Source: http://home.kpn.nl/klaasvanmanen/icbn/0018Ch2Sec4a014.htm
Timestamp: 2018-10-23 03:52:39
Document Index: 104499385

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 56']

ICBN (Vienna Code) - Article 14
14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art. 13, this Code provides, in App. II, III and IV, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved (nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E). Conserved names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegitimate.
14.2. Conservation aims at retention of those names which best serve stability of nomenclature.
14.3. The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by nomenclatural types. The type of the specific name cited as the type of a conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in App. III.
14.4. A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other names in the same rank based on the same type (nomenclatural, i.e., homotypic, synonyms, which are to be rejected) whether or not these are cited in the corresponding list as rejected names, and against those names based on different types (taxonomic, i.e., heterotypic, synonyms) that are listed as rejected. A conserved name of a species is conserved against all names listed as rejected1, and against all combinations based on the rejected names.
Note 1. The Code does not provide for conservation of a name against itself, i.e., against an “isonym” (Art. 6 Note 2), the same name with the same type but with a different place and date of valid publication and perhaps with a different authorship (but see Art. 14.9) than is given in the relevant entry in App. II, III or IV.
Note 2. A species name listed as conserved or rejected in App. IV may have been published as the name of a new taxon, or as a combination based on an earlier name. Rejection of a name based on an earlier name does not in itself preclude the use of the earlier name since that name is not “a combination based on a rejected name” (Art. 14.4).
Ex. 6. To preserve the name Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook (1900), its basionym Oreodoxa regia Kunth (1816) is conserved against Palma elata W. Bartram (1791). However, the latter remains available as the basionym of R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper (1946), if this name is applied to a species distinct from R. regia.
14.7. A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may not be restored for a taxon that includes the type of the corresponding conserved name.
Ex. 7. Enallagma Baill. (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma and Amphitecna are united, the combined genus must bear the name Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved against Dendrosicus.
Ex. 8. Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the listed type of Plectranthus L‘Hér. be changed from P. punctatus (L. f.) L‘Hér. to P. fruticosus L‘Hér. This proposal was approved by the appropriate Committees and by an International Botanical Congress.
Ex. 9. Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved from its place of valid publication even though its conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932, was not originally included in Linnaeus’s species.
Ex. 10. Protea L. (1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic name, P. cynaroides (L.) L. (1771), which in 1753 was placed in the genus Leucadendron. Protea was therefore conserved from the 1771 publication, and Protea L. (1771), although not designed to be a new generic name and still including the original type elements, is treated as if it were a validly published homonym of Protea L. (1753).
Ex. 11. The generic name Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against Damapana Adans. (1763), is thereby conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777).
Ex. 12. The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved against the original spelling Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be cited as Rhodymenia Grev. (1830).
Note 3. The date of conservation does not affect the priority (Art. 11) of a conserved name, which is determined only on the basis of the date of valid publication (Art. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45; but see Art. 14.9).
14A.1. When a proposal for the conservation of a name, or of its rejection under Art. 56, has been referred 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.
footnote 1. The International code of zoological nomenclature and the International code of nomenclature of bacteria use the terms “objective synonym” and “subjective synonym” for nomenclatural and taxonomic synonym, respectively.