International Code of Botanical Nomenclature

(Tokyo Code), Electronic version



Article 48

48.1. When an author adopts an existing name but definitely excludes its original type, a later homonym that must be attributed solely to that author is considered to have been published. Similarly, when an author who adopts a name refers to an apparent basionym but explicitly excludes its type, a new name is considered to have been published that must be attributed solely to that author. Exclusion can be effected by simultaneous explicit inclusion of the type in a different taxon by the same author (see also Art. 59.6).

Ex. 1. Sirodot (1872) placed the type of Lemanea Bory (1808) in Sacheria Sirodot (1872); hence Lemanea, as treated by Sirodot (1872), is to be cited as Lemanea Sirodot non Bory and not as Lemanea Bory emend. Sirodot.

Ex. 2. The name Amorphophallus campanulatus Decne. (1834) was apparently based on the illegitimate Arum campanulatum Roxb. (1819). However, the type of the latter was explicitly excluded by Decaisne, and his name is therefore a legitimate name of a new species, to be attributed solely to him.

Ex. 3. Cenomyce ecmocyna Ach. (1810) is a superfluous name for Lichen gracilis L. (1753), and so is Scyphophora ecmocyna Gray (1821), the type of L. gracilis still being included. However, when proposing the combination Cladonia ecmocyna, Leighton (1866) explicitly excluded that type and thereby published a new, legitimate name, Cladonia ecmocyna Leight.

Note 1. Misapplication of a new combination to a different taxon, but without explicit exclusion of the type of the basionym, is dealt with under Art. 7.4.

Note 2. Retention of a name in a sense that excludes its original type, or its type designated under Art. 7, 8, 9, 10 can be effected only by conservation (see Art. 14.9).

Contents | Next/previous article | Subject index | Index to scientific names | Contact editors | Regnum Vegetabile

© by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated Sept. 25, 1997.