Proc. 14th INA Conf., Reston VA, USA (Guest Ed. J. Self-Trail)
J. Nannoplankton Res. 35 (2), 2015, pp.141-154 © 2015 International Nannoplankton Association
ISSN 1210-8049 Printed by The Sheridan Press, USA

141

Nannoplankton taxonomy and the International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN)
Richard W. Jordan

Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Yamagata University, 1-4-12 Kojirakawa-machi, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan;
sh081@kdw.kj.yamagata-u.ac.jp
Manuscript received 2nd June, 2015; revised manuscript accepted 1st July, 2015

Abstract In 2012, the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants was published, which has
ramifications for nannoplankton workers. The main changes that are relevant to us are: 1) certain forms of electronic
publication are now acceptable, 2) English instead of Latin may now be used in descriptions and diagnoses of extant
organisms, and 3) the morphotaxon concept for fossil plants and algae has been abandoned. Furthermore, names ofgenera based on extant types now have priority over those based on fossil types. This may cause a potential problem
in the future for at least four genera with fossil types: Cruciplacolithus and Reticulofenestra (nannoplankton) andDictyocha and Stephanocha (silicoflagellates). Herein, some of the rules and recommendations are explained, withnannoplankton and silicoflagellate examples.
Keywords nannoplankton, nannofossils, silicoflagellates, taxonomy, ICBN, ICN
1. Introduction
Explanatory notes on the rules and recommendations ofprevious versions of the International Code of BotanicalNomenclature (ICBN), and how they relate to nannoplankton research, were published in the International Nannoplankton Association (INA) Newsletter and its successor,
the Journal of Nannoplankton Research (JNR), as a seriesof fourteen papers (van Heck, 1990-1996) that were indexed by Burnett (1997). Since then, numerous changes tothese rules have been made at subsequent meetings of theInternational Botanical Congress. In this paper, the most
relevant articles and recommendations that affect nannoplankton nomenclature are shown below ad verbatim from
McNeill et al. (2012), and are annotated with examplesof nannoplankton nomenclatural problems. Some of themore important parts of the ICN articles and recommendations have been enboldened, in order to emphasise the key
points – i.e. the bold type does not appear in the original
text. In addition, it should be noted that not all of the articles and recommendations cited in the copied text are
reproduced here, so where necessary, please consult the
ICN. Unlike the ICN and the van Heck papers, the articles
and recommendations have been organised under similar
themes, in the hope of making the rules easier to understand.
2.1 General
Preface. Like other international codes of nomenclature the ICN has no legal status and isdependent on the voluntary acceptance of its
rules by authors, editors, and other users ofnames that it governs.
Art. 56.1. Any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change (Art. 14.1)
may be proposed for rejection. A name thus rejected, or its basionym if it has one, is placedon a list of nomina utique rejicienda (suppressed names, App. V). Along with each listed

name, all names for which it is the basionym
are similarly rejected, and none is to be used(see Rec. 50E.2).
56.2. The list of nomina utique rejicienda (suppressed names) will remain permanently open
for additions and changes. Any proposal for rejection of a name must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against
its rejection, including considerations of typification. Such proposals must be submitted to theGeneral Committee (see Div. III), which willrefer them for examination to the committees
for the various taxonomic groups (see also Art.
14.12 and 34.1).
56.4. When a proposal for the rejection of aname under Art. 56 has been approved by theGeneral Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic group concerned,
rejection of that name is authorized subject tothe decision of a later International BotanicalCongress (see also Art. 14.16 and 34.2).
Recommendation 56A.1. When a proposal forthe rejection of a name under Art. 56 has beenreferred to the appropriate Committee for study,
authors should follow existing usage of names
as far as possible pending the General Committee’s recommendation on the proposal (seealso Rec. 14A and 34A).

Proposals for changes to the Code are first considered
by a number of nomenclature committees, established by
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (in ourcase, the one for algae or the one for fossils). Modifications
to the rulings and wordings of the ICN, as with previous
ICBN editions, can only be decided upon at the plenary
session of an International Botanical Congress, which isheld every four years. Few nannoplankton workers haveever sat on a nomenclature committee. This means that, if
we want to change a ruling or reject/conserve a name, we142

Jordanmust publish our proposal in a journal such as Taxon, andask the relevant committee to consider it at the next Congress. There is no guarantee of success. This is emphasisedby the case where a proposal submitted by Hay (1967)
was rejected by the Committee for Algae (Silva, 1975).
Although we could ignore this set of rules and do as we
please, the result will ultimately be nomenclatural chaos.
It should be noted that there also have been some successes in the past. Notably, there was the conservation of
Isochrysidaceae Bourrelly and the rejection of Ruttneraceae Geitler in the ICBN (see Nicolson, 1993a). In the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Braarud et al.
(1964) proposed the conservation of Coccolithidae Poche(now written as Coccolithaceae Poche) and Coccolithus
Schwarz, with Coccosphaera pelagica Wallich conserved
over C. oceanicus Schwarz, and the suppression of thegenera Cyatholithus Huxley and Rhabdolithes Schmidt,
the latter in favour of Rhabdosphaera. This proposal wasapproved three years later (Evans & China, 1967).
Preamble 14. This edition of the Code supersedes all previous editions.

This means we should follow the most up-to-date
Code, and not use older Codes for guidance. Hence, whilemost of the rules in the van Heck (1990-1996) papers arestill relevant today, subtle changes to the wordings haveoccurred in subsequent ICBN editions, as well as some oldrules having been replaced, and new rules having been introduced. At the time this article was written, the current
Code is the Melbourne Code (McNeill et al., 2012). For
the first time, algae, fungi and plants were included in thetitle of the Code. Thus, there is no longer a current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), rather
the official name and abbreviation is the International
Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).
Principle I. The nomenclature of algae, fungi,
and plants is independent of zoological andbacteriological nomenclature. This Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups
treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether or notthese groups were originally so treated (seePre. 8).
Principle VI. The rules of nomenclature are
retroactive unless expressly limited.

In the Code, some rules have time limitations, such as
the use of Latin diagnoses. However, some changes canbe made using the new Code that weren’t possible before
with older Codes, and I will deal with these problems lateron.
2.2 Ranks
3.1. The principal ranks of taxa in descending
sequence are: kingdom (regnum), division or
phylum (divisio or phylum), class (classis), order(ordo), family (familia), genus (genus), and species (species). Thus, each species is assignable toa genus, each genus to a family, etc.

4.2. If a greater number of ranks of taxa is
desired, the terms for these are made by adding the preﬁx “sub-” to the terms denoting
the principal or secondary ranks. An organism may thus be assigned to taxa of the following ranks (in descending sequence): kingdom(regnum), subkingdom (subregnum), divisionor phylum (divisio or phylum), subdivision orsubphylum (subdivisio or subphylum), class(classis), subclass (subclassis), order (ordo),
suborder (subordo), family (familia), subfamily(subfamilia), tribe (tribus), subtribe (subtribus),
genus (genus), subgenus (subgenus), section(sectio), subsection (subsectio), series (series),
subseries (subseries), species (species), subspecies (subspecies), variety (varietas), subvariety (subvarietas), form (forma), and subform(subforma).
5.1. The relative order of the ranks specified inArt. 3 and 4 must not be altered (see Art. 37.6
and 37.9).
11.2. A name has no priority outside the rank
in which it is published (but see Art. 53.4).

