certain
593 of the Sylloge. Statice tenoreana Guss., although lacking a de- documentation for a holotype DNA sequence to substitute for a de-
scription or diagnosis both in the protologue and in the directly cited scription or diagnosis. However, because the provisions permitting
Sylloge of Tenore, is validly published by the indirect reference to the DNA sequences to serve as types are intended to be restricted only
description in Tenore’s Flora napolitana (1835–1838).” to microscopic algae or microfungi, Art. 39.2, which applies to all tax-
Prop. S (320 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955) Add a new Ar- onomic groups, is not the proper home for this provision, because in
ticle in Art. 38, incorporating and amending the definition of “de- not explicitly mentioning this restriction it might mislead some to con-
scription” from the Glossary, and amend Art. 38 Ex. 7 as follows clude that it has broader coverage. The proper place for what has been
(new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): proposed for Art. 39.2 would appear to be a new Article, perhaps fol-
“38.n. A description is a statement explicitly describing one or lowing Art. 38.10, to read: “The name of a new species or infraspe-
more features of an individual taxon. A description need not be cific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi published on or
diagnostic.” after 1 January 2026 may be validly published even if only accom-
“Ex. 7. “Musa basjoo” (Siebold in Verh. Bat. Genootsch. panied by both (1) citation of an identifier issued for the holotype
Kunsten 12: 18. 1830) appeared with “Ex insulis Luikiu introducta, sequence by a recognized online repository (see Art. X.1(b)(1) and
vix asperitati hiemis resistens. Ex foliis linteum, praesertim in insulis App. X) and (2) specification of selected informative portions of
Luikiu ac quibusdam insulis provinciae Satzuma conficitur. Est haud the holotype sequence (Art. X.1(b)(2)).” The proposed new Note
dubie linteum, quod Philippinis incolis audit Nippis.” This statement could follow. Those who support the overall set of proposals but favour
gives information about the economic use (linen is made from the this amendment should vote “ed.c.” for Prop. C. The Nomenclature
leaves), hardiness in cultivation (scarcely survives the winter), and Committee for Algae does not support Prop. C (votes 1 : 14 : 1).
geographical origin (introduced from the Ryukyu Islands)., but b Be- Prop. D is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the
cause there is no explicit descriptive information (e.g. shape or tex- future valid publication of names of certain taxa other than vascular
ture) on the “leaves”, (the only character feature mentioned), it does plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural types (so-called “type-
not satisfy the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diag- less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). The Nomenclature Com-
nosis”. Musa basjoo Siebold & Zucc. ex Iinuma was later validly mittee for Algae does not support Prop. D (votes 0 : 15 : 1).
published by Iinuma (Sintei Somoku Dzusetsu [Illustrated Flora of Prop. E would provide a definition of a “description”, a term not
Japan], ed. 2, 3: ad t. 1. 1874) with floral details and other descrip- otherwise defined formally in the Code, placing further restrictions,
tive material a description in Japanese.” in addition to those already in Art. 38.3, on what would be acceptable
If the above proposal is rejected, we recommend that the Edito- as a “validating description” (see Prop. B). While further limiting this
rial Committee either delete Art. 38 Ex. 7 or modify the definition of term may cause some nomenclatural instability, the increasing acces-
description in the Glossary to better support the Example. sibility of searchable online bibliographic sources has opened a
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would create a Note in Art. Pandora’s Box of “names” published with meagre descriptive matter,
38 that would support the interpretation of Art. 8 Prop. J, which particularly in the horticultural literature. The Nomenclature
would establish that only evidence present in the protologue itself Committees are increasingly being asked to make binding decisions
should be determinative in decisions about valid publication, and ex- on what constitutes a descriptive statement under Art. 38.4 with lim-
ternal information that comes to light later is irrelevant (see Art. ited guidance on which to base their recommendations. Accepting
9 Prop. K for a contrasting approach). Although some may find this this proposal may eliminate the need for some of these requests as
green-lighting of misinformation or disinformation in a protologue well as improve the consistency of decisions. There may be room
distasteful, it does seem to be a sensible way to deal with these types for improvement in part (a) of this proposal, however. Substituting
of situations. However, the proposed Note only clarifies situations “if “for a species description within the same genus or for an infraspe-
the provision of inaccurate or inadequate information in the protolo- cific taxon description within the same species” with “for a descrip-
gue is later discovered”. What if such inaccuracies are apparent from tion of a species or infraspecific taxon within the same next
available external information already at the time of valid publica- higher-ranked group” would avoid the need to invalidate identical
tion? Perhaps the herbarium, collection or institution of deposit spec- descriptions for species placed in different, perhaps even distantly re-
ified for the type does not exist, or the gathering indicated was lated, subgenera or sections that were otherwise distinguished or va-
obviously fictitious. Perhaps rephrasing the part quoted above to “if rieties or forms placed in different subspecies. Those who prefer such
external evidence shows that information in the protologue is in- an amendment should vote “ed.c.”
accurate or inadequate” would resolve this issue. Those who sup- Prop. F would make a slight change to the definition of “diagno-
port such an amendment should vote “ed.c.” sis” in Art. 38.2, requiring that it distinguish a taxon not simply from
Prop. B would add a sentence to Art. 38.1 defining “validating other taxa but from its nearest allies. This would, of course, be impos-
description”, a term used numerous times throughout the Code, in- sible if the author(s) did not know which taxa were most closely al-
cluding in several Articles and Notes, but nowhere defined explicitly. lied. While a taxon’s close relatives may be more easily determined

today, Art. 38.2 is retroactive to earlier times when the allied taxa requirement. The additional burden that the acceptance of Prop. K,
were yet to be discovered, much less described, or found on different M, or P will place on editors and Nomenclature Committees cannot
continents where their distinction bore little importance to a publish- be precisely known, but if the history of Art. 38.4, added to the
ing author. 2006 Vienna Code, offers any guide, in the 17 subsequent years there
Prop. G would furnish a different adjustment to the definition of have been 66 requests under this Article, or roughly four per year.
“diagnosis”, requiring that it distinguish a taxon not simply from Whether adding three more bases for requesting such decisions
other taxa but from all other taxa to which it is being compared. This would quadruple that number is anybody’s guess.
may seem to be a very slight change that will likely affect only a small Prop. L would create a new Article, paralleled on the last sen-
number of cases, but one must assume that in works such as tence of Art. 53.2 dealing with parahomonyms, that would allow es-
Linnaeus’s Systema naturae, where species of a given genus are being tablished practice to dictate whether or not a descriptive statement or
distinguished from each other solely by their diagnoses, they are all an illustration with analysis should be considered sufficient to satisfy
being compared to each other. Yet the diagnoses may not be parallel Art. 38.1(a). Provided a clear practice had emerged, it could offer a
enough to distinguish each species from all others in the genus, some way to avoid some requests for binding decisions on valid publica-
diagnosed using certain characters, others using other characters. tion. If Prop. L is accepted, the associated Example would be referred
Applying this new definition to, e.g., the diagnosis of Browallia elata to the Editorial Committee.
L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 1118. 1759) would negate its valid publica- Prop. M, with an approach similar to Prop. K and P, would ex-
tion in that work. Apart from this issue, there are general concerns tend the motive for binding decision requests under Art. 38.4 to un-
that adjustments to the current definition of diagnosis could have certainty about whether or not a name was accepted by its author,
other unforeseen consequences. satisfying Art. 36.1. Here the proposed new wording appears to be
Prop. H would change voted *Ex. 3 (which is comparable to a sufficient to achieve the desired aim, but see comments under
rule, governing nomenclatural practice when a corresponding Article Prop. K.
is open to divergent interpretation or does not adequately cover the Prop. N and Art. 53 Prop. B would amend Art. 38.4 and 53.4 in
matter), dating to the 1988 Berlin Code, adding greater detail to parallel, so that a binding decision takes effect as soon as the General
the description of the work involved (Sweet’s Hortus britannicus, Committee recommends the decision, subject to ratification by a later
ed. 3) with the aim of limiting the application of *Ex. 3 to more sim- International Botanical Congress. At present, a decision does not be-
ilar works. It is difficult to know what practical impact these changes come binding until it is ratified by the Congress. The proposals orig-
would have on its application, and they could have unwanted conse- inated during discussions by the General Committee (11 members of
quences. If over time some consensus has emerged on how *Ex. which are the authors), and the goal is to streamline the process for
3 should be applied, is there a good reason to change it? binding decisions, reducing the wait time of up to six years between
Prop. I would modify Art. 38 Note 2, deleting text from the end requesting a decision and its becoming binding, and to bring it in line
and incorporating it into the proposed new Article of Prop. E, and with the process for proposals to conserve, protect or reject names or
adding a sentence stipulating that a diagnosis must compare a new suppress works.
taxon to existing taxa, not the other way around, so that the diagnosed Prop. O would add a new term “potential name” to the Code. See
features of the new taxon must be characterized. The revised Note, comments under Art. 6 Prop. D, which would define the term.
which formerly provided some distinction between a diagnosis and Prop. P, like Prop. K and M, would add yet another motive for
a description, now pertains only to a diagnosis, seeming to conflict requesting a binding decision under Art. 38.4. Prop. P permits deci-
with its definition by omitting “in the opinion of its author” from sions on whether a reference to a previously and effectively published
the statement in the first sentence. The added final sentence supports description or diagnosis is sufficiently indirect or full and direct as re-
an interpretation, exemplified by a particular case, that contrasts with quired by Art. 38.13. The proposed new language is sufficient, but
that of a recent Nomenclature Committee decision. In any case, the see comments under Prop. K.
advocated changes would be more appropriate in an Article, not Prop. Q and R propose new Examples, which would be automat-
a Note. ically referred to the Editorial Committee.
Prop. J would prevent descriptive vernacular names or other Prop. S would provide a definition of description, at least partly
non-descriptive traditional/cultural knowledge that might be pro- based on the current Glossary entry. It is essentially similar to that
vided in a protologue from serving as a description or diagnosis. proposed in the first sentence of Prop. E; both proposals would re-
The proposers suggest that if Rec. 38F Prop. A were accepted, such quire that the feature(s) are not simply stated but described. Prop. S
information could more commonly be included in protologues, but would further stipulate that the feature(s) that comprise a description
it could be debated whether such a perceived future problem is in be “explicitly” described, suggesting that certain features, such as
need of a current solution. fragrance, fibrosity, etc. could be implicitly indicated, e.g. in state-
Prop. K, using an approach similar to Prop. M and P, would ex- ments describing economic properties, which themselves are not part
tend the motive for binding decision requests under Art. 38.4 from of a description under Art. 38.3. If both proposals were accepted, the
uncertainty about the adequacy of a descriptive statement to uncer- issue just mentioned would be incorporated into the definition of
tainty about whether or not an illustration qualifies as an illustration Prop. E. If Prop. S is accepted, the suggested amendments to
with analysis (Art. 38.10). The wording used (“whether an illustra- Ex. 7 (already needing amendment, because the name involved was
tion with analysis is acceptable in its [of a description or diagnosis] first validly published in 1867, not 1874) would be referred to the Ed-
place”) could be improved, because Art. 38.7 and 38.8 already indi- itorial Committee.
cate that an illustration with analysis is acceptable in lieu of a written
description or diagnosis before 1908. What seems to be intended by Recommendation 38F (new)
this proposal is a request for a determination of whether or not a given Prop. A (221 – Hayova & al. in Taxon 72: 455) Add a new Rec.
illustration qualifies as an illustration with analysis in meeting this 38F, as follows:

“38F.1. When describing new taxa that have existing local or in- or after 1 January 1958, the type of the name is indicated (see
digenous vernacular names, authors are advised to report these Art. 7–10; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids)
names and associated information on traditional knowledge in the or (b) on or after 1 January 2026, a reference sequence is desig-
protologue and, if appropriate and feasible, to use the local or indig- nated for a name that meets the requirements of Art. X.1.”
enous vernacular names in forming the scientific names of new taxa.” Prop. D (018 – Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 634) Split Art. 40.3
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would urge authors to in- into two Articles and incorporate Art. 40.2 into the second Article,
clude vernacular names and associated information on traditional amended as follows:
knowledge of taxa in the protologue when such information exists. Editorially renumber the first Article as Art. 40.2, the second
It would also urge authors to use vernacular names in forming scien- one as Art. 40.3; no changes are proposed in the new Art. 40.2 except
tific names, which is similarly encouraged in Rec. 23B Prop. B. editorially replace Art. “40.6” with “40.4” in the final cross-
reference.
Article 39 “40.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus,
Prop. A (345 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148) Amend Art. 39.2 reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of
as follows (new text in bold): the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously
“39.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon published species name, even if that element is not explicitly desig-
published on or after 1 January 2012 must be accompanied (a) by a nated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art.
Latin or English description or diagnosis, or by a reference (see 10.8; but see Art. 40.4).”
Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published Latin or English “40.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon pub-
description or diagnosis (for fossils see also Art. 43.1), or, (b) on or lished on or after 1 January 1958, mention of a single specimen, a
after 1 January 2026, by both (1) citation of an identifier issued single gathering or a part thereof, or an illustration is acceptable as in-
for the reference sequence by a recognized online repository dication of the type, even if that element is not explicitly designated
and (2) specification of selected informative portions of the refer- as type (but see Art. 40.4) or if it consists of two or more specimens
ence sequence (see Art. X.8).” as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.5).”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals Editorially replace “reference to” with “mention of” in Note 1, to
that would provide for the future valid publication of names of certain accord with the new Art. 40.3, and replace “that consists” with “con-
taxa other than vascular plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural sisting”; editorially transpose Notes 1 and 2; editorially replace Art.
types (so-called “type-less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). “40.8” with “40.7” in the final cross-reference of Note 3.
The same considerations discussed under Art. 38 Prop. C apply here, Prop. E (153 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 709) Amend the first
i.e. moving the amended portion to a new Article in Art. 38 rather sentence of Art. 40.3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
than placing it in Art. 39.2, to read “A name of a new species or in- strikethrough):
fraspecific taxon other than a vascular plant or bryophyte pub- “40.3. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus,
lished on or after 1 January 2026 may be validly published even reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of
if only accompanied by both (1) citation of an identifier issued the holotype or lectotype of a single type of a previously or simulta-
for the reference sequence by a recognized online repository neously published species name, even if that element is not explicitly
and (2) specification of selected informative portions of the refer- designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also
ence sequence (see Art. X.8).” Those who support the overall set of Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.6).”
proposals but favour this amendment should vote “ed.c.” The No- Here, the word “single” is not well placed. A name can have only
menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. A (votes one type, but a type can be shared by any number of names (homoty-
1 : 14 : 1). pic names). Alternatively, reinforce the word “element” that occurs
further on in the same sentence: “[…] or citation of the holotype or
Article 40 lectotype of a single element that is the type of a previously or si-
Prop. A (180 – Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338) multaneously published species name […].”
Amend Art. 40.1 to exempt names of dinoflagellates as follows Prop. F (357 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152) Add a new
(new text in bold): sentence at the end of Art. 40.3 (new text in bold):
“40.1. Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a “40.3. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus,
new taxon at the rank of genus or below (dinoflagellates excepted) reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of
is valid only when the type of the name is indicated (see Art. 7–10; the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously
but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids and Art. published species name, even if that element is not explicitly desig-
44.3 for those of dinoflagellates).” nated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art.
Prop. B (270 – Wrankmore & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 690) Add a 10.8; but see Art. 40.6). For the purpose of Art. 40.1, mention of a
new Note after Art. 40.1: single specimen or gathering (Art. 40.2) or illustration, even if that el-
“Note n. When elements are cited as part of the type indication ement is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication
that cannot on their own serve as types as defined under Art. 8 and of the type of the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon (but
40 (e.g. living organisms cited contrary to Art. 8.4 or illustrations see Art. 40.6). For names falling under Art. 7.8, the determination
cited contrary to Art. 40.4), they should not be taken into account of whether a single element is mentioned is made by considering
and do not affect valid publication of the name.” both the earlier description or diagnosis and the validating
Prop. C (346 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148) Amend Art. 40.1 protologue.”
as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): Prop. G (368 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1158) Delete the word “ex-
“40.1. Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a plicitly” in the second sentence of Art. 40.3 as follows (deleted text in
new taxon at the rank of genus or below is valid only when (a) on strikethrough):

“40.3. […]. For the purpose of Art. 40.1, mention of a single Prop. M (019 – Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 635) Add a new sec-
specimen or gathering (Art. 40.2) or illustration, even if that element ond sentence to Art. 40.6 and amend Art. 9 Note 6 as follows (new
is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
type of the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon (but see Editorially renumber Art. 40.6 as Art. 40.4 (and Art. 40.7 as Art.
Art. 40.6).” 40.5); editorially add “see also Art. 40.4” to the end of Art. 9.10; ed-
Prop. H (326 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 957) Convert Art. itorially amend or delete Art. 40 Ex. 5.
40 Note 2 to an Article and amend it as follows (new text in bold, de- “40.4. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below
leted text in strikethrough) and add cross-references to it in Art. 9.1 published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must in-
and Art. 7.11: clude one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or
“40.n. Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4).
a single specimen or gathering, nor does it constitute an indication This requirement is also satisfied by use of one of the words
of the type. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (or its abbreviation, or its equivalent
type is required, such as the collector’s name, collecting number or in a modern language), which are to be treated as errors to be cor-
date, or unique specimen identifier, or the herbarium, collection, rected under Art. 9.10. But in In the case of the name of a mono-
or institution in which the type is conserved. A similar detail is re- typic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a
quired to indicate a holotype under Art. 9.1 or designate a type genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, in-
(lectotype, neotype, or epitype) under Art. 7.11.” dication of the type of the species name is sufficient.”
Prop. I (020 – Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 635) Combine and re- [Art. 9] “Note 6. A misused term may be corrected to lectotype,
word Art. 40.4 and 40.5 as follows: neotype, or epitype only if the requirements of Art. 7.11 (for correc-
Editorially renumber the combined Article as Art. 40.6. tion to lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for cor-
“40.6. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon pub- rection to holotype) does not apply, in particular inclusion of the
lished on or after 1 January 2007, the type indicated in accordance with phrase “designated here” for typifications on or after 1 January
Art. 40 must always be a specimen (for fossils see also Art. 8.5); an ex- 2001.”
ception is permitted for names of non-fossil microscopic algae and Prop. N (090 – Nachychko in Taxon 70: 1378) Amend Art. 40.6
non-fossil microfungi, for which the type may be an effectively pub- and Art. 40 Ex. 7 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
lished illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preser- strikethrough):
vation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the “40.6. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below
features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.” published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must in-
Editorially renumber Art. 40.8 as Art. 40.7. clude one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or
Prop. J (094 – Renner in Taxon 70: 1380) Amend Art. 40.4 as its equivalent in a modern language, or abbreviations of these (see
follows (new text in bold): also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). But in the case of the name of a mono-
“40.4. For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new typic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus
species or infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication
an illustration prior to 1 January 2007; on or after that date, the type of the type of the species name is sufficient.”
must be a specimen except (a) as provided in Art. 40.5 or (b) on or “Ex. 7. When Stephenson described “Sedum mucizonia (Ortega)
after 1 January 2026, the type may be an assembled nuclear ge- Raym.-Hamet subsp. urceolatum” (in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles)
nome or informative parts thereof.” 64: 234. 1992) the name was not validly published because the proto-
Prop. K (222 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 456) Amend Art logue lacked the indication “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbrevia-
40.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): tion, or its equivalent in a modern language, or abbreviations of
“40.4. For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new these, a requirement for names published on or after 1 January
species or infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be 1990.”
an illustration prior to 1 January 2007; for names published on or af- Prop. O (160 – Maity & Dash in Taxon 71: 712) Convert Rec.
ter that date, the type must be a specimen may not be an illustration 40A.5 to a new Article after Art. 40.7, reword it as follows, and move
(except as provided in Art. 40.5).” Rec. 40A Ex. 1 (wording unchanged) to follow the new Article:
Prop. L (335 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144) Amend Art. 40.5 “40.7bis. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon
(new text in bold) and add a new Note as follows: published on or after 1 January 2026 of which the type is a specimen,
“40.5. For the purpose of Art. 40.1, the type of a name of a new any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying at
species or infraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi least one of the holotype, isotype, or paratype specimens in addition
(fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively published illus- to its herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition must be spec-
tration or, on or after 1 January 2026, a DNA sequence, if there are ified (see also Art 40.7).”
technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to “Ex. n. The type of Sladenia integrifolia Y. M. Shui & W.
preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the H. Chen (in Novon 12: 539. 2002) was designated as “Mo Ming-
taxon by the author of the name.” Zhong, Mao Rong-Hua & Yu Zhi-Yong 05 (holotype, KUN
“Note x. For the purposes of Art. 40.5, preservation of a speci- 0735701; isotypes, MO, PE)”, where KUN No. 0735701 is the un-
men is regarded as technically unfeasible if and only if physical spec- ique identifier of the holotype sheet in the herbarium of the Kunming
imens or cultures cannot reasonably be obtained using technologies Institute of Botany (KUN).”
available at the time of publication. Preservation of a specimen is Prop. P (148 – Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706) Add new
not considered unfeasible if a type specimen could not be obtained paragraph to Art. 40:
merely for reasons of inconvenience, lack of access, or if a specimen “40.n. For the name of a new fossil-species or infraspecific
was lost or otherwise not collected when it could have been.” fossil-taxon published on or after 1 January 2026, the protologue

must clearly indicate where the holotype specimen (see Art. 8.n) is lo- earlier description or diagnosis or in the protologue, although the
cated within the rock, sediment, or preparation.” Code does not explicitly cover this matter. No situations of this type
Prop. Q (401 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179) Add a new Article in have been indicated by the proposers, and one might expect them to
Art. 40 follows: be quite rare.
“40.n. A name of a new taxon is not validly published merely be- Prop. G would strike the word “explicitly” from “explicitly des-
cause an author attempted to designate a type for an existing name ignated” only in the second sentence of Art. 40.3, arguing that this
that is contrary to the rules (but see Art. 48.1).” wrongly implies that there is some unknown distinction between ex-
Editorially revise “48.1” to “6.n and 48.1” if the second sentence plicit designations and other designations. The identical phrase “even
of Art. 48.1 is converted to a new Art. 6.n. if that element is not explicitly designated as type” also appears in the
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals first sentence of Art. 40.3, where the same consideration should ap-
(Art. 40 Prop. A, Art. 44 Prop. A, D and E) that would harmonize ply but was not noted in Prop. G. The phrases were editorially added
some conflicting requirements for valid publication (availability) of to the 2000 Saint Louis Code presumably to contrast explicit designa-
dinoflagellate names of new taxa between the Code and the zoologi- tions under Art. 9.1 from what would otherwise be the implicit desig-
cal Code, because names in this group have been published under nations under Art. 40.3. The proposed change seems inappropriate.
both Codes. Prop. A, in conjunction with Art. 44 Prop. D, would Prop. H would modify Art. 40 Note 2 and convert it back into an
amend the requirement for type indication, with Prop. A exempting Article. The contents of Note 2, which dates from the 2000 Saint Louis
dinoflagellates from Art. 40.1 (requiring type indication after 1957) Code, were editorially extracted from Art. 37.3 of the 1994 Tokyo
and Art. 44 Prop. D creating a new Art. 44.3 moving this requirement Code. The proposed addition to the first sentence seems unnecessary,
for dinoflagellates to after 1999. Prop. A and Art. 44 Prop. D and E because this would already be apparent from the parallel language
should be considered together, but the proper home for everything (“mention of a single specimen or gathering”) employed in Art. 40.3.
being proposed would seem to be in Art. 40, which deals with type However, Note 2 as currently written does seem to be in need of im-
indication, not in Art. 44, which deals with validating descriptive ma- provement. It could be taken to imply that at least two details are nec-
terial of non-fossil algae. Avoiding placement in either Art. 43 or Art. essary to specify a specimen or gathering: a locality and some other
44 would also avoid the need to consider separate treatment for fossil detail. But some specimens lack locality data, in which case only a sin-
(in Art. 43) and non-fossil (in Art. 44) dinoflagellate names, although gle detail might be specified. This seems undesirable. To avoid this is-
current Art. 11 Prop. E, which has its detractors (see comment under sue, “detail” should be plural (“details”) and “locality” should be
Art. 11 Prop. C, D and E), advocates for removal of separate priority inserted in the second sentence. There is no problem with also adding
rules for fossil or non-fossil dinoflagellate names but intentionally “herbarium, […]”, as advocated in Prop. H, but the proposed insertion
does not address differences in the requirements for valid publication. of the final sentence, which would make these details minimum re-
However, proper placement of any newly accepted provisions is a quirements to indicate a holotype or designate some other kind of type,
matter for the Editorial Committee to decide. The Nomenclature seems unwise, because these determinations are best left to other pro-
Committee for Algae does not support Prop. A (votes 3 : 9 : 4); nor visions, which could be editorially cross-referenced to this one if con-
does the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0). sidered necessary. Another type not listed in this final sentence, but
Prop. B would eliminate debate over the status of some names where it could be relevant, is a syntype, because whether or not a syn-
whose protologues included citation of additional elements ineligible type has been mentioned in a protologue is critical to the selection cri-
as types, such as living organisms or illustrations cited after 2006, by teria for a lectotype under Art. 9.12. Removal of the word “single”, a
noting that this would not affect their valid publication. This seems to cross-reference from Art. 9.6 and the following wording would permit
be in line with existing practice. this additional clarification: “Mere citation of a locality does not con-
Prop. C is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the stitute mention of a specimen or gathering. Concrete reference to
future valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi some details relating to the actual type is required, such as the col-
with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The No- lector’s name, collecting number or date, locality, unique specimen
menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. C (votes 0 : identifier, or the herbarium, collection, or institution in which the
15 : 1). type is conserved.” Those who support this alternative should vote
Prop. D, together with Prop. I and M, seeks to improve the orga- “ed.c.”
nization of Art. 40. All three proposals can be considered indepen- Prop. I, together with Prop. D and M, would reorganize Art. 40.
dently; none is contingent upon another being accepted or rejected. All three proposals are independent; none is contingent upon another
Prop. D would reorganize, without altering, the content of current being accepted or rejected. Prop. I would rearrange and combine the
Art. 40.2 and 40.3, separating the provisions for names of genera related Art. 40.4 and Art. 40.5 into a single Article, with no change of
and subdivisions of genera from those for species and meaning.
infraspecific taxa. Prop. J is part of a set of proposals (with Art. 8 Prop. B and Rec.
Prop. E would modify the wording of Art. 40.3 to prevent possi- 8A Prop. C and D) relating to the acceptance of DNA sequences as
ble misinterpretation, because that Article fails to account for species nomenclatural types. The acceptance of Prop. J is dependent on the
names that have been neotypified or have conserved types. It seems outcome of this set of proposals or the alternatives of the Special-
to be a useful adjustment. purpose Committee on DNA Sequences as Types (see Chap. V Sect.
Prop. F would address a perceived problem in Art. 40.3 in deter- 2 Prop. A). See comments under Art. 8 Prop. B.
mining whether or not a type of a new species or infraspecific taxon Prop. K would amend Art. 40.4 to avoid a misreading that might
validly published solely by reference to a previously and effectively suggest that mention of a gathering is not acceptable after 2006. The
published description or diagnosis and therefore typified under Art. revised wording seems acceptable.
7.8 has been indicated through mention of a single element. This el- Prop. L is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the fu-
ement could presumably be mentioned either in the context of the ture valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi

with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The No- create a new name. Misapplication of a new combination, name at
menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. L (votes 1 : new rank, or replacement name to a different taxon, but without ex-
14 : 1). plicit exclusion of the type of the basionym or replaced synonym,
Prop. M, together with Prop. D and I, would reorganize Art. 40. is dealt with under Art. 7.3–7.4.” Those in favour of this alternative
All three proposals are independent; none is contingent upon another should vote “ed.c.”
being accepted or rejected. Prop. M would add a sentence to Art. 40.6
and modify Art. 9 Note 6 to resolve a conflict with Art. 9.10. Note Chapter V Section 2 (Article 40 or new Article)
6 has prevented correction of terms such as “lectotype” or “neotype” Prop. A (336 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1145) Add the follow-
to “holotype” under Art. 9.10, thereby penalizing authors who mis- ing new Articles in Chapter V Section 2 after Art. 40.5, as follows:
takenly believed that they were lecto- or neotypifying already validly “X.1. In order to be validly published with a DNA sequence as
published names and leaving the valid publication status of such type (see Art. 40.5), a name must (a) be published in an approved
names in limbo. A non-comprehensive list of 14 of these names journal (see App. Y, Art. X.2(b)) and (b) be accompanied in the pro-
was provided by the proposers (in Taxon 69: 635. 2020). tologue by (1) citation of the identifier issued for the type sequence
Prop. N would provide a more precise wording for Art. 40.6 and by a recognized online repository (see App. X and Art. X.2(a)), (2)
its Ex. 7. A similar change is proposed for Art. 9.23 (see Art. specification of selected informative portions of the type sequence,
9 Prop. DDD). (3) a statement as to why it is believed that the taxon is novel and un-
Prop. O would decree that when the type is a specimen “any named, and (4) an explanation of why a type specimen could not be
available number permanently and unambiguously identifying at isolated, cultured, or otherwise prepared.”
least one of the holotype, isotype, or paratype specimens [such as a “X.2. The General Committee, after seeking advice from relevant
herbarium accession, barcode, or QR code] must be specified” with specialist Committees and international societies, has the powers to (a)
the aim of ensuring that the type deposition stated in the protologue appoint one or more localized or decentralized, open and accessible elec-
is actually accomplished. Use of the word “available” implies that tronic repositories to issue the identifiers required by Art. 9.21(a) and
this would only be necessary if such a number exists, which does X.1(b)(1) (see App. X), (b) ratify a list of approved journals for valid pub-
not appear to be the intent of the proposers, so this word should be lication of names with DNA sequences as types (see App. Y), and (c)
omitted. Article 40.7 already requires, also for unpublished illustra- cancel or alter such appointments or ratifications at its discretion.”
tions, after 1989 that “the single herbarium, collection, or institution Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals
in which the type is conserved must be specified”, so Prop. E adds a (Art. 8 Prop. D, Art. 9 Prop. C, HH and CCC, Art. 29 Prop. A, Art.
new layer to this requirement, applying it to at least one specimen 38 Prop. C, Art. 40 Prop. L, Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A, Art. 44 Prop.
from among the holotype, isotypes or paratypes, not necessarily the B and Div. III Prop. X) that would provide for the future valid publi-
same specimen as in Art. 40.7. The aim of Prop. E, in including all cation of names of microscopic algae or microfungi with DNA se-
these types, is to facilitate at least one of them being deposited some- quences as types. This would only be possible, on or after
where before publication. Prop. E presupposes that every herbarium, 1 January 2026, when a “type specimen could not be isolated, cul-
collection or institution for every group of organisms, including fos- tured, or otherwise prepared”. These proposals would allow for the
sils, assigns such numbers to all of its specimens, which may not be holotype DNA sequence to substitute for a description or diagnosis.
true, and that at least one type would be able to be deposited before Stringent requirements would have to be satisfied (see Art. X.1) in
publication. If the proposal is accepted, the Editorial Committee the valid publication of such names, some of these overseen by the
might prefer to omit the Example (current Rec. 40A Ex. 1), because General Committee. Apart from a few minor issues (see Art.
it concerns a name published in 2002, whereas the new Article would 8 Prop. D, Art. 29 Prop. A and Art. 38 Prop. C), no fundamental no-
apply only to names published after 2025. menclatural problems are foreseen from acceptance of this set of pro-
Prop. P proposes a new Article, that would pertain solely to fossil- posals. An alternative set of proposals (see Chap. II new Art. Prop.
taxa, requiring that the location of the holotype specimen within a rock, A), with effectively the same taxonomic coverage, seeks the same ob-
sediment or preparation, which could include multiple specimens of jective by introducing the concept of “type-less” names, the applica-
multiple fossil-taxa, be specified in the protologue. This addition seeks tion of which would be determined by means of reference DNA
to better accommodate the needs of palaeobotanists. The Nomencla- sequences instead of types. The objective is to overcome the obstacle
ture Committee for Fossils supports Prop. P (votes 12 : 0 : 0) that taxa detected and characterized using DNA sequences, but un-
Prop. Q would add a new Article to Art. 40, precluding the pos- able to be isolated, cultured or illustrated, are currently unnameable.
sibility of an attempt to improperly designate a type for an existing Those voting may choose to support one or the other of these sets of
name resulting in a later homonym. A similar issue is the focus of alternative proposals, or neither. The Nomenclature Committee for
Art. 6 Prop. X part (a)(2), which prevents an improper designation Algae does not support Prop. A (votes 1 : 14 : 1). The Nomenclature
of a type from interfering with a new combination, name at new rank Committee for Fungi does not support this set of proposals as a whole
or replacement name. In both cases the improper type designation (votes 4 : 10 : 1). Some members of the latter Committee who voted
must not create the name of a new taxon, because exclusion of the “no” indicated that they could support such an innovation, depending
type as defined in Art. 48.2 has not been achieved. This would be, on modifications to the proposals potentially resulting from deliber-
in effect, a misapplication, applying an existing name, basionym or ations of the Special-purpose Committee on DNA Sequences as
replaced synonym to a different taxon without exclusion of its type, Types for Fungi that is to report to the XII International Mycological
a situation already partly handled by Art. 48 Note 1. It would seem Congress, Maastricht, Netherlands, in August 2024.
that both issues could be dealt with in combination through a modi-
fication to Art. 48 Note 1, to read: “An improper (Art. 9.11–9.13 Recommendation 40A
and Art. 10.2) or ineffective (Art. 7.10 and 7.11) type designation Prop. A (044 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1389) Amend
without explicit exclusion of the type (see Art. 48.2) does not Rec. 40A.1 as follows (deleted text in strikethrough):

