Source: http://home.kpn.nl/klaasvanmanen/icbn/0036Ch4Sec2a032.htm
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 16:12:01
Document Index: 489777979

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 29', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 60', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 61', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 45', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 32']

ICBN (Vienna Code) - Article 32
32.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted) must: (a) be effectively published see Art. 29, 30, 31) on or after the starting-point date of the respective group (Art. 13.1); (b) be composed only of letters of the Latin alphabet, except as provided in Art. 23.3 and Art. 60.4, 60.6, 60.9, and 60.10; (c) have a form which complies with the provisions of Art. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (but see 21.4, and 24.4), and Art. H.6 and H.7; (d) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (except as provided in Art. 42.3, 44.1, and H.9); and (e) comply with the special provisions of Art. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 (see also Art. 61).
Ex. 1. “Egeria” (Néraud in Gaudichaud, Voy. Uranie, Bot.: 25, 28. 1826), published without a description or a diagnosis or a reference to a former one, was not validly published.
Ex. 2. “Loranthus macrosolen Steud.” originally appeared without a description or diagnosis on the printed labels issued about the year 1843 with Sect. II, No. 529, 1288, of Schimper’s herbarium specimens of Abyssinian plants; the name was not validly published, however, until Richard (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 1: 340. 1847) supplied a description.
*Ex. 3. In Don, Sweet’s Hortus britannicus, ed. 3 (1839), for each listed species the flower colour, the duration of the plant, and a translation into English of the specific epithet are given in tabular form. In many genera the flower colour and duration may be identical for all species and clearly their mention is not intended as a validating description or diagnosis. New names appearing in that work are therefore not validly published, except in some cases where reference is made to earlier descriptions or diagnoses or to validly published basionyms.
Ex. 4. “Crepis praemorsa subsp. tatrensis” (Dvořák & Dadáková in Biológia (Bratislava) 32: 755. 1977) appeared with “a subsp. praemorsa karyotypo achaeniorumque longitudine praecipue differt”. This statement specifies the features by which the two taxa differ but not how these features differ and so it does not satisfy the requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a “description or diagnosis”.
Ex. 5. The generic name Epilichen Clem. (Gen. Fungi 174. 1909) is validly published with the two-word diagnosis “Karschia lichenicola”, referring to the ability of the included species formerly included in Karschia to grow on lichens. This statement, in the opinion of Clements, distinguished the genus from others although provision of such a diagnosis would not be considered good practice today.
Ex. 6. “Musa basjoo” (Siebold in Verh. Bat. Genootsch. Kunsten 12: 18. 1830) appeared with “Ex insulis Luikiu introducta, vix asperitati hiemis resistens. Ex foliis linteum, praesertim in insulis Luikiu ac quibusdam insulis provinciae Satzuma conficitur. Est haud dubie linteum, quod Philippinis incolis audit Nippis”. This statement gives information about the economic use (linen is made from the leaves), horticultural attribute (scarcely survives the winter), and on its origin (introduced from the Ryukyu Islands), but since there is no descriptive information given for the “leaves”, the only descriptive feature mentioned, it does not satisfy the requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a “description or diagnosis”. Musa basjoo Siebold & Zucc. ex Iinuma was later validly published in Iinuma, Sintei Somoku Dzusetsu [Illustrated Flora of Japan], ed. 2, 3: pl. 1. 1874 with floral details and an extensive description in Japanese on the page facing the plate.
32.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a “description or diagnosis”, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III), which will refer it for examination to the committee for the appropriate taxonomic group. A recommendation whether or not to treat the name concerned as validly published may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress, and if ratified will become a binding decision.
Ex. 7. “Kratzmannia” (Opiz in Berchtold & Opiz, Oekon.-Techn. Fl. Böhm. 1: 398. 1836) was published with a diagnosis but was not definitely accepted by the author and therefore was not validly published. Kratzmannia Opiz (Seznam: 56. 1852), lacking description or diagnosis, is however definitely accepted, and its citation as “Kratzmannia O.” constitutes indirect reference to the diagnosis published in 1836.
Ex. 8. Opiz published the name of the genus Hemisphace (Benth.) Opiz (1852) without a description or diagnosis, but as he wrote “Hemisphace Benth.” he indirectly referred to the previously effectively published description by Bentham (Labiat. Gen. Spec.: 193. 1833) of Salvia sect. Hemisphace.
Ex. 9. The new combination Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson (1882) is validaly published through the cryptic notation “309”, which, as explained at the top of the same page, is the running-number of the species (Andropogon martini Roxb.) in Steudel (Syn. Pl. Glumac. 1: 388. 1854). Although the reference to the basionym Andropogon martini is indirect, it is unambiguous (but see Art. 45 Ex. 1; see also Rec. 60C.2).
Ex. 10. Miller (1768), in the preface to The gardeners dictionary, ed. 8, stated that he had “now applied Linnaeus’s method entirely except in such particulars ...”, of which he gave examples. In the main text, he often referred to Linnaean genera under his own generic headings, e.g., to Cactus L. [pro parte] under Opuntia Mill. Therefore an implicit reference to a Linnaean binomial may be assumed when this is appropriate, and Miller’s binomials are then accepted as new combinations (e.g., O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill., based on C. ficus-indica L.) or nomina nova (e.g., O. vulgaris Mill., based on C. opuntia L.: both names have the reference to “Opuntia vulgo herbariorum” of Bauhin & Cherler in common).
Ex. 11. Although no authors are cited for the names in Kummer’s Führer in die Pilzkunde (1871) statements therein allow implicit reference to earlier authors such as Fries (see Art. 33 Ex. 7 and Pennycook in Mycotaxon 84: 163-219, 2002).
32.9. Names in specified ranks included in publications listed as suppressed works (opera utique oppressa; App. VI) are not validly published. Proposals for the addition of publications to App. VI must be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III), which will refer them for examination to the committees for the various taxonomic groups (see Rec. 32F; see also Art. 14.14).
32F.1. When a proposal for the suppression of a publication under Art. 32.9 has been referred to the appropriate committees for study, authors should follow existing usage of names as far as possible pending the General Committee’s recommendation on the proposal.