Article 4.2 outlines the order of the ranks, particularly those of subspecific taxa. Although many authors
consider the ranks of subspecies, variety and form to beinterchangeable, others consider that they have different
meanings and priority in ranking order (see Hamilton &Reichard, 1992, for a discussion). This seemingly chaotic
situation is not just restricted to higher plants, but is also
evident in nannoplankton taxonomy. However, it could be
minimalised by adopting the following approach:subspecies – for those that slightly differ at the genetic
level (or with one life-cycle phase different from the type,but with a cryptic alternate phase)variety – for those that are morphologically different (i.e.
not part of the natural variation of the type variety), without evidence of life-cycle phases
form – for different phases of a life-cycle (e.g. haploid anddiploid phases of the same species).
Subspecies and varieties may be separated in time andspace, whereas forms are likely to be found in the same
sample or samples in different seasons, but from the same
locality. In the case of fossil coccoliths, variety would be
the most appropriate choice, since life-cycle phases are
rarely (if ever) known.
Although a species is the sum of all its subordinate
taxa (see Art. 25.1, below), it is probably better if we do
not create varieties that are significantly older than thetype variety – to avoid something akin to the chicken andegg paradox. This becomes relevant when the prefix praeis used to indicate a similar taxon occurring in older sediments (inferring it is ancestral), but where it is younger
than some of the varieties of the species it resembles.
25.1. For nomenclatural purposes, a species
or any taxon below the rank of species is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, ifany.

Taxonomy...
Taxonomy...ICN

2.3 Type deﬁnitions
9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspeciﬁc taxon is the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) used by the author,
or designated by the author as the nomenclatural type. As long as the holotype is extant, it
fixes the application of the name concerned (butsee Art. 9.15).
Art. 9, Note 1. Any designation made by theoriginal author, if definitely expressed at thetime of the original publication of the name of
the taxon, is ﬁnal (but see Art. 9.11 and 9.15)...
9.2. A lectotype is a specimen or illustration
designated from the original material as thenomenclatural type, in conformity with Art.
9.11 and 9.12, if no holotype was indicated at
the time of publication, or if the holotype ismissing, or if a type is found to belong to morethan one taxon (see also Art. 9.14). For sanctioned names, a lectotype may be selected fromamong elements associated with either or boththe protologue and the sanctioning treatment(Art. 9.10).
9.12. In lectotype designation, an isotype must
be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype ifsuch exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype(duplicate of syntype) is extant, the lectotype
must be chosen from among the paratypes ifsuch exist. If no cited specimens exist, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncitedspecimens and cited and uncited illustrations
that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.
9.4. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
9.5. A syntype is any specimen cited in the
protologue when there is no holotype, or any
one of two or more specimens simultaneously
designated in the protologue as types (see alsoArt. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the
included specimens.
9.6. A paratype is any specimen cited in the
protologue that is neither the holotype nor an
isotype, nor one of the syntypes if in the protologue two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.
9.7. A neotype is a specimen or illustration
selected to serve as nomenclatural type if nooriginal material is extant, or as long as it ismissing (see also Art. 9.16).
9.11. If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name of a species or infraspeciﬁc taxon, or when the holotype or previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed, orwhen the material designated as type is foundto belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype

143
or, if permissible (Art. 9.7), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated.
9.13. If no original material is extant, or as longas it is missing, a neotype may be selected. A
lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 9.16.
9.8. An epitype is a specimen or illustration
selected to serve as an interpretative typewhen the holotype, lectotype, or previously
designated neotype, or all original material
associated with a validly published name, isdemonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identiﬁed for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Designationof an epitype is not effected unless the holotype,lectotype, or neotype that the epitype supports is
explicitly cited (see Art. 9.20).

In most modern papers, we designate a holotype whendescribing new taxa, but for those species that were named
decades, or over a century, ago, the situation may be quite
different. It is recommended that, when there is no holotype, scientists make every effort to locate the original
material. It is easy to designate a neotype from recently
collected material, rather than searching for old samples inmuseum collections, but it should be realised that the discovery of the original material or permanent slides could
lead to the neotype being superseded. Of course, it is mandatory (since 1st January, 1990; see Art. 40.7) that original
material (as well as holotypes, isotypes, etc.) be depositedin a recognised museum or herbarium. It is important tonote that private collections held in university or company
laboratories are unlikely to be maintained or curated after
the retirement or death of the scientist.
8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype)of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon iseither a single specimen conserved in one herbarium or other collection or institution, or an
illustration* (but see Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4
and 40.5). [*Here and elsewhere in this Code, theterm “illustration” designates a work of art or aphotograph depicting a feature or features of anorganism, e.g. a picture of a herbarium specimen
or a scanning electron micrograph.]
8.5. The type, epitypes (Art. 9.8) excepted, of thename of a fossil-taxon of the rank of species or
below is always a specimen (see Art. 9.15). One
whole specimen is to be considered as the nomenclatural type (see Rec. 8A.3).
Recommendation 8A.1. When a holotype, a lectotype, or a neotype is an illustration, the specimen or specimens upon which that illustration is based should be used to help determine
the application of the name (see also Art. 9.15).
Recommendation 8A.2. When an illustration isdesignated as the type of a name under Art. 40.5,
the collection data of the illustrated material
should be given (see also Rec. 38D.2).

144

Jordan40.5. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of aname of a new species or infraspecific taxon of
microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively publishedillustration if there are technical difficulties ofpreservation or if it is impossible to preserve a
specimen that would show the features attributed
to the taxon by the author of the name.

These days, it is often acceptable to use an image takenby the scanning electron microscope (SEM) as the holotype of a new living taxon, because SEM stubs and filter papers are not easy to conserve. However, SEM stubs
and filter papers should still be conserved, if possible, andalong with negatives or digital images, should be deposited in a recognisable institution (see Rec. 7A.1, below).
Recommendation 7A.1. It is strongly recommended that the material on which the nameof a taxon is based, especially the holotype, bedeposited in a public herbarium or other public collection with a policy of giving bona fideresearchers access to deposited material, and thatit be scrupulously conserved.

2.4 Higher taxa
Most of us probably don’t worry about higher levels oftaxonomy, but we know or assume that the haptophytes
are monophyletic (e.g. see Hackett et al., 2007). However, surprisingly, there are a lot of competing names out
there – but which ones are right? Some of the early history
was discussed by Green & Jordan (1994) and Silva et al.
(2007), so I will only give a brief summary here with an
update on the current status.
10.7. The principle of typiﬁcation does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family,
except for names that are automatically typiﬁed by being based on generic names (see Art.
16), the type of which is the same as that of thegeneric name.
16.1. The name of a taxon above the rank offamily is treated as a noun in the plural and iswritten with an initial capital letter. Such names
may be either (a) automatically typiﬁed names(Art. 10.7), formed from the name of an included
genus in the same way as family names (Art.
18.1, but see Art. 16.4) by adding the appropriate rank-denoting termination (Art. 16.3 and17.1), preceded by the connecting vowel -o- if
the termination begins with a consonant; or (b)descriptive names, not so formed, which may
be used unchanged at different ranks.

These two articles state that typification is not essential
above the rank of family. Thus, the division Haptophyta,
which is a descriptive name not based on an existing genus, is valid and does not need to be replaced by a typified
name like the Prymnesiophyta. Descriptive names, unlike
typified names, remain unchanged when they change rank.
For example, the Haptophyta has been used as a kingdom(Cavalier-Smith, 1978), infrakingdom (Cavalier-Smith,1998), phylum (Whittaker & Margulis, 1978) and division(Hibberd, 1972). However, all were invalidly published,until Edvardsen et al. (2000) validated the Haptophyta asa division.
16.2. For automatically typified names, the nameof the subdivision or subphylum that includes
the type of the adopted name of a division or
phylum, the name of the subclass that includes
the type of the adopted name of a class, and thename of the suborder that includes the type of
the adopted name of an order are to be based on
the same generic name... as the corresponding
higher-ranked name.

For example, since Hibberd (1976) had validated theclass name Prymnesiophyceae (as the earlier name proposed by Casper, 1972 was invalid), Cavalier-Smith(1986) had to use the typified name based on the genus
Prymnesium Massart when creating the subclass Prymnesiophycidae (orth. emend. of Prymnesidae by Jordan &Green, 1994). See also the rule on autonyms.
16.3. Automatically typified names end as follows: the name of a division or phylum ends in–phyta...; the name of a class in the algae ends in-phyceae, and of a subclass in –phycidae... Automatically typiﬁed names not in accordancewith these terminations... are to be corrected,
without change of the author citation or dateof publication... However, if such names are
published with a non-Latin termination they
are not validly published.
18.4. When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin termination,
the termination must be changed to conformwith Art. 18.1, without change of the author citation or date (see Art. 32.2). However, if such aname is published with a non-Latin termination, it is not validly published.