“40A.1. The indication of the nomenclatural type should imme- 43.3, although not there restricted to photographs. The latter sentence
diately follow the description or diagnosis and should include the seemingly offers more good advice, but the resulting photograph
Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.” would become the obligate choice for later lectotypification, should
Prop. B (223 – Kumar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 72: 456) De- this be necessary, thereby precluding selection of a more appropriate
lete Rec. 40A.1: neotype specimen and encouraging for pre-existing names what Art.
“40A.1. The indication of the nomenclatural type should imme- 40.4 forbids for names of new taxa.
diately follow the description or diagnosis and should include the
Latin word “typus” or “holotypus”.” Article 41
Prop. C (224 – Kumar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 72: 456) Prop. A (225 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 457) Amend Art. 41.1 as fol-
Amend Rec. 40A.4 (new text in bold): lows (new text in bold):
“40A.4. Details of the type specimen of the name of a new spe- “41.1. In order to be validly published, a new combination, name
cies or infraspecific taxon, including the words required by Art. at new rank, or replacement name must be accompanied by a refer-
40.6, should be published in the Latin alphabet.” ence to the basionym or replaced synonym. (See Art. 6.10 and
Prop. D (327 – Mosyakin & al. in Taxon 72: 958) Amend Rec. 6.11). See Art. 41.5 for such names published on or after
40A.4 as follows (new text in bold): 1 January 1953.”
“40A.4. Details of the type specimen of the name of a new spe- Prop. B (271 – Wrankmore & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 691) Add a
cies or infraspecific taxon should be published in the Latin alphabet. new Note after Art. 41.3:
The author(s) should provide in the protologue the full and ex- “Note n. An indirect reference to a basionym or replaced syno-
plicit citation of the data on the label accompanying the type nym is a clear (if cryptic) indication of the place of publication of that
(holotype) specimen, including the exact locality (preferably with basionym or replaced synonym or one of its homotypic names. An
geographic coordinates, if available), the name(s) of the indication of an author and/or publication different from those of a
collector(s), collecting number and date, and other relevant potential basionym or replaced synonym is in itself not considered
information.” sufficient to be an indirect reference to that basionym or replaced
Prop. E (117 – Bandyopadhyay & al. in Taxon 70: 1390) Add a synonym.”
new paragraph to Rec. 40A: Prop. C (302 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948) Amend Art.
“40A.7. Authors should publish the name of a new species or in- 41.4 as follows (deleted text in strikethrough):
fraspecific taxon not only with a holotype but also with isotype(s) “41.4. If, for a name of a genus or lower-ranked taxon published
and/or paratype(s). The isotype(s) and paratype(s) should preferably before 1 January 1953, no reference to a basionym is given but the
be deposited in herbaria other than that in which the holotype is de- conditions for its valid publication as the name of a new taxon or re-
posited. If it is not possible to preserve any specimens other than placement name are fulfilled, that name is nevertheless treated as a
the holotype, a photograph of the holotype should be included in new combination or name at new rank when this was the author’s pre-
the protologue, so that if the holotype is lost or destroyed, the photo- sumed intent and a potential basionym (Art. 6.10) applying to the
graph will be available for designation as the lectotype.” same taxon exists.”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would delete an unnecessary Prop. D (079 – Gnanasekaran & Arisdason in Taxon 70: 458)
phrase from Rec. 40A.1, because the subject covered is already man- Amend Art. 41.5 as follows (new text in bold) and delete Rec. 41A.1:
dated by Art. 40.6. “41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at
Prop. B would delete Rec. 40A.1, which appears to be routinely new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its ba-
ignored by most taxonomists, altogether. The Recommendation sionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct
serves little or no purpose and can be deleted with no negative reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page
consequences. or plate reference and date (but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). On or after
Prop. C would insert a phrase in Rec. 40A.4 to “make it explicit 1 January 2007, a new combination, name at new rank, or replace-
that the ‘details of the type specimen’, which should be published in ment name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced
the Latin alphabet, include the words required by Art. 40.6”. How- synonym is cited. On or after 1 January 2025, a new combination,
ever, Art. 40.6 requires “the words ‘typus’ or ‘holotypus’, or its ab- name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published
breviation, or its equivalent in a modern language” after 1989 and unless it is immediately followed by the full and direct reference
Art. 40 Ex. 8 indicates a name published in 1990 with type details to the author and place of publication of its basionym or replaced
in Chinese. So Prop. C would be recommending against something synonym.”
that Art. 40.6 permits. “41A.1. The full and direct reference to the place of publication
Prop. D would recommend what some might consider desirable of the basionym or replaced synonym should immediately follow a
nomenclatural practice that is not currently suggested anywhere in proposed new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name.
the Code. However, in the case of certain taxa, citing exact locality It should not be provided by mere cross-reference to a bibliography at
data would not be advisable if it would expose their native popula- the end of the publication or to other parts of the same publication,
tions to over-collecting. e.g. by use of the abbreviations “loc. cit.” or “op. cit.””
Prop. E, in its first sentence, would offer useful advice encour- Prop. E (118 – Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1391) Amend Art. 41.5 as
aging the preparation and citation of duplicate and/or related type follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough) and add a new
material of names of new taxa, although it might have limited appli- Example:
cation to fossils. The advice of the second sentence overlaps with “41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at
Rec. 7A Prop. C, which more generally applies to all type designa- new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its ba-
tions, not just those for names of new taxa. The third sentence would sionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct
recommend what is already required for fossils under Art. 43.2 and reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page

or plate reference and date (but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). Valid publi- “41.5bis. New combinations, names at new rank, or replacement
cation is not achieved by reference to a new combination based on names that are effectively published under Art. 29.1bis are also con-
the actual basionym or replaced synonym (but see Art. 41.8), un- sidered to be simultaneously validly published. Any errors or omis-
less that new combination is the illegitimate name being replaced sions are correctable after registration, not affecting the date of
by a replacement name. On or after 1 January 2007, a new combi- valid publication. However, because only new combinations, names
nation, name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly pub- at new rank, or replacement names can be validly published by this
lished unless its basionym or replaced synonym is cited.” procedure, correction as the name of a new taxon is not permitted.”
“Ex. 16bis. The intended replacement name “Hemionitis Prop. J (045 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1390) Convert Art. 41 Ex.
atreyu” was not validly published by Christenhusz (in Christenhusz 17 into a voted Example:
& al., Global Fl. 4: 10. 2018) because that author made no reference “*Ex. 17. Aronia arbutifolia var. nigra (Willd.) F. Seym.
to the replaced synonym, Pteris acrostica Balb. (Elenco: 98. 1801), (Fl. New England: 308. 1969) was published as a new combination
instead citing “Cheilanthes acrostica Tod., Giorn. Sci. Nat. Econ. “Based on Mespilus arbutifolia L. var. nigra Willd., in Sp. Pl. 2:
Palermo 1: 215. 1866”, which is in fact a new combination, 1013. 1800.” Willdenow treated these plants in the genus Pyrus,
C. acrostica (Balb.) Tod., based on P. acrostica, which Todaro ex- not Mespilus, and publication was in 1799, not 1800; these errors
plicitly cited as the basionym.” of citation do not prevent valid publication of the new combination.”
Prop. F (184 – Kumar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 71: 1338) Prop. K (046 – Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1390) Delete Art. 41 Ex. 19:
Amend Art. 41.5 as follows (new text in bold) and add a new Note: “Ex. 19. Nekemias grossedentata (Hand.-Mazz.) J. Wen & Z.
“41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at L. Nie (in PhytoKeys 42: 16. 2014) was published as a new
new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its ba- combination, with the basionym cited as “Ampelopsis cantoniensis
sionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct var. grossedentata Hand.-Mazz., Sitzungsber. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss.,
reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page Math.-Naturwiss. Cl., Abt. 1, 59: 105. 1877”. The actual place of
or plate reference (if present and even if preliminary) and date (but publication of the cited basionym was in Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien,
see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). On or after 1 January 2007, a new combina- Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 59: 105. 1922. These errors of citation (name
tion, name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published of the journal and date) do not prevent valid publication of the new
unless its basionym or replaced synonym is cited.” combination.”
“Note x. For the purpose of Art. 41.5, preliminary page numbers Prop. L (328 – Hartley & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 960) Delete
in electronic publications may be cited provided that the content of clauses (c) and (d) from Art. 41.8 (deleted text in strikethrough)
the publication is not preliminary (see Art. 30 Note 1).” and add a new Art. 41.8bis:
Prop. G (226 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 457) Amend Art. 41.5 as “41.8. On or after 1 January 1953, in any of the following cases,
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): a full and direct reference to a work other than that in which the basio-
“41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a A new combination, name at nym or replaced synonym was validly published is treated as an error
new rank, or replacement name published on or after 1 January to be corrected, not affecting the valid publication of a new combina-
1953 is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced syno- tion, name at new rank, or replacement name:
nym is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its au- (a) when the actual basionym or replaced synonym was validly
thor and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and published earlier than the name or later isonym cited as such, but in
date (but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). In addition On or after 1 January the cited publication, in which all conditions for valid publication
2007, a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name of the name as cited are fulfilled, there is no reference, in association
published on or after 1 January 2007 is not validly published un- with that name, to the place of valid publication of the actual basio-
less its basionym or replaced synonym is cited.” nym or replaced synonym;
Conforming changes are needed for Art. 41.3 and 41.8. (b) when the failure to cite the place of valid publication of the
Prop. H (272 – Hartley & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 692) Add a new basionym or replaced synonym is explained by the later nomencla-
Note after Art. 41 Note 1: tural starting-point for the group concerned (Art. 13.1), or by the
“Note 1bis. For publications lacking page numbers, a page refer- backward shift of the starting date for some fungi;
ence can be achieved by a clear indication of the page or pages on which (c) when the resulting new combination or name at new rank
the protologue of the basionym or replaced synonym appears by: would otherwise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegitimate)
(a) citing an assumed page number when there is continuous replacement name; or
pagination; (d) when the resulting new combination, name at new rank,
(b) citing the page number automatically generated within the or replacement name would otherwise be the validly published name
PDF of an electronic publication; of a new taxon.”
(c) using the words “without page number”, “sine pagina”, “41.8.bis. On or after 1 January 1953, in any of the
“s.p.” or similar; or following cases, the omission of a basionym or replaced synonym
(d) including any indication that refers to the exact page on which (Art. 41.5), omissions in the full and direct reference citation of a ba-
the protologue appears, for example citing the species number, or the sionym or replaced synonym (Art. 41.6), or citation of a work other
words “addition” or “supplement” if indicated as such on the page. than that in which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly
The citation of a DOI or URL to the web page on which the elec- published are treated as errors to be corrected, not affecting the valid
tronic paper appears is not sufficient for page indication even if the publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or
entire publication is coextensive with the protologue.” replacement name:
Prop. I (318 – Govaerts & Kirk in Taxon 72: 953) Add a new Ar- (a) when the resulting new combination or name at new rank
ticle to Art. 41 to allow for valid publication of a new combination, would otherwise be validly published as a (legitimate or illegitimate)
name at new rank or replacement name by registration only: replacement name; or

(b) when the resulting new combination, name at new rank, new rule is uncertain, and some might feel that the Code already
or replacement name would otherwise be the validly published name has too many date-limited rules.
of a new taxon.” Prop. E seeks to clarify what constitutes reference to the basio-
We ask the Editorial Committee to make the necessary cross- nym under Art. 41.5, so that referring instead to a new combination
references, especially “(but see Art. 41.8bis)” to Art. 41.5 and 41.6, would be explicitly prohibited. The current rules already prohibit
rather than formally proposing such changes here. this, because referring to a new combination instead of its basionym
Prop. M (064 – Wisnev in Taxon 70: 451) Add a new Art. 41.9 as is not a direct reference to that basionym, which the Article requires.
follows: The proposal would, however, restrict what constitutes reference to
“41.9. None of the foregoing requirements in Art. 41 applies to the replaced synonym under the same Article, prohibiting with one
a replacement name that is illegitimate under Art. 52 if neither Art. exception reference to a new combination, which under the current
7.5(a) nor (b) applies.” rules is allowed but, in the proposer’s opinion, “is against what one
Prop. N (227 – Mota & al. in Taxon 72: 458) Add a new Article could presume to be the intent or meaning of Art. 41.5”. Those
to Art. 41 as follows: who agree will presumably support the proposal. If Prop. E is ac-
“41.n. When it is doubtful whether an author has satisfied the re- cepted, the associated Example would be referred to the Editorial
quirement of Art. 41.3 for an “indirect reference” to a basionym or Committee.
replaced synonym, a request for a decision may be submitted to the Prop. F would make it explicit that a full and direct reference to
General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the special- the basionym or replaced synonym in Art. 41.5 may omit non-
ist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov. existent page or plate numbers and may include preliminary page
2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A Committee recommendation as to whether or numbers. This could be helpful especially when referring to final ver-
not the name concerned is validly published may then be put forward sions of electronic publications in which pagination is still prelimi-
to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a nary or lacking. However, as worded, it is not quite clear what the
binding decision with retroactive effect. These binding decisions are phrase “(if present and even if preliminary)” refers to, although pre-
listed in App. VI.” sumably it means page (or plate) numbers.
Prop. O (300 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948) Add a new Prop. G would provide a more precise wording for Art. 41.5
Note to Art. 41: (as well as Art. 41.3 and 41.8) and make it clear that the condition
“Note n. Before 1 January 1953, a reference to an earlier new of valid publication in the second sentence applies in addition to that
combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is deemed to in the first sentence, not instead of it.
include a reference to the basionym or replaced synonym of Prop. H would add a Note explaining how, in printed matter or
that name.” electronic material lacking page numbers, reference to pages may
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is intended to alert Code be given in order to meet the requirements of Art. 41.5. While a
users to Art. 41.5, which the proposer regards as the “most important DOI or URL linking to an online article does not constitute a page
rule” in Art. 41, whereas “most users have little interest in the pre- reference, it may be necessary to include it when it is the only way
1953 rules”. Users who agree with this will presumably support the to identify a particular journal article that has yet to be assigned an ar-
proposal. ticle number or final page numbers within a volume or part, because
Prop. B, in its first sentence, would provide a useful Note ex- citing, e.g., “Taxon (2023) [page 3 of 10]” could refer to any number
plaining what an indirect reference can be. However, the second sen- of articles. The final sentence of the Note would therefore perhaps be
tence would add a restriction suggesting that a pre-1953 new better worded as “is not by itself sufficient for page indication”.
combination, name at new rank or replacement name could not be Prop. I is linked to Art. 29 Prop. B, which would permit nomen-
validly published if the reference to the basionym or replaced syno- clatural novelties other than names of new taxa to be effectively pub-
nym involved more than one step, e.g. if it was to a later isonym by lished by registration at a recognized nomenclatural repository. Prop.
the same or a different author, or if it was to a new combination or re- I would go further by ruling that such names are “considered to be si-
placement name based on the basionym or replaced synonym. A less multaneously validly published”, even if there are errors or omis-
restrictive view of this is taken by Prop. O. The proposers cite Aster sions, which could be corrected later. However, such corrections
pyrenaeus Desf. ex DC., argued by some to be illegitimate under would conflict with Art. 30.4: “The content of a particular electronic
Art. 52 because “Aster sibiricus Lam. Dict. 1. p. 305.” was cited in publication must not be altered after it is effectively published. Any
synonymy and Lamarck described “Aster sibiricus L.” However, it such alterations are not themselves effectively published. Corrections
can be implied that Candolle meant A. sibiricus sensu Lam. non L., or revisions must be issued separately to be effectively published”
which precludes illegitimacy, as explained in Art. 52 Note 3. and Art. 41.6: “For names published on or after 1 January 1953, er-
Prop. C would remove the need to presume the author’s intent rors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, including
when determining the status of a name under Art. 41.4. This incorrect author citation (Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 41.5), do
intent could be presumed differently by different workers and there- not preclude valid publication of a new combination, name at new
fore lead to instability. The proposers argue that the requirement for rank, or replacement name.” Under Prop. I, the protologue is the re-
the existence of a potential basionym that applies to the same taxon cord in the registration database, and permitting this to be altered af-
is sufficient. ter its effective publication would not only violate these other
Prop. D would convert Rec. 41A.1 to an Article, meaning that provisions but could create a whole host of future problems. Addi-
after 2024 a full and direct reference to a basionym or replaced syn- tionally, separating nomenclature from taxonomy would in some
onym could no longer be achieved by citing, e.g., “Linnaeus (1753: cases facilitate, and thereby encourage, publication of the former un-
123)” and then including a full bibliographic citation of Linnaeus’s supported by any evidence from the latter.
Species plantarum in the literature cited. Whether journals that cur- Prop. J is based on a strictly literal reading of Art. 41.6 in which
rently use this style of citation would promptly comply with the “errors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym,

including incorrect author citation” would be interpreted as exclud- Recommendation 41A

ing the bibliographic reference of the name (i.e. “place of valid pub- Prop. A (273 – Hartley & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 692) Amend
lication, with page or plate reference and date” as per Art. 41.5). On Rec. 41A.2 to read (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
this basis, the proposer argues that Art. 41 Ex. 17 is wrong, because “41A.2. In the absence of established tradition, if publications
the date is not correctable, and conversion to a voted Example is nec- are not paginated, page numbers indicated according to Art.
essary to permit correction of dates. However, disallowing valid pub- 41 Note 1bis(a), (b), or (c) should be referenced with enclosed in
lication when dates have been incorrectly cited for a basionym or square brackets.”
replaced synonym could have enormous consequences in terms of Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would be an appropriate ed-
nomenclatural stability, because knowledge regarding dates of publi- itorial adjustment to Rec. 41A.2 should Art. 41 Prop. H be accepted.
cation of many works can evolve over time.
Prop. K is based on the argument that Art. 41 Ex. 19 is wrong Article 42
because the date in a bibliographic reference to a basionym is not cor- Prop. A (377 – Brinda & Watson in Taxon 72: 1170) Add three
rectable, as discussed under Prop. J, and the erroneous citation of an new Articles and three new Notes to Art. 42:
actual different journal is contrary to Art. 41.7, which prohibits cita- “42.4. For an identifier to be issued by a recognized repository
tion of “any work other than that in which the name was validly pub- for a nomenclatural novelty (Art. 6 Note 4) applied to an organism
lished”, so the Example should be deleted. Prop. K would be treated as an alga or plant under this Code, the minimum elements
automatically referred to the Editorial Committee. of information that must be provided to the repository by either the
Prop. L would divide Art. 41.8 into two Articles to end what the author(s) or other user(s) of these scientific names are proof of effec-
proposers call the “new combination/name of new taxon lottery”, tive publication (Art. 29–31) of the name itself along with those ele-
i.e. the way in which either status can be determined for an intended ments required for valid publication under Art. 38.1(a) and 39.2
new combination published after 1952. According to the authors “If a (validating description or diagnosis) and Art. 40.1 and 40.7 (type)
protologue contains a full and direct reference to any work, then the or Art. 41.5 (reference to the basionym or replaced synonym) and
avowed combination is to be considered a validly published new for algae Art. 44.2.”
combination, but if there is no full and direct reference, then it is to “Note 2. In contrast to registration of fungal names, registration
be considered a name of a new taxon with the same type as the of algal and plant names is retrospective and accomplished only after
avowed basionym.” Their new Art. 41.8bis would transfer clauses valid publication (Art. 42.3).”
(c) and (d) from current Art. 41.8 and relax the requirements of “Note 3. Proof of effective and valid publication for the purposes
Art. 41.5 and 41.6, which demand both: (1) citation of the basionym of issuing an identifier may be provided to the repository in a variety
or replaced synonym and (2) provision of a full and direct reference of forms including (but not limited to) PDFs, scanned page images,
to its author and place of valid publication, when either condition and/or URL/DOIs that lead to free and publicly accessible websites
(c) or (d) is met. The result would be to allow many names intended where these may be obtained.”
as new combinations or replacement names, but currently failing to “42.5. The General Committee (see Div. III Prov. 7) has the
meet requirement (1) or (2) above, to be treated as such rather than power to (a) appoint one or more localized or decentralized, open
being treated as names of new taxa. Prop. L, if accepted, would make and accessible electronic repositories to accession the information re-
Art. 6 Prop. Z unnecessary, because the names of new taxa that Art. quired by Art. 42.4 and issue identifiers; (b) cancel such appointment
6 Prop. Z mentions would presumably become new combinations at its discretion; and (c) set aside the requirements of Art. 42.4 and
or replacement names. 42.6, should the repository mechanism, or essential parts thereof,
Prop. M, by ruling that none of the current conditions of Art. cease to function. Decisions made by this Committee under these
41 would apply, would presumably allow illegitimate replacement powers are subject to ratification by a subsequent International Bo-
names to be validly published, even after 1952, merely by including tanical Congress.”
the type of a replaced synonym (Art. 52.1) but without reference to “42.6. For an identifier to be issued by a recognized repository
that replaced synonym. However, this seems to be based on a misun- for the purposes of specifying the designation of a type of the name
derstanding of Art. 6.12 and 7.5, neither of which can determine valid of an organism treated as an alga or plant under this Code, the mini-
publication. By circumventing the normal rules for valid publication mum elements of information that must be provided to the repository
of a replaced synonym, this proposal could have unforeseen by either the author(s) or other user(s) of these type designations are
consequences. proof of effective publication (Art. 29–31) of the name being typi-
Prop. N is modelled on Art. 38.4 and would allow binding deci- fied, along with the author(s) designating the type and those elements
sions on valid publication to apply to cases of doubt as to the provi- required by Art. 9.21, 9.22, and 9.23.”
sion of an indirect reference under Art. 41.3. The proposers cite a “Note 4. For organisms treated as algae or plants under this
single example that they were unable to resolve, but it is unclear Code, issuance of an identifier by a recognized repository has no ef-
how widespread the perceived problem is. Other proposals (Art. fect on valid publication of a name (Art. 32–45) or effective type des-
38 Prop. K, M, N and P) would amend Art. 38.4 to address other ignation (Art. 7.8–7.11). Instead, these simply serve as stable digital
cases of uncertainty. Some might consider that a proliferation in re- references to the information present in the actual place of
quests for binding decisions could overwhelm Nomenclature Com- publication.”
mittees that already have a heavy workload. Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A arose from discussions
Prop. O would add a Note, opposite to that offered by Prop. B, within the Registration Committee, although it was not authored by
based on a more expansive interpretation of “indirect reference”, the Registration Committee itself, which did not submit any proposal
i.e. that an indirect reference may involve two steps, such as when a (see Loizeau & al. in Taxon 72: 1134–1136. 2023). Prop. A, which
pre-1953 new combination does not cite the basionym but cites an- should be considered together with Rec. 42A Prop. A, would create
other new combination based on that basionym. three new Articles and three new Notes in Art. 42 that would establish

procedures for the issuance of unique identifiers from recognized re- “44.3. Publication on or after 1 January 2000 of the name of a
positories, approved by the General Committee, for the voluntary ret- new taxon of dinoflagellates at the rank of genus or below is valid
rospective registration of both nomenclatural novelties of algae and only when the type of the name is indicated.”
plants and their type designations. These provisions parallel those Prop. E (183 – Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338) Add
in Art. F.5 for fungi, but registration in fungi is proactive and manda- a new Note to follow Art. 44.3:
tory for valid publication of names or effective designation of types. “Note 2. Although dinoflagellates are excluded from Art. 40.1,
the other provisions of Art. 40 still apply, including type indications.”
Recommendation 42A (new) Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is part of a set of proposals
Prop. A (378 – Brinda & Watson in Taxon 72: 1171) Add two (Art. 40 Prop. A, Art. 44 Prop. A, D and E) that would harmonize
Recommendations to a new Rec. 42A: some conflicting requirements for valid publication (availability) of
“42A.1. Following the effective and valid publication of new dinoflagellate names of new taxa between the Code and the zoologi-
names and nomenclatural acts, authors should report them to a recog- cal Code, because names in this group have been published under
nized nomenclatural repository (Art. 42.1) for indexing and assign- both Codes. Prop. A would exempt dinoflagellate names from ever
ment of a unique identifier (Art. 42.4 and 42.6). While it is in the requiring a Latin description or diagnosis or a reference to one for
interest of the authors to do this promptly, any other party may pre- valid publication, because this was never a requirement of the zoolog-
sent proof of effective and valid publication to these repositories for ical Code. Acceptance of Prop. A would still require non-fossil or
the purposes of both indexing and identifier assignment. In groups fossil dinoflagellate names published under the Code to satisfy Art.
where proactive registration is mandatory (see Art. F.5), additional 39.2 or Art. 43.1, respectively, by providing a Latin or English de-
publication details (e.g. final pagination, precise date of publication, scription or diagnosis or reference to one after 2011 or 1995, respec-
etc.) should be provided to the registrar at this time.” tively. It should be noted that current Art. 11 Prop. E, which has its
“42A.2. Specification of names and nomenclatural acts for the detractors (see Art. 11 Prop. C, D and E), advocates for removal of
purpose of exchange of digital information should include the unique separate priority rules for fossil or non-fossil dinoflagellate names,
identifier for those entities as established by a recognized nomencla- but intentionally did not address differences in these requirements
tural repository (Art. 42.1).” for valid publication. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is paired with and dependent not support Prop. A (votes 4 : 7 : 5); nor does the Nomenclature Com-
upon acceptance of Art. 42 Prop. A and would encourage authors of mittee for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0).
new names and nomenclatural acts or other parties to follow the pro- Prop. B is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the
cedures that would be established by Art. 42 Prop. A. future valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi
with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The No-
Article 44 menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. B (votes 0 :
Prop. A (181 – Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338) 15 : 1).
Amend Art. 44.1 to exempt names of dinoflagellates as follows Prop. C is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the
(new text in bold): future valid publication of names of certain taxa other than vascular
“44.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural types (so-called “type-
non-fossil algae (dinoflagellates excepted) published between 1 Janu- less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). The Nomenclature Com-
ary 1958 and 31 December 2011, inclusive, must be accompanied by a mittee for Algae does not support Prop. C (votes 0 : 15 : 1).
Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference (see Art. 38.13) to a Prop. D and E are part of a set of proposals (Art. 40 Prop. A, Art.
previously and effectively published Latin description or diagnosis.” 44 Prop. A, D and E) that would harmonize some conflicting require-
Prop. B (337 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1145) Amend Art. 44.2 ments for valid publication (availability) of dinoflagellate names of
as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): new taxa between the Code and the zoological Code, because names
“44.2. A name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil in this group have been published under both Codes. Article
algae published on or after 1 January 1958 is not validly published un- 40 Prop. A, in conjunction with Art. 44 Prop. D, would amend the re-
less (a) on or after 1 January 1958 it is accompanied by an illustration quirement for type indication, with Art. 40 Prop. A exempting dino-
or figure showing the distinctive morphological features, or by a refer- flagellates from Art. 40.1 (requiring type indication after 1957) and
ence to a previously and effectively published such illustration or figure, Art. 44 Prop. D creating a new Art. 44.3 moving this requirement
or (b) on or after 1 January 2026 its holotype is a DNA sequence for dinoflagellates to after 1999. Article 44 Prop. E would clarify that
and it meets the requirements of Art. X.1.” the other requirements under Art. 40 would still apply to dinoflagel-
Prop. C (347 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148) Amend Art. 44.2 lates. See additional comments under Art. 40 Prop. A that are relevant
as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): to both Art. 44 Prop. D and E. The Nomenclature Committee for Al-
“44.2. A name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of non- gae does not support Prop. D (votes 4 : 8 : 4) or Prop. E (votes 3 : 8 :
fossil algae published on or after 1 January 1958 is not validly pub- 5); nor does the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0,
lished unless (a) on or after 1 January 1958 it is accompanied by both proposals).
an illustration or figure showing the distinctive morphological fea-
tures, or by a reference to a previously and effectively published such Article 45
illustration or figure, or (b) on or after 1 January 2026 a reference Prop. A (379 – McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172) Add a sentence to
sequence is designated for a name that meets the requirements of Art. 45.1 as follows (new text in bold):
Art. X.1.” “45.1. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by
Prop. D (182 – Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338) Add this Code is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its
a new Art. 44.3 to align the ICN requirement for nomenclatural type names need satisfy only the requirements of the relevant other Code
indication of dinoflagellate names with that of the ICZN (Art. 72.3): that the author was using for status equivalent to valid publication

