Source: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_33.html
Timestamp: 2018-08-17 03:40:36
Document Index: 335605518

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 41', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 40', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 32']

33.1. The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is that on which the last is fulfilled. However, the name must always be explicitly accepted in the place of its valid publication. A name published on or after 1 January 1973 for which the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published unless full and direct reference (Art. 41.5) is given to the place(s) where these requirements were previously fulfilled (but see Art. 41.7).
Ex. 1. “Clypeola minor” first appeared in the Linnaean thesis Flora monspeliensis (p. 21, 1756), in a list of names preceded by numerals but without an explanation of the meaning of these numerals and without any other descriptive matter; when the thesis was reprinted in vol. 4 of the Amoenitates academicae (1759), a statement was added (p. 475) explaining that the numbers referred to earlier descriptions published in Magnol’s Botanicum monspeliense (1676). However, “Clypeola minor” was absent from the reprint and was not therefore validly published.
Ex. 2. When proposing “Graphis meridionalis” as a new species, Nakanishi (in J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 75. 1966) provided a Latin description but failed to designate a type. Graphis meridionalis M. Nakan. was validly published only when Nakanishi (in J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B(2), 11: 265. 1967) designated the holotype of the name and provided a full and direct reference to his previous publication.
Ex. 3. “Passiflora salpoense” (Leiva & Tantalean in Arnaldoa 22: 39. 2015) was not validly published because, although a single gathering, S. Leiva & M. Leiva 5806, was designated as “tipo”, it was specified as being conserved in five herbaria, contrary to Art. 40.7. The name P. salpoensis S. Leiva & Tantalean (again as ‘salpoense’, but correctable to salpoensis under Art. 23.5 and 32.2) was validly published only when the same authors (in Arnaldoa 23: 628. 2016) designated the same gathering as “lectotipo” in a single herbarium, HAO, with “isolectotipos” in CORD, F, MO, and HUT (correctable, respectively, to holotype and isotypes under Art. 9.10), while providing a full and direct reference to their previously published (l.c. 2015) validating English diagnosis of the species.
33.2. A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art. 32.2 and 60) does not affect its date.
Ex. 4. The correction of the erroneous spelling of Gluta ‘benghas’ L. (Mant. Pl.: 293. 1771) to G. renghas L. does not affect the date of the name even though the correction dates from 1883 (Engler in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4: 225).