Over the years, a number of higher taxa have been
described using non-Latin terminations. As stated above(and for a subfamily - Art. 19.7), these would be deemedinvalid at the time of publication. While other taxa wereintroduced using the termination for the wrong rank, thesecan be validated later on, using the correct ending. However, when orthographically emending the endings, nochange to date or author is needed.
Hence, when Haeckel (1894) proposed the families
Coccosphaeralen and Rhabdosphaeralen using German
terminations, they were both invalid. Equally, when Conrad (1926) introduced the Prymnésiacées, with Frenchspelling, it was invalid. Ostenfeld (1899) incorrectly
utilised the Latin ending for an order when he proposed
his family Rhabdosphaerales. The latter was validated
by Lemmermann (1908) when he created the Rhabdosphaeraceae, and it should be written as Rhabdosphaeraceae Ostenfeld, 1899. Schmidt (1931) described the Prymnesiaceae with the Latin ending, so this family should be
written as Prymnesiaceae Schmidt, 1931, not as Prymne-

Taxonomy...
Taxonomy...ICN

siaceae Conrad (see Example 10 of Art. 18.4).
Haeckel (1889) erected the order Calcocyteae to include discoliths and cyatholiths (= placoliths). Later, he
confusingly called the Calcocyteae a class and gave analternative name to the class, Coccosphaerales (Haeckel,1894). All of them have the wrong endings for the rank
they were intended for; they should have been written as
the order Calcocytales, the class Calcocytophyceae andthe class Coccolithophorophyceae. The latter would beillegitimate because it is based on the illegitimate genus
Coccolithophora, while the Calcocyteae had dropped out
of use by the end of the 19th Century. The Calcocyteae
would become valid if the correct ending was applied toit – although it would be a junior synonym (in part) of anumber of earlier validated taxa.
16.4 Note 2. The principle of priority does not
apply above the rank of family (Art. 11.10; but
see Rec. 16A).
Recommendation 16A.1. In choosing among
typiﬁed names for a taxon above the rank offamily, authors should generally follow the
principle of priority.
18.3. A name of a family based on an illegitimate generic name is illegitimate unless anduntil it or the generic name upon which it isbased is conserved.

When Lohmann (1902) described Coccolithophora, heincluded the valid genus Coccolithus as a synonym, thus
making the former superfluous, but also illegitimate. Thus,
his family Coccolithophoridae (= Coccolithophoraceae inbotanical nomenclature) and subfamily Coccolithophorineae (= Coccolithophoroideae) were also illegitimate,while his subfamily Syracosphaerinae (= Syracosphaeroideae) is valid. Lemmermann (1908) elevated them to theorders Syracosphaerales and Coccolithophorales, although
for the same reasons as above, the latter is illegitimate.
38.1. In order to be validly published, a name ofa new taxon (see Art. 6.9) must (a) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis of thetaxon or, if none is provided in the protologue,
by a reference to a previously and effectively
published description or diagnosis (except asprovided in Art. 38.7, 38.8, and H.9; see also Art.
14.9 and 14.15); and (b) comply with the relevant provisions of Art. 32–45.

Rothmaler (1951) proposed the class Coccolithophyceae
but did not provide a description. Silva et al. (2007) assumed that the earlier description of the Coccolithophoraceae by Lohmann (1902) could be used as a reference. Of
course, the latter is considered an illegitimate family (seeabove), so it is debatable whether it validates the former,
which is at a different rank.
39.1. In order to be validly published, a name ofa new taxon (algae and fossils excepted) published between 1 January 1935 and 31 Decem-

145
ber 2011, inclusive, must be accompanied by aLatin description or diagnosis or by a reference(see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively
published Latin description or diagnosis (but see
Art. H.9; for fossils see Art. 43.1; for algae see
Art. 44.1).
39.2. In order to be validly published, a name ofa new taxon published on or after 1 January
2012 must be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis or by a reference(see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively
published Latin or English description or diagnosis (for fossils see also Art. 43.1).
43.1. In order to be validly published, a nameof a new fossil-taxon published on or after 1
January 1996 must be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis or by areference (see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively published Latin or English description
or diagnosis.
Note 1. As Art. 39.1 does not apply to names offossil-taxa, a validating description or diagnosis(see Art. 38) in any language is acceptable forthem prior to 1996.
44.1. In order to be validly published, a name ofa new taxon of non-fossil algae published between 1 January 1958 and 31 December 2011,
inclusive, must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by a reference (see Art.
38.13) to a previously and effectively published
Latin description or diagnosis.
Note 1. As Art. 39.1 does not apply to names ofalgal taxa, a validating description or diagnosis(see Art. 38) in any language is acceptable forthem prior to 1958.

Article 39.2 means that, from 2012, Latin descriptions
are no longer mandatory for new algal taxa. However,
Article 44.1 states that algal descriptions written between
1958-2011 must be written in Latin, but those of fossiltaxa written on or after 1 January 1996 must be in Latin or
English (before 1958 for algae, and before 1996 for fossils, any language could be used). Thus, validation of the
Haptophyceae by Silva (1980) was needed, because Christensen (1962) supplied only a Danish description.
The subclass Calcihaptophycidae was described in
Latin by de Vargas et al. (2007) and has since continued
in sporadic use (e.g. Frada et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2010). It
was erected to include the four modern orders (Isochrysidales, Syracosphaerales, Zygodiscales and Coccolithales),as well as all the extinct orders that either have a calcified stage in their life-cycle or belong in the same groupas those that do. The phylogenetic tree of Edvardsen &Medlin (2007) placed Chrysochromulina parkeae Green& Leadbeater in the Isochrysidaceae. However, new datasuggest that the alternate life-cycle phase of C. parkeae
is Braarudosphaera bigelowii (Gran & Braarud) Deflandre, with both appearing close to Prymnesium Massartand Haptolina Edvardsen & Eikrem in clade B1 (Thomp-

146

Jordanson et al., 2012). If the latter is correct, then a calcifying
haptophyte would lie outside the Calcihaptophycidae, andthus, the Calcihaptophycidae would seem to be superfluous, since the older subclass name Prymnesiophycidae
Cavalier-Smith encompasses all haptophytes, apart fromthose included in the Pavlovophycidae Cavalier-Smith(see Jordan & Green, 1994 for orthographic emendations),
and therefore has priority.
2.5 Fossil genera
1.2. A taxon (diatom taxa excepted) the nameof which is based on a fossil type is a fossil-taxon. A fossil-taxon comprises the remains of one
or more parts of the parent organism, or one ormore of their life history stages, in one or morepreservational states, as indicated in the originalor any subsequent description or diagnosis of thetaxon (see also Art. 11.1 and 13.3).
13.3. For nomenclatural purposes, a name istreated as pertaining to a non-fossil taxon unless its type is fossil in origin (Art. 1.2). Fossilmaterial is distinguished from non-fossil material by stratigraphic relations at the site of original
occurrence. In cases of doubtful stratigraphic
relations, and for all diatoms, provisions for
non-fossil taxa apply.
11.7. For purposes of priority, names of fossil-taxa (diatom taxa excepted) compete onlywith names based on a fossil type.
11.8. Names of organisms (diatoms excepted)
based on a non-fossil type are treated as having priority over names of the same rank
based on a fossil type.