under this Code (but see Art. 54 and F.6.1, regarding homonymy). (animalcules), is available under the International Code of Zoologi-
The Code used by the author is determined through internal evidence, cal Nomenclature (ICZN Art. 11.7.2) and is validly published as
irrespective of any claim by the author as to the group of organisms to the name of a family of algae and retains its original authorship and
which the taxon is assigned. If no clear internal evidence exists date but with the original termination changed in accordance with
to determine the Code being used by the author, names therein Art. 18.4 and 32.2, Art. 18.4 last sentence notwithstanding, with
need only satisfy the specific requirements for the equivalent of the diatoms now treated as algae.”
valid publication in any one of the Codes that might have been “Ex. n2. Prorocentraceae F. Stein (Organism. Infusionsthiere
used regardless of whether or not that Code is deemed applicable. 3(2): 8, 16–17. 1883, ‘Prorocentrinen’), originally published with a
However, a name generated in zoological nomenclature in accor- German termination in vernacular form for a family of protozoans,
dance with the Principle of Coordination is not validly published un- is available under the International Code of Zoological Nomencla-
der this Code unless and until it actually appears in a publication as ture (Art. 11.7.2) as the name of a family of protists. When the dino-
the accepted name of a taxon.” flagellate taxon is treated as a algae, its name is validly published and
If Prop. 379 [Prop. A] is accepted, I would commend the follow- retains its original authorship and date but with the original termina-
ing Example to the Editorial Committee: tion changed in accordance with Art. 18.4 and 32.2, Art. 18.4 last
The generic name Alexandrium, with one species, A. minutum, sentence notwithstanding.”
was published by Halim (in Vie & Milieu, Sér. A, Biol. Mar. 11: Prop. F (275 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 694) Add a new paragraph
101–105. 1960) without clear internal evidence of the Code that Ha- to Art. 45 with a new Example:
lim was following. Halim did not include any Latin description or in- “45.n1. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by
dicate a type for A. minutum, both requirements at that time under the this Code is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, but when pub-
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. His names do, how- lished its name did not meet the requirements of the relevant other
ever, meet the specific requirements of the International Code of Code for status equivalent to valid publication, the name has no
Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 10–20) for availability. Consequently, standing under this Code despite satisfying the other requirements
when treated as algal names, they are validly published under the In- of this Code for valid publication.”
ternational Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, de- “Ex. n3. Hystrichosphaera Wetzel (in Palaeontographica,
spite the fact that the ICZN has been deemed inapplicable to Abt. A, Paläozool. 78: 33. 1933), originally published as a fossil pro-
Halim’s publication (Andersen in Taxon 70: 1125. 2021). tist genus under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
Prop. B (380 – McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172) Amend Art. 45.1 as without designation (fixation) of the type and thereby unavailable
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): (ICZN Art. 13.3), was therefore not a validly published name under
“45.1. If a taxon originally Any of the names of a taxon treated this Code despite satisfying the other requirements of this Code for
as belonging to the algae or fungi but that were, or appear to have valid publication. Deflandre (in Ann. Paléontol. 26: 61. 1937) validly
been, published under the provisions of another Code assigned to published the name by providing a description together with fixation
a group not covered by this Code is treated as belonging to the algae of the type, and therefore Hystrichosphaera Wetzel ex Deflandre
or fungi, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements of the (l.c.) is treated as validly published under both the ICZN and this
relevant other Code that the author was considered to be using for Code from 1937, not from the publication by Wetzel in 1933.”
status equivalent to valid publication under this Code (but see Art. Prop. G (276 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 694) Add a second new par-
54 and F.6.1, regarding homonymy). […].” agraph to Art. 45 with two new Examples:
This proposal, if accepted, also permits the following more con- “45.n2. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by
cise wording that I would refer to the Editorial Committee: this Code is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi and its name
“45.1. Any of the names of a taxon treated as belonging to the was originally published with status equivalent to valid publication
algae or fungi but that were, or appear to have been, published under under the relevant other Code, the name retains its original authorship
the provisions of another Code need satisfy only the requirements of and date of publication, especially for the purposes of homonymy,
that Code for status equivalent to valid publication under this Code even though this Code might have later starting-points for some
(but see Art. 54 and F.6.1, regarding homonymy). […].” groups of algae or fungi.”
Prop. C (381 – McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172) Add a Note immedi- “Ex. n4. Gyrogonites Lam. (Syst. Anim. Sans Vertèbr.: 401.
ately after Art. 45.1 to read: 1801) was originally published and available under the International
“Note 0. Names published prior to the existence of nomencla- Code of Zoological Nomenclature for a genus of fossil molluscs, but
tural codes are deemed to have been published under whichever Code later shown to apply to remains of the reproductive organs of charo-
is suggested by internal evidence.” phycean algae. It nonetheless retains its original authorship and date
Prop. D (382 – McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172) Amend the second of publication from 1801 for the purposes of homonymy despite not
sentence of Art. 45.1 to read (new text in bold, deleted text in being considered as validly published under this Code until after
strikethrough): 1820, the starting-point for plant fossils (Gyrogonites Lam. ex Bow-
“45.1. […]. The Code used by the author is determined through dich, Man. Conchol.: 16. 1822).”
internal evidence, irrespective of any claim by the author as to the “Ex. n5. Pirea Vavrdová (in Věstn. Ustředn. Ústavu Geol. 47:
group of relationships of the organisms to which the taxon is as- 82. 1972), originally published as a microfossil of Acritarcha, which
signed. […].” is treated simultaneously under the rules of the International Code of
Prop. E (274 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 693) Add two new Exam- Zoological Nomenclature and this Code, is a later homonym of Pirea
ples after Art. 45.1: T. Durand (Index Gen. Phan.: 494. 1888), a genus of Brassicaceae.
“Ex. n1. Bacillariaceae Bory (Dict. Class. Hist. Nat. 2: 127. Pirea Vavrdová is correct in zoological nomenclature, since no se-
1822, ‘Bacillariées’), originally published with a French termination nior zoological homonym exists, but not under this Code, so it was
in vernacular form for a family then considered to be animals proposed for conservation against its earlier homonym to avoid the

existence of different correct names for the same organism under two 1: 406. 1848–1849, ‘Physarei’) suprageneric names retain the origi-
different Codes (see Doweld in Taxon 67: 452. 2018 and Taxon 70: nal authorship and date (Fries, l.c. 1825) in accordance with the Prin-
670. 2021).” ciple of Coordination, but with their original terminations changed in
Prop. H (277 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 695) Amend Art. 45.1 as accordance with Art. 19.7 and 32.2.”
follows (deleted text in strikethrough) and add a third new paragraph Prop. I (278 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 695) Add a fourth
to Art. 45 with two new Examples: new paragraph to Art. 45 with a new Example and revise Art. 41.5
“45.1. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by to add a special exception (new text in bold, deleted text in
this Code is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its strikethrough):
names need satisfy only the requirements of the relevant other Code “45.n4. For a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by
that the author was using for status equivalent to valid publication un- this Code that is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any new
der this Code (but see Art. 54 and F.6.1, regarding homonymy). The combination, name at new rank, or replacement name published with
Code used by the author is determined through internal evidence, ir- status equivalent to valid publication under the relevant other Code is
respective of any claim by the author as to the group of organisms to considered as validly published under this Code even if its basionym
which the taxon is assigned. However, a name generated in zoologi- or replaced synonym was not clearly indicated and a full and direct
cal nomenclature in accordance with the Principle of Coordination reference was not given to its author and place of valid publication,
is not validly published under this Code unless and until it actually with page or plate reference and date (see Art. 41.5).”
appears in a publication as the accepted name of a taxon.” “Ex. n8. The new combination Baltisphaeridium longispinosum
“45.n3. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by (Eisenack) Eisenack (in Neues Jahrb. Geol. Paläontol., Abh. 106:
this Code is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi and its name 398. 1958), originally published as a fossil protist of dinoflagellates
was originally generated in zoological nomenclature in accordance (not algae) and available under the International Code of Zoological
with the Principle of Coordination, the name is not validly published Nomenclature, is validly published under this Code also, although it
under this Code unless and until it actually appears in a publication as was not accompanied by a full and direct reference to its basionym
the accepted name of a taxon. An exception is made for the names of author and place of valid publication with page or plate reference
taxa simultaneously and continuously assigned to traditional groups and date (Ovum hispidum subsp. longispinosum Eisenack in Palä-
covered by different Codes, i.e. Myxomycetes/Mycetozoa (Amoe- ontol. Z. 13: 110. 1931). Its republication by Eisenack (in
bae) and Protista, where the authorship and date of publication estab- Palaeontographica, Abt. A, Paläozool. 112: 194. 1959), previously
lished by the Principle of Coordination overrides that determined by considered necessary for valid publication under earlier editions of
the rules of this Code.” this Code, should be considered as creating an isonym.”
“Ex. n6. Arcyriini Rostaf. (Vers. Syst. Mycetoz.: 15. 1873, ‘Ar- “41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at
cyriaceae’) was originally published for a tribe of Mycetozoa under new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its ba-
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. When Rosta- sionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct
fiński later established the mycetozoan family Arcyriidae Rostaf. reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page
(in Pamiętn. Towarz. Nauk Ścisłych Paryżu 5(4): 70, 87. 1874), in or plate reference and date (but see Art. 41.6, and 41.8, and 45.n4).
accordance with the Principle of Coordination of the ICZN (Art. On or after 1 January 2007, a new combination, name at new rank,
36.1) the authorship and date of publication of family-group names or replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or
at every rank should be Rostafiński (l.c. 1873). Under this Code, replaced synonym is cited (except as provided in Art. 45.n4).”
the family name Arcyriaceae and tribal name Arcyrieae are consid- Prop. J (279 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 696) Add a fifth new para-
ered as validly published for Myxomycetes, but retain their original graph to Art. 45 with a new Example and revise Art. 20.2 to add a
authorship and date in accordance with the Principle of Coordination: special exception (new text in bold):
Arcyrieae Rostaf. (l.c. 1873) and Arcyriaceae Rostaf. (l.c. 1873, not “45.n5. For a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by
Arcyriaceae Rostaf., l.c. 1874), but with their original terminations this Code that is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, a generic
changed in accordance with Art. 18.4, 19.7, and 32.2. The subfamily name published with status equivalent to valid publication under the
name Arcyrioideae J. Schröt. (in Cohn, Krypt.-Fl. Schlesien 3(1): relevant other Code is considered as validly published under this
108. 1885, ‘Arcyriei’), although published for a fungal taxon of Code even if it coincides with a Latin technical term that is not per-
Myxomycetes, in accordance with the Principle of Coordination missible under Art. 20.2.”
has authorship and date of publication from Rostafiński (l.c. 1873), “Ex. n9. Ovulum Jankauskas (in Paleontol. Zhurn. 1975(1): 96.
but with the original termination changed in accordance with Art. 1975), originally published as a microfossil of the artificial problem-
19.7 and 32.2.” atic group Acritarcha, which is treated simultaneously under the rules
“Ex. n7. Physaroideae Fr. (Syst. Orb. Veg.: 139. 1825, ‘Physa- of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and this Code,
rei’) was originally published for a fungal taxon at the rank of sub- is considered validly published under this Code although coinciding
family (“Subord[o naturalis].”) of the family (“Ord[o naturalis].”) with a Latin technical term.”
‘Trichospermi’ Fr. Although Chevallier later established the family “20.2. The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin tech-
name Physaraceae Chevall. (Fl. Gén. Env. Paris 1: 332. 1826, ‘Phy- nical term in use in morphology at the time of publication unless it
sarieae’) as a fungal taxon, since the organisms are now considered was published before 1 January 1912 and was accompanied by a spe-
as Mycetozoa, in accordance with the Principle of Coordination of cies name published in accordance with the binary system of Lin-
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 36.1), the naeus, except for names originally assigned to a group not
authorship and date of publication of family-group names at every covered by this Code (see Art. 45.n5 and Ex. n9).”
rank should be Fries (l.c. 1825). Later established tribal (Physareae Prop. K (280 – Doweld in Taxon 72: 696) Add a sixth new par-
Grev., Scott. Crypt. Fl. 6(Synops.): 13. 1828, ‘Physarei’) and subtri- agraph to Art. 45 with a new Example and revise the final sentence of
bal (Physarinae Tul. in Durieu de Maissoneuve, Explor. Sci. Algérie Art. 60.8 to add a special exception (new text in bold):

“45.n6. For a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by the last sentence of Art. 18.4. The proposal would be automatically
this Code that is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, the origi- referred to the Editorial Committee. The Nomenclature Committee
nal spelling of the epithet in its name, which is considered correct un- for Algae does not support Prop. E (votes 0 : 9 : 7), whereas the No-
der the relevant other Code but is correctable under Art. 60.8, is menclature Committee for Fossils supports Prop. E (votes 11 : 1 : 0).
retained under this Code as the correct spelling.” Prop. F would establish that a name of an “ambiregnal” organ-
“Ex. n10. Hystrichosphaerina schindewolfi G. Alberti (in ism that was unavailable when published under another Code cannot
Palaeontographica, Abt. A, Paläozool. 116: 38. 1961), with the epi- be considered as validly published under this Code, i.e. “has no
thet spelled as originally established under the International Code standing”, unless and until it either is republished and becomes avail-
of Zoological Nomenclature, is retained as the correct spelling under able under the other Code or is validly published as the name of an
this Code although ‘schindewolfi’ is correctable to ‘schindewolfii’ alga or fungus under this Code. It is unclear how such names have
under Art. 60.8.” been interpreted thus far, in the absence of any relevant provision
“60.8. […] Terminations contrary to the above standards are such as Prop. F in this Code. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae
treated as errors to be corrected to [i]i, [i]ae, [i]ana, [i]anus, does not support Prop. F (votes 0 : 8 : 8); nor does the Nomenclature
[i]anum, [i]arum, or [i]orum, as appropriate (see also Art. 32.2). Committee for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0).
However, epithets formed in accordance with Rec. 60C.1 and Art. Prop. G would confer special status with regard to authorship
45.n6 are not correctable (see also Art. 60.9).” and date of publication to names originally published under another
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A–D aim to eliminate uncer- Code with status equivalent to valid publication under this Code, ex-
tainty as to the applicability of the rules of any other Code to algal empting such names from starting-point date limits with regard to
and fungal names. The Committee for Algae discussed the proposals homonymy (and seemingly also priority and perhaps typification, al-
and expressed concern about the lack of available evidence on the though Prop. G is not explicit on this). Whereas the aim of Prop. G
consequences of their acceptance; votes are cited under each pro- seems to be to unify the date and place of publication between various
posal. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi does not support Codes, would this not penalize other names published under this
Prop. A–D (votes 6 : 8 : 1), acknowledging the constructive intent Code, which compete with names originally published under the
of the proposals but expressing concern about unintended con- other Code for purposes of homonymy or priority, that have their time
sequences due to the changes applying retroactively and com- of valid publication limited by starting-point dates? Of the two Exam-
prehensively. ples provided, Ex. n5 is not relevant to the Article because the name
Prop. A would augment Art. 45.1 so that the Code used by the in question was published in 1972, long after the later starting-points
author of a name could be determined in the absence of internal evi- for some groups. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not
dence. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not support support Prop. G (votes 0 : 7 : 9); nor does the Nomenclature Commit-
Prop. A (votes 2 : 11 : 3). tee for Fossils (votes 5 : 7 : 0).
Prop. B intends to make it clear that names of so-called “ambireg- Prop. H aims to resolve a conflict in the authorship and places of
nal” organisms are subject to Art. 45.1 and would adjust the wording valid publication of names in Myxomycetes and protistan amoebas
seeking to remove the implication that there was no doubt about which (the former deeply embedded in the latter), which are named under
Code applied to the taxon being named or which Code was being used both this Code and the zoological Code. The conflict arises because
by the author of the name. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae only under the zoological Code (Art. 36.1, 43.1 and 46.1) is the Prin-
does not support Prop. B (votes 3 : 7 : 5, with 15 members voting). ciple of Coordination recognized. Prop. H would replace the final
Prop. C would make explicit in a Note what is implicit in Art. sentence of Art. 45.1 with a new Article to make an exception for
45.1. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. such names, so that their authorship and places of valid publication
C (votes 5 : 7 : 4). would be determined under this Code by the Principle of Coordina-
Prop. D would remove any implication in the phrase “used by tion. Although the proposer seems to be concerned primarily with su-
the author” that a particular edition of a Code is meant, rather than prageneric (family-group) names, the wording of Prop. H provides no
the current edition (in which the rules are retroactive). Moreover, such limitation and would apply also to genus-group and species-
using the word “relationships” rather than “group” would allow a group names. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not sup-
broader range of taxonomic statements to reveal which Code the au- port Prop. H (votes 0 : 8 : 8); nor does the Nomenclature Committee
thor was using. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0).
support Prop. D (votes 4 : 8 : 4). Prop. I claims to allow new combinations, names at new rank
Prop. E–K, according to the proposer, aim “to build a workable and replacement names for “ambiregnal” organisms to be validly
environment for existing indexing centres of plant fossils, algae and published under this Code even if they lack the reference to, and ci-
fungi, dealing with registration and nomenclatural evaluation of the tation of, the basionym or replaced synonym required by Art. 41.5,
names generated under other nomenclature Codes” for so-called because “no comparable provision exists under the ICZN [zoological
“ambiregnal” organisms. They would add six new Articles and ten Code]”. But Prop. I is unnecessary because “any of its names” (i.e. of
new Examples to Art. 45, as well as amend Art. 20.2, 45.1 and these “ambiregnal” organisms) are already validly published under
60.8. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi does not support Prop. Art. 45.1 of this Code. The Example provided would, however, be a
E–K (votes 3 : 10 : 2). Some members indicated support for individ- useful addition to the Examples under Art. 45.1, which currently do
ual proposals but not the set as a whole. The members acknowledged not include new combinations, and this could be referred to the Edi-
the constructive intent of the proposals but expressed concern about torial Committee. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not
unintended consequences due to the changes applying retroactively support Prop. I (votes 0 : 9 : 7); nor does the Nomenclature Commit-
and comprehensively. tee for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0).
Prop. E would add two new, similar Examples to illustrate cases Prop. J claims to exempt generic names published with status
where Art. 45.1 allows names to be validly published irrespective of equivalent to valid publication under the rules of another Code from

the constraints of Art. 20.2 of this Code, which prohibits publication (c) The author of a name cannot be a pre-starting-point author.”
of names that coincide with Latin technical terms. However, Prop. J is Prop. C (386 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1174) Amend Art. 46.2 and
unnecessary for the same reason as discussed under Prop. I, i.e. Art. 46.3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
45.1 already permits such names to be validly published under this “46.2. If the author of the publication ascribes the name to
Code. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae does not support another person and one of the following conditions is met, the
Prop. J (votes 0 : 8 : 8), whereas the Nomenclature Committee for other person is the author of the name:
Fossils supports Prop. J (votes 10 : 2 : 0). (a) in the case of a A name of a new taxon, is attributed to the
Prop. K would allow the spellings of specific or infraspecific ep- author(s) to whom the name was ascribed when if the validating de-
ithets derived from personal names, correct under the zoological scription or diagnosis was simultaneously ascribed to or unequivo-
Code but contrary to Art. 60.8 of this Code, to be maintained. While cally associated with the same author(s) person, even when
the two different spellings used by these different Codes may be con- authorship of the publication is different.; or
fusing in the indexing of such names, it would seem equally confus- (b) in the case of a A new combination, name at new rank, or re-
ing to allow two different orthographical standards. Besides, the placement name is attributed to the author(s) to whom it was ascribed
proposed new rule belongs in Art. 60, which concerns orthography, when, in if the publication in which it appears, it is explicitly stated
not in Art. 45, which deals with valid publication. The Nomenclature that the same author(s) person contributed in some way to that pub-
Committee for Algae does not support Prop. K (votes 0 : 8 : 8); nor lication.; or
does the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils (votes 0 : 12 : 0). (c) Art. 46.5 notwithstanding, authorship of a in the case of any
nomenclatural novelty is always accepted as ascribed, even when it
Article 46 differs from authorship of the publication, when if at least one of
Prop. A (281 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 697) Amend Art those author person(s) is common to both also a publishing author.
46.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): In all other cases, the author of the name is the author of the
“46.1. The determination of the author(s) of a name and its publication.”
publication is critical for application of certain rules in this Code; “46.3. For the purposes of Art. 46, ascription is the direct or un-
see, e.g., Art. 9.4 (original material), 11 (priority), 41.5 (requiring equivocal association (by the publishing author) of the name of a
a full and direct reference to the author of a basionym or replaced person or persons with a new name or with the description or diagno-
synonym to publish a new combination, name at new rank, or re- sis of a taxon. […].”
placement name), and 53 (homonyms). In publications, particu- In addition, in Art. 46, replace “author” with “person” when the
larly those dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature, it may be rules refer to the author to whom the name is ascribed. In addition,
desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to the protologue is make similar changes regarding the deletion of “unequivocal associ-
made, to cite the author(s) of the name concerned (see also Art. ation” in Art. 46 Note 5 and Art. 46.5.
22.1 and 26.1). In so doing For these purposes, the following rules A clean version of the proposed amendment to the current Art.
in Art. 46–50 apply (see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1).” 46.2 is as follows:
Prop. B (383 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1173) Combine Art. 46 Note “46.2. If the author of the publication ascribes the name to an-
1 and Art. 46.6 into a new Article as follows (new text not appearing other person and one of the following conditions is met, the other per-
in either provision in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): son is the author of the name:
“46.n1. Note 1. (a) The author of a A name of a taxon is attrib- (a) in the case of a name of a new taxon, if the validating descrip-
uted to the publishing author(s) of the publication in which it appears tion or diagnosis was simultaneously ascribed to or unequivocally as-
(see Art. 46.5) unless this author directly or unequivocally associ- sociated with the same person; or
ates the name with another person and one or more of the provi- (b) in the case of a new combination, name at new rank, or re-
sions of Art. 46.2 rules otherwise. If the name of a taxon is placement name, if the publication explicitly stated that the same per-
“attributed” to a person, that person is the author of the name. son contributed in some way to that publication; or
(b) 46.6. For the purposes of Art. 46, the authorship of a publi- (c) in the case of any nomenclatural novelty, if at least one of
cation is the authorship of The publishing author is the author of those person(s) is also a publishing author.
that part of a publication in which a name is first validly In all other cases, the author of the name is the author of the
published, appears regardless of the authorship or editorship of the publication.”
publication as a whole. Prop. D (388 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1175) Convert Art. 46 Note 2
(c) The author of a name cannot be a pre-starting-point into a new Article as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
author.” strikethrough):
Editorially number it as Art. 46.2 and renumber Art. 46.2–46.5. “46.n2. Note 2. When If the author authorship of a
In addition, the Editorial Committee may wish to replace “author of name differs from the publishing author, the following ci-
the publication” or similar phrases with “publishing author” as it sees tation may (but need not) be used: “[author of the name] in
fit throughout Art. 46. [publishing author]” authorship of the publication in which it was
A clean version of how this new Article would appear is as follows: validly published, both are sometimes cited, connected by the word
“46.n1. (a) The author of a name of a taxon is the publishing author “in”. In such a case, “in” and what follows are part of a bibliographic
unless this author directly or unequivocally associates the name with an- citation and are better omitted unless the place of publication is being
other person and Art. 46.2 rules otherwise. If the name of a taxon is “at- cited.”
tributed” to a person, that person is the author of the name. If Prop. 387 and 388 [Art. 46 Prop. G and D] are both
(b) The publishing author is the author of that part of a publica- accepted, the Editorial Committee may wish to consider making this
tion in which a name is first validly published, regardless of the au- Art. 46.5(b) so that all alternative citation methods appear in a single
thorship or editorship of the publication as a whole. Article.

Prop. E (384 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1174) If Prop. 383 [Prop. B] “46.10. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties and wish-
is accepted, amend Art. 46.5 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text ing other persons’ names followed by “ex” to precede theirs in author
in strikethrough): citation may adopt the “ex” citation in the protologue.”
“46.5. A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the “46.5. […]. However, in both cases, the following citation may
publication in which it appears when the name was ascribed to a differ- (but need not) be used by the publishing author and/or later au-
ent author or different authors but the validating description or diagno- thors: authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inserted be-
sis was neither ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that fore the name(s) of the publishing author(s). This same citation may
author or those authors. A new combination, name at new rank, or re- be used if the name is ascribed to a pre-starting-point author. For
placement If the author of a name is attributed to the publishing au- groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a taxon of a
thor(s) of the publication in which it appears, although it but the name pre-starting-point author was changed in rank or taxonomic po-
was ascribed to a different author person or different authors persons sition upon valid publication of its name, that pre-starting-point
(none of whom is a publishing author), when no separate statement author may be cited in parentheses, followed by “ex”.”
was made that one or more of those authors contributed in some way to Prop. H (389 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1175) Add a new Article to
that publication. However, in both cases the following citation may be Art. 46 as follows:
used: authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inserted before “46.n3. For purposes of Art. 46, any reference to the author
the name(s) of the publishing author(s).” (or person) shall be deemed to include a reference to authors
A clean version of this proposed amendment to current Art. 46.5 (or persons).”
is as follows: In addition, make appropriate changes throughout Art. 46.
“46.5. If the author of a name is the publishing author but the Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would expand Art. 46.1 to
name was ascribed to a different person or different persons (none emphasize the importance of proper author citations to other provi-
of whom is a publishing author), the following citation may be used: sions of the Code. This does, however, create a contrast with the re-
authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, inserted before the name(s) tained, but now second, sentence of the Article, which appears to
of the publishing author(s).” de-emphasize the same thing.
Prop. F (385 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1174) If Prop. 384 [Prop. E] Prop. B is part of a set of proposals (Prop. B–H) seeking to refor-
is rejected, amend Art. 46.5 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text mulate and simplify the current provisions of Art. 46, which deter-
in strikethrough): mine the correct author citation of a name. Prop. B, C and either
“46.5. Except as provided by the last sentence of Art. 46.2, Prop. E or F, which would modify the current content of Art. 46 Note
the author of the name is A name of a new taxon is attributed to 1, Art. 46.2, 46.3, 46.5 and 46.6, are best considered together. Prop. B
the author(s) of the publication in which it is first validly published would create and define the term “publishing author” and together
appears if (a) when in the case of the name of new taxon, the name with Prop. C would provide all necessary criteria to determine author-
was ascribed to a different author or different authors but the validat- ship of a name. Prop. B, in its clause (c), would restrict authorship of
ing description or diagnosis was not simultaneously neither ascribed any name only to post-starting-point authors, under the incorrect as-
to nor unequivocally associated with that author or those same au- sumption that Art. 46.7 implies this should be so, but Art. 46.7 con-
thors. or (b) in the case of a A new combination, name at new rank, cerns cases where only the name, not also the validating description
or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) of the publication or diagnosis, was ascribed to a pre-starting-point author. With no
in which it appears, although it the name was ascribed to a different other apparent justification provided for this change, clause (c) is per-
author or different authors, when no separate statement was made but haps best omitted. While Prop. B and C do seem to simplify the com-
it was not explicitly stated that one or more of those same authors plicated Art. 46 in determining authorship, there are some flaws.
contributed in some way to that publication. […].” Firstly, the sentence introducing the term “attributed” in Prop. B ap-
A clean version of this proposed alternative amendment to Art. pears unnecessary, because this term would be replaced in other parts
46.5 is as follows: of Art. 46 where it was previously used, and its usage in the second
“46.5. Except as provided by the last sentence of Art. 46.2, the sentence of clause (a) seems to undermine what is stated in the first
author of the name is the author of the publication in which it is first sentence. Secondly, it would allow a person’s name to be “unequivo-
validly published if (a) in the case of the name of new taxon, the name cally associated” with a nomenclatural novelty in place of actual as-
was ascribed to a different author or different authors but the validat- cription (direct association, Art. 46.3) of the novelty to that person
ing description or diagnosis was not simultaneously ascribed to or in both Prop. B and C. An unequivocal association could heretofore
unequivocally associated with that author or those same authors or only be made to a person’s name by citing their previously published
(b) in the case of a new combination, name at new rank, or replace- description or diagnosis (Art. 46 Note 4), where their name would
ment name, the name was ascribed to a different author or different have appeared. But how is an unambiguous “unequivocal associa-
authors but it was not explicitly stated that one or more of those same tion” to be made to a person’s name when that person is nowhere
authors contributed in some way to that publication. […].” named? It is also unclear why Prop. C inconsistently uses “author
Prop. G (387 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1175) Delete Art. 46.7 and of the publication” twice in lieu of “publishing author”, the term de-
46.10 and amend the last sentence of Art. 46.5 as follows (new text fined for this same usage in Prop. B. Those who support Prop. B and
in bold): C suitably amended to address these issues should vote “ed.c.”
“46.7. When a name has been ascribed by its author to a pre- Prop. C is discussed under Prop. B.
starting-point author, the latter may be included in the author citation, Prop. D, part of a set of proposals dealing with Art. 46 (see Prop.
followed by “ex”. For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, B), can stand alone insofar as converting current Art. 46 Note 2 into
when a taxon of a pre-starting-point author was changed in rank or an Article. The adjusted language it proposes, replacing “authorship”
taxonomic position upon valid publication of its name, that pre- with “author” and using the term “publishing author”, otherwise par-
starting-point author may be cited in parentheses, followed by “ex”.” tially depends on acceptance of Prop. B and C, but this is an editorial

