Source: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_24.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-19 16:42:50
Document Index: 331685128

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 23', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 53']

NAMES OF TAXA BELOW THE RANK OF SPECIES
24.2. Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets and, when adjectival in form and not used as nouns, they agree grammatically with the generic name (see Art. 23.5 and 32.2).
Ex. 2. Solanum melongena var. insanum (L.) Prain (Bengal Pl.: 746. 1903, ‘insana’).
24.3. Infraspecific names with final epithets such as genuinus, originalis, originarius, typicus, verus, and veridicus, or with the prefix eu-, when purporting to indicate the taxon containing the type of the name of the next higher-ranked taxon, are not validly published unless they have the same final epithet as the name of the corresponding higher-ranked taxon (see Art. 26.2, Rec. 26A.1, and 26A.3).
Ex. 3. “Hieracium piliferum var. genuinum” (Rouy, Fl. France 9: 270. 1905) was based on “H. armerioides var. genuinum” of Arvet-Touvet (Hieracium Alpes Franç.: 37. 1888), a designation not validly published under Art. 26.2. As circumscribed by Rouy, the taxon does not include the type of H. piliferum Hoppe, but it does include the type of the name of the next higher-ranked taxon, H. piliferum subsp. armerioides (Arv.-Touv.) Rouy. Therefore, “H. piliferum var. genuinum” is not a validly published name of a new variety.
Ex. 4. “Narcissus bulbocodium var. eu-praecox” and “N. bulbocodium var. eu-albidus” were not validly published by Emberger & Maire (in Jahandiez & Maire, Cat. Pl. Maroc: 961. 1941) because they were placed, respectively, in N. bulbocodium subsp. praecox Gattef. & Maire (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 28: 540. 1937) and N. bulbocodium subsp. albidus (Emb. & Maire) Maire (in Jahandiez & Maire, Cat. Pl. Maroc: 138. 1931) and their epithet purports inclusion of the type of the higher-ranked name in the subordinate variety.
Ex. 5. “Lobelia spicata var. originalis” (McVaugh in Rhodora 38: 308. 1936) was not validly published (see Art. 26 Ex. 1), whereas the autonyms Galium verum L. subsp. verum and G. verum var. verum are validly published.
Ex. 6. Aloe perfoliata var. vera L. (Sp. Pl.: 320. 1753) is validly published because it does not purport to contain the type of A. perfoliata L. (l.c. 1753).
24.4. A name with a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet, but otherwise in accordance with this Code, is treated as validly published in the form determined by Art. 24.1 without change of authorship or date.
Ex. 7. Salvia grandiflora subsp. “S. willeana” (Holmboe in Bergens Mus. Skr., ser. 2, 1(2): 157. 1914) is to be altered to S. grandiflora subsp. willeana Holmboe.
Ex. 8. Phyllerpa prolifera var. “Ph. firma” (Kützing, Sp. Alg.: 495. 1849) is to be altered to P. prolifera var. firma Kütz.
Ex. 9. Cynoglossum cheirifolium “β. Anchusa (lanata)” (Lehmann, Pl. Asperif. Nucif.: 141. 1818), a new combination based on Anchusa lanata L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 914. 1759), is to be altered to C. cheirifolium var. lanatum (L.) Lehm.
Ex. 10. Rosa glutinosa var. leioclada H. Christ (in Boissier, Fl. Orient. Suppl.: 222. 1888) and Rosa jundzillii f. leioclada Borbás (in Math. Term. Közlem. 16: 376, 383. 1880) are both permissible, as is Viola tricolor var. hirta Ging. (in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 304. 1824), in spite of the previous existence of Viola hirta L. (Sp. Pl.: 934. 1753).
Note 2. Names of infraspecific taxa within the same species, even if they differ in rank, are homonyms if they have the same final epithet but are based on different types (Art. 53.3), because the rank-denoting term is not part of the name.
24B.2. When an infraspecific taxon is raised to the rank of species, or the inverse change occurs, the final epithet of its name should be retained unless the resulting combination would be contrary to the Code.