Article 11.8 is particularly relevant to INA, because
at least four genera with fossil types and living representatives are presently affected: the nannoplankton genera
Cruciplacolithus Hay & Mohler and Reticulofenestra Hay
et al., and the silicoflagellate genera Dictyocha Ehrenberg and Stephanocha McCartney & Jordan. Of course,
this only becomes a problem when a new genus is created
for the living representatives (i.e. with a non-fossil type)
and then the two genera are later synonymised. Since thegenus with the non-fossil type takes priority over the one
with a fossil type, the latter would have to be conserved
to prevent all the species in it from being transferred to
the new genus. Another possibility is to emend the ICN
article so that it lists nannoplankton and silicoflagellates
alongside diatoms as exceptions. However, conservation
and/or emendation of an article would require writing a
proposal to a journal like Taxon and receiving favourable
decisions by the relevant committees at the next International Botanical Congress. However, a decision could takefour years, although still with the possibility of rejection.
It should be noted that Aubry & Bord (2009) have already described Stauronertha as a new genus for Cruciplacolithus neohelis (McIntyre & Bé) Reinhardt. So theabove scenario is one step nearer. Potentially, anyone syn-onymising Stauronertha and Cruciplacolithus could transfer all Cruciplacolithus species to Stauronertha. Such atransfer would be valid under Art. 11.8.
Crenalithus Roth is often cited as a junior synonym ofReticulofenestra, with most Crenalithus taxa transferred
to Reticulofenestra. However, the type species of Crenalithus is C. doronicoides (Black & Barnes) Roth, a species
described from South Atlantic surface-sediments, and presumed to be a proximal shield of Gephyrocapsa oceanica
Kamptner. Despite this, it should be noted that Crenalithus
remains a validly published genus. So, if C. doronicoides
is considered to be extant and a separate species from G.
oceanica, the transfer of Reticulofenestra taxa to Crenalithus would be valid, given the ruling in Art. 11.8.
Recently, Hagino et al. (2015) rediscovered the living
species Tergestiella adriatica Kamptner (the type species of the genus) and showed that it is almost identical,
morphologically, to fossil species of the genus Cyclagelosphaera Noël. They further noted that the two genera
should be considered synonyms, with Tergestiella having
priority over Cyclagelosphaera. This opens the door to
the transfer of all Cyclagelosphaera taxa to Tergestiella.
While this example does not invoke Art. 11.8, it does suggest that future discoveries of ‘living fossils’ may need to
do so.
2.6 Homonyms
53.1. A name of a family, genus, or species, unless conserved (Art. 14) or sanctioned (Art. 15),
is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is,
if it is spelled exactly like a name based on adifferent type that was previously and validly
published for a taxon of the same rank (seealso Art. 53.2 and 53.4).
Art. 53 Note 1. A validly published earlier homonym, even if illegitimate or otherwise generally treated as a synonym, causes rejectionof any later homonym that is not conserved or
sanctioned (but see Art. 53.2).

The silicoflagellate genus Distephanus Stöhr is a junior homonym of a plant genus Distephanus Cassini, andso must be treated as illegitimate. Jordan & McCartney(2015) proposed Stephanocha as a replacement name forthe former name.
53.3. When two or more names of genera or
species based on different types are so similar that they are likely to be confused (because
they are applied to related taxa or for any otherreason) they are to be treated as homonyms(see also Art. 61.5). If established practice has
been to treat two similar names as homonyms,
this practice is to be continued if it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability.
Art. 53 Ex.10. Acanthoica Lohmann (1902) and
Acanthoeca W.N. Ellis (1930) both designating
flagellates, are sufﬁciently alike to be considered homonyms (Taxon 22: 313. 1973).

Taxonomy...
Taxonomy...ICN

Parkinson (1986) proposed that Ex.10 should be treated as a parahomonym, but this was not accepted by thecommittee, who voted unanimously to uphold the previous decision, that the two generic names are so similar
as to cause confusion (Nicolson, 1993a). Given the example above, one could consider the genera Calyptrolithina
Heimdal and Calyptrolithophora Heimdal or Calyptrosphaera Lohmann and Sphaerocalyptra Deflandre as sufficiently similar to be treated as homonyms. However, wehave never treated them as such, so in the interest of nomenclatural stability, we should continue to retain them.
Luckily, in the case of Art. 53 Ex. 10 (see above), the nannoplankton genus had priority, but we may not be so lucky
next time. So, we should be careful to avoid creating similar names in the future.
Art. 24 Note 2. Names of infraspeciﬁc taxa
within the same species, even if they differ inrank, are homonyms if they have the sameﬁnal epithet but are based on different types(Art. 53.4), the rank-denoting term not being partof the name.
53.4. The names of two subdivisions of the same
genus, or of two infraspecific taxa within thesame species, even if they are of different rank,
are homonyms if they are not based on thesame type and have the same ﬁnal epithet, orare treated as homonyms if they have a confusingly similar final epithet. The later name is illegitimate.

The silicoflagellates Distephanus crux (Ehrenberg)
Haeckel f. crux and Distephanus crux var. bispinosus
Dumitrică f. crux Locker & Martini (now in Distephanopsis Dumitrică, so not transferred to Stephanocha) belong
to the same species, but the two forms have different typespecimens. However, they have the same final epithet andthe same rank and so the latter is a homonym of the former.
2.7 Autonyms
6.8. Autonyms are such names as can be established automatically under Art. 22.3 and 26.3,
whether or not they actually appear in the
publication in which they are created (see Art.
32.3, Rec. 22B.1 and 26B.1).
7.6. The type of an autonym is the same as thatof the name from which it is derived.
32.3. Autonyms (Art. 6.8) are accepted as validly
published names, dating from the publicationin which they were established (see Art. 22.3
and 26.3), whether or not they actually appear inthat publication.
22.3. The ﬁrst instance of valid publication ofa name of a subdivision of a genus under a legitimate generic name automatically establishes
the corresponding autonym (see also Art. 11.6
and 32.3).

147
11.6. An autonym is treated as having priority
over the name or names of the same date andrank that established it.
Recommendation 22B.1. When publishing a
name of a subdivision of a genus that will alsoestablish an autonym, the author should mention this autonym in the publication.
26.1. The name of any infraspeciﬁc taxon that
includes the type of the adopted, legitimatename of the species to which it is assigned is torepeat the speciﬁc epithet unaltered as its ﬁnal
epithet, not followed by an author citation (seeArt. 46). Such names are autonyms (Art. 6.8; seealso Art. 7.6).

In general, autonyms automatically occur when creating new subspecific taxa (if they do not exist already);
however, creating new subdivisions of genera will also
produce autonyms. It is recommended that autonyms are
mentioned in the paper at this time. It should be remembered that an autonym does not bear an authority or date.
Hence, Emiliania huxleyi var. huxleyi is written as Emiliania huxleyi (Lohmann) Hay & Mohler var. huxleyi. No
mention is made of the first time or by whom a second variety was added to E. huxleyi. Surprisingly, there are many
published examples of authorities incorrectly being added
to autonyms.
2.8 Replacement names
6.11. A replacement name (avowed substitute,nomen novum, nom. nov.) is a new name basedon a legitimate or illegitimate, previously published name, which is its replaced synonym. The
replaced synonym, when legitimate, does notprovide the final epithet, name, or stem of thereplacement name (see also Art. 58.1).
7.4. A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typiﬁedby the type of the replaced synonym eventhough it may have been applied erroneously toa taxon now considered not to include that type(but see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).