matter. Prop. D would provide more explicit authorization for “in” ci- Art. 14.9. Exclusion can be effected by (d) simultaneous explicit
tations, similar to that already provided for “ex” citations in Art. 46.5, inclusion of the type (as type is specified in the preceding sen-
46.7 and 46.10. tence) in a different taxon by the same author.”
Prop. E and F would provide alternative wordings to replace cur- Prop. B (395 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1178) Amend Art. 48.1 as
rent Art. 46.5. Acceptance of Prop. E is contingent upon acceptance follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
of Prop. B and C, which would make most of the content of current “48.1. The application of an existing name to a different
Art. 46.5 redundant, whereas Prop. F, which would restructure Art. taxon without exclusion of the type is considered a misapplication
46.5 with no apparent change in its effect, could be accepted regard- that has no nomenclatural status (see also Rec. 50D). When How-
less of the outcome of Prop. B and C. ever, if an author applies adopts an existing name but definitely ex-
Prop. G would combine Art. 46.7 and 46.10 into the final sen- cludes its type, a later homonym that must be attributed solely to
tence of current Art. 46.5, because all three represent different usages that author is considered to have been published. […].”
of an “ex” author citation. But whereas Art. 46.5 and 46.7 deal with Prop. C (402 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180) Amend Art. 48 Note 2
authorship of pre-existing names and provide conditions where such as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
usage is appropriate, Art. 46.10 concerns newly published names and “Note 2. Retention of a name later homonym as a legitimate
provides no conditions for proper usage. The proposer sought to (as opposed to illegitimate) name in a sense that excludes its origi-
eliminate this distinction, requiring Art. 46.10 cases to conform nal type, or its type designated under Art. 7–10, can be effected only
to those of Art. 46.5, but the proposed new wording does not achieve by conservation (see Art. 14.9).”
this objective. A modification to Prop. G that could achieve this Prop. D (171 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330) Amend Art.
would be the following: “However, in both cases or in the protolo- 48.2 and 52.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
gue of a nomenclatural novelty, the ascribed authorship, followed strikethrough):
by “ex”, may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing “48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means
author(s). […].” Those who agree with this modification should vote exclusion of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type es-
“ed.c.” tablished under Art. 10.2(a) or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all ele-
Prop. H would allow for a consistent usage of the singular “au- ments eligible as types under Art. 10.2; […].”
thor” or “person” in Art. 46 to be considered as also including the “52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type
plural “authors” or “persons”. It is editorial in nature and hardly of a name is effected by citation of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or
merits an Article in the Code, but may be supported or not the original type established under Art. 10.2(a) or all syntypes under
nonetheless. Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types under Art. 10.2; […].”
In both provisions, instead of “the original type established un-
Recommendation 46C der Art. 10.2(a)” this could be “the original type established at valid
Prop. A (021 – Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 636) Amend Rec. publication under Art. 10”.
46C.2 as follows (new text in bold): Prop. E (173 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330) Amend Art. 48.2
“46C.2. After a name published jointly by more than two au- and 52.2 as follows (new text in bold):
thors, the citation should be restricted to the first author followed “48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means
by “& al.” or “et al.”, except in the original publication, or the full exclusion, for the name itself, or, if it has one, its basionym (Art.
title or abbreviation of a working group may be cited, provided 7.3), or its replaced synonym (Art. 7.4 and 7.5), of […].”
that the names of the members of that group are given in the orig- “52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type
inal publication.” of a name is effected by citation, for the name itself, or, if it has one,
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would provide an addition to its basionym (Art. 7.3), or its replaced synonym (Art. 7.4 and 7.5),
Rec. 46C.2, accounting for authorship of names by working groups, of […].”
with some names authored by the Legume Phylogeny Working Prop. F (185 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 71: 1339) Amend Art.
Group given as an example. 48.2 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough) and
add a new Note:
Article 48 “48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, definite exclusion of a the
Prop. A (390 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1176) Delete the last sen- type of a name means exclusion of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or
tence of Art. 48.1 and move it to Art. 48.2 amended as follows the original type under Art. 10 or all syntypes under Art. 9.5 or all ele-
(new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): ments eligible as types under Art. 10.2; or (b) the type previously des-
“48.1. When an author adopts an existing name but definitely ignated under Art. 9.11–9.13 or 10.2; or (c) the type previously
excludes its type, a later homonym that must be attributed solely to conserved under Art. 14.9. It is also effected (d) by explicit exclusion
that author is considered to have been published. Similarly, when of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless the
an author who adopts a name refers to an apparent basionym or re- type is at the same time included either explicitly or by implication.”
placed synonym but explicitly excludes its type, the name of a new “Note n. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, the inclusion of a name
taxon is considered to have been published that must be attributed with an expression of doubt, or in a sense that excludes one or more
solely to that author. Exclusion can be effected by simultaneous ex- of its potential type elements, is not in itself considered exclusion of
plicit inclusion of the type in a different taxon by the same author.” its type.”
“48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means Potential Examples for consideration by the Editorial
exclusion of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type under Committee:
Art. 10 or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types For the amended Art. 48.2:
under Art. 10.2; or (b) the type previously designated under Art. “Ex. n. The name Chusquea quila was published by Kunth
9.11–9.13 or 10.2; or (c) the type previously conserved under (Révis. Gramin.: 138. 1829) with reference to “Arundo quila Poir.,

excl. Syn.”, which is an explicit exclusion of the apparent basionym the proposer, this will enable Art. 48.1 to address both situations
A. quila Molina (Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili: 154, 155, 349. 1782), the only where the type of the earlier name has been excluded (a homonym
name cited as a synonym by Poiret (in Lamarck & al., Encycl. 6: 274. or name of new taxon) or has not been excluded (a misapplication).
1804). Therefore, C. quila Kunth is the name of a new taxon validated Prop. C rightly recognizes that of the two categories of names re-
by Poiret’s description.” sulting from application of the two parts of Art. 48.1, illegitimate
For the new Note: later homonyms or names of new taxa, only the former would require
“Ex. n. The name Meum segetum was published by Gussone conservation in order to be retained, although this should be obvious.
(Fl. Sicul. Prodr. 1: 346. 1827) with citation of “Anethum segetum. However, this misses the point that Art. 48 Note 2 has nothing to do
Lin. mant. 219?” in synonymy. Because Gussone’s expression of with the resultant names but rather concerns the existing names, the
doubt did not exclude the type of A. segetum L. (Mant. Pl.: 219. earlier homonym or the apparent basionym or replaced synonym,
1771), he published the new combination M. segetum (L.) Guss., whose types cannot simply be changed by creating new names that
not the name of a new taxon.” exclude the pre-existing type, but require conservation with a con-
The current Art. 48 Ex. 2 has been restructured for consideration served type under Art. 14.9 to achieve this.
as a second Example under the new Note, as follows: Prop. D, like Art. 22 Prop. A from the same author, would re-
“Ex. 2. The name Amorphophallus campanulatus was published place the usage of the term “original type”, a term employed in the
by Decaisne (in Nouv. Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. 3: 366. 1834) with cita- last five Codes, from three Articles on the grounds that it is not de-
tion of Arum campanulatum Roxb. (Pl. Coromandel 3: 68. 1820) in fined (but see Art. 10 Prop. E, which includes a definition) and not
synonymy, but with exclusion of certain elements included by uniformly used. However, the usage of the term in the Code
Roxburgh (“Excl. syn. Hort. malab. nec non t. 112. Herb. Amb. (in three Articles, one Note, and four Examples) where it is not a
V.”). Because Decaisne did not explicitly exclude the type of modifier (three instances, e.g. “original type specimen”, Art. 9.15)
A. campanulatum, which in 1834 had no holotype, syntypes, lecto- is consistent.
type or conserved type, he published the new combination Amorpho- Prop. E would add similar language to both Art. 48.2 and 52.2,
phallus campanulatus (Roxb.) Decne., not the name of a new taxon.” which have a parallel structure, to reiterate that the type under discus-
[Current wording: “Ex. 2. The name Amorphophallus campanu- sion in these Articles could be that of the name itself or its basionym
latus Decne. (in Nouv. Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. 3: 366. 1834) was appar- or replaced synonym. Does this relationship, which should already
ently based on the illegitimate Arum campanulatum Roxb. (Hort. be apparent from Art. 7.3–7.5, bear repeating here?
Bengal.: 65. 1819). However, the type of the latter was explicitly ex- Prop. F seeks to make Art. 48.2, defining exclusion of a type,
cluded by Decaisne, and his name is therefore a legitimate name of a more congruent with Art. 52.2, defining inclusion of a type, by add-
new species, to be attributed solely to him.”] ing a phrase currently missing in Art. 48.2 that is equivalent to Art.
Prop. G (391 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177) Amend Art. 48.2 as 52.2(e), permitting exclusion of the name itself or any name homoty-
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): pic at that time. It also creates a Note parallel to Art. 52 Note 1 to clar-
“48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means ify the effect of inclusion of a name in part or with an expression of
exclusion of (a) if there is no type previously conserved, (1) the doubt on Art. 48.1. If Prop. F is accepted, the associated Examples
holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type under Art. 10; or all syn- would be referred to the Editorial Committee.
types under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types under the first Prop. G would modify Art. 48.2 to more precisely conform its
sentence of Art. 10.2 (excluding Art. 10.2(a)); or (2b) the type pre- referencing and wording to the other provisions it cites. The addition
viously designated or selected under Art. 9.11–9.13 or previously of the phrase “if there is no type previously conserved” appears to be
indicated, designated, or chosen under 10.2; or (bc) the type previ- necessary, because there is no indication elsewhere in the Code that a
ously conserved under Art. 14.9.” conserved type eliminates the standing of other types for a name. By
Prop. H (396 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1178) Add a new Note in the same token, exclusion of a neotype designated under Art. 9.13
Art. 48 as follows: should also take precedence in this formulation over exclusion of a
“Note n. A later homonym published as described in Art. 48.1 holotype or all syntypes, because these would no longer be extant.
only has nomenclatural status if it satisfies all the relevant require- However, while a distinction in the Code can be made between an
ments for valid publication of the name of a new taxon.” “indicated” or “designated” type, there appears to be no real semantic
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would rearrange the last sen- distinction intended in the cited provisions on whether a type is “se-
tence of Art. 48.1, move it to Art. 48.2 and add some qualifying lan- lected”, “chosen” or “designated”, so it may be better to use more
guage to explicitly indicate that what is meant by “the type” in this similar terms elsewhere in the Code than to propagate unintended dif-
sentence is the same as that elaborated in Art. 48.2(a)–(c), in order ferences here. Given these considerations, an alternative wording for
to avoid any misunderstanding that inclusion of a type designated Art. 48.2 could be: “For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a
in the future for another name could count as exclusion. An alterna- type means exclusion of (a) the type previously conserved under
tive way of satisfying this concern without any rearrangement of Art. 14.9; or if there is no conserved type, (b) the type previously
the two Articles would be to slightly alter the beginning of Art. designated under Art. 9.11–9.13 or indicated or designated un-
48.2 to read: “For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion or inclusion der the first sentence of Art. 10.2; or if there is no such previously
of a type means exclusion or inclusion of […].” Those who favour indicated or designated type, (c) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or all
this alternative should vote “ed.c.” syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types under the
Prop. B would cover what is indicated in Art. 48 Note 1 only for first sentence of Art. 10.2.” Those who prefer this wording should
new combinations, names at new rank or replacement names with a vote “ed.c.”
new opening sentence in Art. 48.1, extending this to all misapplica- Prop. H would add a Note clarifying that a later homonym cre-
tions, also defining the term “misapplication” in the process and ated under the first sentence of Art. 48.1 can only exist if it otherwise
specifying that they have “no nomenclatural status”. According to meets all requirements for valid publication. Because a similar

situation exists with the name of a new taxon potentially created un- names are. Prop. C would add a new Article dealing with “culturally
der the second sentence of the same Article (see Art. 6 Prop. X), both offensive or inappropriate” names, allowing their rejection under an
situations could be effectively dealt with in this Note with some slight accordingly amended Art. 56.1 (see Art. 56 Prop. A), and defining
rewording, as follows: “The “later homonym” or “name of a new the circumstances under which names would be considered culturally
taxon” published as described in Art. 48.1 only has nomencla- offensive or inappropriate. A new Permanent Nomenclature Com-
tural status if it satisfies all the relevant requirements for valid mittee, a specialist committee, would be established as part of the
publication as the name of a new taxon.” Those who favour this al- mechanism (see Div. III Prop. T) for making recommendations on
ternative wording for Prop. H should vote “ed.c.” proposals under these new provisions. See also comments under
Art. 61 Prop. G.
Recommendation 50D
Prop. A (047 – Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 1390) Add a new par- Recommendation 51A (new)
agraph with a new Example to Rec. 50D: Prop. A (092 – Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1379) Add a new
“50D.2. In the citation of a name as a heterotypic synonym for Rec. 51A.1:
the first time, its status should be indicated by adding the words “sy- “51A.1. When publishing names of new taxa or replacement
nonymum novum” or “syn. nov.”.” names, authors are strongly encouraged to avoid such names as
“Ex. 2. Bhattacharjee (in Candollea 67: 32. 2012) cited Chei- may be viewed or treated as inappropriate, disagreeable, offensive,
rostylis seidenfadeniana C. S. Kumar & F. N. Rasm. (in Nordic or unacceptable by any national, ethnic, cultural, or other groups of
J. Bot. 7: 409. 1987) as “syn. nov.” indicating that it was newly con- actual or potential users.”
sidered as a heterotypic synonym of Cheirostylis parvifolia Lindl. Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would add a Recommenda-
(in Edwards’s Bot. Reg. 25(Misc.): 19. 1839).” tion to avoid coining names that are offensive or inappropriate, etc.
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A proposes what is really a Although the vast majority of authors and editors would presumably
matter of taxonomy, not nomenclature. be sensitive to the avoidance of such names, an explicit Recommen-
dation in the Code might help guide those who are not.
Article 51
Prop. A (406 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181) Amend Article 51.1 Article 52
as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): Prop. A (252 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 680) Amend Art.
“51.1. A legitimate name must may not be rejected or otherwise 52.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
disregarded by later authors merely because it, or its epithet, is in- “52.1. A name, unless conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2),
appropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was
known (but see Art. 14, 56.1, and F.7.1), or because it has lost its nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to
original meaning. None of these reasons affects the valid publica- which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, definitely in-
tion, legitimacy, and priority of a name.” cluded the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have
Prop. B (119 – Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393) Amend been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, un-
Art. 51.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): der Art. 11 the rules (but see Art. 52.4 and F.8.1).”
“51.1. A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, Prop. B (404 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180) Amend Art. 52.1 as
or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable not fitting for the follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
taxon, or because another is preferable better suited or better known “52.1. A name, unless conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2),
(but see Art. 51.2, 56.1, and F.7.1), or because it has lost its original or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is illegitimate (and is not to be used as the
meaning.” correct name of a taxon) rejected if it was nomenclaturally superflu-
Prop. C (120 – Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393) Add a new ous when published, […].”
Article 51.2: Prop. C (407 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181) Amend Art. 52.1 as
“51.2. A legitimate name may be rejected under Art. 56.1 be- follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
cause it, or its epithet, is culturally offensive or inappropriate, because “52.1. A name, unless conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2),
it (a) is derogatory or insulting to a person or group of people, (b) is or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is illegitimate (but see Art. 52.4 and F.8.1)
named in honour of a person that the taxonomic community agrees and is to be rejected if it is was nomenclaturally superfluous when
should not be honoured, or (c) otherwise causes deep offense.” published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would attempt to clarify that by its author,. A name is nomenclaturally superfluous if its proto-
“rejected” in Art. 51.1 does not necessarily mean rejected in the sense logue (including the protologue of names of simultaneously
of Art. 14, 56 or F.7. Whereas the current cross-reference “(but see adopted subordinate taxa) definitely included the type (as
Art. 56.1 and F.7.1)” implies that rejection in the sense of those Ar- qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have been adopted,
ticles is not meant, the proposed addition of the alternative “other- or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, under the rules
wise disregarded” suggests that “rejected” does indeed mean (but see Art. 52.4 and F.8.1).”
rejected in the sense of Art. 14, 56 and F.7. The added final sentence Prop. D (172 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330) Add a cross-
does not alter the rules and, if included at all, would be appropriate in reference in clause (e) of Art. 52.2 (new text in bold):
a Note rather than an Article. To avoid an unwanted change in mean- “It is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or any name
ing, It might be better to leave Art. 51.1 in its current wording. homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time excluded
Prop. B and C, together with Art. 56 Prop. A and Div. III Prop. T, (as defined in Art. 48.2) either explicitly or by implication.”
form a set of proposals that would allow the rejection of culturally of- Perhaps also include this in Art. 47.1?
fensive and inappropriate names. Prop. B would restrict Art. 51.1 to Prop. E (392 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177) Amend Art. 52.2 as
matters of suitability of names to taxa and how well known those follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):

“52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type one or more of its potential type elements, does not make the name of
of a name is effected by citation of (a) if there is no type previously the new taxon nomenclaturally superfluous (e.g. the citation of a
conserved, (1) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type under name pro parte, either explicitly or by exclusion of a homotypic
Art. 10 or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types name) or (b) the name itself or any name homotypic at that time
under the first sentence of Art. 10.2 (excluding Art. 10.2(a)); or is also simultaneously cited as a different taxon (or as a synonym
(2b) the type previously designated or selected under Art. 9.11– of a different taxon) by the same author.”
9.13 or previously indicated, designated, or chosen under 10.2; If Prop. 413 [Prop. I] is accepted, certain changes are desirable
or (bc) the type previously conserved under Art. 14.9; or (cd) the il- for Art. 52 Ex. 5 and 6. In the former Example, Dandy cited Galium
lustrations of these. It is also effected (de) by citation of the name it- tricorne and also excluded Valantia aparine, its replaced synonym.
self or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same Because a name is not the same as a type, Dandy did not explicitly
time excluded either explicitly or by implication.” exclude the type. In fact, V. aparine was not typified until 2000.
Prop. F (393 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177) Amend Art. 52.2 as The Editorial Committee may wish to consider amending the Exam-
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): ples as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
“52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type “Ex. 5. Explicit exclusion of type Unqualified citation. When
of a name is effected by citation of (a) […]; or (c) the type previously publishing the name Galium tricornutum, Dandy (in Watsonia 4:
conserved under Art. 14.9; or (d) the illustrations of these. For this 47. 1957) cited G. tricorne Stokes (Bot. Arr. Brit. Pl., ed. 2, 1: 153.
purpose, citation of an illustration of a specimen is treated as ci- 1787) pro parte as a synonym while explicitly excluding its type Va-
tation of the specimen. It is also effected (ed) […].” lantia aparine L., its replaced synonym, which was not typified
Prop. G (411 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1182) Amend Art. 52.2 as until 2000. Galium tricornutum is not superfluous for two rea-
follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): sons: the pro parte citation of G. tricorne and the exclusion of
“52.2. […]. It is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or the homotypic name V. aparine.”
any name homotypic at that time, unless the a potential type element “Ex. 6. Exclusion of type by implication Unqualified citation.
of that name is at the same time excluded by the same author either Tmesipteris elongata P. A. Dang. (in Botaniste 2: 213. 1891) was
explicitly or by implication. A potential type element is the holo- published as a new species but Psilotum truncatum R. Br. was cited
type under Art. 9.1, the original type under Art. 10, or a previ- as a synonym. However, on the following page, T. truncata (R. Br.)
ously designated or conserved type as qualified in Art. 52.2(b)– Desv. is recognized as a different species and two pages later both
(c), or if none of the foregoing exists, any syntype or any element are distinguished in a key., thus showing that the meaning of the cited
eligible as a type in the first sentence of Art. 10.2 (excluding Art. synonym was either “P. truncatum R. Br. pro parte” or “P. truncatum
10.2(a)).” auct. non R. Br.” Because Dang’s citation was qualified, Tmesipte-
If Prop. 411 [Prop. G] is rejected, the Editorial Committee may ris elongata is not nomenclaturally superfluous.”
wish to consider amending Art. 52 Ex. 12 as follows (new text in Prop. J (409 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181) Amend Art. 52 Note 2
bold, deleted text in strikethrough): as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
“Ex. 12. Leccinum Gray (Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 1: 646. 1821) does “Note 2. The citation inclusion, in the protologue of a new
not include all the species names included in the protologue poten- name taxon, of an element that was subsequently designated as the
tial types (in fact, none) of the then untypified Boletus L. (Sp. Pl.: type of a name that, so typified, ought to have been adopted, or of
1176. 1753) : Fr. (in fact, none) and is not therefore illegitimate even which the epithet ought to have been adopted, does not in itself make
though it included, as L. edule (Bull. : Fr.) Gray, the subsequently the new name of the new taxon nomenclaturally superfluous
conserved type of Boletus, B. edulis Bull. : Fr.” illegitimate.”
Prop. H (412 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1182) If Prop. 411 [Prop. G] Prop. K (410 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181) Add the following
is accepted, amend the definition of “potential type element” in the sentence at the end of Art. 52 Note 2:
amended Art. 52.2(e) as follows (new text in bold): “Note 2. […]. In addition, if the included type that caused the
“52.2. […]. A potential type element is the holotype under Art. name to be superfluous is subsequently replaced or superseded in ac-
9.1, the original type under Art. 10, or a previously designated or con- cordance with the rules, the name remains nomenclaturally
served type as qualified in Art. 52.2(b)–(c), or if none of the forego- superfluous.”
ing exists, any syntype or illustration cited in the protologue or any Prop. L (123 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 1394) Add a new rule,
element eligible as a type in the first sentence of Art. 10.2 (excluding somewhere in Art. 52:
Art. 10.2(a)).” “52.n. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, in determining if a name
Prop. I (413 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1183) Amend Art. 52.2 and ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have
convert Art. 52 Note 1 into a new Article, as follows (new text in been adopted, the effects of conservation, protection, or sanctioning,
bold, deleted text in strikethrough): even if otherwise retroactive, are to be disregarded, unless this con-
“52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type servation, protection, or sanctioning took effect (Art. 14.15) prior
of a name is effected by the unqualified citation of (a) […]. It is also to the publication of the name being evaluated for superfluity.”
effected (e) by the unqualified citation of the name itself or any Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would make a simple but
name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time ex- straightforward adjustment to Art. 52.1 that may be perceived as
cluded either explicitly, definitely or by implication (e.g. inclusion helpful to some Code users.
of the type in another taxon).” Prop. B would replace the phrase “and is to be rejected” in Art.
“Note 1. 52.n. The inclusion, For purposes of Art. 52.2, a cita- 52.1 with an alternative wording that would also be added to Art. 53.1
tion of a name or element is not unqualified if (a) it is cited with an (by Art. 53 Prop. A) and that many might consider states the obvious,
expression of doubt, of an element in a new taxon, (e.g. the citation of i.e. that an illegitimate name cannot be the correct name for a taxon, a
a name or element with a question mark), or in a sense that excludes fact that should be readily apparent from Art. 11.3 and 11.4. The

proposer points out a disparity between Art. 52.1 and 53.1, i.e. the lat- Prop. F would replace the confusing phrase “the illustrations of
ter rules that the name is illegitimate but does not state that it is to be these” with a new sentence explaining that citation of an illustration
rejected. Perhaps deleting “and is to be rejected” in Art. 52.1 would of a specimen equates to citation of that specimen, which seems clearer.
be preferable, if this phrase is indeed redundant and if it was felt that Prop. G would provide a more elaborate treatment of the issue
the two Articles should be worded consistently. Those who agree addressed in Prop. D, i.e. defining the parameters of exclusion of a
should vote “ed.c.” type under Art. 52.2(e) that would negate “citation of the name it-
Prop. C would effectively make two changes to Art. 52.1, the first self”. Prop. G takes into account the conflict that would arise between
would move the cross-reference to the exceptions of Art. 52.4 and F.8.1 Art. 52 Note 1, which permits the exclusion of any potential type el-
from the end of the Article to after the word “illegitimate” in order to ement of a name (i.e. any syntype or any element eligible under Art.
emphasize that these exceptions do not provide that certain names are 10.2) to preclude superfluity, and Art. 48.2. The latter would require
not superfluous, but rather that they are not illegitimate. This would exclusion of “all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as
seem to be an editorial matter. The aim of the second is to remove the types under Art. 10.2” to achieve the same result (i.e. not being super-
phrase “as circumscribed by its author”, which is seen as requiring “a fluous). Nevertheless, repeating most of the elements of Art. 48.2 in
taxonomic assessment of the author’s circumscription of the newly de- Art. 52.2(e) appears unnecessary, as would adding the phrase “by the
scribed taxon” in order to determine whether a name is superfluous, same author”, if Prop. C or the suggested amendment to it, which
when the only criterion should be “whether the author cited certain el- both specify in Art. 52.1 that this would be in the protologue, was ac-
ements or names in the protologue”. However, as currently worded “if cepted. A more concise wording of clause (e) could be: “(e) by cita-
its protologue […] definitely included the type […] of a name” seems tion of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless
too imprecisely worded, because it is not whether a protologue included the nomenclatural type (see Art. 7.2) or any potential type ele-
the type of another name (which could simply have been mentioned for ment (see Note 1) is at the same time excluded either explicitly
comparison or some other reason without explicit or implicit exclusion or by implication.” The meaning of “potential type element”, which
of its type – see Art. 52.2(e)), but whether the taxon in question in- is already mentioned in Note 1, could then be explained in Note 1 as
cluded the type of another name. Although the current use of the term “(any syntype or any element eligible as type in Art. 10.2 first sen-
seems clear enough, for those who feel that the use of “circumscription” tence (excluding clause (a))”, leaving the actual type, i.e. the “no-
is best avoided here, an alternative wording might be: “A name, unless menclatural type” under Art. 7.2, out of this explanation. This has
conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2), or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is the added benefit of better integrating Art. 52.2 with its Note 1. Those
illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superflu- who favour this alternative approach should vote “ed.c.”
ous when published, i.e. if the taxon, or any of its simultaneously Prop. H is contingent upon acceptance of Prop. G, either in its
adopted subordinate taxa, to which the name was applied by its au- original wording or the suggested alternative language. The reference
thor in the protologue definitely included the type (as qualified in to an “illustration cited in the protologue” in Prop. H could be accom-
Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have been adopted, or of which modated either way. However, this would amount to extending the
the epithet ought to have been adopted, under the rules (but see meaning of “exclusion of a type” beyond what is defined in Art.
Art. 52.4 and F.8.1).” Those who favour this option rather than simply 48.2. One could argue that a potential type element could be any el-
leaving things as they are should vote “ed.c.” ement of original material, but as Art. 48.2 does not consider it this
Prop. D would add a cross-reference to Art. 48.2 in the last broadly, it seems undesirable to do it here.
clause of Art. 52.2 to permit the interpretation of “exclusion of a Prop. I, which bears some relationship with Prop. G, in that both
type” from Art. 48.2 to apply here in negating the effect (e) of citation consider the interaction between Art. 52.2(e) and Art. 52 Note
of a name itself. However, this does not take into account the conflict 1, would rewrite Note 1 and, because it “appears to introduce a new
that would arise between Art. 52 Note 1, which permits the exclusion concept”, elevate it to an Article. Indeed, while Note 1 explains what
of any potential type element of a name (i.e. any syntype or any ele- should be already apparent from Art. 52.1, i.e. that citing a name or
ment eligible under Art. 10.2) to preclude superfluity, and Art. 48.2. type with doubt or in part under a taxon would not have “definitely
The latter would require exclusion of “all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or included the type”, it appears to conflict with Art. 52.2. Under Art.
all elements eligible as types under Art. 10.2” to achieve the same re- 52.2, citing a name or type would achieve “definite inclusion of the
sult (i.e. not being superfluous). See Prop. G for a more elaborate type” regardless of how it was cited, e.g. with doubt or in part under
treatment of this issue. a taxon, because Art. 52.2 does not account for the situations covered
Prop. E suggests similar changes to Art. 52.2 as were proposed in Note 1. For this reason Prop. I would add a requirement to Art.
by Art. 48 Prop. G for Art. 48.2. The same considerations discussed 52.2 that a citation of a type or name must be “unqualified” in order
under Art. 48 Prop. G apply here, where an alternate wording for Art. to definitely include a type. A few other less consequential changes to
52.2 could be: “For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of a Art. 52.2 would also be made. The proposed new Art. 52.n would
type of a name is effected by citation of (a) the type previously limit what can be considered as “qualified” under Art. 52.2 to speci-
conserved under Art. 14.9; or if there is no conserved type, (b) fied situations. Nevertheless, an improved wording for the new Arti-
the type previously designated under Art. 9.11–9.13 or indicated cle could be: “For purposes of Art. 52.2, a citation is qualified and
or designated under the first sentence of Art. 10.2; or if there is does not constitute definite inclusion of the type if (a) it contains
no such previously indicated or designated type, (c) the holotype an expression of doubt (e.g. a question mark), (b) it excludes one
under Art. 9.1 or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligi- or more potential type elements (e.g. when a name is cited pro
ble as types under the first sentence of Art. 10.2; or (d) the illus- parte or a homotypic name is excluded) or (c) the cited name or
trations of these. It is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself any name homotypic at that time is simultaneously applied to a
or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same different taxon by the same author in the same publication.”
time excluded either explicitly or by implication.” Those who pre- Those who support this proposal in concept with this amended word-
fer this wording should vote “ed.c.” ing for the new Article should vote “ed.c.”

