Article 34

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature

(Tokyo Code), Electronic version

CHAPTER IV. EFFECTIVE AND VALID PUBLICATION

SECTION 2. CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES

Article 34

34.1. A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the group concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the group (so-called provisional name), except as provided for in Art. 59; (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; (d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. Art. 34.1(a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet published and accepted by the author.

Ex. 1. (a) "Sebertia", proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a monotypic genus, was not validly published by Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept the genus. Although he gave a description of it, he referred its only species "Sebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)" to the genus Sersalisia R. Br. as Sersalisia ? acuminata, which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 34.1, last sentence. The name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (1897).

Ex. 2. (a) The designations listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium amboinense defended by Stickman (1754) were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not validly published.

Ex. 3. (a) (b) The designation "Conophyton", suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82. 1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words "If this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt", was not a validly published generic name since Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).

Ex. 4. (c) "Acosmus Desv.", cited by Desfontaines (Cat. Pl. Hort. Paris.: 233. 1829) as a synonym of the generic name Aspicarpa Rich., was not validly published thereby.

Ex. 5. (c) "Ornithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch." (in Kunth, Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843), cited as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth, was not validly published thereby; when transferred to Ornithogalum L., this species is to be called O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).

Ex. 6. (c) "Erythrina micropteryx Poepp." was not validly published by being cited as a synonym of Micropteryx poeppigiana Walp. (1850); the species concerned, when placed under Erythrina L., is to be called E. poeppigiana (Walp.) O. F. Cook (1901).

Ex. 7. (d) The family designation "Rhaptopetalaceae" (Pierre in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. Mai 1897), which was accompanied merely by mention of constituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., "Scyto-petalum", and Rhaptopetalum Oliv., was not validly published, as Pierre gave no description or dia-gnosis; the family bears the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897), accompanied by a description.

Ex. 8. (d) The generic designation "Ibidium" (Salisbury in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812) was published merely with the mention of four included species. As Salisbury supplied no generic description or diagnosis, it is not a validly published name.

34.2. When, on or after 1 January 1953, two or more different names are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author (so-called alternative names), none of them is validly published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within a species or for subdivisions of a genus within a genus (see Rec. 22A.1 and 22A.2, 26A.1-3).

Ex. 9. The species of Brosimum Sw. described by Ducke (in Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 3: 23-29. 1922) were published with alternative names under Piratinera Aubl. added in a footnote (pp. 23-24). The publication of both sets of names, being effected before 1 January 1953, is valid.

Ex. 10. "Euphorbia jaroslavii" (Poljakov in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 15: 155. 1953) was published with an alternative designation, "Tithymalus jaroslavii". Neither was validly published. However, one name, Euphorbia yaroslavii (with a different transliteration of the initial letter), was validly published by Poljakov (1961), who effectively published it with a new reference to the earlier publication and simultaneously rejected the other name.

Ex. 11. Description of "Malvastrum bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill var. tumidum, subsp. et var. nov." (in Brittonia 32: 474. 1980) simultaneously validated both M. bicuspidatum subsp. tumidum S. R. Hill and M. bicuspidatum var. tumidum S. R. Hill.

Ex. 12. Hitchcock (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(1): 507-508. 1969) used the name Bromus inermis subsp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon and provided a full and direct reference to its basionym, B. pumpellianus Scribn. Within that subspecies, he recognized varieties one of which he named B. inermis var. pumpellianus (without author citation but clearly based on the same basionym and type). In so doing, he met the requirements for valid publication of B. inermis var. pumpellianus (Scribn.) C. L. Hitchc.

Note 1. The name of a fungal holomorph and that of a correlated anamorph (see Art. 59), even if validated simultaneously, are not alternative names in the sense of Art. 34.2. They have different types, and the circumscription of the holomorph is considered to include the anamorph, but not vice versa.

Ex. 13. Lasiosphaeria elinorae Linder (1929), the name of a fungal holomorph, and the simultaneously published name of a correlated anamorph, Helicosporium elinorae Linder, are both valid, and both can be used under Art. 59.5.

Recommendation 34A

34A.1. Authors should avoid mentioning in their publications previously unpublished names which they do not accept, especially if the persons responsible for these unpublished names have not formally authorized their publication (see Rec. 23A.3(i)).