When Jordan & McCartney (2015) replaced the illegitimate silicoflagellate genus Distephanus with Stephanocha, they had to use the type species of the former (i.e.
D. rotundus Stöhr) as the type of the replacement genus,
even though D. rotundus is considered to be a synonym of
D. speculum (Ehrenberg) Haeckel and based on a double
skeleton.
2.9 Effective publication
29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, by
distribution of printed matter (through sale,exchange, or gift) to the general public or atleast to scientiﬁc institutions with generally
accessible libraries. Publication is also effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012of electronic material in Portable Document

148

JordanFormat (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1)
in an online publication with an International
Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN).
Art. 29 Note 1. The distribution before 1 January
2012 of electronic material does not constituteeffective publication.
29.2. For the purpose of Art. 29.1, “online” is defined as accessible electronically via the World
Wide Web.
29.3. Should Portable Document Format (PDF)
be succeeded, a successor international standard
format communicated by the General Committee(see Div. III) is acceptable.
Recommendation 29A.1. Publication electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF)
should comply with the PDF/A archival standard (ISO 19005).
Rec. 29A.2. Authors of electronic material should
give preference to publications that are archived
and curated, satisfying the following criteria as
far as is practical (see also Rec. 29A.1):(a) The material should be placed in multiple
trusted online digital repositories, e.g. an ISOcertified repository.
(b) Digital repositories should be in more than
one area of the world and preferably on different continents.
(c) Deposition of printed copies in libraries inmore than one area of the world and preferably on different continents is also advisable(but see Rec. 30A.2).
30.3. The content of a particular electronic publication must not be altered after it is effectively
published. Any such alterations are not themselves effectively published. Corrections or revisions must be issued separately to be effectively
published.
30.8. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an
independent non-serial work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute ofeducation for the purpose of obtaining a degree
does not constitute effective publication unlessthe work includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the Code for effective
publication) or other internal evidence that itis regarded as an effective publication by its
author or publisher.
Recommendation 30A.3. To aid availability
through time and place, authors publishing nomenclatural novelties should give preference toperiodicals that regularly publish taxonomic articles, or else they should send a copy of a publication (printed or electronic) to an indexing
centre appropriate to the taxonomic group. Whensuch publications exist only as printed matter,they should be deposited in at least ten, butpreferably more, generally accessible librar-ies throughout the world.
Rec. 30A.4. Authors and editors are encouraged to mention nomenclatural novelties inthe summary or abstract, or list them in an
index in the publication.
31.1. The date of effective publication is thedate on which the printed matter or electronicmaterial became available as defined in Art.
29 and 30. In the absence of proof establishingsome other date, the one appearing in the printed
matter or electronic material must be accepted ascorrect.
Recommendation 31A.1. The date on which
the publisher or publisher’s agent delivers
printed matter to one of the usual carriers for
distribution to the public should be accepted
as its date of effective publication.

These new Articles explain the changes to what constitutes effective publication, with electronic publications in PDF being acceptable for the first time (effectivefrom 2012, but not before). This major change reflects thegrowth in online journals, and the policy of many journalsof publishing papers online before printing and distributing hard copies.
2.10 Validation of publication
35.1. A name of a taxon below the rank of genus
is not validly published unless the name of thegenus or species to which it is assigned is validly published at the same time or was validly
published previously (but see Art. 13.4).
36.1. A name is not validly published (a) when
it is not accepted by the author in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposedin anticipation of the future acceptance of thetaxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called
provisional name); (c) when it is merely cited
as a synonym; or (d) by the mere mention of
the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. Art. 36.1(a) does not apply to names
published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet accepted bytheir author.
37.1. A name published on or after 1 January
1953 without a clear indication of the rank of
the taxon concerned is not validly published.
37.3. A name published before 1 January 1953
without a clear indication of its rank is validly published provided that all other requirements for valid publication are fulﬁlled; it is,however, inoperative in questions of priority
except for homonymy (see Art. 53.4). If it is thename of a new taxon, it may serve as a basionym
or replaced synonym for subsequent new combinations, names at new ranks, or replacement
names in definite ranks.

Taxonomy...
Taxonomy...ICN

In a number of papers, particularly those in Deep Sea
Drilling Project and Ocean Drilling Program volumes, thenames of subspecific taxa have been described without
giving an indication of the rank. These names are invalidly published. Effective publication can be made by redescribing the taxon with the rank indicated. The authorityand publication date should be accredited to the paper inwhich effective validation was achieved, not the one inwhich the rank was omitted.
38.8. The name of a new species or infraspecifictaxon published before 1 January 1908 may bevalidly published even if only accompanied byan illustration with analysis (see Art. 38.9 and38.10).
39.2. In order to be validly published, a name ofa new taxon published on or after 1 January
2012 must be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis or by a reference(see Art. 38.13) to a previously and effectively
published Latin or English description or diagnosis (for fossils see also Art. 43.1).
40.1. Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of
the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or
below is valid only when the type of the nameis indicated (see Art. 7–10; but see Art. H.9 Note
1 for the names of certain hybrids).
40.4. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of aname of a new species or infraspecific taxon(fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration prior to 1 January 2007; on or after thatdate, the type must be a specimen (except as provided in Art. 40.5).
40.5. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of aname of a new species or infraspecific taxon of
microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively publishedillustration if there are technical difﬁculties ofpreservation or if it is impossible to preservea specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.
40.7. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1990
of which the type is a specimen or unpublishedillustration, the single herbarium or collection or
institution in which the type is conserved must be
specified (see also Rec. 40A.3 and 40A.4).
Recommendation 40A.3. Specification of theherbarium or collection or institution of deposition (see Art. 40 Note 4) should be followed byany available number permanently identifying
the holotype specimen (see also Rec. 9D.1).
Rec. 40A.4. Citation of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition should use one of
the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4.

Although Loeblich & Tappan (1966) considered Discolithus Huxley and Cyatholithus Huxley (Huxley, 1868)149

to be valid, Huxley thought they were not organisms and,thus, they must be treated as invalid. One could cite Art.
36.1 for this, although there does not seem to be a rule forthis exact situation. In reality, the genera were not intended
as algal, fungal or plant names, so they are not coveredby the rules in the ICN and are, thus, invalid in botanicalnomenclature.
41.1. In order to be validly published, a new
combination, name at new rank, or replacement
name (see Art. 6.10 and 6.11), must be accompanied by a reference to the basionym or replaced synonym.
41.3. Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference (see Art. 38.14) to a basionym or replacedsynonym is sufﬁcient for valid publication ofa new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name. Thus, errors in the citation of
the basionym or replaced synonym, or in author
citation (Art. 46), do not affect valid publicationof such names.
41.4. If, for a name of a genus or taxon of lower
rank published before 1 January 1953, no reference to a basionym is given but the conditions
for its valid publication as the name of a new taxon or replacement name are fulfilled, that nameis nevertheless treated as a new combination orname at new rank when this was the author’s
presumed intent and a potential basionym (Art.
6.10) applying to the same taxon exists.
41.5. On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement nameis not validly published unless its basionym orreplaced synonym is clearly indicated and a fulland direct reference given to its author andplace of publication, with page or plate reference and date (but see Art. 41.6 and 41.8). On orafter 1 January 2007, a new combination, nameat new rank, or replacement name is not validly
published unless its basionym or replaced synonym is cited.
41.6. For names published on or after 1 January
1953, errors in the citation of the basionym orreplaced synonym, including incorrect author
citation (Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 41.5)
do not preclude valid publication of a new
combination, name at new rank, or replacement
name.

In many papers, when describing new combinations or
taxa at new ranks, a fully cited basionym is often missing,which invalidates the transfer or promotion/demotion to a
new rank. These changes can be subsequently validated byproviding a full citation to the basionym or replaced synonym. When Dumitrică (1978) described his new silicoflagellate genus Distephanopsis, and included a number of
new combinations, the basionyms of the type species andanother taxon were missing. Validation of these transfers
was carried out by Desikachary & Prema (1996). Remember, errors in the basionym citation do not effect valida-

150

Jordantion and can be corrected later on, without change to theauthority and date. However, omission of the basionym
results in invalidation, thus subsequent validation of thetaxon should be accredited to the later authority, using thedate of the later publication.
2.11 Citations
Art. 46 Note 1. When authorship of a namediffers from authorship of the publication inwhich it was validly published, both are sometimes cited, connected by the word “in”. Insuch a case, “in” and what follows are part ofa bibliographic citation and are better omitted
unless the place of publication is being cited.