Prop. J proposes changes to Art. 52 Note 2 that seem unwar- the taxon to which it applies is first treated as an alga, fungus, or plant
ranted. It would replace “inclusion” (the term used in Art. 52.1, (see also Art. 45.1).”
52.2 and Note 1) with “citation”, disrupting the continuity of these Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would remove some unnec-
provisions, and replace “in a new taxon” with “in the protologue of essary language from Art. 54.1 and insert the necessary (if the hom-
a new name”, changing the meaning from inclusion within a taxo- onym is to be illegitimate) word “later” before “homonym”.
nomic group to citation in a place. It would also extend the applica-
tion of Note 2 to new combinations and names at new rank, which Article 56
having a basionym are never illegitimate on account of their superflu- Prop. A (121 – Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393) Amend
ity anyway (Art. 52.4), and to replacement names, which were not Art. 56.1 as follows (new text in bold):
previously considered under this Note. The proposed change “56.1. Any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomencla-
from “illegitimate” to “nomenclaturally superfluous” would better tural change (Art. 14.1) or that is regarded as culturally offensive
apply to all of these categories of names. Some slight rewording of or inappropriate (Art. 51.2) may be proposed for rejection. A name
Note 2 taking account of these issues could be: “The inclusion in a thus rejected, or its basionym if it has one, is placed on a list of no-
taxon of an element that was subsequently designated as the type mina utique rejicienda (suppressed names, App. V). Along with each
of a name that, so typified, ought to have been adopted for that listed name, all names for which it is the basionym are similarly re-
taxon, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, does jected, and none is to be used (see Rec. 50E.2).”
not in itself make a new name for that taxon nomenclaturally su- Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A, together with Art. 51 Prop.
perfluous.” Those who prefer this altered wording should vote B and C and Div. III Prop. T, forms a set of proposals that would al-
“ed.c.” low the rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names.
Prop. K would provide an addition to Note 2, clarifying that sub- Further discussion appears under these other proposals.
sequent replacement or supersession of a once-included type by one
that was not originally included would have no effect on the superflu- Article 60
ity of a name, which some might find useful. Prop. A (414 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184) Add a new para-
Prop. L is discussed under Art. 14 Prop. D. graph after Art. 60.1 (current wording of Art. 60.1 unchanged but
quoted for context):
Article 53 [“60.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be re-
Prop. A (405 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180) Amend Art. 53.1 as tained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical
follows (new text in bold): errors and the standardizations imposed by Art. 60.4 (letters and lig-
“53.1. A name of a family, genus, or species, unless conserved atures foreign to classical Latin), 60.5 and 60.6 (interchange between
(Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2), or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is illegitimate u/v, i/j, or eu/ev), 60.7 (diacritical signs and ligatures), 60.8 (termina-
(and is not to be used as the correct name of a taxon) if it is a later tions; see also Art. 32.2), 60.9 (intentional latinizations), 60.10 (com-
homonym, […].” pounding forms), 60.11 and 60.12 (hyphens), 60.13 (apostrophes and
Prop. B (219 – Prado & al. in Taxon 72: 454) Amend Art. 53.4 full stops), 60.14 (abbreviations), and F.9.1 (epithets of fungal
(new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): names) (see also Art. 14.8, 14.11, and F.3.2).”]
“53.4. When it is doubtful whether names or their epithets are “60.1bis. Orthographical errors to be corrected under this Arti-
sufficiently alike to be confused, a request for a decision may be sub- cle are those occurring when a name or epithet issued from Greek
mitted to the General Committee, which will refer it for examination or Latin is incorrectly written or constructed, even with a large toler-
to the specialist committee(s) for the appropriate taxonomic group(s) ance for usages of post-classical Latin, especially botanical Latin.”
(see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A General Committee recom- Prop. B (415 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184) Add a second new
mendation as to whether or not to treat the names concerned as hom- paragraph after Art. 60.1:
onyms is to be treated as a binding decision subject to ratification “60.1ter. Correction is also to be applied when names or epithets
by a later may then be put forward to an International Botanical Con- derived from the name of a person, a geographical place, or a lan-
gress (see also Art. 14.15, 34.2, 38.4, and 56.3) and, if ratified, will guage other than Greek or Latin is written in a way incompatible with
become a binding decision with takes retroactive effect. These bind- the real orthography of the name or word, unless it is an evident inten-
ing decisions are listed in App. VII.” tional latinization under Art. 60.9.”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would add to Art. 53.1 a par- Prop. C (416 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184) Add a third new
enthetic clause that many might consider states the obvious; see com- paragraph after Art. 60.1:
ments under the related (although independent) Art. 52 Prop. B. “60.1quater. In case of doubt, a voted Example (Art. 7 *Ex.
Prop. B is discussed under Art. 38 Prop. N. 16 footnote) may be proposed. When an erroneous usage has been
dominant for a long period, conservation may be proposed under
Article 54 Art. 14.11.”
Prop. A (431 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187) Reword Prop. D (418 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184) Add a new voted
Art. 54.1 clause (b) as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in Example to the Examples under Art. 60.1 or 60.2:
strikethrough): “*Ex. n. The generic name Brachycome Cass. (in Bull. Soc. Phi-
“54.1. […] (b) A name applied to an organism covered by this lom. Paris 1816: 199. 1816) is to be so spelled, even though it was
Code and validly published under it (Art. 32–45) but originally pub- originally spelled ‘Brachyscome’ (see Demoulin in Lejeunia
lished for a taxon other than an alga, fungus, or plant, i.e. under an- 200. 2019).”
other Code, is illegitimate if it (1) is unavailable for use under the Prop. E (228 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459) Amend the sec-
provisions of the other Code1, usually because of homonymy, or (2) ond sentence of Art. 60.7 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text
becomes is a later homonym of an algal, fungal, or plant name when in strikethrough):

“60.7. Diacritical signs are not used in scientific names. When classical Latin adjectival usage, namely -[i]a, -[i]us, or -[i]um,
such signs appear in the spelling of a name at valid publication or such epithets ending in an -ea.”
names (either new or old) are drawn from words in which such signs “Ex. n. Gladiolus watsonius Thunb. (Gladiolus: 14. 1784) and
appear, the signs are to be suppressed with the necessary transcription Syringa josikaea J. Jacq. ex Rchb. (Iconogr. Bot. Pl. Crit. 8: 32.
of the letters so modified; […].” 1830) are not correctable to G. “watsonianus” and S. “josikaeana”,
Prop. F (229 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459) Rephrase the sec- respectively.”
ond sentence of Art. 60.7, so that it reads: Prop. K (024 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 69: 638) Add a voted Ex-
“60.7. […] When such a sign appears in the original spelling of a ample to Art. 60.8:
name, this sign is to be suppressed without transcription (é, è, ê be- “*Ex. n. Tradition has accepted a number of eighteenth and
come e; ñ becomes n), except a Germanic ä, ö, or ü, which is to be nineteenth century names with epithets based on personal names that
transcribed, to become, respectively, ae, oe, and ue; or the Scandina- are not formed according to Art. 60.8, but that are classical Latin ad-
vian å or ø, which is also to be transcribed, to become, respectively, jectives (formed by analogy to Rec. 60B, but not restricted to a fem-
ao and oe.” inine form), such as Erica bauera Andrews (Col. Engr. Heaths:
[Current wording: “60.7. Diacritical signs are not used in scien- t. 221. 1810–1830), Gladiolus watsonius Thunb. (Gladiolus: 14.
tific names. When names (either new or old) are drawn from words in 1784), Hibiscus patersonius Andrews (Bot. Repos.: t. 286. 1803)
which such signs appear, the signs are to be suppressed with the nec- (= Lagunaria patersonia (Andrews) G. Don, Gen. Hist. 1: 485.
essary transcription of the letters so modified; for example ä, ö, ü be- 1831), Syringa josikaea J. Jacq. ex Rchb. (Iconogr. Bot. Pl. Crit. 8:
come, respectively, ae, oe, ue (not æ or œ, see below); é, è, ê become 32. 1830), Taxus harringtonia Knight ex J. Forbes (Pinet. Woburn.:
e; ñ becomes n; ø becomes oe (not œ); å becomes ao.”] 217. 1839) (= Cephalotaxus harringtonia (Knight ex J. Forbes)
Prop. G (230 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459) Move the last sen- K. Koch, Dendrologie 2(2): 102. 1873). This tradition is to be re-
tence of Art. 60.7 to Art. 60.4 (new text in bold, deleted text in spected, and such epithets are not correctable.”
strikethrough). Prop. L (048 – Moran & Prado in Taxon 69: 1391) Amend Art.
“60.4. The letters w and y, foreign to classical Latin, and k, rare 60.8(b) and (d) and Ex. 17 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
in that language, are permissible in scientific names (see Art. 32.1 strikethrough) and add a new entry to the Glossary:
(b)). Other letters and ligatures foreign to classical Latin that may ap- “(b) If the personal name ends with a consonant (but not in -er),
pear in scientific names, such as the German ß (ſs, or double s), are to substantival epithets are formed by latinizing them with -ius, then
be transcribed. The ligatures æ and œ, indicating that the letters dropping the -us and adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the geni-
are pronounced together, are to be replaced by the separate let- tive inflection appropriate to the gender and number of the person(s)
ters ae and oe.” honoured (e.g. Lecard-ius, lecard-i-i for Lecard (m), Wilson-ius,
“60.7. […] The ligatures æ and œ, indicating that the letters are wilson-i-ae for Wilson (f), Verlot-ius, verlot-i-orum for the Verlot
pronounced together, are to be replaced by the separate letters ae brothers, Braun-ius, braun-i-arum for the Braun sisters, Mason-
and oe.” ius, mason-i-orum for Mason, father and daughter).”
It may be worth considering a clarifying addition after “æ and œ” “(d) If the personal name ends with a consonant, adjectival epi-
such as “(first adopted in medieval Latin)”. thets are formed by latinizing the personal name with -ius, then
Prop. H (231 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459) Add a new Exam- dropping the -us and adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem
ple to Art. 60.7: of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection appropri-
“Ex. n. The letter å to become ao. ‘Forsskålea’ (dedicated to ate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rosa webbi-ana for Webb,
Peter Forsskål) is to be cited as Forsskaolea L. (Opobalsamum: 17. Desmodium griffithi-anum for Griffith, Verbena hassleri-ana for
1764), not as ‘Forskohlea’, as done by Linnaeus (Mant. Pl.: 72. Hassler).”
1767), or as ‘Forskalea’, as done by Jussieu (Gen. Pl.: 403. 1789).” “Ex. 17. In Rhododendron ‘potanini’ Batalin (in Trudy Imp.
Prop. I (022 – Moran & al. in Taxon 69: 636) Amend Art. 60.8 S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 11: 489. 1892), commemorating G. N.
(a) as follows (new text in bold): Potanin, the epithet is to be spelled potaninii under Art. 60.8(b) be-
“(a) If the personal name ends with a vowel or -er, substantival cause Potanin is first put in Latin form by adding -ius to create
epithets are formed by adding the genitive inflection appropriate to potaninius; then the genitive is formed by first dropping the -us
the gender and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. scopoli-i for to yield potanini- (the final -i- is the stem augmentation) and then
Scopoli (m), fedtschenko-i for Fedtschenko (m), fedtschenko-ae adding the masculine genitive singular ending -i, resulting in the
for Fedtschenko (f), glaziou-i for Glaziou (m), lace-ae for Lace (f), epithet potaninii). However, in Phoenix theophrasti Greuter
gray-i for Gray (m), hooker-i for Hooker (m), hooker-ae for (in Bauhinia 3: 243. 1967), commemorating Theophrastus, it is not
Hooker (f), hooker-orum for the Hookers (m)), except when the spelled ‘theophrastii’ because Rec. 60C.1 applies.”
name ends with -a, in which case adding -e (singular) or -rum (plural) “stem augmentation. [Not defined] – the -i- at the end of the
is appropriate (e.g. triana-e for Triana (m), pojarkova-e for Pojarkova stem of a specific or infraspecific epithet derived from a personal
(f), orlovskaja-e for Orlovskaja (f), espinosa-rum for the Espino- name not already of Latin form and ending in a consonant. It results
sas (m)).” from latinizing the personal name by adding -ius (e.g. Smith to
Prop. J (023 – Mabberley in Taxon 69: 637) Amend the last par- smithius), then dropping the -us to yield the stem (smithi-), to which
agraph of Art. 60.8 as follows (new text in bold) and add an Example: is added the appropriate genitive ending (smithi-i, masc. sing.;
“Terminations contrary to the above standards are treated as er- smithi-orum, masc. pl.; smithi-ae, fem. sing.; smithi-arum, fem. pl.)
rors to be corrected to [i]i, [i]ae, [i]ana, [i]anus, [i]anum, [i]arum, (Art. 60.8(b) and (d)). Similarly, adjectival epithets are formed by
or [i]orum, as appropriate (see also Art. 32.2). However, epithets first latinizing the personal name by adding -ius, then adding an ad-
formed in accordance with Rec. 60C.1 are not correctable (see also jectival suffix (-an-) to which is attached the appropriate nominative
Art. 60.9), nor are those with terminations conforming to other singular inflection.”

Prop. M (186 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1341) Insert in Art. “60.9. When the spelling of a name or epithet used at valid pub-
60.8 a qualification on epithets derived from abbreviations of per- lication resulted from the intentional latinization of a personal, geo-
sonal names (new text in bold), and add a new Article, a new Note, graphical, or vernacular name, this original spelling (Art. 60.2) is to
and three new Examples: be retained (Art. 60.1). Excepted from this are epithets formed from
“60.8. The termination of specific or infraspecific epithets de- personal names when the latinization involves (a) only a termination
rived from personal names that are not already in Greek or Latin to which Art. 60.8 applies, or (b) only (1) omission of the terminal
and do not possess a well-established latinized form (see Rec. vowel or terminal consonant or (2) conversion of the terminal vowel
60C.1) is as follows (but see Art. 60.8bis for epithets derived from to a different vowel, for which the omitted or converted letter is to be
abbreviation of personal names):” restored.”
“60.8bis. An epithet, or in the case of a compound epithet its fi- [Current wording: “60.9. When changes in spelling by authors
nal portion, formed from abbreviation of one or more personal names who adopt personal, geographical, or vernacular names in nomencla-
is considered to have been composed arbitrarily (Art. 23.2) and is not ture are intentional latinizations, they are to be preserved, except, in
subject to modification, e.g. under the provisions of Art. 60.8.” epithets formed from personal names, when they concern (a) only a
“Note 4bis. If the epithet itself is indicated as being abbreviated, termination to which Art. 60.8 applies, or (b) personal names in
Art. 60.14 applies.” which the changes involve only (1) omission of the terminal vowel
“Ex. 26bis. Silene karekirii Bocquet (in Candollea 22: 10. 1967), or terminal consonant or (2) conversion of the terminal vowel to a dif-
published as a replacement name for Lychnis sordida Kar. ferent vowel, for which the omitted or converted letter is to be
& Kir. (in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 15: 170. 1842), is restored.”]
an arbitrarily formed epithet constructed by abbreviating the names Prop. R (236 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460) Amend the last
of Karelin and Kirilov, authors of the replaced synonym, and the sentence of Art. 60 Note 5 so that it reads (new text in bold, deleted
epithet is not to be corrected to ‘karekiriorum’ or ‘karelini- text in strikethrough):
kiriloviorum’.” “Note 5. The provisions of Art. 60.8, 60.9, and Rec. 60C deal
“Ex. 26ter. Lepanthes carvii Archila (Lepanthes Guatemala: 99. with the latinization of names through their modification. Latin-
2001) was said to be “dedicated to the family of Carlos Villela espe- ization is not the same as translation of a name (e.g.
cially LIC Jorge A Carlos who directed the photography in this inves- Tabernaemontanus, Latin for Bergzabern; Nobilis, Latin for Noble),
tigation”. As a composite epithet apparently made up of “Car” from Epithets resulting from or derived from such Latin translations fall
the Carlos family and the “V” from Villela, it is considered to be under Rec. 60C.1 and are not subject to standardization under Art.
composed arbitrarily and is not to be modified in any way.” 60.8, although Rec. 60C.1 and 60C.2 may apply.”
“Ex. 26quater. Telipogon ‘crisariasae’ Baquero & Iturralde Prop. S (237 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460) Add two Exam-
(in Phytotaxa 564: 249. 2022), commemorating María Cristina Arias ples to Art. 60 Note 5:
(female), in which the final portion of a compound epithet is not “Ex. n1. Melaleuca fabri Craven (in Austral. Syst. Bot. 12: 876.
formed from an abbreviation, is correctable to Telipogon crisariasiae 1999) honours Basil and Mary Smith, with fabri the translation into
(see Art. 60.8(b)).” Latin of the name Smith, in the nominative plural, as a noun in appo-
Prop. N (233 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460) Rephrase the sition. This epithet was not formed by adding a termination to a per-
opening sentence of Art. 60.8 so that it reads: sonal name (Art. 60.8), but is just a translation to a Latin word.
“60.8. When a specific or infraspecific epithet is formed by add- Although this practice is not recommended, the epithet is to be ac-
ing a termination to a personal name (see Rec. 23A.1), this is done as cepted in its original spelling (and is not to be altered to
follows (but see Art. 60.9 and Art. 60 Note 5):” “fabrorum”).”
[Current wording: “60.8. The termination of specific or infra- “Ex. n2. The epithet, in apposition, in Crataegus spes-aestatum
specific epithets derived from personal names that are not already J. B. Phipps (in Novon 16: 382. 2006) honours Bill Summers, one
in Greek or Latin and do not possess a well-established latinized form person, but the genitive plural (“aestatum”) is not to be altered to
(see Rec. 60C.1) is as follows:”] the singular. The epithet is just a translation to Latin.”
Prop. O (234 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460) Provide the final Prop. T (238 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 461) Add a new rule to
(main text) paragraph of Art. 60.8 (“Terminations contrary […]”) Art. 60 supported by two Examples:
with its own number. “60.9bis. For a specific or infraspecific epithet formed from two
The same could apply to the final (main text) paragraph of Art. or more parts, with the part in final position a personal name to which
60.10 (“Adjectival epithets not formed […]”). a termination is added, the provisions of Art. 60.8 and 60.9 apply
Prop. P (282 – Olshanskyi in Taxon 72: 698) Amend Art. equally to the part of the epithet formed from that personal name.”
60 Note 4 as follows (new text in bold): “Ex. n1. The epithet in Vochysia hannekesaskiae Marc.-Berti
“Note 4. If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet de- (in Pittieria 18: 7. 1989) is dedicated to the wife and two daughters
rived from a personal name is/are inappropriate for the gender and/or of the author; in total three persons, two of whom are named Hanneke
number of the person(s) whom the name commemorates, the termi- and one Saskia. Although such a practice is not recommended, this
nation is to be corrected in conformity with Art. 60.8. However, epithet is not to be altered, because the correct termination was added
the grammatical gender used for a person whom the epithet com- to the personal name Saskia (in final position), which refers to a sin-
memorates may be determined by the preferred gender identity gle person. However, the epithet in Qualea ‘hannekesaskiarum’
of that person. Also, an epithet honouring a non-binary person Marc.-Berti (in Pittieria 13: 5. 1986), dedicated to the two daughters
in some cases may be created by adding -iorum, -iarum, or an- of the author (i.e. Hanneke and Saskia), is to be corrected to the
other indicator of grammatical plurality.” singular.”
Prop. Q (235 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460) Rephrase Art. “Ex. n2. The epithet in Cestrum ‘johnniegentrianum’ D’Arcy
60.9 so that it reads: (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 60: 601. 1974) is composed of a given

name and a surname (“Nomen Johannis L. Gentryi […] designatur”). 85: 57. 1928); Ribes non-scriptum (Berger) Standl. (in Publ. Field
The component in final position is a personal name, Gentry, to which Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 8: 140. 1930); Solanum fructu-tecto Cav.
a termination is added: the final part of the epithet is correctable and (Icon. 4: 5. 1797); Vitis novae-angliae Fernald (in Rhodora 19:
the name is to be cited as Cestrum johnniegentryanum.” 146. 1917).”
Prop. U (211 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450) Add a new rule to “Ex. 42. Hyphen to be inserted used because the two words
Art. 60 supported by two Examples: stand independently: Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. (Syst.
“60.10bis. The provisions of Art. 60.10 apply equally to epithets Veg. 2: 287. 1825, ‘uva ursi’); Aster novae-angliae L. (Sp. Pl.:
in apposition that are compounded by combining one or more Greek 875. 1753, ‘novae angliae’); Coix lacryma-jobi L. (l.c.: 972. 1753,
or Latin words with the noun -cola in final position (see Art. 23.5).” ‘lacryma jobi’); Marattia rolandi-principis Rosenst. (in Repert.
“Ex. 39bis. The epithet meaning “inhabiting Betula” is betuli- Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 10: 162. 1911, ‘rolandi principis’); Veronica
cola (Betul-, connecting vowel -i-, and noun, in final posi- anagallis-aquatica L. (Sp. Pl.: 12. 1753, ‘anagallis 5’) (see Art.
tion, -cola).” 23.3); Veronica argute-serrata Regel & Schmalh. (in Trudy Imp.
“Ex. 39ter. The epithet in Septoria ‘Castaneæcola’ Desm. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 5: 626. 1878, ‘argute serrata’) (see also
(in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 3, 8: 26. 1847) is to be spelled Art. 23 Ex. 20).”
castaneicola.” “Ex. 43. Hyphen not to be inserted used in an epithet derived
Prop. V (212 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450) Add a new rule to from personal names that are not separately latinized or have a
Art. 60 supported by three Examples: leading prefix: Acer shihweii F. Chun & W. P. Fang (in Acta Phy-
“60.10ter. The provisions of Art. 60.10 apply equally to epithets totax. Sin. 11: 165. 1966) – named for Teng Shih Wei; Astragalus
in apposition that semantically serve as if they were adjectives and langranii Podlech (in Novon 14: 225. 2004, ‘lang-ranii’) – named
that are compounded by combining one or more Greek or Latin for “Xu Lang-Ran”; Calamus johndransfieldii W. J. Baker
words with a noun in final position (especially -cola, see Art. 23.5).” (in Phytotaxa 197: 144. 2015); Cardamine cheotaiyienii Al-
[The same two Examples as in Prop. 211 [Prop. U] above.] Shehbaz & G. Yang (in Harvard Pap. Bot. 3: 73. 1998) – named
“Ex. n. Ilex ‘ardisiaefrons’ Reissek (in Martius, Fl. Bras. 11(1): for “Cheo Tai-yien”; Corydalis harrysmithii Lidén & Z. Y. Su
58. 1861) is to be spelled I. ardisiifrons.” (in Novon 17: 482. 2007, ‘harry-smithii’); Mesospora vanbosseae
Prop. W (049 – Prado & Moran in Taxon 69: 1392) Amend Art. Børgesen (in Skottsberg, Nat. Hist. Juan Fernandez 2: 258. 1924,
60.11 and Ex. 40–43 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in stri- ‘van-bosseae’); Peperomia lasierrana Trel. & Yunck. (Piperac.
kethrough) and add a new Example: N. South Amer.: 530. 1950, ‘la-sierrana’); Erysimum handelmaz-
“60.11. The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as zettii Polatschek (in Phyton (Horn) 34: 200. 1994, ‘handel-mazzet-
an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen. A However, a hy- tii’); Ligusticum kingdonwardii H. Wolff (in Repert. Spec. Nov.
phen is permitted only when must be used if (a) the epithet is formed Regni Veg. 27: 306. 1930, ‘kingdon-wardii’); Polypodium alans-
of words that usually stand independently (see also Art. 23.1 and mithii R. C. Moran (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 77: 845.
23.3), including separately latinized personal names, but exclud- 1990); Symphyopappus lymansmithii B. L. Rob. (in Contr. Gray
ing a leading prefix, or (b) when the letters before and after the hy- Herb. 96: 19. 1931); Synsepalum letestui Aubrév. & Pellegr.
phen are the same (see also Art. 23.1 and 23.3). The absence of such (in Notul. Syst. (Paris) 16: 263. 1961, ‘Le Testui’), not ‘le-testui’.”
a hyphen is treated as an error to be corrected by insertion of the “Ex. n. Hyphen used in an epithet derived from separately
hyphen.” latinized personal names: Englerodoxa alberti-smithii Sleumer
“Ex. 40. Hyphen to be deleted not used because it was origi- (in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 12: 57. 1934); Kalanchoe
nally published in error: Acer pseudoplatanus L. (Sp. Pl.: 1024. adolphi-engleri Raym.-Hamet (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 102:
1753, ‘pseudo-platanus’); Croton ciliatoglandulifer Ortega (Nov. 239. 1955); Pleurothallis curti-bradei Pabst (in Arch. Jard. Bot.
Pl. Descr. Dec.: 51. 1797, ‘ciliato-glandulifer’); Eugenia costaricen- Rio de Janeiro 14: 10. 1956).”
sis O. Berg (in Linnaea 27: 213. 1856, ‘costa-ricensis’); Eunotia ro- Prop. X (213 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451) Rephrase Art.
landschmidtii Metzeltin & Lange-Bert. (Iconogr. Diatomol. 18: 117. 60.11 so that it reads (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
2007, ‘roland-schmidtii’), in which the given name and surname do “60.11. The use of a hyphen in an compound epithet is treated as
not stand independently because the former is not separately latin- an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen. A hyphen is per-
ized; Ficus neoebudarum Summerh. (in J. Arnold Arbor. 13: 97. mitted only when an epithet is hyphenated according to Art.
1932, ‘neo-ebudarum’); Lycoperdon atropurpureum Vittad. 23.1 or 23.3 (if the epithet consisted originally of two or more
(Monogr. Lycoperd.: 42. 1842, ‘atro-purpureum’); Mesospora van- words, or a word and a symbol) or when the hyphen was present
bosseae Børgesen (in Skottsberg, Nat. Hist. Juan Fernandez 2: 258. at the valid publication of the name or its basionym, if it has one.
1924, ‘van-bosseae’); Peperomia lasierrana Trel. & Yunck. A hyphen is permitted only when the epithet is formed of words that
(Piperac. N. South Amer.: 530. 1950, ‘la-sierrana’); Scirpus sect. usually stand independently, or when the letters before and after the
Pseudoeriophorum Jurtzev (in Byull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., hyphen are the same (see also Art. 23.1 and 23.3).”
Otd. Biol. 70(1): 132. 1965, ‘Pseudo-eriophorum’).” Prop. Y (214 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451) Add a Note to Art.
“Ex. 41. Hyphen to be maintained used because the letters be- 60, somewhere after 60.11, supported by an Example:
fore and after the hyphen are the same: Athyrium austro-occiden- “Note n. In Art. 60.11, “words that usually stand independently”
tale Ching (in Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occid. Sin. 6: 152. 1986); refers to usage in (botanical) Latin (see Prin. V), not in the language
Enteromorpha roberti-lamii H. Parriaud (in Botaniste 44: 247. from which the words are derived.”
1961), in which the given name and surname stand independently be- “Ex. n1. In the epithet of Nicandra johntyleriana S. Leiva &
cause they are separately latinized; Loranthus pseudo-odoratus Lin- Pereyra (in Arnaldoa 14: 46. 2007, ‘john-tyleriana’), “john” is not
gelsh. (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 12: 357. 1922, a Latin word and it cannot stand independently in that language.
‘pseudoodoratus’); Piper pseudo-oblongum McKown (in Bot. Gaz. A hyphen is not permitted.”

Prop. Z (215 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451) If Prop. 214 Prop. H would be automatically referred to the Editorial
[Prop. Y] is accepted, add a voted Example to the Note: Committee.
“*Ex. n2. In the epithet of Peperomia santa-elisae C. DC. Prop. I, by adding the epithets hookeri and hookerae to Art. 60.8
(in Bull. Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, 7: 917. 1907), “santa” is not a Latin (a), would demonstrate how persons with names ending in -er, such
word but is accepted by tradition as a word that can stand indepen- as Hooker, are to be honoured with substantival epithets appropriate
dently in botanical Latin. A hyphen is permitted.” to their gender. Prop. I would also show how more than one person
Prop. AA (187 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1341) Amend Art. with a name ending in -a are to be so honoured. The additions would
60.14 to read (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): provide a more inclusive set of examples in the Article.
“60.14. Abbreviated names and Names or epithets indicated as Prop. J seeks to ensure nomenclatural stability and respect au-
abbreviated are to be expanded in conformity with nomenclatural thors’ intent by protecting epithets such as those of Cephalotaxus
tradition (see also Art. 23 *Ex. 23 and Rec. 60C.4(d)).” harringtonia and Syringa josikaea from inappropriate “correction”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A and B would define what con- under Art. 60.8 to a rarely or never-used spelling, even though they
stitutes an orthographical error that would be correctable under Art. were coined in conformity with classical Latin before the genitive
60.1. Prop. A concerns Latin (including post-classical Latin) or Greek and adjectival forms currently prescribed by the Code came into
orthography, whereas Prop. B deals with other languages (and would force. The current usage of at least 39 epithets would be preserved
make it clear why ‘Nilsonia’, named after Sven Nilsson, is correctable (those mentioned by the proposers in Prop. J and K and others in a list
to Nilssonia; see Art. 60 Ex. 7). The effort seems to be to promote stan- received from D. Mabberley, pers. comm.).
dardization in the orthography of names or epithets. However, this ap- Prop. K seeks to achieve exactly the same goal as Prop. J but by
pears to be at the expense of short-term nomenclatural stability. Under means of a voted Example containing a detailed explanation and sev-
Prop. B, names with epithets such as pensylvanica would presumably eral names for which the original spelling would be protected. The
be correctable to ‘pennsylvanica’ (because Pennsylvania is named af- two proposals are alternatives: while Prop. J would provide a more
ter William Penn). The epithet of Carya illinoinensis, the name of an comprehensive solution, Prop. K would provide more explanation.
important North American crop (the pecan) whose spelling is just be- If Prop. J was preferred, the content of the voted Example of Prop.
ginning to stabilize after a failed proposal to conserve its orthography K could be incorporated into the regular Example of Prop. J.
35 years ago, could also be affected. This is just the tip of the iceberg in Prop. L would provide background information on how substan-
terms of the destabilizing spelling corrections that might be made to tival and adjectival epithets are formed from personal names ending
epithets based on, e.g., Uruguay, Venezuela, Maryland, Kentucky, in a consonant, e.g. lecardii from Lecard or webbiana from Webb.
Missouri, etc. Furthermore, how could one determine the “real orthog- It seems that one aim of the proposal is to illustrate why,
raphy” of a Chinese name or word? Or what constitutes an “evident in- e.g., Lecard is honoured by lecardii and not lecardi. Although Art.
tentional latinization under Art. 60.9” (which would be exempt from 60.9 and Ex. 28, 29, 31 and 32 already mention intentional or implicit
correction)? latinization(s) of non-Latin personal names, making latinization an
Prop. C suggests two solutions “in cases of doubt” about ortho- explicit part of the mechanism of forming epithets under Art. 60.8 ap-
graphical errors, presumably as to whether they are correctable under pears unnecessary and confusing. The term “stem augmentation”
Art. 60.1. This would really be a Note, because both would also be removed from Art. 60.8 but added in parentheses to
options – proposing an amendment to the Code to add a voted Exam- Ex. 17 and provided with a detailed definition to the Glossary, which
ple or proposing a name for conservation with a conserved would then define a term that appears once in the Code, in an Exam-
spelling – would be possible under the current rules. However, it ple, and there only in parentheses so that it could be deleted with little
would be very unusual for either an Article or a Note to suggest such loss of meaning. Some might consider that the revised provisions
an action, and this would set a precedent resulting in an undesirable would be more complex and less understandable than the current
flood of such proposals. wording.
Prop. D is related to Art. 20 Prop. B, which would amend Art. Prop. M would prevent “correction” under Art. 60.8 of an epi-
20.1 to rule that generic names containing orthographical errors are thet formed from abbreviation of one or more personal names, as
not arbitrarily composed and are correctable under Art. 60.1. Prop. compared with an epithet itself indicated as being abbreviated
D would illustrate this with a new voted Example. It could be a nor- (to which Art. 60.13 and 60.14 apply; see Prop. AA). How many such
mal Example if Art. 20 Prop. B is accepted, although the proposer names are affected is unclear, although three are mentioned in the
comments “given the long-standing controversy about this name, it proposed Examples. If there are significantly more, the proposed so-
may nonetheless be useful to close the book in this way”. lution of adding another Article to the Code might be considered
Prop. E would offer an improved wording for the part of Art. justifiable.
60.7 that concerns the non-use of diacritical signs in scientific names. Prop. N would address perceived issues with the opening sen-
Prop. F is an alternative to Prop. E, and would make it clearer tence of Art. 60.8. The proposer explains these as follows. Firstly,
that “transcription” entails adding an extra letter, such as in ä becom- the wording “derived from personal names” could include various ep-
ing ae, but not in é becoming e, whereas the wording “necessary tran- ithets that do not and should not accord with Art. 60.8, e.g. names de-
scription” in current Art. 60.7 only implies that transcription does not rived from abbreviations of personal names discussed under Prop.
occur in all cases. Prop. F would also specify that certain letters with M. Secondly, the phrase “not already in Greek or Latin and do not
diacritical signs are to be transcribed only when their usage is possess a well-established latinized form” seems to prevent Art.
Germanic or Scandinavian, which would allow, for example, Turkish 60.8 from applying to names like Martius, so that while martiusii ac-
ö and ü to become o and u and not be transcribed as oe and ue. cords with Art. 60.8, as does martii because it is formed in accor-
Prop. G is purely editorial and would move the last sentence of dance with Rec. 60C.1, epithets such as martiusi and martiusiensis
Art. 60.7, dealing with two ligatures (æ and œ), to follow the sentence (both mentioned by the proposer, but apparently hypothetical) are
in Art. 60.4 that also deals with a ligature (ß). not correctable. Thirdly, the phrase “well-established latinized form”

seems to conflict with Art. 60.9, which permits intentional latiniza- the proposer, the vast majority compounded with -cola). As with
tion of a personal name, whether well-established or not. However, Prop. U, a simpler option might be to amend Art. 60.10 accordingly:
a disadvantage of the proposed new wording is that it would be much “Adjectival epithets (and substantival epithets that semantically
less obvious that epithets formed from Latin or latinized personal serve as if they were adjectives) that combine elements derived
names should follow Rec. 60C.1, not Art. 60.8. from two or more Greek or Latin words are to be compounded
Prop. O is purely editorial and is intended to make Art. 60.8 less as follows:”. Those supporting this alternative should vote “ed.c.”
“uncomfortably long” and to facilitate reference to the final para- Prop. W seeks to make use of a hyphen obligatory in certain cir-
graph by making it a separate Article. The proposer suggests that cumstances, instead of “permitted”, as at present, for example to insert
Art. 60.10 could be amended similarly. Moving the final paragraph a hyphen in epithets such as that of Loranthus pseudoodoratus Lin-
would not shorten Art. 60.8 significantly, and it would compromise gelsh., which was originally spelled thus. This seems to be the intent
the integrity of the Article, which currently establishes the proper of the proposal, although the wording “a hyphen must be used […]
form for terminations of epithets derived from personal names and when the letters before and after the hyphen are the same […] The ab-
specifies the remedy if they are not properly formed. sence of such a hyphen is treated as an error to be corrected by insertion
Prop. P would permit the grammatical gender of a substantival of the hyphen” is difficult to understand because, when a hyphen is ab-
epithet commemorating a person to be determined by that person’s sent, there are no letters before and after the hyphen, so where must it
preferred gender identity. Should that gender identity be non-binary, be inserted? Between any double letter? This issue would require some
the plural form of an epithet would be permitted as an alternative to editorial adjustment. Prop. W also attempts to formalize in Art. 60.11
the singular masculine or feminine form, although “another indicator what was added by the Editorial Committee (with hindsight, unwisely)
of grammatical plurality” would still have to accord with Art. 60.8. to Art. 60 Ex. 40 and 41 of the Shenzhen Code, i.e. the use or non-use
An alternative for non-binary gender identity could be to coin an ad- of a hyphen in epithets formed from a given name and surname that are
jectival epithet, which would be independent of the gender of the per- separately latinized or not separately latinized, respectively. The Code
son commemorated. could instead be simplified by deleting Eunotia roland[-]schmidtii
Prop. Q would provide an improved wording for Art. 60.9, re- from Ex. 40 and Enteromorpha roberti[-]lamii from Ex. 41. It seems
moving redundancies. However, the proposed first sentence, in stat- that whether or not a hyphen should be inserted, maintained or deleted
ing “the spelling of a name or epithet”, appears to also cover new is tiresomely confusing for many Code users, and one wonders if the
combinations or names at new rank, even though these would not use of hyphens should be abolished for all names governed by the
be included because Art. 60.2 defines “original spelling” as being Code. Database matching and search engine algorithms can easily dis-
that of the “name of a new taxon or replacement name” at valid pub- regard hyphens anyway. Indeed, Art. 20 Prop. G proposes deletion of
lication. A rewording of this sentence would make this clearer: “The hyphens in all generic names, and Art. 23 Prop. D proposes that
original spelling (Art. 60.2) of a name or epithet is to be retained hyphens would no longer be permitted in specific (and infraspecific)
(Art. 60.1) if it resulted from the intentional latinization of a per- epithets after 2025.
sonal, geographical, or vernacular name.” Those who favour this Prop. X could provide a clearer explanation of when a hyphen is
rewording should vote “ed.c.” permitted in an epithet and when it is to be deleted, thereby making life
Prop. R suggests adjustments to Art. 60 Note 5 that might more easier for Code users so long as hyphens are still tolerated. It would
accurately reflect the relevant provisions. However, the proposer uses clarify that hyphens added after the original publication are never al-
“derived from” and “resulting from” to seemingly distinguish the lowed, except when epithets are published as separate words. The sec-
sources for epithets that are Latin translations, perhaps differentiating ond and third sentences both begin with “A hyphen is permitted only
honorees who used pen names that were Latin translations from those when”, which might seem as if they conflict with each other, whereas
who did not. It is unclear why such a distinction is necessary, but this in fact the third sentence is an additional condition, but this would be
could be resolved editorially. clarified by the Editorial Committee if the proposal was accepted.
Prop. S would be automatically referred to the Editorial Prop. Y would introduce a new rule, and cannot therefore be a
Committee. Note but would have to be a new Article. It seems to parallel the Ed-
Prop. T seeks to limit correction under Art. 60.8 and 60.9 to the itorial Committee’s additions to Art. 60 Ex. 40 and 41 (see Prop. W),
final part of a compound epithet, when that part is derived from a per- and those who feel that these additions need to be formalized in the
sonal name. As shown in one of the proposed Examples, the spelling Code, rather than removed, will presumably support the proposal.
of Qualea hannekesaskiarum Marc.-Berti, named after Hanneke and Prop. Z offers a voted Example to permit retention of the hyphen
Saskia, would have to be corrected to ‘Q. hannekesaskiae’ under this in the epithet of Peperomia santa-elisae C. DC., which would other-
proposal. Although the proposer apparently regards such epithets as wise lose its hyphen if Prop. Y was accepted. The proposer notes that
falling outside Art. 60.8 and 60.9, others might consider that rare “it appears to be something of a marginal case”, so perhaps it does not
cases like these do not justify adding a new Article to the Code. merit an amendment to the Code.
Prop. U would permit compound epithets ending in -cola, which Prop. AA would restrict the application of Art. 60.14 to names or
are nouns in apposition (Art. 23.5), to be correctable under Art. epithets that are themselves indicated as abbreviated, e.g. by use of a
60.10, which applies only to adjectival epithets. Instead of adding a full stop (period) or other symbol, not any name or epithet that might
new Article to the Code, it might be simpler to amend Art. 60.10 be formed from one or more abbreviations, e.g. Silene karekirii Boc-
by adding “and substantival epithets ending in -cola” after “Adjec- quet (see Prop. M).
tival epithets”. Those supporting this alternative should vote “ed.c.”
Prop. V is an alternative to Prop. U and has a more inclusive Recommendation 60 (new)
effect, applying to all compound epithets that end in a noun but “se- Prop. A (232 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459) Add a new Rec-
mantically serve as if they were adjectives”, with endings such as ommendation to Art. 60 (perhaps after Rec. 60A or before, in or after
-calyx, -cola, -cornu and -frons (the only examples mentioned by Rec. 60E):

“60(new). In forming names or epithets that are based on per- Prop. C (422 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185) Add to the new
sonal, geographical, or vernacular names or on other words, in which Art. 61.2: “cespitosus to caespitosus”.
signs (such as diacritical signs or ligatures) or letters appear that do Prop. D (423 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185) Add to the new
not belong to the twenty-six letters of the modern Latin alphabet Art. 61.2: “lacrymans to lacrimans”.
(Art. 32.1(b)), authors should suppress or transcribe these signs or Prop. E (424 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185) Add to the new
letters in conformity with modern nomenclatural usage (see also Art. 61.2: “pyriformis to piriformis”.
Art. 60.4 and 60.7).” Prop. F (425 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185) Add to the new
Prop. B (239 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 461) Add a new Rec- Art. 61.2: “sylvestris to silvestris”.
ommendation to Art. 60 supported by an Example: Prop. G (126 – Smith & Figueiredo in Taxon 70: 1396) Add a
“60(new1). When dedicating a name to a person, authors should new Article 61.6 and two Examples:
preferably form the new epithet by adding a termination to the per- “61.6. Epithets with the root caf[f][e]r-, such as cafra, caffra,
sonal name (surname, given name, or nickname) as described in cafrorum, and cafrum, are not permitted in the nomenclature of or-
Art. 60.8, unless Rec. 60C.1 or 60C.2 applies.” ganisms covered by this Code. Where these epithets were used in val-
“Ex. n. An epithet such as that in Verhulstia trisororum Hern.- idly published names, they are to be treated as orthographical variants
Rest. (in Persoonia 39: 449. 2017), dedicated to “the three sisters that are to be replaced by epithets with the root af[e]r-, such as afra,
Jikke, Anoek and Elke Verhulst, who collected the soil sample from afrorum, and afrum, respectively. If this results in a later homonym,
which the fungus was isolated”, while perfectly permissible (and un- the correct name is determined by Art. 11.4.”
derstandable here as it avoids the near-tautonym ‘Verhulstia verhul- “Ex. 4. When the epithet ‘cafra’ in Plantago ‘cafra’ Decne.
stiarum’), in general is not recommended as it does not signal that (in Candolle, Prodr. 13(1): 719. 1852) is replaced by afra, P. afra
it honours persons.” Decne. (l.c.), i.e. with retention of author attribution and date and
Prop. C (240 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 461) Add a new Rec- place of publication, is a later homonym of P. afra L. (Sp. Pl.,
ommendation to Art. 60: ed. 2: 168. 1762) and therefore illegitimate. Under Art. 11.4 the name
“60(new2). When forming an epithet from a word derived from a that has to be adopted is P. capillaris E. Mey. ex Decne. (in Candolle,
personal name, such as an abbreviation of a personal name, an ana- Prodr. 13(1): 719. 1852), which is widely treated as a heterotypic syn-
gram, its initials, etc., authors should follow the Recommendations onym of P. cafra.”
made in this Code for personal names as far as possible.” “Ex. 5. Portulaca ‘caffra’ Thunb. (Prodr. Pl. Cap.: [85]. 1800) is
This could be supported by Examples of such cases as men- to be treated as having been published as P. afra Thunb. (l.c.),
tioned in the introduction [Rijckevorsel, l.c.] or those provided in i.e. with retention of author attribution and date and place of publica-
Prop. 186 [Art. 60 Prop. M]. tion. When treated as a species of Talinum Adans., the name is
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is connected to, but not con- T. afrum [with one f] (Thunb.) Eckl. & Zeyh. (Enum. Pl. Afric.
tingent on acceptance of, Art. 60 Prop. E–G, which would amend Austral.: 282. 1836).”
Art. 60.4 and 60.7 with regard to diacritical signs or ligatures. The Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is discussed under Art.
proposer offers this new Recommendation because it “is better to pre- 32 Prop. A, which would transfer the current content of Art. 61 to
vent misformed names and epithets rather than to correct them after- Art. 32. Article 61 Prop. A would create a new Art. 61.1 that simply
wards”. It could be argued that current (or amended, see Prop. E–G) cross-references the transferred content.
Art. 60.4 and 60.7 serve to prevent as well as correct such errors. Prop. B–F would introduce a new Art. 61.2 creating a mecha-
However, they do not offer guidance in some cases, e.g. is a Turkish nism for standardizing the spelling of some adjectival epithets (“or-
ö to be transcribed as oe or just o? Prop. A would recommend con- thographical variants s. str.”) “in the same manner as voted
forming with modern nomenclatural usage, assuming this can be Examples”. Each of Prop. C–F, if separately approved, would stan-
determined. dardize the spelling under Art. 61.2 of a single pair of common ortho-
Prop. B seems more to reflect the personal tastes of the proposer graphically variant adjectival epithets.
than botanical tradition, and seems to restrict creativity in coining Prop. G seeks to eliminate the racial offence inherent in epithets
eponyms. such as cafra, caffra and cafrorum, which refer to a region of south-
Prop. C would recommend, arguably unnecessarily, that Code ern Africa and its inhabitants and derive from a noun that is a racial
users follow the Recommendations of the Code for personal names slur in languages such as Afrikaans, English, Portuguese and Span-
in forming epithets indirectly derived from personal names. ish. The proposers have devised a way of neutralizing these epithets
by retroactively treating, e.g., cafra as an orthographical variant of
Article 61 afra, among which only afra may be retained (which means African,
Prop. A (420 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185) Replace Art. 61.1 or of or pertaining to Africa). Some 218 names of vascular plants or
by the following: bryophytes are involved, of which 56 are in current use according to
“61.1. For homotypic names, variations in spelling, as well as the proposers (see the Supporting information under the proposal at
other cases of variations (compounding or inflectional forms) dealt https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12622); there are also 13 names of algae
with in detail in Art. 32, do not represent nomenclatural novelties.” and 70 names of fungi. Four cases of homonymy would be created
Prop. B (421 – Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185) Replace Art. 61.2 by the proposal, but only one of these affects a name in current use
by the following: (see Ex. 4 in the proposal). The situation addressed appears to be a
“61.2. The following adjectival epithets, which are orthographi- unique case, in which a whole group of epithets represents a racial
cal variants s. str., are to be standardized as indicated (conservation is slur. Alternatives to Prop. G seem less desirable: the epithets could re-
appropriate for generic names). The list is open to additions approved main in current use and continue to offend; or the names (at least
by an International Botanical Congress in the same manner as voted those in current use) could be dealt with individually by the mecha-
Examples.” nism proposed under Art. 51 Prop. B and C, Art. 56 Prop. A and

Div. III Prop. T. The latter would entail rejection of the names under “62.4. Generic names ending in -anthes, -oides, or -odes are
Art. 56, which would cause considerably more nomenclatural disrup- treated as feminine and those ending in -ites as masculine, irrespec-
tion than merely changing their spelling as proposed by Prop. G. The tive of the gender assigned to them by the original author.”
proposal appears to be compliant with the new formulation for the Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A–D form a set of proposals
current content of Art. 61 proposed in Art. 32 Prop. A and Art. from nine members of the General Committee designed to clarify
61 Prop. A–F. However, if the latter proposals are rejected, an excep- the rules on gender. Prop. A would make it clear by means of a
tion for the new rule of Art. 61 Prop. G would be inserted editorially cross-reference that Art. 62.2, 62.3 and 62.4 contain exceptions to
in Art. 61.1: “except as provided in Art. 60, 61.6, and F.9”. the first sentence of Art. 62.1 and that the specific rules in Art. 62 take
precedence over the general principle of “nomenclatural tradition”.
Article 62 Prop. B would make an exception in Art. 62.2 for compound ge-
Prop. A (188 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1342) Insert a paren- neric names in which the last word has different genders in classical
thesis at the end of the first sentence of Art. 62.1 to read “(but see Art. Latin and the original language from which it was derived (mostly an-
62.2–62.4)” (new text in bold): cient Greek), in which case the classical Latin gender would be ruled
“62.1. A generic name retains the gender assigned by nomencla- to prevail. The question could be asked, to how many names would
tural tradition, irrespective of classical usage or the author’s original the added sentence of Prop. B apply? If it is only those ending in -gala
usage (but see Art. 62.2–62.4). A generic name without a nomencla- (the only one mentioned by the proposers), and even if there are a few
tural tradition retains the gender assigned by its author (but see others, would it not be simpler to list the endings in clauses (a), (b) or
Art. 62.4).” (c), as appropriate? Of the two Examples proposed, Ex. 6ter does not il-
Prop. B (189 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1343) Add a new lustrate the amendment to Art. 62.2, but would nevertheless help explain
qualifying sentence in Art. 62.2, so that it reads (new text in bold): why earlier authors have treated Onosma L. as neuter. If Prop. B is ac-
“62.2. Compound generic names take the gender of the last word cepted, both Examples would be referred to the Editorial Committee.
in the nominative case in the compound (but see Art. 14.11). If the Prop. C would add four more word elements to Art. 62.2: -dens
termination is altered, however, the gender is altered accordingly. (masculine) and -derma, -doma and -sperma (neuter). Bidens L. has
An exception is made for compounds, with endings other than been conserved with feminine gender (see Art. 62 Ex. 7 and App. III),
those listed in (a), (b), or (c), that were classical Latin words so the first addition would make it clear that other generic names end-
and in which tradition has adopted the classical Latin gender of ing in -dens are masculine. The other three additions are suggested
that word even although the gender of the last word differs in because the proposers reasonably observe that “[ancient] Greek is be-
the original language (usually Greek). In such cases the classical coming increasingly unfamiliar”. The addition of -doma would estab-
Latin gender is adopted.” lish that the part of proposal 2577 to conserve feminine gender for
The following suggestions exemplify the addition to Art. 62.2: Amphidoma F. Stein would have been necessary after all, despite
“Ex. 6bis. The classical Latin feminine noun polygala, applied the statement to the contrary in the report of the Nomenclature Com-
to the herb milkwort, was derived from the Greek word with the same mittee for Algae (Andersen in Taxon 69: 1099. 2020).
meaning, πολύγ αλον (polygalon), itself a compound of πολύ- (poly-), Prop. D would appropriately move the word element -anthes
many, and γάλα (gala), milk, a neuter noun. Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 701– from Art. 62.4, where it is somewhat obscured because that Article
706. 1753) adopted the classical Latin feminine gender for Polygala otherwise concerns only suffixes (-oides, -odes and -ites), to Art.
and that is to be maintained.” 62.2, which concerns words that could stand independently.
“Ex. 6ter. The classical gender both of the Latin onosma and the
original Greek ὄνοσμα (onosma) is neuter. Linnaeus (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: Chapter E (new)
196. 1762), in taking up the name for a new genus, treated Onosma Prop. A (192 – Malavasi & Škaloud in Taxon 71: 1344) Add a
as feminine; in this he was followed by some botanists but more new Chapter E in Division II:
adopted the classical neuter gender. Because the ending -osma is listed “1. Authors proposing new names should observe the following
in Art. 62.2(b) as feminine, Onosma maintains its feminine gender.” principles, which together constitute a Code of Ethics.
Prop. C (190 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1343) Make the fol- 2. An author should not publish a new name if he or she has
lowing additions to Art. 62.2 (a) & (c) (new text in bold): reason to believe that another person has already recognized the same
“(a) Compounds ending in -botrys, -codon, -dens, -myces, taxon and intends to establish a name for it (or that the taxon is to be
-odon, -panax, -pogon, -stemon, and other masculine words, are named in a posthumous work). An author in such a position should
masculine.” communicate with the other person (or their representatives) and only
“(c) Compounds ending in -ceras, -dendron, -derma, -doma, feel free to establish a new name if that person has failed to do so in a
-nema, -sperma, -stigma, -stoma, and other neuter words, are neuter.” reasonable period (not less than a year).
Prop. D (191 – McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1343) Transfer the 3. An author should not publish a new replacement name (no-
ending -anthes from Art. 62.4 to Art. 62.2(b) (new text in bold, de- men novum) or other substitute name for a junior homonym when
leted text in strikethrough): the author of the latter is alive; that author should be informed of
“62.2. Compound generic names take the gender of the last word the homonymy and be allowed a reasonable time (at least a year) in
in the nominative case in the compound […] which to establish a substitute name.
(b) Compounds ending in -achne, -anthes, -chlamys, -daphne, 4. No author should propose a name that, to his or her knowl-
-glochin, -mecon, -osma (the modern transcription of the feminine edge or reasonable belief, would be likely to give offence on any
Greek word οσμή, osmē), and other feminine words, are feminine. grounds.
An exception is made in the case of names ending in -gaster, which 5. Intemperate language should not be used in any discussion or
strictly speaking ought to be feminine but are treated as masculine writing which involves nomenclature, and all debates should be con-
in accordance with tradition.” ducted in a courteous and friendly manner.

6. Editors and others responsible for the publication of scientific R. Br. × Cochlioda Lindl. × Miltonia Lindl. × Odontoglossum
papers should avoid publishing any material which appears to them to Kunth); ×Cogniauxara Garay & H. R. Sweet (see Art. H.8 Ex. 3)
contain a breach of the above principles. commemorating Célestin A. Cogniaux (Arachnis Blume × Eu-
7. The observation of these principles is a matter for the proper anthe Schltr. × Renanthera Lour. × Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br.); ×Ha-
feelings and conscience of individual scientists, and none of the Per- yatara J. M. H. Shaw (in Sander’s List Orchid Hybrids
manent Nomenclature Committees (Div. III Prov. 7.1) is empowered Addendum 2002–2004: xxxv. 2005, ‘Hayataara’) commemorat-
to investigate or rule upon alleged breaches of them.” ing Bunzô Hayata (Brassavola R. Br. × Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A, like Pre. Prop. B and C, Lindl. × Myrmecophila Rolfe × Pseudolaelia Porto & Brade).”
would not change the rules themselves but would add a dimension “H.6.4. The nothogeneric name of a trigeneric hybrid is either
to the Code (a “Code of Ethics”) that is not currently present, which (a) a condensed formula in which the three names adopted for the pa-
users may or may not feel is needed. It is implicit in the wording of rental genera are combined into a single word not exceeding eight
paragraphs 1–6 (e.g. the use of “should”) that these new provisions syllables, using the whole or first part of one, followed by the whole
are intended as Recommendations and not rules. Paragraphs 2 and or any part of another, followed by the whole or last part of the third
3 are similar in intent to Rec. 23A.3(i) and Rec. 50G, while paragraph (but not the whole of all three) and, optionally, one or two connecting
4 has similar content to Art. 51 Prop. A. Paragraph 7, however, ap- vowels, or (b) a name formed like that of a nothogenus derived from
pears to establish a rule that would disempower the proposed Nomen- four or more genera, i.e. from a personal name to which is added the
clature Committee on Culturally Offensive or Inappropriate Names, termination -ara, except when the personal name already ends
which would be one of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees, with -a in which case the termination -ra is added.”
if Art 51 Prop. B and C, Art. 56 Prop. A and Div. III Prop. T were “Ex. 7. ×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst (in J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 21:
accepted. 468. 1898) (Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl. × Sophronitis Lindl.);
×Rodrettiopsis Moir (in Orchid Rev. 84: ix. 1976) (Comparettia
Article H.5 Poepp. & Endl. × Ionopsis Kunth × Rodriguezia Ruiz & Pav.); ×Holt-
Prop. A (080 – Smith in Taxon 70: 458) Amend Art. H.5.2 as fol- tumara Holttum (see Art. H.8 Ex. 3) commemorating Richard
lows (new text in bold): E. Holttum (Arachnis Blume × Renanthera Lour. × Vanda
“H.5.2. If the postulated or known parent taxa are at unequal W. Jones ex R. Br.); ×Kagawara Kagawa & Wreford (Orchid
ranks, the appropriate rank of the nothotaxon is the lowest of these Rev. 76: New Orch. Hybr. [2, 4]. 1968) commemorating Hiroshi
ranks, unless the nothotaxon is the only one known for hybrids be- Kagawa (Ascocentrum J. J. Sm. × Renanthera Lour. ×
tween the species to which the parent taxa of the nothotaxon Vanda R. Br.).”
belong.” Prop. B (081 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 70: 459) Add a new Ar-
“Ex. 3. Smith & Figueiredo published the name Aloe ×engel- ticle under Art. H.6:
brechtii Gideon F. Sm. & Figueiredo (in Phytotaxa 464: 253. 2020) “H.6.n. The use of a hyphen instead of or in addition to a con-
for the nothospecies with parents A. arborescens Mill. var. arbore- necting vowel in a nothogeneric name that is a condensed formula
scens and A. hardyi Glen. If a nothotaxon is described between is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen(s)
A. arborescens var. mzimnyati van Jaarsv. & A. E. van Wyk and (but see Art. 20.3 for non-hybrid generic names; see also Art. 60.12
A. hardyi, it will be at the rank of nothovariety and valid publication for names of fossil-genera).”
of its name will establish an autonym that will apply to Consequently amend Art. H.6.2 as follows (deleted text in
A. arborescens var. arborescens × A. hardyi.” strikethrough):
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would solve a problem in “H.6.2. The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid is a con-
naming hybrids between parent taxa at unequal ranks, e.g. between densed formula in which the names adopted for the parental genera
a species and a subspecies, for which the “appropriate rank” of the are combined into a single word, using the first part or the whole of
new nothotaxon would be nothosubspecies. However, so long as no one, the last part or the whole of the other (but not the whole of both)
other hybrids between the parent species of a nothospecies are and, optionally, a connecting vowel. The use of a hyphen instead of or
known, the nothospecies cannot be divided into nothosubspecies. in addition to a connecting vowel is treated as an error to be corrected
In such a case, while a nothospecies name could be correct, under by deletion of the hyphen.”
the current rules its rank would be inappropriate; but it would be ap- Prop. C (082 – Wiersema & al. in Taxon 70: 459) Amend Art.
propriate with the proposed amendment to Art. H.5.2. H.6 Ex. 5 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough)
and place it after the new Art. H.6.n:
Article H.6 “Ex. n. The nothogeneric name ×Anthematricaria Asch. (in Ber.
Prop. A (283 – Shaw in Taxon 72: 698) Amend Art. H.6.3 and Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 9: (99). 1892), proposed for bigeneric hybrids
Art. H.6.4 to form nothogeneric names when a personal name already with the parentage Anthemis L. × Matricaria L., was originally pub-
ends with -a by addition of the modified termination -ra, and add to lished as ‘Anthe-Matricaria’; the nothogeneric name ×Brassocat-
Ex. 6 and Ex. 7 (new text in bold): tleya Rolfe (in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 5: 438. 1889), proposed for
“H.6.3. The nothogeneric name of an intergeneric hybrid de- bigeneric hybrids with the parentage Brassavola R. Br. × Cattleya
rived from four or more genera is formed from the name of a person Lindl., was originally published as ‘Brasso-Cattleya’; ×Brassolae-
to which is added the termination -ara, except when the personal liacattleya J. G. Fowler (in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 41: 290. 1907),
name already ends with -a in which case the termination -ra is proposed for trigeneric hybrids with the parentage Brassavola
added; no such name may exceed eight syllables. Such a name R. Br. × Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl., was originally published
is equivalent to a condensed formula.” as ‘Brasso-Laelia-Cattleya’; ×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst (in
“Ex. 6. ×Beallara Moir (in Orchid Rev. 78(929): New Orch. J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 21: 468. 1898), proposed for trigeneric
Hybr. [1, 3]. 1970) commemorating J. Ferguson Beall (Brassia hybrids with the parentage Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl. ×

Sophronitis Lindl., was originally published as ‘Sophro-Laelio- “Ex. 1bis. Majovskya ×ambigua (Decne.) Sennikov & Kurtto
Cattleya’.” (in Memoranda Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 93: 63. 2017) is considered to
Consequently amend Art. H.6 Ex. 7 as follows (deleted text in have originated from the cross between Chamaemespilus alpina
strikethrough): (Mill.) K. R. Robertson & J. B. Phipps and Aria edulis (Willd.)
“Ex. 7. ×Sophrolaeliocattleya Hurst (in J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 21: M. Roem. Sennikov & Kurtto (l.c.) treated it as a non-stabilized inter-
468. 1898) (Cattleya Lindl. × Laelia Lindl. × Sophronitis Lindl.); generic hybrid (for which, however, the correct name is ×Chamaea-
×Rodrettiopsis Moir (in Orchid Rev. 84: ix. 1976) (Comparettia ria ambigua (Decne.) Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 462.
Poepp. & Endl. × Ionopsis Kunth × Rodriguezia Ruiz & Pav.); ×Holt- 2023) but placed it in a hybridogenous genus. Despite that, their com-
tumara Holttum (see Art. H.8 Ex. 3) (Arachnis Blume × Renanthera bination is considered correct and acceptable under certain taxo-
Lour. × Vanda W. Jones ex R. Br.).” nomic treatments, e.g. if all crosses between Chamaemespilus
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop A would prevent nothogeneric Medik. × Aria (Pers.) Host are treated as belonging to a hybridogen-
names ending in -ara that commemorate persons whose names end ous genus but not a nothogenus.”
in -a from being inappropriately rendered as -aara, e.g. ‘Hayataara’ If our proposed amendment is adopted, the definitions of a hy-
from Bunzô Hayata. bridogenous genus and a hybridogenous species should be added to
Prop B would address an issue with nothogeneric names that are the Glossary.
condensed formulas, in which under Art. H.6.2 the use of a hyphen is Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A seeks to differentiate be-
treated as an error to be corrected by its deletion. However, because tween a nothogenus and a hybridogenous genus and to provide a def-
this appears only in the last sentence of Art. H.6.2, it applies only inition of the latter. The proposers argue that, at present, Art. H.11.1
to names of bigeneric hybrids and not to those of trigeneric hybrids, “requires the double generic nomenclature, with different nothogene-
which are treated under Art. H.6.4. By converting the last sentence of ric and generic names for nothospecies and hybridogenous species,
Art. H.6.2 into a separate Article, it will apply to all nothogeneric respectively, that resulted from the same intergeneric crosses.” The
names that are condensed formulas. Without this amendment, names proposed amendments would presumably allow a nothospecific epi-
such as ×Brassolaeliacattleya J.G. Fowler and ×Sophrolaeliocattleya thet to be combined with either a hybridogenous generic name validly
Hurst, originally published with hyphens, would not be validly pub- published with a description or diagnosis (and a type) or a nothogene-
lished because Art. 32.1(c) requires them to have a form that com- ric name validly published with only a statement of parentage. Al-
plies with Art. H.6. though new Ex. 1bis would appear to preclude authors from
Prop C is dependent on the acceptance of Prop. B and, because it publishing nothospecies names under both hybridogenous generic
concerns Examples, would be automatically referred to the Editorial and nothogeneric names simultaneously, the proposed wording of
Committee. the Article does not address this. This may require further clarifica-
tion at the Nomenclature Section. In combination with this proposal,
Article H.9 it would seem advisable to clarify, perhaps in a Note under Art. H.9,
Prop. A (284 – Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 699) Add a new that hybridogenous generic names, unlike nothogeneric names, are
Note after Art. H.9.1: subject to the same provisions of the Code as generic names. Such
“Note 1bis. A statement of the names of the parent species of a a Note could read: “The name of a hybridogenous genus (Art.
nothogenus, or of the names of the parent species of any of its in- 11.1 footnote) is subject to the same provisions of this Code as
cluded taxa, is sufficient to validly publish the name of a nothogenus, the name of a genus; it is not the name of a nothogenus.” Those
if the full names of all parent genera appear among the species names, who support the proposal together with this additional Note should
when there is no separate statement of the names of the parent vote “ed.c.”
genera.”
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A would provide a Note mak- Division III
ing it explicit that the “statement of the names of the parent genera”, Prop. A (052 – Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 448) Add a new Provi-
required by Art. H.9.1 for the name of a nothogenus to be validly pub- sion following Prov. 1.4:
lished, could be achieved by a statement of the names of species in “1.5. The provisions for governance of the Code (Div. III) apply
those parent genera. to the edition of the Code of which they form a part: they are not
retroactive.”
Article H.11 If Prop. 051 [Pre. Prop. A] is accepted this will be redundant, but
Prop. A (241 – Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 462) Amend it is a useful redundancy: Pre. 7 is not the place where the reader will
Art. H.11.1 as follows (new text in bold) and add a footnote and a necessarily look first for something like this. Another option would
new Example: be to add a Note, referring to the amended Pre. 7.
“H.11.1. The name of a nothospecies of which the postulated or Prop. B (285 – Turland in Taxon 72: 700) Amend Div. III Prov.
known parent species belong to different genera is either a combination 2.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough), add a
of a nothogeneric name with a nothospecific epithet or a combination new Prov. 2.1bis and delete Prov. 5.6:
of a name of a hybridogenous genus1 with a nothospecific epithet.” “2.1. Proposals concerning the Preamble, and Divisions I–III,
[footnote] “1 For the purposes of this Code, a hybridogenous ge- and the Glossary (but see Prov. 2.1bis) are submitted by publication
nus is a genus that is derived from and has evolved from an interge- (see Prov. 1.4) to the Nomenclature Section of an International Bo-
neric hybridization event or events and that contains one or more tanical Congress.”
hybridogenous species, i.e. evolutionarily stabilized species that, al- “2.1bis. Proposals that concern only Examples (excluding voted
though of hybrid origin, are regularly treated similarly to other spe- Examples) or the Glossary are submitted via the Rapporteur and
cies of non-hybrid origin; however, a hybridogenous genus may Vice-rapporteur, without publication, to the Editorial Committee,
also contain hybrids (including intergeneric ones).” which will consider them and act in accordance with Prov. 7.11.”