Thus, for example, Sphenolithus abies Deflandre ispreferred, but Sphenolithus abies Deflandre in Deflandre& Fert, 1954 is also acceptable, as long as Deflandre &Fert (1954) is cited in the references. But it cannot becited as Sphenolithus abies Deflandre, 1954.
Art. 46 Note 3. A name or its validating description or diagnosis is treated as though ascribed to the author(s) of the publication (asdefined in Art. 46.6) when there is no ascription
to or unequivocal association with a different author or different authors.
46.5. A name of a new taxon is attributed to theauthor(s) of the publication in which it appears
when the name was ascribed to a different author
or different authors but the validating description or diagnosis was neither ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that author or thoseauthors. A new combination, name at new rank,or replacement name is attributed to the author(s)of the publication in which it appears, although it
was ascribed to a different author or different authors, when no separate statement was made that
one or more of those authors contributed in some
way to that publication. However, in both cases
authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may
be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s).
46.10. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties and wishing other persons’ names followedby “ex” to precede theirs in authorship citation
may adopt the “ex” citation in the protologue.
Recommendation 46C.1. After a name publishedjointly by two authors, both authors should becited, linked by the word “et” or by an ampersand (&).

Thus, the word ‘and’ is not recommended when aname is jointly published by two authors.
Recommendation 46C.2. After a name published jointly by more than two authors, the citation should be restricted to the ﬁrst author
followed by “et al.” or “& al.”, except in theoriginal publication.

Recommendation 46D.1. Authors should cite
themselves by name after each nomenclatural novelty they publish rather than referto themselves by expressions such as “nobis”(nob.) or “mihi” (m.).

Most of these are common sense and are being followed by the majority of authors, however, note that it isrecommended that all authors are cited after a new name inthe original publication, but in subsequent publications it
should be simplified to ‘et al.’ or ‘& al.’. If no authorities
are included after the new taxon, then the authorities are
the same as the authorship of the publication, and in thesame order; if you wish to change the order or name(s) of
the authority, then it must be indicated after the new taxon’s name. In the 19th Century, it was usual to add ‘nobis’or ‘mihi’ after new taxa, but no one does this any more. It
should be remembered that the use of ‘ex’ is not mandatory, and thus the preceding author does not need to becited if deemed unnecessary. For instance, the authority
for the Prymnesiaceae can be cited as Conrad ex Schmidt
or merely Schmidt, depending on whether the contribution
made by Conrad is deemed worthy or not. According toArt. 18.4, Conrad’s family name in French is invalid.
2.12 Naming your new taxon
20.2. The name of a genus may not coincidewith a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication unless it was
published before 1 January 1912 and was accompanied by a species name published in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.
20.3. The name of a genus may not consist of
two words, unless these words are joined bya hyphen.
21.3. The epithet in the name of a subdivisionof a genus is not to be formed from the nameof the genus to which it belongs by adding the
preﬁx Eu- (see also Art. 22.2).

Since Eu-discoaster Tan was described as a genus, itdoes not conflict with the above article. However, it cannot be used as a subgenus of the genus Discoaster Tan.
Note that the genus should be written as Eudiscoaster toconform with Art. 60.9.
60.4. The letters w and y, foreign to classical
Latin, and k, rare in that language, are permissible in scientiﬁc names (see Art. 32.1(b)).
Other letters and ligatures foreign to classical
Latin that may appear in scientific names, suchas the German ß (double s), are to be transcribed.
60.6. Diacritical signs are not used in scientiﬁc names. When names (either new or old) are
drawn from words in which such signs appear,
the signs are to be suppressed with the necessary transcription of the letters so modiﬁed;
for example ä, ö, ü become, respectively, ae, oe,Taxonomy...
Taxonomy...ICNue; é, è, ê become e; ñ becomes n; ø becomes oe;å becomes ao. The diaeresis, indicating that avowel is to be pronounced separately from thepreceding vowel (as in Cephaëlis, Isoëtes), is aphonetic device that is not considered to alter
the spelling; as such, its use is optional. The
ligatures -æ- and -œ-, indicating that the letters
are pronounced together, are to be replaced by
the separate letters -ae- and -oe-.

In nannoplankton nomenclature, there are only a few
examples of transcription, such as in Gephyrocapsa muellerae Bréhéret (after Carla Müller). When Jerkovič (1970)
described the genus Noëlaerhabdus and the family Noëlaerhabdaceae (after Denise Noël), the diaeresis (ë) wasused in the name. Although its use is optional, it is perhaps
better to exclude it, and use the plain forms Noelaerhabdus
and Noelaerhabdaceae. In that way, it is not mistaken foran umlaut, which is not allowed in an epithet of a taxon,and must be transcribed.
60.8. Adjectival epithets that combine elements derived from two or more Greek or
Latin words but are not formed in accordancewith Rec. 60G.1(a) are to be corrected to conform with it, unless Rec. 60G.1(b) or (c) applies.
In particular, the use, in pseudocompounding,of the genitive singular of Latin first-declension
nouns (Rec. 60G.1(c)) instead of a regular compound (Rec. 60G.1(a)) is treated as an error to becorrected unless it serves to make an etymological distinction.
60.9. The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to be corrected bydeletion of the hyphen. A hyphen is permitted
only when the epithet is formed of words thatusually stand independently, or when the letters before and after the hyphen are the same(see also Art. 23.1 and 23.3).

The specific epithet of Cylindralithus? van-nieliae
Burnett, named after Brigitta van Niel, is allowed because
the two letters before and after the hyphen are the same.
Equally, Ceratolithoides self-trailiae Burnett is permitted
because the two words separated by the hyphen stand independently in the surname of Jean Self-Trail, who is honoured in this epithet. The same could be said of Lithraphidites moray-firthensis Jakubowski and the two words ofthe geographic location (Moray Firth) they honour. However, the hyphens in the generic names Eu-discoaster Tan,
Helio-discoaster Tan and Hemi-discoaster Tan should be
removed (as done in various publications), without change
to the authority and date.
60.10. The use of an apostrophe in an epithet
is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the apostrophe. The use of a full stop
(period) in an epithet that is derived from apersonal or geographical name that contains
this full stop is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the full stop.

151
Rec. 60B.1. When a new generic name, or epithet in a new name of a subdivision of a genus,
is taken from the name of a person, it should beformed as follows (see Rec. 20A.1(i)):(a) When the name of the person ends
with a vowel, the letter -a is added (thusOttoa after Otto; Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name ends with -a, when-ea is added (e.g. Collaea after Colla), orwith -ea (as Correa), when no letter isadded.
(b) When the name of the person ends
with a consonant, the letters -ia areadded, but when the name ends with -er,
either of the terminations -ia and -a isappropriate (e.g. Sesleria after Sesler and
Kernera after Kerner).
(c) In latinized personal names ending
with -us this termination is dropped before applying the procedure describedunder (a) and (b) (e.g. Dillenia after Dillenius).

Hence, Emiliania Hay & Mohler was named after Cesar Emiliani and Gaarderia Kleijne was named after Karen Gaarder. It should be noted that words ending in -a aresupposed to use the termination -ea, as in Gorkaea Varol& Girgis (after Hanna Górka). However, leaving genericnames unchanged is unusual, but permissible under Art.
20.1 (see below). In nannoplankton taxonomy, there is one
such case, Rebecca J.C. Green (named after his daughter).
Since Rebecca is from Hebrew, and the spelling in Latin isunchanged, using Rebecca as a genus is not incorrect, despite conflicting with Rec. 60B.1(a). After all, it is merelya recommendation, not a rule.
The following suffixes are commonly used for genericand specific epithets:-ensis (e.g. adenensis, brasiliensis), -(a)nus, -inus or -icus(e.g. adriaticus, caribbeanica, japonica) used in combination with place names means ‘originating in’ or ‘typical of’or ‘characteristic of’ (see Rec. 60D).
-ius means ‘characteristic of’ or ‘connected with’. However, when used in combination with a person’s name, as
in Prinsius Hay & Mohler (after Ben Prins) or Toweius
Hay & Mohler (after Kenneth Towe), it is contrary to Rec.
20A.1(i), which recommends a feminine form for all generic names commemorating people (regardless of whether they are male or female) and so, under Rec. 60B.1(b),the examples above would be Prinsia and Toweia. But
these are only recommendations and so Prinsius and Toweius are not to be rejected merely because they are contrary to Code recommendations.
-fer, -fera, -ferus (e.g. cancellifer, papillifera, ponticuliferus), -phora (e.g. Periphyllophora Kamptner), or -ocha(e.g. Dictyocha, Stephanocha) means ‘to carry’ or ‘bear’.
-opsis (e.g. calceolariopsis) means ‘resembling’. However, this suffix has been attached to personal names indisregard of its classical meaning (see David, 2003).
-ella (e.g. Quaternariella Thomsen) means ‘small’ or152

Jordan‘diminutive’. However, for a long time now, authors haveattached the suffix to personal names in disregard of its
classical meaning (see Steyskal, 1970).
Occasionally, some odd combinations have been published, which commemorate people, such as Gleserocha
McCartney et al., which would literally mean ‘carrying
Dr. Gleser’, or Perchnielsenella Watkins, which would
mean ‘a small Katharina Perch-Nielsen’. In fact, many
genera in various algal groups have been erected using thesuffix -ella in combination with personal names. If anothergenus name already existed that commemorated the same
person, then using -iella or -ella for the second genus, asa diminutive form of the other genus, would be appropriate. However, using this suffix merely to honour a person
is not to be recommended. But such names are not to be
rejected because of this incorrect usage.
20.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, or a word treated as such, andis written with an initial capital letter (see Art.
60.2). It may be taken from any source whatever,
and may even be composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner, but it must not end in -virus.
Recommendation 20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the following:(a) Use Latin terminations insofar as possible.
(b) Avoid names not readily adaptable to
the Latin language.
(c) Not make names that are very long or
difﬁcult to pronounce in Latin.
(d) Not make names by combining words
from different languages.
(e) Indicate, if possible, by the formation or
ending of the name the affinities or analogies of the genus.
(f) Avoid adjectives used as nouns.
(g) Not use a name similar to or derived
from the epithet in the name of one of thespecies of the genus.
(h) Not dedicate genera to persons quite
unconnected with botany, mycology, phycology, or natural science in general.
(i) Give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemoratea man or a woman (see Rec. 60B; see also
Rec. 62A.1).
(j) Not form generic names by combining
parts of two existing generic names, becausesuch names are likely to be confused with
nothogeneric names (see Art. H.6).
Recommendation 23A.3. In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also with the following:...
(d) Avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words.
(e) Avoid those that have the same meaning
as the generic name (pleonasm).
(f) Avoid those that express a character common to all or nearly all the species of a genus.
(g) Avoid in the same genus those that arevery much alike, especially those which dif-

fer only in their last letters or in the arrangement of two letters.
(h) Avoid those that have been used before
in any closely allied genus.
(i) Not adopt epithets from unpublishednames found in correspondence, travellers’
notes, herbarium labels, or similar sources,
attributing them to their authors, unlessthese authors have approved publication(see Rec. 50G).
(j) Avoid using the names of little-known orvery restricted localities unless the species
is quite local.

The holococcolithophore Poritectolithus poritectum(Heimdal) Kleijne, following its transfer from Helladosphaera Kamptner, would now appear to conflict with Rec.
23A.3(e), since the generic and specific epithets have almost identical meanings.
While these are merely recommendations, they doserve as a general guide for giving new taxa sensible
names. However, some are rather vague. For instance,
Rec. 23A.3(j) does not provide any examples of how small
is small. So does Disko Bay in Greenland (used in thename Trigonaspis diskoensis Thomsen) constitute a very
restricted locality and is it little-known?
3. Conclusions
The new rulings of the ICN (McNeill et al., 2012) affect nannoplankton and silicoflagellate nomenclature. In
particular, the priority of non-fossil (= extant) types overfossil-types (Art. 11.8) will cause some problems in the future, especially if more ‘living fossils’ are found and given
new generic names. On the other hand, and to the relief ofmany taxonomists, the newly introduced Art. 39.2 allows,
for the first time, the use of English (instead of Latin) in
the descriptions of new non-fossil taxa. Also, with therise in online journals, effective publication can now be
achieved by electronic material in PDF (Art. 29.1).
Thus, it is essential that we collaborate with nomenclature committee members to ensure that existing articles and recommendations can be emended, and names
conserved or rejected, where necessary. Also, we should
follow these rules as closely as possible to avoid creating
orthographically incorrect taxon names and chaotic classification schemes for our algal groups.
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the two reviewers, Laurel Bybell and Lucy
Edwards, as well as Jamie Shamrock (Editor) and Jean Self-Trail(Guest Editor) for improving the text. This paper would not havebeen submitted without the encouragement and enthusiasm ofJean, who invited me to explain the new ICN rules to a wider audience using nannoplankton examples. I am also grateful to John
McNeill, for answering my queries on some of the ICN rules.

References

Aubry, M.-P. & Bord, D. 2009. Reshuffling the cards in the photic zone at the Eocene/Oligocene boundary. Geological Society of America, Special Papers, 452: 279-301.
Braarud, T., Bramlette, M.N., Deflandre, G., Kamptner, E.,
Loeblich, A.R., Jr., Martini, E. & Tappan, H. 1964. Rhab-Taxonomy...
Taxonomy...ICN
dosphaera Haeckel, 1894 (Coccolithophorida): proposed
validation under the plenary powers and designation of a lectotype for Coccolithus oceanicus Schwarz, 1894. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, 21: 397-400.
Burnett, J. 1997. ICBN – Things you need to know index. Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 19(1): 9-10.
Casper, S.J. 1972. Zum Feinbau der Geisseln der Chrysomonaden. I. Uroglena americana Calkins. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 114: 65-82.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1978. The evolutionary origin and phylogenyof microtubules, mitotic spindles and eukaryotic flagella.
BioSystems, 10: 93-114.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1986. The kingdom Chromista: origin andsystematics. Progress in Phycological Research, 4: 309-347.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1998. A revised six-kingdom system of life.
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,73: 203-266.
Christensen, T. 1962. Alger. In: T.W. Böcher, M. Lange & T.
Sørensen (Eds). Botanik. Bind II. Systematisk Botanik, Nr.2.
Munksgaard, København: 178pp.
Conrad, W. 1926. Recherches sur les Flagellates de nos eauxsaumâtres. 2e partie: Chrysomonadines. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 56: 176-231.
David, J.C. 2003. Orthographic conundrums: the problem of-opsis and -botrys. Taxon, 52: 603-608.
Deflandre, G. & Fert, C. 1954. Observations sur les coccolithophoridés actuels et fossiles en microscopie ordinaire etélectronique. Annales de Paléontologie, 40: 115-176.
Desikachary, T.V. & Prema, P. 1996. Silicoflagellates (Dictyochophyceae). Bibliotheca Phycologica, 100: 1-298.
Dumitrică, P. 1978. Badenian silicoflagellates from Central Paratethys. Chronostratigraphie und Neostratotypen. In: A.
Papp, L. Cicha, J. Senes & F. Steininger (Eds). Miozän der
Zentralen Paratethys. M4-Badenian (Moravien, Wielicien,
Kosovien). E. Brestenska, Bratislava: 207-230.
Edvardsen, B., Eikrem, W., Green, J.C., Andersen, R.A., MoonVan der Staay, S.Y. & Medlin, L.K. 2000. Phylogenetic reconstructions of the Haptophyta inferred from 18S ribosomal
DNA sequences and available morphological data. Phycologia, 39: 19-35.
Edvardsen, B. & Medlin, L.K. 2007. Molecular systematics ofHaptophyta. In: J. Lewis & J. Brodie (Eds). Unravelling thealgae: the past, present and future of algal molecular systematics. Systematics Association Special Volume, 75: 183-196.
Evans, G.O. & China, W.E. 1967. Opinion 805. Rhabdosphaera
Haeckel, 1894 (Coccolithophorida): validated under the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 24(1):20-21.
Frada, M., Young, J.R., Cachão, M., Lino, S., Martins, A., Narciso, Á., Probert, I. & de Vargas, C. 2010. A guide to extant
coccolithophores (Calcihaptophycidae, Haptophyta) using light microscopy. Journal of Nannoplankton Research,
31(2): 58-112.
Green, J.C. & Jordan, R.W. 1994. Systematic history and taxonomy. In: J.C. Green & B.S.C. Leadbeater (Eds). The Haptophyte Algae. Systematics Association Special Volume,
No.51: 1-21. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hackett, J.D., Soon, H.S., Li, S., Reyes-Prieto, A., Rümmele,
S.E. & Bhattacharya, D. 2007. Phylogenomic analysis supports the monophyly of cryptophytes and haptophytes andthe association of Rhizaria with chromalveolates. Molecular
Biology and Evolution, 24(8): 1702-1713.
Haeckel, E. 1889. Natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte, Achteumgearbeitete und vermehrte Auﬂage. Georg Reimer, Berlin, [I]-XXX: 832pp.
Haeckel, E. 1894. Systematische Phylogenie der Protisten und