“5.6. Any proposal to amend the Code that concerns only Exam- Prop. F (432 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187) Amend
ples (excluding voted Examples) or the Glossary is automatically re- Div. III Prov. 4.5 and 4.10 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
ferred to the Editorial Committee unless a proposal to discuss it is strikethrough):
moved by a member of the Section and supported (seconded) by five “4.5. The Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical
other members (but see Prov. 5.5).” Congress comprises the following officers: President of the Nomen-
Prop. C (286 – Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 702) Amend Div. clature Section; up to five Vice-presidents; the Rapporteur-général;
III Prov. 3 and 5.9 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in the Vice-rapporteur; the Recorder one or more Recorders. The Bu-
strikethrough): reau of Nomenclature defines the sequence and timing of debates;
“3.1. Prior to an International Botanical Congress, the Commit- appoints Tellers to collect and count voting cards in the event of a
tee on Institutional Votes updates the list of institutions from the pre- card vote (see Prov. 5.10); and advises the President on procedural
vious Congress and allocates one vote to each institution one to seven matters.”
votes (see Prov. 5.9(b)). The list must be approved by the General “4.10. The Recorder is Recorders are appointed by the Orga-
Committee and published (see Prov. 1.4) prior to the Congress. No nizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress in consul-
single institution, even in the wide sense of the term (e.g. mycological tation with the Rapporteur-général. The Recorder is Recorders are
and botanical divisions together), is entitled to more than seven votes responsible for all local facilities needed by the Nomenclature Sec-
one vote.” tion, such as the venue and its equipment, and in particular for the de-
“3.2. Prior to an International Botanical Congress, any institu- tailed recording of the proceedings of the Section and for facilitating
tion desiring to vote in the Nomenclature Section and not listed as the voting.”
having been allocated any votes a vote in the previous Nomenclature Prop. G (290 – May & al. in Taxon 72: 704) Amend Div. III
Section should notify the Rapporteur-général of its wish to be allo- Prov. 4.12 and 4.13 as follows (new text in bold):
cated one or more votes a vote and provide relevant information re- “4.12. The Nominating Committee is charged with preparing
garding its level of taxonomic activity (e.g. number of active staff, lists of candidates to serve on the Permanent Nomenclature Commit-
size of collections, current publications). An institution allocated tees (with the exception of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
one or more votes in the previous Nomenclature Section and desiring and the Editorial Committee for Fungi; see Prov. 4.13), in consul-
to alter its number of votes may similarly notify the Rapporteur- tation with the current secretaries of those committees, and to pro-
général.” pose the Rapporteur-général for the next International Botanical
“3.3. An institution wishing to exercise its vote(s) vote, as allo- Congress. The nominations of the Nominating Committee are sub-
cated in the published list (Prov. 3.1), must provide its official written ject to approval by the Nomenclature Section.”
authorization to be presented at the Nomenclature Section by its del- “4.13. The Nominating Committee of the Fungal Nomenclature
egate (Prov. 5.9(b)).” Session (Prov. 8.1) is charged with preparing lists of candidates (a) to
“3.4. A delegate who is a member of an institution that has not serve on the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi, in consultation
previously applied for, or been allocated, votes a vote may apply in with the current Secretary of that Committee, and (b) to serve on
person for one institutional vote at the Nomenclature Section.” the Editorial Committee for Fungi; and to propose the Secretary
“5.9. There are two kinds of votes at the Nomenclature Section: of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau for the next International Myco-
(a) Personal votes. Each member of the Section has one personal logical Congress. The nominations of the Nominating Committee of
vote. No accumulation or transfer of personal votes is permissible. the Fungal Nomenclature Session are subject to approval by the Fun-
(b) Institutional votes (see Prov. 3). An institution may authorize gal Nomenclature Session.”
in writing any member of the Section as a delegate to carry its votes Prop. H (127 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1397) Add a new
one institutional vote. Provision to Div. III Prov. 4:
No single person will be allowed more than 15 votes, including “4.new1. Interested individuals or groups are to be able to ob-
personal vote and institutional votes.” serve the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Con-
Prop. D (287 – Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 703) Amend Div. gress online on the World Wide Web. The Organizing Committee
III Prov. 3.2 as follows (new text in bold): of the International Botanical Congress in consultation with the
“3.2. Prior to an International Botanical Congress, any institu- Bureau of Nomenclature are together responsible for ensuring that
tion desiring to vote in the Nomenclature Section and not listed as this is implemented.”
having been allocated any votes in the previous Nomenclature Prop. I (128 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1397) Add a new
Section should notify the Rapporteur-général of its wish to be allo- Provision to Div. III Prov. 4:
cated one or more votes and provide relevant information regarding “4.new2. Individuals or groups without voting rights observing
its level of taxonomic activity (e.g. number of active staff, size of col- the Nomenclature Section online on the World Wide Web will not
lections, current publications) and show that it is registered in an be charged for this service, or a small fee will be set at the discretion
online, open-access international or regional index of herbaria, of the Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress
collections, or institutions. An institution allocated one or more in consultation with the Bureau of Nomenclature.”
votes in the previous Nomenclature Section and desiring to alter its Prop. J (129 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new
number of votes may similarly notify the Rapporteur-général.” Provision to Div. III Prov. 4:
Prop. E (288 – Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 703) Amend Div. “4.new3. Registered members of the Nomenclature
III Prov. 3.3 as follows (new text in bold): Section (with voting rights) attending online on the World Wide
“3.3. An institution wishing to exercise its vote(s), as allocated Web (online members) will pay fees similar to those that they would
in the published list (Prov. 3.1), must provide its official written au- pay if they attended in person.”
thorization on the institution’s letterhead to be presented at the No- Prop. K (130 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new
menclature Section by its delegate (Prov. 5.9(b)).” Provision to Div. III Prov. 4:

“4.new4. Individuals desiring to be online members of the No- having been published beforehand, voting on them should be de-
menclature Section will register their intention to participate in ad- layed, to alert members (online and in-person) who may not be pre-
vance of the Nomenclature Section, by a date to be determined by sent for the whole Section.”
the Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress Prop. S (135 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new
in consultation with the Bureau of Nomenclature.” Recommendation to Div. III Prov. 5:
Prop. L (193 – Smith & al. in Taxon 71: 1345) Amend Div. III “Recommendation 4. Written recognition for participation in the
Prov. 5 by rewording the current Prov. 5.1, 5.2, and 5.4 as follows Nomenclature Section should be provided to members (online and
(new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): in-person) by the Organizing Committee of the International Botani-
“5.1. A qualified majority (at least 60%) of votes cast is required cal Congress.”
for the following decisions: Prop. T (122 – Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393) Amend
(e) rejecting a singled-out recommendation of the General Com- Div. III Prov. 7.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
mittee (see Prov. 5.3); strikethrough):
(f) rejecting one or more recommendations of the General Com- “7.1. There are nine ten Permanent Nomenclature Committees,
mittee on conservation, protection, or rejection of names, suppres- including five six specialist committees (clauses (e)–(ij)):
sion of works, or binding decisions.” […]
“5.2. A simple majority (more than 50%) of votes cast is re- (j) Nomenclature Committee on Culturally Offensive or In-
quired for all other decisions, including the following: appropriate Names.”
(g) accepting recommendations of the General Committee not Consequent editorial amendments:
included in Prov. 5.1(e) or (f);” In Art. 56.2 change “specialist committees for the various taxo-
“5.4. When a vote to reject accept a General Committee recom- nomic groups” to “appropriate specialist committee”.
mendation achieves does not achieve the required majority (Prov. 5.1 In Art. 56.3 change “specialist committee for the taxonomic
(e) or (f) 5.2(g)), that recommendation is cancelled and the matter is group concerned” to “appropriate specialist committee”.
referred back to the General Committee. Retention or rejection of a In Div. III Prov. 7.3 and 7.10 change “five specialist committees”
name or suppression of a work is no longer authorized (Art. 14.15, to “six specialist committees”.
56.3, and 34.2).” Prop. U (291 – May & al. in Taxon 72: 704) Amend Div. III
Prop. M (220 – Prado & al. in Taxon 72: 454) Amend Div. III Prov. 7.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough)
Prov. 5.4 (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): and add two new provisions:
“5.4. When a vote to reject a General Committee recommendation “7.1. There are nine ten Permanent Nomenclature Committees,
achieves the required majority (Prov. 5.1(e) or (f)), that recommenda- including five specialist committees (clauses (ef)–(ij)):
tion is cancelled and the matter is referred back to the General Commit- (a) General Committee;
tee. Retention or rejection of a name or, suppression of a work, or a (b) Editorial Committee;
binding decision on valid publication or homonymy is no longer au- (c) Editorial Committee for Fungi;
thorized (Art. 14.15, 56.3, and 34.2, 38.4, and 53.4).” (cd) Committee on Institutional Votes;
Prop. N (289 – Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 703) Amend the (de) Registration Committee;
final sentence of Div. III Prov. 5.9 as follows (new text in bold): (ef) Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants;
“5.9. […] A member of the Section may carry the institu- (fg) Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes;
tional votes of more than one institution. No single person will (gh) Nomenclature Committee for Fungi;
be allowed more than 15 votes, including personal vote and institu- (hi) Nomenclature Committee for Algae;
tional votes.” (ij) Nomenclature Committee for Fossils.”
Prop. O (131 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new “7.4bis. The Editorial Committee for Fungi is elected by an Inter-
Provision to Div. III Prov. 5: national Mycological Congress and comprises individuals who should
“5.new1. Online members of the Nomenclature Section may ac- preferably have been present at the Fungal Nomenclature Session of the
cumulate and cast institutional votes just as in-person members (see relevant International Mycological Congress and includes the Secretary
Prov. 5.9(b)).” of the Editorial Committee for this Code. The Secretary and Deputy
Prop. P (132 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new Secretary of the Fungal Nomenclature Session of the relevant Interna-
Recommendation to Div. III Prov. 5: tional Mycological Congress serve as Chair and Secretary, respectively,
“Recommendation 1. The Nomenclature Section should take of the Editorial Committee for Fungi.” [Based on existing Prov. 7.4]
place in a country and place where broadcasting the Nomenclature Renumber existing Prov. 7.5–7.11 accordingly.
Section on the web is possible and allowed.” “7.11bis. The Editorial Committee for Fungi is charged with the
Prop. Q (133 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new preparation and publication of Chapter F in conformity with the de-
Recommendation to Div. III Prov. 5: cisions approved by the relevant International Mycological Congress.
“Recommendation 2. Local groups of non-voting observers, and It is empowered to make the editorial modifications specified in Prov.
members (online and in-person), of the Nomenclature Section are en- 7.11.” [Based on existing Prov. 7.11]
couraged to meet together before and during the Section to facilitate Renumber existing Prov. 7.12–7.15 accordingly.
discussion of proposals, including the results of the preliminary guid- Prop. V (433 – Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1188) Amend
ing vote (see Prov. 2.5).” Div. III Prov. 7.5 as follows (new text in bold):
Prop. R (134 – Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398) Add a new “7.5. The Committee on Institutional Votes comprises six mem-
Recommendation to Div. III Prov. 5: bers, each to represent a different continent, plus the Rapporteur-
“Recommendation 3. When proposals or amendments to pro- général, who serves as its chair, plus any additional members that
posals are introduced during the Nomenclature Section without the Committee considers are required.”

Prop. W (161 – Smith in Taxon 71: 713) Add a new phrase at the Note, or Recommendation and to avoid duplication, to add or remove
end of the final sentence of Div. III Prov. 7.9 (new text in bold, deleted non-voted Examples, and to place Articles, Notes, Recommenda-
text in strikethrough): tions, and Chapters of the Code in the most convenient place, while
“7.9. […] The General Committee may also communicate an in- retaining the previous numbering insofar as possible. The Editorial
ternational standard format in addition to, or as a successor to, Porta- Committee shall prepare and publish online a document noting
ble Document Format (PDF) for effective publication of electronic all changes added editorially.”
material (Art. 29.3), and is empowered to ratify a list of institutional Prop. AA (292 – May & al. in Taxon 72: 705) Amend Div. III
votes drawn up by the Committee on Institutional Votes (see Prov. Prov. 8.1 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
3.1), and is authorized to appoint, as needed, Special-purpose “8.1. For proposals relating to the content of Chapter F, which
Committees between International Botanical or Mycological brings together the provisions of this Code that deal solely with
Congresses.” names of organisms treated as fungi (but excluding any other con-
Prop. X (338 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1145) Amend Div. III tent), exactly the same procedures outlined in Prov. 1–7 are to be fol-
Prov. 7.9 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): lowed except that in Prov. 1, 2, 4, and 5 mentions of International
“7.9. The General Committee is charged with: (a) receiving pro- Botanical Congress, Nomenclature Section [of that Congress], Bu-
posals to conserve, protect, or reject names, proposals to suppress reau of Nomenclature, and Nominating Committee, and Editorial
works, and requests for decisions (Art. 14.12, F.2.1, 56.2, F.7.1, Committee are to be replaced by International Mycological Con-
34.1, 38.4, and 53.4) and for referring these proposals or requests gress, Fungal Nomenclature Session [of that Congress], Fungal No-
to the specialist committee(s) concerned (receipt and referral of menclature Bureau, and Nominating Committee of the Fungal
proposals and requests are automatic upon their publication). The Nomenclature Session, and Editorial Committee for Fungi, re-
General Committee is also charged with; (b) considering spectively; and officers such as President, Rapporteur-général, and
recommendations of the specialist committees and either approving Vice-rapporteur (these specifically renamed Chair, Secretary, and
or overturning those recommendations or referring them back to Deputy Secretary, respectively) are to be understood as members of
the specialist committees for further consideration; (c) maintaining the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau rather than the Bureau of Nomen-
a list of approved repositories for storing sequences and issuing clature (specifically in Prov. 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 footnote, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6,
sequence identifiers; and (d) maintaining a list of approved jour- 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8; but
nals for valid publication of names with DNA sequences as types not in Prov. 5.3 and 5.4; and the following clauses do not apply: Prov.
(Art. X.1 and X.2). The General Committee may also communicate 5.1(e) and (f) and Prov. 5.2(g)). See also Prov. 4.12, 4.13, 7.1, 7.4bis,
an international standard format in addition to, or as a successor to, and 7.11bis.”
Portable Document Format (PDF) for effective publication of elec- Prop. BB (293 – May & al. in Taxon 72: 705) Amend Div. III
tronic material (Art. 29.3) and is empowered to ratify a list of institu- Prov. 8.5 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
tional votes drawn up by the Committee on Institutional Votes (see “8.5. The Fungal Nomenclature Session has the following
Prov. 3.1).” functions:
Prop. Y (348 – Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148) Amend Div. III […]
Prov. 7.9 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): (e) elects the ordinary members of the Nomenclature Committee
“7.9. The General Committee is charged with: (a) receiving pro- for Fungi;
posals to conserve, protect, or reject names, proposals to suppress (f) elects the ordinary members of the Editorial Committee
works, and requests for decisions (Art. 14.12, F.2.1, 56.2, F.7.1, for Fungi;
34.1, 38.4, and 53.4) and for referring these proposals or requests (fg) elects the Secretary of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau for
to the specialist committee(s) concerned (receipt and referral of the next International Mycological Congress;
proposals and requests are automatic upon their publication). The (gh) receives reports of Special-purpose Committees dealing
General Committee is also charged with; (b) considering with matters relating solely to names of organisms treated as fungi.”
recommendations of the specialist committees and either approving Prop. CC (295 – May & al. in Taxon 72: 705) Amend Div. III
or overturning those recommendations or referring them back to Prov. 8.7 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough):
the specialist committees for further consideration; (c) maintaining “8.7. In the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau, the Deputy Secretary
a list of approved repositories for storing sequences and issuing is appointed by the Secretary and approved by the Nomenclature
sequence identifiers; and (d) maintaining a list of approved jour- Committee for Fungi in consultation with the General Committee
nals for valid publication of names with reference DNA se- no later than three two years prior to the International Mycological
quences (Art. X.8 and X.9). The General Committee may also Congress. The Deputy Secretary assists and, if necessary, serves in
communicate an international standard format in addition to, or as a place of the Secretary.”
successor to, Portable Document Format (PDF) for effective publica- Prop. DD (294 – May & al. in Taxon 72: 705) Amend Div. III
tion of electronic material (Art. 29.3) and is empowered to ratify a list Prov. 8.10 and 8.11 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in
of institutional votes drawn up by the Committee on Institutional strikethrough):
Votes (see Prov. 3.1).” “8.10. The decisions taken at the Fungal Nomenclature Session
Prop. Z (364 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157) Amend Div. III Prov. of an International Mycological Congress relating solely to names of
7.11 as follows (new text in bold): organisms treated as fungi, once accepted by a subsequent plenary
“7.11. The Editorial Committee is charged with the preparation session of the same Congress, are binding on the Nomenclature
and publication of the Code in conformity with the decisions ap- Section convened at the subsequent International Botanical Con-
proved by the relevant International Botanical Congress. It is empow- gress. Such decisions will, however, be open for any editorial adjust-
ered to make any editorial modification not affecting the meaning of ments deemed necessary by the Editorial Committee for Fungi
the provisions concerned, e.g. to change the wording of any Article, after consultation with the Editorial Committee for this Code.”

“8.11. Certain publications, which may be electronic or printed form by itself no longer sufficient. Prop. E is therefore perhaps too
or both, appear as soon as feasible after an International Mycological prescriptive.
Congress, not necessarily in this sequence: Prop. F is a housekeeping proposal and would remove any im-
(a) the Congress-approved decisions and elections of the Fungal plication that there may be only one Recorder at the Nomenclature
Nomenclature Session including the results of the preliminary Section, whereas in Shenzhen there were two, and there will again
guiding vote; be two in Madrid.
(b) the announcement of Special-purpose Committees and their Prop. G, together with Prop. U, AA, BB and DD, would estab-
membership; lish a new Permanent Nomenclature Committee, i.e. the Editorial
(c) the new edition of Chapter F of this Code; Committee for Fungi, which would be responsible for Chapter F in
(d) a transcript of the Fungal Nomenclature Session.” the same way that the Editorial Committee is responsible for the
Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A, as noted by the proposer, whole Code. After the 2018 San Juan International Mycological
“will be redundant, but it is a useful redundancy” if Pre. Prop. A is Congress (IMC), the new San Juan Chapter F was prepared by an
accepted. ad hoc committee in consultation with the Editorial Committee with
Prop. B seeks to streamline proposals to amend the Code that three members in common. These proposals formally define the
concern only non-voted Examples or the Glossary. Currently, under membership and functions of the new Committee, elected by each
Prov. 5.6, such proposals are automatically referred at the Nomencla- IMC, as being parallel to those of the Editorial Committee. The
ture Section to the Editorial Committee (unless a separate proposal to new Committee is required to work in consultation with the Editorial
discuss them is approved). Prop. B would stipulate that any such pro- Committee and to include its Secretary, i.e. the Vice-rapporteur of the
posals be submitted without publication in Taxon or discussion at the relevant International Botanical Congress (Prov. 7.4). Because the
Nomenclature Section directly to the Editorial Committee, an option Rapporteur-général (Chair of the Editorial Committee) is invited to
that is already allowed. Proposals to amend Examples in Chapter F or attend the IMC (Prov. 8.8), it might be better if the Editorial Commit-
fungal entries in the Glossary could be handled similarly under Prov. tee for Fungi included the Chair as well as the Secretary of the Edito-
8.1 (see Prop. AA). rial Committee. This requirement for consultation and to have at least
Prop. C, from the Committee on Institutional Votes, would es- one member in common will be important in maintaining the integ-
tablish a fairer global distribution of institutional votes by allocating rity of the Code whenever new editions of the Code or only
one vote to each institution. Currently, larger institutions, with up to Chapter F are prepared. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi sup-
7 votes, retain more overall influence, and they can achieve a double ports Prop. G, U and AA–DD (votes 14 : 1 : 0, including Prop. CC,
advantage if they have the resources to send staff, each with one per- see comments there).
sonal vote, to the Nomenclature Section. Prop. C would better em- Prop. H, together with Prop. I–K and O–S, comes from the
power institutions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Special-purpose Committee on Virtual Participation in the Nomen-
Caribbean by providing them with a slightly higher percentage of in- clature Section (NS). The Committee acknowledges that “virtual or
stitutional votes worldwide, whereas Europe and Australasia and the online participation in the NS […] can only be accepted […] after
Pacific would have a lower percentage and northern America would its feasibility has been proven” and proposes that “a trial be con-
stay the same as currently (see Table 1 in the proposal). The impact ducted at the NS” and that the proposals “can be considered near
of greater attendance at the Nomenclature Section by members from the end of the NS if the trial proves successful”. Prop. H would re-
the host country is reduced by institutional votes, and this would con- quire the Section to be live-streamed on the internet, so that it could
tinue to be the case if Prop. C is accepted (Table 2 in the proposal). at least be observed, while Prop. J and O assume that registered mem-
The Committee analysed the card votes at the Melbourne and Shen- bers would have voting rights, and Prop. K would actually entitle
zhen Congresses and found that in no case would the outcome have those online members to vote. Depending on the location of the Con-
been different had each institution been allocated one vote (see gress, live-streaming the Section would usually be feasible. Indeed,
Table S1 in the Supporting information for the proposal at https:// the Organizing Committee of the Madrid Congress is planning to
doi.org/10.1002/tax.12959). do exactly this (see Knapp & al. in Taxon: https://doi.org/10.1002/
Prop. D would add a condition to institutions applying for insti- tax.13127). However, online commenting and voting could consider-
tutional votes for the first time, i.e. they would need to be registered ably increase the time needed for debates, which could cause the
in an international or regional index. In practice, this is already the Section to overrun its normally allocated five days. Online voting
case and was requested by the Committee on Institutional Votes. has further issues. The software required would not be the kind used
All institutions applying for a vote at the Madrid Congress were al- for online elections or opinion polls, but would have to be similar to
ready registered in Index Herbariorum (IH). Nevertheless, it is un- that used by parliamentary meetings. It would need to allow frequent
clear how institutions lacking herbaria and/or collections and and spontaneous creation of new votes, e.g. an amendment to a pro-
therefore not indexed in IH might fare under this provision. posal or a motion to end discussion and proceed to a vote (see Prov.
Prop. E would require an institution to use its letterhead when 5.1 and 5.2). It would need to handle institutional votes as well as per-
providing written authorization for its delegate to exercise its institu- sonal votes, so that a member could cast up to 15 votes in any propor-
tional vote(s). The purpose would be to enable the officers at the No- tion of “yes” and “no” votes. Such software is expensive, as are the
menclature Section to recognize written authorization as “official”, associated hardware and support personnel. The Organizing Com-
as required by Prov. 3.3. At previous Congresses, the written authori- mittee of the Congress might not have the financial support needed.
zation was a letter from the Rapporteurs sent to the institution includ- Prop. I and J, which can be considered independently, would
ing a form that the institution filled out with the name of the delegate. rule that non-voting individuals or groups observing the Nomencla-
Most institutions’ delegates presented this form at the Nomenclature ture Section online would be charged either a “small fee” or no fee
Section, although some did not, and it is the latter group that Prop. E (Prop. I), whereas registered voting members online would pay a
addresses, although the additional requirement would render the fee similar to registered members who were physically present

(Prop. J). While it seems laudable to minimize the cost of merely ob- Prop. R seems to be aimed at members of the Nomenclature
serving the Section online, and sensible to require a fee for voting Section who cannot (or do not wish to) attend the whole Section, so
rights (at least to obstruct any attempt to manipulate voting), would that they do not miss voting on new proposals or amendments to pro-
it really be necessary for the Code to rule on these matters? posals, i.e. items that are not published in advance. Prop. R fails to
Prop. K would require that online members of the Nomenclature take into account that proposals are amended frequently during the
Section be registered members and registration be done in advance, Section’s discussions, and delaying voting on each amendment
for which a deadline may be set. This level of detail might be consid- would be utterly impractical. On the other hand, voting on new pro-
ered unnecessarily prescriptive, although, if online voting is desired, posals to amend the Code is in effect already delayed because it has
it would be important to rule that registered membership of the become established practice to discuss them on the final day of the
Section may be either in-person or online, so that both kinds of mem- Section.
bers are entitled to vote. Prop. K could be simplified by instead Prop. S would recommend that the Organizing Committee pro-
amending Prov. 4.2 as follows: “Registration for the Nomenclature vide members of the Nomenclature Section with a certificate of atten-
Section, whether for in-person or online membership, is through dance or an equivalent. While some members might need such a
the International Botanical Congress. Only registered members of document for professional reasons, it is debatable whether such
the Nomenclature Section are entitled to vote at the Nomenclature a Recommendation is relevant to the governance of the Code.
Section.” Those who favour this alternative should vote “ed.c.” Prop. T, together with Art. 51 Prop. B and C (see comments
Prop. L would change the current qualified majority (at least there) and Art. 56 Prop. A, forms a set of proposals to allow the rejec-
60%) of votes required to reject recommendations of the General tion of culturally offensive and inappropriate names. Prop. T would
Committee on conservation, protection, or rejection of names, sup- create a new specialist committee, the “Nomenclature Committee
pression of works, or binding decisions. Instead, a simple on Culturally Offensive or Inappropriate Names”, with the sole re-
majority (more than 50%) would be required to accept these recom- sponsibility of making recommendations on proposals to reject cul-
mendations. The proposers of Prop. L argue that requiring a majority turally offensive or inappropriate names under Art. 56. To delimit
of at least 60% to reject a General Committee recommendation is un- the function of this Committee, some adjustment to the first sentence
democratic because if, say, 55% voted to reject, it would not be re- of Prov. 7.10, in addition to that suggested by the proposers, is war-
jected and would in effect be approved by a 45% minority. ranted, as follows: “Five specialist committees (Prov. 7.1(e)–(i)) ex-
However, current Art. 14.15, 34.2 and 56.4 stipulate that when pro- amine proposals to conserve or reject names, proposals to
posals have been approved by the General Committee, conservation, suppress works, and requests for decisions (Art. 14.12, 56.2,
protection or rejection of a name or suppression of a work is autho- 34.1, 38.4, and 53.4) referred to them by the General Committee,
rized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Con- to which they then submit their recommendations; a sixth spe-
gress. On this authority, asterisked entries are made to the online cialist committee (Prov. 7.1(j)) examines only proposals to reject
Appendices to the Code, available to all users, so reversing such a de- names (Art. 56.2).” Those who support this proposal together with
cision amounts to amending the Code, which otherwise requires a this amendment should vote “ed.c.”
qualified majority to accept (Prov. 5.1(a)). Prop. U, concerning the proposed Editorial Committee for
Prop. M is contingent on acceptance of Art. 38 Prop. N and Art. Fungi, is discussed under Prop. G.
53 Prop. B, in which case Prop. M would make necessary adjust- Prop. V would explicitly allow the Committee on Institutional
ments to include binding decisions in Div. III Prov. 5.4. Votes to consist of more than the currently prescribed seven mem-
Prop. N would make explicit what is currently only implicit in bers. Sometimes additional expertise might be needed, e.g. the pre-
Prov. 5.9 read together with Prov. 3.1, i.e. a member of the Nomencla- sent Committee invited an “Advisor for Fungi” to join because
ture Section may serve as a delegate of more than one institution, be- none of the seven members elected at the Shenzhen Congress is a
cause one person may carry up to 14 institutional votes and no mycologist.
institution is allowed more than 7 votes. Prop. W would permit Special-purpose Committees to be ap-
Prop. O would explicitly allow both online and in-person mem- pointed by the General Committee between International Botanical
bers of the Nomenclature Section to accumulate and cast institutional or Mycological Congresses, whereas at present they may be estab-
votes. If it was made explicit that registered members of the lished only at such a Congress (Prov. 4.3(d) and 5.2(f)). The proposer
Section may be online or in-person (see suggested amendment to notes: “controversial matters with a bearing on the nomenclature of
Prop. K), this additional rule would become redundant, because Prov. algae, fungi, and plants might require being addressed with greater
5.9(b) already rules that an institution may authorize any member of urgency than every six, or more, years”.
the Section as a delegate to carry its votes. Prop. O could, however, be Prop. X is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the
included as a Note under Prov. 5, probably under Prov. 5.9. future valid publication of names of microscopic algae or microfungi
Prop. P would add a Recommendation that the Nomenclature with DNA sequences as types (see Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A). The No-
Section take place in a location where broadcasting it on the internet menclature Committee for Algae does not support Prop. X (votes 1 :
is possible and allowed. It is debatable whether the Code should rec- 14 : 1).
ommend on such matters, because the Code has no influence on the Prop. Y is part of a set of proposals that would provide for the fu-
location of an International Botanical Congress, which is instead ture valid publication of names of certain taxa other than vascular
the responsibility of the International Association of Botanical and plants or bryophytes without nomenclatural types (so-called “type-
Mycological Societies (https://www.iaptglobal.org/iabms). less names”; see Chap. II new Art. Prop. A). The Nomenclature Com-
Prop. Q would add another Recommendation that observers and mittee for Algae does not support Prop. Y (votes 1 : 14 : 1).
members of the Nomenclature Section get together and discuss pro- Prop. Z would burden the Editorial Committee with an ex-
posals before and during the Section. Surely this is already normal prac- tremely complex additional task. It would be required to publish a
tice? It hardly seems to need a formal Recommendation in the Code. document noting all editorial amendments made in the Code since

the previous edition, i.e. those not directly resulting from a proposal “homonym. […]. A homonym also results from the applica-
accepted at an International Botanical or Mycological Congress. It is tion of an existing name to a different taxon if the author defi-
likely that the end users of this document would be a very small nitely excludes its type (see Art. 48).”
group. Prop. E (403 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180) Amend the definition
Prop. AA, concerning the proposed Editorial Committee for of “rejected name” in the Glossary as follows (new text in bold, de-
Fungi, is discussed under Prop. G. If Prop. B was accepted, Prov. leted text in strikethrough):
5.6 would be deleted from Div. III and so too would the cross- “rejected name. Subject to Art. 14.6, a A name ruled as that is
reference to it toward the end of Prov. 8.1. If the mycological commu- not to be used as the correct name of a taxon (Art. 11), either by for-
nity wanted Prop. B to apply also to proposals to amend Chapter F at mal action under Art. 14, 56, or F.7 overriding other provisions of the
an International Mycological Congress, so that proposals to amend Code (see nomen rejiciendum, nomen utique rejiciendum) or because
Examples in Chapter F or fungal entries in the Glossary were referred it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published (Art. 52) or a
via the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to the Editorial Committee later homonym (Art. 53 and 54). A name treated as rejected under
for Fungi, the new Prov. 2.1bis could be added to the cross-references Art. F.7 may become eligible for use by conservation under Art. 14.”
in Art. 8.1 by means of a friendly amendment. Prop. F (050 – Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1393) Amend
Prop. BB, concerning the proposed Editorial Committee for the definition of “synonym” in the Glossary as follows (new text
Fungi, is discussed under Prop. G. in bold):
Prop. CC concerns the deadline for the appointment of the Dep- “synonym. [Not defined] – one of two or more names that apply
uty Secretary of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau. Because Interna- to the same taxon. It may or may not be a correct name for that
tional Mycological Congresses normally take place every four years, taxon (see heterotypic synonym, homotypic synonym).”
requiring this appointment no later than two years before a Congress, Prop. G (005 – Schwartsburd & al. in Taxon 69: 624) Include
instead of the current three years, seems more realistic. The Nomen- the following four terms and their respective meaning in the
clature Committee for Fungi supports Prop. CC (votes 14 : 1 : 0, on Glossary:
the whole set consisting of Prop. G, U and AA–DD). “type-genus. See type-species.
Prop. DD, concerning the proposed Editorial Committee for type-species. [Not defined] – the term “type-species” is not used
Fungi, is discussed under Prop. G. Prop. DD would also add the in this Code (Art. 8.1 and Note 0). A type is never a collective entity.
new edition of Chapter F to the publications listed in Prov. 8.11 as ap- The same applies to “type-genus”, “type-subspecies”, and “type-
pearing after an International Mycological Congress. variety”.
type-subspecies. See type-species.
Glossary type-variety. See type-species.”
Prop. A (321 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955) Add a new Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A–G would be automatically
sentence to the definition of “description” in the Glossary (new text referred to the Editorial Committee.
in bold): Prop. A would attempt to add an element to the definition of “de-
“description. [Not defined] – a published statement of a feature scription” that would be more appropriate as a new Note or Article in
or features of an individual taxon; a description (or a diagnosis) is re- Art. 38.
quired for valid publication of a name of a new taxon (Art. 38.1 Prop. B would add new elements to the definition of “descrip-
(a) and 38.3); a validating description need not be diagnostic (Art. tion”, also deleting “[Not defined]”, which would imply that the def-
38 Note 2). A name, by itself, may convey some descriptive infor- inition is taken from the provisions of the Code, which is not the case.
mation about the taxon to which it is applied but is not, by itself, Prop. C would add an entry to the Glossary based on terms used
sufficient to serve as a description.” only Art. 9 Ex. 14.
Prop. B (322 – Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955) Amend the Prop. D would add a sentence to the definition of “homonym”,
definition of “description” in the Glossary as follows (new text in implying an additional way in which a homonym can exist, although
bold, deleted text in strikethrough): the explanation is redundant, already covered by the first sentence.
“description [in boldface]. [Not defined] – a published Perhaps adding a cross-reference “(see also Art. 48.1)” to the Glos-
A statement of a feature or features of an individual taxon;, which sary definition would be sufficient, although this would be editorial.
may include morphological, anatomical, biochemical, karyologi- Prop. E is connected to Art. 52 Prop. B and Art. 53 Prop. A,
cal, molecular, or similar features of the taxon, but cannot be lim- which would restrict the term “rejected” so that it no longer applied
ited to those properties noted in Art. 38.3. A a description (or a to names that are illegitimate under Art. 52, 53 or 54.
diagnosis) is required for valid publication of a name of a new taxon Prop. F could be a useful addition in view of the other sense in
(Art. 38.1(a) and 38.3); a validating description need not be diagnos- which the term synonym is used, i.e. a name that applies to, but is
tic (Art. 38 Note 2).” not the correct name for, a taxon.
Prop. C (162 – Prado & Moran in Taxon 71: 713) Add two new Prop. G is discussed under Art. 8 Prop. A.
entries to the Glossary:
“first-step typification. See second-step typification.” Appendices III and IV
“second-step typification. Designating a single specimen as the Prop. A (194 – Wiersema in Taxon 71: 1346) Each of the names
lectotype, neotype, or epitype for a name where a single gathering but listed in Appendix III and Appendix IV as being the basionym or re-
more than one specimen was originally (in the first-step typification) placed synonym of a conserved name with a conserved type is to be
designated as lectotype or neotype, or epitype (Art. 9.17 and Ex. 14).” treated as conserved on the same date and with the same type as the
Prop. D (397 – Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1178) Add the following conserved name under which it is cited.
sentence at the end of the definition of “homonym” in the Glossary Rapporteurs’ comments – Prop. A is essentially a housekeeping
(new text in bold): proposal, and would update a proposal (No. 245, Perry in Taxon 59:

1916. 2010) that was approved at the 2011 Melbourne Congress but 049 Prado & Moran in Taxon 69: 1392, Art. 60 Prop. W
failed to account for post-Vienna Code (2006) conservations, partic- 050 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1393, Gloss. Prop. F
ularly those involving replacement names with conserved types, be- 051 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 448, Pre. Prop. A
cause conservation of a replaced synonym at the rank of 052 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 448, Div. III Prop. A
subdivision of a genus or infraspecific taxon was not then possible 053 Malik & al. in Taxon 70: 449, Art. 6 Prop. E
under Art. 14.1. Prop. A would ensure that the conserved types of 054 Malik & al. in Taxon 70: 449, Art. 6 Prop. F
listed names are the same as those of their basionyms or replaced 055 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 449, Art. 6 Prop. I
synonyms. 056 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 449, Art. 6 Prop. J
057 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450, Art. 6 Prop. K
INDEX OF PROPOSALS 058 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450, Art. 6 Prop. O
059 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450, Art. 6 Prop. Q
001 Choi & al. in Taxon 69: 623, Art. 6 Prop. N 060 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450, Art. 6 Prop. P
002 Lidén in Taxon 69: 624, Art. 7 Prop. B 061 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450, Art. 6 Prop. R
003 Lidén in Taxon 69: 624, Art. 7 Prop. C 062 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 450, Rec. 6A (new) Prop. A
004 Schwartsburd & al. in Taxon 69: 624, Art. 8 Prop. A 063 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 451, Art. 6 Prop. H
005 Schwartsburd & al. in Taxon 69: 624, Gloss. Prop. G 064 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 451, Art. 41 Prop. M
006 Singh Deo & Majumdar in Taxon 69: 625, Rec. 8A Prop. E 065 Tindall in Taxon 70: 451, Art. 7 Prop. D
007 Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 627, Art. 9 Prop. A 066 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 452, Art. 7 Prop. L
008 Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 627, Art. 9 Prop. F 067 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 452, Art. 7 Prop. M
009 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 69: 628, Art. 9 Prop. M 068 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 452, Art. 9 Prop. BBB
010 Prado & al. in Taxon 69: 629, Art. 9 Prop. W 069 Renner in Taxon 70: 453, Rec. 7B (new) Prop. B
011 Hassemer & al. in Taxon 69: 630, Art. 9 Prop. AA 070 Jocou in Taxon 70: 453, Art. 9 Prop. KK
012 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 630, Art. 9 Prop. LL 071 Bramhadande & Nandikar in Taxon 70: 454, Rec. 9C Prop. A
013 Mazumdar & al. in Taxon 69: 631, Art. 9 Prop. YY 072 Prado & al. in Taxon 70: 454, Art. 20 Prop. F
014 Lendemer in Taxon 69: 631, Art. 9 Prop. EEE 073 Garland in Taxon 70: 455, Art. 23 Prop. A
015 Chakrabarty & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 69: 632, Rec. 9B 074 Garland in Taxon 70: 455, Art. 23 Prop. J
Prop. A 075 Garland in Taxon 70: 455, Art. 23 Prop. L
016 Nandikar in Taxon 69: 632, Rec. 9B Prop. B 076 Pastore & al. in Taxon 70: 456, Art. 38 Prop. K
017 Kumar & al. in Taxon 69: 633, Art. 11 Prop. B 077 Pastore & al. in Taxon 70: 456, Art. 38 Prop. L
018 Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 634, Art. 40 Prop. D 078 Iamonico & al. in Taxon 70: 457, Art. 38 Prop. R
019 Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 635, Art. 40 Prop. M 079 Gnanasekaran & Arisdason in Taxon 70: 458, Art. 41 Prop. D
020 Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 635, Art. 40 Prop. I 080 Smith in Taxon 70: 458, Art. H.5 Prop. A
021 Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 636, Rec. 46C Prop. A 081 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 70: 459, Art. H.6 Prop. B
022 Moran & al. in Taxon 69: 636, Art. 60 Prop. I 082 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 70: 459, Art. H.6 Prop. C
023 Mabberley in Taxon 69: 637, Art. 60 Prop. J 083 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 908, Art. 10 Prop. A
024 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 69: 638, Art. 60 Prop. K 084 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 908, Art. 10 Prop. E
025 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1379, Art. 7 Prop. F 085 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 909, Art. 10 Prop. H
026 Prado & al. in Taxon 69: 1380, Rec. 7B (new) Prop. A 086 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 909, Art. 10 Prop. J
027 Gnanasekaran & Arisdason in Taxon 69: 1380, Rec. 8A Prop. B 087 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 909, Art. 10 Prop. B
028 Katagiri & Majumdar in Taxon 69: 1381, Rec. 8A Prop. F 088 Nachychko in Taxon 70: 1378, Art. 7 Prop. N
029 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1382, Art. 9 Prop. B 089 Nachychko in Taxon 70: 1378, Art. 9 Prop. DDD
030 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383, Art. 9 Prop. L 090 Nachychko in Taxon 70: 1378, Art. 40 Prop. N
031 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383, Art. 9 Prop. BB 091 Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1379, Rec. 7A Prop. B
032 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383, Art. 9 Prop. DD 092 Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1379, Rec. 51A (new) Prop. A
033 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1383, Art. 10 Prop. I 093 Renner in Taxon 70: 1380, Art. 8 Prop. B
034 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1384, Art. 9 Prop. X 094 Renner in Taxon 70: 1380, Art. 40 Prop. J
035 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1384, Art. 9 Prop. Y 095 Renner in Taxon 70: 1380, Rec. 8A Prop. C
036 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1385, Art. 9 Prop. CC 096 Renner in Taxon 70: 1381, Rec. 8A Prop. D
037 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1385, Art. 9 Prop. EE 097 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1381, Art. 8 Prop. E
038 Chakrabarty & al. in Taxon 69: 1386, Art. 9 Prop. SS 098 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1381, Art. 8 Prop. I
039 Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 1386, Rec. 9A Prop. C 099 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1382, Art. 8 Prop. M
040 Paul & Paszko in Taxon 69: 1387, Art. 31 Prop. B 100 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 70: 1382, Art. 8 Prop. P
041 Welker & Prado in Taxon 69: 1387, Art. 35 Prop. A 101 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383, Rec. 9A Prop. A
042 Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 1388, Art. 36 Prop. A 102 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383, Art. 9 Prop. H
043 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1388, Art. 38 Prop. F 103 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383, Art. 9 Prop. I
044 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 69: 1389, Rec. 40A Prop. A 104 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383, Rec. 8A Prop. A
045 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1390, Art. 41 Prop. J 105 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383, Art. 9 Prop. Z
046 Wisnev in Taxon 69: 1390, Art. 41 Prop. K 106 Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1383, Art. 7 Prop. I
047 Krishna & al. in Taxon 69: 1390, Rec. 50D Prop. A 107 Lírio & al. in Taxon 70: 1384, Art. 9 Prop. FF
048 Moran & Prado in Taxon 69: 1391, Art. 60 Prop. L 108 Steudel in Taxon 70: 1385, Art. 9 Prop. GG

109 Steudel in Taxon 70: 1385, Art. 9 Prop. ZZ 168 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1329, Art. 10 Prop. C
110 Bhattacharjee & al. in Taxon 70: 1386, Art. 9 Prop. FFF 169 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1329, Art. 10 Prop. D
111 Majumdar in Taxon 70: 1386, Art. 20 Prop. G 170 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330, Art. 10 Prop. F
112 Pillon & Hopkins in Taxon 70: 1388, Rec. 20A Prop. A 171 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330, Art. 48 Prop. D
113 Pillon & Hopkins in Taxon 70: 1388, Rec. 23A Prop. A 172 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330, Art. 52 Prop. D
114 Maity & Dash in Taxon 70: 1388, Art. 23 Prop. D 173 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330, Art. 48 Prop. E
115 Garland & Prado in Taxon 70: 1389, Art. 23 Prop. H 174 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 1330, Art. 22 Prop. A
116 Dutta & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 70: 1390, Rec. 31B Prop. A 175 Meneguzzo & Prado in Taxon 71: 1331, Art. 14 Prop. A
117 Bandyopadhyay & al. in Taxon 70: 1390, Rec. 40A Prop. E 176 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 71: 1333, Art. 14 Prop. C
118 Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1391, Art. 41 Prop. E 177 Mosyakin in Taxon 71: 1333, Rec. 23A Prop. B
119 Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393, Art. 51 Prop. B 178 Doweld in Taxon 71: 1335, Art. 30 Prop. A
120 Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393, Art. 51 Prop. C 179 Pastore & al. in Taxon 71: 1336, Art. 38 Prop. Q
121 Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393, Art. 56 Prop. A 180 Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338, Art. 40 Prop. A
122 Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1393, Div. III Prop. T 181 Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338, Art. 44 Prop. A
123 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 1394, Art. 52 Prop. L 182 Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338, Art. 44 Prop. D
124 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 1394, Art. 14 Prop. D 183 Woelkerling & Moestrup in Taxon 71: 1338, Art. 44 Prop. E
125 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 70: 1395, Art. 14 Prop. F 184 Kumar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 71: 1338, Art. 41 Prop. F
126 Smith & Figueiredo in Taxon 70: 1396, Art. 61 Prop. G 185 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 71: 1339, Art. 48 Prop. F
127 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1397, Div. III Prop. H 186 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1341, Art. 60 Prop. M
128 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1397, Div. III Prop. I 187 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1341, Art. 60 Prop. AA
129 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. J 188 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1342, Art. 62 Prop. A
130 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. K 189 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1343, Art. 62 Prop. B
131 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. O 190 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1343, Art. 62 Prop. C
132 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. P 191 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1343, Art. 62 Prop. D
133 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. Q 192 Malavasi & Škaloud in Taxon 71: 1344, Chap. E (new) Prop. A
134 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. R 193 Smith & al. in Taxon 71: 1345, Div. III Prop. L
135 Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1398, Div. III Prop. S 194 Wiersema in Taxon 71: 1346, App. III and IV Prop. A
136 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 703, Art. 6 Prop. A 195 Mosyakin in Taxon 72: 442, Pre. Prop. B
137 McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 703, Art. 6 Prop. S 196 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 443, Art. 6 Prop. B
138 Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704, Art. 7 Prop. E 197 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 443, Art. 6 Prop. T
139 Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704, Art. 7 Prop. G 198 Majumdar & al. in Taxon 72: 444, Art. 7 Prop. O
140 Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704, Art. 8 Prop. C 199 Majumdar & al. in Taxon 72: 444, Rec. 7A Prop. D
141 Wisnev in Taxon 71: 704, Art. 9 Prop. UU 200 Mosyakin & Tsymbalyuk in Taxon 72: 445, Art. 8 Prop. O
142 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 705, Art. 8 Prop. G 201 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 445, Art. 9 Prop. N
143 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706, Art. 8 Prop. H 202 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 446, Art. 9 Prop. O
144 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706, Art. 8 Prop. N 203 Stephan in Taxon 72: 447, Art. 23 Prop. E
145 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706, Art. 8 Prop. Q 204 Stephan in Taxon 72: 447, Art. 23 Prop. F
146 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706, Rec. 8A Prop. G 205 Stephan in Taxon 72: 447, Art. 20 Prop. A
147 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706, Rec. 8A Prop. H 206 Zamora in Taxon 72: 448, Art. 23 Prop. M
148 Gravendyck & al. in Taxon 71: 706, Art. 40 Prop. P 207 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 449, Art. 23 Prop. C
149 Bhattacharjee & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 71: 707, Art. 8 208 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450, Rec. 23B (new) Prop. A
Prop. L 209 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450, Rec. 23B (new) Prop. B
150 Bokil in Taxon 71: 707, Rec. 8A Prop. I 210 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450, Rec. 23B (new) Prop. C
151 Prado & al. in Taxon 71: 708, Art. 9 Prop. II 211 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450, Art. 60 Prop. U
152 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 709, Art. 10 Prop. G 212 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 450, Art. 60 Prop. V
153 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 709, Art. 40 Prop. E 213 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451, Art. 60 Prop. X
154 Prado & al. in Taxon 71: 709, Art. 14 Prop. B 214 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451, Art. 60 Prop. Y
155 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 71: 710, Art. 19 Prop. A 215 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451, Art. 60 Prop. Z
156 George in Taxon 71: 711, Art. 23 Prop. B 216 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 451, Art. 23 Prop. I
157 George in Taxon 71: 711, Art. 23 Prop. G 217 Mosyakin & al. in Taxon 72: 452, Art. 38 Prop. M
158 George in Taxon 71: 711, Art. 24 Prop. A 218 Prado & al. in Taxon 72: 454, Art. 38 Prop. N
159 Prado & al. in Taxon 71: 711, Art. 30 Prop. C 219 Prado & al. in Taxon 72: 454, Art. 53 Prop. B
160 Maity & Dash in Taxon 71: 712, Art. 40 Prop. O 220 Prado & al. in Taxon 72: 454, Div. III Prop. M
161 Smith in Taxon 71: 713, Div. III Prop. W 221 Hayova & al. in Taxon 72: 455, Rec. 38F (new) Prop. A
162 Prado & Moran in Taxon 71: 713, Gloss. Prop. C 222 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 456, Art. 40 Prop. K
163 Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 71: 1326, Art. 8 Prop. J 223 Kumar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 72: 456, Rec. 40A Prop. B
164 Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 71: 1326, Art. 38 Prop. A 224 Kumar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 72: 456, Rec. 40A Prop. C
165 Lin & Sun in Taxon 71: 1326, Art. 9 Prop. J 225 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 457, Art. 41 Prop. A
166 Meneguzzo & al. in Taxon 71: 1327, Art. 9 Prop. MM 226 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 457, Art. 41 Prop. G
167 Kar & Bandyopadhyay in Taxon 71: 1328, Rec. 9B Prop. D 227 Mota & al. in Taxon 72: 458, Art. 41 Prop. N

228 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459, Art. 60 Prop. E 288 Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 703, Div. III Prop. E
229 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459, Art. 60 Prop. F 289 Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 703, Div. III Prop. N
230 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459, Art. 60 Prop. G 290 May & al. in Taxon 72: 704, Div. III Prop. G
231 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459, Art. 60 Prop. H 291 May & al. in Taxon 72: 704, Div. III Prop. U
232 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 459, Rec. 60 (new) Prop. A 292 May & al. in Taxon 72: 705, Div. III Prop. AA
233 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460, Art. 60 Prop. N 293 May & al. in Taxon 72: 705, Div. III Prop. BB
234 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460, Art. 60 Prop. O 294 May & al. in Taxon 72: 705, Div. III Prop. DD
235 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460, Art. 60 Prop. Q 295 May & al. in Taxon 72: 705, Div. III Prop. CC
236 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460, Art. 60 Prop. R 296 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 947, Art. 6 Prop. L
237 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 460, Art. 60 Prop. S 297 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 947, Art. 6 Prop. U
238 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 461, Art. 60 Prop. T 298 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 947, Art. 6 Prop. V
239 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 461, Rec. 60 (new) Prop. B 299 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948, Art. 6 Prop. W
240 Rijckevorsel in Taxon 72: 461, Rec. 60 (new) Prop. C 300 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948, Art. 41 Prop. O
241 Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 462, Art. H.11 Prop. A 301 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948, Art. 6 Prop. Y
242 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 677, Art. 6 Prop. D 302 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948, Art. 41 Prop. C
243 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 677, Art. 38 Prop. O 303 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 948, Art. 9 Prop. GGG
244 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 677, Art. 12 Prop. A 304 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 949, Art. 8 Prop. R
245 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 678, Art. 6 Prop. M 305 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 949, Art. 8 Prop. F
246 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 678, Art. 21 Prop. A 306 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950, Art. 9 Prop. OO
247 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679, Art. 24 Prop. B 307 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950, Art. 9 Prop. PP
248 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679, Art. 32 Prop. B 308 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950, Rec. 9A Prop. B
249 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679, Art. 7 Prop. K 309 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950, Art. 9 Prop. QQ
250 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 679, Art. 11 Prop. A 310 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950, Art. 9 Prop. RR
251 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 680, Art. 31 Prop. A 311 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 950, Art. 9 Prop. TT
252 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 680, Art. 52 Prop. A 312 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 951, Art. 9 Prop. VV
253 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 681, Art. 7 Prop. P 313 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 951, Art. 9 Prop. WW
254 Knapp & al. in Taxon 72: 682, Rec. 7A Prop. A 314 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 951, Art. 9 Prop. XX
255 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 683, Art. 9 Prop. P 315 Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 952, Art. 9 Prop. AAA
256 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 683, Art. 9 Prop. Q 316 Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 952, Rec. 9B Prop. C
257 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 683, Art. 7 Prop. J 317 Govaerts & Kirk in Taxon 72: 953, Art. 29 Prop. B
258 Elbrächter & al. in Taxon 72: 684, Art. 11 Prop. C 318 Govaerts & Kirk in Taxon 72: 953, Art. 41 Prop. I
259 Elbrächter & al. in Taxon 72: 685, Art. 11 Prop. D 319 Govaerts in Taxon 72: 954, Art. 37 Prop. A
260 Elbrächter & al. in Taxon 72: 685, Art. 11 Prop. E 320 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955, Art. 38 Prop. S
261 Doweld in Taxon 72: 687, Art. 20 Prop. H 321 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955, Gloss. Prop. A
262 Doweld in Taxon 72: 687, Art. 20 Prop. J 322 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955, Gloss. Prop. B
263 Doweld in Taxon 72: 687, Art. 23 Prop. N 323 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 955, Art. 38 Prop. H
264 Doweld in Taxon 72: 687, Art. 23 Prop. K 324 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 956, Art. 38 Prop. B
265 Doweld in Taxon 72: 688, Art. 36 Prop. B 325 Kovalchuk in Taxon 72: 957, Art. 38 Prop. P
266 Doweld in Taxon 72: 688, Art. 13 Prop. A 326 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 957, Art. 40 Prop. H
267 Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 689, Art. 38 Prop. G 327 Mosyakin & al. in Taxon 72: 958, Rec. 40A Prop. D
268 Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 689, Art. 38 Prop. E 328 Hartley & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 960, Art. 41 Prop. L
269 Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 690, Art. 38 Prop. I 329 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 8 Prop. D
270 Wrankmore & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 690, Art. 40 Prop. B 330 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 9 Prop. C
271 Wrankmore & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 691, Art. 41 Prop. B 331 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 9 Prop. HH
272 Hartley & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 692, Art. 41 Prop. H 332 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 9 Prop. CCC
273 Hartley & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 692, Rec. 41A Prop. A 333 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 29 Prop. A
274 Doweld in Taxon 72: 693, Art. 45 Prop. E 334 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 38 Prop. C
275 Doweld in Taxon 72: 694, Art. 45 Prop. F 335 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1144, Art. 40 Prop. L
276 Doweld in Taxon 72: 694, Art. 45 Prop. G 336 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1145, Chap. V Sect. 2 Prop. A
277 Doweld in Taxon 72: 695, Art. 45 Prop. H 337 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1145, Art. 44 Prop. B
278 Doweld in Taxon 72: 695, Art. 45 Prop. I 338 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1145, Div. III Prop. X
279 Doweld in Taxon 72: 696, Art. 45 Prop. J 339 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147, Prin. Prop. A
280 Doweld in Taxon 72: 696, Art. 45 Prop. K 340 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147, Chap. II Prop. A
281 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 697, Art. 46 Prop. A 341 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147, Art. 6 Prop. C
282 Olshanskyi in Taxon 72: 698, Art. 60 Prop. P 342 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147, Art. 7 Prop. A
283 Shaw in Taxon 72: 698, Art. H.6 Prop. A 343 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1147, Chap. II new Art. Prop. A
284 Krieger & Govaerts in Taxon 72: 699, Art. H.9 Prop. A 344 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148, Art. 38 Prop. D
285 Turland in Taxon 72: 700, Div. III Prop. B 345 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148, Art. 39 Prop. A
286 Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 702, Div. III Prop. C 346 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148, Art. 40 Prop. C
287 Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Taxon 72: 703, Div. III Prop. D 347 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148, Art. 44 Prop. C

348 Thiele & al. in Taxon 72: 1148, Div. III Prop. Y 391 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177, Art. 48 Prop. G
349 Mosyakin in Taxon 72: 1149, Pre. Prop. C 392 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177, Art. 52 Prop. E
350 Proćków & Drábková in Taxon 72: 1150, Art. 4 Prop. A 393 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177, Art. 52 Prop. F
351 Proćków & Drábková in Taxon 72: 1150, Art. 19 Prop. B 394 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1177, Art. 22 Prop. B
352 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1151, Art. 9 Prop. S 395 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1178, Art. 48 Prop. B
353 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1151, Art. 9 Prop. T 396 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1178, Art. 48 Prop. H
354 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152, Rec. 9A Prop. D 397 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1178, Gloss. Prop. D
355 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152, Art. 9 Prop. U 398 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179, Art. 6 Prop. X
356 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152, Art. 9 Prop. V 399 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179, Art. 7 Prop. H
357 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1152, Art. 40 Prop. F 400 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179, Art. 6 Prop. Z
358 Wiersema & McNeill in Taxon 72: 1153, Art. 7 Prop. Q 401 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1179, Art. 40 Prop. Q
359 Wiersema & McNeill in Taxon 72: 1153, Art. 10 Prop. K 402 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180, Art. 48 Prop. C
360 Gavade & Lekhak in Taxon 72: 1154, Rec. 7A Prop. C 403 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180, Gloss. Prop. E
361 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1155, Art. 9 Prop. R 404 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180, Art. 52 Prop. B
362 Proćków & Proćków in Taxon 72: 1155, Art. 9 Prop. NN 405 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1180, Art. 53 Prop. A
363 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1156, Art. 9 Prop. G 406 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181, Art. 51 Prop. A
364 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157, Div. III Prop. Z 407 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181, Art. 52 Prop. C
365 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157, Art. 9 Prop. JJ 408 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181, Art. 6 Prop. G
366 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157, Art. 9 Prop. D 409 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181, Art. 52 Prop. J
367 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1157, Art. 9 Prop. E 410 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1181, Art. 52 Prop. K
368 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1158, Art. 40 Prop. G 411 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1182, Art. 52 Prop. G
369 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1159, Art. 20 Prop. C 412 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1182, Art. 52 Prop. H
370 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1159, Art. 20 Prop. D 413 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1183, Art. 52 Prop. I
371 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1166, Art. 20 Prop. E 414 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184, Art. 60 Prop. A
372 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1166, Rec. 20A Prop. B 415 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184, Art. 60 Prop. B
373 Wiersema & al. in Taxon 72: 1167, Art. 20 Prop. I 416 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184, Art. 60 Prop. C
374 Earp & Mosyakin in Taxon 72: 1167, Art. 38 Prop. J 417 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184, Art. 20 Prop. B
375 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1168, Art. 8 Prop. K 418 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184, Art. 60 Prop. D
376 Wisnev & Prado in Taxon 72: 1169, Art. 9 Prop. K 419 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1184, Art. 32 Prop. A
377 Brinda & Watson in Taxon 72: 1170, Art. 42 Prop. A 420 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185, Art. 61 Prop. A
378 Brinda & Watson in Taxon 72: 1171, Rec. 42A (new) Prop. A 421 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185, Art. 61 Prop. B
379 McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172, Art. 45 Prop. A 422 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185, Art. 61 Prop. C
380 McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172, Art. 45 Prop. B 423 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185, Art. 61 Prop. D
381 McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172, Art. 45 Prop. C 424 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185, Art. 61 Prop. E
382 McNeill in Taxon 72: 1172, Art. 45 Prop. D 425 Demoulin in Taxon 72: 1185, Art. 61 Prop. F
383 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1173, Art. 46 Prop. B 426 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1186, Rec. 5A Prop. A
384 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1174, Art. 46 Prop. E 427 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1186, Art. 14 Prop. E
385 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1174, Art. 46 Prop. F 428 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1186, Art. 30 Prop. B
386 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1174, Art. 46 Prop. C 429 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187, Art. 33 Prop. A
387 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1175, Art. 46 Prop. G 430 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187, Art. 36 Prop. C
388 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1175, Art. 46 Prop. D 431 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187, Art. 54 Prop. A
389 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1175, Art. 46 Prop. H 432 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1187, Div. III Prop. F
390 Wisnev in Taxon 72: 1176, Art. 48 Prop. A 433 Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 72: 1188, Div. III Prop. V

TAXON - 2024 - Turland - Synopsis of Proposals On Nomenclature Madrid 2024 A Review of The Proposals To Amend The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAXON - 2024 - Turland - Synopsis of Proposals On Nomenclature Madrid 2024 A Review of The Proposals To Amend The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAXON - 2024 - Turland - Synopsis of Proposals On Nomenclature Madrid 2024 A Review of The Proposals To Amend The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAXON 73 (1) • February 2024: 325–404 Turland & Wiersema • Synopsis of Proposals

Synopsis of Proposals on Nomenclature – Madrid 2024: A review of the

NOTICE Each registered member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled

Version of Record 325

326 Version of Record

Version of Record 327

328 Version of Record

Version of Record 329

330 Version of Record

Version of Record 331

332 Version of Record

Version of Record 333

334 Version of Record

Version of Record 335

336 Version of Record

Version of Record 337

338 Version of Record

Version of Record 339

340 Version of Record

Version of Record 341

342 Version of Record

Version of Record 343

344 Version of Record

Version of Record 345

346 Version of Record

Version of Record 347

348 Version of Record

Version of Record 349

350 Version of Record

Version of Record 351

352 Version of Record

Version of Record 353

354 Version of Record

Version of Record 355

356 Version of Record

Version of Record 357

358 Version of Record

Version of Record 359

360 Version of Record

Version of Record 361

362 Version of Record

Version of Record 363

364 Version of Record

Version of Record 365

366 Version of Record

Version of Record 367

368 Version of Record

Version of Record 369

370 Version of Record

Version of Record 371

372 Version of Record

including incorrect author citation” would be interpreted as exclud- Recommendation 41A

Version of Record 373

374 Version of Record

Version of Record 375

376 Version of Record

Version of Record 377

378 Version of Record

Version of Record 379