153

Pﬂanzen. Erster Theil des Entwurfs einer systematischen
Stammesgeschichte. Georg Reimer: 400pp.
Hagino, K., Young, J.R., Bown, P.R., Godrijan, J., Kulhanek,
D.K., Kogame, K. & Horiguchi, T. 2015. Re-discovery ofa “living fossil” coccolithophore from the coastal waters ofJapan and Croatia. Marine Micropaleontology, 116: 28-37.
Hamilton, C.W. & Reichard, S.H. 1992. Current practice in theuse of subspecies, variety, and forma in the classification ofwild plants. Taxon, 41(3): 485-498.
Hay, W.W. 1967. Proposal for the conservation of the genericname Cyclococcolithus Kamptner, 1954 and the rejection ofCalcidiscus Kamptner, 1950 [Chrysoph.]. Taxon, 16(3): 240242.
van Heck, S.E. 1990a. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 1.
INA Newsletter, 12(1): 19-20.
van Heck, S.E. 1990b. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 2.
INA Newsletter, 12(2): 8-10.
van Heck, S.E. 1990c. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 3.
INA Newsletter, 12(3): 59-61.
van Heck, S.E. 1991a. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 4.
INA Newsletter, 13(1): 8-9.
van Heck, S.E. 1991b. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 5.
INA Newsletter, 13(3): 101-102.
van Heck, S.E. 1992a. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 6.
INA Newsletter, 14(1): 12-13.
van Heck, S.E. 1992b. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 7.
INA Newsletter, 14(3): 100-101.
van Heck, S.E. 1993. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 8.
INA Newsletter, 15(1): 8-9.
van Heck, S.E. 1994a. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 9.
Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 16(1): 6-7.
van Heck, S.E. 1994b. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 10.
Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 16(2): 55-58.
van Heck, S.E. 1994c. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 11.
Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 16(3): 107-108.
van Heck, S.E. 1995. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 12.
Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 17(1): 5-7.
van Heck, S.E. 1996a. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 13.
Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18(1): 12-13.
van Heck, S.E. 1996b. The ICBN: Things you need to know – 14.
Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18(2): 48-50.
Hibberd, D.J. 1972. Chrysophyta: definition and interpretation.
British Phycological Journal, 7: 281.
Hibberd, D.J. 1976. The ultrastructure and taxonomy of the
Chrysophyceae and Prymnesiophyceae (Haptophyceae): a
survey with some new observations on the ultrastructure of
the Chrysophyceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 72: 55-80.
Huxley, T.H. 1868. On some organisms living at great depths in
the North Atlantic Ocean. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, ser.2, 8: 203-212.
Jerkovič, L. 1970. Noëlaerhabdus nov. gen. type d’une nouvellefamille de Coccolithophoridés fossils: Noëlaerhabdaceae
du Miocène supérieur de Yougoslavie. Comptes Rendus del’Académie des Sciences Paris, 270: 468-470.
Jordan, R.W. & Green, J.C. 1994. A check-list of the extant Haptophyta of the World. Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom, 74: 149-174.
Jordan, R.W. & McCartney, K. 2015. Stephanocha nom. nov., areplacement name for the illegitimate silicoflagellate genus
Distephanus (Dictyochophyceae). Phytotaxa, 201: 177-187.
Lemmermann, E. 1908. Flagellatae, Chlorophyceae, Coccosphaerales und Silicoflagellatae. In: K. Brandt & C. Apstein(Eds). Nordisches Plankton, 21: 1-40.
Liu, H., Aris-Brosou, S., Probert, I. & de Vargas, C. 2010. A timeline of the environmental genetics of the haptophytes. Mo-

154

Jordanlecular Biology and Evolution, 27: 161-176.
Loeblich, A.R. & Tappan, H. 1966. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. Phycologia, 5:
81-216.
Lohmann, H. 1902. Die Coccolithophoridae, eine Monographie
der Coccolithen bildenden Flagellaten, zugleich ein Beitragzur Kenntnis der Mittelmeerauftriebs. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 1: 89-165.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Buck, W.R., Demoulin, V., Greuter, W.,
Hawksworth, D.L., Herendeen, P.S., Knapp, S., Marhold,K., Prado, J., Prud’homme Van Reine, W.F., Smith, G.F.,
Wiersema, J.H. & Turland, N.J. 2012. International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code)adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress,
Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. Regnum Vegetabile 154.
Koeltz Scientific Books, http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/
main.php?page=title
Nicolson, D.H. 1993a. Report on the status of proposals to conserve and/or reject names (nomina conservanda et rejicienda
proposita) published by the end of 1992. Taxon, 42(2): 435446.
Nicolson, D.H. 1993b. General Committee Report 5. Taxon,
42(2): 431-434.
Ostenfeld, C.H. 1899. Über Coccosphaera und einige neue Tintinniden im Plankton des nördlichen Atlantischen Oceans.
Zoologischer Anzeiger, 22: 433-439.
Parkinson, P.G. 1986. (259)-(262) Proposals on homonyms andparahomonyms. Taxon, 35: 843-846.
Rothmaler, W. 1951. Die Abteilungen und Klassen der Pflanzen.
Feddes Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis,
54: 256-266.
Schmidt, O.C. 1931. Algen 1925-1927. Mit Nachträgen aus den
Jahren 1914 bis 1924. Just’s Botanischer Jahresbericht, 55:
20-312.
Silva, P.C. 1975. Report of the Committee for Algae. Taxon,
24(5/6): 690.
Silva, P.C. 1980. Names of families and classes of living algaewith special reference to their use in the Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum). Regnum Vegetabile, 103: 1-156.
Silva, P.C., Throndsen, J. & Eikrem, W. 2007. Revisiting the nomenclature of haptophytes. Phycologia, 46(4): 471-475.
Steyskal, G.C. 1970. On the nature and use of the suffix –ellus,-ella, -ellum in species-group names. Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society, 24(1): 38-41.
Thompson, A.W., Foster, R.A., Krupke, A., Carter, B.J., Muscat,N., Vaulot, D., Kuypers, M.M.M. & Zehr, J.P. 2012. Unicellular cyanobacterium symbiotic with a single-celled eukaryotic alga. Science, 337: 1546-1550.
de Vargas, C., Aubry, M.-P., Probert, I. & Young, J.R. 2007. Origin and evolution of coccolithophores: from coastal hunters
to ocean farmers. In: P. Falkowski & A.H. Knoll (Eds). Evolution of Aquatic Photoautotrophs. Elsevier: 251-286.
Whittaker, R.H. & Margulis, L. 1978. Protist classification andthe kingdoms of organisms. BioSystems, 10: 3-18.